Bridging community livelihoods and cultural conservation through tourism: Case study of Kabaka heritage trail in Uganda

Abstract

This paper analyses the promotion of culture-based tourism as a tool for cultural conservation and community livelihoods improvement in Buganda region, Uganda. A pragmatic approach was adopted to explore the existing cultural heritage resources in Buganda and their conservation for tourism as a means for community development. Data were collected using documentary reviews, focus group discussions with key actors in the tourism subsector, and a questionnaire interview. Results indicate that culture-based tourism is positively correlated to cultural conservation and community livelihood. The paper highlights the importance of culture-based tourism and culture conservation on community livelihood in the context of Uganda. The significant results obtained in this case study also show that cultural conservation was a strong predictor of community livelihoods. It is concluded that if culture-based tourism is enhanced and promoted, it has the potential to influence people’s livelihoods through the income generated from tourism activities and employment. This in turn contributes to the preservation of cultural heritage sites and hence sustainability. There is however need to investigate the novel and innovative ways of marketing and promoting cultural tourism in Uganda to enable improvement in people’s livelihood. It is also necessary to devise ways on how to increase community involvement in planning, implementation, and securing benefits of culture-based tourism.

Keywords

Culture-based tourism cultural conservation community livelihood Uganda

Introduction

Community livelihood is the ability of people to earn a living and it is more than just income. Pena (2008) argues that community livelihood is about everything that makes an impact on people’s lives like education, health, and access to food among others. Access to capital assets in form of natural, physical, financial, human, and social can enhance the construction of people’s livelihoods (Pena, 2008; Wiek et al., 2010). The studies by Holland et al. (2003) and Meyer (2004) show that communities living around cultural sites in Uganda have for long been characterized by poor livelihoods in many aspects, despite their proximity to such sites. Yet, tourism based on cultural as well as natural resources is a tested means to enhance livelihoods of such communities and can also help to conserve these resources on which it is normally based (Ahebwa and Van der Duim, 2013). This type of tourism is advanced as appropriate and a sure way to enable communities penetrate and benefit from the tourism value chain (Adiyia et al., 2015).

Culture-based tourism is one of the oldest and yet relatively new form of niche tourism (Novelli, 2005) in Africa concerned with the consumption of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible (Kala, 2008; Wanda, 2005; McKercher and du Cros, 2003; United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 2005) describe culture-based tourism as the subset of tourism concerned with the lifestyle of the people in various geographical areas, the history of those people, their art, architecture, religion(s), and other elements that help shape their way of life. Like most countries in the world, culture-based tourism in Uganda can form a crucial part of community development by providing market for locally made goods and services, catalyzing physical infrastructure development as well as enabling access to direct and indirect jobs. Revenues from tourism can be ploughed back into community projects such as education, health, sanitation, construction, conservation, and business start-up among others that promote community livelihoods (UNWTO, 2004). Culture-based tourism contribution in terms of global tourism revenue is estimated at 40% which is significant for its benefits to trickle down for community livelihoods (Bandarin and Hosagrahar, 2011).

Uganda is endowed with a diversity of cultures based on more than 56 ethnic groups in the country. The country has more than 10 Kingdoms and Chiefdoms with rich historical, cultural heritage sites, and practices upon which cultural tourism can be developed. Prominent of these Kingdoms are: Buganda, Toro, Busoga, Bunyoro, Bukonzo, and Bamasaba. However, communities living around most of the culturally rich sites in these kingdoms are facing several problems including limited livelihood options, poverty, unemployment, poor infrastructure, lack of access to good health and education facilities, and low demand for goods and services. It is against this background that the Kabaka Heritage Project was initiated in Buganda Kingdom in 2001 to encourage tourism along the Heritage Trail of the kingdom’s Kings (Kabakas). This trail takes a visitor from where the Kabaka is enthroned, the prison for wrong elements in the Kingdom, the King’s resting and recreational areas, the homes for what used to be the different wives of the Kabaka, the Kingdom’s parliament, the Kabaka’s Palace, and finally to the Kabakas’ burial grounds. These sites are well spread within the Kingdom and are at different levels of tourism development. Proponents of this project believed that it would offer social and economic benefits to local communities through tourism development and contribute to conservation of cultural and historical heritage in the Kingdom. Taking the Kabaka Heritage Trail as a case study, this paper investigates the extent to which culture-based tourism and cultural conservation influences community livelihoods.

Literature overview

Community livelihoods

Nicol (2000), Krantz (2001), Ashley et al. (2000), Coate et al. (2006), and Gnyawali (2007), express that community livelihoods are determined by levels of capital assets that people have. All these authors seem to agree that acquisition and possession of capital assets (natural, physical, financial, human, and social) by members of a community contribute to poverty reduction among the communities in tourism destinations, thereby impacting on livelihoods.

The basic material including social, tangible, and intangible assets that people use for constructing their livelihoods are conceptualized as different types of “capital.” This stresses their role as a resource base “from which different productive streams are derived and livelihoods are constructed” (Krantz, 2001: 8). These capital assets may include: natural, social, human, physical, and financial or economic capitals (Ashley et al., 2000; Wiek et al., 2010). Pena (2008) and Wiek et al. (2010) point out the human asset/capital as being a requirement to make use of any of the four other types of assets; it entails people’s capacity to work, good health, skills, and knowledge of the people. The social capital stimulates development of formal and informal relationships (social resources) hence enabling people to have easy access to information, influence or power, and claims or obligation of support from others. People’s livelihoods are affected by the opportunities created by the natural capital around them; the air quality, management of waste, access to land, water, and forest among others where they derive their livelihoods.

People need physical capital to support their livelihoods, and these may be in the form of infrastructure and producing goods needed to support livelihoods such as affordable transport, secure shelter, adequate water supply and sanitation, clean affordable energy, communication, and other personal consumption items. Financial capital in the community may be manifested by the availability of financial resources (cash or equivalent) that enables people to adopt different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives (Ashley et al., 2000).

Culture-based tourism and community livelihoods

Culture-based tourism is the subset of tourism concerned with the lifestyle of the people in various geographical areas, the history of those people, their art, architecture, religion(s), and other elements that help shape their way of life. Culture-based tourism may also include tourism in urban areas, particularly in historic or large cities and their cultural facilities such as museums and theaters. It can also include tourism in rural areas showcasing the traditions of indigenous cultural communities like festivals, rituals, and their values and lifestyle (Bandarin and Hosagrahar, 2011; UNWTO, 2004).

Yun et al. (2008) aver that culture-based tourism consists of the consumption of culture, both tangible and intangible cultural features of a destination by tourists during their travel experience. Such cultural experience may involve consumption of cultural entertainment, food, drink, hospitality, architecture, and manufactured and hand-crafted products of a destination and also wilderness areas, valued landscapes, history buildings, and artifacts as part of the experience.

UNWTO (2004) considers elements of culture, both tangible and intangible to be attached to particular communities. This implies that the benefits brought in by culture-based tourism can easily trickle down to the respective communities hence improving their livelihoods. Brida et al. (2011) position culture-based tourism as an opportunity for the local communities to meet people and also as an avenue for development of social services and facilities like roads, health care, and hospitality among others. Bandarin et al. (2011: 17) hold that, manifestation of proper community livelihood come in many forms that can also include “greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure lives, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and a sense of participation in community tourism activities.”

The movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs is a clear representation of culture-based tourism (UNWTO, 2004). Spenceley (2010) affirms that, cultural tourists buy local foods and beverages, pay for the traditional arts and performances, buy art and craft products among others that generate revenues and employment to the local communities. In addition, the effort to develop culture-based tourism, infrastructure, and associated services can bring about development of roads, accommodation, health care facilities, water, electricity, and security. However, some scholars warn that the benefits accruing from culture-based tourism should not attract erosion of cultural values of the community involved, hence need for cultural conservation.

Culture-based tourism and cultural conservation

Roders and Oers (2011) suggest that culture-based tourism ensures the continuity of traditions and lifestyles and contributes to protection of cultural heritage. In support of this, Ryan and Silvanto (2011) argue that most countries that claim to be proposing cultural sites for inclusion in the world heritage sites list for protection and conservation purpose actually have culture-based tourism as a principal motive.

Many culture-based tourism destinations worldwide make innovations to conserve cultural heritage by linking the traditional cultural products, services, and heritage with the creative industries such as media and entertainment, design, architecture, and fashion, and such an approach offers great advantages in attracting visitors (UNWTO, 2005). This arrangement puts conservation at the forefront of culture-based tourism since it involves cultural product development. However, it should, where possible, focus on the existing and distinguishing cultural values of a destination as culture needs to be rooted in the community in order to be authentic. ATLAS (2002) affirms that the practical success of culture-based tourism depends on the extent of involvement of the host communities in conservation of their own culture and that this should also be graced by visiting tourists respecting the host communities. ATLAS further emphasizes that culture-based tourism if uncoordinated can present an immense power to destroy territorial and local cultural identities.

Culture-based tourism is also applauded for encouraging the development of cultural museums and centers that enhance the preservation of authentic cultural products in forms of artifacts, exhibits of cultural value, and other collections of great ethnographic and archaeological value. According to ATLAS (2002), the authentic cultural products that can be preserved at the cultural centers and museum were found to include art and craft products like baskets, earthenware, and wood products; the iron industry products like pangas, hoes, axes, ankle rings, jingles, spears, bows, and arrows; traditional foods and drinks; and the traditional ceremonial regalia. The cultural centers setup for tourist purposes can also be used to display traditional songs, music, and dance featured in initiation, wedding, funerals, and other social functions. Nthiga et al. (2011) opine that, economic income generated to the communities through tourism can act as an incentive and motivation for them to participate in the conservation processes of the tourism resource bases.

Hamzah and Ismail (2008) advance culture-based tourism as an encouragement to practicing culture and traditions since it involves travelers who are motivated by an interest in experiencing other peoples, places, and cultures. Spenceley (2010) affirms that culture-based tourism provides an opportunity for exchange and learning between cultures. However studies by Brida et al. (2011) revealed that some members of the host communities are sometimes not convinced about visitors’ coming to their areas as an incentive for conservation of traditions or local customs, they instead view it as an interruption to their lifestyles. This view by some host communities has forced some destinations to consider integrating indigenous perspectives in the promotion of culture-based tourism as a way of conservation. In response to this, Fauna and Flora International (2011) suggests the need for a win–win approach when dealing with the local communities of this nature.

European Association of Historic Towns and Regions (2006) emphasizes the need for authenticity, distinctiveness, and the rights and beliefs of local cultures to be respected as culture-based tourism is pursued in order to ensure sustainability. In that perspective, UNESCO (2008) and Irandu (2004) highlight that, if tourism activities at the destination are not handled sustainably, they may attract commodification and basterdization of culture, inappropriate behavior of tourists, and conflicts with traditional land use. This confirms the position by Irandu (2004) that tourism can bring both negative and positive impacts on culture of the host communities. Ryan and Silvanto (2011) articulate an argument that seems to conclude that, though some host communities view culture-based tourism as an obstacle on their cultural conservation, preservationists no longer see the explosion of this kind of tourism as a danger, but rather as a means for financing the preservation and safeguarding of the world’s heritage and cultural assets.

Cultural conservation and community livelihoods

Conservation is an ethic of resource protection and use whose primary focus is upon maintenance of existing resources (Olver et al., 1995). Cultural conservation involves the act of preventing decay, waste, or loss of authenticity of cultural resources both tangible and intangible (Kamal et al., 2008). De Caro (1991) viewed cultural conservation as a concept that involves cultural preservation and encouragement. Preservation involves planning, documentation, and maintenance and on the other hand, encouragement involves publication, public events, and educational programs. UNWTO (2004) advances six dimensions of cultural conservation namely degree of maintenance, authenticity, retention, restoration, awareness, and security of cultural heritage. The degree of maintenance of cultural assets is a clear signal of cultural conservation. This can be utilized as a baseline for the authentication of a cultural heritage.

Araoz (2011) asserts that there is growing world awareness of the need to conserve cultural heritage of all cultures in all places. Nthiga et al. (2011) however affirm that the local people are best placed to conserve resources around them and they will only indeed practice and participate in conservation if they stand to gain. It is also eminent that the success of conserving cultural and heritage features of the society not only involves community members, but it may start right from engaging various stakeholders such as government authorities, UNESCO, nongovernmental organizations, and Advisory bodies. Jokilehto (2011) avers UNESCO as being at the top of world cultural heritage conservation. Other advisory bodies such as International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, International Council on Monuments and Sites, and International Union for Conservation of Nature play an advisory role and mobilization of funds for conservation causes. However, despite being key stakeholders, most local communities in developing countries lack skills, awareness, leadership, power, resources, and are always left out of decision-making processes for cultural conservation. This is partly the reason why most culture conservation projects collapse as soon as donor agencies handover the projects to communities for implementation.

Cultural conservation is increasingly recognized as key to addressing interconnected economic, social, and environmental problems, which have a significant contribution to community livelihoods in terms of social welfare and health. Sheridan et al. (2009), affix that, conservation initiatives can lead to the establishment of community projects, including the promotion of services in the areas of health, education, and recreation, thus contributing to community livelihoods and well-being. In addition, Roders and Oers (2011) applaud conservation arguing that it promotes the inclusion of culture in the development paradigm as key to social and economic development of the community. Indeed, culture and its creative industry and heritage play a pivotal role of an essential pillar of sustainability (the people–sociocultural pillar), others being the planet (environment) and profit (economic) (Roders and Oers, 2011).

Culture-based tourism, cultural conservation, and community livelihoods

The promotion of culture-based tourism is applauded by the UNWTO for promoting better livelihoods among communities. UNWTO (2004) considers elements of culture, both tangible and intangible to be so much attached to particular communities, implying that the benefits brought by the culture-based tourism can easily trickle down to the respective communities hence improving their livelihoods. However UNWTO (2005) seems to argue that the success in culture-based tourism is bestowed on the level of cultural conservation among the communities; therefore, culture-based tourism activities in the community encourages the continuation of cultural conservation since community members will be trying to attract more culture curious tourists.

Culture-based tourism can offer opportunities for continuation, rejuvenation, or enhancement of traditions and a way of life (UNEP, 2011). ATLAS (2002) affirms that the practical success of culture-based tourism encourages the involvement of the host communities in conservation of their own culture both tangible and intangible. Related, Spenceley (2010) in her study concluded that culture-based tourism encourages the rehabilitation of cultural sites (e.g., museums, gardens, and monuments), raises awareness of the importance of conserving cultural sites and values, the traditional cuisine and other cultural practices with the aim of attracting culture curious tourists, thereby opening opportunities for improving community livelihoods.

Justifying the role of culture-based tourism in community development, IFRE Volunteers Abroad (2013) describe the Masai of Kenya as being the most unique ethnic group in Africa, which has suffered from poverty, droughts, disease, and constant migration. However, their authentic culture and traditions attract tourists to Kenya, providing a small market for their goods and services. If these developments can bring education, community building, infrastructure, and specific skills, cultural groups like the Masai can proudly live on their land and live productive and healthy lives without the thought of migration for survival.

The above theoretical debates on relationship between community livelihoods, culture-based tourism, and culture conservation can be summed up and illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Summation of theoretical debates on relationship between community livelihoods, culture-based tourism and cultural conservation. Source: Developed from literature review.

Figure 3.

The mediating effect of cultural conservation on the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihood. Note: All p < .01 (two-tailed). Source: Primary Data.

Contributing to these theoretical discussions and taking Kabaka Heritage Trails Project as a case study, this paper expounds how in practice culture-based tourism plays out as tool for cultural conservation and community development in Uganda. The paper highlights the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods; examines the relationship between culture-based tourism and cultural conservation and the relationship between cultural conservation and community livelihoods; and finally examines the mediating effect of cultural conservation on the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods.

Methodology

The study adopted a cross-sectional, correlational survey design with a combination of both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The survey methodology helped in measuring the variables and examining the relationships (Fowler, 1993). The study population consisted of 3035 households living around the different cultural sites on the Kabaka Heritage Trail. The cultural sites constituting this trail include Nagalabi Buddo Coronation Site in Nagalabi Village (180 households), Katereke Prison ditch in Katereke Village (130 households); Wamala King’s Tombs in Wamala Village (600 households); Nnamasole Kanyange Tombs in Kagoma B Village (with 1200 households); Ssezibwa Falls in Madudu Village (25 households), Nnamasole Baagalayaze Tombs; and Cultural Center in Sekati zone in Mpererwe (with 900 households). Since the study was conducted between October 2011 and August 2012, Kasubi tomb which is one of the trail sites was ignored as it had gotten burnt on 16th March 2010. The study considered households that had three or more members each and had lived in the respective villages for at least one year. This was verified through the respective Local Council one records for the year 2012. Units of inquiry were household heads, the cultural sites caretakers, and the Uganda Community Tourism Association (UCOTA) officials. Household heads were selected as units of enquiry because they manage the income earned and expenses incurred by the household (UBOS, 2010).

Using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) Sample Size Estimation Table, a sample size of 341 households was selected from the population of 3035. The specific number of households considered as a sample size per cultural site was obtained by proportional allocation. The household was used as the unit of analysis because households are suitable units for determining community livelihoods (see also, Yun et al., 2008; UNWTO, 2004; Pena, 2008). Site caretakers and UCOTA officials were included in this study because they are responsible for spearheading cultural site activities and decision making. Purposive sampling was used to select cultural sites caretakers, while simple random sampling was used to obtain the sample of 341 households from the population of 3035 from the respective sites used in the study. The final sample was obtained by using lottery method where one household name was picked without replacement until the required sample size for the respective cultural site was obtained. This ensured that all households had equal chance of being picked. This further reduced bias during sample selection.

Primary data were collected from the respondents (cultural sites’ stakeholders) using a self-administered structured questionnaire and focus groups discussions. Respondents were guided through the questionnaires to ensure high level of accuracy in the data collection process. This process enabled achievement of a 99.7% response rate. The questions were related to culture-based tourism, cultural conservation, and community livelihoods around cultural sites in Buganda. Focus group discussions involved 6–10 people brought together from each village where the cultural site is located. The researchers introduced the topic and the variables under study. Through discussions that ensued, data were recorded based on interaction within the group rather than just an individual’s view. This helped in exploring attitudes and perceptions, feelings, and ideas about the variables in the study. Secondary data about the Cultural sites from UCOTA reports and other relevant literature were used to support the empirical findings of the study.

Culture-based tourism was measured using tangible and intangible cultural heritage experience (see also, Yun et al., 2008). Cultural conservation was measured using level of maintenance, authenticity, restoration, awareness, and security (see also, UNWTO, 2004). Community livelihoods were measured using livelihood assets based on model for livelihoods analysis (Pena, 2008).

The research instrument was tested for validity using the factor loading for individual items and they were all found to be greater than .6. The questionnaire was validated through expert interviews and a panel of practitioners. The reliability of the test instrument was undertaken to establish its internal consistency as advocated by Anastasi (1982) and Nunnally (1978). The computed Cronbach alpha coefficients were all above 0.7 as presented in Table 1. Content validity was ensured using expert opinion of three professionals in tourism who are reputed to have some expertise/competency in sustainable tourism-related studies as recommended by Professional Testing (2006).

Table 1.

Cronbach’s alpha values for the study variables.

Variable	Number of items	Cronbach’s alpha
Culture-based tourism	20	.886
Cultural conservation	30	.900
Community livelihood	38	.754

Source: Field survey (2012).

Presentation and discussion of results

Sample characteristics

From the sample size of 337 respondents used in this study, 55.5% were male. A total of 73.8% of the respondents were in the age range between 18 and 35 years. Of the 337 respondents, 32.0% had lived in their villages for between 1 and 5 years, while 21.1% had lived in their villages for between 5 and 10 years, 13.6% for between 10 and 15 years and 33.2% for over 15 years. Majority of the households (61.7%) earned income of between $36 and $179 followed those in the bracket of between $179 and $357 (18.4%) and those who earned a monthly income of less than $36 and above $357 were 13.1% and 6.8%, respectively.

The relationship between culture-based tourism and cultural conservation

As can be noted in Table 2, there is positive correlation between culture-based tourism and cultural conservation (r = .609, p < .01). This implies that culture-based tourism around communities is associated with high levels of cultural conservation. For instance, the frequency with which visitors go to the villages and enjoy traditional music, dance, and drama is associated with the local communities holding on to their traditions. The local communities are involved in the above practices and maintain their cultural identities.

Table 2.

Correlation analysis.

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)
Culture-based tourism (1)	1
Cultural conservation (2)	.609**	1
Community livelihood (3)	.349**	.408**	1

**Correlation significant at p < .01 (two-tailed).

As demonstrated in this case, the initiation of the project created community awareness of the values of their cultural heritage, which instilled a sense of pride as one participant observed:

We had a cultural dance and drama group that used to represent us in the cultural performance competition organized by UCOTA, and our Kanyange Cultural Site group always emerged the best, that’s why they gave us this trophy in 2001 during the heritage trails festival. This made us proud of our culture and we want to keep it. On a sad note, the site is these days lonely without presence of tourists and also tour guides who used to be here have left since there was no business, hence for one to be attended to, they need to call me loudly when I am busy with my house work and yet noise is against the protocols at this cultural site. This drum is not supposed to be touched by youth, you can become impotent and when we play it the sound goes “Kuzala Kuzibu X2, Yakwata Kitooke, Yakwata Mutuba, Yakwata Muvule” a kiganda expression.

The quotation above empirically reveals positive and significant relationship between culture-based tourism and cultural conservation. In focus group discussions held at all sites, there was general consensus on the contribution of culture-based tourism to cultural conservation. It was expressed that the tangible heritage elements are the major attractions at the sites followed by the intangible heritage attractions such as stories about Buganda culture that the tourists are inquisitive about. Traditional items are found at the sites like: spears, coffee beans, pots, drums, bark cloth, and other tools and the guides at the site who narrate stories about Buganda are natives of Buganda and from the royal lineage of Buganda Kingdom, which therefore gives better level of cultural authenticity which is one of the strong indicators of cultural conservation (see also UNWTO, 2004).

The focus group meetings further revealed that all sites had cultural dancers who were natives of Buganda Kingdom and could dress in traditional costumes and perform traditional Buganda songs for the tourists who visited the sites and all visitors are welcomed to the site in a traditional way where one removes shoes before entering a holy place, they are sat down, and given a welcome coffee beans. In emphasizing this, one site overseer argued;

All people who perform cultural dances to our visitors are native Baganda. They dress in traditional costumes which we put on when performing to our king and at traditional ceremonies. We want our visitors to experience are true culture in its form….. in Buganda, entering respected places like palace etc.. One would go bare footed… we still maintain this and our visitors are advised so as well…

In such a quotation, it is evident that the local people are so passionate about conserving their cultural norms and practices while selling it out to tourists to make a living through tourism.

Despite this seeming bright situation, like many community-based tourism initiatives in developing countries, the Kabaka heritage Trail is not free from challenges, some of which have threatened the existence of these sites. Apart from Ssezibwa Falls and Katereke Prison Ditch, it was noted that a high level of insecurity has marred the physical heritage assets at the cultural sites. This has seen heritage assets like Buganda House called “Bwanika” at Nagalabi burnt down on 8th August 2012 part of Bulange on October 2012 and Kasubi Tombs (a popular site that was already declared a world heritage site) burnt down on 16th march 2010. The causes of these fires have never been established, but informally attributed to poor fire risk management. The fire did not only burn the heritage structures but many cultural heritage features got destroyed like the cultural drums, literature, traditional tools, bark cloth, baskets, and a lot of history including the so-called forest at the back of the tomb where the Kabakas (Kings) disappear when they die for Kasubi.

It is also still a big challenge for communities to run and compete in business with private tourism service and product providers. The communities have limited business skills, this study revealed that though the local communities embraced the benefits brought by the Kabaka’s Trail Project, most of these seemed to have vanished by the end of year 2002 when some of the founders like Action for Conservation through Tourism (ACT) returned to the United Kingdom. These actors had provided business support to communities and they left without a clear succession program to keep the project running.

Some community members viewed culture-based tourism as a disruption to people’s cultural set up. In this Buganda case, benefits were not flowing to all members of the community. This triggered some form of hatred that led to burning of some establishments along the trail. Key of the reasons why UCOTA and the Kabaka’s Foundation were established was to manage these cultural sites through the community associations including those that were established in each of the six sites on the Kabaka’s trail in 1999 to provide a win–win outcome for all players. The UCOTA mission confirms this effort; “To spearhead sustainable community based tourism in collaboration with stakeholders, aiming at increasing community benefits, promoting quality standards, ownership and conservation of natural and cultural resources for better livelihoods” (UCOTA, 2012). However, it was noted that the governance problems associated with Kabaka Foundation and the financial constraints of UCOTA have jointly hampered and constrained the functioning of these institutions in ensuring sustainable culture-based tourism development in Buganda. In fact, though the local communities recognized the benefits brought by the Kabaka’s Trail Project, all these seemed to have been vanishing. The departure of founders like ACT to the United Kingdom did not leave the initial bright situation the same.

The relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods

Table 2 further reveals a positive correlation between culture-based tourism and community livelihood (r = .349, p < .01). This indicates that the level of culture-based tourism corresponds directly with the level of community livelihood. The relationship here for instance implies that the more culture-based tourism is practiced in the community, the more it is likely to open up avenues for improving their livelihoods, cultural tourists spend money on entrance fees, purchase of handmade products from communities, and entertainment activities provided at the sites. One UCOTA official for instance argued:

We used to directly get involved in the running of the cultural sites on the Kabaka’s Trail together with ACT and the Kabaka’s Foundation. We later formed community associations at the sites of about 215 members and 63 percent of them were women. A legal agreement was made stipulating that the associations were required to give 30 per cent of the net entrance fee collected at each site to the Buganda Kingdom administration for maintenance of other sites. The remaining 70 per cent and all other income from their activities (e.g. guiding, handicraft sales, cultural entertainment) accrues to the association and its members. This agreement provided new incentives for the local community to work together with each other and the traditional cultural institution.

Results from all focus group discussions indicated that, between the year 2000 and 2004, the six sites were very active and many community members were in position to sell handcrafts; they formed community associations in each of the sites; there were music, dance, and drama performances; they created friendship with foreigners who invited some community members abroad; sold food stuffs like “Matooke” to the tourists and some community members were trained in handcrafts making and tour guiding skills.

Although a positive relationship between culture-based tourism and livelihoods is clearly noted, low business affects these culture-based tourism enterprises. For example on the Kabake Heritage Trail, most of the associated benefits were declining due to low visitor arrivals. A low visitor arrival was attributed to limited marketing, limited information about products and services offered at these sites, and in adequate online visibility. The robust marketing program for the project ended when donors pulled out and handed the project to community associations. As Holland et al. (2003) and ATLAS (2002) argue, the collapse of culture-based tourism enterprises of this nature is largely associated with poor or no promotion of such cultural assets for tourism.

On a negative note, it emerged that cultural elements that are at the forefront of culture-based tourism tend to be more commercialized. The focus groups in all sites contended that some elements of their culture like dress code, language, and social practices generally had been negatively affected by the coming of tourists to the communities around the cultural sites. This finding nonetheless does not underscore the consideration of culture-based tourism in enhancing opportunities to conserve culture as well as access social, human, natural, physical, and financial capital for construction of community livelihoods.

The relationship between cultural conservation and community livelihoods

Cultural conservation was also found to be positively correlated with community livelihood (r = .408, p < .01), an indication that the level of cultural conservation, similar to culture-based tourism is also directly related to the level of community livelihood. When cultural assets were conserved, income was generated both directly and indirectly. Community members got jobs ranging from guides to providers of cultural products and services. Some members opened up restaurants, handcrafts shops, started cultural dance groups, provided tour guiding and interpretation services among others. A situation that brought about spin-off income from various community engagements on the trail.

In all focus group discussions, it emerged that the community members were involved in the provision of traditional music, dance and drama, art and crafts items, tour guiding services, and also some tourists bought traditional food stuffs from the households like fruits and “Matooke.” All these activities brought various households together; they made friends both within and among the visitors who came to the sites. One respondent at Katereke Prison Ditch Cultural Site revealed that:

When visitor come here, they buy local products, local people dance for them and they get paid. After performances, they relax under the trees in this site; they have developed very good social networks. Some tourists eat local foods and pay locals…

This shows the entrenching impact of culture-based tourism in creating spin-off efforts for communities engaged and enabling them to acquire extra incomes.

Test for mediating effect of cultural conservation on the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods

The theoretical framework of the study depicted cultural conservation as mediating variable of the association of culture-based tourism and community livelihoods. Therefore, a test for mediation was conducted to confirm this mediating effect.

Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step approach for testing mediation was adopted in which several regression analyses were conducted and significance of the coefficients was examined at each step as seen in Table 3. Step 1 involved conducting a simple regression with culture-based tourism (X) predicting community livelihoods (Y), and culture-based tourism was found to have a significant positive relationship with community livelihoods, β = .349, p < .01. Step 2 involved conducting a regression of cultural conservation (M) on culture-based tourism (X), where culture-based tourism again was found to have a significant positive relationship with cultural conservation, β = .609, p < .01. Step 3 involved conducting a regression of community livelihoods (Y) on cultural conservation (M), where cultural conservation was found to have a significant positive relationship with community livelihoods, β = 310, p < .01. Step 4 involved conducting a multiple regression with culture-based tourism (X) and cultural conservation (M) predicting community livelihoods (Y) and both X and M were found to have a significant positive relationship with community livelihoods (Y); however, it was noted that introducing cultural conservation (M) in step 4 led to a reduction in the standardized regression coefficients Beta from Beta = .349 to Beta = .161. This implies that cultural conservation (M) had a partial mediation effect on the association between culture-based tourism (X) and community livelihoods (Y). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), partial mediation happens when the path from X (causal variable) to Y (outcome variable) is reduced in absolute size, but is still different from zero when the mediating variable (M) is introduced.

Table 3.

Test for mediating effect of cultural conservation on the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihood.

Regression	Regression coefficients		SE	t	Significance
Regression	Unstandardized B	Standardized Beta	SE	t	Significance
b(YX)	.187	.349	.027	6.826	.000
b(MX)	.425	.609	.030	19.180	.000
b(YM)	.238	.310	.048	4.972	.000
b(YX.M)	.086	.161	.033	2.579	.010
Sobel test	4.679		0.022		.000

Note: Y, community livelihoods; X, culture-based tourism; M, cultural conservation.

Indirect effect = .101, direct effect = .086, total effect = .187.

Discussion

The findings in this case study therefore suggest that when culture-based tourism activities increase in a community, cultural conservation is likely to be enabled as community members try to tap tourism opportunities. The revealed positive and significant relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods and between cultural conservation and community livelihoods means that culture-based tourism and appreciation of cultural conservation significantly improves the level of community livelihoods around cultural sites which is supported by Roders and Oers (2011); Bandarin et al. (2011); and Sheridan et al. (2009). These authors in agreement mentioned culture-based tourism and cultural heritage conservation as a boost to local and national economy, creation of jobs; attract culture curious tourists and investment, provide leisure, recreation, and educational facilities and other industries can also benefit from its indirect spin-offs thereby making it part of social–cultural process suitable for improvement of livelihoods. Therefore, this case study results contend that when culture-based tourism is promoted, the conservation of cultural assets (both tangible and intangible) around the involved communities will be enhanced as cultural elements act as tourist attractions that pull tourists who are interested in learning and experiencing other peoples’ culture. In addition, when tourist visit cultural sites, they may need transport facilities and infrastructure like roads, they may need accommodation, food and beverages, art and crafts items, entertainment, and other social services and when these are provided in the community, they benefit community members to access livelihood assets (physical, financial, natural, social, and human).

Culture-based tourism unlike other forms of tourism hence has the potential to reshape the traditional “tourist bubble” (closed circular tour packages), which tends to be organized by powerful tour operators who play a mediating role in tourism development in the developing world (Adiyia et al., 2015). Such mediated itineraries guide a tourist from the airport to big hotels, to national parks, and big attractions, back to the airport in their four-wheel drive vehicles. Limited linkage opportunities are created for local people to benefit from tourism like cultural tourism does. As Adiyia et al. (2015) argue, culture-based tourism is community based, the communities are in full control of the business. If well promoted and integrated in the traditional itineraries of tour operators, the bubble is enlarged to enable community supply linkages.

However, despite the appealing nature of culture-based tourism, this case study reveals a number of daunting challenges constraining its spin-off effects in the local economy. These challenges seem to be inherent in other forms of community-based tourism initiatives in the developing world (see Ahebwa and Van der Dium, 2013). They include limited skills possessed by local people to run tourism business, governance issues, limited capital to enable starting of appealing businesses, conflicts within the community, limited exposure to tourism business and tourists’ expectations. Because of these, even where donors start these enterprises, majority collapse as soon as donor funds and technical assistance runs out. Accordingly, ATLAS (2002) argues that local communities at the destination need a well thought out institutional framework to enhance their skills, awareness, leadership, power, resources, and participation and further encourage continuous inclusion of all local community members in the decision-making processes. For the case study dealt with here, UCOTA was formed for that purpose. However, it has also suffered a number of problems including lack of sustainable funding sources and limited technical expertise to support community tourism initiatives. Alternatively, private–community partnership models with private sector are advanced as they are seen to circumvent these challenges (Ahebwa et al., 2012). In these arrangements, communities benefit from wider business networks and expertise as well as financial assets of the private sector.

Conclusion

This study investigated the relationship between culture-based tourism, community livelihoods, and cultural heritage conservation. The results indicate a positive relation and therefore, there is a need to encourage culture-based tourism for conservation and development. This was done by testing the mediating effect of cultural conservation on the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihood around cultural sites in Uganda. In this case, the results have shown the specific drivers of community livelihoods in their causal chain relationships. Accordingly, the findings indicate that cultural conservation mediates (partial mediation) the relationship between culture-based tourism and community livelihoods. Culture-based tourism and cultural conservation are true drivers of community livelihoods around cultural sites.

Most tourists who visit cultural sites such as those in Buganda prefer traditional costumes, foods and beverages; art and crafts, they enjoy locally prepared brew; they attended traditional ceremonies and festivals; music, dance, and drama and others are particularly interested in the history about the people at the destination. Such activities increase on the opportunities for the pursuit of livelihood assets, directly and indirectly. When a tourist visits a community, they may need various services ranging from food, accommodation, entertainment, souvenirs, and guiding services that can be provided by the communities in one way or the other and these arrangements can boost a stronger relationship with the visitors and fellow community members.

Despite inherent challenges such as limited skills, governance issues, limited capital, conflicts, and limited business exposure, it can be concluded that well-managed culture-based tourism activities graced with conservation efforts can build opportunities for diversifying livelihood options for communities. The trend of supporting community-based tourism in the developing world seems to be picking momentum. There is a need to support the emergence of community entrepreneurs through training and capacity development not just associations around cultural sites. This will serve the social development objectives of culture-based tourism projects and also to sustain their continuity and operation of business. As Ryan and Silvanto (2011) pronounce, proposing cultural sites for inclusion in the world heritage sites list promotes their protection and conservation through culture-based tourism as they get known internationally and locally to tourism product developers and sellers. Alternatively a trial of private community partnerships would help, though must be taken in formulation of rules of the game and the general institutional set up as it has been found to breed conflicts (see Ahebwa et al., 2012).

Further research can be conducted to assess the extent to which inclusion of cultural sites on world heritage list enables their conservation and community development role, but also on the sustainability of culture-based tourism development in developing countries. There is also a need to investigate the novel and innovative ways of marketing and promoting cultural tourism. Community perception, stakeholder relationships, and benefits (trickle down effects) from culture-based tourism development at local, national, regional, and international levels can also be studied.

Figure 2.

Cultural Gala Meritorious Award for Kanyange Cultural Site Group. Source: Field Visit Photos by The Researchers (2012).

Footnotes

References

Adiyia

Stoffelen

Jennes

(2015, April 8) Analysing governance in tourism value chains to reshape the tourist bubble in developing countries, the case of cultural tourism in Uganda. Journal of Ecotourism. . doi: 10.1080/14724049.2015.1027211.

Ahebwa

Van der Duim

Sandbrook

(2012) Private-community partnerships; investigating a new intervention to conservation and development in Uganda. Journal of Conservation and Society 10(4): 305–317.

Ahebwa

Van der Duim

(2013) Conservation, livelihoods and tourism: A case study of the Buhoma-Mukono community-based tourism project in Uganda. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 31(3): 96–114.

Anastasi

. Psychological Testing, 5th ed. 1982Michigan: Macmillan.

Araoz

(2011) Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1(1): 55–60.

Ashley C, Boyd C and Goodwin H (2000, March) Pro-Poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart of the Tourism Agenda. Available at: Over Seas Development Institute: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/2096.pdf (accessed 29 September 2011).

ATLAS (2002, September) Cultural Tourism in Africa: Strategies for the New Millennium. Available at: ATLAS website: http://www.atlas-euro.org/pages/pdf/Cultural%20tourism%20in%20Africa%20Deel%201.pdf (accessed 20 July 2011).

Bandarin

Hosagrahar

(2011) Why development needs culture. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1(1): 15–25.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

10.

Brida

Osti

Faccioli

(2011) Residents’ perception and attitudes towards tourism impacts: A case study of the small rural community of Folgaria (Trentino–Italy). Benchmarking: An International Journal 18(3): 359–385.

11.

Coate

Handmer

Choong

(2006) Taking care of people and communities: Rebuilding livelihoods through NGOs and the informal economy in Southern Thailand. Disaster Prevention and Management 15(1): 135–145.

12.

De Caro

(1991) Cultural conservation: Reconfiguring the cultural mission. Journal of Maerican Folklore 104(411): 85–91.

13.

European Association of Historic Towns and Regions (2006, September) Sustainable Cultural Tourism in Historic Towns and Cities. Available at: European Union website: http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/corporate/doc/EAHTR_guide.pdf (accessed 28 December 2012).

14.

Fauna and Flora International (2011) Integrating Culture and Conservation in Uganda. Available at: Fauna and Flora International website: http://www.fauna-flora.org/wp-content/uploads/FFI-Culture-Conservation-in-Uganda-2011.pdf (accessed 30 August 2011).

15.

Fowler

(1993) Survey Research Methods (Vol. 1: 2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

16.

Gnyawali TP (2007) Sustainable Livelihoods. Understanding the Changes in Livelihoods Assets with Locals: A Case study from Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Available at: DEFRA Web site: http://darwin.defra.gov.uk/documents/14013/1407/14-013%20AR2%20Ann3%20Sustainable%20Livelihoods%20Nepal.pdf (accessed 4 March 2011).

17.

Hamzah H and Ismail H (2008) A design of Nature-Culture Based Tourism Corridor; A Pilot Project at Kelantan Darul Naim. Available at: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Institutional Repository website: http://eprints.utm.my/5846/1/78004.pdf (accessed 2 November 2011).

18.

Holland J, Burian M and Dixey L (2003, January) Tourism in Poor Rural Areas: Diversifying the Product and Expanding the Benefits in Rural Uganda and the Czech Republic. Available at: Pro-Poor website: http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/12_rural_areas.pdf (accessed 16 May 2011).

19.

IFRE Volunteers Abroad (2013) Cultural Conservation in Kenya. Available at: IFRE Volunteers Abroad website: http://www.ifrevolunteers.org/kenya/cultural_conservation.php (accessed 14 January 2013).

20.

Irandu EM (2004) The role of tourism in the conservation of cultural heritage in Kenya. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9(2): 133–150.

21.

Jokilehto

(2011) World heritage: Observations on decisions related to cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1(1): 61–74.

22.

Kala N (2008) Host Perception of Heritage Tourism Impact With Special Reference to the City of Jaipur. Available at: South Asian Journal for Tourism and Heritage website: http://www.sajth.com/09%20host%20percention_I%20Proof.pdf (accessed 27 August 2011).

23.

Kamal KS, Wahab LA and Ahmed GA (2008) Pilot Survey on Conservation of Buildings in Malaysia. Available at: Universiti Sains Malaysia website: http://eprints.usm.my/25151/1/ARCHITECTURE_AND_URBAN_DESIGN_1.pdf (accessed 14 June 2014).

24.

Krantz L (2001, February) The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction. An Introduction. Available at: University of Mannisota website: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_202603.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011).

25.

Krejcie

Morgan

(1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30: 607–610.

26.

McKercher

du Cros

(2003) Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(7): 413–413.

27.

Meyer D (2004, April) Key Issues for the Development of Tourism Routes and Gateways and Their Potential for Pro-Poor Tourism. Available at: Overseas Development Institute website: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/3100.pdf (accessed 25 May 2011).

28.

Nicol

(2000) Adopting a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Water Projects: Implications for Policy and Practice. ODI. Nottingham. Russell Press Ltd.

29.

Novelli

(2005) Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

30.

Nthiga

Mwongela

Zellmer

(2011) Conservation through tourism: The conservation enterprise model of the African Wildlife Foundation. In: Van der Dium

Meyer

Saarinen

(eds) New Alliances for Tourism, Conservation and Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University, pp. 107–125.

31.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Olver CH, Shuter BJ and Minns CK (1995, January 16) Toward a Definition of Conservation Principles for Fisheries Management. Available at: West Virginia University website: http://stat.wvu.edu/∼gmerovic/WMAN445_Olver_etal.pdf (accessed 14 June 2014).

33.

Pena W (2008, May 7) Livelihoods Analysis: Specialization Module for Fisheries SocMon Workshop. Available at: The University of the West Indies website: http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/cermes/SocMonPub/Workshop_trainin_%20resources/PowerPoint_presentations/pdfs/Livelihoods_analysis_May-June_08.pdf (accessed 1 October 2011).

34.

Professional Testing (2006) Test Validity. Available at Professional Testing Web site: http://www.proftesting.com/test_topics/pdfs/test_quality_validity.pdf (accessed 24 January 2013).

35.

Roders

Oers

(2011) World Heritage cities management. Facilities 29(7/8): 276–285.

36.

Ryan

Silvanto

(2011) A brand for all the nations. The development of the World Heritage Brand in emerging markets. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 29(3): 305–318.

37.

Sheridan

Alonso

Scherrer

(2009) Wine tourism as a development initiative in rural Canary Island communities. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 3(3): 291–305.

38.

Spenceley

(2010) Tourism Product Development Interventions and Best Practices in Sub Saharan Africa: Part 1: Synthesis, Sonpark, Nelspruit: Spenceley Tourism And Development (STAND).

39.

UBOS (2010, November) Uganda National Household Survey 2009/2010. Available at: UBOS website: http://www.ubos.org/UNHS0910/unhs200910.pdf (accessed 25 January 2013).

40.

UCOTA (2012) Mission. Available at UCOTA Web site: http://www.ucota.or.ug/about-us/our-mission (accessed 29 December 2012).

41.

UNESCO (2008) The Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment in Asia and the Pacific: Sustainable Tourism and the Preservation of the World Heritage Site of the Ifugao Rice Terraces, Philippines. Available at: UNESCO website: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001826/182647e.pdf (accessed 10 January 2013).

42.

UNEP (2011) Tourism: Investing in energy and resource efficiency. Available at UNEP Web site: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_11_Tourism.pdf (accessed 10 August 2012).

43.

UNWTO (2004) Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations: A Guide Book. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.

44.

UNWTO (2005, February) City Tourism and Culture: The European Experience. Available at: European Travel Commission website: http://www.etc-corporate.org/resources/uploads/ETC_CityTourismandCulture_LR.pdf (accessed 2 August 2011).

45.

Wanda G (2005, May 20) Commodifying Local Culture for Rural Community Tourism Development: Theorizing the Commodification Process. Available at: Mount Saint Vincent University website: http://msvu.academia.edu/WandaGeorge/Papers/435737/Commodifying_Local_Culture_for_Rural_Community_Tourism_Development_Theorizing_the_Commodification_Process (accessed 27 August 2011).

46.

Wiek

Brundiers

Wickramasinghe

(2010) Challenges of sustainable recovery processes in tsunami affected communities. Disaster Prevention and Management 19(4): 423–437.

47.

WTO (2004) Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guide Book, Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.

48.

Yun D, Hennesey S, Macdonald R, et al. (2008) Typology of Cultural Tourists: An Island Study. Available at: SICRI Network website: http://sicri-network.org/ISIC3/s.%20ISIC3P%20Yun%20etc.pdf (accessed 1 February 2012).