Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Okello Okello Francis; Ocaido Micheal; Tibaingana Anthony; Obua Joseph; Nizeyi John Bosco

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Okello Okello Francis^*

, Ocaido Micheal

, Tibaingana Anthony

, Obua Joseph

, Nizeyi John Bosco

Published in International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management (Volume 9, Issue 2)

Received: 27 May 2025 Accepted: 17 June 2025 Published: 30 July 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Community-based tourism plays a very vital role in the livelihoods of households adjacent to protected areas. The study examined the link between household economic activities and tourism and the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent households in western Uganda. The study is underpinned by the theory of participation. An exploratory research design with a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted and data collected using a structured questionnaire and key informant interview question guide. Six hundred respondents from community-based tourism (CBT) groups were interviewed and the data were analyzed in SPSS. Results revealed that tourism created employment and business opportunities for group members. Average monthly incomes from tourism related activities ranged from UGX 150,000 (USD USD 40.2) to UGX 2.5 million (USD 681). Value of household assets ranged from UGX 30,000 (USD 8.17) to UGX 9.6 million (USD 2.615). CBT members provided services such as tour guiding, accommodation, motor cycle transport, sale of food, hand crafts and souvenirs. Local communities need to be empowered through capacity building to engage in sustainable CBT activities. Future research should be undertaken on cost-benefit analysis of CBT before upscaling the practice to other parts of the country.

Published in	International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management (Volume 9, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12
Page(s)	86-98
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Community-based Tourism, Household Livelihoods, Participation, Incomes, Uganda

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the growing sectors worldwide

[22]

and widely acknowledged for its contribution to socio-economic development in many countries

[1]

. According to

[3]

, tourism represents social and economic growth phenomena that has been manifested in various forms globally. It contributes to socio-economic development through income generation, establishment of auxiliary enterprises and job creation

[42]

. Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is an innovative and participatory form of tourism that places local communities at the center of tourism development

[14]

Over the last three decades, CBT has emerged as an innovative and transformative approach to tourism development

[18]

. It integrates conservation with development aimed at improving the livelihoods of local communities living around protected areas. The unique attribute of CBT is the active participation of local communities in tourism planning, management, and benefit sharing

[14]

. Because of this, CBT is different from conventional tourism as it focuses on enhancing the socio-economic conditions of local communities, while ensuring environmental sustainability. CBT is often linked to related concepts such as sustainable tourism, responsible tourism and ecotourism, which share similar principles of minimizing negative impacts on local cultures and environment

[18]

. Unlike traditional tourism, which often marginalizes local communities, CBT prioritizes local community empowerment, entrepreneurship, active participation in decision making, cultural preservation and equitable benefit sharing

[6]

. In many respects, CBT contributes to the broad sustainability objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 1 and 8. As a result of its contribution to the achievement of SDG 1 and SDG 8 targets, CBT is viewed as a transformative approach to tourism development. Unlike other forms of tourism, which often marginalize local communities and exploit natural resources, CBT addresses the economic needs of marginalized groups particularly those living in remote rural areas

[6]

It is evident from literature that some indigenous communities have succeeded in using CBT as a means to alleviate poverty due to the diversity of the opportunities available and the market for locally produced goods that tourism creates

[11]

. CBT makes it possible to strike a balance between tourism’s environmental, economic, social, and cultural aspects thereby contributing to tourism sector’s long-term sustainability

[23]

. In view of these contributions and the potential positive impacts on local and national economies, CBT has occupied a dominant space in the tourism sector

[2]

. CBT’s participatory approach has progressively replaced the traditional top-down approach to conservation and development that failed because it disregarded local context, negated local people and fanned conflict between local communities and protected are managers

[49]

. To reduce the conflicts and multiply effects on local communities’ livelihoods, CBT applies a people-centered approach in planning, development and implementation of activities

[51]

It has also been noted that tourist behavior has changed over the years as tourists seek new experiences in destinations where they can interact with local people and enjoy local culture. Usually, the intent of tourists is to travel and explore new cultures and local history as well as indulge in authentic and meaningful experiences. In this regard, CBT allows tourists to learn and enjoy local cultures and make contributions that promote local heritage, history and development

[23]

. Like traditional tourism, CBT activities are centered on natural attractions in remote rural areas

[52, 53]

. CBT, therefore, contributes to protected area management and nature conservation

[30]

According to

[26]

, CBT helps to minimize the negative effects of mass tourism where big-time investors tend to repatriate profits from developing to developed countries leaving the local communities with limited benefits. To address this challenge, CBT focuses on small and medium scale enterprises that generate positive economic results to local communities

[32]

. In many parts of the world, CBT enterprises benefit local communities living adjacent to protected areas

[16]

. Whilst CBT initiatives have been widely adopted, their contribution to the livelihood of the local communities living around protected areas has not been adequately researched. There has been limited research on the contribution of CBT to improve the livelihood of the local people around Uganda’s protected areas including Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (QECA).

Despite becoming a world heritage site, poverty and underdevelopment are still evident amongst the local communities living adjacent and within QECA. CBT contributes to poverty alleviation if local people engage in small-scale tourism related enterprises such as accommodation facilities, car hire services and tour guides, among others. Conceptually, CBT has advanced much, but few studies have been undertaken in the last decade on its application in practice

[54]

. Furthermore, limited studies have examined CBT at the protected area level

[12]

. For instance, earlier studies by

[13]

looked at CBT and private sector participation,

[25]

assessed CBT as enterprises that can alleviate poverty,

[48]

examined the effects of organizing CBT on lifecycle of Nicaraguan Network,

[11]

examined CBT in relation to infrastructure development and poverty alleviation while

[24]

assessed factors that determine citizen participation in CBT.

To justify CBT development, studies are needed to provide insights into its dynamics around protected areas. To date, no comprehensive study has been conducted to determine the effect of small-scale tourism enterprises on the livelihoods of households living in and around QECA. Yet adjacent communities continue to depend on the resources

[4, 29, 34]

. Their participation in resource conservation is paramount

[2, 34]

. Research on CBT deepen understanding of local community participation in resource conservation tourism enterprise management around protected areas. Thus, it was imperative to conduct this study and examine the contribution of CBT in Queen Elizabet Conservation Area.

2. An Overview of CBT and the Contribution to Local Communities’ Livelihoods

It is vital to frame the current context of CBT within the hegemonic global neoliberalism paradigm

[37]

. Tourist behavior has changed as they seek new experiences and enjoy local culture. From a socio-economic perspective, tourism has become an activity that boosts local and national economies, allows tourists to enjoy local culture, promotes local heritage and history

[23]

. CBT operates on a paradigm of community self-governance where local communities are protagonists in the realm of tourism and aids local participation in tourism management

[17]

. In addition, CBT is a development tool that empowers local participation in tourism planning and management

[47]

. Development practitioners have posited that community participation can enact the principles of sustainable development and bring forth transformations to the lives of locals

[7]

. The concept of CBT was first presented by

[55]

and elaborated further in 2004. It is related to pro-poor tourism (PPT), Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives (CBTIs) and Donor-Assisted Community-Based Tourism (DACBT). It generates revenue and transfers benefits to local communities

[38]

. It also alleviates poverty by supporting local economies.

[15]

posit that CBT offers opportunities for environmental education, environment conservation and income-generating activities. However, it is crucial to empower local communities utilize resources for CBT development

[26]

[39]

reported that inadequate resources, information, and consultation hamper local participation in CBT activities. Financial risks also discourage local people from investing in CBT enterprises

[18]

. while lack of finance makes local communities cede control over resources to outside investors

[39]

. These challenges can be overcome by developing business backup plans and financial warning system

[18]

Most national parks in Africa support and promote CBT in order to bring about local development and to conserve biodiversity

[56]

. Scholars concur that CBT improves the livelihoods of local communities and reduces pressure on protected resources

[57]

. CBT recognizes local communities as stakeholders rather than a threat to biodiversity conservation

[58]

. Over the years, proponents of CBT have advocated for trade-offs and linkages between local community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Thus, it is vital to understand the local community-tourism-conservation nexus

[33]

3. Theoretical Consideration

The study is informed by the theory of participation

[43]

[35]

defines it as organized efforts to increase control over resources and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control. Participation has gained the status of development orthodoxy

[9]

. Stakeholders are directly involved in CBT development as it gives the poor a voice and a choice. Participation is related to the theories of development and it is highly varied and complex due to different theoretical positions. Participation theory elucidates a shift from the global top-down strategies to more locally adapted approaches

[21]

. There are differing opinions as to the origins of participation theory.

[31]

posited that it is a paradigm shift that emerged from the failure of ‘top-down approaches’ in development. There is a consensus that the theory stems from political science and development studies

[36]

. The theory of participation grew out of the recognition that the worlds’ poor have suffered as a result of inadequate local participation. Thus, everyone needs to be involved in making decisions, implementing development activities and sharing benefits. It is also argued that development approaches need to be adapted to local conditions

[9]

Given its importance, local participation is mandatory in project design to enable inclusive decision-making and instigate ownership which, in turn, leads to sustainable impacts in sync with the outcomes of CBT. As a result, local participation is akin to ‘people-centred development’, ‘self-reliance’, ‘capacity building’, ‘equity and equality’ as well as ‘empowerment’

[28]

. People-centred development is a human-focused process of ensuring that people can meet long-term needs leading to sustainable development

[28]

. Self-reliance is the ability that is owned within self that combines with the abilities of other individuals to realize progress and improve livelihoods

[59]

. Capacity building is the creation of an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal frameworks, institutional development, including community participation, human resources development and strengthening of managerial systems

[44]

. Equity is related to fairness in the provision of services and benefit sharing benefits taking into account individual circumstances; ‘equality’ connotes sameness in treatment by asserting the fundamental or natural uniformity of all persons

[10]

4. Methods

4.1. Study Area

Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area (QECA) comprises Queen Elizabeth National Park (1978 km²), Kyambura Wildlife Reserve (157 km²) and Kigezi Wildlife Reserve (330 km²). It is located on the equator in the Albertine Rift Valley in western Uganda. QECA is part of an extensive transboundary system that includes Kibale National Park to the northeast and Rwenzori Mountains National Park to the northwest. It is contiguous with the Parc National des Virunga (Virunga National Park) in the Democratic Republic of Congo

[60]

. QECA consists of diverse habitats, including open grassland, grassland with thickets, thick bush, forests, wetlands, and 250 km of lakeshore. The habitats are located within the volcanic/montane scenery of the Albertine Rift Valley. A blend of landforms and vegetation supports one of the richest avian resources in the world, including 610 bird species within the QECA boundary. Large carnivores include lion, leopard, and spotted hyena while primates include chimpanzee, red-tailed monkey and the red colobus monkey

[60]

QECA has a complex management background. According to oral accounts, people lived in the area before the Park’s gazettement in 1952. Today there are 11 fishing village enclaves with wildlife sanctuary status. The fishing villages were established to support local communities’ livelihoods through sustainable use of fisheries resources in the protected area. The population is estimated at 45,000

[61]

. The demand for resources has increased with cases of illegal cultivation and settlement reported by QECA managers. The area was designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1979 to integrate human activities with conservation and tourism.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Map of QECA showing location of CBT groups.

4.2. Data Collection

4.2.1. Research Design

The study adopted an exploratory research design involving a mixed methods approach

[62]

. The approach enabled collection of convergent data, inferences and eliminated the weakness of using a single method

[63]

4.2.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

There are 1053 households around QECA and a sample size of 600 households as obtained using the formula:

n = \frac{z^{2} x p (1 - p)}{e^{2}}

Where n = sample size (600), p = estimated proportion of respondents. As the proportion of the households to be selected was unknown, a p-value of 0.5 was used in the equation to compute the number of respondents; z = the standard error corresponding to 95% confidence interval which is 1.96 and e = margin of error estimated at 0.04. Thus, 0.5 ∗ (1 − 0.5) ∗ (1.96)²/ (0.04)² = 600. Systematic random sampling technique was employed to select 600 households from CBT groups and household heads were interviewed.

4.2.3. Data Collection Tools

A structured questionnaire was used to gather information on the contribution of CBT to the livelihoods of the adjacent households. It consisted of 17 questions divided into three sections: Section One with 11 questions focused on the contribution of CBT to the livelihoods of the households living in and around QECA; Section Two containing four questions gathered information on the linkage between household economic activities and tourism and Section Three consisting of three questions gathered information on the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent communities. Key informant interview guide consisting of 13 predetermined questions was used to gather additional information to complement those collected using a structured questionnaire.

4.2.4. Data Collection Procedure

Questionnaire administration. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to the 600 household heads to gather information on the contribution of CBT to the livelihoods of the local community members living in and around QECA, the link between household economic activities and tourism and contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the households. The interview began with introduction of the researcher and explanation of the objectives of the study. The respondent’s consent was sought before conducting the interview and the interview only went ahead after the respondent granted permission. Where a respondent turned down the request to be interviewed, the decision was respected and the next respondent was approached. Each interview lasted about 35 minutes.

Key informant interviews. Twenty-four key informants were interviewed including Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) officials, QECA staff, tourists, local government officers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) representatives and CBT leaders. The interviews generated a list of CBT groups and helped to deepen understanding of the CBT enterprises activities, tourism resources, local community participation in tourism-related activities and the benefits to local communities. On average, each interview lasted about 20 minutes.

Focus Group Discussions. Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) were held at various locations in and around QECA. Each FGD consisted of five men and five women. The FGDs involved in-depth analysis of the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent local community households, the linkage between household economic activities and tourism and contribution of CBT to household livelihoods.

4.3. Data Analysis

Questionnaire responses were edited, coded and entered in SPSS to create a data file and later used for statistical analysis. The same data were used to generate bar graphs. Responses from key informant interviews were summarived under key theme and used in the discussion of results.

5. Results

5.1. Household Economic Activities and Earnings

Results revealed that 31% of the households belonged to CBT groups that participated in tourism-related activities. The economic and financial benefits of CBT to the households ranged from UGX 50,000 (USD 13.6) to UGX 200,000 (USD 54.5) per month. Respondents employed with CBT enterprises, QECA or other organizations earned monthly incomes. Incomes fom sale of tourism related products such as crafts and souvenirs varied seasonally. The monthly income of households varied from UGX 100,000 (USD 27.2) to UGX 1,550,000 (USD 422). The main sources of household incomes are presented in Table 1.

The main sources of household monthly incomes were sale of cattle that generated about UGX 1,200,000 (USD 327) per month; sale of goats which generated about UGX 165,000 (USD 45); sale of poultry which generated about UGX 20,000 (USD 5.45); sale of crops estimated at about UGX 76,000 (USD 20.7), sale of crafts estimated at UGX 156,000 (USD 42.5); incomes from accommodation estimated at UGX 2,500,000 (USD 681); retail business estimated at UGX 3,450,000 (USD 940); hire of labor estimated at UGX 110,000 (USD 30); employment in tourism sector estimated at UX 150,000 (USD 40.8); motor cycle transportation services estimated at UGX 220,000 (USD 60); sale of crude rock salt mined from Lake Katwe estimated at UGX 196,000 (USD 53.4) and incomes from provision of cultural entertainment estimated at UGX 105,000 (USD 28.6).

Table 1. Respondents’ sources of monthly incomes. Values in brackets are USD.

Source of income	Amount (UGX)	%
Sale of cattle	1,200,000 (327)	14.4
Sale of goats	165,000 (45)	2.0
Sale of poultry	20,000 (5.45)	0.2
Sale of crops	76,000 (20.7)	0.9
Craft making	156,000 (42.5)	1.9
Accommodation/food service	2,500,000 (681)	29.9
Donations/ remittances	0	0.0
Retail businesses	3,450,000 (940)	41.3
Hire of labour (causal)	110,000 (30)	1.3
Employment	150,000 (40.8)	1.8
Motor cycle transport service	220,000 (60)	2.6
Sale of salt mined from Lake Katwe	196,000 (53.4)	2.3
Provision of local cultural entertainment	105,000 (28.6)	1.3
Total	8,348,000 (2,299)	100.0

5.2. Monthly Household Income from Tourism-related Activities

Incomes from tourism related activities are presented in Table 2. Sales of goats generated about UGX 165,000 (USD 45); sale of poultry was estimated at UGX 80,000 (USD 21.7); sale of crops was estimated at UGX 35,000 (USD 9.53); sale of local crafts was estimated at UGX 156,000 (USD 42.5); provision of accommodation plus food services to tourists was estimated at UGX 2,500,000 (USD 681); donations from tourists was estimated at UGX 2,000,000 (USD 545); sale of miscellaneous retail goods was estimated at UGX 750,000 (USD 204.3), hire of labour for trail maintenance was estimated at UGX 150,000 (USD 40.8), direct employment in the tourism industry was estimated at UGX 150,000 (USD 40.8), motor cycle transport services was estimated at UGX 160,000 (USD 43.6); tour of Lake Katwe salt mining was estimated at UGX 350,000 (USD 95.36) and provision of local cultural entertainment was estimated at UGX 150,000 (USD 40.8).

Table 2. Monthly incomes from tourism-related activities. Values in brackets are USD.

Tourism related activities	Amount (UGX)	%
Sale of goat meat	165,000 (45)	2.5
Sale of poultry	80,000 (21.7)	1.2
Sale of crops	35,000 (9.53)	0.5
Sale of crafts to tourists	156,000 (42.5)	2.3
Provision of accommodation facilities	2,500,000 (681)	37.6
Donations from tourists	2,000,000 (545)	30.1
Sale of miscellaneous retail goods	750,000 (204.3)	11.3
Hire of labour for trail maintenance	150,000 (40.8)	2.3
Employment in tourism-related activities	150,000 (40.8)	2.3
Motor cycle transportation	160,000 (43.6)	2.4
Lake Katwe salt mining tours	350,000 (95.36)	5.3
Cultural entertainment	150,000 (40.8)	2.3
Total	6,646,000 (1,810.9)	100

5.3. Ways in Which Money Obtained from Tourism Was Spent

Respondents’ expenditures are presented in Table 3. UGX 180,000 (USD 49) was spent on children’s education, UGX 104,000 (USD 28.3) was spent on health care and UGX 365,000 (USD 99.45) was spent on food. In the views of the respondents, this amount was high going by their standard of living. UGX 56,000 (USD 15.25) was spent on livestock drugs while UGX 650,000 (USD 177) was spent on purchase of livestock. Furthermore, UGX 75,000 (USD 20.4) was spent on clothes and UGX 100,000 (USD 27.2) on purchase of craft making materials.

Table 3. Ways in which respondents spent their incomes. Values in brackets are USD.

Expenditure item	Amount (UGX)	%
Children’s education	180,000 (49)	11.8
Health care	104,000 (28.3)	6.8
Buying food	365,000 (99.45)	23.9
Buying livestock drugs	56,000 (15.25)	3.7
Buying livestock	650,000 (177)	42.5
Buying clothes	75,000 (20.4)	4.9
Purchase of craft materials	100,000 (27.2)	6.5
Total	1,530,000 (416.9)	100.0

5.4. Household Assets and Their Values

The assets owned by households (Table 4) included radio valued at UGX 30,000 (USD 8.17); a motor cycle valued at UGX 4,000,000 (USD 1,089); bicycle valued at UGX 150,000 (USD 40.8); sponge mattresses valued at UGX 270,000 (USD 73.56), and cattle valued at UGX 9,600,000 (USD 2,615.8). Most of the households reared goats and each household owned an average of 12 goats valued at UGX 1,200,000 (USD 327); each household owned an average of five sheep valued at UGX 750,000 (USD 204.3); and each household owned an average of 15 poultry birds valued at UGX 300,000 (USD 81.74). Majority (60%) of the households lived in mud and wattle houses with corrugated iron roofs. On average each household owned three housing units valued at UGX 6,500,000 (USD 1,771). Each household owned furniture valued at UGX 880,000 (USD 239.7) and beds valued at UGX 180,000 (USD 49.04); cooking and eating utensils valued at UGX 164,000 (USD 44.68) and plots of land valued at UGX 60,000,000 (USD 16,348.7).

Table 4. Mean household asset values. Figures in brackets are USD.

Household asset	Average number	Value (UGX)	%
Radio	1	30,000 (8.17)	0.04
Motorcycle	1	4,000,000 (1,089)	4.70
Bicycle	1	150,000 (40.8)	0.18
Boat	1	1,000,000 (272.47)	1.18
Mattress	3	270,000 (73.6)	0.32
Cattle	8	9,600,000 (2,615.8)	11.29
Goats	12	1,200,000 (327)	1.41
Sheep	5	750,000 (204.3)	0.88
Poultry	15	300,000 (81.74)	0.35
Mud and wattle house with corrugated iron sheets	3	6,500,000 (1,771)	7.64
Household furniture	6	880,000 (239.7)	1.04
Beds	3	180,000 (49)	0.21
Cooking and eating utensils	15	164,000 (44.6)	0.19
Land	3	60,000,000	70.57
Total		85,024,000	100

5.5. Link Between Household Economic Activities and Tourism

The study revealed linkage between economic activities and tourism through activities such as craft and souvenir making, running restaurant and hotel businesses, provision of local cultural entertainment, sale of agricultural products to restaurants, car rental, salt extraction, and sale of a mix of merchandise to tourists (Table 5). Tour guiding was viewed as a tourism activity and local guides carried baggage of tourists during Rwenzori Mountain climbing expeditions. About 40% of the respondents stated that local people sold crafts and souvenirs directly to tourists while 37% stated that local people sold agricultural produce directly to visitors for cash incomes. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents mentioned that local people sold agricultural produce directly to restaurants and accommodation facilities. Food items sold included banana, meat, rice and fish among others. Furthermore, 26.5% stated that local community members sold fire wood and charcoal to restaurants and accommodation facilities for cash income. Twenty four percent of the respondents mentioned that local community groups provided cultural entertainment and tourists learnt about local culture. Twenty-one percent stated that local community members sold farm produce to intermediaries who then sold to restaurants, hotels and lodges. The same proportion (21%) stated that local community members transported some tourists on motor cycles thus giving them a local experience of QECA. Two percent of the respondents indicated that some of the tourists spent nights in accommodation facilities in the park, 1.6% stated that salt mining in Lake Katwe attracted tourists interests and the same proportion noted that local community members sold a mix of merchandise to tourists.

Table 5. Linkage between household economic activities with tourism.

Tourism-related household economic activity	Frequency	% response
Tour guiding and carrying language	145	58.2
Selling crafts and souvenirs	99	39.8
Selling agricultural produce	92	36.9
Selling agricultural produce to restaurants and accommodation facilities	72	28.9
Supplying firewood, charcoal and fish to restaurants and accommodation facilities	66	26.5
Cultural dance and music	60	24.1
Selling agricultural produce through intermediaries	52	20.9
Providing motor cycle transport service	52	20.9
Hotel services	5	2.0
Tour guiding to Lake Katwe salt mining	4	1.6
Selling a mix of merchandise to tourists	4	1.6

5.6. Participation in CBT Related Decision Making

Results presented in Table 6 indicate that CBT group members participated in meetings (mentioned by 68% of the respondents) and made decisions at CBT level based on the group’s articles of association. Thirty five percent of the respondents mentioned that other members served on the Executive Committees of the CBT groups. Forty three percent of the respondents mentioned that CBT group members were involved in making decisions on how new projects should be developed to expand economic activities and the same proportion (45%) stated that group members made decisions on the code of conduct. Fifty-six mentioned that CBT group members made decisions on holding of annual general meetings and planning of future activities while 44.3% stated that CBT group members made decisions on networking with other organizations particularly in resource mobilization. Group members also participated were capacity building and skills enhancement workshops (stated by 50% of the respondents).

Table 6. Participation in CBT related decision making (n=183).

Ways in which CBT group members participated in decision making	Freqency	Percentage of Respondents
Attending meetings	124	67.8
Participating in general meetings to plan activities	103	56.3
Participating in capacity building and skills trainings workshops	92	50.3
Networking with other organizations	81	44.3
Developing, projects for the CBT groups	80	43.7
Developing the code of conduct	80	43.7
Developing articles of association	67	36.6
Serving on the CBT Executive Committee	64	35.0
Making decisions on sharing of dividends	64	35.0
Working together with QECA staff	4	2.2

5.7. Households’ Economic Activities

Households participated in economic activities presented in Table 7. Four percent of the respondents strongly agreed that motorcycle transport service was one of the main household economic activities while 67% disagreed with the statement. Twenty percent of the respondents strongly disagreed that motor cycle transport was the main household economic activity while 55.5% strongly agreed that petty trade was the main household economic activity. Twenty-two percent strongly agreed that craft making was the main household economic activity. Majority (67%) strongly agreed that provision of cultural entertainment was the households’ main economic activity. With regard to tour guiding, provision of accommodation and sale of pottery as the main economic activity of households, 44.4% strongly agreed with the statement while 11% disagreed. Majority (67%) of the respondents strongly agreed that agriculture was the main economic activity of the households. Thirty three percent of the respondents strongly agreed that fishing was the main economic activity of the households and majority (78%) also strongly agreed that salt mining in Lake Katwe was the main household economic activity.

Twenty-two percent strongly agreed while 70% disagreed that that tree planting were the main economic activities carried out by households. Forty-four percent strongly disagreed that charcoal production was the main economic activity of the households. The other economic activities mentioned were salt mining in Lake Katwe (78%), farming (67%), petty trade (55.6%), tour guiding and accommodation (44.4%), fishing (33%), craft making (22.2%), cultural entertainment (6.7%) and motor cycle transport service (4.4%).

Table 7. Households’ economic activities based on Likert scale responses of strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly disagree.

Rating	Economic activities and responses
	Farming (crop, and livestock)		fishing		Salt mining in Lake Katwe		Tree growing		Charcoal production
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Strongly agree	300	67	150	33	350	78%	100	22.2	20	4.4
Agree	80	18	100	23	50	11%	100	22.2	20	4.4
Un decided	20	4	60	13	__	__	80	17.7	10	2.2
Disagree	30	7	90	2	25	5.5%	100	22.2	200	44.4
Strongly agree	20	4	50	11	25	5.5%	70	15.7	200	44.4

Table 7. Continued.

Rating	Economic activities and responses
	Motor cycle transport		Pettry trade		Craft making		Cultural entertainment		Tour guiding and accommodation facilities
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Strongly agree	20	4.4	250	55.6	100	22.2	30	6.7	200	44.4
Agree	20	4.4	100	22.2	100	22.2	20	4.4	100	22.2
Un decided	10	2.2	50	11.1	50	11.1	100	22.2	50	11.1
Disagree	300	6.7	10	2.2	100	22.2	100	22.2	50	11.1
Strongly agree	100	22	40	8.9	100	22.2	200	44.4	50	11.1

6. Discussion

The study assessed the contribution of QECA to the livelihoods of adjacent local communities, the linkages between economic activities and tourism as well as the contribution of CBT to household livelihoods. Local communities’ participation is regarded as a positive force for change in country‟s development

[64]

. The participation of local community members in decision making has been researched in the last 30 years as seen in a number of publications

[5, 27, 47]

. This study has revealed that local community members living around QECA participate in decision making. The finding resonates with those of

[20]

who reported that local participation in decision-making is a prerequisite for benefit sharing. In fact, when local communities participate in decision-making traditional lifestyles and values of the communities are respected and livelihoods improved

[64, 38]

. Participation allows integration of local context in CBT activities.

[8, 40]

reported that local communities are integral to tourism development as they participate in decision making process. In addition, they represent the interest of other members and ensure equitable benefit- sharing of resources.

The study has also revealed local community members benefit from CBT in QECA through incomes from small-scale businesses and employment among others. Generally, tourism directly and indirectly creates jobs and accounts for one in 10 jobs created throughout the world

[19]

. Similar benefits were reported

[65]

and

[50]

who noted that local tourism enterprises create employment opportunities which provide income for local community members. Similar findings were reported by

[66]

and

[41]

who noted that CBT creates employment opportunities in rural areas and help to improve livelihoods.

[67]

reported that in Malaysia, production and sale of handicrafts, provision of local cuisines and performance of cultural dances generate incomes for local communities. Earlier studies by

[70]

revealed that CBT through eco lodge services provided by local community groups in Peru generated USD 182,583 in 2004 and USD 208,328 in 2005 in profits.

Other organizations such as Africa Wildlife Foundation and the Dutch SNV have supported CBTs in QECA in terms of capacity building, construction of classroom blocks, tree planting and borehole construction among others. These forms of support motivate local community members to participate in nature conservation and support tourism in protected areas.

[68]

reported that NGOs are integral in development of CBTs as they train and educate local people on conservation and sustainable management of tourism resources.

[69]

noted that local community empowerment is key to achieving the dual goals of economic development and nature conservation. Collaboration with NGOs and other agencies to support local communities aligns with the broader objectives of sustainable tourism and fosters community resilience and long-term environmental stewardship.

At the same time, research generates knowledge that guides planning, development and management of CBT. Research also generates knowledge that can inform policies on CBT development and management.

[46]

reported that research supports sustainable natural resource management practices and tourism development. In addition, research and training produces future leaders and professionals to plan and manage CBT enterprises.

[45]

reinforces this point and highlights how research is a foundation for development of evidence-based tourism policies.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

The monthly income of adjacent household varied from UGX 100,000 to 1,550,000 and the average monthly financial benefits of CBT to the households ranged from UGX 50,000 to 200,000. The main sources of household incomes were crop and livestock production, craft making, provision of accommodation and food services, petty businesses, hire of labour, employment, motor cycle passenger transport, guided tours to salt mining and cultural entertainment. Incomes were used to pay for children’s education, meet medical bills, buy livestock and livestock drugs, buy basic household items such as clothes, bicycle, radio and motor cycle. Most households reared livestock such as cattle, goats, sheep and poultry. Despite owning these assets, majority of the households lived in mud and wattle houses.

The following recommendations are advanced to promote local communities’ participation and development of sustainable CBT for livelihood improvement and nature conservation:

Local community empowerment. Policy strategies are needed to explicitly empower local communities’ participation in CBT development which should be integrated in national tourism development plan. The empowerment should include capacity building to equip local communities with decision-making power, knowledge and skills to conserve and manage tourism resources at community level, develop and operate CBT enterprises.

Sustainable tourism practices. National tourism policy should promote sustainable CBT practices, such as reducing environmental impacts, conserving cultural heritage resources and protection of local community traditions and cultures.

Knowledge management. Ministry responsible for tourism should develop a policy framework that mainstreams knowledge management for CBT including documentation of best practices, monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) for CBT.

Inter-agency coordination. Considering that tourism has linkages with natural resources, health, trade and security, the ministry responsible for tourism should establish an inter-agency coordination and collaboration that enables different government agencies and private sector actors to work together to support CBT as an enabler of local community development and sustainable livelihoods around and beyond protected areas.

Future research should undertake cost-benefit analysis of CBT and compare its contribution to improved household livelihoods. This is important as tourism is recognized as a priority growth sector in the national economy and its contribution should be quantified in the tourism satellite accounts.

Abbreviations

CBT	Community-Based Tourism
FGD	Focus Group Discussion
NGO	Non-Governmental Organization
QECA	Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area
SDG	Sustainable Development Goal
UGX	Uganda Shillings
USD	United States Dollars
UWA	Uganda Wildlife Authority

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	Abreu, L. A. D., Walkowski, M. D. C., Perinotto, A. R. C., & Fonseca, J. F. D. (2024). Community-based tourism and best practices with the sustainable development goals. Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 36.
[2]	Campbell, S. J., Kartawijaya, T., Yulianto, I., Prasetia, R., & Clifton, J. (2013). Co-management approaches and incentives improve management effectiveness in the Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 41(open in a new window), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.022
[3]	Campodónico, R. and Bertolotti, L. C. (2013). El turismo como construcción social: Un enfoque epistemo-metodológico. Anuario Turismo y Sociedad 14: 47–63.
[4]	Clifton, J. (2013). Refocusing conservation through a cultural lens: Improving governance in the Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 41(open in a new window), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.015
[5]	Cornwall, A. (2006). Historical perspectives on participation in development. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 44(1), 62-83.
[6]	Dangi, T. B., & Jamal, T. (2016). An integrated approach to “sustainable community-based tourism”. Sustainability, 8(5), 475.
[7]	Dodds, R., Ali, A., and Galaski, K. (2018). Mobilizing knowledge: determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Current Issues in Tourism 21, 1547–1568.
[8]	Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2015). Progress in sustainable tourism research? A critical review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(7), 953-972. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1025836
[9]	Edwards, V. L. (2013). A theory of participation for 21st century governance. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 16(1), 1-28.
[10]	Espinoza, O. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343-363.
[11]	Giampiccoli, A., & Saayman, M. (2017). Community-based tourism, responsible tourism, and infrastructure development and poverty. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 6(2), 1-28.
[12]	Gohori, O., & van der Merwe, P. (2020). Towards a tourism and community-development framework: An African perspective. Sustainability, 12(13), 5305.
[13]	Harrison, D., & Schipani, S. (2007). Lao tourism and poverty alleviation: Community-based tourism and the private sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2-3), 194-230.
[14]	Jackson, L. A. (2025). Community-Based Tourism: A Catalyst for Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals One and Eight. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 29.
[15]	Katswera, J. Mutekanga, N. M., & Twesigye, C. (2022). Community-Based Tourism and Biodiversity Conservation in Kibale and Queen Elizabeth Conservation Areas in Uganda. African Journal of Education, 7(1), 95.
[16]	Kaur, P., Jawaid, A., & Othman, N. B. A. (2016). The impact of community-based tourism on community development in Sarawak. Journal of Borneo Kalimantan, 2(1), 15-26.
[17]	Klyuchnik, A., Oleynik, T., Galunets, N., Borysova-Iaryha, A., & Fedorenko, T. (2023). The Impact of Tourism on Local Community Development. Economic Affairs 68 (Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.2s.2023.4
[18]	Korol, T., and Spyridou, A. (2020). Examining ownership equity as a psychological factor on tourism business failure forecasting. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 3048.
[19]	Krittayaruangroj, K., Suriyankietkaew, S., & Hallinger, P. (2023). Research on sustainability in community-based tourism: a bibliometric review and future directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 28(9), 1031-1051.
[20]	Li, W. (2006). Community decisionmaking participation in development. Annals of tourism research, 33(1), 132-143.
[21]	Li, Y. (2023). The influence of top-down mode and bottom-up mode to national innovation and entrepreneurship. Journal of Innovation and Development, 2(3), 158-161.
[22]	Liu, C., et al. (2021). Collaborative governance and stakeholder engagement in sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 83, 104255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104255
[23]	Lo, Y. C., & Janta, P. (2020). Resident’s perspective on developing community-based tourism–a qualitative study of Muen Ngoen Kong Community, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1493.
[24]	Mai, V. N., Nguyen, Q. N., & Hien, L. T. D. (2023). Citizen Participation in Community-Based Tourism Development in the Mekong Delta. Vietnam. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(5), e749.
[25]	Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628-644.
[26]	Mayaka, M. A., Lacey, G., & Rogerson, C. M. (2020). Empowerment process in community-based tourism: Friend relationship perspective. Development Southern Africa, 37(5), 791-80.
[27]	Midgley, J. (1987). Popular participation, statism and development. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 2(1), 5-15.
[28]	Mugumbate, J. R., Tarusikirwa, M. C., Nyoni, C., Mtetwa, E., Nyikahadzoyi, K., & Dhemba & Nyaruwata, L. T. (2022). People-centred development (PCD): Philosophies, key concepts, and approaches to teaching, learning, and practice. People Centred. Journal of development Administration, 7(1), 1-13.
[29]	Myers, R., & Muhajir, M. (2015). Searching for Justice: Rights vs “Benefits” in Bukit Baka Bukit Raya National Park, Indonesia. Conservation and Society, 13 (open in a new window)(4 (open in a new window)), 370. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.1798863
[30]	Njenji, J. (2020). Community-based Tourism in Rwanda. Unpublished thesis. Ammattikorkeakoulujen opinnäytetyöt ja julkaisut.
[31]	Oakley, P. (1991). The concept of participation in development. Landscaping and Urban Development 20(1-3), 115-122.
[32]	Pemayun, A., & Maheswari, A. (2017). Economic impacts of craftsman statue on community based tourism development. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH), 1(3), 59-73.
[33]	Prakoso, A. A., Pradipto, E., Roychansyah, M. S., & Nugraha, B. S. (2020). Community-based tourism: concepts, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 95-107.
[34]	Pudyatmoko, S., Budiman, A., & Kristiansen, S. (2018). Towards sustainable coexistence: People and wild mammals in Baluran National Park. Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 90 (open in a new window), 151–159. (April 2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.006
[35]	Rahnema, M. (2020). Participation. In: Prentki, T. and Abraham, N. (Eds.), The applied theatre reader, pp. 7. London: London.
[36]	Ross, H., Buchy, M., & Proctor, W. (2002). Laying down the ladder: a typology of public participation in Australian natural resource management. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 9(4), 205-217.
[37]	Saayman, M. & Giampiccoli, A. (2016). Community-based and pro-poor tourism: Initial assessment of their relation to community development. European Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 145-190.
[38]	Saha, S., Ahmed, M., Roy, T., & Haldar, P. (2015). Community based ecotourism in income generation: a study on the sundarbans adjacent area of Bangladesh. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Research, 2(01), 80-91.
[39]	Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. London: Pearson Education.
[40]	Scheyvens, R. (2020). Tourism and sustainable development goals: A critical reflection. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(7), 897-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
[41]	Scheyvens, R., & Biddulph, R. (2018). Inclusive tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 589-609. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1381985
[42]	Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(11), 1932–1946.
[43]	Thomas, P. N. and van de Fliert, E. (2014). Participation in Theory and Practice. In: Interrogating the Theory and Practice of Communication for Social Change. Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change, pp. 39-51. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137426314_3
[44]	UNDP (1991). Capacity Building Definition. Available from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/capacity-define.html
[45]	UNWTO. (2019). Sustainable tourism research: Academic contributions and policy implementation. UNWTO Publications.
[46]	Weaver, D., & Jin, X. (2020). Sustainable tourism research: A commentary on the evolving theoretical foundations and perspectives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1), 1-15.
[47]	Witchayakawin, P., Abdul Aziz, Y., Mahomed, A. S. B. B., & Abdullah, N. H. B. (2024). Mediating role of community participation and benefit on factors influencing community-based tourism (CBT) development. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 29(2), 161-176.
[48]	Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2013). Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. In Tourism and the millennium development goals (pp. 98-122). London: Routledge.
[49]	Zuluaga, S., Vargas, F. H., Kohn, S., & Grande, J. M. (2022). Top-down local management, perceived contribution to people, and actual detriments influence a rampant human‒top predator conflict in the Neotropics. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 20(2), 91-102.
[50]	Yunikawati, A, N., Istiqomah. N., Priambodo, P. M., Puspasari, Y. E., Sidi, F., and Jabbar, A. M. (2021). Community Based Rural Tourism (CBRT): The impact on local residents quality of life in Indonesia, E3s web of conferences, 228, 02012 (2021) CCGEES 2020. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202122802012
[51]	Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: a success?
[52]	Ashley, C., & Roe, D. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor: A review of experience.
[53]	Ashley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibia's experience.
[54]	Jugmohan, S., Spencer, J. P., & Steyn, J. N. (2016). Local natural and cultural heritage assets and community based tourism: Challenges and opportunities. African Journal for Physical Activity and Health Sciences (AJPHES), 22(1-2), 306-317.
[55]	Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach (RLE Tourism). Routledge.
[56]	Sene-Harper, A. (2020). Tourism development in Senegal: Historical overview and new directions for community-based tourism. In Routledge handbook of tourism in Africa (pp. 220-232). Routledge.
[57]	Makwindi, N., & Ndlovu, J. (2021). Prospects and challenges of community-based tourism as a livelihood diversification strategy at Sehlabathebe National Park in Lesotho. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 10(1), 333-348.
[58]	Nugroho, P., & Numata, S. (2022). Resident support of community-based tourism development: Evidence from Gunung Ciremai National Park, Indonesia. Journal of sustainable tourism, 30(11), 2510-2525.
[59]	Nonchanging (2002). Reliability and life testing handbook (Vol. 2). DES tech Publications, Inc.
[60]	UWA (2011). UWA Research Publication.
[61]	UBOS (2011). Reviewing Uganda’s tourism sector for economic and social upgrading.
[62]	Subedi, D. (2016). Explanatory sequential mixed method design as the third research community of knowledge claim. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 570-577.
[63]	Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
[64]	Thetsane, R. M. (2019) Local Community Participation in Tourism Development: The Case of Katse Villages in Lesotho. Athens Journal of Tourism, 6, 123-140. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajt.6-2-4
[65]	Butler, (2019) “Seasonality in Tourism: Issues and Problems,” In: A. Seaton, Ed., Tourism: The Status of the Art, Wiley, Chichester, 1994, pp. 332-339.
[66]	Mitchell, J., & Ashley, C. (2010). Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity. Earthscan.
[67]	Abukhalifesh and Wondirad (2019). Economic impacts of tourism on small-scale tourism enterprises (SSTEs) in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia., Vol. 19, No. 1, 38-55 ref. 57.
[68]	Bianchi, R. and de Man, F. 2021. Tourism, inclusive growth and decent work: a political economy critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 29(2-3), pp. 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1730862
[69]	Stone and stone (2020) - Challenges of community-based tourism in Botswana: a review of literature Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 75(4): 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2020.1715510
[70]	Stronnza (2007) The Economic Promise of Ecotourism for Conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 6(3): 210-230 https://doi.org/10.2167/joe177

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Francis, O. O., Micheal, O., Anthony, T., Joseph, O., Bosco, N. J. (2025). Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 9(2), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Francis, O. O.; Micheal, O.; Anthony, T.; Joseph, O.; Bosco, N. J. Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2025, 9(2), 86-98. doi: 10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Francis OO, Micheal O, Anthony T, Joseph O, Bosco NJ. Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Int J Hosp Tour Manag. 2025;9(2):86-98. doi: 10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12,
  author = {Okello Okello Francis and Ocaido Micheal and Tibaingana Anthony and Obua Joseph and Nizeyi John Bosco},
  title = {Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda
},
  journal = {International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {86-98},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  abstract = {Community-based tourism plays a very vital role in the livelihoods of households adjacent to protected areas. The study examined the link between household economic activities and tourism and the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent households in western Uganda. The study is underpinned by the theory of participation. An exploratory research design with a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted and data collected using a structured questionnaire and key informant interview question guide. Six hundred respondents from community-based tourism (CBT) groups were interviewed and the data were analyzed in SPSS. Results revealed that tourism created employment and business opportunities for group members. Average monthly incomes from tourism related activities ranged from UGX 150,000 (USD USD 40.2) to UGX 2.5 million (USD 681). Value of household assets ranged from UGX 30,000 (USD 8.17) to UGX 9.6 million (USD 2.615). CBT members provided services such as tour guiding, accommodation, motor cycle transport, sale of food, hand crafts and souvenirs. Local communities need to be empowered through capacity building to engage in sustainable CBT activities. Future research should be undertaken on cost-benefit analysis of CBT before upscaling the practice to other parts of the country.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

AU - Okello Okello Francis
AU - Ocaido Micheal
AU - Tibaingana Anthony
AU - Obua Joseph
AU - Nizeyi John Bosco
Y1 - 2025/07/30
PY - 2025
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12
DO - 10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12
T2 - International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
JF - International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
JO - International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management
SP - 86
EP - 98
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2640-1800
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12
AB - Community-based tourism plays a very vital role in the livelihoods of households adjacent to protected areas. The study examined the link between household economic activities and tourism and the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent households in western Uganda. The study is underpinned by the theory of participation. An exploratory research design with a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted and data collected using a structured questionnaire and key informant interview question guide. Six hundred respondents from community-based tourism (CBT) groups were interviewed and the data were analyzed in SPSS. Results revealed that tourism created employment and business opportunities for group members. Average monthly incomes from tourism related activities ranged from UGX 150,000 (USD USD 40.2) to UGX 2.5 million (USD 681). Value of household assets ranged from UGX 30,000 (USD 8.17) to UGX 9.6 million (USD 2.615). CBT members provided services such as tour guiding, accommodation, motor cycle transport, sale of food, hand crafts and souvenirs. Local communities need to be empowered through capacity building to engage in sustainable CBT activities. Future research should be undertaken on cost-benefit analysis of CBT before upscaling the practice to other parts of the country.
VL - 9
IS - 2
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Okello Okello Francis

Department of Wildlife and Aquatic Animal Resources, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6291-0556
Ocaido Micheal

Department of Wildlife and Aquatic Animal Resources, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-8660
Tibaingana Anthony

School of Business and Management Science, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8468-8778
Obua Joseph

Department of Forestry, Biodiversity and Tourism Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5197-2617
Nizeyi John Bosco

Department of Wildlife and Aquatic Animal Resources, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Figure 1

Figure 1. Map of QECA showing location of CBT groups.

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Francis, O. O., Micheal, O., Anthony, T., Joseph, O., Bosco, N. J. (2025). Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 9(2), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Francis, O. O.; Micheal, O.; Anthony, T.; Joseph, O.; Bosco, N. J. Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2025, 9(2), 86-98. doi: 10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Francis OO, Micheal O, Anthony T, Joseph O, Bosco NJ. Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Int J Hosp Tour Manag. 2025;9(2):86-98. doi: 10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12,
  author = {Okello Okello Francis and Ocaido Micheal and Tibaingana Anthony and Obua Joseph and Nizeyi John Bosco},
  title = {Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda
},
  journal = {International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {86-98},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijhtm.20250902.12},
  abstract = {Community-based tourism plays a very vital role in the livelihoods of households adjacent to protected areas. The study examined the link between household economic activities and tourism and the contribution of QECA resources to the livelihoods of the adjacent households in western Uganda. The study is underpinned by the theory of participation. An exploratory research design with a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted and data collected using a structured questionnaire and key informant interview question guide. Six hundred respondents from community-based tourism (CBT) groups were interviewed and the data were analyzed in SPSS. Results revealed that tourism created employment and business opportunities for group members. Average monthly incomes from tourism related activities ranged from UGX 150,000 (USD USD 40.2) to UGX 2.5 million (USD 681). Value of household assets ranged from UGX 30,000 (USD 8.17) to UGX 9.6 million (USD 2.615). CBT members provided services such as tour guiding, accommodation, motor cycle transport, sale of food, hand crafts and souvenirs. Local communities need to be empowered through capacity building to engage in sustainable CBT activities. Future research should be undertaken on cost-benefit analysis of CBT before upscaling the practice to other parts of the country.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Contribution of CBT to the Livelihoods of the Adjacent Households in Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda

Copy | Download