Sustainability 2014, 6, 5697-5713; doi:10.3390/su6095697
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Poverty Alleviation through Pro-Poor Tourism:
The Role of Botswana Forest Reserves
Haretsebe Manwa 1,†,* and Farai Manwa 2,†
1 Department of Tourism, North West University, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho,
Mafikeng 2735, South Africa
2 International Trade, Southern Cross University, Tweed Heads NSW 2485, Australia;
E-Mail: farai.manwa@scu.edu.au
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: 23815310@nwu.ac.za;
Tel.: +27-18-389-2806; Fax: +27-18-389-2504.
Received: 11 June 2014; in revised form: 15 August 2014 / Accepted: 18 August 2014 /
Published: 28 August 2014
Abstract: Both government and international donor agencies now promote the use of
tourism to alleviate poverty. The Botswana government has embraced tourism as a
meaningful and sustainable economic activity and diversification opportunity, which now
ranks second after mining in its contribution to the country’s gross domestic product.
The study reported in this paper investigates perceptions of stakeholders on the
opportunities that would be created for the poor by opening up Botswana’s forest reserves
for ecotourism. Data was collected through mixed methods involving in-depth interviews
with government departments, traditional leaders, quasi-government organisations and the
Hospitality and Tourism Association of Botswana. Focus group discussions were also held
with village development committees, Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT) and
Kasane, Lesoma and Pandematenga Trust (KALEPA) members, and a consultative
national workshop of stakeholders was also held. The findings indicate that opening up
forest reserves for ecotourism has the potential to alleviate poverty among the
disadvantaged groups living adjacent to forest reserves through direct (employment,
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)), secondary (linkages/partnerships) and
dynamic effects (sustainable livelihoods). The study concludes by cautioning that whilst
pro-poor tourism may yield short- and medium-term benefits, in keeping with sustainability
objectives, participants in the programme need to be mindful of forestry encroachment and
come up with strategies to ensure the sustainability of the Botswana forest reserves.
OPEN ACCESS
Sustainability 2014, 6 5698
Keywords: pro-poor tourism; forest reserves; sustainable tourism; institutional capacity
building; Botswana
1. Introduction
Botswana has achieved the status of a middle-income country as a result of its mineral wealth,
mainly through the exploitation of its diamond reserves. Despite this economic leap, not everybody has
benefitted. It has been reported that, countrywide, 20.7% of the population live below the poverty
datum line [1], and poverty has been particularly persistent in the most remote areas of northern and
western Botswana [2]. The volatility of mineral resources and their non-renewability has prompted
Botswana to look for alternative and sustainable economic activities. Tourism has been perceived as a
meaningful diversification of the economy. More importantly, tourism is professed as being able to
alleviate poverty among the poor, the majority of whom live in tourism resource-rich areas [3–5].
Therefore, tourism becomes an ideal candidate for poverty alleviation in Botswana, due to its
labour-intensive nature, which enables it to employ disadvantaged members of the community with
very little formal training, e.g., women and youth. In addition, tourism utilizes natural and cultural
resources of the poor, whereby they can utilize these resources for their benefit [6].
However, tourism is a private sector business and, therefore, is controlled by market forces. By its
very nature, tourism is geared to serve the interests of the tourists and investors and, therefore, does not
automatically improve the welfare of the poorer members of the community [7]. In addition, tourism
can be viewed as a form of development strategy whose agenda is driven by multinational corporations
promoting neo-colonial states in the least developed countries [8], and thus, caution should be
exercised when advocating for tourism as a one-size fits all strategy for poverty alleviation.
This study aims to build on the extant literature on pro-poor tourism development. This is achieved
through an investigation of how the Botswana Forest Reserves can be instrumental in alleviating
poverty among local communities through the use of pro-poor tourism strategies. The study uses
Mitchell and Ashley’s [9] framework, to analyse the potential opportunities that would be created for
the poor through the opening of Botswana’s forest reserves for ecotourism. The paper draws its data
from the views of the Botswana Forest Reserves’ stakeholders. In particular, the paper is guided by the
following research questions:
 What attractions prevalent in the forest reserves could be used for ecotourism development?
 What are the likely costs and benefits to the communities from ecotourism development in the
Botswana Forest Reserves?
 Are there differences in the roles that can be played by the private sector vis-à-vis the roles of the
local communities in ecotourism development in the reserves?
The Botswana Forest Reserves were chosen due to the bulk of tourism research in Botswana having
been concentrated in the Okavango Delta [10–12] with little effort directed towards other tourism
facets, such as cultural tourism [13] and forest-based tourism [14]. The paper provides a brief survey
on the literature on pro-poor tourism, followed by background information on the case study area.
The next section outlines the main methodological approaches and then presents the results and
Sustainability 2014, 6 5699
discussion section. The study concludes by cautioning that, whilst pro-poor tourism may yield
short-and medium-term benefits, in keeping with sustainability objectives, participants in the
programme need to be mindful of forestry encroachment and come up with strategies to ensure the
sustainability of the Botswana Forest Reserves.
2. Theoretical Framework
The impact of tourism in poverty alleviation is now a growing area of research. This is
demonstrated through case studies from many different parts of the world [6,15–21]. Its roots are
embedded in the sustainable tourism framework, which, in turn, is derived from the overarching field
of sustainable development. According to Tribe [22] (p. 298), sustainability can be defined as growth
that does not encourage resource depletion or social unrest. In the tourism context, this means a level
of development that is in equilibrium with the carrying capacity of the destination and that does not
alter the current ecosystem, whilst not disadvantaging future generations through resource depletion [23].
Sustainability has tended to focus on broad ecological maintainable principles, policy objectives
and management techniques employed in destination management. There has been significantly less
academic literature on the equitable distribution of natural resources and the accrual of externalities
from the resources in question [24] (p. 864). Pro-poor tourism has been put forward as a means of
addressing this gap through fostering development that is inclusive of under-privileged members of
society, with the proceeds from its activities going towards improving the welfare of the community
members [25] (p. 208).
Pro-poor tourism is now advocated as a means of alleviating poverty in developing
economies [26–31]. The pro-poor framework has generated a lot of interest and promotion, not only
among researchers, but also amongst international and donor organisations. For example, the United
Nations World Tourism Organisation has come up with the Sustainable Tourism Eliminating Poverty
Initiative (STEP), which began in 2002. The focus of STEP is to encourage the promotion of activities
that promote sustainable tourism (social, economic, ecological) with a focus on alleviating poverty
through the development and creation of jobs for people living on less than a dollar a day [32].
The Department for International Development (DFID) in the United Kingdom [33] (p. 1) has
defined pro-poor tourism as “tourism that generates net benefits for the poor” (i.e., benefits are greater
than costs). DFID further clarifies that benefits should be viewed as holistic and should not be
restricted to economic benefits, but should also include social, environmental and cultural benefits.
In addition, pro-poor tourism should not be viewed as a tourism product, but rather as an approach to
tourism development and management through which linkages are developed between tourism businesses
and poor people as a way of leveraging and increasing the tourism benefits to the poor [34] (p. 2001).
Mitchell and Ashley [9] have extended the understanding of how to determine the impacts of
tourism on poor communities through the development of a framework that uses three pathways
through which the benefits of tourism can be transferred to the poor. They categorise these into direct
effects, secondary effects and dynamic effects [35] (p. 3) (see Figure 1). Direct effects are realised
through direct employment in the tourism industry. Examples of this include community employment
by corporations [36], leasing of communal land to tourism operators, the establishment of business
enterprises, such as curio shops or craft markets by community members, and cultural tourism [6,37,38].
Sustainability 2014, 6 5700
Whilst many authors note that direct effects can increase economic benefit to the community in a
variety of ways [39–44], Mitchell and Ashley [9] caution that externalities are not always positive,
with losses of livelihood to the community occurring in some instances.
Figure 1. Pathways of benefits to the poor adapted from Mitchell and Ashley, 2010. SMEs,
small- and medium-sized enterprises.
For secondary effects to occur, there needs to be a shift in the private sector mind-set and a
willingness to collaborate with local communities through the establishment of linkages [45–50].
Examples of such linkages include tourism operators sourcing food and beverage supplies from
local communities [20,46]. Other possible areas include “in-sourcing”, which refers to a corporation
hiving off an operation; for example, the provision of opportunity for staff employed in housekeeping
to run their unit as a business, eventually leading to the removal of these employees from the
company’s payroll [47,48].
In the third pathway, the dynamic effects are structural changes, which are indirectly attributed to
tourism development. For example, tourism development can result in self-sufficiency, where communities
have in-house facilities developed, such as grinding mills, tap water, schools and clinics [12,49,50].
On the other hand, pro-poor tourism has received a fair amount of criticism [51]. It has been argued,
for example, that pro-poor tourism perpetuates inequalities prevailing in society, since both rich and
poor benefit from pro-poor tourism [7]. Holden et al. [18] (p. 331) argue that there are inherent
structural barriers militating against the poor involved and benefitting from tourism. They highlight
such barriers as low-level education attainment, lack of micro-finance targeted at tourism development
and marginalisation from decision-making. Another interesting point raised by Scheyvens [7] (p. 91) is
the misconception that “tourism industry operators should have some ethical commitment to ensuring
Sustainability 2014, 6 5701
that their businesses contribute to local poverty-alleviation”. Schilcher [8] as a result argues for
protectionist measures to ensure that big multinational players do not set the agenda and monopolise
decision-making in the global arena.
3. Methods
3.1. Study Area
This paper is based on a study that was carried out in the Chobe District, which is one of
Botswana’s leading tourism destinations in addition to the Okavango Delta. The Chobe District is a
small region covering an area of 22,052 km2 and a total population of 23,449 people [2]. About 50% of
the district is taken up by the Chobe National Park, and a further 4096 km2 is taken up by forest
reserves. The bulk of the land is reserved for conservation, and about 31% is left for communal use
(residential, arable, livestock, grazing and settlement expansion) [52]. The shortage of land in the
Chobe District is an impediment to the growth of the agricultural sector, with the bulk of arable land
reserved mainly for conservation [52].
Wildlife viewing and safari hunting dominate the tourism activities that are undertaken in the
Chobe District [53]. Consequently, this activity has resulted in congested development in the form of
lodges and hotels, all competing for the river and wildlife resources. Using forest reserves for
ecotourism would open up alternative tourism development areas, which would alleviate the pressure
on the Chobe riverfront. The study therefore explored tourism in forest reserves as a sustainable
tourism option for communities to benefit from using the Mitchell and Ashley Framework as the
analytical tool. The study focused on four villages located in Chobe West (Mabele, Kachikau,
Kavimba and Satau) and three villages in Chobe East (Kasane, Lesoma and Pandamatenga), which
were all adjacent to the forest reserves (see Figure 2).
The Botswana Forest Reserves comprise six gazetted protected areas: Chobe Forest Reserve,
Kasane Extension Forest Reserve, Kasane Forest Reserve, Kazuma Forest Reserve, Maikaelelo Forest
Reserve and Sibuyu Forest Reserve (Table 1). Forest reserves occupy around 0.8% of the country [54];
however, this translates into 22% of the Chobe District land (Chobe District Settlement Strategy 2005).
The forest reserves (FRs) constitute an area of high biological diversity in terms of both flora and
fauna. They are important areas for wildlife migration within the region and form part of the Miombo
Woodlands, which extend to parts of other Southern African Development Community countries, such
as Angola, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. They are also part of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA)
Transfrontier conservation area in the Kavango and Zambezi river basins (stretching into Angola,
Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe).
The forest reserves were gazetted with the purpose of conserving and regulating the use of
the unique forests of northern Botswana. Initially, forest reserves were protected to safeguard and
control commercial logging of hardwoods Baikiaea plurijuga and Pterocarpus angolensis for the
export market [54]. Failure to supervise operations and resource wastage of timber resources led to the
cessation of commercial logging in 1992 [14].
Sustainability 2014, 6 5702
Figure 2. Map of the location of the Botswana Forest Reserves.
Table 1. Forest reserves in Botswana.
Name Since Size in km2
Kasane Forest Reserve 1968 109.9
Kasane ext. Forest Reserve 1981 641.1
Chobe Forest Reserve 1981 1485
Kazuma Forest Reserve 1981 156
Maikaelelo Forest Reserve 1981 543
Sibuyu Forest Reserve 1981 1161
Totals 4096
Source: Norwegian Forestry Society, 1993.
3.2. Data Collection
Data were collected through triangulation or mixed methods [55] using a combination of secondary
and primary data sources. Secondary data constituted existing literature, government reports and
official documents, book chapters and other relevant documentation. Primary data was derived by
means of thematic interviews targeted at senior officers in central government in Gaborone and district
offices, as well as focus group discussions with community groups.
A total of 18 people were interviewed. The interviewees represented 6 government departments,
4 quasi-government organisations, 3 chiefs, 3 tourism private sector organisations and 2 non-governmental
Sustainability 2014, 6 5703
organisations that deal with conservation and human rights. The interviews, whose duration ranged
between 30 and 40 min, were held between February and March, 2009. The interview guidelines
addressed the study questions as follows:
Theme 1: What attractions prevalent in the forest reserves could be used for ecotourism
development? The questions covered tourism activities taking place in the reserves, natural and
cultural resources in the forest reserves and what tourism activities and facilities should be developed
in the forest reserves. Also included were the perceptions on the forest reserves’ potential for
ecotourism development.
Theme 2: What are the likely costs and benefits to the communities of opening the forest reserves
for ecotourism development? Among the areas covered were potential conflict, possible costs and
benefits to local communities of opening up the reserves for ecotourism. Opinions were sought on how
conflicts and the cost of conflicts could be minimized? Other areas of interest included community
empowerment through ecotourism development and community attitudes towards forest reserves and
their use.
Theme 3: Are there differences in the roles that can be played by the private sector vis-à-vis the
roles of the local communities in ecotourism development in the Botswana Forest Reserves? The
interviews assessed perceptions on the types of ecotourism projects that could be developed by
communities and the private sector. Questions relating to location were posed, as well as questions
relating to the diversification and improvement of local livelihoods.
Focus group discussions were also held in May, 2009, with the Local Enterprise Authority (LEA),
which is an organization that is responsible for the development of small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) in Botswana. LEA pursues this mandate by offering financial and human resources
training and internships to SMEs, community leaders, women’s groups, village development
committees and trust members of the four villages in Chobe West (Mabele, Kachikau, Kavimba and Satau)
and the three villages in Chobe East (Kasane, Lesoma and Pandamatenga). We opted for village
development committees instead of households, because we believed that such committees would be
able to more appropriately articulate the concerns of their members than normal households.
Moreover, village development committees play a pivotal role in catering for local needs. The focus
groups pursued similar issues to those covered under the individual interviews.
The final results from both of the interviews and focus group discussions were presented to
representatives of the stakeholders at a national workshop held in May, 2009, aimed at validating the
findings. Emerging themes analysis was adopted as the primary analysis tool with which to draw out
data from the responses. The responses were analysed in relation to the themes presented and their
implications to the development of pro-poor tourism in Botswana’s forest reserves.
4. Results
The aim of the study was to investigate stakeholder perceptions on how the Botswana
Forest Reserves can be instrumental in alleviating poverty among local communities through the use of
pro-poor tourism strategies. The perceptions of the respondents of the study were presented according
to the research questions, which guided the study as reflected in Table 2. The results were then further
refined, as shown in Table 3, in terms of the perceived effects using the Mitchell and Ashley framework.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5704
Table 2. Pro-poor tourism themes.
Resources Potential ecotourism products
1. Wildlife Photographic safaris, game drives, walking safaris,
bird watching, night drives, walking trails, night drives
2. Infrastructure Old boreholes, watering holes, wells, camps, lodges, temporary structures
3. Cultural and Heritage
Tourism
Graves, artefacts and tools used by the ancestors, historical sites
(remnants of Basarwa settlements), dance groups, food, way of life
of surrounding villages
4. Agriculture Crop farming, availability of wild fruits and thatched grass
5. Costs Loss of traditional livelihoods, depletion of forest resources (e.g., medicinal
plants, wild fruits), desecration of graves, exploitation and leakages of wealth
6. Benefits Development of facilities, improved livelihoods, employment
opportunities, development of community-based tourism businesses,
development of small- and medium-sized enterprises, partnerships
with the private sector to run tourism businesses
7. Community Involvement Contribute as part of the workforce, formation of community-based tourism
companies (CBT), formation of partnerships with the private sector
8. Private Sector Involvement Provision of tour companies (safari companies), marketing of
destination (including community-based), training and empowerment
(Human capital), development of packages including CBTs
Table 3. Forest reserve activity classification. KALEPA, Kasane, Lesoma and Pandematenga Trust.
Direct Effects
Tourism Activity Tourism Sector Leakage Perception
1.
Game drives,
photographic safari
Wildlife Viewing Yes
Employment with multiplier
effect on the community;
transfer of business skills, but not
in all circumstances; community-run;
direct impacts on livelihoods; human
capital development
2.
Privately-run lodge
development and
tented camps
Accommodation/
Heritage Tourism
Yes
Supply labour and outsource
some functions of the lodge
(e.g., agricultural produce)
3.
Campsites to be run
by Ngoma, Mabele,
Kavimba and
Kachikau communities
Accommodation No Job creation and empowerment
4.
Community-run
accommodation
facilities (camps, lodges)
Accommodation No
Use of local materials,
capacity building and empowerment
5.
Mobile safaris/campsite
through public private
partnership with
Lesoma community
Accommodation/
Wildlife Viewing
Yes Job creation and empowerment
Sustainability 2014, 6 5705
Table 3. Cont.
Direct Effects
Tourism Activity Tourism Sector Leakage Perception
6.
Campsites, private
public partnership with
community-run
accommodation
with a heritage site to
provide interpretation,
community-run
campsite (KALEPA)
Accommodation/Herit
age Tourism
No
Job creation through
outsourcing to the community
employment opportunities in
heritage tourism activities; use of
resources from the community, with the
possibility of exploitation
7.
SMEs (crafts,
artefacts, souvenirs)
SMEs No
Quality issues; lack of business skills,
e.g., bookkeeping and marketing
Secondary Effects
Tourism Activity Tourism Sector Leakage Perception
1.
Sourcing of food
supply from
local community
Hotels/Restaurants No
Promote self-sufficiency and
an increase in food production;
sustainable livelihoods
2.
Village tours, selling
of artefacts, souvenirs,
local cuisine, dance
troupes/groups
Cultural and
Heritage Tourism
Yes
Promote cultural awareness
and job creation; fair trade;
lacking in administrative skills
and access to tourists
Dynamic Effects
Community Related
Activity
Sector Leakage Perception
1. Schools Educational Support No Empowerment of the community
2. Clinics Medical Support Yes Improved livelihoods and productivity
3.
Infrastructure
development
in tourism region
Roads and
Infrastructure
Yes Additional employment
4.1. Perceptions on Tourism Attractions and Ecotourism Development
The perceptions from the study were that the Botswana Forest Reserves are rich in wildlife
(including birds). Ecotourism activities that could be undertaken in the forest reserves included
photographic safaris, bird watching, game drives, walking safaris and walking trails. Cultural and
heritage tourism was another ecotourism attraction emphasised by the stakeholders. The forest reserves
are rich in cultural resources, notably graves, artefacts, old tools used by Basarwa (Bushmen) and the
remnants of old settlements. In addition, the respondents highlighted that the local communities have a
unique culture in terms of food, dance and arts, which could be incorporated into the cultural
experience of tourists to the forest reserves. This would ensure that tourists stayed longer and, as a
result, spend more money at the destination.
Another perceived attraction in the forest reserves was the natural tranquil environment populated
by natural grasses, including thatching grass, natural trees, wild fruits, abundant sand, unused
boreholes and wells. This would not only be an attraction in its own right for tourists looking for
Sustainability 2014, 6 5706
tranquillity in a natural setting, but would also be an ideal location for the construction of
environmentally-friendly accommodations, such as campsites, lodges and mobile safaris. Watering
holes and boreholes would also attract wildlife.
4.2. Perceptions of Impacts of Development of Ecotourism: Costs and Benefits
The Botswana Forest Reserves are located within an area that has shortages of arable land. As was
discussed earlier under the Study Area, the local community has only around 31% available for
communal use. This has resulted in a dire need for more land, since most land (69%) is reserved for
conservation [56]. There was a strong feeling, especially among the local communities, that parts of
the forest reserves should be designated for communal resettlement to avail more land for construction,
agriculture and cattle grazing.
The study revealed that community members had limited access to the forest resources, with a
permit, which could only be purchased in the capital city of Gaborone, required for entry. Further
concerns arose from the permits being available to people from other parts of Botswana, as this had
resulted in people from outside the area camping in the forest reserves for extended periods. They
blamed the outsiders for alcohol abuse and crowding during the grass harvesting periods. More
importantly, they alluded to the fact that outsiders benefited from their resources. A further issue
mentioned by the respondents of the study was the leakage of money being generated by
tour operators.
For the development of tourism to take place, facilities, such as roads, electricity, water and
shopping facilities, must be in place. The respondents noted that ecotourism development would bring
about positive infrastructure developments, such as schools, clinics, roads, electricity and water, to
their area.
4.3. Perceptions on Roles of the Private Sector vis-à-vis Local Communities
The perceptions of the respondents of the study were that both the private sector and the local
communities should play a role in ecotourism in the Botswana Forest Reserves. In the Sibuyu Forest
Reserve heritage sites, the suggestions were that there should be private-public partnerships with the
involvement of the community in the interpretation and preservation activities. The Chobe Forest
Reserve had three potential sites (Ghoba Pan, Nonotshaa Pool and Kashiba Pool) that could be
developed into tented campsites, wildlife viewing and photographic sites, with KALEPA and CECT
managing accommodation and ecotourism activities on these sites.
Respondents also perceived cultural tourism to be the preserve of the community in terms of
ownership and management, whilst the private sector’s role would be in the packaging and marketing
of the product. Further perceptions by community members were that the opening up of ecotourism
companies would offer employment to local communities within the accommodation and tour guide
sectors. Communities acknowledged the importance of the private sector in running successful tourism
establishments in Botswana. At different forums, the participants saw the private sector having a role
to play in empowering communities to be successful participants in ecotourism businesses.
The respondents suggested a partnership between the community and the private sector, where the
private sector would go into a joint venture with the community, so as to train and develop the
Sustainability 2014, 6 5707
community in business management skills. Other benefits mentioned were the linkages between local
farmers and the tourism industry, where local communities would provide food to the ecotourism
operators from their farm produce.
5. Discussions
Based on the perceptions of study respondents, the opening up of the Botswana Forest Reserves for
ecotourism would create opportunities for the poor (see Table 3). Using Mitchell and Ashley’s
framework [9], the benefits were classified according to three categories; direct effects, secondary
effects and dynamic effects.
5.1. Direct Effects
One of the main drivers of pro-poor tourism is the private sector [7]. This was confirmed by the
perceptions of the respondents of the study, who supported the existence of a private sector to run tour
operation businesses, as well as accommodation facilities in the form of lodges and campsites.
This would allow for low-skilled workers to be employed by lodges and campsites as drivers, cleaners
and general hands, with the local economy benefitting through the multiplier effect generated by the
circulation of their earnings through the community [40]. Whilst the private sector is a huge driver of
pro-poor tourism, studies undertaken in the Okavango Delta in Botswana have shown that the private
sector imports labour from outside Botswana, and their lodges import a large percentage of building
materials from outside Botswana, resulting in leakages from the local economy [57].
There was also a recognition that public-private partnerships could contribute towards the
generation of physical and human capital. However, legislation would need to be revised to ensure that
capacity building and the development of human capital actually occur, as previous such partnerships
have not yielded much success in building human capital. Instead, communities have acted as silent
partners who only receive rent from land leased to the private sector [58].
The stakeholders expressed the view that some areas of the forest reserves can have direct benefits
to communities. They pointed to the fact that the Chobe Enclave Community Trust (CECT) and the
Kasane, Lesoma and Pandamatenga (KALEPA) Trust have already shown an interest in building
lodges and camps in some of the forest reserves. Chobe Forest Reserve has three potential sites (Ghoba
Pan, Nonotshaa Pool and Kashiba Pool) for ecotourism development focusing on game drives and
photographic safaris. In addition, communities have the capacity to develop campsites in the Kasane
Forest Reserve, which could be run by the Ngoma, Mabele, Kavimba and Kachikau communities.
These developments would increase human capital, with communities taking control of business
operations and, in the process, increasing their skill sets.
Studies undertaken in other parts of Botswana have shown that some community-based natural
resource management (CBNRM) and SME projects have not resulted in the improvement of the
livelihoods of communities. The reasons for failure have been attributed to the insufficient capacity to
run such projects, since communities do not have the capital, management and business skills to run a
successful safari operation [57–59].
Sustainability 2014, 6 5708
5.2. Secondary Effects
The results show two mechanisms of private sector companies sourcing food from local farmers
and the use of cultural tourism to alleviate poverty among the local communities. The Chobe District
has a total area of 25,000 ha, comprising 245 traditional farms and 21 large-scale commercial farms,
which all have the potential to produce a steady supply of food to the tourism establishments in the
FRs. The end product would be the sustainable livelihood of communities adjacent to FRs [60].
The informants suggested the development of partnerships and linkages between local communities
and commercial tour companies to develop cultural tourism in the villages adjacent to the forest
reserves. Some of the suggestions included guided tours of the villages, where tourists would sample
local cuisine and partner with local dance groups as part of the tour package. Communities could also
be availed opportunities to sell cultural artefacts/souvenirs to tourists. For cultural tourism to succeed,
the private sector would need to be more deeply engaged, providing access to their marketing
resources, as well as their established international networks. Van Der Duim and Caalders [43]
emphasise that, for these linkages to qualify as pro-poor, the private sector must be able to impart basic
business skills to the community [61].
5.3. Dynamic Effects
Communities were positive that the development of ecotourism in the Botswana Forest Reserves
would result in the improved livelihoods of the communities. Some of the externalities would be the
construction of roads to facilitate access to the tourism facilities and hospitals that would support the
region. Population growth would then result in increased pressure for the government to build schools,
health centres and other supporting facilities.
6. Implications for NGOs and Government
Communities do not have the resources to run successful business operations and would therefore
require the support of NGOs, who have in the past also played a pivotal role of providing funding and
technical support to pro-poor initiatives. In Namibia, for example, NGOs have provided support for
community organisations, like the Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA),
which is a capacity building organisation for community-based tourism organisations [62]. Other
examples in South Africa are where the key promoters of the Mehloding Hiking and Adventure Trail
project were local NGOs. The role of the NGOs was to identify the project as a possible means of
alleviating poverty. They were also responsible for sourcing funding for the project and advertising
and marketing the project [37]. The sustainability of the project will, however, depend on the extent to
which communities are capacitated to drive the process by deciding what activities they are mostly
comfortable with and the market they can confidently serve [61,62].
The government would be required to complement the activities of NGOs and the private sector by
developing the legislative framework to guarantee the participation of the poor. It would also be vital
that the implementation of pro-poor strategies is monitored to ensure fair play, so that communities
were not unnecessarily disadvantaged.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5709
7. Conclusions
The aim of the study was to investigate the potential for pro-poor tourism development in
Botswana’s forest reserves as a means for poverty alleviation. The study has shown that Botswana’s
forest reserves hold great potential for the development of pro-poor tourism and other pro-poor
activities. The study agrees with the suggestions of Mitchell and Ashley [9] that the Botswana Forest
Reserves can contribute to the alleviation of poverty through ecotourism via three pathways of direct,
secondary and dynamic effects. Direct effects that have been discussed in the study include
employment creation and the provision of accommodations to tourists. Accommodation would fall
under private sector owned and operated, community owned or a partnership between the private
sector and communities. The third direct effect would be through the operation of community-owned
SMEs specialising in selling crafts and curios/souvenirs. Secondary benefits would arise from the
multiplier effect of tourism, whereby villagers would supply agricultural produce to tourism businesses
operating in the forest reserves and partnerships in cultural tourism. Lastly, the dynamic effects would
be an improved standard of living and sustainable livelihoods.
In conclusion, experiences from elsewhere show that local benefits from protected areas need
to exceed the local costs of maintaining the forest in order to reduce the threat of forestry
encroachment [11,63,64].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jaap Arntzen and Peter Ruthenberg for the discussions on forest
encroachment and the contributions and comments in the initial formulation of this paper, as well as
the reviewers and editor for their constructive comments. The study was original funded by the
Botswana Tourism Organisation to develop guidelines on the use of forest reserves.
Author Contributions
Both authors designed the project. Haretsebe Manwa performed the research and analysed the data;
Both researchers wrote the paper on a round robin. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Government of Botswana. Pverty Eradication Guidelines, 2012. Available online:
http://www.gov.bw/Global/OP%20Ministry/Poverty%20Eradication%20Guidelines.pdf (accessed
on 1 August 2014).
2. Central Statistics Office. Preliminary results of the 2011 Population and Housing Survey; Central
Statistics Office: Gaborone, Botswana, 2012.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5710
3. Sakata, H.; Prideaux, B. An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism:
A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012,
doi:10.1080/09669582.2012.756493.
4. Graci, S. Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2013,
15, 25–42.
5. Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Brennan, M.A.; Luloff, A.E. Community agency and
sustainable tourism development: The case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18,
735–756.
6. Ashley, C.; Roe, D. Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in South Africa.
Dev. S. Afr. 2002, 19, 61–82.
7. Scheyvens, R. Pro-poor tourism: Is there value beyond the rhetoric? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2009, 34,
191–196.
8. Schilcher, D. Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal
governance. Curr. Issues Tour. 2007, 10, 166–193.
9. Mitchell, J.; Ashley, C. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways and Prosperity; Earthscan:
London, UK, 2010.
10. Mbaiwa, J.E.; Sakuze, L.K. Cultural tourism and livelihood diversification: The case of Gcwihaba
caves and Xaixai village in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2009, 7, 61–75.
11. Mbaiwa, J.E.; Stronza, A.L. The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the
Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 635–656.
12. Mbaiwa, J.E. Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by tourism
development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1050–1060.
13. Keitumetse, S.O. The Eco-tourism of Cultural Heritage Management (ECT-CHM): Linking
heritage and “environment” in the Okavango Delta regions of Botswana. Intern. J. Herit. Stud.
2009, 15, 223–244.
14. Lepetu, J.; Alavalapati, J.; Nair, P.K. Forest dependency and its implication for
protected areas management: A case study from Kasane Forest Reserve, Botswana.
Intern. J. Env. Res. 2009, 3, 525–553.
15. Erskine, L.M.; Meyer, D. Influenced and influential: The role of tour operators and development
organisations in tourism and poverty reduction in Ecuador. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 339–357.
16. Spenceley, A.; Meyer, D. Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less
economically developed countries. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 297–317.
17. Saayman, M.; Rossouw, R.; Krugell, W. The impact of tourism on poverty in South Africa.
Dev. S. Afr. 2012, 29, 462–487.
18. Holden, A.; Sonne, J.; Novelli, M. Tourism and poverty reduction: An interpretation by the poor
of Elmina, Ghana. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2011, 8, 317–334.
19. Sharpley, R.; Naidoo, P. Tourism and Poverty Reduction: The case of Mauritius.
Tour. Hosp. Plan. Dev. 2010, 7, 145–162.
20. Pillay, M.; Rogerson, C.M. Agriculture-tourism linkages and pro-poor impacts: The accommodation
sector of urban coastal KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 36, 49–58.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5711
21. Saville, N.M. Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism: Case study of pro-poor tourism
and SVN in Humla West Nepal, Pro-Poor Tourism 2001, Working paper 3. Available online:
http://www.propoortourism.inf/documents/Saville2003WkP3.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2014).
22. Tribe, J. The Economics of Recreation, Leisure and Tourism; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2005.
23. Saarinen, J. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 1121–1140.
24. Hunter, C. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Ann. Tour. Res. 1997, 24, 850–867.
25. Fox, W. Ecophilosophy and science. Environmentalist 1994, 14, 207–213.
26. Winters, P.; Corral, L.; Mora, A.M. Assessing the role of tourism in poverty alleviation:
A research agenda. Dev. Pol. Rev. 2013, 31, 177–202.
27. Gronau, W.; Kaufmann, R. Tourism as a stimulus for sustainable development in rural areas:
A Cypriot perspective. Tourismos 2009, 4, 83–95.
28. Scheyvens, R. Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Curr. Issues Tour. 2007, 10, 231–254.
29. Farrell, B.; Twining-Ward, L. Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context of new
knowledge. J. Sustain. Tour. 2005, 13, 109–122.
30. Zapata, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Lindo, P.; Vanderschaeghe, M. Can community-based
tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua.
Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 725–749.
31. Sharpley, R. Tourism and development challenges in the least developed countries:
The case of The Gambia. Curr. Issues Tour. 2009, 12, 337–358.
32. United Nations World Tourism Organisation. Available online: http://step.unwto.org/en/content/
background-and-objectives (accessed on 20 May 2014).
33. Department for International Development (DFID). Tourism and Poverty Elimination: Untapped
Potential; DFID: London, UK, 1990.
34. Beeton, S. Community Development through Tourism; Landlink Press: Collingwood, Australia, 2006.
35. Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.; Manwa, H. Tourism, Development and Millennium Development
Goals; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
36. Meyer, D. Pro-poor tourism: From leakages to linkages. A conceptual framework for creating
linkages between the accommodation sector and “poor” neighbouring communities. Curr. Issues
Tour. 2007, 10, 558–583.
37. Hill, T.; Nel, E.; Trotter, D. Small-scale, nature-based tourism as a pro-poor development
intervention: Two examples in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Sing. J. Trop. Geogr. 2006, 27,
163–175.
38. Scheyvens, R.; Russell, M. Tourism, land tenure and poverty alleviation in Fiji.
Tour. Geogr. 2012, 14, 1–25.
39. Scheyvens, R. Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities; Prentice Hall: Harlow,
UK, 2002.
40. Ashley, C.; Hayson, G. From philanthropy to a different way of doing business: Strategies and
challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business. Dev. S. Afr. 2006, 23, 265–280.
41. Kibicho, W. Community-based tourism: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. J. Sustain. Tour.
2008, 16, 211–231.
42. Dwyer, L.; Thomas, F. Tourism yield measures for Cambodia. Curr. Issues Tour. 2012, 15, 303–328.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5712
43. Van der Duim, V.R.; Caalders, J. Tourism chains and pro-poor tourism development:
An actor-network analysis of a pilot project in Costa Rica. Curr. Issues Tour. 2008, 11, 109–125.
44. World Travel and Tourism Council. Botswana; the Impact of Travel and Tourism on Jobs and the
Economy; World Travel and Tourism Council: London, UK, 2007.
45. Spenceley, A.; Goodwin, H. Nature-based tourism and poverty alleviation: Impacts of private
sector and parastatal enterprises in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa. Curr. Issues
Tour. 2007, 10, 255–277.
46. Torres, R.; Momsen, J.M. Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve
pro-poor tourism objectives. Progr. Dev. Stud. 2004, 4, 294–318.
47. Kirsten, M.; Rogerson, C.M. Tourism, business linkages and small enterprise development in
South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 2002, 19, 29–59.
48. Trejos, B.; Chiang, L.N. Local economic linkages to community-based tourism in rural Costa
Rica. Sing. J. Trop. Geogr. 2009, 30, 373–387.
49. Lapeyre, R. The Grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: Towards poverty alleviation and
empowerment for long-term sustainability? Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 221–234.
50. Burns, P.M. Tourism planning: A third way? Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 24–43.
51. Harrison, D. Pro-poor Tourism: A critique. Third World. Quart. 2008, 29, 851–868.
52. Central Statistics Office. Wildlife Statistics 2008; Government Printer: Gaborone, Botswna, 2008.
53. Magole, L.I.; Gojamang, O. The dynamics of tourist visitation to national parks and game
reserves in Botswana. Botswana Note Record 2005, 37, 80–96.
54. Norwegian Forestry Society. Chobe Forests’ Inventory and Management Plan; Ministry of
Agriculture: Gaborone, Botswana, 1993.
55. Oppermann, M. Triangulation—A methodological discussion. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2000, 2, 141–145.
56. Lenao, M. Challenges facing community-based cultural tourism development at Lekhubu Island,
Botswana: A comparative analysis. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 16, 1–16.
57. Blaike, P. Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi
and Botswana. World Dev. 2006, 34, 1942–1957.
58. Sebele, L.S. Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino
Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 136–146.
59. Jones, T.B. Chobe Enclave, Botswana lessons from CBNRM Project 1993–2002. In CBNRM
Support Programme, Occasional Paper, No.7. IUCN/SVN Support Programme; The World
Conservation Union: Gaborone, Botswana, 2002.
60. Ashley, C.; Roe, D.; Goodwin, D. Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor.
Pro-poor Tourism Report 2001, No 1. Available online: http://www.propoortourism.inf/
documents/AshleyetalPPTstrats.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2014).
61. Scoones, I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Institute of Development
Studies Working Paper 72, 1998. Available online: http://graduateinsti tute.ch/webav/site/
developpment/chered/development/mdev/soutienaux.cours (accessed on 30 June 2014).
62. Novelli, M.; Gebhardt, K. Community based tourism in Namibia: “Reality show” or “window
dressing”? Curr. Issues Tour. 2007, 10, 443–479.
Sustainability 2014, 6 5713
63. Mogaka, H.; Simons, G.; Turpie, J.; Emerton, L.; Karanja, F. Economic Aspects of Community
Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa; International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Eastern Africa, Regional Office:
Nairobi, Kenya, 2001.
64. Dudley, N.S.; Mansourian, S.; Stolton, S.; Suksuwan, S. Safety Net: Protected Areas and Poverty
Reduction; World Wide Fund for Nature and Equilibrium: Gland, Swizerland, 2008.
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).