Social Entrepreneurship through Community Based Tourism in a Small Village

in Uganda: The Case of KAFRED in Bigodi, Western Uganda

By Dirisa Mulindwa PhD

University of Sunderland, London Campus

Dirisa.mulindwa@sunderland.ac.uk

Over the past few decades, tourism has developed into a global economic force that

few countries or communities remain untouched by its activities. Local communities

in the developing world that were once viewed as tourism commodities, have today

recognised the potential economic gains that can be realised from tourism. Many

communities are now actively engaged in tourism enterprises either as individuals or

as groups to tap into that potential. This study took a partial knowledge-based

approach to tourism in exploring how members of a remote rural community in

Bigodi Parish, in western Uganda overcame the problems of ‘exclusion’ to engage in

social enterprises within the context of Community Based tourism and associated

developments. In the early 1990s the Ugandan government introduced new

conservation reforms that led to 6 forest reserves converted to national parks, but at

a significant social cost and conflict as many people living near the new Forest

National Parks were displaced. Bigodi is one of the village adjacent to Kibale

National Park where in 1992, more than 30,000 residents were evicted from their

homes to make way for the national park.

The research highlights some of the strategies the residents that stayed in the area

adopted to be able sustain their livelihood through community-based tourism

Projects under the umbrella of Kibale Association for Rural and Environmental

Development (KAFRED) a community organisation managed by the local people.

The primary data analysed in this study was collected from different stakeholders in

Bigodi using an ethnographic approach. The results indicate that when the right tools

are provided to the local people, they are empowered and are able manage their

own development. Community Based tourism in Bigodi was initiated and managed

by the local people who are sensitive to the cultures of the community they live

within. As such there are currently more positive changes emerging from tourism

than negative ones. Tourism has not only changed the community; it has begun to lift

Bigodi from obscurity to new levels as a global example of a locally owned tourism

business for the local people. Nevertheless, the creation of Kibale National Park, and

community based tourism within it, led to lasting negative social impacts that affected

many families in the area.

Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, Community based tourism, Empowerment,

Exclusion

Introduction

The post-world war era has witnessed an enormous and limitless spread of tourism

that prompted most of the analyses of the concept to refer it to globalisation

(Scheyvens 2002; Mowforth and Munt 2008). In most of the developing countries

tourism is now seen as a viable tool for economic development and social change.

Moufakkir and Burns (2012) confirms this view, arguing that tourism is an agent of

change, a global phenomenon which plays a significant role in the socio-cultural

evolution. This evolution is sometimes seen as asymmetrical in terms of power

relations where the affluent countries of the west are the generators of tourism and

the less affluent countries are at the receiving end (Britton 1982). However, what is

to note here is that many people including those in rural areas see tourism as an

economic and socio-cultural process for all those who participates in its activities.

A key aspect to be considered here is how the processes of tourism’s global

expansions have played themselves within the developing world at the national,

regional and local levels (Scott, 2011). Generally, governments in the developing

countries have employed a top down type of tourism planning model where all

decisions of developing and promoting tourism are carried out by the central

government leaving the local community destinations with little or no input is the

activities that affect their livelihoods. This has led to some commentators (see

Richards and Hall, 2003) arguing that the forces of modernisation have turned the

local communities into products sold to tourists and consumed as commodities. And

these communities are expected to conform to the tourists’ expectations of backward

neighbourhood, which has not been tainted by modernisation and expected to

impinge on its rustic rural tranquillity.

However, according to Sharpley (1999) tourism is a socio-cultural event for both

travellers and people living in destinations. It is an event that, in the context of both

domestic and international tourism brings together people and material objects,

dreams, imaginings and expectations from different regions, countries and cultures

in various forms of socio-cultural interactions but in ways that differ for both tourists

and diverse local populations (Robinson and Smith, 2006; Robinson and Picard,

2006). The resulting tourism - local relationships may impact on both local

destination neighbourhoods and visitors in a wide variety of ways depending on the

location, type of tourism developed, degree of similarities and differences between

tourists and local people, length of time and place of interactions, amongst many

others (Cohen, 2004, Jamal and Robinson, 2012). Sharpley and Tefler (2008)

argued that communities today can no longer be seen as commodities packaged

and sold to the tourist, as many local communities have realised the potential

economic gains that can be made from tourism. Many communities are now actively

engaged in tourism enterprises either as individuals or as groups to tap into that

potential (Salazar, 2012).

Scholars have raised various perspectives on the role of the community in tourism

development. For instance, Mowforth and Munt (2008) argued that community in the

tourism context could be considered as simply the space where activities occur. And

for others a community may be the stumbling block that stands in the way of

potential tourism development (Sharpley and Tefler, 2008).

This paper takes a different view, it explores a rural community in Bigodi Parish, in

western Uganda that did not hinder tourism but instead had to overcame the

problems of ‘exclusion’ to take an active role and engage in social enterprises within

the context of Community Based tourism and associated developments. Sharpley

and Tefler (2008) noted that local communities are now engaged in social

enterprises through tourism and this raises more question of who actually controls

the tourism and who benefits from these tourism activities. This study was also

interested identifying who is in control of tourism activities in the community as well

as finding out who benefits

Social Entrepreneurship

One of the biggest challenges of the 21st century global economy is the alleviation of

poverty, and eventually the ultimate elimination of this social evil. Factors such as

lack of access to economic opportunities, unemployment and the failure to meet the

basic needs may lead to frustration and inducing undesirable and destructive

behaviour at both the individual and community level. The emergence of alternative

development theory recognises the role of social entrepreneurship and

microbusinesses at the community level in helping to fight poverty by creating the

badly needed jobs as well as increasing incomes. In order to fight poverty in the rural

communities, tourism has been promoted as an economic activity that has the ability

combine traditional business concepts with social venturing (IFAD, 2010).

It is generally accepted by entrepreneurship scholars that there is no definitive

research agenda for social entrepreneurship, as such there is no conclusive

agreement on the meaning of the concept (Perrini, 2006; Nicholls, 2009). In the UK,

the Department of Industry and trade (DTI, 2001) defines a social enterprise as an

organisation acting independently to achieve social and economic goals; that is an

organisation that aims at achieving financial sustainability as well as serving a social

purpose. Though definitions will defer from one country to another, this study adopts

the DTI definition. Social entrepreneurship is viewed by many as a western concept,

however, what is ignored is that social enterprises existed in many developing

economies as cooperatives formed to meet a social need. For instance in rural

Uganda, family based cultural development, customs and many other practices have

for a very long time depended on the strong ethos of working together as a

community cooperative rather than on the spirit of competition.

Steyart and Katz (2004) argued that entrepreneurship is a socially situated concept

that arises in places and involves innovative methods of recombining resources but

extends beyond economic realm. This means that whereas, entrepreneurship is

embedded in the traditional realm of economics that is often profit oriented, there is

now a growing body of scholarship that regard entrepreneurship as social process

(Hindle, 2010), and others view entrepreneurship as a collaborative social endeavour

(Downing, 2005). Within tourism, entrepreneurship could be seen from the

perspective of embeddedness; that is how the community as well as context may

constrain entrepreneurship, though on the other hand they can be instrumental in

creating opportunities that could be aligned to the needs as well as the capabilities of

the community (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). In this case change is not driven

solely by economic motives and the irrationality of individuals, but also by the social

values and norm of the community thus creating an interdependence of both the

social and economic spheres. This perspective is emphasised by Fligstein (2001)

who argues that social actors are important entrepreneurship, though the actual

performance of the enterprise will depend on the forward thinking and skilled

performances of key dominant actors within the community.

McKeever et al (2014) argued that entrepreneurship becomes more meaningful if

the people in charge are committed to their community. This way, the resulting

developments will address the needs as well as the capabilities of the community,

particularly in deprived societies where the majority of the residents are defined in

terms of their social and economic status. Therefore, it could be argued that

entrepreneurship in these impoverished communities provides an important route for

the residents to improve their socio-economic vitality (Korsching and allen, 2004).

This view fits well with most of community based tourism enterprise as most them

aim at infusing financial sustainability with well-being of the local residents by

aligning the needs and capabilities of the community.

Community Based Tourism

In the past three decades community based tourism has emerged as alternative

approach tourism development in many parts of the developing world (Cobbinah et

al, 2013). Hall (1997) noted that the emergence of communities as social forces has

given hitherto invisible groups a voice to speak for themselves. From Hall’s

perspectives the emergence of these new communities and the voices of the hitherto

excluded from the mainstream development can be regarded as a democratic trend

against the hegemonic central governments. As such community approaches

(bottom up) to tourism development have been accepted by many governments

because they realise the importance of the community in the development of

successful sustainable tourism products (Theerapappisit, 2012).

Community based Tourism (CBT) is defined by the World Wide Fund for Nature

(WWF) as “a form of tourism in which a significant number of local people has

substantial control over, and involvement in the community’s tourism development

and management. The major proportion of the benefits remains within the local

economy” (WWF, 2001:1). It is argued that even those community members who are

not indirectly involved in tourism enterprises, should gain some form of benefit as

well (Sproule 1996, Roe et al, 2004). The rationale for engaging in community based

tourism business is built on the notion that benefits from Community-based

community based tourism will result in conservation of the natural resources in

question whilst also leading to increased benefits for local communities who may

have forgone more environmentally damaging development activities (Wunder 2000;

Naidoo & Adamowicz, 2005; Pegas and Stronza, 2010), by linking conservation and

livelihoods (Scheyvens 1999, Salafsky & Wollenberg, 2000; Lew, 2014; Mann, 2014,

Nthiga et al 2015). It is argued that tourism at the community level, may lead to

reduction in poverty (Goodwin 1998; Scheyvens 2002; Hall, 2007; Koens and

Thomas, 2015), empowerment of the local people (Scheyvens 1999, Park and Kim,

2014) and rural development through the creation of employment and a share in the

benefits accrued from tourism activities in the area.

In contrast critics argue that often community-based community based tourism is not

the universal cure for the future of rural development in impoverished communities in

developing countries (Zeppel, 2006, Goodwin, 2009). Developments within

community based tourism have only rarely benefited the local people, even though

one of the main goals of CBT clearly cites this as a key factor (Horwich & Lyon,

1999). The income generated from community based tourism activities is very small

when divided amongst households and it is doubtful this income has much impact on

poverty reduction or improved natural resource management (Bond 2001; Turner

2004a; Kiss, 2004; Zoomers, 2014). Others like Akama (1996), Belsky (1999),

Campbell (1999), Duffy (2002), Turner (2004b) and Kiss (2004) argue that the most

cash benefits from community-based tourism are often captured by government

agencies, foreign tourism companies, urban enterprises and a relatively small

proportion of the community elite leaving the majority of the rural poor toiling with the

costs of tourism and enjoying minimum benefits. It is often argued that the ability of

the local community to control the development is sometimes severely weakened by

the power of the tourism industry (Swarbrooke 1999; Hana and Dana, 2014).

Competition around the resources within the local community, within different local

communities and between local communities and external tourist groups,

organisations and national governments have been verified and conflicts tend to

intensify as pressures put on tourism resources grows (Wearing & Neil, 2009).

Kiss (2004) observes that tourism is not the best choice as an entry level business

for rural communities that lack previous business and management experience,

because tourism is competitive, very demanding and sometimes takes many years

to produce tangible benefits. Furthermore, governments sometimes impose tourism

development strategies upon the community, which are not compatible with

livelihoods and interests of the local community. Manyara and Jones (2007) went

further by arguing that development of CBT is an extension of neo-colonialism

because many of the CBT projects have developed a tendency of dependency on

donor funding from the western countries. While we agree that some local

communities have started CBT enterprises that failed, some community tourism

enterprises have persisted and with the right combination of circumstances and luck

have succeeded where others failed (Kontogeorgopoulos et al., 2014; Mearns and

Lukhele, 2015).

Study area and Methodology

The focal location of the research on which this paper is based is Bigodi, one of the

parishes adjacent to Kibale National Park (KNP) in western Uganda. Kibale National

park is one of the most popular destinations for primate tourism in eastern Africa.

Kibale, gazetted as a National Park in 1993 is bordered by 27 parishes scattered in

four districts including

Map of Uganda showing the location of Kibale National Park - adopted from http://goafrika.blogspot.co.uk/

Kabarole, Kyenjojo, Kamwenge and Kasese in the former Toro Kingdom. Agriculture

is the main source of livelihood in Bigodi, outside of National Park boundaries.

Agriculturalists in the area belong to two dominant ethnic groups: the indigenous

Batooro (Naughton-Treves, 1998) and the Bakiga, who came to the Kibale region

from south western Uganda, from the 1950s and 1960s onwards. High population

densities and land shortage in their home area in Kigezi led some of the Bakiga to

migrate in search of free land (Archabald and Naughton-Treves, 2001 ;).

Each group has its own cultivation and land use traditions and techniques, though

the boundaries between the two groups are becoming increasingly indistinct. The

inception of Kibale National Park in western Uganda together with intermarriages

between the two groups has affected and been affected by the landscapes and

livelihoods of neighbouring communities. In addition to agriculture some members of

this diverse community also undertake other non-farm activities such as petty trade,

handicraft making, teaching, guides and charcoal burning.

Smith (2001) argued that the use of qualitative methods in collecting data provides a

voice to the ordinary people, particularly those in deprived communities to air their

views and perspectives which becomes the basis for knowledge production. Indeed

one of the main basis for a qualitative research is to bring the often neglected

experiences and knowledge of the non-dominant groups to the academic research

agenda. Qualitative approach also allows the researcher to keep on collecting these

experiences over a long period of time because it recognises that as human being,

people are different and have unique experiences which are enriched or change over

time. For this study, the primary data analysed these unique experiences of different

stakeholders in Bigodi using ethnographic research methods. Regarding entering the

field, there are several activities that must be addressed. These include choosing a

site, gaining permission, selecting key informants, and familiarising oneself with the

setting or culture (Bernard 2006). In this process, one must choose a site that will

facilitate easy access to the data. The objective is to collect data that will help

answer the research questions. Fieldwork for this study started in June 2004 when I

arrived in Uganda on an exploratory survey searching for the most suitable space for

research. Bigodi parish on the borders of Kibale National Park provided the most

practical solution; however, I did not enter Bigodi until the last week of August of the

same year.

Patton (2015) noted that researchers particularly those conducting in-depth studies

often spend a great deal of time negotiating their access to the research field. Whilst

Stake (1994:242) stresses the importance of researcher needing to spend long

periods time in study sites ‘personally in contact with activities and operations of the

case reflecting and revising meaning of what is going on’. I found it a crucially

important factor in this study to spend some time in Bigodi negotiating and gaining

access to the local people, utilising diplomacy and sensitivity before starting to

collect data. I spent three weeks in Bigodi getting to know the local people before

actually starting to collect data. This phase involved meeting and introducing myself

to individual village council chairpersons, the local gatekeepers.

In ethnographic studies the researcher usually takes the role of the observer and

inquirer, but at the same time becoming part of the phenomenon being studied. That

is the researcher to be able to understand the meaning and experiences of the

research participants he has to be involved with the lives of the people being studied.

Data on individual and household characteristics, livelihoods, local people’s

participation and perceptions of community based tourism enterprise was collected

through in-depth group and village discussions, individual interviews, key informants,

and participatory observation over a period of 12 months. The data collection

process started in 2005 and culminated into the production of PhD thesis. However,

the interest in the case study continued and that data has been updated periodically,

the last time being December 2014, and most of the new data has been included in

this study

As a means to interpret the data, I used Miles and Huberman’s (1994) data analysis

approach. In this approach, analysis consisted of three concurrent flows of activity,

which started with data reduction, followed by data display and the drawing up of

conclusions or verification. These streams of activity, as Miles and Huberman (1994)

point out, form an interactive model in which the activities are ‘interwoven before,

during and after data collection in parallel form, to make up the general domain

called analysis’ (p. 12).

Data reduction - which was a continuous process from the beginning of the research

right up to the writing up phase of the report – included the process of selecting,

focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data in written-up field notes

or memos (Maxwell, 2004). According to Miles and Huberman (1994), codes are

efficient data-labelling and data-retrieval devices that empower and speed up

analysis. I started by creating a list of categories for each of the data sources that

were used in the study. Categorisation helped me to tie the research questions

directly to the data. In this selective process of handling all this information from

interviews, documents and field journals, which came in the form of words, some

words and phrases had to be ‘hung on to throughout data analysis’ (Miles &

Huberman, 1994 p. 56) because they rendered more meaning to given situations

and contexts.

The next stage was identification of the themes emerging from the raw data, a

process sometimes referred to as ‘coding’ (Strauss and Corbin, 2008). In inductive

approaches to analysis, data are generally coded at two levels ‘open’ and ‘axial’

(Bryman and Burgess, 1994; Neuman, 1997; Strauss and Corbin, 2008). The open

coding stage of data analysis helped me to unpack the data through a process of

breaking the data down into discreet parts or categories. The goal was to create

descriptive, multi-dimensional categories, which formed a preliminary framework for

analysis. The categories then became building blocks for developing theory (Strauss

and Corbin, 2008). Data analysis was largely done manually, and with partial aid

from a word processor. I used notebooks and file folders to systematically store the

coded field data for easy retrieval during analysis.

Community Based Tourism in Bigodi

As of 1991, Bigodi was, like many other remote rural areas of Uganda, fairly

unknown to the wider region and world, and its main activities were to a great extent

(but by no means only) limited within the parish and the surrounding communities.

However, three key events took place between 1991 and 1993 that changed the

contemporary spaces of Bigodi and made deep impacts on the livelihoods local

residents. Firstly, was the forced eviction of people from their in the process of

converting the area into a national park, which traumatised this community.

Secondly, the creation of Kibale National Park which (as has often been the case

with African National Park designation) severely limited people’s access to the

resources in both the Kibale forest and Kibale game corridor. Lastly, came the

introduction of tourism in Kibale National Park. Whereas all three events affected

local people in different ways, the introduction of tourism in the park at Kanyanchu a

few kilometres away from Bigodi marked a new beginning for the local people in the

area. The coming of volunteers from Britain (The Frontiers) and America (the US

Peace Corps) to assist in establishing tourism facilities at Kanyanchu opened Bigodi

to foreign visitors who in their bid to win over the support of local people interacted

with them freely and introduced the community to the benefits they could derive from

tourism. Martin and Osberg (2009) argued that it usually take an individual to have a

vision and insight to see the opportunities that no one else had seen. In Bigodi, that

vision was realised by Mark Noonan, one of the US Peace Corp Volunteer who was

assigned the task of extending the benefits of the park to the community of Bigodi

realised the tourism potential of Magombe Swamp. He recognised the swamp as an

attraction that could bring tourists out of the park and into the community of Bigodi.

But as Martin and Osberg (2009) noted that social entrepreneurship’s focus is not

only the power of the brilliant individual, instead it is about the power of the collective

and strategic partnerships. Mark Noonan did not work alone instead he mobilised the

local people into social entrepreneurship groups based on tourism related activities

and taught them to manage their own natural resources through income generating

activities.

The initiation of a social enterprise also requires institutions to turn the transformative

ideas to translate into real change. In Bigodi, Kibale Association for Rural and

Environmental Development (KAFRED) emerged as the lead Community Based

enterprise to bring about changes in the area. KAFRED runs and manages the

community based tourism resource and controls the CBT initiative. KAFRED was

established in 1992 through the efforts the US Peace Corp who mobilised a few

individuals in the community and sold them the idea of taking advantage of the

tourism activity initiated in the neighbouring national park, by starting a community

tourism enterprise in the nearby swamp. The association is a self-run Community

organisation managing a wetland through a tourism based enterprise in Western

Uganda. KAFRED differ in many ways from other Community-based enterprises

established in Uganda and are engaged in tourism, regarding operation area,

formation, generation of benefits and linkages to the tourism market. The operation

area for the tourism activities (the Bigodi Bird Sanctuary) is not located within a

protected area dedicated for conservation or tourism purposes, but is within a

multipurpose area used for crop cultivation, livestock rearing and residential

functions as well.

Instead of competing with the Kibale National Park, Bigodi’s swamp walk

compliments and extends the tourism experience of the park visitors. For instance

the forest canopy in the National Park does not provide good opportunities for

birders; however, the swamp on the edge of the park provides birders with an

opportunity of watching both forest and water birds. Therefore, whereas the park

provides a good experience for tracking primates, particularly the chimpanzees, and

the swamp is a haven for birders and for those who seek to see something of the

lives of local peoples.

It has been argued that a major source of the common benefits and costs of tourism

development is economic impacts Ashley et al 2007. Local communities are greatly

influenced by their economies (see Murphy, 1985; Nitsch and Straaten, 1995; Ashley

et al, 2007). Tourists to Bigodi have grown from the 500 visitors received in 1994 to

over 4000 visitors in 2010, but tourism remain small-scale and perhaps necessarily

so, since it is based on viewing wildlife on a fragile environment. The swamp walk

remains the main source of revenue for KAFRED. According to KAFRED financial

books revenue collected from the swamp walk has multiplied from £1360 in 1995 to

£50000 per annum by 2011. KAFRED which initially depended on donors to

supplement their income, has now graduated into a self-sufficient social

entrepreneurship. For instance in 2011, 90% of the funding for the association’s

activities came from the revenue collected from the guided swamp walk. The biggest

part of this money is injected into the local economy as wages to KAFRED

employees, supplement teacher salaries at Bigodi Secondary School and purchase

supplies from farmers.

Goodwin et al (2014) argued that community based tourism should provide collective

benefits as well as creating opportunities for individuals to gain employment as well

as enabling those who are able to start microbusinesses. Despite substantial

reforms in the education sector in Uganda that led to the introduction of universal

primary and secondary education policy, rural education still lags behind urban

regions in Uganda. Rural Uganda lacks resources such as school structures and

teachers therefore making the new reforms more rhetoric than reality. In Bigodi the

introduction of tourism served to help fill the gap in secondary education in the area.

In 1994, KAFRED’s first task, using the initial revenues from the swamp walk, was to

establish a secondary school in the area. Before 1994, it was nearly impossible for

poorer families in Bigodi to educate their children beyond primary level. Though

Bigodi had primary schools, all located within easy reach for children, the nearest

secondary school was nine miles away. Children had to walk or ride bicycles to

access secondary education in distant villages. Alternatively, when children finished

primary level, they had two options, stay in the community, help on the family farm,

and thus quit school, or move to Kamwenge or Fort Portal (26 and 40 kilometres

away from Bigodi) and continue studying. Parents used to prefer the second option

for boys, while girls were made to quit school and most probably get married. The

introduction of a secondary school in the area helped ease the problem particularly

for girls and there are now fewer excuses to keep girls at home after primary

education.

The school has remained the most significant community project that KAFRED has

developed since 1994. Until recently KAFRED was responsible for all the financial

obligations of running the school including paying teachers’ wages and subsidising

school fees, however, the school has now been recognised by the Ugandan

government and is now included in the Universal secondary project, though the

responsibility of managing it still lies with KAFRED.

Women’s empowerment- revenue from sale of handicrafts

Many local people in Bigodi seem to have adapted well to tourism. Tourism, as a

new activity for local people in the community, was perceived as a chance for

additional economic activity to be combined with existing livelihoods and not to be a

substitute for these. The ways that Community based Tourism can complement

existing livelihood activities emerged as a key theme in conversations with local

residents of Bigodi in this research. Handicraft production for the tourist market

emerged as one of the main activities undertaken by local people - especially women

- to supplement their household incomes. The production and sale of handicraft in

Bigodi is mobilised through Bigodi Women’s Group (BWG), another social enterprise

managed by women in the area. The main handicrafts made include baskets and

mats. It is no surprise that women are the main group engaged in handcraft making.

Weaving baskets and making mats is a long-standing cultural practice for women in

Uganda. Traditionally, women made handicrafts for their homes such as mats for

visitors and baskets for storing food. What has changed today is that the handicrafts

are now a supplementary source of income for many poor households in Bigodi.

Selling of handicrafts is one of the few means where local women in Bigodi can earn

an income to improve their livelihoods. Handicrafts are particularly beneficial, as they

can be produced episodically, easily allowing women to work part-time and to be

based at home with their families (Lash, et. al. 1999;; Hengky, 2014). The major

source of raw material for handicrafts in Bigodi was found to be the Magombe

swamp area and some are located within the National Park. Local people in Bigodi

also use millet straws to weave baskets. The latter is a product from millet - one of

the foods eaten in the area. It used to be thrown away as a waste but today it is a

source of money.

However, the packaging of art and culture for souvenir trade as well as music and

dance for tourism amusement in exchange for money by local communities has been

criticised as a ‘commoditisation of culture’ (Nash, 1996; MacLeod, 2005; Kashaga,

2014). It is argued that the handicraft produced - because it is meant for tourists -

cannot be authentic having lost its original purpose and significance therefore this

demeans the maker because expression of artistic creativity has been commoditised

and modernised. Such approaches tend to ignore that ‘commerce may also be

another form of meaningful interaction’ (Meethan 2003: 15) and the fact that tourism

cannot be isolated from other many aspects of culture. Therefore, commentators

treating tourism as an exogenous force run the risk of ignoring how tourism may be

adapted to become part of the local realities and a continuation of cultural forms of

production (Hitchcock, King and Pamwell 1993). The critics also ignore the fact that

handicraft production for tourism is a way for many impoverished women to improve

their existing livelihoods rather than working directly (and only) for tourism, and so

incorporate it into their social spaces (Butcher, 2005). In Bigodi, the selling of

handicraft has empowered some of the women to earn an income of their own - the

little income that is generated from their household gardens tends to be controlled by

their husbands who in many cases spend it on alcohol and sometimes use the

money to buy a second wife. Women getting an income of their own has not

seemingly affected the social setting of the community, instead the men talked to

were happy with the arrangement, because it meant they can spend their money

with no worries about home obligations as these have been taken care of by their

wives using the income generated through handicraft production. Therefore the

selling of handicraft in Bigodi does not seem to be leading to a commoditising of

cultural practices, it instead appears to be an adaptation of existing practices to

tourism and provides revenue to neighbourhoods with very few livelihood options

and allows the women who participate in it to earn income of their own.

Community pride

Values about belonging in the parish of Bigodi have seemingly changed much in the

past decade. More than just bringing a promise of economic gains, tourism has

seemed to bring new pride and recognition of the place – at least for some. Bigodi

has emerged from obscurity to national and international recognition. For instance,

KAFRED was a finalist project in the UNDP Equator initiatives in 2004 and eventual

winners in 2010. KAFRED was also recognised by United Nations World Tourism

Organisation (UNWTO) as a responsible ecotourism project and appeared as a case

study in their guidebook on Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism

Destinations (2004). At the national level, Bigodi Bird Sanctuary, the ecotourism

project in Bigodi, has been used by the Ugandan government as a showcase model

of community tourism. In 2012 KAFRED efforts were fully recognised by the

Ugandan government earning the association a visit to the parliament to

demonstrate the importance of community based tourism enterprises improving rural

livelihoods. This has not gone unnoticed, many of the local people are proud of the

interest their community has generated through tourism. During the numerous

conversations undertaken with people in Bigodi none talked negatively about their

community being noticed in these ways; instead they talked about their community

seemingly becoming important both at the national and international level. For the

peoples of a remote area of Uganda this seemed to be a significant factor emerging

in the development of CBE.

Conclusion

By identifying positive impacts of community based tourism enterprise, I do not deny

that negative impacts occur because of tourism activities. According to Wall and

Mathieson (2006), social cultural impacts usually occur slowly over time and tend to

be less than visible and intangible – at least to those looking from outside these lived

spaces. Swanbrooke (1999) also notes that the impacts of tourism are usually

permanent and impossible to reverse. The Bigodi neighbourhoods have their own

share of negative impacts - though they may not easily be noticeable. Inflation in

land prices, particularly in Bigodi and Nkingo villages, a change that has been

caused by the presence of tourism, is one problem. Other problems include

inequality in participation and access to benefits and costs among and within

villages. Local elites who are educated, or economically and politically well placed,

are in far better positions to participate in in tourism and to take a bigger share of

economic benefits. However, this does not mean that the poorer totally lose out -

they have also benefited though not in the magnitudes that elites have.

When discussing Community based tourism enterprise the question of success

becomes controversial as some measure success based on economic performance

based on revenue gained, the extent and number of people lifted from poverty; in

this case few community based tourism enterprise could considered successful.

When other factors are considered such as the net gains in terms of community

benefits, the ability for the community to make their own decisions and manage the

resource in addition to the other enabling factors such people’s ability to sell their

products direct to the tourists without the interference of middlemen, then CBTE are

a success in many communities. There is need to abandon the Eurocentric view that

regard communities from the western perspectives. Most of the communities in the

rural areas of the developing countries are surrounded by poverty, therefore any

activity that can generate employment or bring in revenue is important regardless of

the quantity of the contribution

Prahalad (2005) argued that if the poor are not viewed as victims but instead

recognised as creative entrepreneurs, provide training to allow them to use their

innate entrepreneurial abilities they will be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

The experiences of Bigodi suggest that local people are not simply having tourism

put on them. And they are not just victims. Some people in Bigodi see an opportunity

and are negotiating with tourism and tourists, though others did not see this

opportunity at the beginning and may eventually be excluded from these

opportunities tourism creates. Those that are seeing opportunities see what is

expected or desired in the ways they, and the place they live in, is being viewed, and

are re-making themselves and their cultures in ways they feel work for them and for

tourism – without becoming reliant on tourism. Bigodi has experienced significant

socio-cultural, economic changes that started in the early 1990s with the advent of

tourism in the area. These changes in local people’s livelihoods and Bigodi in

general are equated with development. Change, better described as development, is

now a feature of life in Bigodi.

References

Akama, J.S. (1996). Western Environmental Values and Nature-Based Tourism in

Kenya. Tourism Management 17, 567-574.

Archabald, K. and L. Naughton-Treves. 2001. Tourism Revenue Sharing around

National Parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local

communities. Environmental Conservation 23. Pp.135-149.

Ashley. C, De Brine. P, Lehr. A and H Wilde (2007) The Role of Tourism Sector in

Expending Economic opportunities. Harvard Economic Opportunity Series

Belsky, J. M. (1999). “Misrepresenting Communities: The politics of Community

Based Rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize.” Rural Sociology 64(4):

641-666.

Bernard. HR (2006) Research Methods in Anthropology. 4th Edition Oxford, AltaMira

Press

Bond, I. (2001) CAMPFIRE and the Incentives for Institutional Change. In: Hulme,

D. and M. W.Murphree, (Eds.) African Wildlife and African Livelihoods: The Promise

and Performance of Community Conservation. James Currey. Oxford

Britton, S.G. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of

Tourism Research 9, 331–329.

Butcher, J. (2005) The moral authority of ecotourism: a critique. Current Issues in

Tourism, 8, 114–124

Campbell, L. (1999) Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism

Research 26 (3), 534–53.

Chell, Elizabeth (2007) Social Enterprises and Entrepreneurship: Towards a

Convergent Theory of the Entrepreneurial process. International Small Business

Journal 25 (1) 5-26

Cochrane, A. and Pain, K. (2000) ‘A Globalizing Society?’, in D. Held (ed.),

A Globalising World? Culture, Economics, Politics (London: Routledge, 2000).

Cohen E. (2004) Contemporary Tourism. Diversity and Change. Elsevier, London.

Corbin. J, & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Downing, S., (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and

dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Enterp.

Theory Pract. 29 (2), 185–204.

Duffy, R. (2002). A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London:

Earthscan.

Fligstein, N., (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociol. Theory 19 (2), 105–

125.

Goodwin, H. (1998) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. London:

Department for International Development.

Goodwin. H, Santilli. R and R Armstrong (2014) Community-based Tourism in the

Developing World: Delivering the Goods? Progress in Responsible Tourism 3 (1) 31-

56

Hall, Stuart (1997) The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity. In A D.

King (ed) Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for

the Representation of Identity. University of Minnesota Press

Hall CM (2007) Pro-poor Tourism: Do Tourism Exchange Benefit primarily the

Countries of the South? Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2-3) 111-118

Hana. H and F. Dana (2014) Contested Rural Development through Tourism,

Spatial and Social relations in a Post Socialist Check Village. Tourism and

Hospitality Industry (2014) 203 – 228

Hengky. SH (2015) Beneficial Images: Batik Handicraft tourism in Yogyakarki

Indonesia. Business and economic research 5 (1) 11-23

Hitchcock, M., King, V.T. & Parnwell, M.G.H. (1993) Tourism in South-East Asia.

London: Routledge.

Hindle, K., (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial process: a

diagnostic framework. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 22 (7–8), 599–647.

Horwich, Robert H. et al. (1993) Ecotourism and community development: A view

from Belize, in Ecotourism. A guide for planners and managers, Lindberg/Hawkins

1993, p.152-168 North Bennington (VT)

IFAD (2010) Rural Poverty Report: New Realities, New Challenges, New

opportunities for Tomorrow’s Generation. International Fund for Agriculture

Development, Rome.

Jamal. T and M. Robinson (2012) Introduction: The Evolution of Comtemporary

Positioning of Tourism as a Focus of Study. In T.Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The

Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies. Oxford Sage Publication

Kashaga, Frateline (2011) The Commoditisation of Culture fir Rural Tourism in

Tanzania. Lambert Academic Publishing

Koens. K and R. Thomas (2015) Is Small Beautiful? Understanding the

Contribution of Small Business in Township Tourism to Economic Development.

Development in Southern Africa 32 (2) 320-332

Kiss, A. (2004). Is CBE A Good Use of Biodiversity Conservation Funds? Trends in

Ecology and Evolution. 19(5): 232-237.

Korsching, P., Allen, J., (2004). Locality based entrepreneurship: a strategy for

community economic vitality. Community Dev. J. 39 (4), 385–400.

Lash, G.Y.B., S. Parsons, and R. Justicia, (1999). Los Colibrís Crafts Group:

Empowering Women and Supporting Sustainable Development in the Tropical Cloud

Forests of Western Ecuador. IN Gender & Tourism: Women’s Employment and

Participation in Tourism, UNED-UK Report for the United Nations Commission

Lew, A. Alan (2014) Scale, Change and Resilience in Community Tourism Planning.

Tourism Geographies 16 (1) 14-22

Martin. RL and Sally Osberg (2007) Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for

Definition. Stanford Social innovation Review Spring 2007

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McKeever. E, Jack. S and A. Anderson (2014) Embedded Entrepreneurship in the

creative Re-construction of Place. Journal of Business venturing. JBV05716 pp 1-16.

Mearns. KF and SE. Lukhele (2015) Addressing the Operating Challenges of

Community based Tourism in Swaziland. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and

Leisure 4 (1) 1-13

Meethan, Kevin (2003) “Mobile Cultures? Hybridity, tourism, and tourism change”

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 1 (1): 11 – 28.

Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milne. S and I. Ateljevic (2001) Tourism, Economic Development and the Global –

Local Nexus: Theory Embracing Complexity. Tourism Geographies 3 (4) 369-393

Moufakkir, O and PM. Burns (2012) Introduction. In Mouffakir, Omar and Peter. M.

Burns (eds) Controversies in Tourism. Oxford CABI Publishing.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2008). Tourism and Sustainability: Development,

globalization and new tourism in the Third World (3rd ed.). London & New York:

Routledge.

Murphy, Peter E. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. Metheun. New York.

Naidoo R, Adamowicz WL (2005) Biodiversity and Nature-Based Tourism at Forest

Reserves in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics 10, 159-178.

Nash, Dennison. (1996). Anthropology of tourism. Kidlington: Pergamon.

Naughton-Treves, L. (1998) “Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around

Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 12, 156-168.

Nicholls, A. (2009). Learning to walk: Social entrepreneurship. Innovations: Special

Edition Skoll World Forum, pp. 209–222.

Nitsch, B. and J. van Straaten. (1995) Rural Tourism Development: using a

sustainable tourism development approach. In Coccossis, H. and Nijkamp, P. (eds).

1985. Sustainable Tourism Development. Avebury. Singapore.

Nthiga. RW, Van de Dium. R, Visseren-Hamakers. IJ and M. Larners (2015)

Tourism-Conservation Entreprises for Community Livelihoods and Biodiversity.

Development in Southern Africa 32 (2) 407-23

Park E and S. Kim (2014) Enhancing Local Community’s Involvement and

Empowerment through Practicing Cittaslow: Experience from Goolwa, South

Australia. SHS Web Conference. 12, 01044 (2014)

Patton. Q. Michael (2015) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods:

Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th Edition Oxford Sage Publications

Pegas. F and A. Stronza (2010) Ecotourism and Sea Turtle Harvesting in the

Fishing Village of Bahia. Conservation and Society 8 (1) 15 -25

Perrini, F. (Ed.). (2006). The new social entrepreneurship: What awaits social

entrepreneurship ventures? Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Peredo, A.M.,Chrisman, J.J., (2006). Toward a theory of community-based

enterprise. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (2), 309–328.

Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: eradicating

poverty through profit and enabling dignity and choice through markets. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School.

Roe, D, Goodwin, H & Ashley, C, (2004). Pro-poor tourism: benefiting the poor. In

Singh, TV (Ed), New horizons in tourism: strange experiences and stranger

practices. Wallingford, CABI, pp. 147–61.

Richards, G & Hall, D (2003). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development.

Routledge: London

Robinson. M and D. Picard (2006) Tourism, Culture and Sustainable Development.

UNESCO Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogues.

Robinson. M and M Smith (2006) Politics, Power and Play: The Shifting Contexts

of Cultural Tourism. In Mike Robinson and Melanie Smith (eds) Cultural Tourism in

the Changing World: Politics, participation and (Re) presentation. Clevedon, Channel

View Publishers

Salafsky, N. & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A

Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs

and Biodiversity. World Development, 28, 1421-1438.

Salazar. NB (2012) Community-Based Cultural Tourism: Issues, Threats and

Opportunities. Journal of sustainable Tourism 20 (1) 9-22

Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities.

Tourism Management 20, 245–249.

Scheyvens, R (2002), Tourism development: empowering communities. Harlow,

Prentice Hall

Scott, Noel (2011) Tourism Policy: A Strategic review. Goodfellow Contemporary

Tourism Review Series

Sharpley, R. (1999), Tourism, Tourists and Society. Huntingdon ELM

Sharpley, R. (2009) Tourism, Development and the Environment: Beyond

Sustainability? London: Earthscan.

Smith S. (2001): Doing qualitative research: from interpretation to action, in: Limb

M., Dwyer C. (eds.): Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers. Issues and

Debates. Arnold: London and New York.

Sproule, Keith W. (1996). “Community-based Ecotourism Development: Identifying

Partners in the Process”. in The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts,

Bulletin 99. pp.233-250, edited by.New Haven CT: Yale University.

Steyaert, C. and Katz, J., (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in

society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 16 (3),

179–196.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. CAB International,

Wallingford

Telfer, D. and Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Developing

World. London: Routledge.

Theerapappisit, P. 2012, ‘The Bottom-up Approach of Ethnic Tourism: A Case Study

in Chiang Rai’, in Kasimoglu, M. (ed.), Tourism - Industry and Insights, ISBN 979-

953-307-532-6, InTech Open Access Publisher, Vienna.

Turner, R. (2004a). ‘Communities, conservation, and tourism-based development:

Can community-based nature tourism live up to its promise?’ Paper presented at the

‘Breslauer Symposium on Natural Resources in Africa’ held at the University of

California, Berkeley, March 2004.

Turner, S. (2004b). ‘Community-based natural resource management and rural

livelihoods’ in Fabricius, C., Koch, E., with Magome, H. and Turner, S. (eds.) Rights,

Resources and Rural Development: Community-based Natural Resource

Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan. London, UK.

Wall G. and A. Mathieson (2006). Tourism: Change, Impacts and opportunities.

Prentice Hall

Wearing. S and J. Neil (2009) Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Posibilities. 2nd

Edition Oxford Routledge.

Wunder, S. (2000) Ecotourism and Economic Incentives: an Empirical approach.

Ecological Economics. 32, 465–479.

WWF (2001) Guidelines for CBE development.

Zeppel. H (2006) Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and

Management. Oxford CABI publishing

Zoomers. A (2014) Rural Livelihoods in a Context of New Scarcities. In Desai .V

and RB Potter (eds) The Companion to Development Studies. 3rd Edition. Oxford

Routledge.