University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
ASSESSING RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM NATIONAL 
PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY IN 
GHANA 
 
BY 
FATIMA ESHUN 
(10066710) 
  
 
This thesis is submitted to the University of Ghana, Legon in partial 
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of PhD Geography Degree 
 
 
JULY 2017 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
DECLARATION 
 
This thesis entitled “Assessing residents’ empowerment for sustainable ecotourism: A 
comparative study of Kakum National Park and Bobiri Forest and Butterfly Sanctuary in 
Ghana” is a research I undertook myself. Apart from relevant literature that was used and has 
been duly acknowledged, no part or whole of this thesis has been submitted anywhere for the 
award of any degree. 
 
Fatima Eshun (10066710) 
(Student) 
Sign: ………………….. 
Date:………………….. 
 
Professor Alex. B. Asiedu              Professor Emmanuel Morgan Attua 
Department of Geography &              Department of Geography & Resource 
Resource Development               Development 
University of Ghana, Legon              University of Ghana, Legon 
(Principal Supervisor)                                              (Supervisor)  
Sign: …………………..                Sign: …………………… 
Date:…………………..              Date: …………………… 
 
Professor Joseph  Kofi Teye 
Department of Geography & Resource Development 
University of Ghana, Legon 
(Supervisor) 
Sign: …………………. 
Date: …………………. 
ii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ABSTRACT 
 
Tourism is among the largest industries around the globe that are able to stimulate the economies 
of many countries. Such an industry need to be sustainable so that nations can continue to enjoy 
the benefits.  One type of tourism that can be sustainable, has the tendency to conserve 
biodiversity and provide sustainable livelihoods to community members is ecotourism. 
Ecotourism can perform these roles when residents are empowered. Yet, few studies have 
considered the empowerment of community members for ecotourism sustainability. This study 
utilized sequential explanatory mixed method approaches to assess the empowerment issues of 
destination residents for ecotourism sustainability. The study particularly investigated the extent 
of residents’ empowerment and the factors affecting residents’ empowerment. The study also 
looked at the types of empowerment that residents prefer, types of residents’ empowerment that 
would enhance tourists/visitor’s satisfaction as well as the roles of private and public institutions 
in empowering residents. The analytical techniques employed include exploratory factor 
analysis, logistics regression, and content analysis. The results indicate that communities around 
KNP are more empowered than those around BFRBS. The factors affecting residents’ 
empowerment at KNP include the length of stay whereas at BFRBS, age, religion, the length of 
stay and gender of respondents affect their empowerment status. The majority of residents want 
to be humanly empowered whilst most tourists/visitors believe that human empowerment of 
residents would enhance their satisfaction. The study recommends that a national ecotourism 
policy should be enacted and an ecotourism framework with local perspective should be 
developed. Such policies and framework can guide the practices of ecotourism at destinations 
towards sustainability.  
iii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
DEDICATION 
 
I dedicate this piece to my parents, Hajia Jannet Hawa Entsieh and Alex Kofi Eshun (deceased). 
I also dedicate it to my husband, Dawood Abbas, my children, Saleha Nkumaa Abbas and Fawad 
Ahmad Kwansa Abbas, and my siblings Masood Eshun, Eva Eshun, Maame Hajirah Saah 
Eshun, Alexander Eshun and Solomon Paakow Eshun. I also dedicate it to my uncle Solomon 
Eshun (Daddy Jnr) and all my loved ones for their care, support, sacrifices, understanding and 
above all their prayers throughout this period. May the Almighty God bless you all, Amen. 
iv 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
I am extremely grateful to the Almighty God for granting me the strength, knowledge, guidance, 
security and the resources to undertake the writing of this thesis. I will forever remain grateful to 
Him. I am indebted to my supervisory team, Professor Alex. Boakye Asiedu, Professor 
Emmanuel Morgan Attua and Professor Joseph Kofi Teye all of the Department of Geography 
and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon for their patience, devotion, counseling, 
time, supervision and the constructive criticisms that have helped me to produce this thesis. 
I am also grateful to the African Union, Carnegie “Next Generation of Academics in Africa 
Project”, at the University of Ghana and Tropenbos International (TBI) Ghana, Ahmadiyya 
Muslim Mission - Ghana for providing various kinds of support for writing this thesis. 
My sincere thanks also go to the entire staff of the Department of Geography and Resource 
Development, University of Ghana for their time and contributions, particularly, Dr. Nii Nokoi 
for reading through my script and Dr. Ernest Agyeman for his words of encouragement. I am 
also grateful to Professor George Owusu, Professor Jacob Songsore, Emerita Professor Elizabeth 
Ardayfio-Schandorf, Dr. Charlotte Wringley-Asante and Dr. Barimah Owusu for their 
encouragement and advice. I am indebted to Hajia Mrs. Fatiha M. Adusei Donkoh and Madam 
Sakeena Bonsu who offered me accommodation at Agbobga and East Legon during the early 
stages of my studies. 
My next appreciation goes to the managers at Kakum National Park (KNP) and Bobiri Forest 
Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary (BFRBS) that is the Forestry Commission (FC), and the 
Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) for granting me the permission to use the 
destinations for the study. I am particularly grateful to the field managers at Kakum National 
Park (KNP) and Bobiri Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary (BFRBS) for their assistance 
v 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
during the tourists/visitors survey and their participation in the institutional interviews. I am also 
grateful to the various private and public institutions such as Tropenbus International Ghana 
(TBI), Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust (GHCT), Nature Conservation Research Council 
(NCRC), Ghana Tourism Authority (GTA), Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts 
(MOTAC), Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI), Ejisu 
Juabeng Municipal Assembly and Twifo Hemang Lower Denkyira District Assembly for their 
support. 
My gratitude further goes to the field assistants for their time and patience. I am equally grateful 
to Kwabena Abrokwa Asare who took his time to take me through the research analysis 
instruments, and Peter Ofori-Atta at the GIS Lab at the Department of Geography, University of 
Ghana, for assisting me with the GIS analysis. My sincere thanks also go to the community 
elders, the community guides and other community members who participated in the survey, 
FGDs and interviews for their time and patience. I am grateful to each and every one who 
contributed in diverse ways to help in the writing of this thesis. Without your contributions and 
support, I would not have come this far. May the Almighty God shower His choicest blessings 
on you all. Amen. 
vi 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................................................... ii 
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. iii 
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................................. iv 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ vii 
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xiv 
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... xv 
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. xvi 
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 Problem statement ......................................................................................................................... 4 
1.3 Research questions ...................................................................................................................... 10 
1.4 Research objectives ..................................................................................................................... 10 
1.5 Research hypotheses ................................................................................................................... 11 
1.5.1 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 11 
1.6  Significance of the study ............................................................................................................. 12 
1.7 Organization of the chapters ....................................................................................................... 13 
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 15 
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................... 15 
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 15 
2.2 The ecological sustainability theory ........................................................................................... 15 
2.3 The concept of sustainable development .................................................................................... 17 
2.4 Sustainable tourism ..................................................................................................................... 19 
vii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.5 Ecotourism .................................................................................................................................. 20 
2.5.1 History and definitions ........................................................................................................ 20 
2.5.2 Principles of ecotourism ..................................................................................................... 21 
2.5.3 Ecotourism as a livelihood strategy .................................................................................... 26 
2.5.4 Ecotourism as a conservation approach ............................................................................. 27 
2.5.5 Community-based ecotourism ............................................................................................. 28 
2.6 Applying geographical concepts to the study of ecotourism ...................................................... 31 
2.7 Empowerment: Definitions and related issues ............................................................................ 33 
2.7.1 History and definitions ........................................................................................................ 33 
2.7.2 Local empowerment and participation issues ..................................................................... 36 
2.7.3 Types of residents’ empowerment ....................................................................................... 39 
2.7.3.1 Psychological empowerment ........................................................................................... 39 
2.7.3.2 Social empowerment ....................................................................................................... 40 
2.7.3.3 Economic empowerment ................................................................................................. 43 
2.7.3.4 Political empowerment ................................................................................................... 44 
2.7.3.5 Environmental empowerment ......................................................................................... 46 
2.7.3.6 Human empowerment ..................................................................................................... 48 
2.8 Factors influencing residents’ empowerment ............................................................................. 49 
2.9 Types of residents’ empowerment preferred by residents .......................................................... 51 
2.10 Types of residents empowerment that can bring satisfaction to tourist ...................................... 53 
2.11 Roles of institutions in facilitating community empowerment ................................................... 55 
2.12 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................................ 56 
2.12.1 Empowerment and participation issues .............................................................................. 57 
2.12.2 Indicators for empowerment ............................................................................................... 59 
2.12.3 Critiquing the empowerment framework ............................................................................ 59 
2.12.4 Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) .......................................................................... 60 
viii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.12.5 Critiquing the sustainable livelihood framework ................................................................ 63 
2.12.6 Linking empowerment and sustainable livelihoods frameworks......................................... 63 
2.12.7 Proposing critical realism views for studying community empowerment ........................... 64 
2.12.8 Advantages and disadvantages of the framework ............................................................... 68 
2.12.8.1 Advantages .................................................................................................................. 68 
2.12.8.2 Disadvantages ............................................................................................................. 69 
2.13  Summary .................................................................................................................................... 69 
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 71 
STUDY AREAS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 71 
3.1  Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 71 
3.2 Study areas .................................................................................................................................. 71 
3.2.1 Bobiri Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary .................................................................... 71 
3.2.1.1 History, location and size ................................................................................................ 71 
3.2.1.2 Climate and vegetation ................................................................................................... 72 
3.2.1.3 Ecotourism resources ...................................................................................................... 72 
3.2.1.4 Management activities .................................................................................................... 73 
3.2.1.5 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics ......................................................... 73 
3.2.1.6 Land tenure system.......................................................................................................... 74 
3.2.2 Kakum National Park .......................................................................................................... 74 
3.2.2.1 History, location, and size ............................................................................................... 74 
3.2.2.2 Climate and vegetation ................................................................................................... 75 
3.2.2.3 Ecotourism resources ...................................................................................................... 76 
3.2.2.4 Managerial activities ...................................................................................................... 76 
3.2.1.5 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics ......................................................... 77 
3.2.2.6 Land tenure system.......................................................................................................... 78 
3.3 Methods of data collection .......................................................................................................... 81 
ix 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.3.2 Research design....................................................................................................................... 82 
3.4 Sources of primary data .............................................................................................................. 84 
3.4.1 Quantitative research instrument ........................................................................................ 84 
3.4.1.1 Questionnaire design ...................................................................................................... 84 
3.4.2 Qualitative research instruments ........................................................................................ 87 
3.4.2.1 In-Depth interview .......................................................................................................... 87 
3.4.2.2  Focus group discussions (FGDs) ................................................................................... 89 
3.4.2.3 Observation ..................................................................................................................... 90 
3.5 Sampling size and technique ................................................................................................... 90 
3.5.1. Sampling size .................................................................................................................. 90 
3.5.1.3 Sampling procedure and questionnaire administration .................................................. 92 
3.6 Secondary data sources ........................................................................................................... 94 
3.7 Methods of data analysis ............................................................................................................. 96 
3.7.1 Quantitative data analysis .................................................................................................. 96 
3.7.1.1 The extent of residents’ empowerment ............................................................................ 96 
3.7.1.2 Factors influencing  residents’ empowerment .............................................................. 100 
3.7.1.3 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that residents prefer ............................................. 101 
3.7.1.4 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ satisfaction 101 
3.8.2 Qualitative data analysis ....................................................................................................... 101 
3.9  Ethical considerations and challenges associated with the research ........................................ 102 
3.10 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 104 
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................................... 105 
ANALYZING THE EXTENT OF RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT AND THEIR INFLUENCING 
FACTORS FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM ................................................................................. 105 
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 105 
4.2 Profile of community members................................................................................................. 105 
x 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4.3 Extent of residents’ empowerment ................................................................................................. 109 
4.3.1 Construct validity .............................................................................................................. 113 
4.3.1.1 Convergent validity ....................................................................................................... 113 
4.3.1.2 Discriminant validity..................................................................................................... 114 
4.3.1.3 Nomological validity ......................................................................................................... 115 
4.3.1.4 Content validity ............................................................................................................. 117 
4.3.1 Gender and aspects of residents’ empowerment ...................................................................... - 134 - 
4.3.1.1 Gender and human empowerment ............................................................................ - 134 - 
4.3.1.2 Gender and social empowerment .............................................................................. - 135 - 
4.3.2.3 Gender and environmental empowerment ................................................................ - 136 - 
4.3.2.4 Gender and economic empowerment ........................................................................ - 137 - 
4.3.2.5 Gender and residents’ political empowerment ......................................................... - 138 - 
4.3.2.6 Gender and residents’ psychological empowerment ................................................ - 138 - 
4.4 Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment ........................................ - 140 - 
4.4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics influencing residents’ empowerment .................... - 140 - 
4.4.2 Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ disempowerment ............................ - 142 - 
4.5 Results on hypotheses ........................................................................................................... - 145 - 
4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... - 149 - 
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................................. - 150 - 
ANALYZING RESPONDENTS’ PREFERENCES AND THE ROLES OF INSTITUTIONS IN 
EMPOWERING RESIDENTS ............................................................................................................. - 150 - 
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... - 150 - 
5.2 Types of empowerment that residents prefer ........................................................................ - 150 - 
5.2 Types of residents empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ satisfaction ........... - 157 - 
5.4 Roles played by the management of the destinations towards empowerment of residents .. - 164 - 
5.5 Roles played by some NGOs ................................................................................................ - 167 - 
xi 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
5.6 Details of roles played by private and public institutions ..................................................... - 169 - 
5.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... - 175 - 
CHAPTER SIX ..................................................................................................................................... - 177 - 
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................... - 177 - 
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... - 177 - 
6.2 The extent of residents’ empowerment ................................................................................. - 177 - 
6.2.1 Social empowerment ..................................................................................................... - 177 - 
6.2.2 Political empowerment ................................................................................................. - 180 - 
6.2.3 Economic empowerment ............................................................................................... - 181 - 
6.2.4 Environmental empowerment ....................................................................................... - 184 - 
6.2.5 Human empowerment ................................................................................................... - 186 - 
6.2.6 Psychological empowerment ......................................................................................... - 187 - 
6.3. Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment ........................................ - 188 - 
6.4 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that interest them ......................................................... - 192 - 
6.5 Types of residents’ empowerment that would enhance visitors’ satisfaction/experience ..... - 199 - 
6.6 Roles of public and private institutions in residents’ empowerment .................................... - 203 - 
6.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... - 207 - 
CHAPTER SEVEN .............................................................................................................................. - 208 - 
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... - 208 - 
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... - 208 - 
7.2 Summary of key findings ...................................................................................................... - 208 - 
7.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ - 212 - 
7.3.1 Contributions to knowledge .......................................................................................... - 213 - 
7.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. - 215 - 
7.4.2 Further studies .............................................................................................................. - 219 - 
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... - 221 - 
xii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... - 244 - 
APPENDIX 1: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ........................................................................................ - 244 - 
APPENDIX 2: VISITORS SURVEY ............................................................................................... - 257 - 
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MOTAC AND MESTI ............................................... - 262 - 
APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONS FOR MANAGERS AT KNP AND BFRBS ..................................... - 263 - 
APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR GTA, NCRC, AND TBI ............................................. - 267 - 
APPENDIX 6: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CHIEFS AND ELDERS OF THE COMMUNITIES AND 
DISTRICT ASSEMBLIES ............................................................................................................... - 268 - 
APPENDIX 7: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR RESIDENTS ............................................................... - 270 - 
APPENDIX 8: SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF EMPOWERMENT USED FOR CONFIRMATORY 
FACTOR ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... - 272 - 
APPENDIX 9: ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL ..................................................................... - 274 - 
xiii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
Figure 2.1: The concept of sustainable development .................................................................... 16 
Figure 2.2: Diagrammatic representation of principles of ecotourism ......................................... 25 
Figure 2 3: Sustainable Livelihood Framework............................................................................ 61 
Figure 3.1: Map showing study areas and selected communities……………………………….80 
Figure 4.1: Six construct model of residents’ empowerment (see Appendix 7) ......................... 116 
Figure 4.2: The extent of residents’ empowerment at the destinations. ..................................... 118 
Figure 4.3: The extent of residents’ empowerment for the communities ................................... 119 
Figure 4.4: The extent of empowerment of residents at KNP and BFRBS ................................ 121 
Figure 4.5: Social resources of communities from field observation ......................................... 131 
Figure 4.6: Human disempowerment based on gender ........................................................... - 134 - 
Figure 4.7: Gender and residents’ social empowerment ......................................................... - 135 - 
Figure 4. 8: Gender and environmental empowerment .......................................................... - 136 - 
Figure 4. 9: Gender and economic empowerment .................................................................. - 137 - 
Figure 4.10: Gender and political empowerment ................................................................... - 138 - 
Figure 4.11: Gender and psychological empowerment .......................................................... - 139 - 
Figure 5. 1: Aspects of empowerment that residents prefer ................................................... - 151 - 
Figure 5. 2: Aspects of residents’ empowerment that interest tourists/visitors ...................... - 158 - 
Figure 5. 3: Details of tourists/visitors responses on aspects of residents’ empowerment that 
would enhance their satisfaction ............................................................................................. - 159 - 
Figure 5. 4: Visitors responses on sources of improved satisfaction ...................................... - 161 - 
Figure 5. 5: Summary of roles played by managers of BFRBS and KNP .............................. - 164 - 
Figure 5. 6: Summary of roles played/ to be played by some NGOs ..................................... - 167 - 
xiv 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 2.1: Typology of people’s participation .............................................................................. 58 
Table 3.1: Research instrument and sampling size for communities and tourists ........................ 92 
Table 3.2: Other stakeholders interviewed ................................................................................... 92 
Table 3.3: Sampling technique and purpose of selection ............................................................. 94 
Table 4. 1: Profile of respondents based on communities in percentages .................................. 105 
Table 4. 2: Results from the CFA on the means for the factors for BFRBS and KNP ............... 109 
Table 4. 3: Correlations and squared correlations between constructs ....................................... 114 
Table 4. 4: Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment ....................... - 140 - 
Table 4. 5: Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ disempowerment ................... - 142 - 
Table 4. 6: Results on the relationship between belonging to a social group and participating in 
ecotourism planning. ............................................................................................................... - 146 - 
Table 4. 7: Results on the relationship between belonging to a social group and participating in 
ecotourism planning. ............................................................................................................... - 147 - 
Table 5. 1:  Specific aspects of empowerment residents prefer .............................................. - 152 - 
Table 5. 2: Roles played by various institutions, their challenges, and way forward ............. - 170 - 
xv 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ACRONYMS 
 
Analysis of Variance         - ANOVA 
Average Variance Extracted        - AVE 
Bobiri Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary      - BFRBS 
Bobiri Forest Reserve        - BFR 
Center for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems   - CERGIS 
Coefficient of determination (R-squared)      - R2 
Community Based Ecotourism        - CBE 
Community Based Ecotourism Project      - CBEP 
Community Based Natural Resource Management     - CBNRM 
Comparative Fit Index        - CFI 
Confirmatory Factor Analysis        - CFA  
Conservation International       - CI 
Construct Reliability         - CR 
Degree Celsius         - 0C 
Department for International Development      - DFID 
District Assembly        - DA 
Earth Council          - EC 
Environmental Protection Agency       - EPA 
Exploratory Factor Analysis       - EFA 
First Hypothesis        - H1 
Focus Group Discussions       - FGDs 
Forestry Commission        - FC 
Forestry Research Institute of Ghana       - FORIG 
Geographic Information System       - GIS 
Ghana Statistical Service       - GSS 
xvi 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Geographic Positioning System        - GPS 
Ghana Heritage Conservation        - GHCT 
Ghana Living Standard Survey        - GLSS 
Ghana Rural Ecotourism and Travel Office      - GREET 
Ghana Tourism Authority        - GTA 
Ghana Tourism Board        - GTB 
Ghana Wildlife Division        - GWD 
Globalization and Livelihood Options of People Living in Poverty  - GLOPP 
Government of Ghana        - GoG 
Information and Communication Technology     - ICT 
International Union for Conservation of Nature      - IUCN 
Junior High School        - JHS 
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy     - KMO 
Kakum National Park         - KNP 
Legislative Instrument        - LI 
Maximum Likelihood         - ML 
Ministry of Environment Science Technology and Innovation   - MESTI 
Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture       - MOTAC 
National Tourism Development Plan       - NTDP 
Nature Conservation Research Council       - NCRC 
Non-Governmental Organizations       - NGOs 
Normal Fit Index        - NFI 
North West         - NW 
Null hypothesis         -H0 
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index      -PCFI 
Population         - N 
Principal Axis Factoring       - PAF 
xvii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Principal Component Analysis       - PCA 
Programme Afrique Centrale et Occidentale de I’UICN    - IUCN/PACO 
Root Mean Square of Error Approximation     - RMSEA 
Second Hypothesis        -H2 
Senior High School        - SHS 
Standardized Regression Coefficient      - R 
Standard Error         - SE 
Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa      - SRO-EA 
Sustainable Livelihood Framework      - SLF 
Statistical Package for Social Science      - SPSS 
Structural Equation Model       - SEM 
Tafi Atome Monkey Sanctuary       - TAMS 
The International Ecotourism Society       - TIES 
Tourism Management Team       - TMT 
Tropenbus International Ghana       - TBI 
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development    - UNCED 
United Nations Environment Programme     - UNEP 
United Nations Development Plan       - UNDP 
United Nations World Tourism Organization     - UNWTO 
United States Dollar        - USD 
World Commission on Environment and Development    - WCED 
Wildlife Division         - WD 
World Travel and Tourism Council       - WTTC 
World Tourism Organization        - WTO 
World Wildlife Fund         - WWF 
 
 
xviii 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER ONE 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
1.1 Background of the study  
Tourism is among the top growing industries in the world that provide income to a number of 
countries across the globe (United Nations World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2013). It is 
one of the industries that did not suffer from the 2012 global economic downturn and for the first 
time, tourism arrivals exceeded the year marked figure by 4% in 2012 (from 995 million to 1,035 
million) and receipts also rose to 1,087 million in 2013 (UNWTO, 2013).  
Asia and the Pacific regions had the highest growth of about 6% followed by Africa with about 
5% and in 2012, it was forecasted that arrivals would increase by 3.3% per annum until 2030. 
However, there was an increase to 4.5% in 2013 with a corresponding increase in receipts from 
USD 1,078 billion in 2012 to USD 1,159 billion in 2013 (UNWTO, 2013). The picture is not 
different from Ghana as tourism arrivals have been increasing for the past eight years (GTA, 
2013). Tourism arrivals increased from 428,533 in 2005 to 1,017,804 in 2012 (GTA, 2013). This 
increase corresponded with an increase in receipts from USD 836.1 million in 2005 to 2,179.0 
million in 2011 (GTA, 2013). Tourism ranks fourth as a foreign exchange earner for Ghana after 
cocoa, gold, and remittances (Mensah, 2012) which calls for its sustainability. 
Most nature based tourism, for instance, relies on the availability of biodiversity to improve on 
tourists experiences at destinations. It also depends on the culture of the people (TIES, 2015). 
According to Bhandari & Heshmati (2010), people’s quest to visit nature based tourism 
destinations keep increasing and the various forms of biodiversity including species, genetic and 
1 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ecosystems play major roles in improving tourists’ experiences. It has been established that 
tourism depends on the environment (Mathieson & Wall, 2006), and ‘a high-quality natural 
environment is essential for tourism’ (Holden, 2006: 364). Biodiversity remains a major resource 
for tourism and even at city centers, biodiversity plays diverse roles in tourism (UNWTO, 2010). 
Many countries have resorted to the establishment of national parks and reserves to conserve 
biodiversity and attract tourists (Coria & Calfucura, 2012). To ensure tourism’s contribution to 
sound environmental management practices, it is essential that tourism is sustainable in order to 
conserve the flora and fauna in an ecosystem and ensure continuous benefits to destination areas. 
However, the biodiversity resource on which tourism depends is threatened. The increase in 
deforestation and degradation has implications for future tourism development. According to 
Teye (2010), the depletion of forest resource has been a major environmental concern in current 
years. Deforestation, as well as forest degradation, are increasing (Ochieng, Visseren-Hamakers, 
& Nketiah, 2013) and incessant forest loss could worsen biodiversity conservation (Ochieng et 
al., 2013). It has been estimated that roughly 10 million hectares of flora could have been lost in 
the 20th Century and about 80% of the typical forest is currently used for various agricultural 
purposes (Norris et al., 2010).  
Some authors believe that human actions are the major cause of global deforestation (Adanu, 
Garderen, Lalley, & Kofi, 2014). It has been established that Protected Areas are threatened 
because of deforestation in and around forest areas which emanate from poaching, wildfire, 
farming, and grazing (Bandoh, 2010; Damnyag et al., 2013; IUCN/PACO, 2010). It has also 
been estimated that about a quarter of Ghana’s forest has been lost from 1990 to 2005 and the 
annual deforestation rate stands at 2.8% (EPA, 2004) cited in  
(Adanu et al., 2014). Teye (2010) asserts that Ghana happens to be the leading country in West 
2 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Africa with highest forest loss. The Sustainable Development Goal 15 urges nation states to 
“protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage 
forests, combat desertification and halt and reserve land degradation and halt biodiversity loss” 
(Loewe & Rippin, 2015:3). Since tourism depends on biodiversity and has the potential to 
conserve biodiversity (Catibog-Sinha, 2010), there is the need to practice sustainable tourism 
such as ecotourism which is perceived to be a panacea for biodiversity loss (Appiah-Opoku, 
2011; Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). 
Sustainable tourism particularly ecotourism lays emphasis on the preservation of natural areas in 
tourists’ destinations and encourages tourists to be environmentally conscious, abide by local 
regulations and put up responsible behavior to prevent damage to the natural environment (Chiu, 
Lee, & Chen, 2014). Eshun & Tagoe-Darko (2015) emphasize that there is significant evidence 
of ecotourism’s potential towards economic gains and conservation. Even though many praise 
sustainable tourism for being a solution to biodiversity conservation, others believe that it is 
vague and used as a buzzword which brings about diverse practices at different places (Ruhanen, 
2008; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008; Schloegel, 2007; Torres-Delgado & Saarinen, 2013). 
Courvisanos & Jain (2006) assert that mere lip service is paid to its implementation and Das & 
Chatterjee (2015) believe that there have been more failures than successes.  
In order for ecotourism to be successful in bringing about conservation and serves as livelihood 
support to host communities, local communities must be empowered (Asiedu, 2002; Boley, 
Maruyama, & Woosnam, 2015; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). Empowering resident is a tenet of 
sustainable ecotourism (TIES, 2015). According to Asiedu (2002) and Cole (2006), if local 
communities are not empowered, it could destroy the principles upon which ecotourism is built. 
Empowerment in this work means that majority of residents’ benefit from the various aspects of 
3 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ecotourism. The various forms of empowerment for sustainable ecotourism include political, 
social, economic, psychological and environmental. Community members need to be empowered 
in these aspects for ecotourism to be sustainable (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). However, insights 
into the issues of residents’ empowerment for sustainable ecotourism have received less attention 
in the literature (Boley, McGehee, Perdue, & Long, 2014). This work investigates issues of 
residents’ empowerment for sustainable ecotourism to provide details on the various aspects of 
residents’ empowerment, factors influencing residents empowerment, and roles that private and 
public institutions can play to aid residents’ to be empowered.  The rationale for this study is to 
interrogate the empowerment framework to inform policy makers about the need to empower 
residents towards achieving sustainable ecotourism. 
  
1.2 Problem statement 
Sustainable tourism emerged as a substitution to mass tourism (Asiedu, 2002; Camilleri, 2014; 
Hall, 2009) since sustainable tourism practices can lessen the negative effects of mass tourism 
(Asiedu, 2002; Cooper, 2012). Ecotourism is one major form of sustainable tourism which has 
been hailed for its ability to conserve biodiversity (Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Catibog-Sinha, 2010). 
Ecotourism lays emphasis on the preservation of natural areas at tourists’ destinations and 
encourages tourists as well as residents to be environmentally conscious, abide by local 
regulations and put up responsible behavior to prevent damage to the natural environment (Chiu 
et al., 2014; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015). It also depends on the culture of host communities 
(TIES, 2015). Furthermore, ecotourism can provide rural communities with socio-economic 
benefits and conserve the environment at the same time (Asiedu, 2002; Appiah-Opoku, 2011; 
Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites, 2015; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Mensah & Ernest, 2013).  
4 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The development of ecotourism destinations has chalked some successes since it has been able to 
attract ecotourists to various destinations. In Ghana, for instance, tourists’ arrivals at ecotourism 
sites have been increasing for the past decade (GTA, 2013). In terms of livelihood support, 
Mbaiwa & Stronza (2010) posit that ecotourism is the major livelihood activity for residents in 
Okavango in Botswana. Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) assert that about 3.7% of respondents 
were employed in the sector and about 16% received support from tourists in the form of 
donations in Tafi Atome Monkey Sanctuary in Ghana.  
Furthermore, Akyeampong (2011) found that ecotourism has benefited some residents through 
the sale of handicrafts whilst Mensah & Ernest (2013) observed that about 12.2% of residents 
felt that ecotourism has brought prestige to them and led to the conservation of the forest. When 
more residents receive such benefits, they are likely to be empowered towards the sustainable 
development of these destinations. 
One tenet of ecotourism is to empower residents in various dimensions to ensure sustainable 
ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & McGehee, 2014; TIES, 2015). Even though empowerment 
has been applied in various fields, in this study it refers specifically to the majority of residents 
benefiting from various issues of ecotourism-related activities (Asiedu, 2002). Different types of 
residents’ empowerment have been recognized including psychological, economic, political, 
social, and environmental (Boley et al., 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999). 
Economic empowerment refers to the existence of programs to ensure that economic benefits 
‘trickle down’ to the majority of residents and the majority are employed (Asiedu, 2002:9). 
Psychological empowerment implies that many residents are proud and confident about their 
community because of ecotourism (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014).  Social empowerment is attained 
when the majority of residents believe ecotourism connects them to their community, there exist 
5 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
social infrastructures like schools and roads and the protection of local culture (Asiedu, 2002; 
Boley et al., 2016; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999). Political empowerment is 
achieved when the greater proportion of residents are engaged in all aspects of the decision-
making processes (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & McGehee, 2014). Environmental empowerment 
denotes that the majority of residents abide by environmental regulations, engage in nursery and 
plantation programs (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). 
Asiedu (2002) and Boley & McGehee (2014) have stated that attaining sustainability in 
ecotourism destinations has become a challenge and if not addressed, could destroy the very 
foundation on which ecotourism is built. Again, other authors have emphasized that without 
residents’ empowerment, sustainability of ecotourism could not be guaranteed (Boley et al., 
2016; Choi & Murray, 2010). Despite the crucial role of residents’ empowerment in achieving 
sustainable ecotourism, it appears to have received little attention in the literature (Boley et al., 
2016; Boley & McGehee, 2014) which could have implications on sustainable ecotourism.  
Series of research point to the fact that ecotourism is far from achieving its objective as a 
sustainable tourism initiative. Sarrasin (2012) found that ecotourism has not been successful in 
achieving its objectives since practices at destinations are different from the principles of 
sustainable tourism. Sebele (2010) believe that residents in Botswana have lost more activities to 
tourism since they could no longer engage in their traditional activities. Courvisanos & Jain 
(2006) posit that there exist huge gaps between the theory and practice of ecotourism at 
destinations. Hutton, Adams, & Murombedzi (2005) affirm that Community Based Natural 
Resource Management (CBNRM) approaches are failing to deliver because community members 
are not engaged in the management of ecotourism. Das & Chatterjee (2015) did a content 
6 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
analysis of literature from 2000 to 2013 and found that there are more failures in ecotourism as a 
livelihood strategy and for biodiversity conservation than success stories.  
These observations are not different from the Ghanaian experience. For instance, Appiah-Opoku 
(2011) and Asiedu (2002) found out that the economic objectives of the various communities 
around the KNP have not been achieved. Furthermore, Mensah & Ernest (2013) assert that 
residents participation in decision-making regarding forest management at BFRBS is low. In 
studies conducted by Akyeampong (2011), Appiah-Opoku (2011) and Cobbinah et al. (2015), 
they observed that the economic goals of residents at KNP were not met. Again, it was pointed 
out that KNP suffers from the highest rate of illegal logging and hunting among all the protected 
areas in Ghana, despite the law enforcement strategy that is in place (IUCN/PACO, 2010). This 
experience appears not to be different from the situation existing at BFRBS. A conversation with 
the forest manager at Kubease revealed that there is illegal logging by community members 
within the reserve (Pers.com, 2015). However, various studies revealed that residents resorted to 
positive environmental practices after they became knowledgeable about the forest and 
ecotourism (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Schloegel, 2007). It is 
therefore worth researching to find whether there is a relationship between knowledge about the 
importance of forest and ecotourism practices among residents. 
Furthermore, increase in population around the forest can put pressure on resources on which 
ecotourism depends. Recent increases in people’s quests for land to build houses, for industrial 
and agricultural purposes have consequences on sustainable ecotourism development. For 
instance, Mfuom near KNP increased in population from 1,910 in 2000 to 2,149 in 2010 (GSS, 
2012).  The BFRBS lies within the Ashanti region and the land tenure system is under the 
authority of the Asantehene who is represented by paramount chiefs and sub-chiefs at the 
7 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
communities (Edusah, 2011). The land tenure system at BFRBS falls under the stool and family 
ownership and many people can have access to land as far as they can afford (Edusah, 2011). At 
KNP ownership of land falls in the hands of chiefs and families (WD, 1996).  However, the 
government has the right to acquire the land and BFRBS and KNP have been acquired by the 
state. Such practices offer the state higher influence over residents regarding how to develop the 
place (Asiedu, 2002). This could affect the political empowerment of the destinations. However, 
studies from TAMS showed that residents are in local groups which enable them to participate in 
decision making regarding ecotourism planning in the community (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 
2014). Therefore, exploring the relationship between the existence of local groups and 
participation in decision making is critical in our understanding of ecotourism sustainability. 
In addition, a tourist destination could be sustainable if it receives visitors who spend time and 
money at the destination all year round. Lee (2009) and Tang (2014) believe that it is likely for 
tourists to spend more time at the destination where they are satisfied with the destination image. 
According to the forest managers, visitors to BFRBS and KNP are mostly excursionists who 
spend less than a day at the destinations (Pers.com, 2015). Such situation could affect the 
economic, social and environmental empowerment of residents since less time is spent at the 
destination to engage in programs that will empower residents. Moreover, another tenet of 
ecotourism is to satisfy tourists by providing a memorable experience (TIES, 2015). The types of 
residents’ empowerment that could provide a memorable experience to visitors/tourists are 
essential in ensuring ecotourism sustainability. 
Again, the daily management and marketing of BFRBS rest in the hands of the Forestry 
Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) without the involvement of the private sector. Non-
Governmental Organizations such as Tropenbus International (TBI) and Nature Conservation 
8 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Research Centre (NCRC) used to assist community members in ecotourism activities such as 
community education. However, such supports no longer exist. Unlike BFRBS, there is an NGO 
working around KNP which is the Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust (GHCT) which manages 
the portion on ecotourism and the Ghana Wildlife Division (GWD) of the Forestry Commission 
(FC) sees to the day to day administration of the site (Cobbinah et al., 2015). According to the 
manager at KNP, it is the duty of GHCT to help residents to become empowered (Pers.com, 
2015). The roles of public and private institutions in empowering residents’ are important in 
achieving ecotourism sustainability.  
In order for ecotourism to be successful and move towards achieving sustainability, residents 
need to be empowered in various dimensions; socially, economically, psychologically and 
politically (Boley & McGehee, 2014). If residents are not adequately empowered, it could 
threaten the basis upon which ecotourism is developed (Asiedu, 2002; Choi & Murray, 2010; 
Cobbinah et al., 2015).  
Even though there is substantial literature on the contribution of ecotourism in achieving 
livelihood outcomes and conservation (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014; Appiah-Opoku, 2011; 
Asiedu, 2002; Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Nyaupane & Poudel, 2011; Shoo 
& Songorwa, 2013), few studies have interrogated the use of the empowerment framework in the 
realization of ecotourism goals towards sustainability (Boley et al., 2015; Ramos & Prideaux, 
2014). To address this literature gap, the study assesses residents’ empowerment for sustainable 
ecotourism using KNP and BFRBS as study areas. Boley et al. (2015) had looked at three levels 
of empowerment which are political, social and psychological empowerments. Ramos & 
Prideaux (2014) added economic and environmental empowerments whereas this study adds 
human empowerment. This is because human empowerment is critical for the achievement of the 
9 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
other forms of empowerment. This inclusion is supported by the assertion by Hewitt & Anderson 
(2015) who posited that empowerment requires human services, skills, and self-efficiency.  
 
1.3 Research questions 
General question: 
To what extent are residents empowered towards sustainable ecotourism development? 
Specific questions:  
1. What is the extent of residents’ empowerment (social, human, political, economic, 
environmental and psychological) for sustainable ecotourism? 
2. How does the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents influence their statuses of 
empowerment for ecotourism development? 
3. Which types of empowerment would interest residents? 
4. Which types of residents’ empowerment would enhance tourists/visitors satisfaction? 
5. What are the roles of private and public institutions in empowering residents for 
sustainable ecotourism development? 
 
1.4 Research objectives 
The aim of the study:  
Assess residents’ empowerment for sustainable ecotourism. 
Specific objectives: 
10 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1. Examine the extent of residents’ empowerment (social, human, political, economic, 
environmental and psychological) for sustainable ecotourism. 
2. Investigate the effects of the socio-demographic background of residents on their status 
of empowerment. 
3. Compare the types of empowerment that are of interest to residents around KNP and 
BFRBS. 
4. Analyze the perception of tourists on the aspects of residents’ empowerment that would 
enhance their satisfaction. 
5. Interrogate the roles of private and public institutions in empowering residents for 
sustainable ecotourism development. 
 
1.5 Research hypotheses 
The hypothesis is based on the notion that when host communities are knowledgeable about 
ecotourism, they are able to engage in positive environmental practices that can help sustain 
ecotourism (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Schloegel, 2007). It also 
draws on the notion that where there exist social networks such as cultural troupes and Tourism 
Management Teams, residents can participate in ecotourism planning which would assist in 
ecotourism sustainability (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014). The first and second hypotheses are 
linked to the first objective. 
1.5.1 Hypotheses 
1. H0: There is no significant relationship between knowledge about the importance of 
forest and adherence to byelaws  
11 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
H1: There is a significant relationship between knowledge about the importance of forest 
and adherence to byelaws. 
2. H0: There is no significant relationship between belonging to a social group and 
participating in ecotourism planning. 
H2: There is a significant relationship between belonging to a social group and 
participating in ecotourism planning. 
1.6  Significance of the study 
Ecotourism is criticized that destinations are paying lip service to achieve sustainable ecotourism 
(Courvisanos & Jain, 2006; Das & Chatterjee, 2015). Most studies point to the fact that residents 
need to be empowered for sustainable ecotourism to achieve its objectives (Boley et al., 2015; 
Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). This research is significant since it 
investigates the status of residents’ empowerment as well as the factors promoting or hindering 
their empowerment. This study also uncovers the critical areas in which residents should be 
empowered towards sustainable ecotourism and the perceptions of tourists on the aspects of 
residents’ empowerment that would enhance their satisfaction. The findings would inform 
management on the kinds of strategies to adopt in order to meet ecotourism goals at the various 
destinations.  
Furthermore, the knowledge about roles of private and public institutions would enable the 
various stakeholders to be conversant with each other’s role and assist in empowering residents. 
Again, there are different practices at diverse ecotourism destinations in Ghana that call for the 
need to have a framework for ecotourism development in the country. The need to outline policy 
guidance for the practice of ecotourism is essential in achieving success at ecotourism 
destinations. The study would stimulate further research into developing sustainable ecotourism 
12 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
destinations in Ghana. It will also contribute to the literature on sustainable ecotourism and 
provide recommendations for policy considerations. The study would recommend the enactment 
of an ecotourism policy to strengthen ecotourism development in the country. 
The study will also contribute to the theory and practice of geography, tourism and particularly 
ecotourism. The study combined the empowerment and sustainable livelihoods framework and 
also applied the critical realists’ perspective which contribute to conceptual issues in human 
geography. 
 
1.7 Organization of the chapters 
The study is organized into seven chapters.  Chapter one deals with the introduction of the study 
and consists of a background to the study, the problem statement, research questions, objectives, 
hypotheses and the importance of the study.  The chapter ends with the organization of the study.  
Chapter two consists of a review of relevant literature and conceptual framework. It begins with 
an introduction to the chapter. The Literature is reviewed on the objectives of the study and 
definition of key concepts and their links to the objectives. It begins with a brief introduction and 
covers basic definitions and concepts such as sustainable development, sustainable tourism, 
biodiversity as well as principles of ecotourism. The literature is reviewed on the various forms 
of empowerment thus, economic, social, political, psychological, human and environmental.  
Furthermore, it outlines the literature on the roles of institutions in empowering community 
members for sustainable ecotourism. It provides the theoretical underpinnings of the research. 
Insight into critical realists thought and sustainable ecotourism is provided. The section also 
highlights on the conceptual framework for the study. It justifies the need to combine the 
empowerment framework and the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) for sustainable 
13 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ecotourism. The chapter provides the advantages and disadvantages of the framework and 
concludes with a summary. 
Chapter three touches on the study areas and research methodology. This section provides details 
on the kinds of methods employed in this study which include data collection procedures, 
sources of data, stakeholder groups and data analysis procedures.  
The results of the study are analyzed in chapters four and five where the results on the various 
objectives are presented using statistical tables and graphs. Chapter four analyzes the results on 
the first and second objectives. Chapter five analyzes the results on the third, fourth and fifth 
objectives of the study.   
Chapter six presents the discussions of the results. This is done according to sections where each 
section discusses the objectives of the study. Chapter seven summarizes the key findings of the 
study. It also contains the conclusions and recommendations for the development of sustainable 
ecotourism in Ghana. 
14 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER TWO 
 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 
2.1 Introduction 
The chapter deals with the literature review and the conceptual framework used in the study. The 
first section reviews existing literature on ecological sustainability theory, sustainable 
development, sustainable tourism, various concepts of ecotourism as well as livelihoods and 
conservation strategies. It continues with a review of the literature on empowerment such as 
psychological, social, economic, political, environmental, and human. Following this is a review 
of the literature on the study objectives. The second section provides insight into the conceptual 
framework that is empowerment as well as the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF). It 
provides a justification for merging the two concepts. 
 
2.2 The ecological sustainability theory 
The study dwells on the ecological sustainability theory as a parenting paradigm to sustainable 
tourism (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). This has a link with cultural ecology since it deals with 
human interactions with their environment.  The ecological sustainability theory consists of 
several components interacting with each other to achieve sustainability. The theory initially 
drew on three pillars which include the economic model, social model and ecological model 
(Eddins & Cottrell, 2013; Jenkins, 2010). It acknowledges the idea that resources are limited and 
unequally distributed in time and space and as organisms continue to interact with these limited 
resources (Scheiner & Willig, 2008), it is essential that there is an equal interaction between the 
organisms so that the resources would be used sustainably.  
15 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
As a general theory of ecology, it emphasizes on social, economic issues and the interaction 
between people and their environment (Scheiner & Willig, 2008). The economic component of 
the theory refers to the economic benefits that would be received from the interaction of 
organisms. Ecological model denotes that biodiversity should be sustained. The ecological model 
focuses on the health of ecosystems and continuous interaction with people (social) to sustain it 
(Jenkins, 2010). Human systems rely on the ecological components for survival and it is within 
their power to transform and change ecological systems.  Ecological model in the sustainability 
theory ensures that such interactions yield sustainability.  The social model is comprised of the 
humans who interact with the ecological components.    
 
 SOCIAL 
 BEARABLE EQUITABLE 
 SUSTAINABLE 
ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC 
 VIABLE 
 
Figure 2.1: The concept of sustainable development  
Source:  Adapted from (Soubbotina, 2004: 9)  
 
This denotes that sustainability in resource development could be achieved if there is a balance 
between the environmental/ecological, social and economic models in the framework. The links 
between the models should not only be equitable but viable and bearable. The relationship 
between environmental and social models should be bearable since the social model depends on 
the environmental model for survival. Unbearable environmental conditions could have negative 
16 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
effects on the social and economic models. In a similar way, unequal economic benefits could 
result in negative environmental and social practices. There is the need to balance the interaction 
between people and their ecosystems. Tao & Wall (2009) and Eddins & Cottrell (2013) believe 
that sustainable development denotes working towards achieving a long-term goal between 
people and their ecosystems. The sustainability framework has been accepted and applied in 
many fields including sustainable tourism (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). Its application in this study 
is essential in uncovering the basis of sustainable ecotourism development. 
 
2.3 The concept of sustainable development 
The notion of sustainable development rest on the sustainability theory which is one of the 
general theories of ecology, that explains how organisms should interact to bring about the 
sustainability of species (Scheiner & Willig, 2008).  As a general theory, it tries to combine some 
of the fundamental principles and exhibits several components, which interact with one another.  
The notion of sustainability was given public attention after a 1972 report, ‘Limits to Growth’ by 
Think Tank Club of Rome (Jenkins, 2010).  The World Conservation Strategy developed by the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1980 collaborated with the United 
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) to make 
sustainability a measure of international action, which brought about the term sustainable 
development. The report recognized the links between environment and development as the 
environment is the place where humans live and progress is what humans do to enhance their 
lives in where they live (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005).  Sustainable development was later 
defined by Gro Harlem Brundtland, which is captured in the World Commission on Environment 
and Development (WCED, 1987) cited in Jones, Hillier, & Comfort (2017: 44) report entitled as 
17 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future 
generations to meet their own needs’. 
There were series of conferences that were held to elaborate on sustainable development. Such 
conferences include the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 
(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 also known as the ‘Earth Summit’ where  a declaration 
of principles was issued, agenda 21, international agreement on climate change and biodiversity, 
statement of principles of forest  (Kates et al., 2005).  These were followed by the 2002 
conference in Johannesburg thus the World Summit where governments commitment to 
sustainable development was emphasized. Sustainable development has now become the core 
mission of many international organizations and institutions as a concept, goal, and movement 
(Kates et al., 2005).  
Embedded in the definition of sustainable development is the idea that there should be equity in 
the share of resources which should benefit the poor and is essential in order to conserve the 
resources which can be achieved through citizen participation.  It acknowledges the fact that 
human needs are basic and essential for development. United Nations World Tourism 
Organization (UNWTO), World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) and the Earth Council 
(EC) produced ‘The Agenda 21’ for the travel and tourism industry after the Earth Summit in 
1992 to include sustainable development concepts in tourism development.  The principles of 
sustainability are that there should be equity between the environmental, social and economic 
features of tourism (Fuseini & Kemp, 2015; Lawson, 2013). The idea of sustainable development 
has been employed in many fields of study including tourism highlighting the need for 
sustainability of tourism destinations that led to the concept of sustainable tourism (Hirotsune, 
2011). 
18 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
2.4 Sustainable tourism 
Sustainable tourism is defined by World Tourism Organization (WTO) as the type of tourism 
that ‘meets the needs of tourists and host regions, while at the same time it protects and improves 
opportunities for the future’ (Blancas, González, Lozano-Oyola, & Pérez, 2010: 485).  It further 
states that the genuineness of local culture should be maintained whilst providing social, economic 
and environmental benefits to destination areas.  Sustainable tourism should also respect major 
ecological processes, biodiversity as well as life support systems. Sustainable tourism came to 
the fore around the early (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). The definition of sustainable tourism 
presented here denotes that any form of tourism that claims to be sustainable should mimic these 
concepts.  
 
UNWTO (2004) cited in Lawson (2013) asserts that sustainability in tourism can be achieved 
when there is maximum utilization of the environmental resources which is a major element in 
tourism development. Environmental processes should be maintained as well as the conservation 
of biodiversity and natural resources. It adds that sustainability in tourism can be attained when 
local cultures, traditions, and values are respected, conserved and promoted such that it can 
contribute to intercultural understanding and tolerance. Sustainability in tourism can be achieved 
when there are viable economic activities that provide socio-economic benefits to all 
stakeholders (Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites, 2015; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Zolfani, 
Sedaghat, Maknoon, & Zavadskas, 2015). These economic benefits including stable employment 
and income generating avenues should be equitably distributed among the stakeholder groups. 
Johnson (2002:168) shares that sustainable tourism includes incorporating long-term 
development plan, sustain and expand diversity, support local economies, use resources 
19 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
sustainably, engage local communities, stakeholders and the public and research into tourism 
experience. One aspect of sustainable tourism that has the tendency of incorporating these into 
tourism experience is ecotourism.  
 
2.5 Ecotourism 
2.5.1 History and definitions 
The term ecotourism was invented by Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin in 1983 (Asiedu, 2002; Manu 
& Kuuder, 2012). He defines ecotourism as ‘tourism that involves travelling to relatively 
undisturbed natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring and enjoying the 
scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural aspects (both past and 
present) found in these areas’ (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996 cited in Manu & Kuuder, 2012: 98). 
Although this definition became popular, it has faced some criticisms. Critics opine that it does 
not provide insight on what tourists should do but emphasizes on what they do (Donohoe & 
Needham, 2006). Other authors have contributed and broadened the scope and definition of 
ecotourism to include ethical considerations (Blamey, 2001). Ecotourism has been linked to the 
natural environment such that it is distinct from other forms of tourism (Donohoe & Needham, 
2006). Such aspects are referred to in the literature as ‘principles’, ‘criteria’, ‘themes’, and 
dimensions of ecotourism (Donohoe & Needham, 2006: 194). These terms are used 
interchangeably in the literature. 
The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) in 1991 defined ecotourism as ‘responsible travel 
to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’  
(Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015: 392). This definition has been revised by TIES and effective from 
January 2015, the new definition by TIES for ecotourism is ‘responsible travel to natural areas 
20 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people and involves 
interpretation and education’ (TIES, 2015). The 2015 definition by TIES has broadened the 
scope of ecotourism specifying that the principles should be adopted by destinations that engage 
in ecotourism activities. Each destination can then design the necessary procedures and strategies 
to achieve these principles. 
2.5.2 Principles of ecotourism 
Many authors have introduced several principles to constitute ecotourism that shares similar 
concerns. For instance, Donohoe & Needham (2006) posit that ecotourism should be based on 
nature and focus on conservation, sustainability, and environmental education.  Wallace & Pierce 
(1996) present six primary principles. These are (1)  ecotourism should support conservation, (2) 
there should be educational opportunities and awareness creation, (3) negative effects of 
infrastructure and  numbers of participants should be reduced, (4) involve all stakeholders in 
decision-making, (5) it should provide benefits to residents, (6) provide educational and 
experiential opportunities to residents. 
Other authors such as Newsome, Moore, & Dowling (2002) assert that specific components 
should be present for ecotourism to be different from other forms of tourism. Thus, (1) the 
destination should be nature-based, (2) it should be ecologically sustainable, (3) provide 
environmental education, (4) it should benefit residents and (5) it should satisfy participants. 
Fennell (2001) examined 85 definitions of ecotourism and asserts that the most frequent 
principles include (1) it should occur in a natural setting, (2) there should be conservation, (3) 
preservation of culture, (4)  education, and (5) benefits to residents. The concluding report of the 
World Ecotourism Summit (2002) proposes that ecotourism should be defined using five 
principles which are (1) it should be a nature-based product, (2) it should have reduced impact, 
21 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
(3) provide environmental education, (4) contribute to conservation and (5) contribute to 
community development. 
Wight (1993) cited in SRO-EA (2011) stated that the principles of ecotourism are (1) it should 
take place in a sound environment and not degrade the resource, (2) benefit to the environment 
should be long-term, thus sustainable and offer employment, improved incomes and education to 
residents and the country including the provision of infrastructure, (3) it should offer visitor 
satisfaction and meet their experiences, (4) provide avenues to educate stakeholders on 
environment, importance of ecotourism and conservation, (5) it should foster stakeholder 
partnership for nature conservation and (6) support moral ethics including good attitudes towards 
cultural and the natural environment.  
Moreover, Asiedu (2002) believes that ecotourism provides greater opportunities for community 
involvement hence greater benefits for residents. In addition, Zeppel (2006) supports the idea 
that, ecotourism can be sustainable and provide benefits to residents if it meets certain principles. 
These are (1) the target population should access the economic benefits, (2) indigenous 
communities should have safe land tenure, (3) it should support social and political justice to 
residents and opportunity to make land use decisions.  
Furthermore, Khanal & Babar (2007) assert that the Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism outlines 
ecotourism principles to include (1) preservation of cultural heritage and natural environment, 
(2) incorporate indigenous residents in planning and procedures to contribute to community well-
being, (3) visitor awareness of natural and cultural heritage and (4) organizing tours for small 
groups. In addition, Wearing & Neil (2009) argue that ecotourism can be successful when it is 
based on these principles, thus (1) conservation, (2) empowering host communities and (3) 
22 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
sustainability. The Oslo Statement on Ecotourism (2007) emphasizes that ecotourism should 
recognize residents and support them as equal stakeholders. 
Moreover, TIES (2015) in redefining ecotourism outlines the following principles: 
1.  “Minimize physical, social, behavioral and psychological impacts, 
2. Build environmental and cultural awareness and esteem, 
3. Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts, 
4. Provide direct financial benefits for conservation, 
5. Generate financial benefits for both local people and private industry, 
6. Deliver memorable interpretative experiences to visitors that help raise sensitivity to host 
countries’ political, environmental and social climates, 
7. Design, construct and operate low-impact facilities, 
8. Recognize the rights and spiritual beliefs of the Indigenous people in your community 
and work in partnership with them to create empowerment”. 
The various principles outlined by the various authors are not extremely different from that of 
TIES (2015) since they share similar characteristics. The various authors strongly believe that 
ecotourism should occur in a natural setting, provide benefits to residents and all stakeholders, 
and reduce negative impacts on the natural resource on which ecotourism depends. They also 
maintain that it should protect the culture of the host communities, satisfy visitors and meet their 
expectations, conserve biodiversity, offer direct economic benefits for preservation and residents, 
boost destination countries’ political will, operate low-income facilities, recognize communities’ 
23 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
religious beliefs, and have ethical considerations. These principles can be achieved when 
community members are empowered towards sustainable ecotourism development. 
Page & Dowling (2002) cited in Dowling & Fennell (2003: 13-14) support the opinion that 
ecotourism development includes: 
1. “Ecological sustainability which ensures that development is compatible with the 
maintenance of essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and biological 
resources, 
2. Social and cultural sustainability which ensures that development increases people’s 
control over their own lives is compatible with the culture and values of people affected by 
it and maintains and strengthens community identity, 
3. Economic sustainability which fosters development that is economically efficient and so 
that resources are managed so that they can support future generations”. 
All these principles are covered by TIES (2015) definition of ecotourism. As an international 
organization, if countries were to adhere to international discourse and protocol, then many 
destinations would implement principles according to TIES. Where there is no consensus, 
different forms of ecotourism could emerge with different faces whilst the principles are 
relegated to the background. One of the criticisms of ecotourism is that it lacks uniformity which 
makes it difficult for managers and planners to successfully implement it (Donohoe & Needham, 
2006). There is the need for a consensus regarding what ecotourism projects should achieve in 
order to contribute to conservation. A diagrammatic representation of principles of ecotourism is 
shown in figure 2.2. 
 
24 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
 Sustainable ecotourism 
 
  Ecotourism 
Benefits to community  Provide direct 
 economic benefits 
Visitor satisfaction 
  Conserve biodiversity 
  Boost political will  Protect culture 
 Religious beliefs  Operate low impact 
facilities 
  Reduce 
negative impacts  Ethical considerations 
 
Empower residents 
Collaborate with 
residents 
 
 Benefits to all 
 stakeholders/ 
majority of residents 
 
Figure 2.2: Diagrammatic representation of principles of ecotourism 
Source: Adapted from (SRO-EA, 2011; TIES, 2015; Wearing & Neil, 2009a; Zeppel, 2006).  
Ecotourism can be sustainable and help conserve biodiversity when these principles are 
implemented. Asiedu (2002) opines that ecotourism has become one of the areas that show 
potential for development and more importantly for rural communities and suggested ecotourism 
as a developmental tool for regions with little developmental potential. The growth of ecotourism 
is at a rate of 10% -12% per year (Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015). However, other authors stress 
25 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
that these principles of ecotourism could be realized when residents are empowered (Asiedu, 
2002; Boley, Maruyama, & Woosnam, 2015; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 
2013; Wearing & Neil, 2009a). Ecotourism can empower local communities by providing them 
with alternative livelihood activities. 
2.5.3 Ecotourism as a livelihood strategy 
Most of the literature on ecotourism point out that ecotourism can provide livelihoods support to 
host communities. Mensah & Ernest (2013) assert that ecotourism can provide rural communities 
with socio-economic gains and conserve the environment at the same time. Jalani (2012: 251) 
conducted a research in the Philippines on the impacts and importance of ecotourism and found 
that out of the 153 respondents, 112 had ecotourism related livelihoods activities. Some of the 
respondents engaged in direct ecotourism activities such as tour guides, boatmen, those who own 
restaurants, guest houses, souvenir shops, transport such as vans and tricycles. Indirect 
ecotourism livelihoods activities include laborers at restaurants, waiter or waitress, and related 
work that enhance ecotourism. Those whose activities are not related to tourism include farmers 
and fishermen.  
Mbaiwa & Stronza (2010) establish that even in cases where residents get little gains from 
ecotourism, they play a critical role in the livelihoods of indigenous people. In their research 
conducted in Okavango in Botswana on the consequences of tourism on rural livelihoods, they 
concluded that community members are involved in ecotourism activities as their major source 
of livelihoods. Such activities have replaced traditional ones like hunting, gathering, and 
farming. They assert that only 3% of the 186 households sampled had no livelihoods activities 
related to ecotourism. In addition, research conducted by Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham 
(2010) on the environmental and social consequences of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula 
26 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
revealed that ecotourism provides support to local livelihoods. Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites 
(2015) emphasize that ecotourism is one of the critical strategies for providing socio-economic 
development outcomes to host communities. The examples from the various research outlined 
demonstrate that ecotourism has the potential to provide livelihoods activities to residents and 
can conserve biodiversity. 
2.5.4 Ecotourism as a conservation approach 
As a conservation approach, ecotourism lays emphasis on the preservation of natural areas at 
tourist destinations, encourage tourists and host communities to be environmentally conscious, 
abide by local regulations and put up responsible behavior to prevent damage to the natural 
environment (Chiu et al., 2014). Ecotourism has the tendency to contribute to the conservation of 
natural and protected areas (Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Mensah & Ernest, 2013). Ecotourism 
has the potential to generate revenue and the necessary economic incentive that can support the 
sustainable preservation of protected areas and safeguard natural ecosystems (Coria & Calfucura, 
2012; Jalani, 2012). 
Fennell (2008) establishes that the conservation of natural habitats can be possible if revenues 
are enough to reach the target population. Kiss (2004) maintains that since ecotourism depends 
on attractive natural ecosystems, assisting community members to derive economic benefit from 
ecotourism would serve as an enticement for conservation. Khanal & Babar (2007) opine that the 
government of Lao employs ecotourism as a means of creating awareness for environmental 
conservation.  Jones (2005) states that ecotourism is used to conserve wildlife resources. In 
addition, Cobbinah et al. (2015) assert that ecotourism is one of the essential approaches for 
environmental conservation. 
27 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.5.5 Community-based ecotourism 
Ecotourism is referred to as community-based conservation approach in the literature where 
there is full community control. The idea of conservation emerged in the 20th century where 
protected areas were established and local people were excluded, preventing consumptive usage 
and reducing other human activities (Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau, 2004). Such approach was 
referred to as the ‘Fortress conservation’ or ‘Fences and Fines’ which occurred mostly in Sub-
Saharan African countries where colonial reserves were created in the 1890s (Hutton et al., 
2005).  
In the 1990s, a new conservation approach challenged the Fortress conservation emphasizing the 
need to involve the community in natural resource management and not to exclude them 
physically from the conservation or politically from decision making towards policy (Hutton et 
al., 2005). Barrow & Murphree (2001) cited in Hutton et al. (2005; 342) assert that different 
dimensions of community participation emerged such as “community-based conservation, 
community wildlife management, collaborative or co-management, community-based natural 
resource management, state/community co-management and integrated conservation and 
development management”. Mensah et al. (2013: 73) point out that Community Based Natural 
Resource Management (CBNRM) approaches emerged to give a ‘human face’ to the Fortress 
conservation. These forms of conservation approaches argue that there should be a form of 
partnership and sense of ownership in the management of forest resources giving room to 
community-based ecotourism (CBE). 
CBE means that community members own and manage ecotourism ventures (Sproule, 1996). 
Sproule continues that in a CBE, members take care of their natural resources and use the 
income to better their lives and that of the community. Hoole (2010) states that ecotourism 
28 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
emphasizes on the responsibilities of residents in decision-making. Hoole (2010: 80) further 
asserts that CBE incorporates “conservation by, for, and with the local community”. Kiss (2004) 
argues that CBE is a form of CBNRM that aims at linking biodiversity conservation and local 
livelihoods by reducing poverty. Asiedu (2008) maintains that a community-oriented tourism 
planning was initiated when it was evident that community involvement is critical for tourism 
development. 
Mensah et al. (2013) declare that community members can better manage their resources since 
they are more aware of the complexities arising from the ecological processes. In addition, 
Turner (2004) asserts that community members are more concerned about sustainable use than 
the state. Kiss (2004) states that ecotourism is supposed to benefit community members by 
creating employment and contributing to conservation. However, the term community-based in 
the CBE extends beyond the mere provision of benefits to involving community members to 
actively engage in ecotourism. Kiss (2004) further explains that the involvement could be full or 
partial and community members can engage in ecotourism-related activities to ownership of 
whole ecotourism enterprises. Khanal & Babar (2007) emphasize that when residents control 
CBE, they take management decision and profits go directly to them. In view of the discussions, 
it is understood that the CBE is used to describe the true nature of ecotourism. Even though 
ecotourism can provide livelihood support to local communities, such support can be fully 
realized when residents have authority over the resource, engage in decision making and the 
general affairs that concern the resource.   
This signifies that a destination can pass as a CBE when it is owned and managed by community 
members. They should have greater say in the management of the resource and benefit directly 
from ecotourism-related activities. There should be active involvement of some community 
29 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
members in ecotourism-related activities. This further suggests that not all ecotourism 
destinations could be tagged as CBE unless they meet these criteria. Ecotourism by it principles 
require local participation and involves the distribution of power so that residents, as well as all 
stakeholders, can be part of the management of ecotourism resources. CBE on the other hand, 
require that residents gain full power to manage ecotourism resources and can be described as an 
advanced stage of ecotourism development. 
The principles of ecotourism denote that community members participate in ecotourism activities 
in order to benefit from ecotourism. Coria & Calfucura (2012) accentuate that since ecotourism 
is meant to develop indigenous communities, community members should be empowered by 
transferring political and economic power from the state, multilateral institutions, and NGOs to 
residents. Sofield & Li (2007) assert that it is critical for the community members to be 
recognized as a society with greater rights to control the land, enact rules and take the necessary 
steps to enforce these rules.  This can be effective if the destination is community-based. 
Ecotourism emerged in order to conserve natural resources and provide livelihoods opportunities 
to community members (Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). 
Community members can benefit from such livelihoods opportunities when there are strategies 
to ensure their participation in ecotourism activities (Coria & Calfucura, 2012). Those who are 
directly involved would receive direct benefits whilst those who are indirectly involved would 
receive indirect benefits.  However, it has been argued that ecotourism could be successful as a 
livelihood and biodiversity conservation strategies and preserve culture when residents are 
adequately empowered to manage ecotourism resources. As humans relate with their 
environment, they can alter it to suit their circumstances as cultural ecology suggest (Sutton & 
Anderson, 2010).  
30 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.6 Applying geographical concepts to the study of ecotourism 
Geographical concepts such as environmental determinism denote that the physical environment 
dictates and controls human interactions (Holt-Jensen, 1999).  This suggests that the environment 
shapes human activities and the physical environment determines the extent to which humans 
interact with their environment and set limits to human activities.  Friedrich Ratzel is among the 
modern geographers who revived the ideas of environmental determinism (Judkins, Smith, & 
Keys, 2008).  A French historian Lucien Febvre challenged such ideas in the 1920s and proposed 
cultural possibilism as a contrast to environmental determinism.  This term was associated earlier 
on with Paul Vidal de la Blanche and Jean Brunches (Holt-Jensen, 1999).  Judkins et al. (2008) 
wrote that Sauer was of the opinion that behavior does not rely on environmental stimulus but on 
habits that are acquired and which forms the culture of people. Setten (2006) also assert that 
Sauer sees humans as active agents who do not passively succumb to the dictates of their 
environment.  This concept was also termed cultural determinism. According to Judkins et al. 
(2008), cultural possibilism shares the belief that human beings can alter the limitations set by 
their environment and that it is their cultures that shape their environment. 
Environmental probabilism, also referred to as cultural ecology shares the belief that people and 
their cultures are important and part of the environment, hence the activities of humans affect the 
environment that they modify to suit them (Sutton & Anderson, 2010).  Human interactions 
affect the environment as the environment also affects human interactions since the structure and 
state of the environment depend on its history that also includes humans (Sutton & Anderson, 
2010). This denotes that the environment can set limitations for human activities, but it does not 
mean that humans do not have the ability to change their environment.  Humans are intelligent 
and can design alternatives to the limitations set by their surroundings such as the use of 
technology (Sutton & Anderson, 2010). 
31 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
This study is situated within the cultural ecology concept because ecotourism deals with human 
interactions with nature and the ability of humans to take advantage of the resources presented 
by their environment.  The introduction of ecotourism in many countries implies that humans 
have seen the opportunities presented to them by their environment and the need to preserve their 
environment as well as their culture for posterity.  The introduction of ecotourism as explained 
above suggests that there is an interrelationship between people’s culture and their environment 
and that through tourism humans are able to protect the biological diversities in their 
environment and their culture. Such interactions are essential as they provide possible solutions 
to critical problems facing modern society such as deforestation and loss of species (Sutton & 
Anderson, 2010). The fact that there is depletion of biological resources and loss of species 
indicate that humans can change their environment and the environment can set limits to human 
activities, but humans through ecotourism activities can create alternative activities and at the 
same time preserve biodiversity on which ecotourism depends. 
The application of cultural ecological approach in ecotourism studies offers more opportunities 
for humans to interact with their environment, face the challenges posed by their environment 
and come out with probable solutions.  Unlike environmental determinism which restricts the 
ability of humans as its ‘dictates how culture adapts’ (Sutton & Anderson, 2010:15). Applying 
cultural ecology in ecotourism studies is within the scope since ecotourism principles require the 
interactions between humans and their environment as well as modification to suit ecotourism 
activities.  Cultural possibilism, on the other hand, places emphasis on human agency/culture in 
developing environmental resources (Fekadu, 2014). Probabilism or cultural ecology have been 
said to be a link between environmental determinism and cultural possibilism (Fekadu, 2014). 
 
32 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.7 Empowerment: Definitions and related issues 
2.7.1 History and definitions 
The idea of empowerment draws from series of theories, particularly the educational and 
feminist theories who advocate for bottom up methodological approaches (Parsons, 1997; Turner 
& Maschi, 2015). Morell (2004) opines that the concept is fundamental to social work and 
feminist ideology. Turner & Maschi (2015) link the idea of empowerment to the Brazilian 
educator Paulo Freire who believed that the educational curricula did not benefit the 
marginalized group since it did not address barriers to discrimination which they faced and 
argued for personal empowerment which is important in creating awareness on the effects of 
social and political discrimination.  
The overall objective of empowerment is to offer families, communities, and groups what they 
need and also liberate marginalized societies socially and politically (Everett, Homstead, & 
Drisko, 2007; Turner & Maschi, 2015). The concept of empowerment is also rooted within 
“human rights and social justice framework with the aim of building a more compassionate 
world” (Turner & Maschi, 2015:158). They further add that the main assumption of 
empowerment approach is that the one involved is conversant with the problem and has a 
strength which could be built upon. Pettit (2012) asserts that empowerment originated from the 
struggles of social movements which were advanced by civic and political actors seeking 
collective responses. 
The idea of community empowerment has gained much attention in many disciplines and has 
been researched across various disciplines (Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). 
However, its definition remains problematic (Boley & McGehee, 2014). According to Rappaport 
(1987) cited in (Boley & McGehee, 2014: 86) empowerment is “the ability of people, 
33 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
organizations, and communities to gain mastery over their affairs”.  It is also a procedure by 
which people gain authority, access to resources and power over their lives (Ramos & Prideaux, 
2013: 463). Everett et al. (2007) believe that empowerment is a multidimensional concept and is 
linked to personal and social empowerment. Timothy (2007) cited in Ramos & Prideaux (2013) 
supports the opinion that empowerment is the capability of residents to be in authority, exercise 
choice of their action and have power over decisions and resources. Drydyk (2008) asserts that 
empowerment is when one has power and is able to exercise and gain benefit from it. 
Stavrinoudis & Simos (2016) support that empowerment is granting power to employees and 
helping them to realize their importance. 
Strzelecka & Wicks (2015) believe that empowerment results through interaction between a 
person and his/her environment through which the individual acquires socio-political 
capabilities, critical political consciousness, and ability to have influence over their condition. 
Ramos & Prideaux (2013:464) sees empowerment “as a process that helps communities to gain 
control over ecotourism initiatives in their area”. Furthermore, Pigg (2002) views empowerment 
as giving power to another person or group of people or when people exert power as part of their 
behavior. In addition, Güzel, Tükeltürk, & Özkul (2008: 420) define empowerment as 
“attributes, decision-making, power, and authority in all respects”. Moreover, Cheung, Baum, & 
Wong (2012: 36) assert that empowerment is the practice of “sharing information, rewards, 
knowledge, and power with front line employees”.  
Sutawa (2012) opines that the idea of empowerment is an effort to move residents or 
marginalized groups from their condition of voicelessness and powerlessness. According to the 
World Bank (2002) cited in Sutawa (2012), empowerment has four elements which are: 
34 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
1. Access to information, since information is s essential in development and communities 
with adequate information will be better positioned to use their rights. 
2. Community members should be given the chance engage in tourism development, either 
in planning or implementation. Residents should participate in all decision-making at the 
community level. 
3. All stakeholders should be accountable and community members should be educated to 
develop their accountability skills vertically, internally and horizontally. 
4. Community empowerment procedures should be of quality, develop members' capability 
to work in groups, advance and strengthen local institutions. Community members should 
be able to voice out their concerns and aspiration either as a group or individually. 
 
It must be noted that what the various definitions share in common is that, empowerment denotes 
a sense of control and authority over issues that concern community members or an individual.  
Sustainable ecotourism requires residents to improve their livelihoods and this can be achieved 
when residents participate in the tourism development process (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Eshun, 
2011; Ramos & Prideaux, 2013). The idea of empowerment according to Asiedu (2002) was 
proposed for the tourism sector by Akama (1996) and later worked on by Scheyvens (1999). 
Local communities’ empowerment is critical in achieving sustainable ecotourism since residents 
come into contact with tourists directly or indirectly and their hospitality is essential for the 
success of ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; Cole, 2006).  
35 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.7.2 Local empowerment and participation issues 
The ability of residents to participate in ecotourism activities is essential for their empowerment. 
Issues of local participation have gained much consideration in the literature and within the 
scope of sustainable tourism. Community participation is considered as critical for receiving 
local support for sustainable tourism projects (Cole, 2006). Different authors have outlined 
various forms of local participation in ecotourism. Arnstein (1969) cited in (Boley & McGehee 
(2014) and Zhang, Cole, & Chancellor (2013) provided a ladder of community involvement on 
the basis of power from an administrative perspective.  
Arnstein (1969) cited in Zhang et al. (2013) outlines 8 stages in local participation starting from 
the lowest form to the highest which are the manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, 
placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control. Arnstein groups manipulation and 
therapy as constituting nonparticipation where members are put on committees, for instance, 
neighborhood advisory boards but do not have any function or power. She classifies information 
and consultation as the degree of tokenism and placation as a higher form of tokenism where 
members hear and are heard, but cannot guarantee that their views are considered. She further 
classifies partnership, delegated power and citizen control as the degree of citizen authority 
where there is increasing the degree of decision-making and citizens can gradually enter into 
partnership and tradeoffs and eventually gain full control.  
Pretty (1995) cited in Zhang et al. (2013) provided a typology of local participation into seven 
levels which include manipulative, passive to self-mobilization. Manipulative participation 
according to Pretty is where members are represented on boards but without authority. Passive 
participation means that residents are notified of things that have happened or about to take 
place. Participation by consultation is where members are listened to by external powers. 
36 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Participation by material incentives is where residents get involved by offering resources and 
receive benefits in return. Functional participation is where members form groups to achieve a 
project objective but at a stage where all decisions have taken place and rely on external forces. 
Interactive participation is where people are involved in joint analysis where they can take 
decisions at the local level and self-mobilization is where people have authority over the way in 
which resources are used (Eshun, 2008; Pretty, 1995) 
Tosun (2006) provided three typologies of local participation which are spontaneous, induced 
and coercive participation. Coercive participation involves manipulation where those in authority 
manipulate the entire tourism system to their advantage at the expense of residents who may or 
may not enjoy benefits. Where residents participate, they are merely informed about decisions of 
authorities (Zhang et al., 2013).  Induced participation is where residents are consulted but are 
not part of the actual decision- making process (Tosun, 2006; Zhang et al., 2013). The coercive 
and induced participation are all process that involves top-down approaches and could make 
residents lose interest in tourism activities (Zhang et al., 2013). Spontaneous participation is a 
bottom-up approach where residents participate in decision-making and have full authority in the 
tourism planning process (Tosun, 2006; Zhang et al., 2013). 
From the various forms of participation outlined above, it can be deduced that not all forms of 
participation constitute empowerment. The various typologies of participation provided above 
share some degree of similarities. The form of participation classified by Arnstein as the degree 
of citizens power corresponds to that of Pretty’s self-mobilization and Tosun’s spontaneous 
participation (Tosun, 2006). These are the highest form of participation which is equated to 
empowerment since at this stage, residents are able to take their own decisions and gain full 
control over the planning of tourism in their locality (Tosun, 2006; Zhang et al., 2013). Cole 
37 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
(2006: 631) make a distinction between participation and empowerment that empowerment is the 
topmost end of the participation hierarchy where residents play active roles to bring about 
change, make decisions, actualize their actions and can find solutions to their problems.  
This form of participation is essential since it can help community members to be in control of 
their daily activities however, they would need the support of government and non-governmental 
institutions in order to succeed (Zhang et al., 2013). Local communities can be empowered when 
they are involved and participate in the various sectors of ecotourism development. Their 
participation alone is not sufficient to constitute empowerment (Boley et al., 2015). Where 
residents merely participate without having the authority to control the development of 
ecotourism, sustainable ecotourism would still be a mirage (Choi & Murray, 2010; Cole, 2006).  
Everett et al. (2007) outlined six steps used by frontline staff with their clients in building 
empowerment. These include recruitment, engagement, involvement, retention, partnership, and 
leadership.  They assert that recruitment stage is where members with different cultural 
background are recruited. The engagement and involvement start when people meet often and 
engage in activities. Retention is where new programs are designed to maintain their 
participation. The partnership begins when roles are shared and advisory boards are formed 
whilst leadership is where members acquire leadership skills and are ready to take up the front 
role and challenges (Everett et al., 2007). This suggests that empowering local communities 
would involve series of steps and that the various forms of participation could be part of the 
processes to empower local communities.  
However, the mere participation of residents at the various stages could not be said to be 
empowerment since, by the definitions of empowerment, residents need to be in control and take 
decisions that concern their daily well-being and be able to implement these decisions to achieve 
38 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
success. Cole (2006) cited in Ramos & Prideaux (2013) assert that empowerment process 
depends on knowledge transfer to community members and adds that communities’ failure to 
achieve economic benefit from ecotourism is because they have been passive participants. This 
study, therefore, recognizes empowerment as the highest form of participation where the 
majority of residents can take decisions, implement actions and take full control of ecotourism 
planning and processes. Various types of empowerment are necessary for ecotourism 
sustainability. 
2.7.3 Types of residents’ empowerment 
The types of empowerment are economic, social, political, environmental, human and 
psychological empowerments. It is important for residents to be empowered along these lines to 
ensure that there is a balance between the various components of empowerment. Where residents 
are not empowered along these lines, the success of sustainable ecotourism would not be assured 
(Cole, 2006).  
2.7.3.1 Psychological empowerment 
This refers to a situation where ecotourism is able to raise the self-esteem of community 
members (Scheyvens, 1999). Where outsiders or tourists recognize the community because of 
their natural environment and rich culture, residents are able to increase their confidence and are 
able to seek further education and other opportunities (Asiedu, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). In their 
study on empowerment in the United States, Kruja, Ha, Drishti, & Oelfke (2015) referred to 
psychological empowerment as the perception of employees for having the chance to determine 
their work roles and achieve meaningful work. This would help them to be confident and raise 
their self-esteem.  
39 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
In addition, Asiedu (2002) holds that psychological empowerment denotes the safeguarding of 
self-esteem, values, and admiration for culture and tradition. Furthermore, Boley et al. (2015) 
maintain that psychological empowerment in tourism is tourism’s ability to boost residents pride 
and self-esteem as tourists experience the unique natural features. Again, psychological 
empowerment is where community members “feel unique”, have increased “self-esteem” and 
“feel special” as well as believe that they have essential abilities and the means to share with 
tourists (Boley & McGehee, 2014: 87). The most common themes running through the 
psychological empowerment are increased self-esteem, confidence, pride, feeling special, happy 
and unique.  
A study conducted by Eshun & Tonto (2014) at BFMS in Ghana on Community-based 
ecotourism showed that community members are proud of their community because it is able to 
draw both domestic and international visitors. Again, Mensah & Ernest (2013) studied 
community participation in BFRBS in Ghana and found that some residents were proud about 
ecotourism in their community.  
On the other hand, residents are psychologically disempowered when they have not received 
benefits from ecotourism yet, they have lost their resources in the name of protected area. Such 
understanding could result in communities’ disinterest in sustainable ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; 
Scheyvens, 1999). Ramos & Prideaux (2013) affirm that psychological disempowerment results 
when residents lose interest in tourism development have fear of losing authority over residents 
participation in decision-making and feel inferior about their way of life. 
2.7.3.2 Social empowerment 
This is attained when residents work together to improve cohesion and connectedness 
(Scheyvens, 1999). Asiedu (2002) asserts that social empowerment is where residents increase 
40 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
their sense of cohesion, self-integrity, and reliance through ecotourism. He continues that 
residents could be socially empowered when there are strong social organizations such as youth 
groups, religious groups, and women organizations. Community members would be socially 
empowered when their local culture and tradition are maintained and benefits are employed to 
build social facilities like as roads, schools, clinics, water and electricity (Asiedu, 2002).  
Furthermore, Ramos & Prideaux (2013) believe that social empowerment would be achieved 
when tourism is able to or perceived to improve local balance, communities involve in and share 
in the tourism fortune and gain local authority over ecotourism resources. Again, Boley et al. 
(2015) perceive social empowerment as increased community unity and cooperation between 
residents. According to Boley & McGehee (2014: 87), the reasons behind the community 
cohesion and collaboration is to “fight off the outside pressures of tourism development which 
may not have what is best for the community in mind”. The common themes used in social 
empowerment include cohesion, collaboration, connectedness, improve culture and tradition as 
well as the provision of social infrastructure.   
It is important for communities to be socially empowered since ecotourism depends not only on 
the natural or cultural attraction but the existence of infrastructure. Good roads, potable water, 
and electricity are essential for ensuring ecotourism sustainability. When community members 
are aware that their community has benefited from a social infrastructure because of ecotourism, 
it can increase their interest in ecotourism. Such infrastructure can connect community members 
and raise their interest in ecotourism. Research conducted by Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) in 
Tafi Atome revealed that community had benefited from social infrastructures such as schools, 
roads, and hospitals which they said were constructed with revenue from ecotourism. Ecotourism 
can unite community members, bring about social cohesion provides social benefits to 
41 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
community members such as recreation and cultural facilities which keep community members’ 
interest in ecotourism (Mensah, 2012). For instance, Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) conducted a 
research in TAMS in Ghana on benefits from ecotourism and found that residents have 
ecotourism management group and can assist in the planning of ecotourism in the community. In 
addition, the communities have local cultural troupe and folklore group who occasionally 
entertain visitors for a fee. Moreover, Thanvisitthpon (2016) researched a historical park in 
Thailand and found that tourism has resulted in the development of social infrastructure such as 
transportation lines, fixed telephone lines, electricity and pipe borne water to the communities. 
On the other hand, residents are socially disempowered where ecotourism development does not 
conform to social norms and leads to social vices such as prostitution, crime, drug trafficking and 
loss of land, culture, and tradition (Asiedu, 2002). According to Scheyvens (1999), social 
disempowerment is where there is disharmony and social decay as community members lose 
respect for their culture and tradition. She adds that, instead of collaborating, residents compete 
with themselves for perceived benefits and there are anger and jealousy. In addition, Ramos & 
Prideaux (2013) assert that social disempowerment results when tourism creates conflict and 
social decline, there is rivalry and conflict regarding benefits from ecotourism and fear of losing 
local control of resources. In addition, community members could be socially disempowered 
where there is dissipation by local enterprises, residents are taken advantage of by ecotourism 
enterprises, community members buying themselves out of tradition and obligations as well as 
decreasing social connectedness within the communities (Boley et al., 2015). Honey (2008) 
agrees that ecotourism destinations in most developing countries are challenged because of the 
lack of infrastructure, political insecurity, difficulties in gaining access to destinations, 
inadequate marketing strategies and the lack of readily visible natural attractions. 
42 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
2.7.3.3 Economic empowerment 
This is attained when there are programs to ensure that economic benefits ‘trickle down’ to 
residents and most of them are employed (Asiedu, 2002:9).  Residents are economically 
empowered if ecotourism is able to bring prolonged economic gains and cash earned is shared 
among many households (Scheyvens, 1999). According to Ramos & Prideaux (2013), residents 
are economically empowered when the greater number of residents have control of economic 
resources from ecotourism, benefit economically from ecotourism, in short, medium and long-
term and earnings from tourism remain within the household and community levels. 
Furthermore, Sutawa (2012) establishes that economic empowerment is where community 
members have access to capital and resources. 
The economic empowerment of residents is important for ecotourism sustainability. People 
survive on their day-to-day activities and when residents are aware that their daily subsistent 
depends on ecotourism, they are more likely to conserve the resource for continuous benefits. 
Studies from various destinations show that there have been economic empowerments for local 
communities. For instance, Li (2006) conducted a research in the Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, 
in China on ecotourism benefits and found that residents received economic benefits such as 
employment and ownership of the small business. Kontogeorgopoulos (2005) conducted a study 
in one of Thailand’s oldest ecotourism firms and found that the company employs between 45 
and 60 residents. These workers are paid above the national average and provide other benefits 
such as disability allowances, health insurance, and training programs.  
Furthermore, Simpson (2008) studied on community benefit in tourism in the Brazilian Amazon 
revealed that two nature-based lodges provide economic benefits to residents. These benefits are 
43 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
seasonal and include selling of handicrafts, food, and drinks to tourists and more tourists buy 
local products. Other benefits include tour guides, research assistants, and some members build 
their own businesses in the sale of food, souvenirs and provide transport to tourists (Simpson, 
2008). Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) conducted research in Tafi Atome Monkey Sanctuary 
(TAMS) in Ghana on benefits from ecotourism and found that the residents benefit economically 
from ecotourism in the form of revenue sharing since there is a benefit-sharing plan in place. 
Economic disempowerment, on the other hand, arises when the economic benefits from 
ecotourism are accrued few people which could affect community cohesion and bring about 
disunity and reduce the interest of residents in ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002). Scheyvens (2002) 
asserts that economic disempowerment arises when cash benefits from ecotourism are small and 
irregular and most often falls in the hands of elites, foreign operators, and government agencies. 
She continues that community would be economically disempowered when very few members 
benefit economically from ecotourism and lack capital as well as the necessary skills to operate. 
Issues of economic disempowerment have shown in studies on CBE where lack of financial 
resources to residents disempower them (Eshetu, 2014; Stone & Rogerson, 2011; Sweeting, 
2012; Yeboah, 2013). Wearing & Neil (2009b) support that economic disempowerment set in 
when revenue is sometimes appropriated into general revenue instead of using the revenue to 
improve the quality of parks and protected areas. 
2.7.3.4 Political empowerment 
Political empowerment is achieved when the greater proportion of residents are involved in all 
aspects of the decision-making procedure that affects their well-being (Asiedu, 2002). It also 
occurs when traditional authorities, youth organizations, religious and women groups have 
avenues to air their views regarding ecotourism development (Asiedu, 2002). According to 
44 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Ramos & Prideaux (2014), political empowerment is where the needs and interests of 
community members are fairly represented within community’s political structure. They further 
add that political empowerment should take into account full responsibilities and ownership of 
tourism services and there should be appropriate institutions to train and provide technical skills 
to residents.  
Furthermore, Scheyvens (1999) stresses that political empowerment is when the views of 
residents are sought by agencies initiating or implementing ecotourism ventures. She adds that 
residents should be given the chance to be part of the decision-making bodies such as the 
Wildlife Park Board. She continues that, residents should have avenues to raise questions and 
have their concerns addressed. Political empowerment is achieved when residents are able to 
vote, involve in the decision-making process, and an outlet to share their concerns regarding 
ecotourism development (Boley et al., 2015; Boley & McGehee, 2014).  
Political empowerment of residents is equally critical for ecotourism sustainability. If more 
residents participate in decision-making and are part of local management teams, they are not 
only going to share their views but ensure that their concerns are addressed. Studies have shown 
issues of political empowerment where residents are part of local decision-making bodies. For 
instance, a study by Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) in TAMS showed that local tourism 
management board, as well as traditional rulers, were part of the enactment of the constitution to 
direct the management of the reserve. They were also part of the decision regarding the use of 
revenue from the sanctuary and with the assistance of NCRC they designed a benefit distribution 
scheme. 
Contrary, political disempowerment occurs when leadership in ecotourism is autocratic and self-
centered, power and ownership fall in the hands of governments and private institutions and 
45 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
there is a lack of appropriate institutions to develop the skills and train community members in 
ecotourism (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). Scheyvens (1999) shares that, residents are politically 
disempowered when agencies treat residents as passive participants and fail to involve them in 
decision-making. It occurs when the greater proportion of residents feel that they have no or little 
say regarding ecotourism development. Issues of political disempowerment include the 
monopoly of resources. Eshun (2011) agrees that where the management of ecotourism falls in 
the hands of governments, it decreases its potential to realize the dual goals of conservation and 
progress. 
2.7.3.5 Environmental empowerment 
The development of ecotourism is linked to the environment and to ensure that community 
members protect environmental resources, they need to be environmentally empowered. 
According to Ramos & Prideaux (2014), environmental empowerment is critical since it 
provides an efficient way for determining whether residents are engaging in ecotourism in such a 
way that will be beneficial to them and the environment. They further state that, environmental 
empowerment results where communities have rehabilitation centers for tourism such as nursery 
plants, reforestation programs, fire brigades and monitoring of communal areas. Similarly, 
Boley, McGehee, Perdue, & Long (2014) assert that communities could be environmentally 
empowered when ecotourism is able to improve the physical conditions of the environment and 
have incentives for new park development. 
Where there exist environmental laws and regulations, residents are likely to adhere to them to 
conserve environmental resources. For example, a study by Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) in 
TAMS showed that some residents were aware of environmental practices that will be beneficial 
to the environment and help ecotourism activities. The community has byelaws that prevent 
46 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
members to hunt in the forest, burn the bushes, cut down trees, litter, and dispose of solid waste 
indiscriminately in the reserve. Instead, the byelaws instruct residents to create fire belts around 
the reserve, plant mango trees and label forest footpaths to assist with movement within the 
reserve. Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham (2010) assert that the Osa Peninsula had the highest 
reforestation rates with the introduction of ecotourism in the 1990s. In Cuyabeno Reserve in 
Ecuador, communities that received revenue from ecotourism activities practiced stricter zoning 
protection measures including a ban on hunting than communities that do not receive tourism 
revenues (Schloegel, 2007).   
Furthermore, studies from Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve and Okavango Delta showed that 
residents derived some environmental benefits from ecotourism (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). This 
was because there have been some improvements in their natural environment after they replaced 
the traditional mode of subsistence farming that can lead to loss of soil, water and hunting which 
can decrease the population of wildlife with ecotourism (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Simpson, 
2008). Stem et al. (2003) maintain that some residents have abandoned their farmlands in the 
forest because they have recognized the value of ecotourism. Schloegel (2007) researched on 
sustainable tourism in Latin America and found that revenue from tourism encouraged 
landowners to implement effective measures to conserve biodiversity. In Ghana, there exist a 
Community Resource Management Areas (CREMA) where community members come together 
to manage wildlife on their farms (Asare, Kyei, & Mason, 2013). Such practices can go a long 
way to enhance the environmental empowerment of residents. 
 
Conversely, Environmental disempowerment occurs when residents are not able to protect the 
environment for ecotourism, are not aware of impacts from ecotourism to the environment as 
47 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
well as the necessary ways to mitigate the problems and are engaged in unsustainable 
environmental practices such as hunting, logging and littering (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). They 
further state that community members are environmentally disempowered if ecotourism brings 
about increase in environmental pollution such as littering. 
2.7.3.6 Human empowerment 
Central to the various types of empowerment is human empowerment. Hewitt & Anderson 
(2015) assert that empowerment requires human services to apply different techniques such as 
increasing skills and self-efficacy, improving consciousness about the connections between 
individual struggles and bigger public issues, forming a coalition with others and taking steps to 
build personal, interpersonal or social change. Pigg (2002: 112) equates human empowerment to 
self-power and believes it is the “first face” of empowerment. It is an important personal efficacy 
factor that could be defined as “personal power” and that efficacy can be increased when people 
gain control over their destiny.     
Kullenberg (2010) asserts that human empowerment denotes provision of education, skills, and 
training to community members. According to Lewis (2005), human empowerment is mostly 
about self-empowerment of the individual in relation to the social group. He continues that 
human empowerment includes providing the necessary structures for individuals to obtain an 
education, employment and obtain access to greater social control and use of resources. Bertin, 
Dailey, McGuane, & Ricc (2010) support the view that the existence of structured community-
based learning programs empower individual and improve their ability to influence and control 
decision-making process. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2014) reports that 
human empowerment and their freedom to act are required to enhance resilience. Providing 
capacity building to residents could yield positive environmental practices. For instance, a study 
48 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
by Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) in TAMS showed that residents were educated on the 
resource such that they are able to stop negative practices. Again, in a research conducted by 
Eshun & Tonto (2014), residents said that they are provided with training. These kinds of 
activities are steps in the right direction towards empowering local communities for sustainable 
ecotourism. 
 
Human disempowerment, on the other hand, occurs when individuals lack efficacy and may have 
unproductive attitudes and behaviors (Pigg, 2002). According to Lewis (2005), human 
disempowerment results when there is an undue restriction of opportunities or provision of 
resources. It also results when residents lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and training to 
improve their livelihoods outcomes. Coria & Calfucura (2012) maintain that the lack of skills, 
planning, and experience would disempower community members. In a study conducted by 
Eshun & Tonto (2014) at Boabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, 42.9% of respondents gave 
reasons for their non-participation as lack of transparency and knowledge. Other authors 
emphasize that lack of knowledge and management could disempower community members 
(Eshetu, 2014; Stone & Rogerson, 2011; Sweeting, 2012; Yeboah, 2013). 
Series of factors could influence residents’ empowerment and it is essential to know some of the 
factors that could influence residents’ empowerment. 
 
2.8 Factors influencing residents’ empowerment  
Communities’ empowerment could be influenced by series of factors. A study conducted in 
Bangladesh on factors affecting women empowerment uncovered that the educational status and 
age of respondents were significant in their status of empowerment (Rahman, Junankar, & 
49 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Mallik, 2009). Other authors investigated the factors influencing employees empowerment in 
Zimbabwe and found that factors contributing to their disempowerment include organizational 
culture, availability of resources, managers leadership styles and quality of training among others 
(Negwaya, Chazuza, Mapira, & Musemwa, 2014: 199). In addition, a study conducted by 
Brunton & Jeffrey (2014), revealed that prior knowledge contributed to students’ empowerment. 
In exploring the factors mediating community participating in tourism, Roberts (2016) asserts 
that some of the factors affecting community participation include community interest and 
support from institutions. Furthermore, Kruja et al. (2015) established that the age of respondents 
does not influence their perception of empowerment but established that gender, position, and 
tenure do have a strong influence on empowerment. Their research also revealed that education, 
gender, tenure and job position of respondents related significantly to empowerment. Again, 
Stavrinoudis & Simos (2016) conducted a study on factors affecting employees attitude to 
empowerment and found that the age of respondents related significantly to their perception of 
empowerment whilst gender and nationality were not significant. They added that respondents 
with higher levels of education related positively to empowerment. 
Moreover, Ahn & Choi (2015) investigated the factors affecting Korean nursing student 
empowerment in clinical practice and established that their empowerment would be increased 
with education. They continue that when they are treated as valued learners their self-esteem 
would be enhanced. In addition, Supriharjo, Rahmawati, Santoso, Setiawan, & Karina (2016) 
assert that some of the factors influencing community-based sustainability include a sense of 
belongingness. Not all but also Mensah (2016) investigated socio-demographic characteristics 
and community participation in tourism at Mesomagor and found that gender and income were 
related to community participation. Again, Safari, Gowele, & Lwelamira (2015) researched in 
50 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
tourism involvement and perceived benefits in Tanzania and found sex, age, and education to be 
significantly related to participation in tourism. Moreover, the length of stay of residents was 
found to influence residents’ accretion of social capital (Thomas, Stillwell, & Gould, 2016). On 
the other hand, Ahmad & Khan (2016) researched in Pakistan and found that age influence the 
disempowerment of women. It is important to know the factors influencing residents 
empowerment and equally critical to know the types of empowerment that residents prefer. 
 
2.9 Types of residents’ empowerment preferred by residents 
Community members can be empowered to engage in a series of activities that cut across the 
various types of empowerment. Studies from various destinations point out that, community 
members preferred to be in groups to engage in activities that empower them. Knight & Cottrell 
(2016) researched into tourism linked empowerment in Peru and found that tourism groups have 
helped residents especially females to acquire jobs. They feel that they have gained respects from 
their husbands, have increased in self-esteem and confidence which has boosted their 
psychological empowerment. Lenao & Basupi (2016) conducted a study into ecotourism and 
women empowerment in Botswana and found that some of the women engage in pottery and 
weaving of baskets. Some of the women use their cave house as an attraction and sell handicrafts 
to tourists. Others have also formed community-based institutions to assist them in the 
management of the natural resources sustainably. Such initiatives help to empower women 
socially and economically and could have implications on the management of ecotourism. Lenao 
& Basupi (2016) further assert that there were certain activities that were solely for women. 
However, ecotourism has given value to these activities and has attracted males although such 
issues have the potential to disempower women. 
51 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Another aspect that community members can participate is to form groups to engage in 
ecotourism activities. For instance, Chen, Li, & Li (2017) report that in a village in China called 
Langde Miao, residents have formed tourism receptive group where they are able to organize 
package tours and maintain public unity. Chen et al. (2017) further assert that the community 
members also engage in the hosting of tourists, manufacturing, and sale of artifacts to tourists. 
Such activities could be of interest to tourists/visitors and can bring them satisfaction. They also 
have other social groups such as the “Langde Village Tourism Health Management Convention” 
that ensures that the village sanitation is maintained. There is also the “Langde Miao village 
Pacts” which takes care of the preservation of traditional culture and has the authority to penalize 
those who fail to observe certain rules (Chen et al., 2017). Such community engagements would 
require training and capacity building for residents, hence providing human empowerment. Their 
formation of the groups could foster social cohesion and empower them socially whilst their 
participation in economic and environmental activities can empower residents economically, 
environmentally and politically. These could go a long way to providing psychological 
empowerment to the community members.   
Furthermore, Omar, Nordin, Azam, Lonik, & Jaafar (2014) looked at empowering local 
communities through tourism entrepreneurship and found that about 46% of the respondents 
preferred taking loans to start up their business. Such kinds of support could empower residents 
economically. Moreover, community members can be offered financial assistance to engage in 
other economic activities. A study by Ganle, Afriyie, & Yao (2015) revealed that some women 
receive micro credit from World Vision to assist them to engage in income-generating activities 
which would subsequently enhance their socio-economic livelihoods. They found that even 
though such activities can empower the women, some of them are unable to repay the loan which 
could disempower them due to the terms and conditions attached to the loan repayment. It is 
52 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
clear from the literature that residents prefer some aspects of empowerment. It is also essential to 
know which aspects of residents’ empowerment would bring satisfaction to tourists. 
 
2.10 Types of residents empowerment that can bring satisfaction to tourist 
The literature on tourists motivation and satisfaction suggest that there are certain attractions at 
the destinations that pull tourists and they are satisfied based on destination image (Lee, 2009; 
Tang, 2014). A study conducted by Tang (2014) on tourist motivation and satisfaction using 
structural equation model showed a relationship between motivation and visitor satisfaction. The 
study added that the positive and negative images that visitors have can affect their satisfaction 
and concluded that visitors to Sichman are attracted to the place because of its scenery and 
wildlife. Zhang & Chan (2016) assert that greater number of tourists visit nature destination to 
get closer to nature. Furthermore, assert (Owusu-Frimpong, Nwankwo, Blankson, & Tarnanidis, 
2013) that tourists are satisfied when the destination is able to meet their needs. This suggests 
that some tourists consider the attraction at the destination in terms of the beauty of the 
environment and that when residents are environmentally empowered, this category of tourists 
would be satisfied.  
According to Fiorello & Bo (2012) tourists prefer to be engaged in more sustainable forms of 
tourism and more tourists want to be environmentally friendly. They continue that such tourists 
are dissimilar in terms of their socio-demographic distinctiveness and they appreciate the natural 
environment. They add that these tourists are personally motivated and seek social growth, 
relaxation, acquaint themselves with cultural knowledge and are attracted to culture and 
tradition. They take interest in learning during the vacation (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014; Tang, 
2014). Fiorello & Bo (2012) posit that environmentally friendly tourists also patronize respect 
53 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
and seek their economic and social development. A study conducted by Agyeiwaah, 
Akyeampong, & Amenumey (2014) in the Ashanti region of Ghana on motivations for home 
stays revealed that tourists/visitors are motivated by socio-cultural experiences. These categories 
of tourists can enhance their experience when they visit destinations where community members 
are environmental, socially, economically, humanly, politically and psychologically empowered.  
Hoang, Long, Dung, & Dung (2016) assert that the ability of destinations to satisfy tourists is 
one of the factors that ensure the sustainability of the destination since it can build customer 
loyalty and boost return visits. Furthermore, Su & Hsu (2013) emphasize that the positive 
emotions of tourists can influence the intentions of tourists to revisit. According to Tang (2013)  
and  Walker & Walker (2011), tourists visit destination because they are pulled by destination 
images. These destination images include the various external attractions that are found at the 
destination and the tourists perceive that these attractions can bring them satisfaction. Owusu-
Frimpong, Nwankwo, Blankson, & Tarnanidis (2013) posit that tourists are satisfied when the 
destination is able to meet their needs.  
This suggests that tourists’ satisfaction is largely a feeling of how the tourists have experienced a 
destination and how the destination images are able to meet tourists’ expectations. Ecotourists 
are attracted to the natural environment and appreciate local culture. This suggests that when 
residents are environmentally empowered, they can conserve the quality of the resource to meet 
the expectations of such tourists. Furthermore, ecotourists are supposed to learn from the 
destination and their interaction with residents should yield positive experiences (TIES, 2015). 
Therefore, when residents are knowledgeable about ecotourism processes they can interact with 
tourists and aid in their satisfaction. This can be achieved when private and public institutions are 
performing their roles in empowering residents towards ecotourism sustainability. 
54 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.11 Roles of institutions in facilitating community empowerment 
Empowering local communities for sustainable ecotourism denotes that residents are powerless 
and require assistant in order to gain mastery over their affairs. This suggests that certain 
institutions should be in place and play their roles to assist the local communities. Han et al. 
(2014) posit that identifying various stakeholders’ roles and interests provide a better 
understanding of empowerment issues in tourism. For ecotourism destinations to be successful 
and make progress towards sustainable tourism there is the need for private and public 
participation (TIES, 2015). Various institutions and organizations are involved in ecotourism and 
it is essential that these institutions play their roles in empowering residents towards sustainable 
ecotourism.  
Private institutions can assist in delivering ecotourism principles at destinations. For instance, 
Conodros S. A., which is a private company and is involved in the development of cultural and 
nature tourism has offered the Achuar community in Ecuador with marketing, and management 
skills (Stronza, 2009). In Ngamiland in Northern Botswana, private institutions assist community 
members to benefit from ecotourism projects by offering employment, building community 
capability by training them in the tourism industry, management of natural resources and asset 
formation (Lepper & Schroenn, 2010). Chen et al. (2017: 6) conducted research in Langde Miao 
in China and found that, to enhance the quality of life of members and encourage efficient 
residents’ involvement in tourism, the Tourism Bureau and other sections have employed a term 
known as “please come in and go outside”. They offer free training to residents in guided tours, 
cooking skills, dance performances among others. They continue that there are other groups 
within the community that take care of environmental management, culture preservation, and 
hygiene. Such diverse areas of participation are important and can attract wider population since 
55 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
most people would find their interest areas. Coria & Calfucura (2012) opine that it is essential to 
balance the different interest of community members.  
Wearing & Neil (2009b) added that in order to develop ecotourism, institutions can explore joint 
enterprises and collaborate with residents. They continue that ecotourism destinations should 
implement programs to improve the environment including waste reduction and recycling. 
Private and public institutions can perform such roles. Furthermore, there is the need for 
resources and infrastructure for ecotourism to remain intact to continue attracting tourists. 
Development of infrastructure is critical for ecotourism sustainability and its absence can have 
implications on the successful implementation of ecotourism objectives.  Eshun & Tonto (2014) 
opine that to overcome barriers to ecotourism it is important to enhance transportation services, 
refurbish visitor center, reorganize procedures to include the greater number of the local 
population in ecotourism and provide residents with training in ecotourism activities. All these 
activities are under the jurisdiction of various institutions that need to work towards empowering 
local communities. Chen et al. (2017) assert that there should be a system of empowerment 
because community sense of identity alone is not adequate to maintain a traditional identity and 
require formal systems to guard the interests of the community. Tourists’ destinations fall within 
the jurisdiction of private and public institutions and their roles in empowering residents for 
ecotourism sustainability is essential. 
2.12 Conceptual framework 
The study combines two frameworks which are the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) 
and the empowerment framework. This is because each one of them is inadequate in addressing 
all the facets of the problem under investigation. The combination helped in reaping the 
advantages associated with the two. 
56 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.12.1 Empowerment and participation issues 
Most of the literature conceptualizes empowerment as a sense of control and authority over 
issues that concern community members or an individual (Boley et al., 2015; Pettit, 2012; Turner 
& Maschi, 2014). Cole (2006) differentiates between participation and empowerment that 
empowerment is at the top most end of the participation hierarchy where residents play active 
roles to bring about change, partake in decisions, implement their actions and can find answers to 
their problems. 
 There are various forms of local participation in ecotourism which have been outlined by 
different authors. Arnstein (1969) cited in (Boley & McGehee, 2014; Zhang et al., 2013) 
provided a ladder of community involvement on the basis of power from an administrative 
perspective. This ladder had eight levels of participation which are manipulation, therapy, 
informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control. Pretty 
(1995) cited in Zhang et al. (2013) provided a typology of local participation into seven levels. 
These are manipulative, passive, participation by consultancy, participating by material 
incentives, functional participation, interactive participation, and self-mobilization. Tosun (2006) 
provided three typologies of local participation which are spontaneous, induced and coercive 
participation (Tosun, 2006). The other types of participation have been categorized into three 
major forms of participation and in accordance with Tosun (2006) classification. Table 2.1 
presents the typology of people’s participation. 
 
 
 
 
 
57 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 2.1: Typology of people’s participation 
7. Self-mobilization  8. Citizen Degrees of  Spontaneous Participation 
control Citizen’s 
 7. Delegated Power Bottom-up active participation, 
power direct participation, participation 
6. Interactive participation in decision-making, authentic 
participation, self-planning. 
6. Partnership  
5. Functional participation  5. Placation    Induced Participation 
4. Participation for 4. Consultation  Top-down; passive, formal, 
Degrees of 
material incentive pseudo-participation, participation 
citizen in implementation. Participation 
Tokenism in implementation and sharing 
3. Informing  benefits, the choice between 
proposed alternatives and 
3. Participation by feedback. 
consultancy 
2. Passive participation  2. Therapy  Non-  Coercive participation 
Participation Top-down, passive, mostly 
 indirect, formal, participation in 
1. Manipulation 1. Manipulation  implementation but not necessary 
for sharing benefits, the choice 
 between proposed limited 
  
alternatives or no choice, 
 
paternalism, non-participation, a 
high degree of tokenism and 
manipulation. 
Pretty's (1995) typology of (Arnstein, 1969) typology of community Tosun (2006) typology of 
community participation participation community participation 
Source: Adopted from Tosun (2006:494) 
In Tosun (2006) classification, coercive participation involves manipulation where those in 
authority manipulate the entire tourism system to their advantage at the expense of residents who 
may or may not enjoy benefits. Where residents are involved, they are merely informed about 
decisions of authorities (Zhang et al., 2013). The coercive and induced participation are all 
process that involves top-down approaches and could make residents lose interest in tourism 
activities (Zhang et al., 2013). Spontaneous participation is a bottom-up approach where 
residents participate in decision-making and have full authority in the ecotourism planning 
process (Tosun, 2006; Zhang et al., 2013). For community members to be empowered, they need 
to participate at various levels of ecotourism development. However, it is not just any form of 
58 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
participation that would lead to empowerment but the spontaneous participation where Cole 
(2006) links to empowerment is essential for this study. 
2.12.2 Indicators for empowerment 
Five types of empowerment have been applied within the domain of tourism. These are 
economic, social, political and psychological empowerments. Indicators used to assess economic 
empowerment include tourism earnings remain in the communities, financial benefits and job 
opportunities for community members (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). Psychological indicators 
include self-esteem, pride, and confident (Boley et al., 2015). Indicators for political 
empowerment include involving residents in decision-making, avenues for people to air their 
concerns, communities taking full responsibilities and community’s political structures fairly 
represent the needs of residents (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015a; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). 
Ramos & Prideaux (2014) added the environmental empowerment where indicators used include 
the availability of plantations/nursery and the existence of an ecotourism management plan.  
2.12.3 Critiquing the empowerment framework 
The empowerment framework does not provide a separate focus on human empowerment. 
Again, it does not provide a means through which institutional structures and processes could be 
analyzed. According to Pettit (2012), the framework emphasizes on power which is not enough 
and needs the processes through which action can take place. The empowerment framework is 
criticized as a process of bringing residents to conform with the state objectives and issues like 
poverty as well as inequality are masked behind residents’ empowerment issues (Curry, 2009). 
The empowerment framework does not have tools necessary for analyzing livelihoods of 
residents (Tao & Wall, 2009). Employing the empowerment framework alone would not be 
sufficient in addressing the various facets of the study objectives. The SLF is used to augment 
the empowerment framework. 
59 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
2.12.4 Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) 
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) is credited to the work of Robert Chambers in 
1980 which was developed by Chambers, Conway, and others in the 1990s (DFID, 2000a) cited 
in (Petersen & Pedersen, 2010). It is a tool developed to assist in analyzing and understanding 
peoples’ sustainable livelihoods (DFID, 2000a). Sustainable livelihood approach admits that 
people gain their livelihoods from many activities (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). The SLF presents 
key issues that impact people’s livelihoods and relations between these factors. “A livelihood 
comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities 
required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover 
from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining 
the natural resource base.” (DFID, 2000a) cited in (Petersen & Pedersen, 2010: 6). 
It also draws on sustainable development as a parenting paradigm (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). It 
has also been defined as “comprising the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and 
access) and activities required for a means of living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope 
with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and 
provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net 
benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long-term” 
(Chambers & Conway, 1992) cited in (Solesbury, 2003: 5).  
The framework can be used as a planning tool and help in assessing the contribution of existing 
activities on livelihoods sustainability (DFID, 2000a). This framework has been applied in the 
realm of tourism and was successful in assessing various tourism activities on livelihoods 
(Mbaiwa & Sakuze, 2009; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Nthiga, Van der Duim, Visseren-
Hamakers, & Lamers, 2015). The strength of this framework is that it is organized around the 
60 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
tenets of sustainable development and can be used to assess economic, social and environmental 
models of ecotourism development. It provides a holistic way of assessing livelihoods 
vulnerabilities, assets, transforming structures and processes, strategies and outcomes (Petersen 
& Pedersen, 2010). The framework has five main sections as shown in the figure. 2.3. 
   
H = Human, F = Financial, N = Natural, P = Physical and S = Social Capitals 
 
 
I
LIVELIHOOD ASSETS n LIVELIHOOD 
 OUTCOMES 
 o
VULNERABILITY H TRANSFORMING r  More 
CONTEXT STRUCTURES & d
income 
 S PROCESSES 
e
 SHOCKS N r  Increased 
 TRENDS STRUCTURES  well-being Influence LIVELIHOOD t
  SEASONALITY  Levels of STRATEGIES &  Reduced 
P F Government 
o
Access  vulnerabilit
 Private  a y 
 sector c  Improved 
 Laws h
 Policies i food 
 Culture e security  
 Institutions              v  More 
e
                PROCESSES sustainable 
  
  use of NR 
 
  
 
Figure 2 3: Sustainable Livelihood Framework 
Source: (DFID, 2000b) cited in (GLOPP, 2008: 2) 
The sustainable livelihoods framework consists of five sections which are vulnerability, 
livelihood assets, transforming structures and processes, livelihood strategies and livelihood 
outcomes. Livelihood assets consist of Natural capital includes the stocks of natural resources 
that are useful for livelihood. They are made up of the tangible public goods to divisible assets 
61 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
such as land, forests, marine/wild resources, water, air quality and biodiversity (DFID, 1999). 
Physical capital refers to the necessary infrastructure required to sustain livelihoods. 
Infrastructure includes changes made within the physical environment that enable people to 
achieve their livelihoods. They include transport, buildings, water supply, sanitation, energy and 
other goods that are owned privately and publicly (DFID, 1999). Financial capital includes the 
types of financial resources that people use to realize their livelihoods goals and consist of all 
resources that can provide support to consumption and production (DFID, 1999). They include 
access to financial institutions and flows from the state.  
Human capital refers to the skills, awareness, and people’s capabilities to pursue varied 
livelihoods activities to achieve their goals. It also includes the health of the individual which is 
important in order to fulfill their livelihoods objectives (DFID, 1999). This aspect of capital is 
common and critical for the achievement of the other capitals in the framework since people 
need knowledge and skills in order to acquire the various capitals to realize their objectives 
(DFID, 1999). Social capital applies to the social resources that are used by people to achieve 
their livelihoods objectives. These social infrastructures are developed through networks that 
enhance trust and ability of people to work together. 
Transforming structures and processes refers to the institutions, organizations, policies, and 
legislations shaping livelihoods. These are critical for the development of ecotourism since the 
kind of structures and processes in place could determine access to other forms of capital (DFID, 
1999). The processes include the institutional arrangements, culture, religion, policies as well as 
legislations that help to shape people’s livelihoods whilst structures include public and private 
sectors involvement in shaping people’s livelihoods (DFID, 1999).  Vulnerability refers to the 
exterior environment where people exist. Thus, people’s livelihoods are impacted by certain 
62 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
shocks which are the circumstances under which resources are destroyed, trends are predictable 
and have an influence on the rates of return to certain livelihoods strategies shift in prices, 
production, health and employment opportunities and seasonality (DFID, 1999). Livelihood 
strategies refer to the variety and combination of activities and choices in which people 
undertake to attain their livelihood outcomes. This strategy in the framework helps to promote 
diverse opportunities and choices (DFID, 1999). Livelihood outcomes are the accomplishments 
or results of livelihood strategies (DFID, 1999). 
2.12.5 Critiquing the sustainable livelihood framework 
The sustainable livelihood framework does not focus separately on political issues. De Haan 
(2012:354) asserts that the framework did not focus on power relations because of the “non-
ideological context in which it was first built”. Mazibuko (2013: 185) agrees that the sustainable 
livelihood framework fails to incorporate the “processes of economic globalization, power, and 
politics, changing environmental conditions and the lack of a long-term vision for rural 
economies”. Shen et al. (2008) posit that the SLF does not have separate indicators for analyzing 
issues on tourism. According to Mazibuko (2013), the sustainable livelihood framework does not 
provide details as to how people should solve problems created by international structures that 
national governments cannot resist. The SLF has no separate focus for analyzing psychological 
empowerment. Furthermore, Mazibuko (2013) further stated that the framework acknowledges 
that the poor should utilize their resources to overcome poverty. However, the poor do not have 
the means to opt out of poverty unless policies that favor the poor are implemented. Empowering 
residents is, therefore, critical and warrants a combination of the SLF and that of empowerment. 
2.12.6 Linking empowerment and sustainable livelihoods frameworks 
Drawing from the two frameworks, this study employs the human assets from the SLF 
framework to the empowering framework as human empowerment. According to DFID (1999), 
63 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
this aspect of capital is common and critical for the achievement of the other assets in the 
framework since people need knowledge, health, and skills in order to acquire the various assets 
to achieve their objectives. In addition, Pigg (2002) asserts that the first face of empowerment is 
the individual. Petesch, Smulovitz, & Walton (2005) in explaining empowerment issues link 
human capital and empowerment within the context of SLF. Some of the indicators from 
physical and social capitals are merged and employed as social empowerment. Indicators of 
natural capital and environmental empowerment are merged as environmental empowerment. 
Those from financial capital for economic empowerment are combined to become economic 
empowerment. The psychological and political empowerments from the empowerment 
framework are maintained. 
 
The study also employs the shocks in the vulnerability concept in the SLF as issues of 
disempowerment, the transforming structures, and processes to examine the roles of various 
institutions and the livelihood strategies to study the kinds of empowering strategies in place to 
empower community members. Shen, Hughey & Simmons (2008) have employed the SLF in the 
context of tourism and found that there exist gaps in the SLF’s application to tourism and 
proposed the inclusion of local participation in the framework. 
 
2.12.7 Proposing critical realism views for studying community empowerment 
Unlike positivism and interpretivism, critical realism is well-suited with a wide variety of 
concepts (Easton, 2010; Platenkamp & Botterill, 2013). It is preferred for this study because 
drawing on the ideas from critical realism, issues on community empowerment towards 
sustainable ecotourism could be addressed. According to Yaro (2004), critical realism accepts 
the criticisms of post-modernist against positivist science. The tenets of critical realists suggest 
64 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
that achieving sustainability in ecotourism and conservation goes much deeper than just bringing 
together the power of structure and agency. Even though it has been established in the literature 
that community members need to be empowered to achieve sustainable ecotourism (Boley & 
McGehee, 2014; Cole, 2006), drawing upon ideas from critical realism, the question of what are 
the factors influencing the status of residents’ empowerment and could be investigated. 
Critical realist ontology is that the world exists independent of observers and the epistemology is 
that this reality can be accessed (Austen & Jefferson, 2006; Easton, 2010; Platenkamp & 
Botterill, 2013). Linking the critical realists’ ideology with empowerment suggests that, there are 
empowerment and disempowerment issues at the various destinations. Objects are the building 
blocks of critical realists explanations and these objects could be people, resources, and attitudes 
(Easton, 2010). The objects of study in this study are issues of empowerment where the study 
investigates to uncover whether the local communities are empowered or disempowered.  
Objects are the critical realist's basic blocks for explanation and events are what they investigate 
(Easton, 2010). The objects in this study include ideas, people, resources, and information whilst 
the events are the issues on residents’ empowerment. Causal powers and liabilities according to 
critical realists are associated with objects of social science studies. The researcher identifies the 
causal powers by asking what produces what we see (Easton, 2010). This study looks at the 
factors influencing the status of residents’ empowerment to uncover the hidden objects 
producing the status of residents’ empowerment. The study investigates further to unveil the 
types of empowerment that residents prefer and would enhance tourists/visitors’ 
experience/satisfaction. 
Structures and processes are the associations and organizations involved in the development of 
ecotourism. It involves the kinds of collaboration between these institutions to ensure the 
65 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
successful delivery of sustainable ecotourism objectives. Reflecting on critical realist thinking, 
structures and processes are mechanisms which act with entities to cause events to happen 
(Easton, 2010). Furthermore, mechanisms include the policies, legislations, rules, and activities 
that are essential in empowering residents to improve their empowered outcomes. This is helpful 
in unveiling the roles of private and public institutions in empowering residents. The framework 
is shown in figure 2.4. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
66 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Sustainable 
 Ecotourism 
 
 
 Inadequate/ limited interaction Empowerment outcomes  
(Majority of residents have) 
 
-Improved knowledge on 
Vulnerability  Aspects of Structures    Processes  
 ecotourism, empowerment -Private 
Signs of -Improved skills, Increased                       Strategies 
d isempowerment (Objects, jobs, Improved culture and -Public 
- Less people events) traditions, 
b enefit,  
 
-Adherence to byelaws 
- Shocks (loss of  People / 
resources) -Improved institutional roles          (Mechanisms) resources - Enhanced tourists satisfaction 
 
  
  
Environmental Social Political Economic Human Psychological  
 
 
Knowledge of Connectedness  Decision-  Job  Training in Confident; 
env ironmental Cohesion; making by opportunities; alternative 
management; Culture; traditional/  livelihoods; Proud; 
 Social group; individuals  Access to Awareness 
Environmental Self-esteem 
Infrastructure: credit of 
gro up; 
schools, clinics Avenues to facilities; importance 
and roads share views;  forest; Adh erence to 
Tourists/visitors Skills 
byelaws Concerns 
 purchase   development addressed 
 
Figure 2 4: Framework for residents’ empowerment 
Source: Adapted from (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015a; DFID, 1999; Ramos & Prideaux, 
2014; Scheyvens, 1999)  
The framework depicts that the issues of empowerment include the objects of study which are 
the resources and people. The framework shows the exact types of empowerment which are 
environmental, social, political, economic, human and psychological empowerment and the 
67 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
specific indicators measuring each of them. The framework for residents’ empowerment suggests 
that when the various private and public institutions interact with the people and resources to 
provide the various empowerment issues, the majority of residents would be empowered. This 
would be seen when the majority of residents have improved knowledge on ecotourism, 
improved skills, adhere to laws and there are increases in jobs opportunities. On the other hand, 
when there is less interaction with residents, they are likely to be vulnerable and show signs of 
disempowerment. Furthermore, residents show signs of disempowerment when there are shocks 
(loss of resources) and fewer people are benefiting. 
2.12.8 Advantages and disadvantages of the framework 
2.12.8.1 Advantages 
The SLF and empowerment frameworks provide a broader approach to analyzing community 
empowerment from various perspectives for sustainable ecotourism. Ecotourism is seen as a 
livelihood approach Mbaiwa & Stronza (2010) and applying the SLF provides a deeper insight 
into understanding ecotourism principles. The framework provides a more holistic approach to 
understanding issues related to sustainable development (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). A complex 
phenomenon such as sustainable tourism requires complex approaches to providing detail 
understanding of the phenomenon under study (Eddins & Cottrell, 2013). Furthermore, Tao & 
Wall (2009) maintain that sustainable tourism ought to be integrated into the processes of 
sustainable development and this framework provides a linkage between community 
empowerment for sustainable ecotourism and the various scopes of livelihood processes. The 
framework is helpful in understanding the empowerment of residents and how their livelihoods 
are related to ecotourism in terms of access to land and other livelihoods resources (Eddins & 
Cottrell, 2013). 
68 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The framework helps in understanding the extent of community empowerment for sustainable 
ecotourism. It is useful in explaining the various types of empowerment, the factors influencing 
residents’ empowerment, residents’ preferences and roles of institutions. It can be applied in a 
broader context to explain the relationship between community empowerments and livelihoods 
for sustainable ecotourism and for sustainable development in general. 
The literature reviewed here strengthens our understanding and contributes to the various issues 
on ecotourism, CBE, concepts of residents’ empowerment, and sustainable development that are 
critical for pursuing the sustainable ecotourism agenda. 
2.12.8.2 Disadvantages 
Eddins & Cottrell (2013) believe that applying the SLF framework within the context of tourism 
does not really ensure a holistic approach to sustainability. They believe that the framework is 
not a solution but a guide to investigating sustainable tourism. Shen et al. (2008) share that 
analysis of tourism livelihoods should be done with care because of the complex nature of the 
framework. Furthermore, ecotourism deals with both host communities and guests so much 
attention should be paid to the kind of interaction between host communities and guests to ensure 
sustainability. However, the framework is inadequate in explaining the views of visitors on 
residents’ empowerment for sustainable ecotourism. 
2.13  Summary 
This section presented information from the literature that relates to the topic under investigation. 
It provided details on the ecological sustainability theory highlighting its importance to the study 
of ecotourism. The history and meaning of ecotourism were also presented. The section detailed 
out the genesis of empowerment and the various aspects and signs of empowerment discussed in 
the literature. Information on aspects of resident empowerment that can enhance tourists/visitors 
69 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
satisfaction is outlined. The section further presented the roles of private and public institutions 
in empowering residents ended with a summary. Finally, the section presented the conceptual 
framework for the study which was drawn from the empowerment and SLF frameworks.  
70 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER THREE 
 STUDY AREAS AND METHODOLOGY 
3.1  Introduction 
This chapter presents the study areas and the methods used to collect data. It begins with the 
study areas where data was collected. It provides a detailed description of the study areas, thus 
Bobiri Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary (BFRBS) and Kakum National Park (KNP). The 
chapter proceeds with the description of methods of data collection and offers a justification for 
choosing the mixed methods approach, providing the theoretical underpinnings of the choice of 
methods based on the ideology of the critical realist. The details of the research design, sampling 
design, sources of data and the data analysis techniques are provided in this section. 
 
3.2 Study areas 
3.2.1 Bobiri Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary 
3.2.1.1 History, location and size 
The BFRBS falls within the Ejisu Juaben Municipality and in 1936 the Juaben stool holds the 
largest proportion of the Reserve lifted a formal injunction on farming in the Reserve in 1936. In 
order to control the exploitative nature of the reserve, the Forestry Commission (FC) integrated a 
Working Plan between 1945 and 1950.  
The reserve was created in 1939 when it was an untouched primary forest. It lies between 
latitude 60 40’’ and 60 44’’ north of the equator and longitudes 10 15’’ and 10 22’’ west of the 
Greenwich (Mensah & Ernest, 2013). The size of the reserve is about 54.6 sq.Km and is 
approximately 35 Km South-east of Kumasi, the Ashanti Regional capital. Its main entrance is at 
71 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
a village called Kubease on the main Kumasi-Accra highway and about 4 Km off the main road 
(Saviour, 2012). From 1948 to 1960s, the FC began a nursery and diverse species were collected 
from the nursery which was eventually converted into an arboretum. Some of the communities 
that surround the reserve include Krofofrom, Kubease, Ndobom, Koforidua, Nkwankwaduam, 
and Tsetsekaasum (Saviour, 2012). 
3.2.1.2 Climate and vegetation 
The BFRBS falls within the middle belt of Ghana and within the tropical moist semi-deciduous 
Forest Zone of Ghana with an annual rainfall of between 1200mm and 1750mm (Saviour, 2012). 
He continues that the BFRBS has a bimodal rainfall season and annual range of temperatures of 
20oC in March and 32oC in August.  
3.2.1.3 Ecotourism resources 
When the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG) with permission from FC realized the 
rich nature of biological resources at BFRBS, they created the butterfly sanctuary in 1995 and 
turned the reserve into an ecotourism destination without compromising the research activities of 
the institute in 1997.  It has over 400 species of butterflies. A guesthouse was constructed by 
FORIG in 1990 to aid research and eventually ecotourism activities in the reserve. The BFRBS 
was incorporated into a national ecotourism project in 2001 with 13 other sites in Ghana. FORIG 
in collaboration with other organizations like Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC), the 
then Ghana Tourist Board (GTB) and Peace Corps organized workshops for the community and 
improved on infrastructure1. The BFRBS is rich in biodiversity and has about 100 indigenous 
species on 1.7 hectares of land.  It also has about 120 birds with about 80 to 100 species of flora 
                                                          
1 http://csir-forig.org.gh/ecotourism.php (Accessed 27/02/14) 
72 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
per acre. A lizard that was unique to BFRBS was discovered in 1995 and was named Hyperorius 
bobirensis (Pers.com, 2016a). 
3.2.1.4 Management activities 
This reserve happens to be the largest reserve managed by FORIG. There are five (5) 
compartments of the reserve and the guesthouse which are administered by FORIG. In managing 
the BFRBS, FORIG has divided the reserve into three compartments. These are the productive, 
conservation and conversion areas. The ecotourism activities are carried out in the conservation 
area, research at the conversion section whilst extraction of timber goes on at the productive 
section (Pers.com, 2016d). 
3.2.1.5 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics 
There has been an increase in the population of some of the communities surrounding the 
BFRBS from 2000 to 2010 whilst other communities have decreased in terms of their population 
densities. The population density rate of Ejisu Juaben Municipality is about 2.5% compared with 
national rate of 2.6% (Saviour, 2012). New Koforidua has increased in population from 2,280 in 
2000 to 2,554 in 2010 with the male population increasing from 1,096 in 2000 to 1,265 in 2010 
whilst female population also increased from 1,184 in 2000 to 1,289 in 2010 (GSS, 2012). There 
has also been an increase in the population of Kubease from 1,787 in 2000 to 1,798 in 2010 with 
a decrease in male population from 921 in 2000 to 857 in 2010 and an increase in the female 
population from 866 in 2000 to 941 in 2010. Krofofrom decreased in terms of population from 
354 in 2000 to 316 in 2010 with a decrease in male population from 198 in 2000 to 159 in 2010 
and an increase in female population from 156 in 2000 to 157 in 2010 (GSS, 2012). 
The main economic activity in the communities around BFRBS is agricultural activities. These 
include farming, poultry, and rearing of goats and sheep at a small scale (Pers.com, 2015). 
73 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
According to Saviour (2012), the major activity in the municipality is agriculture, animal 
husbandry, and forestry. He further stated that agriculture offers employment to about 68.2% of 
the local communities, 23.8% in the service sector and 8% in the industry. The majority of the 
community members involved in agriculture explains the high rate of dependence on natural 
resources (Saviour, 2012). The social infrastructure in most of the communities around the 
reserve include public toilets and pit latrines, there are few hand pumping pipes in Kubease and 
Krofofrom. These two communities have no clinic or hospital except a traditional herbal center 
at Krofofrom. The two communities have no police station but have a minuscule market. 
Kubease has one primary and a Junior High School whilst Krofofrom only has a primary school 
(Saviour, 2012).  
3.2.1.6 Land tenure system 
The BFRBS is situated in the Ashanti region and falls under the stool lands which is managed by 
the Golden Stool of the Ashantis. The Ashanti stool lands are managed by the different 
paramount Stools on behalf of the Golden Stool and the BFRBS is under the Juabeng and 
Effiduase Stools. The reserve is administered in trust for the people through a chain of traditional 
rulers. The traditional paramount chiefs and sub-divisional chiefs assist the Asantehene in 
managing the lands at the various communities. These divisional chiefs are the first point of call 
on matters regarding the reserve and they help the FC in the management of the forest (Edusah, 
2011). 
3.2.2 Kakum National Park 
3.2.2.1 History, location, and size 
The KNP was established in 1925-1926 under the colonial administration. It was managed by the 
Forest Service and the major aim was for timber extraction Wildlife Division (WD, 1996). A 
74 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
survey conducted by the WD in 1989 showed that some key animals are globally endangered and 
hence the need to convert it into wildlife protected area. In November 1991 it was gazetted as a 
no go area (Eshun, 2008). The idea of formation was spearheaded by one Ato Austin who saw 
that the Central Region of Ghana experience poverty and yet has the potential for tourism 
(Eshun, 2008). Hence, there was the need to conserve areas like the castles and other monuments 
that were to be blended with the natural environment to develop the tourism potential in the 
region. 
The Park was gazetted as a National Park and Resource Reserve by the Wildlife Reserves 
Regulation (LI 1525) in 1992 to protect the watersheds of the Kakum River and other rivers 
around the communities surrounding the Park (Cobbinah et al., 2015) and reduce biodiversity 
loss (Appiah-Opoku, 2011). The Park covers a total land area of about 360 km2 and lies between 
latitudes 5020’ and 5040’N and longitude -1051’ and -1030’ W (Binlinla, Voinov, & Oduro, 
2014). The park is located about 30 km north of Cape Coast (Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Cobbinah et 
al., 2015). 
3.2.2.2 Climate and vegetation 
The KNP falls within the Upper Guinean Forest in West Africa and one of the world’s 
biodiversity hotspots. It experiences two rainy seasons in a year and the average annual rainfall 
falls between 1,500 mm and 1,750 mm (Binlinla et al., 2014). They further stated that the 
average relative humidity of the area is around 85% with temperatures ranging between 20.20C 
and 31.60C. The KNP is rich in biodiversity such as elephants, species of primates, reptiles and a 
total of 266 birds species and about 405 butterfly species (Cobbinah et al., 2015). There are rare 
plant species in a spectacular environment where some trees reach heights of over fifty meters. 
75 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
There was a discovery of a butterfly in Kakum in 1993 and has been appropriately named 
Diopetes kakumiú (Eshun, 2008). 
3.2.2.3 Ecotourism resources 
The rich biodiversity resources provided by KNP offer an opportunity for ecotourism 
development. Ecotourism was developed in KNP in 1995 by the FC with help from Conservation 
International (CI), which is a non-governmental organization (NGO). The aim of the 
establishment was to aid the management of the KNP and assist with the development of the 
communities (Cobbinah et al., 2015). The introduction of ecotourism began with the construction 
of a 333 km canopy walkway in the western part of the Park by Conservation International and 
the Government of Ghana (GoG) in 1995 (Cobbinah et al., 2015; Eshun, 2008). The Ghana 
Wildlife Division of the FC in the year 2000 also established a tree platform in the eastern part of 
the Park (Cobbinah et al., 2015). The canopy walkway attracts most visitors to KNP (Eshun et 
al., 2015). 
3.2.2.4 Managerial activities 
There are protection and law enforcement units that ensure the reserve is protected from 
poachers and other illegal activities by community members. There is also the tourism division 
that takes care of the ecotourism activities within the reserve. For instance, the collaborative 
resource administration department ensures that the public understands the use of the reserve. 
Their objectives include the necessity to conserve biodiversity and promoting environmental and 
ecotourism education and ensuring that the community members are included in the management 
of the reserve. Another area is the protected area and management advisory division that advises 
on administrative activities (Eshun, 2008). The Ghana Heritage Conservation Trust (GHCT) 
which is an NGO manages the ecotourism activities outside the reserve and it is their duty to 
76 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ensure that communities around the reserves benefit from ecotourism development (Pers.com, 
2015). 
 3.2.1.5 Demographic and socio-economic characteristics 
There are over 80 communities and about 400 hamlets around the KNP (Eshun, 2008). The two 
major districts where the KNP falls are the Twifo Heman Lower Denkyira and Assin South. The 
Twifo Heman Lower Denkyira has a population of 107,787 as at 2000 and the district is typically 
rural with 1,510 settlements as at 2000 (Eshun, 2008). Some of the communities within the 
Twifo Heman Lower Denkyira are Abrafo, Krofofrom, and Mfuom. There was an increase in 
population in all these communities from 2000 to 2010 and Abrafo, for instance, increased in 
population from 588 in 2000 to 833 in 2010 with an increase in male population from 289 in 
2000 to 413 in 2010. Krofofrom increased in population from 150 in 2000 to 218 in 2010 with an 
increased male population from 82 in 2000 to 99 in 2010 and female population from 68 in 2000 
to 119 in 2010. Mfuom also increased in population from 1,910 in 2000 to 2,149 in 2010 with an 
increased male population from 944 in 2000 to 1,054 in 2010 and increased female population 
from 966 in 2000 to 1,095 in 2010. 
The Assin South district has a population of about 116, 349 as at 2000 with 500 settlements. 
Some of the communities in the district include Adiembra and Mesomagor. Adiembra increased 
in population from 2,782 in 2000 to 3,701 in 2010 with an increased male population from 1,413 
in 2000 to 1,810 in 2010 and an increased female population from 1,369 in 2000 to 1,891 in 
2010. Mesomagor has an increase in population from 395 in 2000 to 406 in 2010 with an 
increased male population from 215 in 2000 to 217 in 2010 and an increased female population 
from 180 in 2000 to 189 in 2010 (GSS, 2012). 
77 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The economic activities in the Twifo Heman Lower Denkyira are mainly agriculture (Binlinla et 
al., 2014). The Ghana Living Standard Survey 6 (GLSS), showed that more than nine out of ten 
Ghanaian rural communities (93.5%) engage in agriculture. About 51% of the labor force is into 
agriculture in the district followed by 28% in the service, commerce is 16% and industry 5% 
(Eshun, 2008). Other economic activities in the district include palm oil extraction, rice, and 
cassava milling as well as soap production. The major economic activity in the Assin South 
District is also agriculture which employs about 69% of the labor force, the industry employs 
5%, services 8% and commerce 18% (Eshun, 2008). 
The district has 119 pre-schools (nursery/kindergarten). Pupil population is 5,165, comprising 
2,613 girls. There are 85 Junior High Schools in the district with an enrollment rate of 68%. 
There are only two Senior High Schools in the district located at Jukwa and Praso. The district 
has one hospital which is located at Twifo Praso and twelve rural clinics some of which are 
located at Heman, Nuamakrom, Wawase, Jukwa, and Frami. The district in addition to all these 
facilities has acquired a mobile health van that provides remote communities with health care. In 
the Assin South district, there are 85 pre-schools, 103 primary schools, 73 Junior High Schools, 
4 Senior Secondary Schools, and 1 Teacher Training College. Although, there is the availability 
of electricity and gas, about 76% of the inhabitants of the Assin South district rely on firewood 
for their household. The Abrafo has two primary and Junior High Schools (JHS) and Mesomago 
has one primary and JHS. 
3.2.2.6 Land tenure system 
The land traditionally belongs to the Assin, Twifo Heman, Denkyira and Abura-Asebu Kwaman-
Kese (Binlinla et al., 2014). The Akan system of inheritance, thus the matrilineal is applied in the 
administration of the land and it falls in the hands of clans, family heads and chiefs in trust of the 
78 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
people. The system of ownership allows natives of the land to use a portion of the land for 
farming as far as no one is using the land. They only require permission from the head of the 
family or the chief of the community.  
Non-natives can also have lands through the “Abunu”  usually for food crops where the settler 
shares the produce  into two and gives one to the land owner or the “Abusa” usually for cash 
crops such as cocoa, oil palm where the farmer divides the produce into three and offer one to 
the land owner (Edusah, 2011; WD, 1996). The land allocation is generally the prerogative of the 
paramount chiefs who appoint representatives to allocate lands on their behalf. The stool lands 
and the district assemblies collect tolls which are shared among the traditional Stools and the 
district assemblies (WD, 1996). There is also the system of freehold where a settler can purchase 
the land and they can institute their laws regarding the lease of the land (WD, 1996). The study 
areas and communities are shown in figure 3.1. 
 
 
 
79 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Figure 3.2: Map showing study areas and selected communities 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
80 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.3 Methods of data collection 
 
3.3.1 Philosophical underpinnings of mixed method research 
The application of the mixed methodical approach is based on the critical realism, pragmatism 
and transformative paradigm (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010) cited in (Cameron, 2011). Pragmatic 
research in its simplest form is a practical approach to problem solving and even though 
pragmatic researchers can apply mixed methods, the eclectic nature of pragmatism could pose 
challenges (Cameron, 2011). Creswell (2014) posits that pragmatic approach permits the use of 
all other approaches. Transformative paradigm assumes that there are multiple realities that are 
socially constructed but the transformative researcher should be conversant with the societal 
values and privileges that determine reality (Mertens, 2007). The focus of the transformative 
researcher is more on transformation and addressing social injustices in societies (Mertens, 
2007). The application of mixed methods approach in this study dwells on the philosophical 
assumptions of the critical realists.  
Critical realism is a philosophical worldview that deals with the key concerns of both natural and 
social science phenomenon placing emphasis on ontology (Zachariadis, Scott, & Barrett, 2010). 
Critical realists believe that the world exists irrespective of our minds (Easton, 2010; Zachariadis 
et al., 2010). They also believe that “social phenomena such as actions, texts and institutions are 
concept dependent.  We do not only have to explain their production and material effects but to 
understand, read or interpret what they mean.  Although they have to be interpreted by starting 
from the researcher’s own frames of meaning, by and large, they exist regardless of researchers’ 
interpretation of them” (Sayer, 1992: cited in Easton, 2010:119). By providing the means to 
explain, interpret or read, critical realists advocate for the application of more than one approach 
81 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
and support mixed methods. Kitchin and Tate (2000) proposed that the main methodology for 
critical realists’ research is the mixed method.  
Critical realists again believe that causation involves the observation of events (Zachariadis et 
al., 2010:7). However, it is not the case that the real or actual world cannot be observed but are 
not always capable of being observed (Easton, 2010). Therefore, instead of looking for “social 
laws” researchers should be searching for causal mechanisms and how they occur (Zachariadis et 
al., 2010). According to critical realists, what we see are just a tip of the iceberg which are 
produced by certain underlying mechanisms and the fact that we do not see them does not mean 
they do not exist or are not connected to what we see. It is the duty of the researcher to uncover 
the unknown structures by collecting data to explain the observables (Easton, 2010). Employing 
the critical realists’ ideology implies that, community members could be empowered or 
disempowered for sustainable ecotourism and it is the duty of the researcher to find the extent to 
which community members are empowered or disempowered, the factors promoting their 
empowerment or disempowerment, the areas of empowerment that are critical and the role of 
public and private institutions towards community empowerment. 
 
3.3.2 Research design 
Sustainable tourism is a complex phenomenon (McDonald, 2009) that requires methods that can 
assist in assessing all the facets of sustainable development. According to Teye (2012), mixed 
method is used to investigate complex phenomenon. Hence, employing the mixed method 
approach to investigate the topic is appropriate. Mixed method is an approach that combines both 
qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis. It uses distinct designs 
that incorporate philosophical assumptions and the combination of both qualitative and 
82 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
quantitative approaches offer detailed understanding to a research problem than applying either 
of them (Creswell, 2014; Teye, 2012).  
The strength of quantitative approach lies in its ability to generalize, predict, employ statistical 
techniques to evaluate quantifiable data and establish correlations among diverse variables 
(Teye, 2012). Ecotourism deals with the interaction of humans with their environment and their 
experiences and concerns regarding their participation in the ecotourism development process 
are critical for ecotourism sustainability. Creswell (2014) opines that qualitative approaches 
allow the views, beliefs, experiences, and behaviors of people to be studied. The combination of 
quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the topic is important in order to realize the 
research objectives. 
Furthermore, ecotourism involves the interplay of series of industries making its nature complex 
which requires complex approaches (Maxim, 2015). It has been argued that reality involves 
series of construction and interpretation and mixed method approach provides the opportunities 
for understanding the complex phenomenon (Teye, 2012). In addition, social phenomenon is 
complex and require different kinds of approaches to understanding their complex nature 
(Cresswell, Plano-Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). The application of the mixed method in 
this research is to help explain the various angles of the research objectives. Teye (2012) agrees 
that the key motive in combining quantitative and qualitative approaches is not only cross-
validating the findings but also to explain the various facets of the problem. The cross-sectional 
design is employed in this study. 
83 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
3.4 Sources of primary data 
In order to attain the stated objectives of the study, the researcher used primary data. Primary 
data was derived from field studies which included the use of a questionnaire, interviews, FGDs, 
and observation. The main sources of primary data include the use of quantitative and qualitative 
instruments to collect data from the various stakeholders, including residents, chiefs and elders 
of the communities, FC, TBI, GTA, FORIG, NCRC, GHCT, MOTCCA, MESTI and the 
managers of the reserves. 
3.4.1 Quantitative research instrument 
The various research instruments used in this study include questionnaire, in-depth interviews, 
FGDs and observation. 
3.4.1.1 Questionnaire design 
The major quantitative research tool that the study employed is the questionnaire based survey. 
The purpose of employing the questionnaire is to make generalization about the population being 
studied.  According to Creswell (2014), inferences can be made concerning the characteristics, 
behavior, and attitudes of the population. The kinds of information that the questionnaires were 
designed to solicit covered the objectives of the study. The household questionnaire consisted of 
122 items and had four sections in all. The first section covered the background information of 
respondents, the second section covered the extent of residents’ empowerment which was further 
divided into six parts to cover human, social, environmental, economic, political, and 
psychological empowerment. The third section solicited information on the aspects of 
empowerment that residents prefer. The final section asked respondents to comment on any other 
issue related to ecotourism at the destination.  
84 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The household questionnaire had both closed and open-ended questions. The purpose for using 
the open-ended questions was to allow the respondents to provide details on their responses on 
specific items whilst the closed-ended questions were used to tailor respondents responses to 
satisfy the objectives of the study (Creswell, 2014). The household questionnaire was 
administered to household heads in a form of a structured interview since the respondents could 
not read and understand the questionnaire. A household is defined as individuals living under the 
same roof and eating from the same pot. The head of household refers to a member of the 
household who is at least 18 years and above and has the ability to spend on the household 
expenses. Research assistants were trained on the items for the survey. Four research assistants 
were trained at Abrafo and Kubease whereas two were trained at Mesomagor and Krofofrom. 
The training period lasted for two days in each of the localities. During the training, the research 
assistants were educated on ethics in questionnaire administration, and the items on the 
questionnaire. The training helped them to understand the issues and explain to the 
understanding of the residents. 
The researcher and the research assistants explained the items on the questionnaire to the 
respondents in the local language (Akan) which is spoken and understood by all respondents. 
The household questionnaire was administered face-to-face to allow the researcher and research 
assistants to explain issues to the respondents and commit to the questionnaire (Veal, 2011). The 
questions were explained in details to the understanding of respondents.  Each respondent spent 
an average of an hour to respond to the items on the questionnaire. When the head of the 
household was not around during the household visit, repeat visits were made until contact was 
made with the person. 
85 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Pilot study of the household questionnaire was carried out at Abrafo with 60 respondents. De 
Vos (2002) asserts that pilot study should normally take place in a location that is convenient for 
the researcher. Grimm (2010) posits that pre-testing is very critical in surveys since it assists in 
eliminating errors and improves the quality of the data. The purpose of undertaking the pre-test 
was to have a fair idea of the difficult areas where respondents may need extra clarification as 
well as the type of wording that have to be used to enhance the understanding of respondents. 
Furthermore, the pre-testing of the questionnaire helped the researcher to estimate the amount of 
time that was needed for a respondent to complete a questionnaire. It also helped the researcher 
to remove items that are not needed and clarify some of the items (Grimm, 2010; Presser et al., 
2004). For instance, the pre-testing helped the researcher to clarify to respondents the difference 
between byelaws and traditional practices to get the correct responses. It also helped in running 
the EFA to maintain the pool of items that best describe the constructs. 
Different questionnaires were also administered to visitors to the destinations. The questionnaires 
were given to the visitors to fill but the researcher was around to provide the necessary 
explanations to the visitors especially at KNP. Each visitor spent about 20 to 25 minutes to 
complete the questionnaire.  
The tourist questionnaire had 47 items and was divided into four sections. The first section 
captured background information. The second section covered information on their visits, the 
third section solicited the views of tourists/visitors on the aspects of residents’ empowerment that 
would enhance their visiting experience. This section was designed to capture information on 
human, social, economic, environmental, psychological and political empowerment whilst the 
fourth section asked tourists to provide their general comments on ecotourism issues. The 
questionnaire-based surveys were used because according to Veal (2011), it is the most 
86 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
commonly used survey in leisure and tourism studies. In addition, the main mechanics are easily 
understood. Most of the visitors were able to fill out the questionnaires themselves. 
 
3.4.2 Qualitative research instruments 
The main qualitative approach used in this study is the interpretive ethnography. This was 
employed because it helps in uncovering the in-depth knowledge of participants about their 
interactions with their social settings and how they construct their reality (Alexander, 2002; 
Dressen-Hammouda, 2012; Smart, 1998). The various techniques used here include in-depth 
interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and observation. 
3.4.2.1 In-Depth interview 
Ecotourism involves the interaction of people with their environment and their experiences need 
to be understood. People’s lives are also linked to biodiversity on which ecotourism depends 
(Catibog-Sinha, 2010) and the tenets of ecotourism include empowering community members to 
ensure sustainable ecotourism (TIES, 2015). In order to achieve the objectives of the study, 
interviews with some of the household heads and other stakeholders were conducted. The 
interviews were conducted because it helped the researcher to get detailed information on the 
subject under study. It also helped in uncovering other useful information in buttressing some 
points of interests (Bryman, 2004). Furthermore, the importance of conducting the in-depth 
interview in research has been expounded by Teye (2012) who posits that interviews help in 
soliciting the perspective of the one being interviewed without anyone putting ideas in the 
person's mind. 
The interview was used because it helped in getting first-hand information from the interviewees. 
According to (Willis, 2006: 147), ‘interviews are an excellent way of gaining ‘factual’ 
87 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
information such as details of NGO policies and government initiatives’. The use of interviews 
allowed the researcher to have a face-to-face interaction with the interviewees, study their 
gestures, mood and passion/dispassion with which they speak which provided additional 
information for the study. Yaro (2004: 125) posit that interview generate full range and depth of 
information, builds confidence and a relationship with an interlocutor, … and clarify 
complexities’. 
However, the use of interviews was challenging as it consumed a lot of time since answers 
provided to some questions had to be probed several times until a satisfactory answer is derived. 
Furthermore, the responses provided are subjective in nature (Bryman, 2001)  which made it 
difficult to determine whether the answers provided were accurate. In addition, the interviewees 
provided too many details and unwanted information. Bryman (2001: 278) ‘warn against the sin 
of what they call ‘descriptive excess’ in qualitative research whereby the amount of detail 
overwhelms or inhibits the analysis of data’.   
Again, since interviews allow respondents to express their views, which are often described as 
unsystematic, the responses are more subjective to be scientific. In addition, conducting 
interviews allow flexibility and does not follow any standardized procedures. Hence, the 
researcher had to use her own discretion to determine what is good from the interviews or 
significant for the research (Bryman, 2004). Moreover, since the interviews were conducted on 
some key respondents, it would be difficult or unfair to generalize to the population (Bryman, 
2004).   
According to Beazley & Ennew (2006: 198), interviews could be “structured, semi-structured 
and highly structured questions” and this study employed the semi-structured interview style. 
The semi-structured interview was employed because it helped in seeking detailed information 
88 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
from community members on the various aspects of empowerment and assisted in tailoring 
members’ responses towards the objectives of the study (Beazley & Ennew, 2006; Bryman, 
2004; Creswell, 2014; Veal, 2011). Furthermore, a semi-structured interview was preferred 
because it gave room for the researcher to explore the various topics needed to be investigated 
and allowed the interviewees to bring on board their own views (Willis, 2006). Recorders were 
used to record the conversations with the consent of the participants. The main issues that were 
explored in the in-depth-interviews were drawn from the household questionnaires but provided 
an in-depth understanding of the issues. Questions were probed further until a satisfactory 
answer is derived. 
3.4.2.2  Focus group discussions (FGDs) 
Another method employed to collect primary data was the use of FGDs which was used to find 
how individuals can contest their views within the social setting about the phenomenon being 
investigated (Teye, 2012). FGDs provided the platform to understand the views of individuals in 
a group. This helped the researcher to crosscheck the information from the household survey and 
allowed community members to discuss their views, reasons, and beliefs on the issues (Creswell, 
2014; Lloyd-Evans, 2006; Veal, 2011). The questions used were similar to the household and 
interview questions but allowed members to contest their views. This approach helped the 
researcher to generate rich information for the study. 
FGDs were conducted in the four communities. In each of the communities, two FGDs were 
conducted, one for males and one for females. The purpose of separating the groups was to allow 
each group to feel free to share their views (Teye, 2012). This was helpful since the women were 
able to express themselves better and provide detailed information for the study. Each group 
consisted of seven members including the interviewees. The researcher was the moderator in 
89 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
each of the FGDs and the questions for the FGDs were selected from the household survey as 
well as other issues that had emerged during the interviews. The researcher sought the consent of 
the members to record the discussions and took still pictures. 
3.4.2.3 Observation 
There are various kinds of observations and according to Beazley & Ennew (2006), it can be 
structured and unstructured. Unstructured observation occurs every day and at all times whilst 
structured observation “takes place after patterns have been noted and need to be checked” 
(Beazley & Ennew, 2006: 197). The researcher observed the kinds of economic activities, 
whether tourists are buying from the communities or not. She also observed the presence or 
absence of dustbins and other environmental practices to support the findings from the 
questionnaire, interviews, and FGDs.  Both structured and unstructured observations were used 
since certain activities take place within a short time and so observing all the time was helpful. 
The researcher used a research diary to record patterns that have been observed on the field. 
Unobtrusive techniques were also employed which required the use of the naked eyes, still 
pictures and videos (Veal, 2011).  
 
3.5 Sampling size and technique 
3.5.1. Sampling size 
Two communities surrounding the two reserves were selected for the survey. The communities 
around KNP selected are Abrafo and Mesomagor whereas Kubease and Krofofrom are 
communities selected around BFRBS. The number of households from the communities  that 
were selected based on the 2010 population census GSS (2012) is Kubease 1,798 with 220 
houses, Krofofrom has 316 with 64 houses, Mesomagor 406 with 87 houses and Abrafo 833 with 
143 houses.  
90 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Proportional sampling was applied to select a percentage of respondents for the survey. Ten 
percent (10%) was applied to select the sample size from each of the communities. This was 
applied to enable the researcher to achieve the objectives of the study and considering the entire 
population of the study communities, a sample that could represent the views of residents was 
considered appropriate. According to Isreal (2013), 10% represent a good size for a sample. 
Furthermore, Behrens, Diaz-Olvera, Plat, Pochet (2006) argue that determination of appropriate 
sample size is a challenge when conducting research in developing countries where resources are 
scarce. The time and resources available to the researcher also contributed to the choice of the 
sample size. Kubease was (180), Krofofrom was (32), Abrafo (83) and Mesomagor (41). An 
extra 10% was calculated on the sample size to cover those who the researcher is not able to 
reach (Isreal, 2013). The total sample size was 373, thus Kubease 199 (180 + 19), Mesomagor 45 
(41 + 4), Abrafo 93 (83 + 10) and Krofofrom 36 (32 + 4). The sampling frame was based on the 
geography of the area such that the various communities were divided by roads to form cohorts. 
Each group was considered as a frame from which samples were selected.  
Two (2) focus groups discussions took place in each of the communities with a maximum of 
seven (7) participants, three (3) in-depth interviews were conducted in each of the communities. 
The researcher conducted the interviews to cover the six aspects of empowerments. Convenient 
sampling was applied to solicit the views of tourists/visitors from the various destinations. The 
number of tourists/visitors sampled from KNP were 100 and nine from BFRBS. Two of the 
visitors from KNP were interviewed. Table 3.1 summarizes the sample size from the various 
communities. 
 
 
91 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 3.1: Sampling size from various communities 
Communities Questionnaire (sample size) Interviews FGDs 
Kubease 199 3 2 
Krofofrom 36 3 2 
Abrafo 93 3 2 
Mesomagor 45 3 2 
Source, Author’s construct, 2016 
 
The other stakeholder groups that were interviewed are shown in Table 3.2. 
Table 3.2: Other stakeholders interviewed 
Stakeholders Description/role/interest Number 
interviewed 
Forestry Research Institute In charge of managing the BFRBS. 3 
of Ghana 
Tropenbos International Has worked with communities around BFRBS 1 
Ghana 
Forestry Commission Is in charge of managing KNP. 2 
Nature Conservation Work with tourism communities to improve their 1 
Research Centre livelihoods. 
Ministry of Tourism In charge of tourism policies development and 1 
Culture and Creative Arts management in the country. 
Ghana Tourism Authority Implementing tourism policies. 2 
Ghana Heritage Work with communities around KNP. 1 
Conservation Trust 
Ministry of Environment In charge of environmental policies and 1 
Science, Technology and management in the country. 
Innovation 
District/Municipal of the Sees to the political administration of the 2 
various communities district/metropolis 
Total  14 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
3.5.1.3 Sampling procedure and questionnaire administration 
BFRBS and KNP were purposively selected since they share similar characteristics in terms of 
flora and fauna diversity. Purposive sampling was employed to select two communities from the 
two reserves. Mesomagor and Abrafo are around KNP and Kubease and Krofofrom are around 
92 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
BFRBS. Abrafo and Kubease are closer to a major road and closer to the main entrance to the 
reserves whilst Mesomagor and Krofofrom are far away from a major road, closer to the reserves 
and not on regular transport (there is no organized transport to and from these communities). 
This allowed the researcher to uncover the issues of residents’ empowerment at different 
locations.  
Systematic sampling technique was used to sample study communities. According to Zhang 
(2008), systematic sampling brings balance into the sample. The equal probability systematic 
technique was employed which is given by the formula N=nk where n is the sample size, N is the 
population, and k is the integer for the interval (Zhang, 2008). A house was picked at random as 
the starting point and the interval was calculated by (k=N/n) to pick subsequent houses. The 
interval used to select the various houses in Abrafo, Mesomagor, Kubease, and Krofofrom was 
approximately nine (9). Even though systematic sampling introduces systematic bias, it was 
employed because it provided the opportunity for the population to be sampled (Garson, 2012; 
Zhang, 2008).  
Expert sampling was used to select the interviewees from the public and private institutions. This 
sampling method was used because it allowed the researcher to interview those who have 
knowledge related to the objectives of the research. Garson (2012) opines that expert sampling 
involves individuals who are expected to have knowledge in the field of study. The person may 
not have formal training but have had experience in the field of study. Residents were 
purposively selected for the interview because the researcher was interested in interviewing those 
who have knowledge about the subject under investigation and can provide information that 
would be helpful to achieve the research objectives (Garson, 2012; Trochim, 2006). Furthermore, 
convenience sampling was used to sample tourists/visitors to the destinations. According to 
93 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Garson (2012), convenience sampling is used based on the availability of respondents. The 
nature of tourism is such that tourists/visitors do not often reside at the destination and can be 
accessed only when they are available. The sampling techniques and purpose for selection are 
shown in Table 3.3. 
Table 3.3: Sampling technique and purpose of selection 
Sampling technique Purpose  
Purposive sampling Select study communities 
Systematic (equal probability) Household survey 
Judgment/Expert Private/public institutions 
Purposive Key informants 
Convenience Visitors/tourists 
Source: Author’s construct, 2016 
3.6 Secondary data sources   
Sustainable tourism, particularly ecotourism issues have been discussed in the literature and to 
understand the topic this study reviewed relevant literature on the subject. Relevant issues that 
are related to the objectives of the research were reviewed to get a broader view of the work that 
has been done in the area. Information about the social, economic, political, psychological, 
human and environmental empowerment for sustainable ecotourism development was reviewed 
mostly from journals and books.  
The review of the relevant literature assisted the researcher to unfold indicators to measure the 
various forms of empowerment which were used to design the questionnaire. The indicators to 
measure human empowerment reviewed from the literature cover areas such as the provision of 
skills and training to community members (DFID, 1999).  The indicators that were reviewed 
from the literature to measure social empowerment include belonging to social group, benefit of 
infrastructure from ecotourism, social connectedness, preservation of culture and tradition and 
94 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
improving relationship with people (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 
2014; Scheyvens, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). 
The literature was also reviewed to ascertain the pool of items or indicators used in measuring 
environmental empowerment. These indicators include the existence of ecotourism management 
plans, nursery, plantations, illegal activities on the environment and sanitation practices (Ramos 
& Prideaux, 2014). The indicators for economic empowerment that were reviewed from the 
literature include employment opportunities, programs to reduce leakage, access to loans, local 
control of economic resources and ecotourism related jobs (Asiedu, 2002; Ramos & Prideaux, 
2014; Scheyvens, 1999).  
The indicators to measure political empowerment reviewed from the literature include avenues to 
share concerns, have a voice in the development of the community, traditional authorities have 
avenues to share concerns, youth and women groups have a say in the political process (Asiedu, 
2002; Boley et al., 2015; Boley, McGehee, Perdue, & Long, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; 
Scheyvens, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). The psychological empowerment indicators drawn from the 
literature include situations where residents are proud about ecotourism, happy, feel that their 
self-esteem has increased and they are confident in themselves (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015; 
Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). 
Secondary data on population statistics for the study communities were collected from the Ghana 
Statistical Service (GSS) whereas remote sensing images of the reserves were gotten from the 
Center for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems (CERGIS) at the Department 
of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana. The literature was reviewed to 
ascertain information on how other authors have developed their scales to measure indicators on 
their constructs. 
95 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.7 Methods of data analysis 
3.7.1 Quantitative data analysis  
3.7.1.1 The extent of residents’ empowerment 
In order to determine whether residents were empowered or disempowered, a scale was 
developed to aid in measuring their status. The data were entered in a Statistical Package for 
Social Science (SPSS) software version 20 and the various categorical data were re-coded to take 
the format of an interval data (Field, 2005). 
An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on the various indicators that were drawn 
from the literature to measure the various aspects of empowerment. Even though EFA has been 
criticized for its subjectivity (Williams, Onsman, & Brown, 2010), it was employed because it 
helped to reduce and refine the constructs that measure the various aspects of empowerment 
(Cornish, 2007). It also helped to determine whether the constructs constitute a better 
representation of the various aspects of empowerment (Timmerman, 2005). In order to perform  
EFA, Costello & Osborne (2005) assert that there should be a large sample size whereas 
Williams et al. (2010) posit that there should be at least 300 cases and the sample size in this 
study is 373 which is appropriate for EFA. According to Williams et al. (2010), in order to 
proceed with EFA, series of data quality tests need to be performed to ensure the suitability of 
the data. These tests include the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) 
which should be above 0.5 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity which should be significant at p<.05. 
KMO was carried out in order to test the suitability of the data for EFA (Attua, Annan, & 
Nyame, 2014).  
The extraction method used was Maximum Likelihood (ML) which was chosen over Principal 
Component Analysis (PCA) because according to Costello & Osborne (2005), PCA does not 
96 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
differentiate between shared and unique variance and during factor extraction when there are 
uncorrelated items, the values of the variance produced are inflated. On the other hand, the ML 
helps with the calculation of a broad variety of indexes of the goodness of fit and it is able to test 
the significance of factor loadings and their correlations as well as their confident intervals 
(Costello & Osborne, 2005). Furthermore, ML can be used where the data assumes multivariate 
normality and where many variables from the data show strong deviations from normality 
(Albright & Park, 2009).  
The eigenvalue was maintained at greater than one (1) which is usually the default in the SPSS 
(Costello & Osborne, 2005; Kline, 2013; Williams et al., 2010). The fact that it is a consensus in 
the literature that the eigenvalues greater than one are the most appropriate (Costello & Osborne, 
2005; Kline, 2013; Williams et al., 2010), it was used because the focus of the EFA in this work 
is to reduce the indicators and maintain those that best describe the factors.  Maintaining the 
eigenvalues of greater than one was appropriate since the indicators loaded on between one to 
three factors which made it easier to further reduce them until a unidimensionality of scale was 
produced. To achieve this, indicators that had cross-loadings were deleted and the EFA was run 
again (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Williams et al., 2010). In addition, those with higher 
percentages (> 60) were considered. 
The rotation method applied was the oblique which was chosen over the orthogonal because the 
orthogonal results in uncorrelated items which could lead to the loss of some critical information 
in case the items are correlated (Costello & Osborne, 2005). However, the use of oblique method 
results in correlated items and since behaviors within the social sciences are generally expected 
to be correlated, this approach was appropriate for the study (Costello & Osborne, 2005). 
Williams et al. (2010) argue that oblique rotation is more accurate when dealing with data that 
97 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
concerns human behaviors or it does not meet prior assumptions. The purpose of using the 
rotation was to get a set of indicators that best fit the constructs (Williams et al., 2010). 
Cronbach alpha reliability test was performed to measure the internal consistency of the data and 
also to know how the indicators that measure each of the aspects of empowerment are closely 
related (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). According to Gliem & Gliem (2003), the Cronbach alpha 
reliability test usually ranges from 0-1 and there is no lower boundary to it. What is important is 
that the closer the value of Cronbach’s alpha to one, the stronger the internal consistency of the 
indicators to the scale.  
To explore the relationship further, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) using Confirmatory 
Factor Analysis was conducted in SPSS Amos Graphics version 21 to model the relationship 
between the factors or indicators and the constructs (various aspects of empowerment). This was 
used in order to examine the construct reliability and validity of the indicators that measure the 
various aspects of empowerment (Tang, 2014). This was performed by drawing covariances 
from the Plugins menu and calculating the estimates with necessary modifications. 
In order to assess the psychometric measures of the indicators and the constructs they measure, 
construct validity was carried out. According to Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson (2010), it is the 
best measure of validity. Construct validity was performed in order to examine whether the 
indicators that measure the various aspects of empowerment are really true and reflects the 
constructs (Boley et al., 2015; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Hair et al., 2010).  Convergent validity 
was performed to test the common variance the items share with the latent construct (Boley & 
McGehee, 2014). This was done by examining the strength of an indicator’s factor loadings on 
its latent construct, the amount of variance extracted and the reliability of the constructs (Boley 
98 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
et al., 2015, 2014; Huang, Zhou, & Ali, 2011). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was 
calculated by using the formula  
 
Where: 
 is the item reliability (calculated as the square of the standardized factor loading for the item) 
for that factor and n = the number of items for that factor (Boley et al., 2015). 
The construct reliability was calculated by using the formula 
 
Where: 
= standardized factor loadings for that factor and Var (Ei) = error variance of the individual 
item (Boley et al., 2015). Discriminant validity was further performed to assess the 
distinctiveness of each construct by comparing the AVE of two constructs with the square 
correlations between the two constructs (Boley et al., 2015, 2014; Boley & McGehee, 2014). In 
addition, nomological validity was performed to scrutinize how the constructs in the community 
empowerment model relate with theory (Boley et al., 2015, 2014; Liu, Li, & Zhu, 2012). Content 
validity was carried out to confirm that the constructs measure what they should be measuring 
and that they make sense. According to Boley et al. (2015), content validity is about judgment 
and whether the items in a construct make sense. The content validity was assessed by relating 
the content of the constructs with the conceptual issues in the empowerment literature and 
soliciting the views of experts. 
99 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The averages of the means for the various constructs measuring empowerment were calculated 
and the status of empowerment for a destination or community is known depending on the value 
obtained (Boley et al., 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). The means for the two destinations as 
well as the various communities around the destinations were computed separately to compare 
the extent of empowerment between destinations and communities. The status of community 
empowerment was ascertained by using a scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the very 
disempowered, 2 as disempowered, 3 as neither disempowered nor empowered, 4 as empowered 
and 5 as very empowered. To allow locational comparison, the results were displayed using Arc 
GIS version 10.1. 
3.7.1.2 Factors influencing  residents’ empowerment 
In order to satisfy this objective, multinomial regressions were performed because the data 
consists of a nominal dependent variable and eight independent variables. According to 
McDonald  (2014), multinomial regression is employed when there are a nominal dependent 
variables and many independent variables. Guided by the conceptual framework, the respondents 
were asked to indicate what best describe them. For instance, in the case of human 
empowerment, they were asked to select whether they have had any alternative training, have 
knowledge on ecotourism or they have not had any training on alternative livelihoods or have no 
knowledge about ecotourism. These were re-coded into dummy variables for human 
empowerment.  The same was done for the other types of empowerment. These were used as the 
dependent variables thus (economic, social, environmental, political, psychological and human 
empowerments) and the independent variables (age, years of stay, education, occupation, gender, 
marital status, family size, and religion) to run the multinomial regression. This was performed 
in order to ascertain the effects of two or more independent variables on the dependent variable 
(Corston & Colman, 2004). The regression test is essential since it helped the researcher to know 
100 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
which factors influence community empowerment and to predict the effects of independent 
variables on the dependent variables (Corston & Colman, 2004; Uyanik & Guler, 2013). Simple 
logistic regression was used to analyze the research hypotheses. The information used to test the 
hypotheses were derived from the data collected from the four communities. 
3.7.1.3 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that residents prefer 
The residents were asked to prioritize the aspects of empowerment in which they would prefer. 
Frequency tables and graphs were used to present the results. 
3.7.1.4 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ satisfaction 
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses of tourists/visitors on the aspects of 
residents’ empowerment that would bring them satisfaction. Frequency distribution tables were 
used to present the results. 
3.8.2 Qualitative data analysis  
Qualitative data were analyzed according to the themes that emerged from the study. This was 
done simultaneously with the interviews so the new themes that emerged were further discussed 
in subsequent interviews until saturation was reached (Dawson, 2002). The information collected 
was grouped into themes and in line with the conceptual framework for the study. Veal (2011) 
supports that in analyzing qualitative data, the information collected should be organized and 
sorted according to the terms of reference or conceptual framework. This was done by 
transcribing results from the interviews and FGDs whilst patterns that have been observed were 
discussed with interviews and FGDs to find whether there is any relationship between the 
patterns observed and what people think and do (Veal, 2011). 
 In order to achieve the objective on the roles of institutions in empowering community 
members, responses from interviews with the various stakeholders were transcribed and 
101 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
organized along the various themes using the Nvivo software. Content analysis was used to 
analyze the views of institutions on their roles in empowering residents. Content analysis was 
preferred because it helped in analyzing the meaning of the text (Camprubí & Coromina, 2016). 
Camprubí & Coromina (2016) opine that the use of content analysis is beneficial because it can 
be reproduced in future studies, has analytical flexibility and can be used both inductively and 
deductively. 
 
3.9  Ethical considerations and challenges associated with the research 
Ethical consideration is critical in conducting research (Malhotra & Birks, 2007; Shamoo & 
Resnik, 2009). In answering the research questions, the researcher had to interact with humans 
and the physical environment. Research ethics requires that humans, animals, and the ecosystem 
be respected (Veal, 2011). This study adhered to the code and ethics of the University of Ghana 
regarding research and respected the rights of humans and animals in their ecosystems. 
Participants were not coerced to participate in the research. Veal (2011: 108) shares the view that 
“subjects should not be coerced to become involved in research projects”. Veal continues that 
there may be exceptions to this especially when the government is involved. For instance, it is a 
crime for someone to refuse to fill a census form. This study did not involve data where 
participants had to be forced to respond against their will. Hence, an oral consent was sought 
from residents in the local language before engaging them in the survey.  
Again, participants were informed about the reasons behind the research and what the outcome 
would be used for. Furthermore, unobtrusive observation technique was employed which 
involves the use of still pictures to examine the phenomenon (Veal, 2011). In addition, where 
pictures of individuals were taken, consent was first sought from them. Where interviews and 
102 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
FGDs were conducted, consent was sought before recording the conversations. Participants were 
informed to withdraw without providing prior notice if they feel that their lives would be at risk. 
This, however, became a challenge when during the middle of the survey some respondents felt 
they were tired and could not continue. However, after some days such persons called the 
research team to continue their portion. Participants were informed about the security and 
privacy of their responses and the honesty of the researcher in analyzing their responses.  
Some of the respondents were reluctant to respond to the questionnaire. This was noticed during 
the pre-testing phase, so the field assistants were asked to be patient and take their time to 
explain the purpose well to the respondents. The field assistants were trained teachers within the 
communities and they understood the cultural setting and the problems of the community 
members so the research team was able to overcome this challenge. Furthermore, the majority of 
the respondents were farmers and the time for the household survey was from 8:00 am to 6:00 
pm. Several visits were made which lengthened the time for data collection. 
In addition, most of the tourists/visitors were not willing to respond to the questionnaire which 
increased the days spent on the field. Again, during the administration of visitors’ questionnaire 
at BFRBS, a new directive from the management resulted in the delay of the questionnaire 
administration contributing to the small number of the questionnaire on visitors from BFRBS.  
Moreover, some of the communities (Mesomagor and Krofofrom) are not on regular 
transportation, so the researcher had to arrange for a vehicle to and from these communities. 
There were times when the vehicle broke down on the way due to bad roads which delayed the 
data collection process. In spite of the difficulties encountered during the data collection process, 
the quality of the data was not compromised since the researcher was committed and focused on 
getting the best results. 
103 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3.10 Summary 
This chapter dealt with the study areas and methodology. It includes the outline of the study 
areas and the various steps involved in data collection and analysis. It presents sources of data 
including primary sources of data which are questionnaires, interviews, observations whilst 
secondary sources of data included the use of census data from GSS, journals, and books. It 
provides the different sampling techniques that were employed and the steps followed in 
achieving the various objectives. The chapter provides details on how data was analyzed. 
104 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER FOUR 
 
ANALYZING THE EXTENT OF RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT AND THEIR 
INFLUENCING FACTORS FOR SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM 
 
4.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents the findings on the extent of residents’ empowerment and the factors 
influencing re. The results on the background of respondents are presented, followed by that on 
the extent of residents’ empowerment. This chapter also outlines the gender dimension on the 
various aspects of empowerment in the communities. The section further presents results on the 
socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment. 
4.2 Profile of community members 
The characteristics of respondents are displayed in Table 4.1. The table portrays the sex, length 
of stay of respondents, primary occupation, age, religious affiliation, highest educational 
qualification, ethnicity and marital status. The characteristics of respondents are important since 
it assists the researcher to know the background of those whose views are captured in the study. 
Table 4. 1: Profile of respondents based on communities surveyed 
Variable Percentage 
 Abrafo  Mesomagor  Kubease  Krofofrom  
Gender     
      Male 61.00 41.00 48.00 56.00 
      Female  39.00 59.00 52.00 44.00 
Religion     
     Christianity 82.00 96.00 82.00 89.00 
     Islam 10.00   4.00 15.00   8.00  
     Traditional   5.00   2.00   
     N/A   2.00   0.50   3.00 
     Other    1.00   0.50 
105 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Highest educational     
attainment 17.00 30.00   5.00 17.00 
     None 71.00 63.00 85.00 80.00 
     Basic    2.00   4.00   5.00   3.00 
    SHS 10.00   3.00   5.00 
     Tertiary 
Age      
   Youth  (18-35) 17.00 11.00 34.00 33.00 
    Adult (36-65) 55.00 34.00 60.00 52.00 
   Aged  (66-85)   8.00 55.00   6.00 15.00 
Length of stay      
   Not long (1-20) 35.00 57.00 40.00 44 .00 
   Fairly long  (21-40) 41.00 37.00 37.00 39.00 
    Very long (41-80) 34.00   6.00 23.00 18.00 
Marital status     
  Married 76.00 80.00 73.00 94.00 
  Not married  24.00 20.00 27.00   6.00 
Ethnic group     
     Akan 98.00 98.00 80.00 66.00 
      Other   2.00   2.00 20.00 34.00 
Primary occupation      
     Farmer 61.00 98.00 32.00 89.00  
     Trader 11.00  28.00   6.00 
     Public service 20.00   2.00 49.00   3.00  
     N/A   8.00    1.00   2.00 
Household size     
N/A 14.00   9.00 16.00 42.00 
Small (1-4) 53.00 50.00 58.00 39.00 
Fairly large (5-8) 26.00 41.00 25.00 19.00 
Large (9-13)   7.00   1.00 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Table 4.1 depicts that 61% of the sampled size in Abrafo are males whilst 39% are females. 
There are 41% males in the sample from Mesomagor and 59% females. Kubease has 48% males 
and 52% females whereas Krofofrom has 56% males and 44% females in the samples from 
Krofofrom. The majority of the respondents with basic education at Abrafo are 71% whilst 17% 
have not had any formal education, 2% have had Senior High School (SHS) education and 10% 
have been through Teacher Training College and Polytechnics. From Mesomagor, 63% have had 
basic education, 30% have not had any formal education, 4 have had SHS education and 2% 
106 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
have been through tertiary education. From Kubease, 85% have had basic education, 6% have 
not had any formal education and the same percentage of respondents have SHS and tertiary 
education. 
Most of the respondents in the four communities are Christians followed by Muslims. The 
distributions of religious affiliation are Abrafo (82%). Christians in Mesomagor are 96%, 
Kubease, 82% and Krofofrom, 88%. Respondents’ affiliation to a religious group is important in 
enhancing their social relationship and can help to ascertain whether they are socially 
empowered or disempowered. 
The highest age group of respondents in Abrafo falls within 36-65 (55%) which is classified as 
the adult population. The next group is the youth population between 18-35 (17%). In 
Mesomagor, the highest age group of respondents recorded falls within the adult population 
(34%) followed by the youth (11%). The adult (60%) dominates the sampled population in 
Kubease followed by the youth (34%). The highest age group for respondents in Krofofrom is 
the adult population (52%) followed by the youth (33%) and the aged (14%). The data reveals 
that the greater proportion of respondents fall within the working population and are capable of 
making decisions that concern their lives. The distribution of the age group of respondents is also 
vital to ascertain whether the age of respondents can contribute to their empowerment or 
disempowerment in the various communities. 
The highest proportion of respondents in Abrafo have lived in the community for fairly long that 
is between 21-40 years (41%) followed by those who have lived there not long that is between 1-
20 years (24%). The highest recordings from Mesomagor are those who have not lived there for 
a long period (57%) followed by those who have lived there fairly long (37%).  In Mesomagor 
community, no respondents have lived there for 51 years and above. This suggests that 
107 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
respondents are mostly migrants who have come to settle there because of the forest. The highest 
recordings of respondents have not lived there long (40%) followed by those who have lived 
there for fairly long (37%). The highest recordings of respondents in Krofofrom have not lived 
there for long (44%) followed by those who have lived there for fairly long (39 %).  
The greater proportions of the respondents are married and the distribution varies across 
communities. Those who are married in Abrafo are (76%), Mesomagor (80%), Kubease (73%) 
and Krofofrom (94%). Being married also come with roles and responsibilities in terms of 
decision making and could influence residents’ status of empowerment. 
The majority of respondents from Abrafo community are Fantes (49%) followed by Akuapem  
(33%). The majority of respondents from Mesomagor are also Fantes (72%) followed by Asantes 
(26%). This is because Abrafo and Mesomagor are communities surrounding the KNP and are in 
the Central region of Ghana where Fante is predominantly spoken. In Kubease, the majority of 
respondents are Asantes (69%) followed by Ewes (10%) and in Krofofrom, the majority of 
respondents are Asantes (63%) followed by Kusaasi (31%). Those who speak Asante dominate 
in Kubease and Krofofrom because they are communities in the Ashanti Region where Asanti 
Twi is the mother tongue of natives. The presence of other languages spoken in these areas 
suggests that there are other ethnic groups living in these communities. It is essential to ascertain 
whether the ethnic background of respondents contributes to their empowerment or 
disempowerment. 
The majority of respondents are self-employed (82%) whilst 12% are employed in the public 
service mostly as teachers, tour guides, and forest guards and 6% are unemployed. Those who 
are self-employed are farmers and traders. The distribution of respondents with farming as their 
primary occupation is Abrafo (48%), Mesomagor (96%), Kubease (28%) and Krofofrom (75%). 
108 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The distributions of those with trading as their primary occupation are Abrafo (11%), Kubease 
(49%) and Krofofrom (6%) whilst respondents having their primary education in the public 
services are Abrafo (21%), Kubease (11%) and Krofofrom (3%). There are few respondents 
working in the public service because the majority of respondents have a little educational 
background which is a prerequisite for getting employed within the public service. The majority 
of respondents have small family size. For instance, at Abrafo, 53% have small family size, 
Mesomagor (50%), Kubease (58%) and Krofofrom (39%). The size of the family could also have 
implications on residents’ status of empowerment. 
 
4.3 Extent of residents’ empowerment 
This section presents results on the scale of empowerment and the mean scores for the two 
destinations. The results presented in Table 4.2 shows the results from the CFA. The table further 
shows the mean of the various indicators for the constructs (Social, Human, Environmental, 
Economic, Political and Psychological empowerment). 
Table 4. 2: Results from the CFA on the means for the factors for BFRBS and KNP 
Scale of Item Description Mean Mean R AVE CR 
empowerment (Bobiri (Kakum 
n=235) n=138) 
Social  Ecotourism makes me feel 2.6 3.9 0.78 44% 0.63 
connected to my community 
Ecotourism helps me to preserve 2.5 3.8 0.83   
local culture * 
Ecotourism helps me to improve my 2.6 3.8 0.79   
relationship with people * 
Ecotourism helps to improve social 2.0 3.5 0.75   
infrastructure * 
Infrastructure from ecotourism 1.2 3.6 0.40   
* 
Land own connect me to my 3.2 4.3 0.24   
community * 
Overall score  2.35 3.81    
Human Engage in alternative livelihoods 1.5 1.3 0.30 26% 0.61 
109 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
* 
Acquired skills  1.1 1.1 0.61   
* 
Children trained in alternative 1.0 1.1 0.40   
livelihoods * 
Trained in alternative livelihoods 1.4 1.5 0.50   
* 
Overall score  1.25 1.25    
Environmental Adhere to traditional practices 4.4 5.0 0.44 55% 0.81 
* 
Adhere to byelaws 4.8 5.0 0.96   
* 
Overall score  4.6 5.0    
Economic Family member whose income is 1.0 1.6 0.40 25% 0.40 
related to ecotourism * 
Able to access loans from bank 1.3 1.5 0.44   
* 
Visitors buy from community 1.3 2.4 0.75   
* 
Will receive benefits from 3.0 3.6 0.30   
ecotourism ** 
Overall score  1.65 2.28    
Political Avenues to share concerns 2.0 4.8 0.96 74% 0.83 
* 
Traditional authorities have avenues 2.0 4.7 0.84   
to share concerns * 
Attend social meetings 2.0 4.3 0.94   
* 
Engage in decision-making 1.8 4.3 0.94   
* 
My concerns are addressed 1.3 2.2 0.55   
* 
Overall score  1.82 4.06    
Psychological I am happy about ecotourism in my 3.8 4.1 0.40 33% 0.70 
community * 
I am proud about ecotourism in my 4.5 4.6 0.60   
community * 
My confident has increased because 4.8 4.9 0.63   
of ecotourism in my community * 
My self-esteem has increased 4.7 4.7 0.70   
because of ecotourism in my * 
community 
Overall score  4.45 4.58    
Chi-square = 634.5, Normal Fit Index (NFI) = 0.841, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.0897, 
Parsimony Comparative (PCFI) = 0.759, Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA) 
= 0.063, Standardized Regression Coefficient (R), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Construct 
Reliability (CR). *p = 0.000, **p = 0.001. Scale: 1 = very disempowering to 5 = very 
empowering. Source: Fieldwork, 2016. 
110 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
From Table 4.2, residents from the two destinations show signs of empowerment and 
disempowerment. The scale used ranges from 1-5 (1= very disempowered, 2 = disempowered, 3 
= neither empowered nor disempowered, 4 = empowered, 5 = very empowered). All the 
communities around KNP and BFRBS showed signs of human disempowerment. This means 
that the average score for the indicators measuring human empowerment for the communities is 
either one (very disempowered) or two (disempowered). Four indicators passed the EFA and 
were used to run the CFA for human empowerment. These are training in alternative livelihoods 
which had average scores of 1.4 for communities around BFRBS and 1.5 for communities 
around KNP. Acquisition of skills scored 1.1 for both communities around BFRBS and KNP, 
engage in alternative livelihoods scored 1.5 for BFRBS and 1.3 for KNP, and whether the 
children of respondents are trained in alternative livelihoods scored 1 for BFRBS and 1.1 for 
KNP.  
The communities around KNP are socially empowered which means that the average score for 
the destination for social empowerment is four. On the other hand, those from BFRBS are 
socially disempowered meaning their average score is two. Six indicators passed the EFA and 
were used in the CFA. These include the infrastructure that the communities have received from 
ecotourism which had an average score of 3.6 for KNP and 1.2 for BFRBS, those who believe 
that ecotourism has helped to improve social infrastructure scored 3.5 for KNP and 2.0 for 
BFRBS. Those who believe the lands they own connect them to their communities scored 4.3 for 
KNP and 3.2 for BFRBS. Those who believe that ecotourism helps them to improve their 
relationship with people scored 3.8 for KNP and 2.6 for BFRBS. Those who believe ecotourism 
has helped them to preserve their culture is 3.8 for KNP and 2.5 for BFRBS whilst those who 
feel that ecotourism connect them to their communities scored 3.9 for communities around KNP 
and 2.6 for communities around BFRBS.  
111 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The residents are environmentally empowered. Two indicators passed the EFA and were used to 
run the CFA. These are their adherence to traditional practices which scored 5.0 for communities 
around KNP and 4.4 for communities around BFRBS. Adherence to byelaws scored 5.0 for KNP 
and 4.8 for BFRBS. These were supported by the qualitative information from both destinations.  
Communities around the two destinations are economically disempowered. Four indicators 
passed the EFA and were used to run the CFA. These include whether they are capable of 
accessing loans from banks which scored 2.4 for communities around KNP and 1.3 for 
communities around BFRBS. Those who think that visitors buy from the communities scored 2.4 
for KNP and 1.3 for BFRBS. Those who feel that they will receive benefits from ecotourism 
scored 3.6 for KNP and 3.0 for BFRBS whereas those whose income is related to ecotourism 
scored 1.6 for KNP and 1.0 for BFRBS.  
The communities around KNP are more politically empowered than those around BFRBS. Five 
indicators passed the EFA and were used to run the CFA. These are avenues to share concerns 
which scored 4.8 and 2.0 for communities around BFRBS. Traditional authorities have avenues 
to share their concerns scored 4.7 at KNP and 2.0 at BFRBS. Attendance at social meetings 
scored 4.3 at KNP and 2.0 at BFRBS. Engage in decision-making score 4.3 at KNP and 1.8 at 
BFRBS whereas those who feel their concerns are addressed scored 2.2 at KNP and 1.3 at 
BFRBS.  
All the communities around the two destinations are psychologically empowered. Four indicators 
that passed the EFA were used to run the CFA. These include those who believe their self-
esteem has increased because of ecotourism which scored 4.7 at both destinations. Those who 
feel their confident has increased because of ecotourism scored 4.9 at KNP and BFRBS scored 
4.8. Those who said they are proud of ecotourism in their community score 4.6 at KNP and 4.5 at 
112 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
BFRBS and those who are happy that their community is used for ecotourism are 4.1 for KNP 
and 3.8 for communities around BFRBS.  
4.3.1 Construct validity 
The results from the CFA were employed to assess the construct validity of the study. The four 
areas of construct validity are presented here. These are convergent validity, discriminant 
validity, nomological and content validity. 
4.3.1.1 Convergent validity 
 The convergent validity of the indicators is assessed using the loadings of the items on the 
construct (standardized regression coefficient, R), and the Construct Reliability (CR). The 
Convergent validity was carried out to test how much common variance the indicators share with 
the latent construct (Boley & McGehee, 2014). The standardized regression coefficients of the 
indicators for most of the constructs are more than 0.5 indicating that most of the constructs have 
stronger loadings and have convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Except for economic 
empowerment which has about 25% of the items loading more than 0.5, the rest are below this 
cutoff point. The indicators loading on social empowerment with factor loadings of more than 
0.5 are 67%, the indicators loading on human empowerment that is more than 0.5 are 50%, 
environmental empowerment is also 50%, political empowerment is 100% and psychological 
empowerment is 75%.  
The Construct Reliability of all the various constructs is above 50% with the exception of 
economic empowerment (40%). That of social empowerment is (63%), human empowerment 
(61%), environmental empowerment (81%), political empowerment (83%) and psychological 
empowerment (70%). These indicate that there are higher internal consistencies between the 
indicators and the constructs that they measure. The indicators measuring economic 
113 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
empowerment shows some form of internal consistency but that the internal consistency is not 
that high. The Construct Reliability together with the factor loadings of the indicators on the 
constructs suggests that there is convergent validity for the constructs although some are stronger 
than others are. 
4.3.1.2 Discriminant validity 
The discriminant validity is assessed by comparing the Average Variance Extracted of two 
constructs (aspects of empowerment) to the squared correlations of these two construct (Boley & 
McGehee, 2014). This is done to determine whether the constructs have more variance than they 
share. The correlations and squared correlations between the constructs are shown in Table 4.3.  
Table 4. 3: Correlation matrix of empowerment domains 
Scale of Psychological  Political Economic Environmental Social Human 
empowerment 
Psychological  1.00 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 
Political 0.30 1.00 0.12 0.02 0.20 0.10 
Economic 0.04 0.32 1.00 0.01 0.30 0.01 
Environmental 0.12 -0.13 0.07 1.00 0.11 0.12 
Social 0.13 0.43 0.53 0.24 1.00 0.12 
Human  0.10 0.30 -0.03 -0.35 -0.34 1.00 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016, p = 0.001. Note:  
The figures shown in Table 4.3 that are below the diagonal are correlation estimates between 
constructs and the figures above the diagonal are the squared correlations.  
From Table 4.2, the AVE of political empowerment is (74% or 0.74) and environmental (55% or 
0.55) which are greater than the squared correlation of these two constructs (0.02) shown in 
Table 4.3 indicating that they have discriminant validity. This means that each construct is 
distinct from the other. 
114 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4.3.1.3 Nomological validity 
The nomological validity of the constructs of the empowerment model is assessed through the 
presence or absence of correlations that would be suggested by theory (Boley & McGehee, 
2014). From Table 4.3, it is evident that there exist correlations between the constructs which are 
significant at p = 0.001 showing that there is nomological validity that would be suggested by 
theory. This is further explained by the figure shown in 4.1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
115 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 . 
Figure 4.1: Six construct model of residents’ empowerment (see Appendix 7) 
Source: Author’s construct/fieldwork, 2016 
116 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The model in figure 4.1 shows that there is a link between human empowerment and social 
empowerment as well as human empowerment and economic empowerment. It also suggests a 
link between psychological and social empowerment. Building the capacities of individuals 
(human empowerment) can have implications on the other aspects of empowerments and this 
model suggests that when people gain knowledge, skills and improve their abilities, they can 
apply these abilities to become economically and socially empowered. This suggests that the 
model has nomological validity. This means that some of the constructs are related to others. 
4.3.1.4 Content validity 
The content validity of this study was performed using the experts’ interviews. All the experts 
who were interviewed from the ten private and public institutions believe that the six aspects of 
empowerment, as well as the indicators, are essential in assessing the empowerment of residents. 
In addition, the residents agreed that the aspects and indicators for assessing their extent of 
empowerment are important. 
According to the director for GHCT, they provide training, social infrastructure and help 
residents to conserve the environment. However, the residents perceive their empowerment only 
in economic terms. He continued that, measuring empowerment using these indicators and the 
six aspects is very essential. In addition, the director for NCRC said it is very important that 
these aspects are used to assess residents’ empowerment since they sum up the issues in 
sustainable development. Respondents from GTA believe that ecotourism sustainability should 
be measured in using these aspects. The managers from KNP and BFRBS share similar views. 
 
 
117 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The levels of residents’ empowerment for the destinations are summarized in figure 4.2. 
 
Figure 4.2: The extent of residents’ empowerment at the destinations. 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Scale: 1 = very disempowering – 5 = very empowering 
 
Figure 4.2 shows that residents’ empowerment differs from one destination to the other. 
Generally, the communities around KNP have higher scores for most of the aspects of 
empowerment than those around BFRBS. Using a scale of 1-5 as explained earlier, it is evident 
that the communities around the two destinations share some similarities since they all recorded 
very empowering situations for psychological and environmental empowerment. This implies 
that the majority of residents around the destinations are proud that their communities are 
ecotourist destinations which have built their confidence and increased their self-esteem.  
Furthermore, whilst communities around KNP are politically and socially empowered, those 
around BFRBS are disempowered. This means that the majority of residents at KNP have 
avenues to share their concerns and individuals and traditional authorities are able to share their 
concerns. The majority of residents at KNP believe that they have received infrastructure from 
118 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
ecotourism and also their culture has been preserved. On the other hand, the majority of residents 
at BFRBS do not enjoy these political and social benefits.  
The two destinations recorded disempowering situations for economic empowerment. This 
indicates that residents are not able to access loans and few tourists buy from their communities. 
BFRBS recorded disempowering situation for human empowerment whilst the communities 
around KNP recorded very disempowering situation for human empowerment. This suggests that 
the majority of community members around KNP and BFRBS have no or little knowledge about 
ecotourism. It also indicates that the majority has inadequate training in alternative livelihoods, 
skills and are not involved in other alternative livelihoods activities. 
The extent of residents’ empowerment is further explained by using the individual communities 
at the various destinations. Even though figure 4.2 presents results for the various destinations, it 
does not provide details on the extent of empowerment for the individual communities. Figure 
4.3 provides details on the extent of empowerment for the various communities. 
 
Figure 4.3: The extent of residents’ empowerment for the communities 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Scale: 1 = very disempowering – 5 = very empowering 
119 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
It is evident from figure 4.3 that residents in the four communities are environmentally and 
psychologically very empowered with the exception of Krofofrom which is environmentally 
empowered. Furthermore, Mesomagor, Abrafo, and Krofofrom are politically empowered whilst 
Kubease is politically very disempowered. This denotes that the majority of residents in Kubease 
do not attend meetings, when they do, they are not able to voice their concerns, and when they 
voice their concerns they are not addressed. 
 Mesomagor and Abrafo are socially empowered whilst Kubease is neither socially empowered 
nor disempowered. Krofofrom, on the other hand, is socially disempowered. Apart from Abrafo 
which is economically empowered, the rest of the study communities are economically 
disempowered. All the study communities are humanly disempowered. This denotes that the 
majority of residents have not had any training on alternative livelihoods, skills development and 
lack knowledge about ecotourism. The extent of residents’ empowerment is presented on a map 
to provide a visual comparison between the communities around the destinations. This is shown 
in figure 4.4. 
120 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
Figure 4.4: The extent of empowerment of residents at KNP and BFRBS 
Source: Fieldwork/author’s construct with data from GIS Lab,  Geography and  Resource Development, University of Ghana, Legon
121 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Figure 4.4 shows a representation of residents’ empowerment. It is clear that economic 
empowerment for instance for the four communities differs as explained earlier. As far as their 
geographical locations are concerned, Abrafo and Kubease are located on a major road and 
shares some similarities and differences regarding their empowerment status. The majority of 
residents from Abrafo said tourists/visitors do buy from their communities whilst those from 
Kubease said tourists/visitors do not buy from their communities. Although they are all located 
near a major road, tourists/visitors to KNP are able to stop at Abrafo to buy items whereas those 
to BFRBS do not stop by to purchase items from the community. Mesomagor and Krofofrom, on 
the other hand, are located in remote areas without regular transportation. Unlike Mesomagor 
which used to have a Community Based Ecotourism Project, Krofofrom cannot boast of such 
facility, yet they are all economically disempowered. The qualitative information supports the 
extent of residents’ empowerment and provides details on the differences and similarities 
between the destinations. 
During the interviews, residents gave diverse reasons to support their status of empowerment. 
For instance, residents shared their views on psychological empowerment as follows: 
 “When I hear people talk about Abrafo and the fact that tourists/visitors from outside can 
even come here, it makes me proud and it gives me courage when talking to others about 
Abrafo” (Yaa, Abrafo). 
“Oh, the fact that tourists/visitors come to this place to see the forest makes me proud and 
I can confidently tell people about Mesomagor” (Afia, Mesomagor). 
“I am proud of my community because tourists from far and near come here” (Abena, 
Kubease). 
122 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
These utterances support residents’ levels of psychological empowerment. Residents expressed 
themselves to support their status of political empowerment. For instance, during the interviews 
and FGDs in Kubease, the participants said: 
“Community members used to meet to discuss matters concerning the community including 
how to benefit from ecotourism. I do not attend such meetings. Even when I do, my 
concerns are not addressed. However, that was when the chief was alive. But, since he died 
there has not been any community meeting for over two years now” (Abena, Kubease). 
 “There have not been any community meetings for quite a long time. Since the chief 
passed away, we have not had any meeting. He is yet to be buried. We only hope that we 
can get a chief who can help us to benefit more from ecotourism” (Men FGDs, Kubease). 
The qualitative information provides support to the political disempowerment status of Kubease. 
The information suggests that residents from Kubease are not attending meetings because their 
chief has passed on and yet to be buried and they are hoping to get a chief who can help them to 
gain more from ecotourism.  On the other hand, information from qualitative data collection 
supports the political empowerment of Mesomagor, Krofofrom, and Abrafo. Participants from 
the interviews said: 
“There is a community center where community members meet once in three months to 
discuss issues regarding the community including ecotourism. I do not always participate 
in these meetings but my son does” (Yaa, Abrafo). 
“There is no community center here so when it becomes necessary we meet at the chief’s 
house. We meet occasionally to discuss matters relating to the community and ecotourism 
and I am able to put my views across” (Afia, Mesomagor). 
123 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
“We do not have a community center but from time to time, I call for meetings that are 
held here at my house. I am also able to put my views across when I am called to attend 
meetings with other stakeholders of the forest but most of the concerns are not addressed” 
(Chief of Mesomagor). 
“We attend meetings from time to time although not regular. Sometimes the forest officials 
meet us to discuss issues on ecotourism” (Women FGD, Krofofrom).  
The views of interviewees from the communities suggest that they are able to hold community 
meetings where some of them are able to share their concerns. Probing further revealed that even 
though they have avenues to share their concerns, most of their concerns are not addressed. 
The qualitative data explained residents’ status of economic empowerment. The information 
reveals that residents at Abrafo which is economically empowered do not receive physical cash 
from forest officials but some of the residents are employed as forest guards and tourists/visitors 
purchase items from their community. Besides, they are positive about deriving future benefits 
which are essential for ecotourism sustainability: 
“Hmm, as for money from the forest we do not get anything. However, visitors buy from 
the community and we are hopeful that we would in future benefit financially from 
ecotourism” (Women FGDs, Abrafo). 
“Oh, as for money from the forest, no I have not had any, not even a cedi but because the 
market is by the road side, some visitors stop by to buy from the community” (Kojo, 
Abrafo). 
124 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Contrary to the views of those in Abrafo that is economically empowered, residents from the rest 
of the study communities shared that, tourists/visitors do not buy from their communities and 
they do not also receive direct cash from forest officials: 
“In terms of physical cash, I have not received any of such sort, no one from my family is 
employed in the forest not even as a guard and getting a loan to expand my business is a 
problem. I don’t think I will get any financial gains from the forest but if only they can 
devise a benefit sharing mechanism then I can be sure that even if I do not receive 
anything, my child will one day benefit” (Kwasi, Kubease). 
“We do not receive any money from the forest officials and because tourists do not come 
here they do not buy from the community but we are hopeful that one day we will derive 
these benefits” (Women FGDs, Krofofrom). 
“Ever since I came to this community, at least I have been staying here for the past 15 
years but I have not received any cash from any forest official. Even when we sell, we 
hardly get people to buy. Some years back when visitors used to come here to see the tree 
platform, they were buying few items but since the attraction here collapsed, visitors, are 
not coming as they used to” (Afia, Mesomagor). 
“I saw you to be a noble person that is why I am speaking with you. For a long time, I have 
not granted an interview to anyone on the forest since we are not receiving any economic 
benefits from the forest. We used to have the tree platform and even that was managed by 
one person who collects the cash. I have not received any financial benefits from this 
attraction but even if it is in operation, it will keep the community lively” (Chief, 
Mesomagor). 
125 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
This information explains the economic disempowerment status of residents from Mesomagor, 
Krofofrom, and Kubease. Residents in these communities claim that they are not benefiting 
financially from ecotourism since there are no direct economic gains. In the case of Mesomagor, 
the chief said one person used to manage the CBEP and takes the cash. This suggests that the 
residents have little or no knowledge about the management of CBEP. During the FGDs at 
Kubease, both men and women groups said that visitors who buy are not those who go to the 
forest. The situation in Kubease and Abrafo were observed where at Abrafo, visitors to KNP 
bought items from the communities. On the other hand, those to Kubease did not buy from the 
community. 
The qualitative data further supports the status of environmental empowerment of residents: 
“I always instruct my kids to clean my compound and dispose of the garbage at a dump 
site. Sometimes too, I participate in clean-up exercise with my children and even when I 
am unable to go, my children go to clean. I have been told and aware that tourists visit 
here so we have to clean the environment” (Yaw, Kubease). 
“We engage in clean up exercises organized by the community from time to time. We also 
clean our various compounds every day. We also have community laws that prevent one 
from throwing garbage anyhow. There are rules that we should not go to the forest to 
lumber and hunt for animals since the forest attracts visitors” (Women FGDs, Abrafo). 
“I clean my compound all the time and dispose of my garbage properly. There is a dump 
site here and there are rules that no one should throw rubbish indiscriminately since 
visitors come here. Even when you allow your goat or sheep to walk around uncared for, 
you could be fined. Sometimes, I participate in clean-up exercise. I do not engage in any 
126 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
illegal activities within the forest. In fact, we have been asked not to engage in any illegal 
activities in the forest so I do not go there. One needs permission to even collect firewood” 
(Afia, Mesomagor). 
“We have laws that prevent us from going to the forest to hunt and lumber. We also have 
traditional rules such as the Akwasidae which prevents us from engaging in certain activity 
on a particular day. We are not supposed to burn haphazardly especially on our farmlands 
that are closer to the forest since uncontrolled fire can result in fire outbreak to destroy the 
forest. We are not supposed to engage in any illegal activities since the forest attracts 
tourists.” (Women FGDs, Krofofrom). 
The information provides support to residents’ status of environmental empowerment. It is clear 
that residents have knowledge about environmental empowerment and are able to engage in 
positive environmental practices. 
The human disempowerment status of residents was explained during the interviews and FGDs: 
“Some of us participated in a training organized by TBI in beads making and batik and tie 
and dye in 2004, but after the project ended, we did not get any support to continue with 
the training. The time period for the training was also short and we could not complete the 
training. When the project ended, most of us could not continue due to lack of funds” 
(Women FGDs, Kubease). 
“It was quite a long time ago, say over 17 years now when some selected people within the 
community were trained in grasscutter rearing but it was difficult to get funds to sustain it 
so most of us could not continue” (Men FGDs, Abrafo). 
127 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
“It was a long time when a man came here to train interested members in kente weaving. It 
was not free so I paid to have that training. Very few people could afford to have this kind 
of training but the person who was teaching us did not stay for long and he left so most 
people could not continue” (Kwabena, Krofofrom). 
“I do not have any special skills. I have not had any training myself.  I do not know of any 
other skills but will be happy to learn some skills because farming is difficult and with the 
bad road it becomes extra hard for us to send our produce to the market”(Afia, 
Mesomagor). 
It is evident from the qualitative information that residents from the study communities have 
inadequate skills and training in alternative livelihoods. Those who have managed to develop 
their skills are unable to practice due to financial constraints. When probed further regarding the 
collapse of the bamboo orchestra and the tree platform at Mesomagor, residents said they do not 
have enough knowledge concerning the management of such ecotourism activities. This further 
indicates that residents have not been in control of the community ecotourism project. 
The qualitative information further supports and explains residents’ social empowerment. The 
interviews and FGDs in Abrafo revealed that GHCT has built an ICT center for the community. 
They further stated that one foreign Professor had also built a market, community center, and a 
library because of ecotourism. However, they want their road to be constructed since they 
believe that could boost ecotourism activities: 
“We have a community center, a library, a market which were built by one Professor Gail 
who used to visit this place. There is also an ICT center built by GHCT.” (Men FGDs, 
Abrafo). 
128 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
On the other hand, residents in Mesomagor could not boast of such facilities but said ecotourism 
has helped to preserve their culture. The participants during the FGDs said that they had a 
cultural group that entertained the tourists when they were operating the tree platform. However, 
these activities are no more but they shared that they have preserved an aspect of their culture: 
“The community once operated a tree platform and tourists were coming to see it. So the 
idea came that we should add an aspect of our culture and some community members who 
could dance and play some instruments participated in these activities to entertain the 
tourists. However, these activities are no more but at least we have preserved some aspect 
of our culture” (Women FGDs, Mesomagor). 
It is interesting to note that residents at Mesomagor believe that their culture is preserved 
because of ecotourism even though the community projects are no more. 
Kubease community is neither socially empowered nor disempowered and during the FGDs, 
participants said that even though they have a primary school, JHS, electricity, and pipe borne 
water, they believe they did not derive these items because of ecotourism. However, some of the 
members felt that the placement of a toll booth at Kubease is because of the ecotourism whilst 
others opposed. An interview with an elder, who was close to the late chief revealed that the late 
chief requested that the toll booth is built in Kubease since the initial plan was to build it at New 
Koforidua but the chief there was afraid it could lead to accidents. They added that there is a 
visitor center but has not been in operation for a long time: 
“We have a school and water but not from ecotourism. We used to have a market by the 
roadside but during the construction of the road, it was demolished and it had not been 
replaced so most people sell around the toll booth. We also have a visitor center that was 
129 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
built by FORIG but it is not in use so visitors go straight to the forest and there is no 
cultural group here” (Men FGDs, Kubease). 
Krofofrom is socially disempowered and during the FGDs, respondents said that they have a 
primary school, JHS, electricity, and water but they were not built with revenue from ecotourism. 
They added that their road is bad so there is no regular transportation: 
“We have a primary school, JHS, electricity, and pipe borne water although they are not 
built with revenue from ecotourism. The road is bad so we do not have regular transport. 
We do not have any cultural group and community center as well” (Women FGDs, 
Krofofrom).  
Figure 4.5 shows the social infrastructure in the various communities. Abrafo happens to have 
more of such infrastructure development from ecotourism as indicated earlier on. The collapsed 
tree platform at Mesomagor and the abandoned visitor center at Kubease. Krofofrom could not 
boast of such infrastructure. However, it was observed that some of the members have tools to 
weave kente which they use to train residents who are interested.
130 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 4.5: Social resources of communities from field observation 
Source: Author, 2016. 
131 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The extent of residents’ empowerment is important for the realization of ecotourism 
sustainability. The data suggests that residents in the various communities are empowered in 
various aspects. It is interesting to note that none of the communities scored less than one which 
suggests that residents have benefited one way or the other from the various aspects of 
empowerment. As stated earlier in the literature review and conceptual framework, the fact that 
residents are benefiting from certain aspects of empowerment showed that they are participating 
or involved in certain ecotourism activities. However, benefiting from ecotourism or mere 
participation in ecotourism does not necessarily result in empowerment as shown in the data.  
 
The tenets of ecotourism include its ability to provide livelihoods to residents and conserve the 
resources on which ecotourism depend. However, residents need to be knowledgeable about 
ecotourism in order to be interested in participating in ecotourism activities and enjoying 
benefits. As stated earlier in the conceptual framework, just participating cannot bring about 
empowerment but participating at the highest level where residents are not forced but willingly 
involve in decision-making. For instance, residents can share their views and decide on the kind 
of skills they are interested in undertaking. More residents at KNP have the opportunity to attend 
meetings and share their views on issues related to ecotourism than those at BFRBS. 
Ecotourism is a social activity and requires community resources to operate. It is essential that 
such activity benefits the majority of residents. Revenue from ecotourism can be used to build 
social infrastructure to improve the livelihoods of residents. The roads to the various destinations 
are in a deplorable state which could have implications on visitor numbers to the sites. Another 
aspect of social empowerment is the maintenance of cultural activities. Ecotourism also relies on 
the culture of the people. With the exception of Mesomagor where residents believe that they are 
- 132 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
socially empowered because ecotourism has helped to preserve their culture, the rest of the 
communities could not boast of such cultural resource.  
All the residents at the various destinations are humanly very disempowered as revealed by the 
mean scores shown in figure 4.4. This could have implications on ecotourism sustainability. Per 
the tenets of ecotourism, it is supposed to provide knowledge and skills to residents. Residents 
understanding about ecotourism can help build their interest in ecotourism activities and improve 
their livelihoods. 
Furthermore, the conceptual framework suggests that when more residents have jobs, 
tourists/visitors are buying from residents, families are engaged in ecotourism related business 
and are able to acquire credit facilities, then they are economically empowered. However, with 
the exception of Abrafo community, all residents are economically disempowered.  Economic 
incentives from ecotourism are very critical for the sustainability of ecotourism. The livelihoods 
of most residents depend on the natural environment. The majority of residents are farmers who 
trade in their farm produce. The qualitative data suggest that residents want direct financial 
benefits from ecotourism. Some of them shared that there should be benefit sharing scheme in 
place so that they would be assured of future economic benefits. Having a benefit sharing 
mechanism in place can go a long way to ensuring that economic benefits trickle down to the 
residents. 
It is interesting that all residents scored high marks in environmental and psychological 
empowerments. As far as environmental empowerment is concerned, residents believe that they 
have been sensitized on the need to keep their surrounding clean because tourists/visitors visit 
their communities. They are also aware that they should not log and hunt illegally from the forest 
which the majority of residents comply with. Even though there is high sensitization on the 
- 133 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
environment which has caused them to be environmentally empowered, there is low education 
on ecotourism itself causing their human disempowerment. More seems to have been done on 
safe guarding the environment but little is done on improving their knowledge and building their 
skills on ecotourism. For instance, the community-based ecotourism activities at Mesomagor has 
collapsed because residents have little knowledge about ecotourism and could not manage it 
sustainably. 
  
4.3.1 Gender and aspects of residents’ empowerment 
4.3.1.1 Gender and human empowerment 
It is important to know which gender is empowered or disempowered in the various 
communities. All communities showed signs of human disempowerment.  Figure 4.6 shows the 
extent of human disempowerment for residents based on gender. 
 
Figure 4.6: Human disempowerment based on gender 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
- 134 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Figure 4.6 shows that males (57%/54%) are more humanly disempowered in Abrafo and 
Krofofrom respectively. This means that more males at Abrafo and Krofofrom have little or no 
knowledge about ecotourism. It also suggests that more males have not been trained in 
alternative livelihoods and have not had their skills developed. On the other hand, females (57%) 
are more humanly disempowered at Mesomagor than males (43%) which denote that there are 
more females at Mesomagor who have little or no knowledge about ecotourism, have not been 
trained in alternative livelihoods and have not had their skills developed. In the case of Kubease, 
both men and women are equally disempowered. 
4.3.1.2 Gender and social empowerment 
The study further looked at the status of residents’ social empowerment based on gender. This is 
shown in figure 4.7. 
 
Figure 4.7: Gender and residents’ social empowerment 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
- 135 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Mesomagor and Abrafo are socially empowered and among the gender groups, females (59%)  
are socially empowered at Mesomagor than males (41%) whilst males (60%) are more 
empowered at Abrafo more than females (40%) as shown in figure 4.7. This suggests that more 
females at Abrafo feel that ecotourism connects them to their community, it has brought 
cohesion to their community and has helped them improve their relationship with people. On the 
other hand, Kubease and Krofofrom are socially disempowered and females (56%) in Krofofrom 
are more disempowered than males (44%). This means that more females at Krofofrom feel 
ecotourism has not connected them to their community and has not helped them to improve their 
relationship with others. At Kubease, the same proportion of males to females feels that 
ecotourism has not connected them to their communities. 
4.3.2.3 Gender and environmental empowerment 
The status of residents environmental empowerment based on gender is shown in figure 4.8. 
 
Figure 4. 8: Gender and environmental empowerment 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
- 136 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Figure 4.8 depicts that males in Abrafo and Krofofrom are more environmentally empowered 
than females whilst there are more females at Mesomagor and Kubease who are environmentally 
empowered than males. This means that males in Abrafo and Krofofrom adhere to byelaws and 
engage in environmental management practices than females whilst at Mesomagor and Kubease, 
the females adhere to byelaws and engage in environmental practices than males. 
4.3.2.4 Gender and economic empowerment 
The status of residents’ economic empowerment based on gender is shown in figure 4.9. 
 
Figure 4. 9: Gender and economic empowerment 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Figure 4.9 portrays that males at Abrafo are more economically empowered than females. This 
means that males in Abrafo are able to access credit facilities, have jobs that are related to 
ecotourism and tourists buy their products. More males in Krofofrom are economically 
disempowered than females whereas, at Mesomagor and Kubease, more females are 
economically disempowered than males. This suggests that more females in these areas do not 
- 137 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
have jobs that are related to ecotourism, are not able to access credit facilities and tourists do not 
buy their items. 
4.3.2.5 Gender and residents’ political empowerment 
The status of residents political empowerment based on gender is shown in figure 4.10. 
 
Figure 4.10: Gender and political empowerment 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
As shown in figure 4.10, males in Krofofrom and Abrafo are more politically empowered than 
females. This implies that males in these areas attend meetings and are able to share their 
concerns than their female counterparts. On the other hand, females at Mesomagor are able to 
attend meetings and voice out their concerns than males making them more politically 
empowered than males.  
4.3.2.6 Gender and residents’ psychological empowerment 
The status of residents’ psychological empowerment is shown in figure 4.11. 
- 138 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Figure 4.11: Gender and psychological empowerment 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Figure 4.11 depicts that males in Abrafo and Krofofrom are more psychologically empowered 
than females. This denotes that more males in Abrafo and Kroforom are proud that their 
communities are ecotourist destinations and that ecotourism has increased their confidence and 
self-esteem. On the other hand, more females at Kubease and Mesomagor are more 
psychologically empowered than the males. 
The gender dimension of residents’ empowerment is essential for ecotourism development. 
Gender roles are defined in most Ghanaian communities which affect the livelihoods of males 
and females. The data suggests that there are disparities in the aspects of empowerment for both 
men and women. Men and women require the various aspects of empowerment to improve their 
livelihoods and help conserve the forest resources. Even though most of the disparities in the 
data is a reflection of the sampled population, it still provides a picture of the situation in the 
communities. 
- 139 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
4.4 Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment 
4.4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics influencing residents’ empowerment 
The background characteristics of respondents were used as predictors to assess which of them 
influence the empowerment of community members. The factors that influence the 
empowerment of residents are shown in Table 4.4. 
Table 4. 4: Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment 
 Socio-demographic characteristics influencing residents’ empowerment 95% CI for Odds 
Ratio 
 Variable Name B (SE) Wald Odds Ratio Lower Upper 
Exp(B) 
Environmental Empowerment   
Mesomagor Intercept 18.101 (0.818)* 489.181    
 Length of stay -17.247 (0.803)* 461.842 3.232E-008 6.705E- 1.558E-007 
(Not long) 009 
Note: R2 =.103 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 36.668; *p= 0.000 
Kubease Intercept 20.586 (1.526)* 182.045    
 Age (Youth) -17.872 (0.788)* 514.812 1.730E-008 3.695E- 8.103E-008 
009 
 Gender 1.267 (0.644)*** 3.873 3.552 1.005 12.549 
(Females)  
 Religion (No) -3.453 (1.715)** 4.055 0.032 0.001 0.912 
Note: R2 =.223 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 50.567; *p= 0.000; **p=0.044; ***p=0.05 
Psychological empowerment   
Kubease  Intercept  1.289 (1.209) 1.136    
 Length of stay 1.342 (0.595)* 5.094 3.826 1.193 12.270 
(Not long) 
 Length of stay 1.284 (0.611)** 4.423 3.611 1.091 11.950 
(Moderately 
long) 
Note: R2 =.163 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 85.754; *p= 0.02; **p=0.04 
Source: Fieldwork 2016 
 
- 140 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 4.4 illustrates the various socio-demographic characteristics of respondents that influence 
their extent of empowerment. The study reveals that the factor influencing environmental 
empowerment at Mesomagor is the length of stay. The results further indicate that residents at 
Mesomagor who have not stayed there for a longer time (between 1-20 years) are likely to be 
environmentally empowered than those who have stayed there moderately long (21-40 years)  
and very long (41 years and above). It further reveals that the odds of those who are 
environmentally empowered at Mesomagor are 3.232E-008 more for those who have not stayed 
there for a longer period than those who have stayed there moderately long and very long. The 
model is statistically significant at p=0.000 at 95% confident level. The data further explains 
10% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance of environmental empowerment and it contributes to the 
model. This means that residents at Mesomagor who have not stayed there for a long time have 
an increase odd for becoming environmentally empowered. 
On the other hand, age, gender and religion influence the environmental empowerment of 
residents at Kubease. Residents at Kubease who are young (the youth – 18-35) are likely to be 
environmentally empowered than the Adult (36-65) and the aged (66 and above). Furthermore, 
the study found that the odds of those who are environmentally empowered at Kubease are 1.73 
more for the youth than the adult and the aged. This is significant at p=0.000 with 95% confident 
level. However, age decreases the model. This illustrates that the youth at Kubease have a 
decrease odd for becoming environmentally empowered.  
The study also found that the odds of those who are environmentally empowered at Kubease are 
3.552 more for females than males which is significant at p=0.05 and contributes to the model. 
This denotes that females residents at Kubease have increased odds of becoming 
environmentally empowered. Those who are not in religious groups are more likely to be 
- 141 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
environmentally empowered than those who are in a religious group at Kubease. The results 
show that the odds of those who are environmentally empowered at Kubease is 0.032 more for 
those not in any religious groups than those who are in a religious group. This is significant at 
p=0.044 but decreases the model. Age, gender, and religion explain 22% of the variance of 
environmental empowerment at Kubease. 
In addition, the length of stay influences the psychological empowerment of residents in 
Kubease. This was significant for those who have not lived there for long and those who have 
lived there moderately long at p=0.02 and 0.04 respectively. The odds of psychological 
empowerment for residents at Kubease are 3.826 more for those who have not stayed there for 
long than those who have stayed there for very long. It is 3.611 more for those who have stayed 
there moderately long than those who have stayed there very long. The length of stay contributes 
to the model and explains 16% of the variance in psychological empowerment. 
4.4.2 Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ disempowerment 
Several socio-demographic factors influence residents’ disempowerment. These are shown in 
Table 4.5. 
Table 4. 5: Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ disempowerment 
Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ disempowerment 95% CI for Odds 
Ratio 
 Variable Name B (SE) Wald Odds Ratio Lower Upper 
Exp(B) 
Human disempowerment   
Abrafo Constant 19.248 (1.059)  330.367    
Age (youth) -17.366 (1.247)* 194.093 2.870E-008 2.493E- 3.303E-007 
009 
Note:R2=.250 (Nagelkerke) ; -2Log Likelihood =34.395; *p=0.000 
- 142 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Mesomagor Constant 219.778 (1.081)* 334.745    
 Length of stay -19.319 (1.015) 362.335 4.074E-009 5.573E- 2.978E-008 
(Not long) 010 
Note: R2 =.255 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 21.935; *p= 0.000 
Social disempowerment  
Kubease Intercept  17.505 (0.811)* 466.324    
 Age (Youth) -16.582 (0.736)* 508.168 6.288E-008 1.487E- 2.659E-007 
008 
 Family size 1.623 (0.665)** 5.962 5.066 1.377 18.636 
(Small) 
Note: R2 =.137 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 52.115; *p= 0.000;**p=0.02 
Economic disempowerment  
Kubease Intercept 1.749 (1.284) 1.855    
 Age (Youth) 2.792 (1.383)*** 4.077 16.314 1.085 245.204 
 Age (Adult) 3.037 (1.320)* 5.295 20.850 1.569 277.109 
 Length of stay -3.444 (1.524)** 5.091 0.032 0.002 0.636 
(Moderately 
long) 
Note: R2 =.173 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 65.704; *p= 0.021; **p=0.024; ***p=0.043 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
From Table 4.5, the human disempowerment status of residents at Abrafo is influenced by their 
age. The youth are likely to be humanly disempowered than the adult and the aged. The odds of 
human disempowerment for those at Abrafo are 2.87 more for the youth than the adult and the 
aged which is significant at p=0.000 and explains 25% of the variance in human 
disempowerment but decreases the model. This suggests that when conditions remain the same 
and there is no deliberate effort to educate and build the capacity of residents at Abrafo, those 
who are young would be more humanly disempowered. On the other hand, the length of stay 
influences the human disempowerment status of residents at Mesomagor. The odds of human 
- 143 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
disempowerment for residents at Mesomagor are 4.074 more for those who have not stayed there 
for a longer period than those who have stayed there moderately long and very long. This is 
significant at p=0.000 and explains 26% of the variance in human disempowerment but 
decreases the model. This suggests that when the youth continue to stay at Mesomagor and there 
is no deliberate action to educate them and build on their skills, they would be humanly 
disempowered. 
The age and family size of residents at Kubease influence their status of social disempowerment. 
The odds of social disempowerment for residents at Kubease are 6.288 more for the youth than 
for the adult and the aged which is significant at p=0.000. This suggests that the when conditions 
remain permanent, the youth who continue to stay at Kubease would become more humanly 
disempowered. The odds of human disempowerment of residents at Kubease are 5.066 more for 
those with smaller family size than those with larger family size. This is significant at p=0.02. 
The age and family size of residents explain 13% of the variance in social disempowerment, 
however, age decreases the model whilst family size contributes to the model. 
Age and length of stay of residents at Kubease influence their status of economic 
disempowerment. The odds of economic disempowerment for residents at Kubease are 16.314 
and 30.850 more for the youth and adult respectively than for the aged. These are significant at 
p=0.021 and p=0.043 respectively. This suggests that when conditions are static, the youth and 
the adult who grow in the community are likely to be economically disempowered.  In addition, 
the odds of economic disempowerment for residents at Kubease is 0.032 more for those who 
have lived there moderately long than those who have not lived there long and those who have 
lived there very long. This is also significant at 0.024. The age and length of stay of residents at 
- 144 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Kubease explain 17% of the variance in economic disempowerment. However, age contributes to 
the model whilst length of stay decreases the model. 
The conceptual framework suggests that the status of residents’ empowerment is caused by 
certain underlying factors and it is the duty of the research to uncover such factors. Among the 
socio-demographic factors that influence residents’ empowerment, the length of stay plays a 
critical role in enhancing the environmental and psychological empowerment of residents. 
However, this affects those who have stayed in the communities for moderately long and not 
long period. All residents in the communities are environmentally and psychologically 
empowered even though they have not stayed in the communities for quite a long time. This 
suggests that all things being equal, their continuous stay in their communities would improve 
their environmental and psychological empowerment. 
 
4.5 Results on hypotheses  
1. H1: There is a significant relationship between knowledge about environmental 
management practices and adherence to byelaws. 
2. H2: There is a significant relationship between belonging to a social group and 
participating in ecotourism planning. 
 
 
 
 
- 145 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The results on H1 is shown in Table 4.6. 
Table 4. 6: Results on relationship between knowledge about environmental management 
practices and adherence to bye-laws 
Adherence to byelaws 95% CI for  
Odds Ratio 
 Variable B (SE) Wald Odds Lower Upper % 
Name Ratio classified 
Exp(B) 
Abrafo Constant 21.203 0.000 0.000    
(20096.488) 
Knowledge 2.856 38.580 17.400 0.000  95 
of forest (0.460)* 
Note:R2=.014 (Nagelkerke) ; -2Log Likelihood =38.389; *p=0.000 
Mesomagor Constant 2.565 6.109 13.000    
(1.038)** 
Knowledge 2.104 19.731 8.200 0.413 11.445 89 
of forest (0.474)* 
Note: R2=.013 (Nagelkerke); -2Log Likelihood=31.318; *p=0.000; **p= 0.013 
Kubease Constant 0.511 69.021 0.105    
(0.516)** 
 Knowledge 1.852 80.013 6.370 1.526 14.038 86 
of forest (0.207)* 
Note: R2 = .058 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood =151.591; *p=0.000; **p= 0.007 
Krofofrom Constant 21.203 0.000 1.000    
(40192.991) 
 Knowledge 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000  53 
of forest (.0333) 
Note: R2 =.051 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 48.492 
 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
- 146 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
From Table 4.6, the odds of those who adhere to byelaws are 17.400, 8.200, 6.370 and 1.000 
greater for those who have knowledge about the importance of forest for residents in Abrafo, 
Mesomagor, Kubease and Krofofrom respectively. Again, the model explains 1% (Nagelkerke 
R2) of the variance in adherence to byelaws for those in Abrafo and Mesomagor and correctly 
classifies 95% of the cases in Abrafo whereas it correctly classifies 89% of the cases in 
Mesomagor. On the other hand, the model explains 6% and 5% (Nagelkerke R2) variance of 
adherence to byelaws and correctly classifies 86% and 53% of the cases for residents in Kubease 
and Krofofrom respectively. The results show significant association (p=0.000) between 
knowledge of the importance of forest and adherence to byelaws for residents in Abrafo, 
Mesomagor, and Kubease whereas it is not significant for residents in Krofofrom. This implies 
that those who have knowledge about the forest are able to adhere to byelaws more than those 
who do not have knowledge or have little knowledge about the forest. 
The results on the second hypothesis are shown in Table 4.7. 
Table 4. 7: Results on the relationship between belonging to a social group and participating in 
ecotourism planning. 
Participate in decision regarding ecotourism 95% CI for  
Odds Ratio 
 Variable B (SE) Wald Odds Lower Upper % 
Name Ratio Classified  
Exp(B) 
Abrafo Constant 0.759 8.635 2.136    
(0.0258)** 
Social 1.099 20.820 3.000 1.303 81.363 75 
group (0.241)* 
Note:R2=.136 (Nagelkerke) ; -2Log Likelihood =94.614; *p=0.000; **p=0.003 
Mesomagor Constant 1.204 (0.658) 3.345 3.333    
- 147 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Social 1.718 17.510 5.571 0.413 11.445 85 
group (0.410)* 
Note: R2=.031 (Nagelkerke); -2Log Likelihood=38.421; *p=0.000 
Kubease Constant -2.255 69.021 0.105    
(0.271)* 
 Social -1.769 77.483 0.171 2.142 11.410 85 
group (0.201)* 
Note: R2 = .116 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood =151.809; *p=0.000 
Krofofrom Constant 0.000 (0.378) 0.000 1.000    
 Social 0.223 (.0335) 0.443 1.000 0.514 17.498 56 
group 
Note: R2 =.060 (Nagelkerke); -2 Log Likelihood = 47.814 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Table 4.7 illustrates the results for H2 for the various communities. The model suggests that the 
odds of those who participate in the decision regarding ecotourism are 3.000, 5.571, 0.171 and 
1.000 greater for those in social groups than those who are not in social groups in Abrafo, 
Mesomagor, Kubease and Krofofrom respectively. Furthermore, the model explains 13% 
(Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in participating in ecotourism decision for those in Abrafo and 
correctly classifies 75% of the cases. In the case of Mesomagor, the model explains 3% of the 
variance in participating in ecotourism decision and correctly classifies 85% of the cases.  
This shows that there is an association with an increase in belonging to social groups and 
increase participation in ecotourism decision making for residents around KNP. This association 
is statistically significant at p=0.000 and not by chance. However, this association is significant 
for residents in Kubease around BFRBS whereas it was not significant for residents at 
Krofofrom. For Kubease, the model explains 11% of the variance in participating in ecotourism 
decision and correctly classifies 85% of the cases which is significant at p=0.000. 
- 148 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 This means that when residents are in social groups they can participate in decision making that 
concerns their livelihoods. As mentioned earlier, the state has an upper hand in the decision-
making that concerns the use and management of the forest since the government has acquired 
the land. Such arrangements make it difficult for residents to partake in decisions that concern 
the management of the forest to improve their livelihoods. Nonetheless, the data suggest that 
when residents are in groups, they can be part of the decision-making to enhance their 
livelihoods.  
4.6 Summary  
This chapter presented the results on the first and second objectives of the study. The study 
uncovered that there are variations and similarities in the status of empowerment for the residents 
in the various destinations. All of the residents in the study destinations are very humanly 
disempowered which suggests that they lack the requisite knowledge on ecotourism and training 
in alternative livelihoods such as beads making, batik and tie and dye and kente weaving. 
Residents in Abrafo showed signs of social empowerment whilst those in the other areas were 
socially disempowered. The various factors influencing residents’ status of empowerment 
include age, the length of stay, family size, religion among others. The chapter also presented the 
gender dimension of the empowerment status of residents and the results on the hypotheses. 
 
 
 
- 149 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER FIVE 
ANALYZING RESPONDENTS’ PREFERENCES AND THE ROLES OF 
INSTITUTIONS IN EMPOWERING RESIDENTS  
 
5.1 Introduction 
This chapter analyzes the results on the third, fourth and fifth objectives of the study. It first 
presents the results on the types of empowerment that residents prefer. The second section 
presents the results on the types of empowerment that tourists/visitors want residents to have in 
order to boost their satisfaction on ecotourism activities at the destinations. The chapter further 
presents the results on the roles of private and public institutions in empowering residents 
towards ecotourism sustainability.  
 
5.2 Types of empowerment that residents prefer 
The views of residents on the aspects of empowerment they prefer are essential for ecotourism 
sustainability. Peoples’ taste and preferences matters and need to be considered in issues that 
concern conservation and sustainable use of resources. Residents were asked to indicate which 
aspects of empowerment they prefer and the results are presented in figure 5.1. 
- 150 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Figure 5. 1: Aspects of empowerment that residents prefer 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
As indicated in figure 5.1, most of the residents of the various destinations want to be humanly 
empowered. That is Abrafo (42%), Mesomagor (52%), Kubease (39%) and Krofofrom (67%). 
The second aspect of community empowerment that residents from Abrafo (34%) and 
Krofofrom (19%) want is to be socially empowered whilst Mesomagor (35%) and Kubease 
(37%) want to be economically empowered. Economic empowerment is the third most important 
aspect where community members want to have especially Abrafo (21%) and Krofofrom (14%) 
whereas members in Kubease (10%) and Mesomagor (13%) want to be socially empowered. 
The study further uncovered the specific details of the aspects where residents want to be 
empowered and the result is displayed in Table 5.1. Their preferences for specific activities are 
indicated. 
 
 
- 151 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 5. 1:  Specific aspects of empowerment residents prefer 
 Name of communities 
Specific areas  Abrafo Mesomagor Kubease Krofofrom  
% % (n=46) %(n=199) % (n=36) 
(n=92) 
Human     
Training in alternative 39* 67* 47* 36* 
livelihoods 
Develop local skills 26*** 32** 26** 33** 
Provide knowledge on 28**  21*** 25*** 
ecotourism 
Social empowerment     
Use revenue to build 30* 76* 32* 53* 
infrastructure 
Programs to build social 16** 13** 15** 8*** 
cohesion 
Establish local groups 11*** 9***  17** 
Incentives to improve social   20***  
connectedness 
Economic empowerment     
Job opportunities 54* 87* 55* 61* 
Compensation for lost 12**    
properties 
Revenue sharing 5*** 7** 13**  
Access to credit facilities   12*** 8** 
Equal economic benefits  4***  6*** 
Environmental      
Maintain environmental 37*    
cleanliness 
Afforestation programs 21** 63* 39* 36* 
Improve environmental 16*** 13*** 12*** 8*** 
awareness 
Establish environmental  19** 38** 31** 
groups 
Political empowerment     
Part of decision-making bodies    17** 
Incorporate concerns of 47* 30** 29** 56* 
residents 
Avenues to share concerns 22** 46* 18***  
Local communities to control 15*** 13*** 33*  
resources 
Traditional authorities to be    14*** 
part of decision-making 
Psychological empowerment     
- 152 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Improve attraction 25**   22** 
Programs to build member’s 28* 76* 21*** 58* 
confidence 
Programs to build self-esteem  15** 23** 11*** 
Programs to make members 19*** 7*** 37*  
proud 
Note: (* = first priority, ** = second priority and *** = third priority) 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
As mentioned earlier, human empowerment of all community members needs to be improved 
and the majority of residents want to improve their human empowerment as well. The specific 
aspects where they want to be empowered include training in alternative livelihoods which is 
their first priority (see Table 5.1). It is not surprising that residents prefer human empowerment 
to the rest because all residents in the communities were humanly disempowered. Residents 
believe that it is important to have training in alternative livelihoods because their livelihoods 
depend on their environment. It was revealed during the interviews and FGDs at Kubease and 
Abrafo that some few residents were trained in selected alternative livelihoods such as batik and 
tie and dye, beads making and grasscutter rearing. However, such activities took place quite a 
long time ago and after 2004, none of such activities have taken place.  
This suggests that children at that time and those born afterward, have not had any training in 
alternative livelihoods. This could have implications on the sustainability of ecotourism at the 
destinations. Individuals have certain inbuilt skills and qualities that could be developed. 
Ecotourism provides the opportunity for the development of skills of individuals in the 
communities. However, this has not been the case in the study communities and residents do not 
just want their skills to be developed but increase their knowledge on ecotourism activities. 
Providing such aspects of human empowerment to residents would go a long way to ensuring the 
sustainability of ecotourism at the destinations. 
- 153 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
As far as social empowerment is concerned, all the four communities indicated that they want 
authorities to use the revenue to build social infrastructure in their communities. As mentioned 
earlier, ecotourism is a social activity and residents should benefit from it. The use of revenue 
from ecotourism is one way to ensure that ecotourism benefits accrue residents. It is interesting 
that all residents from the various communities want authorities to use revenue from ecotourism 
to build social infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, market, community centre among others. 
Apart from Abrafo where there exists a private health centre, the rest of the communities cannot 
boast of health facilities. As tourists destinations, such services are essential not only for 
residents but for tourists as well. All the communities have basic schools but not a senior high 
school which could one of the reasons why the majority of residents in these areas have basic 
education. The existence of a senior high school could motivate some of them to pursue higher 
education. It was observed that some of the social infrastructures are in a deplorable state 
especially in Abrafo and residents want the authorities to fix them. 
The next category of social empowerment that residents prefer is to have programs to build 
social cohesion. Ecotourism would thrive better when there are peace and harmony in destination 
areas. Residents want to have cultural programs and other festivities that would keep their 
communities lively and peaceful. They also want to be in local groups to help boost their 
participation in ecotourism activities such as engaging in decision-making, participating in 
cultural troupes, and forming tourism management teams. As mentioned earlier, there was 
statistical significance between belonging to social group and participation in decision-making. It 
is, therefore, essential to consider the zeal of residents to establish local groups. This can help 
improve social connectedness and ensure ecotourism sustainability.  
- 154 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 In the case of economic empowerment, all the four communities want to have jobs opportunities 
as their first priority. Provision of jobs for residents is crucial for ecotourism sustainability. 
During the interviews and FGDs, residents shared that they used to collect non-timber forest 
products from the forest which they sell to earn a living. They can no longer enjoy such 
economic benefits because of the reserve. As humans, when their livelihoods are affected and 
there are no modalities in place to provide alternatives they could resort to negative practices. 
The residents during the FGDs mentioned that some people do go to the forest illegally to log. 
Such practices could have implications on ecotourism sustainability. Management should be 
concerned and assist residents with alternative jobs.  
Furthermore, residents from Mesomagor and Kubease want to have a share in the revenue as 
their second priority. Revenue sharing at ecotourism destinations is crucial for ecotourism 
sustainability. Where residents are aware of direct economic benefits from ecotourism they are 
able to engage in positive practices that can conserve the resource. Residents again indicated that 
they would want to access credit facilities to expand their business. Revenue from ecotourism 
could be given to residents as loans to engage in ecotourism and other businesses that could 
improve the economic empowerment of residents and enhance their livelihoods. Residents in  
Abrafo wants management to compensate them for lost properties as their second priority. Most 
of them complained during the FGDs that elephants destroy their crops. Some of them said they 
have lost interest in farming as a result. As a primary economic activity at the destinations, when 
residents loose interest and there are no alternatives, their livelihoods would be affected. 
All residents were environmentally empowered. Yet, they want to be engaged in certain 
environmental programs. The first priority for most of the residents is to be engaged in 
afforestation programs. Residents believe that if they are engaged in plantation programs they 
- 155 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
would not only improve the quality of the environmental resources but could enjoy economic 
benefits from that. Most of the residents have lands and as some of them indicated that they have 
lost interest in farming, engaging them in plantation programs could boost ecotourism in the 
areas. Residents also want to be in environmental groups to assist in the environmental education 
of residents. Community members themselves can serve as peer educators and as indigenes, they 
can explain issues to their peers better. 
The aspects of political empowerment that is of priority to residents vary. Residents at Abrafo 
and Krofofrom want management of the forest to incorporate their concerns in the 
implementation process. Interviews with elders of the two communities revealed that sometimes 
the chief of Abrafo and some elders participate in meetings concerning the forest and ecotourism 
but their concerns are not addressed. In the case of Krofofrom, they are not called for specific 
meetings with the management but the elders in the communities sometimes meet and carry their 
concerns to the management but they are not addressed. Some of these concerns include 
establishing ecotourism centres at Krofofrom so that they can also benefit from ecotourism. 
Residents at Mesomagor want avenues to share concerns. An interview with the chief of the 
community revealed that they do not have any centre to hold community durbars and other 
meetings. Although he calls for meetings occasionally, such meetings are held in his house.  
The majority of residents in Krofofrom expressed their need for a community centre to enhance 
their political empowerment. The majority of residents in Kubease wants local communities to 
control resources. The residents during the interviews and FGDs expressed their concerns that 
they want to have barriers within the communities where visitors can pay some token for the 
community but such request has not been considered. According to residents, there is no 
attraction within the community to draw the attention of tourists/visitors so they do not stop 
- 156 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
within the community. The visitor centre, which was built by FORIG within the community, has 
not been operating for over a decade. They believe that when they are given a portion of the 
reserve to manage, they can engage in more activities to improve their livelihoods. 
The aspects of psychological empowerment that majority of residents prefer are building 
programs to build the confidence of community members. During the FGDs, residents from the 
various communities said even though ecotourism has built their confidence and they can boldly 
tell others about their communities, they would want to participate in other programs such as 
cultural and festive activities to make their communities more lively. They added that such 
programs would help improve the attraction by adding a cultural dimension to the natural 
attraction. The next section presents the results on tourists/visitors’ preferences on aspects of 
residents empowerment that would enhance their satisfaction. 
 
5.2 Types of residents empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ satisfaction 
Ecotourism destinations would not thrive if there are no tourists/visitors to the site. Tourists play 
critical roles in the sustainability of ecotourism destinations. As consumers, they also have their 
taste and preferences that can inform them on the choice of destinations. When they are satisfied 
with the destination images, they are likely to repeat their visit, which is also important to sustain 
ecotourism destinations. Tourists to KNP and BFRBS were asked to indicate the types of 
empowerment that when residents are engaged in would enhance their satisfaction. The result is 
shown in figure 5.2. 
- 157 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Figure 5. 2: Aspects of residents’ empowerment that interest tourists/visitors  
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
 
Figure 5.2 illustrates that the majority of tourists would want residents to be humanly 
empowered (33%). This is followed by those who want residents to be economically empowered 
(26%), socially empowered is (18%) and environmentally empowered is (16%). The least scored 
empowering aspects are political (4%) and psychological (3%). The tourists further provided 
details on the specific aspects of empowerment that would enhance their satisfaction which is 
presented in figure 5.3. 
 
 
- 158 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Figure 5. 3: Details of tourists/visitors responses on aspects of residents’ empowerment that 
would enhance their satisfaction 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
 
From figure 5.3, with regards to human empowerment, most of the tourists believe that their 
satisfaction or experience would be enhanced when residents are knowledgeable about 
ecotourism and have information about it (54%). The next aspects of human empowerment that 
tourists believe would enhance their experience or bring them satisfaction are the provision of 
education to local communities (19%) and 17% of tourists want the skills of community 
members to be developed. Training of community members in alternative livelihoods is 15%.  
Concerning economic empowerment, most of the tourists believe that their satisfaction would 
improve if there were job opportunities for residents (33%). The same number of tourists want 
residents to have programs to reduce leakage (17%), programs to increase local businesses 
(17%), whilst 12% of the tourists want revenue to be shared with residents. In building the social 
- 159 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
empowerment of residents, 23% of tourists believe that revenue should be used to build 
infrastructure, 17% feel that when social groups are established, their satisfaction would be 
enhanced.  Furthermore, 17% feels that there should be programs to enhance social cohesion 
whilst 14% believe that their satisfaction would be enhanced when local culture and traditions 
are improved. 
The tourists further provided details on why they feel that their satisfaction would be enhanced 
when community members are empowered on various aspects. This is presented in figure 5.4. 
 
 
- 160 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Figure 5. 4: Visitors responses on sources of improved satisfaction 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Figure 5.4 depicts that tourists prefer that residents be humanly empowered to improve their 
satisfaction because the tourists can learn more about the environment from the residents (31%). 
When residents are knowledgeable about ecotourism, tourists can interact and learn better from 
them concerning the history of ecotourism in the communities. The tourists further stated that 
- 161 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
they would enjoy quality ecology (20%) and have a better understanding of the ecology (14%) 
when residents are knowledgeable about ecotourism.  
Tourists again believe that when community members are socially empowered their satisfaction 
would be enhanced because there would be value addition to their experience (26%). It is 
interesting that tourists/visitors are believed that they would be satisfied when residents are 
socially empowered in this direction. They further believe that they would be happy to stay in the 
community (23%), have a better understanding of the local culture (17%). The residents were 
interested in engaging in cultural activities as well. This provides a good opportunity for 
residents to be engaged in cultural activities to add value to ecotourism and enhance 
tourists/visitors’ experience. Other tourists/visitors who felt that the road should be improved to 
increase their experience is 8%.  
The majority of tourists to these destinations further shared that when residents are economically 
empowered their satisfaction would be enhanced because there would be money for residents to 
ensure sustainable conservation of the park (26%). This is also crucial for ecotourism 
sustainability. Where tourists are aware that residents at the destination would benefit financially 
from their visits, which would serve as a guarantee for conserving the resource, they are satisfied 
and can repeat their visit. In addition, tourists/visitors believe that when residents are 
economically empowered, tourists’ connectivity with locals would improve (22%). Moreover, 
some tourists believe that when residents are economically empowered, it is an indication that 
they the tourists are fulfilling part of their social responsibilities that would make them happy 
and satisfied (17%). Moreover, a section of the tourists believes that  when residents are 
economically empowered then they are involved in ecotourism activities. Such activities include 
- 162 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
sharing in the wealth of ecotourism which according to the tourists, would enhance their rich 
experience when locals are involved (6%).  
Moreover, the majority of tourists who think that their satisfaction would be enhanced when 
residents are environmentally empowered said that they would be assured of conservation of 
resources (40%). The conservation of resources is one of the basics for the development of 
ecotourism. When residents are educated on the importance of conservation and they abide by 
them, it would not only contribute to resource conservation but enhance tourists satisfaction. As 
mentioned earlier, tourists are consumers and some of them prefer to visit very rich natural 
environment. Again, 30% of tourists believe that the environmental empowerment of residents 
would help the tourists to improve their knowledge on conservation and enjoy environmental 
hygiene (5%). It is interesting that some of the tourists/visitors prefer to learn from the residents. 
Improving the environmental education of residents is important in enhancing tourists 
satisfaction. 
The political empowerment of residents brings satisfaction to some tourists/visitors. According 
to the tourists, the sources of such satisfaction include the peaceful interaction with community 
members (30%). Others also believe that their satisfaction would be enhanced when there is 
greater sense of security in the communities (24%) and the communities are sustainable (12%). 
Ecotourism thrives better communities where there is peace and security. Tourists as consumers, 
are also rational beings and would like to enjoy the natural environment within peaceful 
societies. Where there are conflicts and unstable political atmosphere, the sustainability of 
ecotourism destinations would be affected. 
Some of the tourists/visitors shared their reasons for believing that the psychological 
empowerment of residents would enhance their satisfaction. The majority said that when 
- 163 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
residents are happy and proud about their communities because of ecotourism they interact better 
with tourists. Such interactions would encourage tourists/visitors to repeat their visits (32%). 
Others believe that when residents are psychologically empowered then it means they are 
involved in ecotourism activities and that would satisfy the tourists (28%). Those who said that 
the psychological empowerment of residents would build their confident to repeat their visit are 
27%. Ecotourism sustainability also depends on the hospitality of residents. When residents are 
happy about ecotourism in their communities, they are more hospitable towards tourists. This is 
also critical for ecotourism sustainability. 
5.4 Roles played by the management of the destinations towards empowerment of 
residents 
Two public institutions manage the two tourists’ destinations with support from some NGOs. It 
is important to understand the roles played by these institutions towards empowering residents.  
 
 
 Environmental Benefit sharing 
Collaborate with education 
 
other institutions 
 
Decision-making 
 
  Environmental 
Manager Manager KNP management 
 BFRBS Community Training 
 Programs to improve 
attraction 
 Job creation Local support 
  
Figure 5. 5: Summary of roles played by managers of BFRBS and KNP 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Figure 5.5 summarizes the various aspects of empowerment where the managers of the forests 
are working or have worked on. The middle column shows (in subthemes) the roles that both 
- 164 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
institutions are playing towards empowering residents whereas those at the sides are roles that 
each institution plays differently. The managers at KNP and BFRBS said they have engaged 
residents in environmental education. The provision of environmental education is key to 
achieving ecotourism sustainability. Ecotourism depends on the natural environment and 
educating residents to understand the need to preserve the environment is very important. As 
mentioned earlier, all residents were environmentally empowered. It was also revealed during the 
interviews and FGDs that the management of the destinations occasionally educates residents on 
the importance of conservation and keeping the environment clean.  
The management of the destinations further said they involve residents in decision-making 
regarding ecotourism. According to the manager at KNP, the chiefs and elders of the 
communities especially the paramountcies are invited to participate in meetings concerning the 
forest and ecotourism. They sometimes involve the local chiefs in such meetings. The interviews 
with the chief of Mesomagor and some elders of Abrafo revealed that they are occasionally 
involved in some meetings but their views are not considered. Involving local authorities in 
decision-making concerning ecotourism is critical for ecotourism sustainability. The kind of 
involvement that is essential is bottom up approach where residents are able to express their 
concerns and such concerns are considered. The management at BFRBS, on the other hand, said 
they have engaged local authorities before in their meetings regarding ecotourism but was a long 
time ago. They continued that, they have not really done much in involving residents in the 
decision-making process. This has contributed to the status of political disempowerment of 
residents at BFRBS which has implications on ecotourism sustainability. 
The management of the parks again stated that they have facilitated community training 
programs to build the skills of residents and improve their livelihoods. Such training programs 
- 165 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
took place a long time ago which has implications on ecotourism. The provision of training and 
building the skills of residents are important in achieving ecotourism sustainability. These 
training should be continuous to ensure sustainability of the programs. The management of the 
parks added that they offer job opportunities to residents. The manager at BFRBS said they have 
four workers who are residents of the forest communities whereas the manager of KNP said they 
have employed few residents from the forest communities. He continued that they are challenged 
because the residents do not have the requisite education to occupy most of the positions they 
have. It is therefore essential to engage residents in other alternative livelihoods to ensure 
ecotourism sustainability. 
The other roles that the management at KNP performs include support for communities where 
residents have been supported with logistics to pepper fence their farms against destruction from 
elephants. The manager added that they have plans to create woodlots where residents would be 
assisted with seedlings and other logistics to preserve the environment. The management at 
BFRBS, on the other hand, collaborate from time to time with other institutions on projects 
where they include residents. They also have plans to improve the attraction by building a 
canopy walkway. The roles that the management of the parks would play in building the 
environmental empowerment of community members are shared in the following quotes. 
“We are trying to create woodlots for the communities. The woodlots would be plants 
that are fast growing and would belong to the individual who would make his or her land 
available. We are also looking at those with cocoa farms so that they can also plant these 
trees on their farms” (Kakum Manager, 2016). 
- 166 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
“FORIG has a plan and very soon ecotourism activities will increase. There would be a 
canopy walkway which would be established to increase ecotourism activities. Bee hives 
would also be established with the involvement of residents (Bobiri Manager, 2016). 
 
5.5 Roles played by some NGOs 
The role of NGOs in empowering residents is essential if ecotourism sustainability is to be 
realized. Most ecotourism destinations in Ghana are supported by NGOs. Figure 5.6 shows the 
summary of roles played by GHCT and NCRC in empowering residents towards ecotourism 
sustainability. 
 
  
 
 Environmental Benefit sharing 
Local Decision-making education 
 
Social facilities 
   
Environmental 
 GHCT NCRC management 
Community Training 
 
Provide 
 scholarship 
Community support Local support 
 
 
Build local confidence Cultural preservation 
 
 
 Raising self esteem  
Figure 5. 6: Summary of roles played/ to be played by some NGOs  
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
- 167 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Figure 5.6 summarizes the various roles that these NGOs are playing and would be playing in the 
near future. As indicated earlier on, the middle circles show the activities that both NGOs are 
engaged in whereas the sub-themes at the sides are the activities undertaken separately by each 
institution. Both NGOs have provided and will provide environmental education, social facilities, 
training for community members, programs to raise self-esteem, preserve culture, and provision 
of support. They all believe that an ecotourism framework would help to understand the various 
roles of stakeholders in ecotourism sustainability.  
As far as the provision of social empowerment is concerned, GHCT has supported the Abrafo 
community in several areas. According to the director of GHCT, they have provided library and 
an ICT centre for the residents. GHCT is the major NGO that is working with the communities 
around KNP to improve their livelihoods. It was observed that the library is in a deplorable state 
and need to be refurbished. The ICT centre on the other hand has been closed for a while due to 
management problems which have implications on the sustainability of ecotourism at the 
destination. NCRC, on the other hand, has supported BFRBS in community training in 2001 in 
alternative livelihood programs. However, such programs were not sustainable. It is important 
for the various NGOs to devise programs to ensure the sustainability of ecotourism activities. 
NCRC undertakes programs to manage the environment, assists communities, and other 
stakeholders to come out with benefit-sharing strategies. GHCT also has programs in place to 
provide scholarship schemes for some selected community members. In building the human 
capacities of community members, the director for GHCT says: 
“With the bamboo art center at Kruwa, we trained the people to use the bamboo to do all 
kinds of things, e.g. bags, etc. Again, we trained members in Assin Kruwa in beekeeping, 
grass cutter rearing not only in Kruwa but other areas” (Director, GHCT). 
- 168 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Concerning benefit sharing as an aspect of economic empowerment, the respondent from NCRC 
said: 
“The generated funds are shared according to stakeholders’ values, the percentage that 
goes to the patrons is 10%, and Management team operates with 60% including tax. 
Community welfare 10%, specific project for community 10%, scholarship fund 10%” 
(Director, NCRC). 
5.6 Details of roles played by private and public institutions 
Results from interviews with MOTAC and MESTI suggest that they do not have any common 
activities. MOTAC engages in several activities including providing technical advice, engaging 
communities in decision-making, training community members, environmental education, 
cultural education, create opportunities for community members to generate revenue and 
collaborate with other institutions. MOTAC believes that there should be an ecotourism 
framework which is developed with local perspective at various destinations. Some of the 
challenges include inadequate funds. MESTI does not engage in tourism activities. Some of the 
challenges it faces include institutional collaboration.  
“For now, nothing is happening, we are not actually doing anything in terms of 
sustainable tourism. The ministry of tourism does not contact us on anything and we do 
not collaborate with them in any way” (Director, MESTI). 
“In building the capacities of community members, we are training some of the 
community members in culture such as singing and dancing” (Director, MOTAC). 
The details of the roles played by the various institutions as well as their challenges and way 
forward are presented in Table 5.2. 
- 169 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Table 5. 2: Roles played by various institutions, their challenges and way forward 
Aspect of Institutions  
empowerment 
 MOTAC GHCT NCRC FORIG FC TBI 
(MANAGER (MANAGER
BFRBS) KNP) 
Human 
Training In Ada, 127 We did a lot We are About ten of We would be We have 
community members of training in collaborati the beehives creating worked with 
members comprising Assin ng with are on trial and woodlots them before to 
tour guards, Mesomagorin communiti the community where we will provide 
boat bamboo arts, es in the members educate training on 
operators, we trained area of would be community alternative 
restaurants, women there training trained to members on livelihoods 
drinking bar, in food  engage in these them such as beads 
chop bar preparation so  activities   making, 
operators, that they can   batik/tie and 
sugar cane prepare food  dye 
farmers have for the guests   
been trained  
 
Economic  
Employment    FORIG give Currently,  
priority to there are five 
residents when tour guards 
employing.  and two of 
Currently, them are from 
there are seven Abrafo 
workers on site  
and 4 of them  
are residents 
Revenue We encourage We have  NGOs come We are going We provided 
generation community trained some  with specific to create a community 
members to of the work for the woodlot with three 
sell and also community community together with bicycles to 
provide home members in where the some selected establish a 
stays for food communities community bicycle station 
instance in preparation are supposed to members at Kubease 
Tafe Atome among others collect the which would 
so that they seeds for the belong to 
can do endangered them. This 
something species for would give 
and sell to the nursery and them some 
visitors they are paid  income 
  
  
Environmental  
Environmental There are We try to We provide The Currently,  
education other 33 areas work with training on community there is a 
we are Wildlife on conservation members are project that is 
working on eg creating a and educated on conservation 
Salaga, buffer zone so guidelines on not of hinge-back 
Kintanpo, we supported ecotourism destructing tortoise and 
Adasawase, wildlife to management the we want to 
Odwinima train members ecosystem sensitize the 
- 170 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
etc. and in all in growing on which the members to 
these places pepper around amphibians understand 
we ensure that their farms to live the roles of 
environmental prevent  the tortoise in 
management elephants  the 
is key from ecosystems 
 destroying  
 their crops 
Political 
Decision- In the case of There are  There is an We have a  
making Nzulezu, the seven annual unit, the 
people paramountcie meeting community 
themselves s, and each usually in development 
were asked to one, when December, unit that 
select those to they are which involves the 
participate. In coming for comprises of community in 
terms of what meeting, the chiefs all these 
should be come with and elders of activities 
done too we their the  
set up community communities  
committees members  and we get 
made up of  to know their 
the chiefs and  concerns 
assemblymen 
and they 
decide on 
whoever 
should be on 
board 
Psychological 
Appreciate  We are also  Some  We felt that 
resource educating projects have when 
community taken place community 
members to here and members are 
appreciate the have engaged in 
resource they educated alternative 
have since it community livelihoods 
is important members on they will 
for them as the need to appreciate the 
farmers appreciate resource and 
their be happy 
resource about it so we 
trained some 
of them 
Social  
Social We provide As I speak    
We provide 
facilities toilet now we have 
social 
facilities, opened a 
facilities by 
museum, community 
lobbying the 
souvenir center at 
DA and other 
shops Kruwa where 
philanthropist
 members are 
s for 
 also going to 
provision of 
be trained, at 
social 
Abrafo we 
infrastructure 
had 
constructed a  
- 171 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
50 seater ICT  
Other roles 
Support   Sometimes Support for  We can If we get any 
we have to funds for  support them student who is 
support WD promotion through with interested in 
to engage in and the seedlings, taking a 
their Marketing preparation of project at 
activities. We the lands. We BFR we will 
support them have done be happy to 
with fuel, and this before support it 
the pepper with the  
project too we training of  
funded it pepper 
fencing 
Challenges  
Funds  Inadequate  Inadequate Most of our Even as a  
funds for funds to projects are country, we 
operation operate foreign depend so 
funded who much on aid, 
come with and 
their own everybody is 
conditions looking up to 
which make somebody for 
it difficult to aid 
collaborate  
with  
communities 
on such 
issues 
High  The chief of  Some of the So most of  
community Abrafo has concerns the 
demands even written they raised community 
to us that we are beyond members 
should build our reach have high 
an ultra  expectations 
modern Some say  
palace for that they 
him. He even want 
threatened firewood so 
that he will they want 
block the road FORIG to 
etc. because relax the 
they are  not rules so they 
receiving can get 
benefits firewood 
Sustaining    For the  Finding 
activities alternative something 
livelihoods, that will give 
most of them them a 
come in the commensurate 
form of return has 
projects so been a major 
when the challenge  
project ends  
the  
sustainability 
- 172 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
become an 
issue 
 
 
Way forward 
Ecotourism There should a framework Ecotourism it is I think there I think an 
framework be a for framework important to is the need for ecotourism 
framework ecotourism will be a have an an ecotourism framework is 
developed development good thing to ecotourism framework necessary. If 
from a in the country have framework that can there can be 
bottom-up would help in for the outline the different 
perspective understanding nation which roles of activities for 
and it should ecotourism should take communities tourists and 
be for each and roles of into account and communities 
destination. institutions local needs institutions so that 
 better and roles of and address communities 
  institutions issues on will have 
  benefits as something to 
 well as do and 
community tourists can 
empowerment also enjoy 
issues in wide range of 
general activities it 
 will help a lot 
 
Local The A team at the  It will be a   
management leadership at local level good thing to 
the that is have local 
community committed is level tourism 
level should very management 
be elected so necessary to teams who 
that they can ensure will take 
be sustainability care of 
accountable to of activities community 
the people and interest in 
 maintenance tourism 
of social 
infrastructure 
Source: Fieldwork, 2016 
Table 5.2 provides the details of the various roles that are played and are being played by the 
various private and public institutions in ecotourism development. TBI explained that their 
current focus has shifted from ecotourism but have played diverse roles in ecotourism 
development at BFRBS and are willing to assist in its sustainability if students and other NGOs 
bring up good proposals. All the institutions have played or are playing diverse roles to help with 
the human empowerment of community members by training them in various areas. They are 
- 173 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
and have assisted residents in bamboo and arts training, food preparation, tour guiding, 
beekeeping, the creation of woodlots, beads making, batik and tie and dye.  
In terms of economic empowerment FORIG and FC, employ some of the community members 
whilst the other institutions provide opportunities for them to generate revenue. MOTAC, 
GHCT, FORIG, FC and NCRC engage communities in environmental education. They also help 
residents to appreciate their resource and engage them in decision-making processes. MOTAC, 
GHCT, and NCRC further assist residents in developing their social infrastructure. As mentioned 
earlier, the social empowerment of residents is critical for ecotourism development. Even though 
the various private and public institutions are playing their roles in the social empowerment of 
residents, more needs to be done. There are bad roads leading to the destinations and the director 
of GHCT said they are working towards the construction of the roads.  
The focus of MOTAC has been in other areas other than KNP. They are assisting residents at 
Nzulezu and other areas with receptive facilities, toilets, museum, and souvenirs shop. They are 
improving their cultural diversities as well, for instance, they have selected about 30 participants 
to be trained in cultural activities. It is interesting that this study revealed that residents at both 
destinations are interested in being in social groups to engage in cultural activities which they 
believe would add value to the ecotourism attraction. Tourists/visitors, on the other hand, 
preferred residents to participate in cultural activities to enhance their experience. Such 
revelation provides a good opportunity for private and public institutions to engage the residents 
in such aspects.  
GTA is silence on the aspects of empowerment since they have not engaged community 
members in such aspects. Currently, they are not doing anything to empower residents since it is 
not their focus. According to them, when Ghana Rural Ecotourism and Travel Office (GREET) 
- 174 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
was not absorbed into GTA, they were able to operate but their absorption into GTA has 
rendered them ineffective. This is surprising since GTA is supposed to be the implementing body 
of MOTAC. However, MOTAC seems to be doing more on ecotourism whilst GTA is rather 
rendered ineffective. This implies that there is a limited collaboration between these institutions. 
For ecotourism to be sustainable there is the need for collaboration between stakeholders. As an 
implementing body of tourism activities in the country, GTA is expected to engage in more 
activities to boost ecotourism in the country. 
These institutions are challenged with inadequate funds to sustain ecotourism activities. The 
director of GHCT said residents make huge demands that they cannot meet. The private and 
public institutions shared that the residents have high expectations of getting direct financial 
benefits from the revenue. Such high expectations also have implications on ecotourism 
sustainability. For instance, when their expectations are not met, it could develop conflicts which 
can negatively affect ecotourism in the areas. Respondents from both the private and public 
institutions believe that having local tourism management teams and an ecotourism framework 
will help to curb these challenges. The existence of an ecotourism framework would help 
harmonize practices at various destinations. The framework can guide destinations to incorporate 
issues of residents’ empowerment in their operations and budget for them. 
5.7 Summary  
This chapter presented the results on the various roles played by the private and public 
institutions in empowering residents towards ecotourism sustainability. The various private and 
public institutions are performing certain roles to provide benefits to residents though they are 
not adequate to bring about empowerment. Some of the roles played by the institutions include 
facilitating community training programs, providing environmental education, providing social 
- 175 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
infrastructure and involving residents in decision-making concerning ecotourism. The study also 
revealed that some of the institutions are not collaborating enough and they are faced with 
challenges that hinder their operations. 
- 176 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER SIX 
 
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 
 
6.1 Introduction 
This section presents a discussion of the results in line with the study objectives. It begins with 
an overview of the extent of residents’ empowerment. This is followed by a detailed explanation 
on the factors influencing community empowerment, aspects of residents’ empowerment that 
residents prefer, aspects of residents empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ 
satisfaction and the roles of private and public institutions in empowering residents. 
 
6.2 The extent of residents’ empowerment 
6.2.1 Social empowerment 
The literature on sustainable tourism supports that the empowerment of residents is a critical 
issue to ensure sustainability in ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Cobbinah 
et al., 2015; Cole, 2006; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). Asiedu (2002), Boley & McGehee (2014) 
and Scheyvens (1999a) emphasize that residents are socially empowered where there are social 
networks, local groups, social connection, and cohesion. Community members are socially 
empowered when they receive social benefits such as recreation and cultural facilities which 
keep residents’ interest in ecotourism (Mensah, 2012). This study revealed that communities 
around KNP are socially empowered whereas those at BFRBS are disempowered. Respondents 
at KNP felt that ecotourism connects them to their community, preserve the local culture, 
improve their relationship with people and improve their infrastructure.  
- 177 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
This is consistent with the literature that ecotourism can socially empower residents by 
promoting local culture and improving social facilities (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014; Cobbinah 
et al., 2015; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Mensah, 2012; Thanvisitthpon, 2016). This is further 
echoed by Boley et al. (2015) who believe that community members are socially empowered 
when there is increased community cohesion and collaboration between members. The social 
empowerment situation of residents at KNP supports findings by Boley & McGehee (2014) in a 
study at Western Virginia in the USA where residents perceived themselves as socially 
empowered since ecotourism connects them to their communities. This further provides support 
to the findings of Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014) where communities around Tafi Atome have 
received social infrastructure built with revenue from ecotourism. In the case of Abrafo, GHCT, 
which is a major NGO in the area, has provided a community library, and an ICT center which 
were built with funds from ecotourism.  
According to Afenyo & Amuquandoh (2014), when residents are in local groups they are able to 
participate in decision-making concerning ecotourism. This tested statistically significant for 
residents in Abrafo, Kubease, and Mesomagor. This suggests that where residents are in groups, 
they can engage in ecotourism activities and this is not just by chance but is statistically 
significant in this study for residents in Abrafo, Kubease, and Mesomagor. 
On the other hand, social disempowerment results when there is disharmony (Ramos & 
Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999b) and residents feel that they are not receiving enough 
infrastructure from tourism (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). The majority of residents in Kubease felt 
that they have not received enough infrastructure from ecotourism. The qualitative results 
suggest that though they have some social facilities, such amenities were not constructed with 
revenue from ecotourism with the exception of a visitor center, which has been idle for more 
- 178 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
than a decade and they do not see how this is beneficial to them. Such social disempowering 
situations could prevent community members to be interested in conservation of biodiversity 
which can affect their degree of involvement in ecotourism activities (Adams & Hutton, 2007; 
Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Honey, 2008; Mensah & Ernest, 2013). 
Furthermore, residents around BFRBS are not sure whether the social infrastructure such as 
schools, boreholes, and toll booth are as a result of ecotourism or not. This signifies that there is 
a lack of information sharing or weak collaboration between the management of the forest and 
residents. This could reduce residents’ interest in ecotourism which has implications on the 
sustainability of ecotourism. Eshun & Tonto (2014) affirms that the lack of collaboration 
between tourism managers and residents could lead to a lack of interest on the part of community 
members to participate in issues related to ecotourism. Moreover, the absence of infrastructure in 
these communities pose challenges to the sustainability of ecotourism at these destinations 
(Honey, 2008).  
The conceptual framework has been useful in knowing the extent of social empowerment of 
residents at these destinations. It has helped to analyze the similarities and variations of the social 
empowerment at the two destinations. The various indicators employed have been helpful in 
knowing the empowered outcomes of destinations and those with signs of disempowerment. The 
differences between the social empowerment status of residents at KNP and BFRBS could be 
attributed to the fact that, there exists a vibrant NGO at KNP that helps residents to benefit from 
social infrastructure. On the contrary, communities around BFRBS could not boast of any 
vibrant NGO to help assist them in this direction. This supports TIES (2015) that institutional 
roles are critical in empowering residents towards ecotourism sustainability. 
- 179 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.2.2 Political empowerment 
Political empowerment is achieved when the majority of residents are engaged in all aspects of 
the decision-making processes and that the views of traditional authorities, youth, women 
groups, and religious bodies are taken into consideration (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015; 
Scheyvens, 1999). Ramos & Prideaux (2014) assert that community members are politically 
empowered when their needs and interests are taken into consideration on the political structure. 
Scheyvens (2002) maintains that political empowerment occurs when residents have avenues to 
air their views as explained in the conceptual framework. The study found that residents around 
KNP and one community at BFRBS are politically empowered. This implies that most of the 
individuals and traditional authorities have avenues to share their concerns.  
The political empowerment status of residents is very critical for the development and 
sustainability of ecotourism since the political empowerment of residents can affect the other 
forms of empowerment. For instance, residents can share their views on how social, economic, 
environmental and other aspects of empowerment should be maintained to ensure ecotourism 
sustainability which is a sign of gaining some authority over their affairs. Boley, McGehee, 
Perdue, & Long (2014: 87) concur that political empowerment is similar to residents “gaining 
mastery of their affairs”. Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for residents to participate at 
the highest level which is consistent with the literature. For instance, Gordillo, Hunt, & Stronza 
(2008) agree that political empowerment is like community participation at the highest level. 
When residents have avenues to share their concerns, they are able to voice out issues that affect 
all other aspects of empowerment. The signs of political empowerment of residents in the study 
areas support a study at TAMS where there exists a vibrant TMT that provides a platform for 
residents to share their concerns and ensure that they benefit from all angles (Afenyo & 
Amuquandoh, 2014). 
- 180 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
On the other hand, political disempowerment results when residents do not have avenues to share 
their concerns and their concerns are not taken into consideration (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 
2016; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). 
The political disempowerment situation of Kubease has implications for sustainability of 
ecotourism at the area. Furthermore, most of the residents at both destinations share the same 
situation, as they believe that their concerns are not addressed. This could further lead to loss of 
interest in members to partake in the decision-making process (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Asiedu, 
2002; Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Honey, 2008; Mensah & Ernest, 2013) and eventually affect the 
political empowerment of residents.  
Even though all of the respondents were above the age of 18 and are capable of participation in 
decision-making, most of them have a low educational background. When they are able to 
express their views and their concerns are not addressed for a long time, it can influence their 
attitudes towards participating in the future decision for ecotourism development. The situation 
in Kubease where their chief is yet to be buried and have not held any community meeting to 
discuss issues relating to ecotourism for over two years, could create tension and powerlessness 
on behalf of the residents (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Drydyk, 2013; Eshun, 2011; Han et al., 
2014). The conceptual framework for the study helped in examining the political empowerment 
of residents. The indicators employed have been useful in knowing the similarities and 
differences in residents’ political empowerment. 
6.2.3 Economic empowerment 
According to Ramos & Prideaux (2014), economic empowerment is achieved when the greater 
number of residents have control of economic resources from ecotourism, benefit economically 
and directly from ecotourism, in short, medium and long-term and there is no leakage. Sutawa 
- 181 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
(2012) establishes that economic empowerment is where residents have access to capital and 
resources whereas Asiedu, (2002) maintains that economic empowerment is attained when most 
residents are employed and economic benefits trickle down. The economic empowering situation 
of residents in Abrafo grant supports to the observation that ecotourism can provide economic 
benefits to residents (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Li, 2006; 
Simpson, 2008). This includes the fact that ecotourism could reduce leakage and provide jobs for 
residents. 
If more tourists were able to stop at Abrafo and buy from residents, it would reduce leakage, 
increase job opportunities for residents and boost their economic empowerment outcome as 
explained in the conceptual framework. According to Eshun, Owusu, Owusu, & Amankwaa 
(2015), KNP is the most visited tourist's attraction in Ghana and frequent tourists visit a 
destination is important for sustaining ecotourism in the area. Therefore, more opportunities need 
to be created around the KNP especially Abrafo to raise their economic empowerment situation 
to very empowering conditions. Abrafo community has other tourists’ attraction such as a Bee 
Center which is situated within the community and has the tendency to boost the economic 
empowerment conditions of the residents. This could be achieved if there are programs to boost 
economic opportunities and ensure that economic benefits trickle down to residents (Asiedu, 
2002). An interview with the manager at KNP revealed that some of the community members are 
employed as tour guides and guards within the forests. This is consistent with findings by 
Simpson (2008) that economic benefits of ecotourism include job opportunities such as tour 
guides. 
Economic disempowerment results when profits from tourism go to few people and also where 
there is leakage (Asiedu, 2002; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002). Three communities 
- 182 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
showed signs of economic disempowerment. These were Krofofrom, Kubease, and Mesomagor. 
Even though Kubease is the gateway to the Bobiri forest, residents during the FGDs shared that 
tourists hardly stop by the community to purchase items and they believe that tourists buy their 
items before coming or purchase from the FORIG guesthouse within the forest. This situation 
causes the concentration of economic gains in the hands of few people and leads to leakage 
(Asiedu, 2002).  
Unlike Kubease and Abrafo which are located on a major road and also serve as the major 
entrances to the forests, Krofofrom and Mesomagor have no attraction to pull tourists/visitors 
who visit the destinations. They are also located in remote areas and not on regular 
transportation. Such locational differences could have implications for ecotourism sustainability 
if conditions remain permanent. However, the study found that some of the residents at 
Krofofrom have skills in the making of kente and they are interested in getting support to 
developing their community to attract tourists/visitors. Such initiatives could create jobs and 
reduce leakage. As explained in the conceptual framework, empowered economic outcomes 
include increased jobs and reduced leakage which could go a long way to ensuring ecotourism 
sustainability. 
Moreover, residents were interested in having a benefit sharing scheme to enhance their 
economic empowerment situations. Contrary to studies from TAMS where residents benefit from 
revenue sharing mechanisms (Afenyo & Amuquandoh, 2014) and Boabeng Fiema Monkey 
Sanctuary where there is a benefit sharing mechanism in place (Eshun & Tonto, 2014), those at 
KNP and BFRBS do not enjoy such benefits. However, some of the residents were optimistic 
that they would receive economic benefits in future, whilst others were not sure until there is a 
benefit-sharing scheme in place. Such certainties and uncertainties about the future of economic 
- 183 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
empowerment of residents would have implications on the sustainability of ecotourism 
development.  
Moreover, there are no credit facilities available for residents at both destinations. Most of these 
members have a low level of education and are mostly farmers and traders. Some residents 
indicated during the FGDs that their inability to have collateral prevents them from accessing 
loans to engage in any serious business and they could only trade in their farm produce. These 
results are consistent with the literature that communities show signs of economic 
disempowerment when they are unable to access credit facilities and their work is not related to 
ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; Scheyvens, 2002; 1999b). Such economic disempowering issues 
further support studies that lack of financial resources disempower residents (Coria & Calfucura, 
2012; Eshetu, 2014; Eshun, 2011; Fuller et al., 2005; Kiss, 2004; Lapeyre, 2010; Stone & 
Rogerson, 2011; Sweeting, 2012; Wearing & Neil, 2009a; Yeboah, 2013). 
6.2.4 Environmental empowerment 
Tourism is an environmentally based product and the quality of the environment is essential for 
ecotourism sustainability (Mathieson & Wall, 2006). All the study communities were very 
environmentally empowered which provide support to the literature that ecotourism helps in the 
preservation of the environment (Chiu, Lee, & Chen, 2014; Cobbinah et al., 2015; Coria & 
Calfucura, 2012; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Jalani, 2012; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Mensah 
& Ernest, 2013).  
This indicates that residents around the two destinations are environmentally conscious and 
adhere to environmental laws. During the FGDs, residents said they participate in clean-up 
campaigns occasionally organized by the traditional authorities and do not engage in any illegal 
activities in the forest. Residents from the study communities shared similar views that they have 
- 184 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
knowledge on how to control erosion and fire outbreaks on their farms. In Kubease and 
Krofofrom, residents said they have abandoned their farms in the forest to give way to 
ecotourism. This supports research conducted by Stem et al. (2003) in Costa Rica on ecotourism 
benefits which revealed that community members abandoned their farmlands in the forest 
because they recognized the importance of ecotourism. This is further supported by Mbaiwa & 
Stronza (2010). Boley et al. (2014) affirm that communities could be environmentally 
empowered when ecotourism is able to improve the physical conditions of their environment. 
Since the environment supports ecotourism, it is very crucial that residents are environmentally 
empowered to preserve environmental quality. This can also help to determine whether residents 
are involved in ecotourism in a way that will benefit the environment  (Ramos & Prideaux, 
2014).  
The indicators used in the conceptual framework have been useful in examining residents’ 
environmental empowerment. Residents’ adherence to environmental laws and knowledge about 
environmental practices has helped in revealing the similarities about residents’ environmental 
empowerment at the destinations. The results from the first hypothesis indicate that there is a 
statistical significance between knowledge about the importance of the forest and adherence to 
byelaws. This is statistically significant in Abrafo, Kubease, and Mesomagor. This provides 
support to the literature that residents resort to positive environmental practices when they 
recognize the importance of ecotourism (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Stem et al., 2003). This also 
shows that human empowerment has a link with environmental empowerment. When residents 
are educated on the importance of ecotourism they are able to engage in positive environmental 
practices. 
- 185 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
6.2.5 Human empowerment 
 Pigg (2002: 112) equates human empowerment to self-power and believes that it is the “first 
face” of empowerment. He adds that it is an important personal efficacy factor which could be 
defined as “personal power” and that efficacy can be increased when people gain control over 
their destiny. Human empowerment is, therefore, central to the other aspects of empowerment. 
Hewitt & Anderson (2015) assert that empowerment requires human services to apply different 
techniques such as increasing self-efficacy and skills, improving awareness, steps to build 
personal and interpersonal skills. From the conceptual framework, human empowerment is 
where the majority of residents have knowledge about ecotourism, training in alternative 
livelihoods, whether they are practicing these alternative livelihoods and whether they have 
acquired and develop their skills that can help them improve their personal efficacy. In a study 
conducted by  Eshun & Tonto (2014) in Buabeng Fiema Monkey Sanctuary in Ghana, a total of 
34.3% of respondents said that residents are provided with training in skills development. This is 
not the case in this study as the results revealed that the two communities around KNP are very 
humanly disempowered whereas those around BFRBS have human disempowering conditions.  
This indicates that the majority of residents from the two destinations have little knowledge 
about ecotourism, inadequate training on alternative livelihoods and skills development. During 
the FGDs, residents at Kubease explained that some of the members were once trained in 
alternative livelihoods programs by TBI and FORIG. The training included batik and tie and dye 
and beads making. However, this training took place in 2004 and after the training, participants 
were not resourced to continue. Similarly, residents in Mesomagor said very few people were 
trained in cultural activities such as dancing and these people are no longer living in the 
communities. Those in Abrafo said some selected residents were trained in grasscutter rearing 
around the year 1999/2000 and residents from Krofofrom have not had any training of such sort.  
- 186 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Residents in the study communities share similar educational characteristics. They have a low 
educational background and the majority are farmers. There is the need to build on the skills and 
capabilities of residents. During the FGDs community members felt that a structured program 
targeted at providing a structured community-based learning can go a long way to enhance the 
human empowerment of residents. This is consistent with the literature that when there are 
necessary structures to obtain an education, residents can gain control over their destiny (Lewis, 
2005; Pigg, 2002). Bertin, Dailey, McGuane, & Ricc (2010) support the view that the existence 
of structured community-based learning programs empower individuals and improve their ability 
to influence and control decision-making process. The human disempowerment status of 
residents at the various destinations provides support to the literature that where there is a lack of 
training and knowledge, residents become disempowered (Eshetu, 2014; Stone & Rogerson, 
2011; Sweeting, 2012; Yeboah, 2013). 
6.2.6 Psychological empowerment 
The development of ecotourism relies on the hospitality of residents. Residents would be 
hospitable when they are happy that they have a resource that is able to attract tourists/visitors. 
Psychological empowerment denotes that residents are proud, confidence and increase self-
esteem because of ecotourism in their communities (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015; Boley & 
McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002; Scheyvens, 1999). The study 
revealed that all residents are very psychologically empowered. This suggests that the majority 
of residents are proud, confident and believe that ecotourism resources such as the natural 
attraction, culture, and tradition of the people are able to attract tourists to the community. As 
outlined in the conceptual framework, these indicators were useful in examining the 
psychological empowerment of residents at the destinations. The psychological empowerment of 
residents is consistent with a study conducted by Eshun & Tonto (2014) at BFMS and Mensah & 
- 187 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Ernest (2013) at BFRBS in Ghana which revealed that residents are proud of their community 
because it is able to draw tourists/visitors. 
According to critical realists, the extent of residents’ empowerment existed independent of the 
researcher’s mind. By applying the perspective of a critical realist, the extent of residents’ 
empowerment was examined (Austen & Jefferson, 2006; Easton, 2010; Platenkamp & Botterill, 
2013). The communities show signs of empowerment and disempowerment for the various 
aspects of empowerment and according to the conceptual framework, those who are 
disempowered are vulnerable or liable. This suggests that they lack certain assets or capitals to 
enable them to achieve their empowerment outcomes. Drydyk (2008) agrees that lack of assets 
causes disempowerment of residents. However, those who are empowered have access to the 
other forms of capitals and can exercise authority over these capitals to achieve their livelihood 
objectives and conserve the environment. This further provides support to the literature that 
residents’ empowerment denotes providing the means where members have authority over 
resources to improve their livelihoods (Asiedu, 2002; Cheung, Baum, & Wong, 2012; Güzel, 
Tükeltürk, & Özkul, 2008; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002; Sutawa, 2012). 
 
6.3. Socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment 
The extent of residents’ empowerment is influenced by series of factors that range from 
institutional, leadership skills as well as demographic conditions (Kruja et al., 2016). The study 
found various socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment. At KNP, the 
factor affecting environmental empowerment is the length of stay which happens to be 
significant for those who have not lived at Mesomagor for a longer period. On the other hand, 
age, gender and religion influence the environmental empowerment of residents at Kubease. The 
- 188 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
findings are consistent with the literature where studies by Rahman et al. (2009) in Bangladesh 
revealed that the status of women empowerment was influenced by their level of education and 
age. It further provides support to other studies that age and gender are significant in residents 
participation in tourism (Mensah, 2016; Safari et al., 2015).  
The factor influencing psychological empowerment of residents at Kubease is the length of stay. 
However, this was statistically significant for those who have stayed there for moderately long 
(21-40 years) and those who have not stayed there for a long time (1-20 years). This suggests 
that when conditions are permanent, a 1% increase in the length of stay for such groups of 
residents would result in 3.611 and 3.826 increase in their psychological empowerment 
respectively. Other studies found the length of stay to be related to the accretion of social capital 
(Thomas et al., 2016) whereas in this study it influences psychological empowerment of 
residents at Kubease.  These categories of residents believe that ecotourism in their community 
has increased their self-esteem, built their confidence, has made them proud and happy about 
ecotourism in general. Such feelings are necessary for the sustainability of ecotourism. Earlier on 
in the literature review, it was discussed that residents are psychologically empowered when they 
feel ecotourism has increased their confidence and self-esteem (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2014; 
Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999). However, this study does not only support the 
literature but reveals that psychological empowerment is statistically significant for residents at 
Kubease who have lived there for moderately long and not long. When people stay in their 
communities where they feel something special occurs, they are likely to become happy and 
proud about their communities. 
The study findings that age influences the human disempowerment of residents in Abrafo is 
consistent with research from Pakistan where the age of women influenced their 
- 189 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
disempowerment (Ahmad & Khan, 2016). Earlier studies pointed out that, residents are humanly 
empowered when they have knowledge about the importance of ecotourism, they have their 
skills developed and have been trained in alternative livelihoods (Bertin et al., 2010; Hewitt & 
Anderson, 2015; Kullenberg, 2010; Lewis, 2005; Pigg, 2002). When these are absent and the 
majority of residents lack education, skills, and knowledge then they are humanly disempowered 
(Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Eshetu, 2014; Lewis, 2005; Stone & Rogerson, 2011; Sweeting, 2012; 
Yeboah, 2013). The empirical results from this study provide support to the literature adding that 
the human disempowerment of residents is influenced by their age. This is not just by chance but 
is statistically significant in this study for the youth residing in Abrafo. It was revealed during the 
interviews that residents in Abrafo were trained in alternative livelihoods for over 17 years which 
is quite a long time ago. The chance for those who are currently the youth to have been in such 
training is quite little. Therefore, further intervention to provide knowledge and build the 
capacities of residents should be targeted at the youth.  
Contrary to those in Abrafo, the length of stay influences the human disempowerment of 
residents in Mesomagor. It is a migrant community and the majority of respondents have not 
lived there for long (1-20 years). It was revealed during the interviews that residents have little 
knowledge about ecotourism which has contributed to the collapse of the CBEP at Mesomagor. 
This provides support to the literature that residents are disempowered when they have little or 
no knowledge about ecotourism (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Eshetu, 2014; Lewis, 2005; Stone & 
Rogerson, 2011; Sweeting, 2012; Yeboah, 2013). Residents at Mesomagor have inadequate 
knowledge on the management of CBEP and since the beginning of this project, few people have 
had the chance to be trained. The project collapsed since three years ago and those who have 
settled there within this period have little or no knowledge about CBEP. Therefore, future 
- 190 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
programs to revive the project and provide human empowerment to residents should consider 
those in this category. 
Age of respondents in Kubease influences their social disempowerment. It has been established 
in the literature that social disempowerment occurs when the majority of residents do not feel 
connected to their community and have not received infrastructure from ecotourism (Asiedu, 
2002; Boley et al., 2015; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999). 
The findings in this study render support to the literature and add that those who are socially 
disempowered in Kubease are the youth. In the case of Kubease, ecotourism started around 1996. 
That is 21 years ago and it is not surprising that the youth (18-35) have not experienced more of 
ecotourism to feel that it connects them to their community. This is not just by chance but is 
statistically significant in the case of Kubease with the youth groups. Therefore, programs to 
build social connectedness should be targeted at the youth. 
Moreover, age and length of stay influence the economic disempowerment of residents at 
Kubease. Earlier studies have emphasized that economic disempowerment occurs when there is 
leakage, economic gains are not spread equitably and the work of residents are not related to 
ecotourism (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & Gaither, 2016; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 1999). 
This study renders support to the literature and throws light on the fact that the economic 
disempowerment of residents is not just by chance but statistically significant among the youth, 
the adult and those who have stayed moderately long in Kubease. The interviews and FGDs 
revealed that extremely few people (four) are employed at the forest as caretakers and tour 
guides. It is the youth and the adult that form the working population hence interventions to 
economically empower residents should consider these groups. Furthermore, as mentioned 
earlier, those who have stayed there moderately long are economically disempowered and if 
- 191 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
conditions remain permanent, their continuous stay at Kubease would increase their economic 
disempowerment status. Therefore, economic empowerment programs should also consider 
those in this category. 
As mentioned earlier on in the conceptual framework, community members can be liable and 
such liabilities results in their disempowerment. However, they can become empowered when 
certain structures and processes exist to change their status. The study uncovered that the CBE 
projects at Mesomagor have collapsed because residents lack adequate knowledge to manage the 
projects. They also believe that they did not receive enough financial benefit to keep their 
interest in conservation. From a critical realists perspective, the extent of residents’ 
empowerment is caused by certain underlying phenomenon (Easton, 2010). Therefore, it is the 
duty of the researcher to uncover these underlying factors. This study also uncovered the various 
socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ empowerment and disempowerment, lending 
support to existing literature. 
 
6.4 Aspects of residents’ empowerment that interest them 
As discussed earlier, empowering local communities is key to sustainable tourism (Asiedu, 2002; 
Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002; TIES, 2015). Ecotourism is able to provide 
livelihood alternatives for residents (Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Cobbinah et al., 
2015; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Mensah & 
Ernest, 2013). However, more residents would have improved livelihoods outcomes when they 
are empowered. This study found that the aspects of empowerment where residents want, 
coincide with the aspects where they show signs of disempowerment which include human, 
economic and social. 
- 192 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
The top three aspects of human empowerment that residents showed interest are training in 
alternative livelihoods, improving their skills and providing information/knowledge on 
ecotourism. Residents are interested in developing their skills and gain knowledge about 
ecotourism activities. This is in line with the tenets of ecotourism (TIES, 2015). These aspects 
are equally critical for the sustainability of ecotourism because without the knowledge and the 
necessary skills it would be difficult for residents to participate in ecotourism activities. For 
instance, the situation at Mesomagor where the CBEP has collapsed due to inadequate 
knowledge and necessary skills required to operate the projects. The desires of residents to be 
trained in these areas is consistent with the literature where residents around BFMS believe that 
there should be opportunities for training of community members to sustain ecotourism activities 
(Eshun & Tonto, 2014). 
 
According to Kullenberg (2010), human empowerment includes the provision of education, 
skills, and training to community members. In these communities where the greater proportion of 
members have low education, there is the need for putting in place the necessary structures and 
processes to ensure that residents are engaged in other forms of livelihood activities, develop 
their skills and improve their knowledge on ecotourism. Bertin et al. (2010) agree that there 
should be community-based structures that promote learning programs to empower individuals, 
improve their ability to influence and control decision-making process. Residents in all the study 
communities shared similar views on human empowerment. This is not surprising since the 
majority of the residents have similar educational and occupational characteristics. They have 
low educational background and are mostly farmers and traders, their quests to have knowledge 
and skills to support ecotourism activities are in order. The conceptual framework for the study 
- 193 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
explains that there should be structures and processes to assist residents to be humanly 
empowered. 
 
Moreover, residents were interested to be economically empowered by creating job 
opportunities, sharing revenue, access to credit facilities and programs to increase businesses in 
the communities (Asiedu, 2002; Boley & McGehee, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 
1999). Whereas residents in Mesomagor and Kubease indicated as their second priority that they 
want a share of the revenue, those in Abrafo indicated that they want compensation for their lost 
properties. The study revealed that elephants destroy some of the crops of farmers around KNP 
and no compensation is paid to them. This has reduced their interest in farming and could have 
implications for ecotourism sustainability if not addressed. 
  
Similarly, residents at Mesomagor want to have jobs and in addition a revenue sharing scheme. 
They believe that apart from their inadequate knowledge in ecotourism activities if revenue from 
the CBEP was equally distributed, the project would not have collapsed. The tenets of 
ecotourism support the distribution of economic gains among stakeholders (Asiedu, 2002; Boley 
& Gaither, 2016; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; TIES, 2015). This can be possible when residents 
and forest officials are committed to implementing ecotourism objectives.  However, community 
members would be committed when they are sure of receiving benefits from their participation. 
The majority of residents have a low educational background. Therefore, management of the 
park should collaborate with them and provide guidance and training in other areas to support 
their livelihoods and promote ecotourism at the destination. Cobbinah et al. (2015) agree that the 
success of ecotourism at Mesomagor depends on the initiatives and dedication of the residents as 
well as strong leadership and collaboration with the management of the park.  
- 194 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
 
Like Abrafo and Mesomagor, some residents in Kubease have had training in alternative 
livelihoods like beads and tie and dye making. However, these activities were not sustained since 
most of the beneficiaries could not support it financially. It is not surprising that they want to 
have access to credit facilities and programs to increase their businesses. This supports the study 
of Omar et al. (2014) in Malaysia where a greater percentage of residents want access to credit 
facilities to expand their businesses. Similarly, residents in Krofofrom want to be empowered in 
these aspects. The study revealed that some of the residents in Krofofrom have skills in kente 
weaving but produce extremely little because they do not have the capital to expand their 
businesses. 
 
Ecotourism has the propensity to deliver economic benefits to residents as discussed in the 
literature (Catibog-Sinha, 2010; Cobbinah, 2015; Cobbinah et al., 2015; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 
2015; Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; TIES, 2015). However, the success of 
ecotourism relies on the economic empowerment of residents. As in the case of Mesomagor, 
where economic benefits went into the hands of a few people, more people were not committed 
to the CBEP which led to the collapse of the tree platform and the bamboo orchestra. When most 
residents benefit from the project, they would be interested and committed to the sustainability of 
the projects since they will become aware that their income now depends on the projects. 
 
Some of the aspects of social empowerment that residents were interested in are the provision of 
infrastructure, programs to improve social connectedness and cohesion. Providing social 
amenities can aid residents to pride themselves in the conservation of natural environment 
(Cooper, 2012; Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Simpson, 2008). Ecotourism is a social activity and relies 
- 195 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
not only on the hospitality of residents but also on the availability of social infrastructure. The 
absence of such infrastructure can have negative implications for sustainable ecotourism. Even 
though Abrafo community has received more social infrastructure than the other communities 
have, the residents complained of the bad road network. Unlike communities in Thailand where 
tourism development has resulted in the construction of transportation system (Thanvisitthpon, 
2016), all communities around the KNP and BFRBS have poor roads and want them to be 
constructed. Although the major road that passes through Kubease is good, that in Abrafo is bad. 
Ecotourism entails the movement of people from one place to the other, and without good 
transportation system, such movements can be restricted, which can have implications on 
sustainable ecotourism. 
 
Furthermore, empowering residents socially can keep the interest of residents in ecotourism 
activities (Mensah, 2012). All the communities indicated that there is no social group that is 
related to ecotourism. With the exception of Krofofrom, the other communities once had a TMT 
that served as the mouthpiece of the community and collaborated with management on general 
issues related to ecotourism. Their desire to have such groups is not surprising. Such social 
groups can help foster community cohesion and connectedness. Many authors concur that the 
existence of community network groups can help foster social cohesion and connectedness 
(Asiedu, 2002; Chen et al., 2017; Musavengane & Matikiti, 2015; Scheyvens, 2002). Such 
connections can even improve the status of females when they are in groups to engage in 
programs to support their livelihoods. This is emphasized by Knight & Cottrell (2016) and Lenao 
& Basupi (2016) that when females are in groups, they are able to engage in activities that 
empower them.  
 
- 196 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The residents around the various destinations were also interested to be environmentally 
empowered. The dimensions of environmental empowerment they want include the maintenance 
of environmental cleanliness, afforestation programs, and the establishment of environmental 
groups. It has been established in the literature that the development of tourism relies on the 
quality of the environment (Holden, 2006) and a clean environment add to the beauty of the 
attraction. Community members are interested in engaging in nursery plantations and other 
afforestation programs to support their livelihoods. Such programs can go a long way to 
conserving the protected areas whilst providing economic empowerment to residents.  
 
Even though several authors support the fact that ecotourism can preserve protected areas 
(Brandful Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites, 2015; Camilleri, 2014; Catibog-Sinha, 2011; Eshun & 
Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Musavengane & Matikiti, 2015; Thanvisitthpon, 
2016), it can be sustainable when residents are environmentally empowered. A report by IUCN 
(2010) suggests that KNP has the highest rate of poaching yet personal communication with the 
manager revealed that there are about 70 forest guards employed at the destination (Pers.com, 
2016c). Unlike communities around KNP, those around BFRBS cannot boast of any off-
reserves. Encouraging residents to engage in afforestation and nursery programs as they have 
shown interest could enhance the sustainability of ecotourism at the destinations. 
 
Moreover, residents want to be politically empowered by engaging in decision-making that 
concerns the development of ecotourism in their communities. They want their concerns to be 
addressed and opportunity for residents to control resources. The success of ecotourism depends 
on the ability of residents to share their concerns about ecotourism and have their concerns 
addressed (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002). Even 
- 197 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
though all the communities with the exception of Kubease showed signs of political 
empowerment, they complained that their concerns are not addressed which could reduce their 
interest in ecotourism activities. The residents desire to have control of ecotourism resources is 
also in line with the tenets of ecotourism especially community-based ecotourism where 
residents control and manage ecotourism resources (Hoole, 2010; Kiss, 2004). When residents 
are able to manage and control their resources, they are able to conserve the resources since they 
become more conscious of the complexities associated with the resources. 
 
Finally, residents want to be engaged in programs to boost their psychological empowerment. 
Although all communities at both destinations showed signs of psychological empowerment, 
some of the members were unhappy about other issues that affect the various aspects of 
empowerment such as the inadequate economic gains, poor infrastructure and the fact that their 
concerns are not addressed. Ecotourism has the tendency to boost psychological empowerment 
of residents as they feel special since they have a resource that is able to draw visitors to the 
community (Boley et al., 2015, 2014). Residents want infrastructure that would make them 
proud, improve their confidence and increase their self-esteem. When residents are content with 
the benefits from ecotourism, they are likely to be hospitable towards tourists/visitors which has 
implications on ecotourism sustainability. 
 
All residents at the various destinations showed similarities in the aspects of empowerment they 
want in terms of preference (human, economic and social). There are slight differences in terms 
of the specific details on the economic empowerment. Those at Mesomagor want a share of 
revenue whereas those at Abrafo want compensation for lost farm produce. On the other hand, 
- 198 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
those at Kubease and Krofofrom want job opportunities to be created and credit facilities to 
expand their businesses.  
 
As explained in the conceptual framework, critical realists perspective suggests that there is a 
reality out there (Easton, 2010; Platenkamp & Botterill, 2013; Yaro, 2004). The reality in 
achieving ecotourism sustainability depends on the empowerment of residents (Asiedu, 2002; 
Boley, Ayscue, Maruyama, & Woosnam, 2016b; Boley et al., 2015b; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; 
Scheyvens, 2002). The framework for the study has been useful in investigating the aspects of 
empowerment that interest residents.  As explained earlier on in the framework, empowered 
outcomes denote situations where residents are empowered economically, socially, 
environmentally, politically, humanly and psychologically. Such actions require bottom-up 
approaches and it is critical that the various structures consider the interests of residents in 
programs to empower them. This would build their interest in ecotourism activities and 
contribute towards its sustainability. 
 
6.5 Types of residents’ empowerment that would enhance visitors’ 
satisfaction/experience 
It has been established in the literature that ecotourism involves travel to a natural environment 
and takes into account the conservation of the environment, culture and the well-being of the 
people (Cobbinah et al., 2015; Donohoe & Needham, 2006; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; 
Musavengane & Matikiti, 2015; TIES, 2015). The nature of ecotourism suggests that when 
people visit places, they engage in activities that would conserve the environment as well as the 
culture of the people. Tourists are also customers to the destination and every destination needs 
tourists/visitors to be sustainable. Therefore, the expectations of tourists should be fulfilled to 
- 199 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
make them satisfied with the destination images and enhance their experiences. According to 
TIES (2015), ecotourism should provide memorable experiences to the tourists/visitors. When 
tourists/visitors are satisfied with the destination images, they are likely to repeat their visit and 
sell the destination to potential tourists/visitors.  
 
The study revealed that most tourists would enhance their experiences and become satisfied 
when residents are humanly empowered. This was followed by economic, social, environmental 
and psychological empowerment. Tourists who believed that the human empowerment of 
residents would satisfy them are of the opinion that when residents are educated on ecotourism 
they would understand the need to preserve the environment. Furthermore, when they have 
alternative livelihoods and their skills are developed, these would serve as incentives to preserve 
the quality of the environment on which tourism depends (Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites, 2015b; 
Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Holden, 2006; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010).  
 
Even though the tourists/visitors believed that human empowerment of residents would make 
them satisfied, they linked human empowerment issues to the preservation of the environment. 
According to Holden (2006), tourism relies on the quality of the environment and most 
tourists/visitors are attracted to destinations where the natural environment are kept intact (Zhang 
& Chan, 2016). This finding is consistent with what have been declared in the literature that 
ecotourism can provide  incentives for preservation of the quality of the environment (Cobbinah 
et al., 2015; Chiu et al., 2014; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Fennell, 
2008; Jones, 2005; Khanal & Babar, 2007; Kiss, 2004; Mensah & Ernest, 2013). 
 
- 200 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The second type of residents’ empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors experiences and 
make them satisfied is to empower residents economically. These tourists/visitors believed that 
when residents are economically empowered, they would be engaged in economic activities that 
would lead to sustainability of the park. Once residents have acquired the necessary knowledge 
and skills to engage in economic ventures, they become conversant that their economic gains 
depend on ecotourism. They would then make all the necessary efforts to conserve the 
attractions. This supports what has been emphasized in the literature that economic 
empowerment from ecotourism is linked to the conservation of the environment (Coria & 
Calfucura, 2012; Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015; Fennell, 2008; Jalani, 2012; Kiss, 2004). The 
tourists/visitors prefer to visit natural attractions to enhance their experiences. Such 
tourists/visitors would be satisfied when residents are economically empowered. This further 
provides support to findings by Fiorello & Bo (2012) that environmentally friendly tourists also 
seek the economic development of residents. 
 
The third type of residents’ empowerment that would enhance the experiences and satisfaction of 
tourists/visitors are the social empowerment. The tourists shared that, there should be 
improvements in infrastructure, establish local groups and engage in programs to build 
community cohesion. Ecotourism involves travel to places and poor road network could have 
implications on the experiences and satisfaction of tourists/visitors. The presence of local groups 
can help sustain a local culture which according to the tourists/visitors would add value to their 
experiences. This will help make their stay in the communities enjoyable and give them a better 
understanding of the local culture. Even though the tourists were attracted to the natural 
environment, some were interested in home stays where they can learn more about local culture. 
This provides support to a study where Agyeiwaah, Akyeampong, & Amenumey (2014) found 
- 201 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
that socio-cultural experience is the major drive for home stays. Fiorello & Bo (2012) agree that 
environmentally friendly tourists respect the social development of residents and are attracted by 
the culture and tradition of communities. Furthermore, this provides support to the literature that 
some tourists/visitors seek social growth and take interest in learning about people's culture 
whilst on vacation (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014; Tang, 2014). 
 
Moreover, the tourists/visitors were interested in the environmental empowerment of residents as 
they believe that would enhance their experience and bring them satisfaction. These 
tourists/visitors want to see community members engaged in afforestation programs, be in 
environmental groups and engage in environmental awareness programs. Engaging residents in 
such aspects would provide them with some source of revenue and conserve the environment. 
Even though it has been established that human and economic empowerment of residents 
provide incentives for conserving the environment (Cobbinah et al., 2015; Coria & Calfucura, 
2012; Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Holden, 2006; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010), engaging residents in 
afforestation programs can add value to the environment and satisfy environmentally friendly 
tourists/visitors. This is consistent with the literature that tourists are satisfied when the 
destination is able to meet their needs (Owusu-Frimpong et al., 2013). Furthermore, when 
tourists/visitors are satisfied, they are motivated to repeat their visit which is necessary for 
ecotourism sustainability (Hoang et al., 2016; Su & Hsu, 2013).  
 
As explained in the conceptual framework, empowering residents can aid tourists’ satisfaction 
and contribute towards ecotourism sustainability. The various aspects of empowerment in the 
framework were helpful in ascertaining the aspects that would satisfy tourists/visitors. The 
application of critical realist perspective has been useful in uncovering the unknown aspects of 
- 202 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitors’ satisfaction.  (Easton, 2010: 120). This study 
found that the empowerment of residents in various aspects is not just critical for ecotourism 
development but crucial for tourists’ satisfaction which is necessary for sustaining ecotourism.  
 
6.6 Roles of public and private institutions in residents’ empowerment 
Most ecotourism destinations in Ghana are owned and managed by the states with little 
involvement by NGOs in nature conservation (Eshun & Tagoe-Darko, 2015). This implies that 
greater responsibilities lie in the hands of the government in empowering residents towards 
sustainable ecotourism. Han, Wu, Huang, & Yang (2014) assert that recognizing various 
stakeholders’ roles and interests provide a better understanding of empowerment issues in 
tourism. This study found that private and public institutions are engaged or have been involved 
in activities that provide various benefits to residents. However, the fact that residents are 
empowered in some aspects suggests that such involvements are not or have not been enough to 
bring about empowerment of communities in all aspects. 
 
According to the tenets of ecotourism, private and public participation is important in achieving 
ecotourism sustainability (TIES, 2015). Considering the low educational background of 
residents, it is vital that private and public institutions make the necessary efforts to empower 
residents in the various aspects of empowerment. At KNP and BFRBS, the managers said they 
have engaged residents in community education, decision-making, and employment creation. 
However, the community education programs that provided skills to some members at Kubease 
around BFRBS took place in 2001 and 2004 by NCRC, TBI, and FORIG. Since then, nothing 
has been done in this regard. Similarly, at Mesomagor around KNP, GHCT has trained some 
residents in cultural activities so that they can entertain tourists/visitors who visit the bamboo 
- 203 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
orchestra and the tree house. However, activities concerning the tree house and the bamboo 
orchestra ceased to exist about three years ago (Pers.com, 2016b).  
 
GHCT has provided infrastructure for communities such as Abrafo whereas TBI has undertaken 
projects to encourage residents in Kubease to appreciate the resource to boost their psychological 
empowerment. This supports a study by Stronza (2009) where a private company has been able 
to provide cultural and nature tourism and have provided managerial and marketing skills to 
residents in Ecuador. This further renders support to a study in Botswana where private 
institutions assist residents to benefit from ecotourism projects by offering employment and 
building community capacity (Lepper & Schroenn, 2010). 
 
Furthermore, the management of KNP has plans in place to engage some interested members in 
selected communities in plantation programs to produce charcoal. Unlike KNP, BFRBS has no 
current plans to empower communities but rely on NGOs who come occasionally to work with 
them to provide jobs for few people. In addition, GHCT which is an NGO working at KNP has a 
plan to provide scholarships to some needy students whilst TBI which used to be assisting 
residents at BFRBS is no longer into ecotourism but is ready to support student projects and 
other NGOs to empower residents. As explained earlier, since residents have a low educational 
level, there should be conscious efforts to provide training in other alternative livelihoods and 
assist them with logistics and finance to ensure sustainability of the programs. Such programs 
require the participation of both private and public institutions. However, the low participation of 
such institutions at BFRBS could have implications on ecotourism sustainability. 
 
- 204 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Moreover, the major public institutions in charge of tourism in Ghana are MOTAC and GTA. 
MOTAC is mandated by the Tourism Act 817 to enact policies whereas GTA is the 
implementing body and in charge of marketing of the destinations (MOTCCA, 2013). The 
results indicate that MOTAC undertakes series of activities whilst GTA is not engaged in so 
many activities as far as empowerment of residents at ecotourism destinations is concerned. The 
National Tourism Development Plan 2013-2027 developed by the MOTAC  (2013) stated that 
GREET should be absorbed into GTA as an independent body with government support to 
continue its work. However, the study revealed that the absorption of GREET into GTA has 
made them ineffective in implementing ecotourism activities due to lack of resources.  
 
The Tourism Plan 2013-2027, MOTAC  (2013) further instructs the staff of MOTAC to 
collaborate with MESTI, EPA, WD, and others to provide environmental management and 
protection of culture at the destinations. The respondent from MESTI said they do not 
collaborate with MOTAC in any way. MESTI is not doing anything as far as ecotourism is 
concerned yet it captured in its 2014 policy under Tourism and Environment that it will 
“promote sustainable and responsible tourism in such a way to preserve historical, cultural and 
natural heritage … by developing sustainable ecotourism” (MESTI, 2014: 25). The lack of 
collaboration between institutions in charge of ecotourism serves as a barrier to sustainable 
ecotourism (Eshun & Tonto, 2014). However, to remove such barriers, institutions should 
effectively collaborate with residents to undertake programs that will ensure sustainable 
ecotourism (Eshun & Tonto, 2014; Wearing & Neil, 2009). 
 
The study further found that at least the various institutions understand that they have roles to 
play in empowering residents and have engaged/ are engaging or will engage residents in various 
- 205 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
activities. It is important that such activities provide empowerment to residents. As the study has 
revealed, residents are not empowered in many aspects which could be ascribed to the fact that 
the roles of private and public associations are not adequate to bring about empowerment. The 
study revealed that there is no national ecotourism framework that takes into account the tenets 
of ecotourism. This has resulted in different practices at the various destinations which could 
have implications on ecotourism sustainability. KNP, for instance, has a framework, however, 
the aspect of ecotourism that focuses on community participation to bring about empowerment is 
inadequate (Cobbinah et al., 2015). One interesting finding is that all the public and private 
institutions believe that there should be an ecotourism framework outlining the various 
components of ecotourism and the roles of all stakeholders including residents. Such a 
framework would help progress the sustainable ecotourism agenda. 
 
The conceptual framework has been useful in investigating the roles of public and private 
institutions in empowering residents towards sustainable ecotourism. The institutional roles are 
very critical, especially where residents have a low educational background and require systems 
or structures in place to empower them. Chen et al. (2017) agree that there should be a system of 
empowerment to guard the interest of residents. From the perspective of critical realism, 
mechanisms are the structures and processes through which events occur (Easton, 2010). The 
events should be targeted at empowering residents towards ecotourism sustainability. 
 
The findings strengthen our understanding of cultural ecology in human geography that shares 
the belief that humans’ interactions affect the environment whilst that of the environment also 
affect humans by setting limitations. However, human beings do have the ability to overcome 
such challenges (Sutton & Anderson, 2010). Some of the residents have taken advantage of the 
- 206 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
opportunities presented to them through ecotourism activities to become empowered whilst 
others due to certain limitations are disempowered. However, residents can overcome such 
limitations if the necessary structures are in place to empower them in aspects they prefer.  
6.7 Summary 
This chapter presented a discussion on the study objectives. It linked the findings of the study to 
similar studies as well as what has been discussed in the literature. It further highlighted the 
issues in the conceptual framework that were useful in the study. The application of the critical 
realists’ ideology that was helpful in knowing the extent of residents’ empowerment and the 
factors influencing their status of empowerment. 
- 207 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
CHAPTER SEVEN 
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
7.1 Introduction 
This chapter presents the summary of key findings from the research. This is presented based on 
the objectives of the study. It continues with the conclusions of the study, highlighting the 
contributions to knowledge. It further presents the recommendations for policy considerations 
and areas for further research. 
7.2 Summary of key findings 
The first objective sought to examine the extent of residents’ empowerment for sustainable 
ecotourism at four communities around KNP and BFRBS. Empowerment of residents was 
measured using six constructs which are social, economic, environmental, political, human and 
psychological. The quantitative survey showed that residents at KNP were empowered 
environmentally, psychologically, socially and politically but economically disempowered and 
humanly very disempowered. On the other hand, residents at BFRBS were environmentally and 
psychologically very empowered just as communities around KNP but are socially, politically, 
economically and humanly disempowered.  
Delving deeper into the various communities, the study found that residents at Abrafo, 
Mesomagor, Kubease, and Krofofrom were psychologically very empowered. Kubease, 
Mesomagor, and Abrafo were environmentally very empowered whereas residents’ at Krofofrom 
were environmentally empowered.  Abrafo, Mesomagor, and Krofofrom were politically 
empowered whilst those at Kubease were politically very disempowered.  Abrafo was the only 
- 208 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
community that is economically empowered.  Furthermore, all residents were humanly 
disempowered whilst Abrafo was humanly very disempowered. Abrafo and Mesomagor were 
socially empowered whilst Kubease was neither socially empowered nor disempowered and 
Krofofrom was socially disempowered. 
The qualitative study provided details to the quantitative surveys. Residents explained their 
status of empowerment. In the case of Kubease, residents explained that they have issues with 
the burial of their chief and had not held public meetings for over two years which has affected 
their political status. They also added that they want a chief who can help them to receive more 
benefits from ecotourism. It was also revealed that residents have not had any capacity building 
programs at least for a decade and the majority of those who might have benefited from such 
programs are no longer residing in the communities, especially at Mesomagor. Some residents in 
Kubease explained that they were trained in alternative livelihoods programs such as batik and 
tie and dye, beads making in 2004 but could not get support to sustain such activities and have 
forgotten about the skills. This has contributed to their status of human empowerment.  
Regarding social empowerment, interview results from Mesomagor indicated that ecotourism 
has helped them to maintain their culture but cannot boast of physical infrastructure from 
ecotourism. Abrafo, on the other hand, has an ICT center, a library, a market and a community 
center which are part of benefits from ecotourism.  Krofofrom cannot also boast of any physical 
infrastructure from ecotourism, however, Kubease has a receptive facility but is not in use. It was 
revealed that there are traditional rules and byelaws that restrict members from engaging in 
illegal activities and some of the members said that they abide by these regulations and maintain 
environmental hygiene. The majority of residents expressed that they were happy and proud 
about the fact that their community is an ecotourism destination. 
- 209 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The second objective investigated the socio-demographic factors influencing residents’ status of 
empowerment. The study found that length of stay influences residents’ environmental 
empowerment at Mesomagor whilst age, gender and religion influence those at Kubease. 
Furthermore, the length of stay influences residents’ psychological empowerment at Kubease.  
The factors influencing residents’ human disempowerment include age for residents at Abrafo 
and length of stay for residents at Mesomagor. The factors influencing residents’ social and 
economic disempowerment are significant only for Kubease. Age and family size influence 
residents’ social disempowerment whereas age and length of stay influence residents’ economic 
empowerment. 
The third objective of the study assessed the aspects of residents’ empowerment they preferred. 
Residents indicated that they would like to be empowered humanly. This was followed by social 
and economic empowerment. It was also evident from their status of empowerment that all 
community members were humanly and economically disempowered or very disempowered and 
some were socially disempowered. Some of the specific human empowerment that residents 
preferred include training in alternative livelihoods, developing local skills and providing 
knowledge on ecotourism. Aspects of social empowerment that residents were interested in are 
building infrastructure, establishing social groups, incentives to build social cohesion and 
connectedness. The aspects of economic empowerment that residents preferred are to have job 
opportunities, revenue sharing, access to credit facilities and equal economic benefits. 
The fourth objective examined aspects of residents’ empowerment that would enhance 
tourists/visitors’ satisfaction. The results showed that tourists/visitors would be satisfied when 
residents are humanly, economically and socially empowered. Aspects of human empowerment 
that would enhance tourists/visitors’ experience and contribute to their satisfaction include the 
- 210 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
provision of education on ecotourism, training in alternative livelihoods, develop skills of 
residents and providing information on ecotourism to residents. The aspects of economic 
empowerment that would enhance tourists/visitor’s satisfaction include job opportunity for 
residents, revenue sharing, programs to reduce leakage, equal benefits for residents and access to 
credit facilities. The aspects of social empowerment that tourists/visitors believe would enhance 
their satisfaction include the building of infrastructure, establishing local groups, programs to 
build social cohesion, connectedness and improving culture and traditions. 
The fifth objective sought to investigate the roles of public and private organizations in 
empowering residents towards sustainable ecotourism. The study found that the various private 
and public institutions are engaged in some activities that provide benefits to residents. However, 
these benefits were not adequate to bring about empowerment of residents. Some of the 
institutions are also planning towards engaging in other activities where residents would be 
involved. For instance, FC would be training some community members to engage in woodlots 
to improve human, economic and environmental empowerments. GHCT intends to provide 
educational scholarships to residents around KNP to improve their human empowerment status. 
Some of the institutions were, however, challenged with funds and high community demands. 
They believe that the existence of an ecotourism framework with a local perspective could help 
address issues on empowerment at ecotourism destinations. 
The study accepts the alternative hypothesis (H1) which states that there is a significant 
relationship between knowledge about the importance of forest and adherence to byelaws. The 
results showed a significant association between knowledge of the importance of forest and 
adherence to byelaws for residents in Abrafo, Mesomagor, and Kubease. The alternative 
hypothesis of the second hypothesis (H2) is also accepted. This states that there is a significant 
- 211 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
relationship between belonging to a social group and participating in ecotourism decision. The 
study showed significant association for residents in Kubease, Abrafo, and Mesomagor. 
7.3 Conclusion  
The study concludes that residents of the four communities share certain similarities and 
differences in the various aspects of empowerment and are empowered and disempowered in 
various ways. The residents around KNP are empowered in most aspects than those around 
BFRBS. For instance, all residents were environmentally and psychologically empowered but 
those at KNP were politically and economically empowered than those at BFRBS. The study 
uncovered that age, the length of stay, religion, and gender are significant socio-demographic 
characteristics that influence residents’ status of empowerment. In addition, females and the 
youth were more environmentally empowered. The lesser a resident stays in a community, the 
more she becomes environmentally empowered. It further unveiled that residents’ preferred to be 
humanly, socially and economically empowered which were the same aspects of empowerment 
that tourists/visitors believe would enhance their experiences. This study has provided the lens 
through which residents can be empowered by unveiling the extent of residents’ empowerment 
and aspects of empowerment residents prefer. Based on the findings, the study concludes that 
human empowerment should be the first aspect of empowerment to be provided for residents. 
Moreover, the study concludes that residents’ empowerment brings about tourists/visitor’s 
satisfaction of the destination image. The private and public institutions have provided 
environmental education, infrastructure, and livelihoods training but these have not been enough 
to bring about empowerment. Private institutions engage residents in more aspects of 
empowerment than the public sector. However, the mechanisms employed are inadequate to 
yield complete empowered outcomes. 
- 212 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
The conceptual framework for the study was helpful in investigating the study objectives. 
According to the conceptual framework, residents are vulnerable when they are disempowered 
but would have improved empowerment outcomes when they are empowered. This can be 
achieved when private and public institutions interact with residents to empower them. This 
study further outlined the roles of private and public institutions that could be fed into a 
framework for ecotourism at the destinations. The study has contributed to knowledge which is 
discussed in the following section. 
7.3.1 Contributions to knowledge 
This study has contributed to the field of social science, human geography, tourism particularly 
ecotourism and build our understanding of the relationship between ecotourism and sustainable 
development issues. In contributing to the social science as a discipline, the study applied the 
critical realist perspectives which have helped in providing detailed explanations of the 
phenomenon. The study further combined the empowerment and sustainable livelihood 
frameworks to investigate the social phenomenon thereby contributing to the application of 
theories in the social science. Earlier studies have applied these frameworks in isolation for 
instance in the field of empowerment and tourism (Asiedu, 2002; Boley et al., 2015; Ramos & 
Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2002) and livelihoods and tourism (Mbaiwa & Sakuze, 2009; 
Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Snider, 2012). This study draws attention to a combination of the two 
frameworks to strengthen our understanding of the relationships between phenomenon in the 
social sciences. 
In contributing to human geography, the study strengthens our understanding of cultural ecology 
and the fact that humans do interact with their environment and are able to take advantage of the 
resources presented by their environment. The ecotourism development at these destinations is 
- 213 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
an example of the opportunity presented by the environment and the ability of humans to utilize 
such opportunities to bring about empowerment of residents in some areas. Cultural ecology also 
recognizes that there are certain limitations that the environment poses to human activities, 
however,  humans do have the abilities to overcome such limitations or challenges (Sutton & 
Anderson, 2010). In addition, the study contributes to ecotourism and sustainable development 
issues. It strengthens the understanding that community members need to be empowered to 
achieve ecotourism sustainability and add to the empowerment literature on tourism studies.  
Moreover, earlier studies have looked at three empowerment aspects such as political, social and 
psychological (Boley et al., 2015, 2014), others looked at four aspects such as political, social, 
economic and psychological (Asiedu, 2002; Scheyvens, 2002). Ramos & Prideaux (2014) 
considered five facets by adding environmental empowerment to the four mentioned earlier. This 
study adds human empowerment to the five aspects deepening our understanding of the 
empowerment framework. In addition, Ramos & Prideaux (2014) applied qualitative approach 
and Boley et al. (2015, 2014), applied quantitative approaches whilst this study applied both 
qualitative and quantitative approaches. This contributes to the methods that could be employed 
in assessing residents’ empowerment for ecotourism sustainability. 
Moreover, to advance literature on ecotourism and sustainable development, this study outlined 
the various tenets of ecotourism and sustainable development. It explained the distinctions 
between ecotourism and community-based ecotourism from diverse literature sources which 
could serve as a guide for students and other researchers in the field. This could further serve as 
the basis for classification of ecotourism destinations in Ghana and other countries. 
 
- 214 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7.4 Recommendations 
Based on the findings, this study recommends the following to policy makers especially those in 
the field of tourism and environment, and institutions in charge of implementation. Other private 
and public institutions managing tourist destinations and community members are also included 
in order to advance the sustainable ecotourism agenda. 
1. The study found that residents lack training in alternative livelihoods and knowledge in 
ecotourism. Residents and tourists showed interest in these aspects of human 
empowerment and it is recommended that MOTAC collaborates with GHCT, GWD, 
NCRC as well as residents at the destinations to train them in beads making, batik and tie 
and dye, and kente weaving to enhance their human empowerment. They should also 
build on their knowledge on ecotourism. If these are implemented there is the chance that 
residents can enhance their status of human empowerment. 
2. The study revealed that residents lack access to credit facilities to expand their business. 
There were signs of leakage, no benefit-sharing scheme in place and inadequate job 
opportunities. Residents and tourists were interested in developing the economic 
empowerment of residents in these aspects. It is recommended that MOTAC collaborates 
with World Vision and rural banks to assist interested residents to have access to credit 
facilities. MOTAC can also collaborate with GHCT, GWD, NCRC to create job 
opportunities. They can come out with benefit sharing mechanisms and develop programs 
to reduce leakage by creating the opportunities for residents to market to tourists. GTA 
should improve on the marketing of the destinations and popularize the beehive center at 
Abrafo to increase tourist arrivals. Such programs would increase the economic 
empowerment of residents. 
- 215 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
3. There should be a policy objective to develop the human, economic, political and social 
empowerment of residents at destinations. Residents at the various destinations should be 
educated on ecotourism, improve on their skills, and provide them with training on 
alternative livelihoods activities. There should be opportunities to improve economic 
situations at the destinations. Residents should have some level of control over 
ecotourism activities at the destination. Social infrastructure should be provided and the 
culture of residents should be improved. 
4. There should be a policy intervention to improve the empowerment of residents who 
have stayed at the destinations for a long time. Such persons should be identified and be 
provided with the opportunities to enhance their empowerment situations. 
5. Furthermore, the study found that residents’ want their culture to be improved. Tourists 
and residents expressed the need to boost cultural attractions at the destinations. 
Residents and tourists again complained of bad roads to the destinations. It is 
recommended that MOTAC collaborates with GHCT, GWD, to improve the cultural 
attraction of destinations. They should collaborate with Ghana Feeder Roads to improve 
the condition of the roads to the destinations to enhance their social empowerment. 
6. The study revealed that there is a weak collaboration between the institutions. MOTAC 
should strengthen their collaboration with MESTI and GTA. Where they have similar 
roles, they can integrate the roles and agree on which institution to implement or they can 
hold joint programs to empower residents. The various NGOs such as GHCT and NCRC 
should also collaborate and integrate common roles as well. MOTAC should establish a 
desk that would collate all information on ecotourism activities that exist in other 
government institutions and collaborate with them to provide empowerment to residents. 
- 216 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
7. The study revealed that there are no social and political groups specifically for 
ecotourism such as TMTs at the various destinations. GHCT, FORIG, and GWD should 
encourage residents to form social groups and networks to encourage residents to engage 
in ecotourism activities. These groups could be trained in cultural activities such as 
singing and dancing to entertain tourists/visitors for a fee. They could be encouraged to 
organize annual festive programs in the villages to improve social connectedness and 
cohesion. There could also be environmental groups to assist in environmental programs. 
8. The study showed that most of the residents, as well as tourists/visitors, were interested in 
local plantations and nursery programs. GWD, GHCT, FORIG, and NCRC should 
encourage residents to engage in nursery and plantations programs. Residents should be 
trained and supported with the necessary logistics to establish their own nursery. This 
would conserve the environment and improve their economic and environmental 
empowerments.  
9. The study found that some residents in Krofofrom could weave kente. FORIG should 
collaborate with residents to create a cultural attraction attached to the natural attraction. 
FORIG should also collaborate with residents in Kubease to use the tourist/visitor 
receptive facility where tourists/visitors can stop over and interact with residents. This 
can provide them the opportunity to sell their items to tourists/visitors and reduce 
leakage. GWD and GHCT should collaborate with Mesomagor community to renovate 
the tree platform and the bamboo orchestra. They should assist them to come up with 
benefit sharing scheme for all stakeholders. GWD, GHCT, and FORIG should popularize 
the night camping at both destinations. Such improvements in the attractions could 
- 217 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
increase residents’ empowerment and tourists/visitors arrivals and promote sustainable 
ecotourism. 
10. MOTAC should collaborate with managers at the various destinations such as GWD and 
FORIG to establish community desks within their offices and employ those with 
community building and management skills to manage these desks.  These persons 
should continuously interact with community groups, supervise and coordinate the 
various group activities. Residents can share their concerns which should be addressed. 
This can help strengthen the local groups and improve their political empowerment. 
11. The study found that GREET has been absorbed into GTA as outlined in the NTDP 
2013-2027. However, interview results indicated that the integration has rendered 
GREET activities ineffective. To facilitate and improve ecotourism activities at 
ecotourism destinations, there is the need to restore GREET as a separate institution and 
resource it to undertake its activities. This could go a long way to empower residents. 
12. The study also revealed that there is no ecotourism framework that details out the 
practices of ecotourism at the various destinations. MOTAC should collaborate with 
GWD, FORIG, GHCT, and NCRC to encourage ecotourism destinations to come up with 
an ecotourism framework taking into consideration the tenets of ecotourism. This should 
be developed with local perspective highlighting the roles of all stakeholders and the 
necessary activities to empower residents. In addition, there should be an overarching 
framework for the country which should serve as a guide for the various destinations. 
Therefore, a policy that can guide the development of ecotourism framework is critical. 
- 218 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
13. The study revealed several aspects of empowerment that could be of benefit to 
destinations. However, there is the need for a separate focus on ecotourism. An 
ecotourism policy is therefore essential if empowerment at destinations is to be achieved. 
MOTAC should devise an ecotourism policy to regulate ecotourism practices in the 
country. This policy should be an overarching one that takes into consideration all the 
facets of residents’ empowerment towards sustainable ecotourism. The findings in this 
study can guide the enactment of such a policy. 
7.4.2 Further studies 
It is recommended that further studies look at the development of ecotourism framework with 
special emphasis on empowering residents at various destinations. Several studies have looked at 
ecotourism’s contributions to biodiversity conservation and livelihoods of communities 
(Cobbinah et al., 2015; Chand, Singh, Parappurathu, Roy, & Kumar, 2015; Eshun & Tonto, 
2014; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Shoo & Songorwa, 2013). However, to harmonize ecotourism 
practices at destinations, there is the need for ecotourism framework that dwells on the tenets of 
ecotourism. Further study can look at the content of the ecotourism framework with a local 
perspective. The various aspects that the framework should cover as well as the actors and the 
roles they can play in ensuring ecotourism sustainability should be considered. 
In addition, this study added human empowerment to the other aspects of empowerments and 
employed the mixed method approach but relied mostly on quantitative variables. Further studies 
can examine these six aspects of empowerment using either qualitative or quantitative approach 
at different geographical areas. Furthermore, a limitation of this study is the application of 
Exploratory Factor Analysis which is subjective in nature. However, due to the categorical 
nature of the data in this study, EFA was the most appropriate. Further studies could explore 
- 219 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
other approaches using highly quantifiable data. Moreover, this study combined two frameworks 
which could be applied in other fields of study. 
- 220 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
REFERENCES 
Adams, W., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity 
conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 147–183. 
Adanu, S. K., Garderen, E. A. Van, Lalley, J., Adanu, K. S., & Adanu, K. D. (2014). Forest 
cover change in Ho Municipality of the Volta Region, Ghana. International Journal of 
Geomatics and Geosciences, 4(4), 619–629. 
Afenyo, E. A., & Amuquandoh, F. E. (2014). Who benefits from community-based ecotourism 
development? Insights from Tafi Atome, Ghana. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(2), 
179–190.  
Agyeiwaah, E., Akyeampong, O., & Amenumey, E. K. (2014). International tourists’ 
motivations to choose homestay: Do their socio-demographics have any influence? Tourism 
and Hospitality Research, 13(1), 16–26.  
Ahmad, N., & Khan, H. (2016). Measuring Women’s Disempowerment in Agriculture in 
Pakistan. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1512. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy 
Research Institute (IFPRI). Retrieved from http:/ebrary.ifpi.org 
Ahn, Y., & Choi, J. (2015). Factors affecting Korean nursing student empowerment in clinical 
practice. Nurse Education Today, 35(12), 1301–1306.  
Akama, J. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. Tourism 
Management, 17(8), 567–574. 
Akyeampong, O. A. (2011). Pro-poor tourism: residents’ expectations, experiences and 
perceptions in the Kakum National Park Area of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 
19(2), 197–213.  
Albright, J. J., & Park, H. M. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Amos , LISREL , 
Mplus , SAS / STAT CALIS (Vol. 4724). Indiana University. Retrieved from 
http://www.indiana.edu/~statmath/stat/all/cfa/index.html 
Alexander, B. K. (2002). (Re) Visioning the ethnographic site: Interpretive ethnography as a 
method of pedagogical reflexivity and scholarly production. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 1–26.  
- 221 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Appiah-Opoku, S. (2011). Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and 
ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society & Natural Resources, 
24(5), 500–510.  
Arnstein, R. S. (1969). Ladder of participation. AIP, 216–223. Retrieved from 
http://geog.sdsu.edu/People/Pages/jankowski/public_html/web780/Arnstein_ladder_1969.p
df 
Asare, R. A., Kyei, A., & Mason, J. J. (2013). The community resource management area 
mechanism : A strategy to manage African forest resources for REDD þ. Philosophical 
Transaction of the Royal Society, 368, 1–9. 
Asiedu, A. B. (2002). Making ecotourism more supportive of rural development in Ghana. West 
African Journal of Applied Ecology,3(2002), 1-17. 
Asiedu, A. B. (2008). Tourism planning in Ghana. In O. Akyeampong & A. B. Asiedu (Eds.), 
Tourism in Ghana: A Modern Synthesis. Assemblies of God, Accra, Ghana. 
Attua, E. M., Annan, S. T., & Nyame, F. (2014). Water quality analysis of rivers used as 
drinking sources in artisanal gold mining communities of the Akyem-Abuakwa area : A 
multivariate statistical approach. Ghana Journal of Geography, 6, 24–41. 
Austen, S., & Jefferson, T. (2006). Comparing responses to critical realism. Journal of Economic 
Methodology, 13(2), 257–282.  
Bandoh, G. A. A. (2010). Conservation and Natural Resource Management in the Ankasa 
Resource Reserve, Ghana. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 
Barrow, E., & Murphree, M. (2001). Community conservation: From concept to practice. In H. 
and Murphree (Ed.), Community Conservation: From Concept to Practice (pp. 24–37). 
Institute for Development Poicy and Management, University of Manchester 
Beazley, H., & Ennew, J. (2006). Participatory methods and approaches: Tackling the two 
tyrannies. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development Research. (pp. 189–199). 
London: Sage publications. 
 
Behrens, R., Diaz-Olvera, L., Plat, D & Pochet, P. (2006). Collection of passenger travel data  
- 222 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
in Sub-Saharan African cities: Towards improving survey instruments and procedures. 
Transport Policy, 13, 85-96. 
Bertin, T., Dailey, E., McGuane, A., & Ricc, J. (2010). Community Environmental 
Empowerment. Retrieved from https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-
030310-190312/unrestricted/Banksia_C10_IQP_Report.pdf 
Bhandari, A. K., & Heshmati, A. (2010). Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. 
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(6), 612–623.  
Binlinla, J. K., Voinov, A., & Oduro, W. (2014). Analysis of human activities in and around 
protected areas (PAs): Case of Kakum conservation area in Ghana. International Journal of 
Biodiversity and Conservation, 6(7), 541–554.  
Blamey, R. . (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of 
Ecotourism (pp. 4–22). Wallingford: CAB International. 
Blancas, F. J., González, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Pérez, F. (2010). The assessment of 
sustainable tourism: Application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecological Indicators, 
10(2), 484–492.  
Boley, B. B., Ayscue, E., Maruyama, N., & Woosnam, K. M. (2016). Gender and empowerment: 
Assessing discrepancies using the resident empowerment through tourism scale. Journal of 
Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 113–129.  
Boley, B. B., & Gaither, C. J. (2016). Exploring empowerment within the Gullah Geechee 
cultural heritage corridor: Implications for heritage tourism development in the 
Lowcountry. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 11(2), 155–176.  
Boley, B. B., Maruyama, N., & Woosnam, K. M. (2015). Measuring empowerment in an Eastern 
context: Findings from Japan. Tourism Management, 50(2015), 112–122.  
Boley, B. B., & McGehee, N. G. (2014). Measuring empowerment: Developing and validating 
the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS). Tourism Management, 45, 85–
94.  
Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., Perdue, R. R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and resident 
attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 33–50.  
- 223 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Brandful Cobbinah, P., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2015). Biodiversity conservation and 
livelihoods in rural Ghana: Impacts and coping strategies. Environmental Development, 
15(2015), 79–93.  
Brockington, D., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2004). The social and environmental impacts of 
wilderness and development. Oryx, 38, 140–142. 
Brunton, M., & Jeffrey, L. (2014). Identifying factors that influence the learner empowerment of 
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43(2014), 321–334.  
Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 
Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed methods research: The five Ps framework. Electronic Journal of 
Business Research Methods, 9(2), 96–108.  
Camilleri, M. (2014). Advancing the sustainable tourism agenda through strategic CSR 
perspectives. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(1), 42–56.  
Camprubí, R., & Coromina, L. (2016). Content analysis in tourism research. Tourism 
Management Perspectives, 18, 134–140.  
Catibog-Sinha, C. (2010). Biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism: Philippine 
initiatives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(4), 297–309.  
Catibog-Sinha, C. (2011). Sustainable forest management: Heritage tourism, biodiversity, and 
upland communities in the Philippines. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(4), 341–352.  
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Gland:IUCN - The 
World Conservation Union. 
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for 
the 21st Century. Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK. 
Chand, S., Singh, S., Parappurathu, S., Roy, D. S., & Kumar, A. (2015). Explaining the status 
and scope of ecotourism development for livelihood security : Andaman and Nicobar 
Islands , India. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 
- 224 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
(JUNE). http://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1050478 
Chen, Z., Li, L., & Li, T. (2017). The organizational evolution, systematic construction and 
empowerment of Langde Miao’s community tourism. Tourism Management, 58(2017), 
276–285.  
Cheung, C., Baum, T., & Wong, A. (2012). Relocating empowerment as a management concept 
for Asia. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 36–41.  
Chiu, Y. T. H., Lee, W. I., & Chen, T. H. (2014). Environmentally responsible behavior in 
ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tourism Management, 40, 321–329.  
Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. 
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594.  
Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism Management 
Perspectives, 16, 179–189.  
Cobbinah, P. B., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2015). Ecotourism implementation in the Kakum 
Conservation Area, Ghana: Administrative framework and local community experiences. 
Journal of Ecotourism, 14(2–3).  
Cole, S. (2006). Information and Empowerment: The Keys to Achieving Sustainable Tourism. 
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.  
Cooper, C. (2012). Essentials of tourism. Essex: Pearson Education. 
Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: 
The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73, 47–55.  
Cornish, R. (2007). Statistics: Factor Analysis. Retrieved from 
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/mlsc/student-resources/statisticsleaflets/ 
Corston, R., & Colman, A. (2004). A Crash Course in SPSS for Windows (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: 
Graphicraft Ltd. 
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four 
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research 
- 225 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
& Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.  
Courvisanos, J., & Jain, A. (2006). A framework for sustainable ecotourism: Application to 
Costa Rica. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(2), 131–142.  
Cresswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced 
Mixed Methods Research Designs. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and 
Behavioral Research (pp. 209–240). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-
data/19291_Chapter_7.pdf 
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods 
Approaches. (4th ed.). California: Sage Publishers. 
Curry, N. (2009). The disempowerment of empowerment: How stakeholding clogs up rural 
decision-making. Space and Polity, 13(3), 213–232.  
Damnyag, L., Saastamoinen, O., Blay, D., Dwomoh, F. K., Anglaaere, L. C. N., & Pappinen, A. 
(2013). Sustaining protected areas: Identifying and controlling deforestation and forest 
degradation drivers in the Ankasa Conservation Area, Ghana. Biological Conservation, 165, 
86–94.  
Das, M., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism 
Management Perspectives, 14, 3–16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.01.002 
Dawson, C. (2002). Pratical Research Methods: A User-Friendly Guide to Mastering Research. 
Oxford, UK: How To Books Limited. Retrieved from 
http://medcontent.metapress.com/index/A65RM03P4874243N.pdf 
De Haan, L. J. (2012). The livelihood approach: A critical exploration. Erdkunder, 66(4), 345–
357. 
De Vos, A. S. (2002). Combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In A. S. De Vos, H. 
Strydom, C. B. Fouche, & C. S. . Delport (Eds.), Research at Grass roots: For the Social 
Sciences and Human Service Professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik. 
DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID. Retrieved from 
http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section2.pdf%3E 
DFID. (2000a). Framework Introduction. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Retrieved 
- 226 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
May 20, 2015, from http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoods-connect/what-are-
livelihoods-approaches/training-and-learning-materials) 
DFID. (2000b). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Retrieved August 23, 2008, from 
www.livelihoods.org/info/infoguidancesheet 
Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R. D. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. 
Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), 192–210.  
Dowling, R., & Fennell, D. (2003). The Context of Ecotourism Policy and Planning. (R. 
Dowling & D. A. Fennell, Eds.)CAB International. Retrieved from 
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49285245_The_Context_of_Ecotourism_Policy_an
d_Planning 
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2012). Ethnographic Approaches in ESP. Brian Paltridge and Sue 
Starfield. The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Wiley. 
Drydyk, J. (2008). Durable empowerment. Journal of Global Ethics, 4(3), 231–245.  
Drydyk, J. (2013). Empowerment, agency, and power. Journal of Global Ethics, 9(3), 249–262.  
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 
39(1), 118–128.  
Eddins, E., & Cottrell, S. (2013). Sustainable development and sustainable livelihoods 
frameworks: Theory and practice in volunteer tourism. International Journal of 
Sustainability Policy and Practice, 9(4), 1–17. 
Edusah, S. (2011). The impact of forest reserves on livelihoods of fringe communities in Ghana. 
Journal of Science and Technology (Ghana), 31(1), 10–22.  
EPA. (2004). Ghana State of the Environment Report. Accra. 
Eshetu, A. A. (2014). Development of community-based ecotourism in Borena-Saynt National 
Park, North- Central Ethiopia: opportunities and challenges. In: ,. Journal of Hospitality and 
Tourism Management, 5, 1–12. 
Eshun, F. (2008). Community Participation in the Management of Forest Resource: A Means to 
- 227 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Reduce Poverty for Sustainable Development. Oslo. Retrieved from www.duo.no 
Eshun, F., Owusu, B. A., Owusu, G., & Amankwaa, E. F. (2015). A missed opportunity? 
Unravelling the marketing potentials of tourism in Ghana through GIS. International 
Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 4(3–4), 260–278. 
Eshun, G. (2011). Ecotourism and Social Research. Saarbru¨cken, Germany: VDM Publishing. 
Eshun, G., & Tagoe-Darko, E. (2015). Ecotourism development in Ghana: A postcolonial 
analysis. Development Southern Africa, 32(3), 392–406.  
Eshun, G., & Tonto, J. N. P. (2014). Community-based ecotourism: Its socio-economic impacts 
at Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Ghana. Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic 
Series, 26(26), 67–81. 
Everett, J. E., Homstead, K., & Drisko, J. (2007). Frontline worker perceptions of the 
empowerment process in community-based agencies. Social Work, 52(2), 161–170. 
Fekadu, K. (2014). The paradox in environmental determinism and possibilism: A literature 
review. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 7(7), 132–139. 
http://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP2013.0406 
Fennell, D. (2008). Ecotourism: An Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. 
Fennell, D. A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 
4(5), 403–421. 
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London: Sage publications. 
Fiorello, A., & Bo, D. (2012). Community-based ecotourism to meet the new tourist’s 
expectations : An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 
21(7), 758–778.  
Fuller, D., Buultjens, J., & Cummings, E. (2005). Ecotourism and indigenous microenterprise 
formation in Northern Australia: Opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management, 
26(6), 891–904. 
Fuseini, I., & Kemp, J. (2015). A review of spatial planning in Ghana’s socio-economic 
- 228 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
development trajectory: A sustainable development perspective. Land Use Policy, 47(2015), 
309–320.  
Ganle, K. J., Afriyie, K., & Yao, A. (2015). Microcredit: Empowerment and disempowerment of 
rural women in Ghana. World Development, 66, 335–345.  
Garson, D. (2012). Sampling. International Immunology, 26(7), 1–30. 
http://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxu033 
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s Alpha 
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in 
Adult, Continuing, and Community Education (pp. 82–88). Ohio. Retrieved from 
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Gliem-Gliem.pdf 
GLOPP. (2008). DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and its Framework. Retrieved July 
2, 2015, from fhttp://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf. 
Gordillo, J., Hunt, C., & Stronza, A. (2008). An ecotourism partnership in the Peruvian Amazon: 
The case of Posada Amazonas. In A. Stronza (Ed.), Ecotourism and Conservation in the 
Americas (pp. 30–48). Texas. 
Grimm, P. (2010). Pretesting a Questionnaire. In Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing 
(p. 2). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ 
GSS. (2012). 2010 Population & Housing Census Summary report of Final results. 
GTA. (2013). Info sheet. Accra. 
Güzel, T., Tükeltürk, Ş. A., & Özkul, E. (2008). Importance and effect of empowerment in hotel 
enterprises. A study about consumers’ buying behavior patterns and socio-cultural 
characteristics. Ege Academic Review, 8(2), 419–436. 
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A 
Global Perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. 
Hall, C. M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state 
tourism. Anatolia, 20(1), 46–61.  
- 229 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Han, G., Wu, P., Huang, Y., & Yang, Z. (2014). Tourism development and the disempowerment 
of host residents : Types and formative mechanisms. An International Journal of Tourism 
Space, Place and Environment, 16(5), 717–740.  
Hewitt, N. M., & Anderson, J. A. (2015). A vehicle for empowering frontline human service 
workers: Family development credentialing—It’s not just training! Journal of Progressive 
Human Services, 26(1), 1–21.  
Hirotsune, K. (2011). Tourism, sustainable tourism and ecotourism in developing countries. In 
ANDA International Conference (pp. 1–18). Nagoya. 
Hoang, T. P., Long, N. T., Dung, P. T., & Dung, P. Q. (2016). Factors affecting the attractions of 
foreign tourists to community ecotourism destinations in the Mekong Delta Vietnam. 
Journal of Business Management and Economics, 4(1), 1–6. 
Holden, A. (2006). Managing the environmental impacts of tourism. In J. Beech & S. Chadwick 
(Eds.), The Business of Tourism Management. England: Pearson Ltd. 
Holt-Jensen, A. (1999). Geography: History and Concepts. A Students’ Guide. (3rd ed.). 
London: Sage Publishers. 
Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? (2nd ed.). 
Washington DC: Island Press. 
Hoole, A. F. (2010). Place-power-prognosis: Community-based conservation, partnerships, and 
ecotourism enterprises in Namibia. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 78–99. 
Retrieved from http://ojscom.library.uu.nl/index.php/ijc/article/viewArticle/112 
Huang, G., Zhou, W., & Ali, S. (2011). Spatial patterns and economic contributions of mining 
and tourism in biodiversity hotspots: A case study in China. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 
1492–1498.  
Hutton, J., Adams, W. M., & Murombedzi, J. C. (2005). Back to the Barriers? Changing 
narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies, 32(2), 341–370.  
Isreal, G. D. (2013). Determining Sample Size. http://doi.org/10.4039/Ent85108-3 
IUCN/PACO. (2010). Parks and Reserves of Ghana: Management Effectiveness Assessment of 
Protected Areas. Ouagadougou: BF: IUCN/PACO. Retrieved from www.iucn.org 
- 230 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Jalani, J. O. (2012). Local people’s perception on the impacts and importance of ecotourism in 
Sabang, Palawan, Philippines. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 247–254.  
Jenkins, W. (2009). Sustainability theory. Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: The Spirit of 
Sustainability, 1, 380–384. 
Jenkins, W. (2010). Sustainability theory. Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: The Spirit of 
Sustainability, 1, 380–384. 
Johnson, D. (2002). Towards Sustainability: Examples from the UK Coast. In T. G. and P. W. In 
Rob Harris (Ed.), Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann. 
Jones, B. P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2017). The sustainable development goals and the 
financial services industry. Athens Journal of Business and Economics, 3(1), 37–50. 
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Annals of 
Tourism Research, 32(2), 303–324.  
Judkins, G., Smith, M., & Keys, E. (2008). Determinism within human-environment research 
and the rediscovery of environmental causation. Geographical Journal, 174(1), 17–29.  
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of 
Tourism Research, 48, 76–95.  
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. (2005). What is sustainable. Policy, 47(3), 8–21.  
Khanal, B. R., & Babar, J. T. (2007). Community Based Ecotourism for Sustainable Tourism 
Development in the Mekong Region, Policy brief. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from 
www.cuts-international.org/HRC/pdf/PB-1-07.pdf 
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? 
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), 232–237.  
Kline, R. (2013). Introduction to Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Item-Level 
Analysis (pp. 169–207). Retrieved from 6241-029-P3-006-2pass-r02.indd 
Knight, D. W., & Cottrell, S. P. (2016). Annals of Tourism Research Evaluating tourism-linked 
empowerment in Cuzco , Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 56, 32–47.  
- 231 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Aphangnga, 
Thailand: Partial victories and bittersweet remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 
4–23. 
Kruja, D., Ha, H., Drishti, E., & Oelfke, T. (2016). Empowerment in the hospitality industry in 
the United States. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(1), 25–48.  
Kullenberg, G. (2010). Human empowerment : Opportunities from ocean governance. Ocean 
and Coastal Management, 53(8), 405–420.  
Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximize impacts 
locally? The Tsiseb Conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 757–
772. 
Lawson, E. T. (2013). Your leisure, my space: Using residents’ perceptions as indicators in 
sustainable coastal tourism development in Ghana. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism 
and Leisure, 2(4), 1–20. 
Lee, T. H. (2009). A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and motivation 
affect the future behavior of tourists. Leisure Sciences, 31(3), 727–745. 
Lenao, M., & Basupi, B. (2016). Ecotourism development and female empowerment in 
Botswana : A review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18(2016), 51–58.  
Lepper, C., & Schroenn, J. (2010). Community-based natural resource management, poverty 
alleviation and livelihood diversification: A case study from Northern Botswana. 
Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 725–739. 
Lewis, M. H. (2005). Human Empowerment and development. Retrieved November 5, 2015, 
from 
http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/SystemsEssaysI/SEHumanEmpowerme
nt.htm 
Li, W. (2006). Community decision-making: Participation in development. Annals of Tourism 
Research, 33(1), 132–143. 
Liu, L., Li, C., & Zhu, D. (2012). A new approach to testing nomological validity and its 
application to a second-order measurement model of trust. Journal of the Association for 
Information Systems, 13(12), 950–975. 
- 232 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Lloyd-Evans, S. (2006). Focus Groups. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development 
Research (pp. 153–163). London: Sage publications. 
Loewe, M., & Rippin, N. (2015). The Sustainable Development Goals of the Post-2015 Agenda: 
Comments on the OWG and SDSN Proposals. Bonn. Retrieved from www.die-gdi.de 
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach. Prentice 
Hall/Financial Times. 
Manu, I., & Kuuder, C.-J. W. (2012). Community-based ecotourism and livelihood enhancement 
in Sirigu, Ghana. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(18), 97–108. 
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities. England: 
Pearsons. 
Maxim, C. (2015). Drivers of success in implementing sustainable tourism policies in urban 
areas. Tourism Planning & Development, 12(1), 37–47.  
Mazibuko, S. (2013). Understanding underdevelopment through the sustainable livelihoods 
approach. Community Development, 44(2), 1-73–187.  
Mbaiwa, J. E., & Sakuze, L. K. (2009). Cultural tourism and livelihood diversification: The case 
of Gcwihaba Caves and XaiXai village in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of 
Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(1), 61–75. 
Mbaiwa, J. E., & Stronza, A. L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods 
in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 635–656.  
McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Maryland: Sparky House. 
Retrieved from http://www.biostathandbook.com/logistic.html 
McDonald, J. R. (2009). Complexity science: An alternative worldview for understanding 
sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), 455–471.  
Mensah, C. (2012). Residents’ perception of socio-economic impacts of tourism in Tafi Atome, 
Ghana. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 274–287.  
Mensah, C., Akyeampong, O. A., & Antwi, B. K. (2013). Residents’ perception of impacts of 
- 233 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Amansuri Conservation and Integrated Development project (ACID) in Jomoro District, 
Western Region, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(5), 73–84. 
Mensah, I. (2016). Effects of socio-demographic characteristics and perceived benefits of 
tourism on community participation in tourism in the Mesomagor area of the Kakum 
National Park , Ghana. Athens Journal of Tourism, 3(3), 211–230. 
Mensah, I., & Ernest, A. (2013). Community participation in ecotourism: The case of Bobiri 
Forest Reserve and Butterfly Sanctuary in Ashanti Region of Ghana. American Journal of 
Tourism Management, 2, 34–42. 
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 
212–225.  
MESTI. (2014). National Environment Policy. Accra. 
Morell, C. (2004). Empowerment theory and long-living women: A feminist and disability 
perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(3), 225–236.  
MOTCCA. (2013). National Tourism Development Plan (2013-2027). Retrieved from 
ghana.travel/info/downloads/gtdp.pdf 
Musavengane, R., & Matikiti, R. (2015). Does social capital really enhance community based 
ecotourism? A review of literature. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 
4(1), 1–18. 
Negwaya, E., Chazuza, T., Mapira, N., & Musemwa, H. (2014). An investigation of factors 
influencing levels of employee empowerment in a government training institution. The case 
of management training bureau: Zimbabwe. International Review of Management and 
Business Research, 3(1), 199–210. 
Newsome, D., Moore, S. A. and, & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, 
Impacts and Management. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. 
Norris, K., Asase, A., Collen, B., Gockowksi, J., Mason, J., Phalan, B., & Wade, A. (2010). 
Biodiversity in a forest-agriculture mosaic - The changing face of West African rainforests. 
Biological Conservation, 143(10), 2341–2350.  
Nthiga, R. W., Van der Duim, R., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Lamers, M. (2015). Tourism-
- 234 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
conservation enterprises for community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in Kenya. 
Development Southern Africa, 32(3), 407–423.  
Nyaupane, G. P., & Poudel, S. (2011). Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1344–1366.  
Ochieng, R. M., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Nketiah, K. S. (2013). Interaction between the 
FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management. Forest 
Policy and Economics, 32, 32–39.  
Omar, A., Nordin, S., Azam, K., Lonik, T., & Jaafar, M. (2014). Empowering local communities 
through tourism entrepreneurship: The case of micro tourism entrepreneurs in Langkawi 
Island. SHS Web of Conferences, 1(2014), 1–9. 
Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S., Blankson, C., & Tarnanidis, T. (2013). The effect of 
service quality and satisfaction on destination attractiveness of sub-Saharan African 
countries: The case of Ghana. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(7–8), 627–646.  
Page, S., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. 
Parsons, C. D. F. (1997). The theory and practice of empowerment in the context of family 
health. Journal of Family Studies, 3(1), 7–24.  
Pers.com. (2015). Personal communication. 
Pers.com. (2016a). Personal Communiation with Manager at Bobiri Forest and Butterfly 
Sanctuary. 
Pers.com. (2016b). Personal Communication with Field Manager at Kakum National Park. 
Kakum National Park, Abrafo. 
Pers.com. (2016c). Personal Communication with Forest Manager at Kakum National Park. 
Abrafo. 
Pers.com. (2016d). Personal Communication with the Manager at Bobiri Forest Reserve and 
Butterfly Sanctuary. Kubease. 
Petersen, E. K., & Pedersen, M. L. (2010). The sustainable livelihoods approach: From a 
- 235 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
psychological perspective. Retrieved June 30, 2015, from 
ps.au.dk/.../TheSustainableLivelyhoodsApproach_Psyc 
Petesch, P., Smulovitz, C., & Walton, M. (2005). Evaluating empowerment: A framework with 
cases from Latin America. In Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives 
(Narayan-Pa). World Bank Publication. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.gh/books 
Pettit, J. (2012). Empowerment and Participation: Bridging the Gap Between Understanding and 
Practice. Retrieved November 4, 2015, from www.ids.ac.uk 
Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three faces of empowerment: Expanding the theory of empowerment in 
community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107–123.  
Platenkamp, V., & Botterill, D. (2013). Critical realism, rationality and tourism knowledge. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 110–129.  
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Rothgeb, J. M., Bureau, U. S. C., & Singer, 
E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 
68(1), 109–130. Retrieved from doi:10.1093/poq/nfh008 
Pretty, J. (1995). The many interpretation of participation. Focus, 16(4–5), 5–10. 
Rahman, S., Junankar, P. N., & Mallik, G. (2009). Factors influencing women’s empowerment 
on microcredit borrowers: A case study in Bangladesh. Journal of the Asia Pacific 
Economy, 14(3), 287–303.  
Ramos, A. M., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of 
Palenque: Empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable 
Tourism, 22(3), 461–479.  
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for 
community psychology. American Journal of Community, 15(2), 121–148. 
Roberts, S. (2016). An exploratory analysis of factors mediating community participation 
outcomes in tourism. Community Development, 42:3, 42(3), 377–391.  
Ruhanen, L. (2008). Progressing the sustainability debate: A knowledge management approach 
to sustainable tourism planning. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(5), 429–455.  
- 236 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Safari, J., Gowele, V., & Lwelamira, J. (2015). Involvement in tourism activities and perceived 
benefits in communities around Udzungwa Mountain National Park in Tanzania. American 
Journal of Environmental Protection, 4(3), 120–126.  
Sarrasin, B. (2012). Ecotourism, poverty and resources management in Ranomafana, 
Madagascar. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 15(1), 3–
24.  
Saviour, K. (2012). Assessing the Impact of State-Civil Society Synergy for Sustainable Natural 
Resource Management: The Case of Bobiri Forest Ghana. University of Agder. 
Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2008). A general theory of ecology. Theoretical Ecology, 1(1), 
21–28.  
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism 
Management, 20, 245–249. 
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Oxford: Prentice 
Hall. 
Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A 
complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. Journal of 
Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 601–628.  
Schloegel, C. (2007). Sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 25(3–4), 247–264.  
Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino 
Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), 136–146.  
Setten, G. (2006). Fusion or exclusion? Reflections on conceptual practices of landscape and 
place in human geography. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 
60(1), 32–45. 
Shamoo, A., & Resnik, D. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford 
University Press. 
Shen, F., Hughey, K. F. D., & Simmons, D. G. (2008). Connecting the sustainable livelihoods 
approach and tourism: A review of the literature. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 
Management, 15, 19–31. 
- 237 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Shoo, R. A., & Songorwa, A. N. (2013). Contribution of eco-tourism to nature conservation and 
improvement of livelihoods around Amani nature reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism, 
12(2), 75–89.  
Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives-A conceptual oxymoron? 
Tourism Management, 29(1), 1–18.  
Smart, G. (1998). Mapping Conceptual worlds: Using Interpretive ethnography to explore 
knowledge-making in a professional community. The Journal of Business Communication, 
35, 111–127. 
Snider, R. (2012, January 19). Land Tenure, Ecotourism, and Sustainable Livelihoods: “Living 
on the Edge” of the Greater Maasai Mara, Kenya. University of Waterloo. Retrieved from 
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6589 
Sofield, T., & Li, F. (2007). China: Ecotourism and Cultural, Harmony and Dissonance. In J. 
Higham (Ed.), Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourism 
Phenomenon. Butterworth-Heinemann: Elsevier. 
Solesbury, W. (2003). Sustainable livelihoods: A case study of the evolution of DFID policy - 
ODI working papers 217 - Research reports and studies. Retrieved from 
papers2://publication/uuid/48A0C8ED-A5DE-4596-875B-92F57D83F779 
Soubbotina, T. P. (2004). Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable 
Development. WBI Learning Resources Series IBRD/The World Bank (2nd ed.). 
Washington DC: IBRD/The World Bank. Retrieved from 
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_all.pdf 
Sproule, K. W. (1996). Community-based ecotourism development: identifying partners in the 
process. Yale F&ES Bulletin, 99, 233–250. Retrieved from 
http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/0-9/99sproule.pdf 
SRO-EA. (2011). Ecotourism in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) 
Region. Retrieved May 14, 2015, from www.uneca.org 
Stavrinoudis, T. A., & Simos, D. (2016). Factors affecting hotel employees’ perception and 
attitude toward empowerment. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 
15(4), 416–439.  
Stem, C. J., Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D. R., Deshler, D. D., & Schelhas, J. W. (2003). Community 
- 238 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. 
Society & Natural Resources, 16(5), 387–413.  
Stone, M., & Rogerson, C. M. (2011). Community-based natural resource management and 
tourism: Nata bird sanctuary, Botswana. International Tourism Review, 15, 159–169. 
Stronza, A. (2009). Commons management and ecotourism: Ethnographic evidence from the 
Amazonas. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 56–77. 
Strzelecka, M., & Wicks, B. E. (2015). Community participation and empowerment in rural post-
communist societies : Lessons from the leader approach in Pomerania , Poland. Tourism 
Planning & Development, 12(4), 381–397.  
Su, L., & Hsu, M. K. (2013). Service fairness, consumption emotions, satisfaction, and 
behavioral intentions: The experience of Chinese heritage tourists. Journal of Travel & 
Tourism Marketing, 30(8), 786–805.  
Supriharjo, D. R., Rahmawati, D., Santoso, B. E., Setiawan, P. R., & Karina, P. (2016). Factors 
influencing community-based heritage sustainability in Kampung Kemasan, Gresik. 
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227(2015), 498–502.  
Sutawa, G. K. (2012). Issues on Bali tourism development and community empowerment to 
support sustainable tourism development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4(4), 413–422.  
Sutton, M. Q., & Anderson, E. N. (2010). Introduction to Cultural Ecology (2nd ed.). AltaMira 
Press. Retrieved from www.altamirapress.com 
Sweeting, A. (2012). Integrating Business Skills into Ecotourism Operations. Switzerland: IUCN 
and Kuoni. 
Tang, Y. (2014). Travel motivation, destination image and visitor satisfaction of international 
tourists after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: A structural modeling approach. Asia Pacific 
Journal of Tourism Research, 19(11), 1260–1277.  
Tao, T. C. H., & Wall, G. (2009). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism 
Management, 30(1), 90–98. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.03.009 
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach ’ s alpha. International Journal 
of Medical Education., 2, 53–55. http://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd 
- 239 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods 
research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social 
& Behavioral Research (pp. 1–41). Sage Publishers. 
Teye, J. K. (2010). Policy networks and forest resource management in Ghana. Ghana Journal of 
Geography, 2, 137–161. 
Teye, J. K. (2012). Benefits, challenges, and dynamism of positionalities associated with mixed 
methods research in developing countries: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Mixed Methods 
Research, 6(4), 379–391. 
Thanvisitthpon, N. (2016). Urban environmental assessment and social impact assessment of 
tourism development policy: Thailand’s Ayutthaya Historical Park. Tourism Management, 
18(2016), 1–5.  
Thomas, M. J., Stillwell, J. C. H., & Gould, M. I. (2016). Modelling the duration of residence 
and plans for future residential relocation : A multilevel analysis. Transactions of the 
Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 297–312.  
TIES. (2007). Oslo Statement on Ecotourism. Washington, DC: TIES. 
TIES. (2015). The International Ecotourism Society. Retrieved from 
http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism retrieved on 18/05/15 
Timmerman, M. E. (2005). Factor Analysis. Heymans Institute for Psychology, Rijksuniversiteit 
Groningen Groningen. 
Timothy, D. J. (2007). (2007). Empowerment and Stakeholder Participation in Tourism 
Destination Communities. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, Power, and Space. 
New York: Routledge. 
Torres-Delgado, A., & Saarinen, J. (2013). Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism 
development: A review. Tourism Geographies, 16(1), 31–47.  
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism 
Management, 27(3), 493–504.  
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved March 22, 2016, 
from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php 
- 240 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Turner, R. L. (2004). Communities, wildlife conservation, and tourism-based development: Can 
community-based nature tourism live up to its promise? Journal of International Wildlife 
Law & Policy, 161(22). 
Turner, S. G., & Maschi, T. M. (2014). Feminist and empowerment theory and social work 
practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(2), 151–162.  
Turner, S. G., & Maschi, T. M. (2015). Feminist and empowerment theory and social work 
practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(2), 151–162.  
UNDP. (2014). Human Development Report. Retrieved from hdr.undp.org 
UNEP, & UNWTO. (2010). Tourism and Biodiversity - Achieving Common Goals Towards 
Sustainability, 65. Retrieved from www.unwto.org 
UNWTO. (2004). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers, 11–12. 
UNWTO. (2013). Tourism Highlights Tourism in the world : key fi gures. UNTWO Tourism 
Highlights, 2. 
Uyanik, K. G., & Guler, N. (2013). A study on multiple linear regression analysis. Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 106(2013), 234–240.  
Veal, A. J. (2011). Research Methods for Leisure & Tourism: A Practical Guide. (4th ed.). 
England: Pearson Educational Ltd. 
Walker, R. J., & Walker, T. J. (2011). Tourism Concepts and Practices. New Jersey: Prentice 
Hall. 
Wallace, G. N., & Pierce, S. M. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. 
Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 843–873. 
WD. (1996). The Management Plan: Kakum National Park and Assin Attandanso Resource 
Reserve. Accra: Forestry Commission. 
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009a). Ecotourism. Routledge. Retrieved from 
https://books.google.com/books?id=YtEsBgAAQBAJ&pgis=1 
- 241 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009b). Marketing ecotourism: Meeting and shaping expectations and 
demands. Ecotourism (2nd ed.). Retrieved from 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B8NW9-4XB9VYW-
C/2/6dcea7688cdb2f6c0289e7040e8c52fc 
Wight, P. (1993). Sustainable ecotourism: Balancing economic, environmental and social goals 
within an ethical framework. Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(2), 54–65. 
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis : A five-step guide 
for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–14. Retrieved from 
http://ro.ecu.edu.au 
Willis, K. (2006). Interviewing. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development Research. 
(pp. 144–153). London: Sage publications. 
World Bank. (2002). The MDGs as a Benchmark for Development Effectiveness. Retrieved 
from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ IDA/Resources/ ARDE_2002.pdf 
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, 
UK: Oxford University Press. 
Yaro, J. A. (2004). Combating Food Insecurity in Northern Ghana: Rural Livelihood Strategies 
in Kajelo, Chiana and Korania. Oslo: University of Oslo. 
Yeboah, T. (2013). Ecotourism development in Ghana: A case of selected communities in the 
Brong-Ahafo Region. Journal of Hospitality and Management Tourism, 4(3), 74–77. 
Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2010). Exploring Critical Realism as the Theoretical 
Foundation of Mixed-Method Research: Evidence from the Economics of IS Innovations 
(No. 3/2010). Working Paper Series - Cambridge Business School. Cambridge. Retrieved 
from 
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1003.pdf 
Zambrano, A. M. A., Broadbent, E. N., & Durham, W. H. (2010). Social and environmental 
effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. Journal of 
Ecotourism, 9(1), 62–83.  
Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. 
Ecotourism Book Series. 
- 242 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Zhang, L.-C. (2008). On Some Common Practices of Systematic Sampling. Journal of Official 
Statistics, 24(4), 557–569. 
Zhang, S., & Chan, C.-S. (2016). Nature-based tourism development in Hong Kong: 
Importance–performance perceptions of local residents and tourists. Tourism Management 
Perspectives, 20, 38–46. 
Zhang, Y., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. H. (2013). Residents’ preferences for involvement in 
tourism development and influences from individual profiles. Tourism Planning & 
Development, 10(3), 267–284.  
Zolfani, S. H., Sedaghat, M., Maknoon, R., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Sustainable tourism: A 
comprehensive literature review on frameworks and applications. Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 1–30.  
 
- 243 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDICES 
APPENDIX 1: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 
 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
STUDY ON ASSESSING RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BOBIRI FOREST AND 
KAKUM NATIONAL PARK   
 
Any information provided would be used only for academic purposes  
 
BASE DATA 
Introduction and respondent identification 
001 COMMUNITY    QUESTIONNAIRE  
NAME   NUMBER 
  
 
SECTION A: BACKGROUND DATA 
NO QUESTIONS RESPONSE SKIP TO 
10 How long have you lived in the Years ………………..  
community? 
11 Sex Male ………………………….………. 1  
Female …………………………..…… 2 
12 Age? (Years) …………..  
13 Religion? Christianity. ……………………………. 1  
Islam …………………………………….2 
Traditional …………………………….….3 
Other, specify…………………………….001 
14 Highest educational level? None ……………………………….…..1   
 Primary …………………………..……2 
JHS……..…………………….……..…3 
SHS ……………………………………4 
Tertiary ……….……………….………5 
Other, specify………………………….002 
Don’t know ……………………………801 
15 Occupation? Farmer ………………………….….….1    
Trader …………………………………2 
Public service…………….……………3 
Other (specify)…………..……………003 
Don’t know …………………….……802 
N/A …………………………………...99 
15 Secondary occupation Farmer …………………………….….1    
Trader …………………………………2 
Public service………….………………3 
Other, specify…………..……………005 
Don’t know………………………..….804 
N/A ……………………………………901 
17 Ethnic group? Asante …………………….…………1  
- 244 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Fante …………………………………3 
Other Akan ………………….……….4 
Ga/ Adangbe …………………………5 
Kusaasi………………………..……..6 
Ewe ……………………………….….7 
Wale …………………………………..8 
Dagbani ………………………………9 
Other (specify) ……………………….004 
Don’t know …………………………..803 
18 Marital status Single …………………………………..1  
Married ………………………..……….2 
Divorced …………………….…………3 
Separated ………………………………4 
Other, specify …………………………006 
Don’t know ……………………………805 
19 What properties do you have?  Land …………………………………….1  
House ……………………………………2 
Farm …………………………………….3 
Livestock ………………………………..4 
Other, specify …………………………..77 
N/A …………………………………….99 
21 What is your seasonal income? Seasonal income amount ………………….  
Monthly ………………………………….. 
Weekly ………………………………….. 
N/A …………………………………….99 
22 Monthly expenditure …………………………  
Electricity Electricity ……………… 
Food Food …..………………. 
Clothes Clothes ..………………. 
Rent …………………… 
Other expenditure ……. 
 N/A ……..…..950 
23 Estimate of farm products   
consumed if any? ………………………….  N/A ……..….951 
24 Remittances? ………………………….  N/A …………952  
25 Savings? ………………………….. N/A …………953  
26 How many children do you have? ………………………….. N/A …………99  
27 How many of them have been to ………………………….. N/A …………955  
school/ still in school? 
28 How many are working? ………………………….. N/A …………956  
29 How many child(ren) do you ………………………….. N/A …………954  
have? 
30 Which of these do/does your Land …………….……………………….1  
child(ren)/dependent own? House ……………………………………2 
Farm …………………………………….3 
Livestock ………………………………..4 
Other, specify …………………………..77 
N/A ……………………………………..957 
31 What is the highest educational None ……………………………….…..1   
level of your child? Primary …………………………..……2 
Secondary…………………….……..…3 
- 245 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Tertiary ……….……………….………4 
Other, specify………………………….060 
Don’t know ……………………………833 
N/A ……………………………………..99 
 
SECTION B:  EXTENT OF RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT  
NO QUESTIONS RESPONSE SKIP TO 
 B 1: HUMAN EMPOWERMENT  
51 Are you aware of ecotourism in Yes             ……………………………1  
the community? No             ….…………………………2 
52 What is your knowledge about Attract visitors ………………………..1  
the importance of the forest? Conserve the environment ……………2 
Preserve the land ………………..…….3 
Aid in rainfall …………………………4 
Other, specify ………………………..007 
Don’t know ………………………….806 
N/A ………………………………….901 
53 Have you had any training on Yes ……………………………………1 If No, skip 
alternative livelihoods?  No …………………………………….2 to Q 56 
54 If yes, from which institution? GHCT …………………………………1  
FC …………………………………….2 
FORIG ………………………………..3 
TBI ……………………………………4 
NCRC …………………………………5 
Other, specify ………………………..009 
Don’t’ know …………………………806 
N/A ……………………………………99 
55 What kinds of alternative Beads making …………………………1  
activities were you trained on? Batik/tie and dye making ……………..2 
(Tick multiple) Mushroom cultivation …………………3 
Snail rearing ……………………………4 
Grasscutter rearing …………………….5 
Beekeeping ……………………………6 
Other, specify, ……………………..….008 
N/A ……………………………………902 
56 Are you involved in any Yes ……………………………………1  
alternative livelihoods? No …………………………………….2 
57 If yes, which of the following are Beads making …………………………1  
you involved in? Batik/tie and dye making ……………..2 
Mushroom cultivation …………………3 
Snail rearing ……………………………4 
Grasscutter rearing …………………….5 
Beekeeping ……………………………6 
Other, specify, ……………………..….008 
N/A ……………………………………902 
58 If no, would you be interested in Yes …………………………………….1 If no, skip 
engaging in any alternative No ……………………………………..2 to 71 
livelihoods? N/A ……………………………………903 
59 If yes, what kind of activities Beads making …………………………1  
 would you be interested in doing? Batik/tie and dye making …….………..2 
Mushroom cultivation …………………3 
- 246 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Snail rearing ……………………………4 
Grasscutter rearing …………………….5 
Beekeeping ……………………………6 
Soap making …………………………..7 
Kente weaving …………………………8 
Other, specify, ……………………..….008 
N/A ……………………………………902 
60 What kind of skills do you have? Beads making …………………………1  
Batik/tie and dye making …….………..2 
Mushroom cultivation …………………3 
Snail rearing ……………………………4 
Grasscutter rearing …………………….5 
Beekeeping ……………………………6 
Kente weaving …………………………7 
Other, specify, ……………………..….008 
Don’t know ……………………………88 
N/A ……………………………………902 
61 Is/Are any of your Yes ……………………………………1  
child(ren)/dependent trained in No …………………………………….2 
alternative livelihoods? N/A …………………………………..958 
62 Do you get a periodic education Yes ……………………………………1  
on ecotourism? No …………………………………….2 
N/A …………………………………..957 
63 Which of these best describes I have more knowledge about ecotourism …….1  
you? I have developed my skills ……………….…..2 
I have training in alternative livelihoods ……..3 
I have little knowledge about ecotourism …….4 
Have not developed my skills ………………..5 
Have no training on alternative livelihoods …..6 
64 In all, how would you rate your Very humanly empowered ……………5  
level of human empowerment? Humanlyempowered ………………….4 
Neutral ………………………………...3 
Humanly disempowered ………………2 
Very humanly disempowered………….1 
 B 2: SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT  
70 Do you belong to any social Yes …………………………………….1 If no, skip 
group? No ……………………………………..2 to Q 74 
71 What kind of group is it? Religious ……………………………….1  
Tourism ……..…………….….………..2 
Traditional …….……………………….3 
Cultural …………………………………4 
Women …………………………………5 
Youth …….…………………………….6 
Other, specify ………………………….009 
N/A …………………………………….903 
72 What kind of activity does this Promote local culture ………………..…1  
group undertake? Foster community cohesion ……………2 
Promote ecotourism education………….3 
Other, specify………………………….010 
Don’t know ……………………………807 
N/A …………………………………….904 
- 247 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
73 If not in any group, would you Yes …………………………………..….1   
like to join one? No ………………………………..……..2 
N/A …………………………………….905 
74 Which of the following are Schools ………………………………….1  
accessible to you? (Tick Clinic ..…………………………………..2 
multiple) Roads ……………………………………3 
Potable water ..……………………...……4 
Electricity ………………………………..5 
Receptive facility…………………………6 
Other, specify …………………………..011 
Don’t know …………………………….808 
N/A …………………………………….904 
75 Which of these support Schools ………………………………….1  
ecotourism? (Tick multiple) Clinic ..…………………………………..2 
Roads ……………………………………3 
Potable water……………………………4 
Electricity ……………………………….5 
Receptive facility ………………………6 
Other, specify …………………………..012 
Don’t know …………………………….809 
N/A …………………………………….905 
76 Which of this infrastructure do Schools ………………………………….1  
you often use? Clinic ..…………………………………..2 
Roads ……………………………………3 
Potable water ……………………………4 
Electricity ……………………………….5 
Receptive facility..………………………6 
Other, specify …………………………..013 
Don’t know …………………………….810 
N/A …………………………………….906 
77 Have you received any Yes………………………………….…1   If no, skip 
infrastructure from ecotourism? No ……………………………………..2 to Q 80 
78 If yes, what kind of Schools ………………………………….1  
infrastructure? Clinic ..…………………………………..2 
Roads ……………………………………3 
Potable water ……………………………4 
Electricity ……………………………….5 
Receptive facility..………………………6 
Bungalows ………………………………7 
Market …………………………………..8 
Community center ………………………9  
Other, specify …………………………..013 
Don’t know …………………………….810 
N/A …………………………………….906 
79 Do you own any land? Yes………………………………….…1   If no, skip 
No ……………………………………..2 to Q 87 
80 Land ownership connects me to Strongly disagree ……………………..1  
my community Disagree ………………………………2 
Uncertain ……………………………..3 
Agree …………………………………4 
Strongly agree …………………………5 
- 248 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
81 How did you acquire it? Purchase …………………………..….1  
Gift ……………………………..…….2 
Inheritance ……………………..…….3 
Rent ……………………………….…4 
Other, specify ……………………….014 
Don’t know …………………………811 
N/A …………………………………907 
82 What kind of rights do you have Freehold ……………………………1  
over the land? Leasehold ………………………….2 
Lineage ……………………………3 
Abusa …..…………………………4 
Abunu …………………………….5 
Other, specify ……………………..015 
Don’t know ……………………….812 
N/A ……………………………….908 
83 How many acres? ………………… N/A …………..900  
84 Are/Is there any child(ren) who Yes ……………………………………1  
own/s land? No …………………………………….2 
N/A …………………………………..959 
85 How many acres are owned? ………………………..  N/A ………..960  
86 Are/Is any child(ren) in any social Yes ……………………………………1  
group? No …………………………………….2 
N/A …………………………………..961 
 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following. 1 2 3 4 5  
(1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Uncertain, 4 = 
Agree, 5 = Strongly agree) Ecotourism …. (Q87-89a) 
87 Makes me feel connected to my community       
88 Helps preserve the culture and traditions of the community       
89 Improve my relationship with people       
89a Helps improve social infrastructure       
89b Has there been any development in infrastructure within the last Yes……..……….1  
ten years? No …….………..2 
Don’t know …….3 
89c Which of these best describes you in relation to your I am connected to my  
community? community because 
of ecotourism …….1 
My relationship with 
people has increased 
………..2 
I am not connected to 
my community …3 
My relationship with 
people has not 
improved ………4 
 
89d In all, how would you rate the level of your Very socially empowered ………5  
social empowerment? Socially empowered …………….4 
Neutral …………………..……...3 
Socially disempowered …………2 
Very socially disempowered…….1 
 B3: ENVIRONMENTAL EMPOWERMENT  
- 249 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
90 What knowledge about Controlling erosion on my farm ………1  
environmental management do Retaining soil fertility..………………..2 
you have? Maintaining clean environment ………3 
Not farming along slopes ……………..4 
Preservation of water bodies …………5 
Other, specify ……………………….016 
Don’t know …………………………..88 
N/A …………………………………909 
91 Are you in any environmental Yes ……………………………………..1  If no, skip 
group? No ………………………………………2 to 93 
92 What kind of group? Fire volunteers …………………………1  
Sanitation ………………………………2 
Peer education …………………………3 
Other, specify …………………………017 
N/A …………………………………….910 
93 What kind of activity do you Tree planting……………………………1  
undertake? Clean up campaigns……………………..2 
Environmental education….…………….3 
Other, specify …………………………018 
Don’t know ……………………………800 
N/A ……………………………………911 
94 What knowledge about climate Excessive rainfall ………………………1  If no, skip 
change do you have? Low rainfall ……………………………2 to Q 97 
High temperature ………………………3 
Other, specify ………………………….019 
Don’t know ……………………………813 
N/A …………………………………….912 
95 How does climate change affect Destroying crops ………………………1  
you? Reduced farming ……………………….2 
Loss of interest in farming ……………..3 
Increase diseases ………………………4 
Fire outbreaks …………………………5 
Other, specify …………………………020 
Don’t know ……………………………814 
96 What adaptive measures do you Planting more trees …………………….1  
take? Planting more resistant crops …………..2 
Develop fire-smart landscapes …………3 
Other, specify …………………………..021 
Don’t know ……………………………860 
N/A …………………………………….913 
97 Do you have any bye-laws? Yes ………………………………………..1 If no/don’t 
No …………………………………………2 know, skip 
Don’t know ……………………………….88 to 100 
98 If yes, what are these laws? Not going to the forest on certain days …….1  
Not killing certain animals … …………….3 
Not hunting in harmattan …..….………….4 
Not farming on slopes ………….………….5 
Other, specify …………………………..022 
Don’t know …………………………….815 
N/A ……………………………….……914 
99 Do you adhere to these laws Yes ………………………………………..1  
- 250 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
No …………………………………………2 
N/A ………………………………………99 
100 Which of the bye-laws do you Not engage in illegal logging ………..…..1  
adhere to? Not killing certain animals … ..………….2 
Not hunting in harmattan …..…………….3 
Not farming on slopes …………………..4 
Other, specify …………………………..222 
Don’t know …………………………….850 
N/A ……………………………….……940 
101 Do you have any traditional Yes ………………………………………..1  
environmental management laws? No …………………………………………2 
Don’t know ……………………………….88 
102 What are these traditional laws? Not farming on certain days ……..……..1  
Not defecating around …………..………2 
Not going to the forest on certain days ….3 
Other, specify …………………..……..22 
Don’t know ……………………………815 
N/A ……………………………………..914 
103 Do you adhere to the traditional Yes ………………………………………..1  
laws? No …………………………………………2 
104 Do you have disposal sites? Yes ……………………………………..1  
No ………………………………………2 
105 Are there any negative Yes ……………………………………..1  
environmental activities? No ………………………………………2 
Don’t know …………………………….88 
N/A …………………………………….99 
106 If yes, what are these activities? Hunting ………………………………..1  
Logging ………………………………..2 
Loitering ………………………………3 
Other, specify ……………………….023 
Don’t know ………………………….88 
N/A …………………………………..99 
107 Is there a public place of Yes ……………………………………1          
convenience?  No …………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………..961 
108 Is/Are there any child(ren) in any Yes ……………………………………1  
environmental group? No …………………………………….2 
N/A …………………………………..962 
109 Do you have off reserves? Yes ……………………………………1  
No …………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………..77 
N/A …………………………………..963 
110 Do you have ecotourism Yes ……………………………………1  
management plans? No …………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………..77 
N/A …………………………………..88 
111 Do you engage in plantation Yes ……………………………………1  
programs? No …………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………..77 
N/A …………………………………..88 
112 Do you engage in any nursery? Yes ……………………………………1  
- 251 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
No …………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………..77 
N/A …………………………………..88 
112 Which of these best describe I have knowledge about environmental  
a you? management …………………………………1 
I adhere to bye-laws …………………………2 
Have no knowledge about environmental 
management …………………………………3 
Do not adhere to bye-laws ……………………4 
113 In all how would you rate your Very environmentally empowered ……………5  
level of environmental Environmentally empowered ………………….4 
empowerment? Neutral ………………………………………...3 
Environmentally disempowered ………………2 
Very environmentally disempowered………….1 
 B 4: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT  
114 Are you employed? Yes ……………1         No …………….2  
115 Is your work related to ecotourism? Yes ……………1         No …………….2  
116 Do you have any family member whose Yes ……………1         
income is derived from ecotourism?  No …………….2 
117 Are you able to access loans from banks? Yes ……………1         No …………….2  
118 Do visitors buy from the community? Yes ……………1        No …………….2  
119 Do you receive gifts from tourists? Yes ……………1        No …………….2  
120 What kinds of gifts? Cash …………………………………..1  
Items …………………………………2 
Other, specify ………………………024 
N/A …………………………………915 
121 Do you think you will receive economic Yes ……………1         No …………….2  
benefit from ecotourism? 
122 Is any of your dependent(s) working? Yes …………………………………..1  
No ……………………………………2 
N/A ………………………………..963 
123 Is any of your child(ren) able to access Yes ………………………………..1  
credit facilities? No …………………………………2 
Don’t know ……………………….831 
N/A ………………………………..964 
124 Which of these best describes you? My job is related to ecotourism …..…1  
a Tourists buy my items ………………2 
Access credit facilities ……………...3 
Tourists do not buy my items …….…4 
Cannot access credit facilities ………5 
Uncertain ……………………………6 
124 In all, how would you rate your level of Very economically empowered ………5  
b economic empowerment? Economically empowered …………….4 
Neutral ………………………………...3 
Economically disempowered …………2 
Very economically disempowered…….1 
 B 5: POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT  
125 Do you take part in any decision Yes ……………………………………..1 If no skip to 
governing natural resource? No ………………………………………2 Q 127 
126 At what level? Household ………………………………1  
Community ……………………………..2 
- 252 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
District ………………………………….3 
Regional …………………………….…..4 
National …………………………………5 
Other, specify …………………………..026 
Don’t know ……………………………..816 
N/A ……………………………………..917 
127 Do you attend social meetings? Yes ……………1          No ……………2  
128 Does any of your child(ren) Yes ……………………..………………1  
/dependent attend social No ……………………..……………….2 
meetings? N/A …………………………………..964 
129 Does your child(ren)/dependent  Yes ………………………………………1  
participate in decision-making? No ……………………………………….2 
Don’t know ……………………………..830 
N/A ……………………………………..965 
130 What do you do at the meetings? Participate in decisions about forest…….… 1  
Participate in decision about community ….2 
Listen to others …………………………….3 
Other, specify ……………………………..027 
N/A ……………………………….……….918 
131 Do you participate in ecotourism Yes …………………………………………..1  
planning? No ……………………………………………2 
Don’t know ………………………………….831 
132 Do you have avenues to share Yes ………………………………...………..1  
your concerns? No ……………………………………..……2 
133 What are some of these avenues? Community durbar ………………………….1  
Consultative meetings ………………………2 
Other, specify …………………….……….028 
Don’t know …………………………….….817 
134 Do traditional authorities have Yes ……………………………….;.………..1  
avenues to share their concerns? No ……………………………………...……2 
135 How are your concerns All my decisions are taken into account …..1  
addressed? Some of them are taken into account ……...2 
None of them are taken into account ……...3 
Other, specify …………………………….029 
N/A ……………………………………....919 
136 My concerns are addressed Strongly agree …………………………….1  
Agree ……………………………………..2 
Neutral ……………………………………3 
Disagree ………………………………….4 
Strongly disagree …………………………5 
137 Which of these best describes I can share my views …………………..1  
you? Have avenues to share concern ………..2 
Concerns are addressed ……………….3 
Cannot share my views……………….4 
Uncertain ……………………………..5 
138 How would you rate your level of Very politically empowered ……………5  
political empowerment? Politically empowered ………………….4 
Neutral ……………………..…………...3 
Politically disempowered ………….……3 
Very politically disempowered………….1 
 B 6: PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT  
- 253 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
141 Are you proud about ecotourism Yes ……………………………………….……1         N o, skip to 
in your community?  No ………………………………………..……2 Q 143 
142 If yes, what are the things that Rich natural environment.. ………………….....1  
make you proud?  Culture that draws people ……………………...2 
Name of community entered in a guide book ….3 
Have a unique culture ………………………….4 
Community attracts visitors ……………………5 
Other, specify ………………………………..030 
N/A …………………………………………..920 
143 Are you confident about yourself Yes ……………………………………….……1         N o, skip to 
because of ecotourism?  No ……………………………………….……2 Q 145 
144 If yes, what are the things that Able to assume new roles …………………….1  
make you feel confident?   Put views across ………………………………2 
Seek information on ecotourism ………………3 
Mention my community to people ….…….…..4 
Contribute to decision-making ……….………5 
Other, specify ……………………………….031 
N/A …………………………………….…….921 
145 Has your self-esteem increased Yes ……………………………………………1          No, skip to 
because of ecotourism?   No ……………………………………………2 147  
146 If yes, what are the things that People visit my community …………………..1  
have increased your self-esteem?   Have knowledge which I can share……..….... 2 
Have skills that can help my community …….3 
Contribute in decision-making ………………4 
I am well informed about my community ……5 
Other, specify ………………………………..032 
N/A …………………………………………..922 
 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following. 1 2 3 4 5  
(1= Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Uncertain, 4 = 
Agree, 5 = Strongly agree)  
147 I am proud about ecotourism in my community       
148 My confidence has increased because of ecotourism in my       
community 
149 My self-esteem has increased because of ecotourism in my       
community 
150 I am happy about ecotourism in my community       
151 Would you like to be empowered? Yes …..1                 No ...2        
152 If yes, why? ………………………………..  
153 If no, why? ………………………………..  
154 Which ones best describe you? I am proud about ecotourism in my community..1  
My confidence has increased …………………2 
My self-esteem has increased ………………...3 
I am happy about ecotourism in my community.4 
I am not happy about ecotourism ……………..5 
155 How would you rate your level of Very psychologically empowered ……………5  
psychological empowerment? Psychologically empowered ………………….4 
Neutral ………………...……………………...3 
Psychologically disempowered ………………2 
Very psychologically disempowered………….1 
 
 C: ASPECTS OF EMPOWERMENT RESIDENTS PREFER  
- 254 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
NO QUESTIONS RESPONSE  
 C 1: HUMAN EMPOWERMENT RANK 
171  Which aspects of human Training in alternative livelihood ………….1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Develop skills of residents   …………2 
multiple) Provide knowledge on ecotourism  ……….3 
 Information sharing ……………………….4 
Other, specify …………………………….045 
Don’t know ………………………………818 
 C 2: SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT RANK 
172 Which aspects of social Establish local groups …………………...…1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Programs to build social cohesion………..... 2 
multiple) Incentives to improve connectedness ..……...3 
Use revenue to build infrastructure…………4 
Improve culture and  traditions…………..….5 
Improve community interest ……………….6 
Improve access to lands ……………………7 
Other, specify …………………………….046 
Don’t know ………………………………819 
173 C 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EMPOWERMENT RANK 
174 Which aspects of environmental Establish environmental groups ……………1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Afforestation programs……………………. 2 
multiple) Improve awareness of environment ……….3 
Provide waste deposit sites …………………5 
Provide public place of convenience………6 
Establish bye-laws ..…………….………….7 
Maintain environmental cleanliness ……….8 
Other, specify ……………………………..046 
Don’t know ……………………………….820 
 C 4: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT  RANK 
175 Which aspects of economic Job opportunities for residents ……….1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Revenue sharing with residents ..…….2 
multiple) Access to credit facilities …………………..3 
Programs to reduce leakage ………………..4 
Equal economic benefits to members ……..5 
Compensation for lost properties …….……6 
Programs to increase local businesses …….7 
Marketing of destination …………………..8 
Other, specify …………………………….047 
Don’t know ……………………………….821 
 C 5: POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT  
176 Which aspects of political Local communities to control resources …….1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Be part of decision-making bodies …………..2 
multiple) Have avenues to share concerns ………….….3 
Incorporate concerns of members …..……….4 
Traditional authorities to be part of decision…5 
Local groups to be part of decision-making…..6 
Other, specify …………………………………048 
Don’t know ………………………………….822 
 C 6: PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT  
177 Which aspects of psychological Programs to make members proud ………….1  
empowerment are critical? (Tick Programs to build members’ confidence ……2 
- 255 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
multiple) Programs to increase their self-esteem ………3 
Include community’s name in guide book …..4 
Improve attractions ………………………….5 
Other, specify ……………………………….049 
Don’t know ………………………………….823 
178 Which aspects of empowerment Human …………………………………….1  
are important Economic …………………………………2 
Social ……………………………………..3 
Environmental ……………………………4 
Political …………………………………..5 
Psychological …………………………….6 
Don’t know ………………………………824 
 D: OTHER COMMENT   
180 Any other comment? …………………………………  
 
END OF SURVEY 
 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME 
 
- 256 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 2: VISITORS SURVEY 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
STUDY ON ASSESSING LOCAL EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BOBIRI FOREST AND 
KAKUM NATIONAL PARK   
Any information provided would be used only for academic purposes  
 
 
SECTION A: BACKGROUND DATA 
NO QUESTIONS RESPONSE SKIP TO 
1 Sex Male ………………………….………. 1  
Female …………………………..…… 2 
2 Age? (Years)…………..  
3 Religion? Christianity ………………………..…. 1  
Islamic ………………………………….2 
Traditional ………………………….….3 
Other, specify………………………….701 
N/A ……………………………………901 
4 Highest educational level? None ………………………………….1  
Primary  ………………………………2 
Secondary ……………………….……3 
Tertiary ………………………………4 
Other, specify………………………..702 
Don’t know …………………………..801 
5 Occupation? Researcher…………………….….….1    
Lecturer………………………………2 
Public servant…………………………3 
Businessman ………………………..4 
Unemployed ………………..….……5 
Other (specify)…………..…………..703 
Don’t know …………………….…..802 
6 Marital status? Single …………………………………..1  
Married ………………………..……….2 
Divorced …………………….…………3 
Separated ………………………………4 
Cohabitation ……………………………5 
Other, specify …………………………704 
N/A ……………………………………902 
7 What is your monthly income? State amount ………………….  
8 What is your monthly spending? State amount ………………….  
9 Country of origin ………………………………  
 
SECTION B: DATA ON VISIT 
NO QUESTIONS RESPONSE SKIP TO 
21 Is this your first visit? Yes ………………………………..…1  
No ……………………………….…..2 
22 What attracted you to this place? Forest……….…………………….….1  
Butterflies..…………………………..2 
Climate ………………………………3 
- 257 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
Birds …………………………………4 
Canopy walkway ……………………5 
Other, specify ……………………….705 
23 How did you learn about this Friends..………………………….….1   
place? CNN …………………………………2 
BBC………………………..…….….3 
Flyer ………………………………..4 
Family ……………………………….5 
Ghanaian embassy abroad……………6 
Internet ……….……………………..7 
Other (specify)……………………..706 
Don’t know ………………………..803 
24 How many days do you plan to A day… ……….………………….….1    
stay? Up to a week …………………………2 
Two weeks ……………………….….3 
A month ……………………………..4 
Other (specify)………………….…..707 
Don’t know …………………….…..804 
25  Are you satisfied with the Yes ……………………………….…..1 If no to 
attractions? No ……………………………………2 Q27 
26  If yes, what resources meet your Trees … ………………………….….1    
expectation? (Choose the most Butterflies ……………………………2 
appropriate) Climate ……….………………….….3 
Birds …………….…………………..4 
Animals……………………………… 5 
Canopy walkway ……………………6 
Other (specify)……………………..708 
Don’t know ………………………..805 
N/A …………………………………903 
27 If no, why? (Choose the most No birds to watch … …………….….1    
appropriate) Butterflies not found …………………2 
Climate not conducive…………….….3 
Poor sanitation..….…………………..4 
Noise pollution ………………………5 
No animals to watch …………………6 
Other (specify)…………….………..709 
Don’t know ………………………..806 
N/A …………………………………904 
28 Indicate your level of satisfaction Highly satisfied …………………….5  
Satisfied …………………………….4 
Uncertain ………… ………………..3 
Unsatisfied …………………………2 
Highly unsatisfied ………………….1 
29  Which resources need to be Trees … ………………………….….1    
improved? Butterflies ……………………………2 
Climate ……….………………….….3 
Birds …………….…………………..4 
Animals……………………………… 5 
Other (specify)……………………..710 
Don’t know ………………………..807 
N/A …………………………………905 
- 258 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
30 Would you like to return to this Yes ……………………………….….1  
place? No ……………………………………2 
Don't know …………………………88 
31 Why yes ……………………………………….  
……………………………………… 
N/A ………………………………….906 
32 Why no ……………………………………….  
……………………………………… 
N/A ………………………………….907 
33 Where would you spend the night? At the destination …………………..1  
In the district ……………………….2 
In the region ………………………..3 
Outside the region ………………….4 
Other, specify ………………………711 
Don’t know ………………………..808 
 
 
C: ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT THAT WOULD ENHANCE TOURISTS 
EXPERIENCE 
NO C 1: HUMAN EMPOWERMENT  
41 Which aspects of human Provision of education ………………………1  
empowerment would enhance Training in alternative livelihoods ……………2 
your experience? (Choose the Develop skills of residents ……………..3 
most appropriate) Provide knowledge on ecotourism ……..……4 
Other, specify ……………………………….712 
Don’t know …………………………………809 
42 How would your answer in 41 ……………………………………………….  
enhance your experience? ……………………………………………… 
43 Which of these activities would Tour guiding in community ………………….1  
you be interested in purchasing? Homestay for tourists ……………………….2 
(Choose the most appropriate) Beads making ………………………..………3 
Batik/tie and dye making …………..………..4 
Mushroom cultivation ………………………5 
Snail rearing …………………………………6 
Grasscutter rearing ………………………….7 
Dancing group ………………………………8 
Other, specify, …………………………….713 
N/A ………………………………………..908 
 C 2:  SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT  
45 Which aspects of social Establish local groups ……………………………1  
empowerment would enhance Programs to build social cohesion……………...... 2 
your experience? (Choose the Programs to increase community connectedness…3 
most appropriate) Use revenue to build infrastructure………………4 
Improve culture and  traditions………………….5 
Improve community interest ……………………6 
Other, specify …………………………………714 
Don’t know ……………………………………810 
46 How would your choice in 45 ……………………………………………….  
enhance your experience? ………………………………………………. 
- 259 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
47 Would you like to interact with Yes …………………………………………1  
any social group? No ………………………………………….2 
 C 3:  ENVIRONMENTAL EMPOWERMENT  
51 Would you like to see other Yes ………………………………….……..1  
conservation activities done by No …………………………………………2 
community members?  
52 What kind of conservation Nursery …………………………….……..1  
practices would you like to see? Snail cultivation……………………..……2 
(Choose the most appropriate) Mushroom rearing ……………….……….3 
Livestock …………………………………4 
Plantations ………………………………..5 
Other, specify ………………………….715 
Don’t know …………………………….811 
N/A ………………………………….…909 
53 Which aspects of environmental Establish environmental groups ……………1  
empowerment would enhance Afforestation programs……………………. 2 
your experience? (Choose the Improve awareness of environment ……….3 
most appropriate) Provide waste deposit sites …………………5 
Provide public place of convenience………6 
Establish environmental laws ..…………….7 
Maintain environmental cleanliness ……….8 
Other, specify ……………………………..716 
Don’t know ……………………………….812 
54 How would your choice in Q53 ……………………………………………….  
enhance your experience? ………………………………………………. 
 C 4:  ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT  
61 Do you buy from the destination? Yes …………………………………..….1  
No ………………………………..……..2 
62 What things do you buy from the Food stuff ……………………………..1  
destination? Provisions ………………………………2 
Souvenirs ………………………………3 
Other, specify …………………………717 
N/A ……………………………………910 
63 Do you buy from residents? Yes …………………………………..….1  
No ………………………………..……..2 
64 What things do you buy from the Food stuff ……………………………..1  
destination? Provisions ………………………………2 
Souvenirs ………………………………3 
Other, specify …………………………717 
N/A ……………………………………910 
    
65 Which aspects of economic Job opportunities for residents ……….1  
empowerment would enhance Revenue sharing with residents ..…….2 
your experience? (Choose the Access to credit facilities …………………..3 
most appropriate) Programs to reduce leakage ………………..4 
Equal economic benefits to members ……..5 
Compensation for lost properties …….……6 
Programs to increase local businesses …….7 
Other, specify …………………………….719 
Don’t know ……………………………….821 
66 How would your choice in Q63 ……………………………………………….  
- 260 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
enhance your experience? ………………………………………………. 
67 Which of these would you be Motor                         …………….………. 1  
interested in hiring from Bicycle                       ………………..…… 2 
residents? Vehicle                   ………………………..3 
Other, specify       …………………………720 
Don’t know                 ……………………822 
 C 5: POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT  
71 Which aspects of political Local communities to control resources …….1  
empowerment would enhance Be part of decision-making bodies …………..2 
your experience? (Choose the Have avenues to share concerns ………….….3 
most appropriate) Incorporate concerns of members …..……….4 
Traditional authorities to be part of decision…5 
Local groups to be part of decision-making…..6 
Other, specify ………………………………..721 
Don’t know ………………………………….823 
72 How would your choice in 71 ……………………………………………….  
enhance your experience? ………………………………………………. 
 C 6: PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT  
75 Which aspects of psychological Programs to make members proud ………….1  
empowerment would enhance Programs to build members’ confidence ……2 
your experience? (Choose the Programs to increase their self-esteem ………3 
most appropriate) Include community’s name in guide book …..4 
Improve attractions ………………………….5 
Other, specify ………………………………722 
Don’t know …………………………………824 
76 How would your choice in 75 ……………………………………………….  
enhance your experience? ………………………………………………. 
77 Which aspect of empowerment Human ……………………………………….1  
would you want community Social ………………………………………..2 
members to have? Environmental ……………………………….3 
Economic …………………………………….4 
Psychological ………………………………..5 
Political ………………………………………6 
Don’t know ………………………………….825 
78 Would your choice in Q77 Yes …………………………………………1  
enhance your experience? No …………………………………………….2 
Don’t know …………………………………826 
 D: OTHER COMMENTS   
79 Comment? …………………………………………..  
………………………………………… 
 
END OF SURVEY 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME 
  
- 261 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MOTAC AND MESTI 
   DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
  UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
 
STUDY ON ‘ASSESSING RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM 
NATIONAL PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY’ 
 
  
1. How does the ministry conceptualize ecotourism? 
2. Is there any benefit sharing mechanism for ecotourism destinations? 
3. If yes, what is nature and if no should there be one and why? 
4. One tenet of ecotourism is to provide human, social, environmental, economic, 
psychological and political empowerment to local communities. Do you think it is 
important to empower local communities along these lines? Why….. 
5. What roles can you play/are playing to empower community members along the various 
lines  
human empowerment…., social …., environmental….., political….., economic…, 
psychological ……. 
6. How are you collaborating with local communities to empower them? 
7. How are you collaborating with other institutions to empower local communities 
8. The 2014 Environmental policy has outlined as a strategy to ‘promote sustainable and 
responsible tourism and a specific strategy for this is to develop sustainable ecotourism, 
culture, and historical sites. How are you working with them to achieve this reality? 
MOTAC, MESTI? 
9. Is there any plan to have an ecotourism policy? 
10. Which institutions do you collaborate with in designing tourism policies? 
11. What are some of the challenges you face as a Ministry? 
12. How can these challenges be addressed? 
13. Do you think having an ecotourism framework would help destinations to be sustainable? 
14. How does the ministry conceptualize ecotourism? 
- 262 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONS FOR MANAGERS AT KNP AND BFRBS 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
 
STUDY ON ‘ASSESSING RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM 
NATIONAL PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY’ 
 
 
SECTION A: ABOUT THE INSTITUTION AND ECOTOURISM 
1. How long has the Institute been in existence?   
2. How long have you been working with the Institute?   
3. What roles does the Institute play in ecotourism?   
4. How does the institution conceptualize ecotourism?  
SECTION B: HUMAN EMPOWERMENT ISSUES 
5. One tenet of ecotourism is to provide human, social, environmental, economic, 
psychological and political empowerment to local communities. Do you think it is 
important to empower local communities along these lines? Why….. 
6. Is there a benefit sharing mechanism for ecotourism communities? 
7. What is the nature of this if yes, and if no, should there be one and why? 
8. What roles can you play to empower community members along the various lines  
human empowerment…., social …., environmental….., political….., economic…, 
psychological ……. 
9. How are you collaborating with local institutions to empower them? 
10. How are you collaborating with other institutions to empower local communities? 
11. Are there programs that assist in the provision of education for workers at ecotourism 
destination?  
12. Do you provide any training to tourists?   
13. What kind of training?  
14. What structures are in place for private participation? …………………………… 
15. Are there any challenges in developing human capital for ecotourism? 
- 263 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
16. What are some of these challenges? 
17. How are these challenges being addressed? 
SECTION C: SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT ISSUES 
18. Do you know any ecotourism network groups at the local communities? 
19. What are these groups? 
20. What are their areas of interests? 
21. Are there any programs for preserving local culture? 
22. What are some of these programs? 
23. How are they being implemented? 
24. What about including indigenous knowledge? 
25. Are there programs to develop infrastructure within the communities? 
26. If yes, what are these programs? 
27. Why if yes or no? 
28. Do you think local communities have benefited enough from ecotourism in terms of 
infrastructure? 
29. What are these infrastructures? 
30. What have been the challenges? 
31. How can these challenges be addressed? 
 
SECTION D: ENVIRONMENTAL EMPOWERMENT ISSUES 
32.  Are there programs to improve environmental awareness? 
33. What are these programs? 
34. Are there programs to ensure the quality of flora and fauna? 
35. What are these programs? 
36. Are there any environmental groups? 
37. What do they do? 
38. Are there any afforestation programs? 
39. Are community members well informed about environmental impacts? 
- 264 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
SECTION E: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT  
40. Are there any programs to ensure economic benefits to residents? 
41. What are these programs? 
42. How are they being implemented? 
43. Are there any strategies to provide financial services to residents to enter into ecotourism 
activities? 
44. What are these strategies? 
45. How are they being implemented? 
46. If there are no strategies, do you think it would be good to have strategies to assist 
residents to access financial resources for ecotourism businesses? 
47. Why if yes or no? 
48. Are there any modalities for sharing benefits from ecotourism? 
49. What are these modalities? 
50. Do you think local communities should be given a percentage of revenue from 
ecotourism? 
51. Why if yes or no? 
52. How is the revenue from ecotourism put into use? 
53. Do you think residents have benefited economically from ecotourism? 
54. What are the benefits? 
55. What have been the challenges? 
56. How can they be addressed? 
 
SECTION F: POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT 
57. Do you consult residents in the management of the destination? 
58. At what level? 
59. Do you include traditional authorities in decision-making? 
60. Are their concerns taken into consideration? why if no? 
61. What about programs to include residents in decision-making? 
- 265 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
62. What are these programs? 
63. How are they being implemented? 
64. If there are no programs to include residents in decision making would it be good to have 
such programs? 
65. Why? 
66. Are there programs to increase tourists’ arrivals? 
67. What are these programs? 
68. How are they being implemented? 
69. What about tourists spending? 
70. Are there programs to improve local livelihoods on ecotourism activities? 
71. What are these programs? 
72. Do you work with other institutions on ecotourism development? 
73. Which institutions? 
74. What are some of the challenges that you face as an Institute towards ecotourism 
development? 
75. How can these challenges be addressed? 
76. What types of data are collected from destinations? 
77. Are there programs to improve data collection at destinations? 
78. Do you think land tenure system can affect ecotourism? 
 
SECTION H: TOWARDS ECOTOURISM FRAMEWORK 
79. What do you think should be considered in the development of ecotourism in Ghana? 
80. What should be the prime objective of an ecotourism framework in Ghana? 
81. What issues should be considered in the framework? 
Any other comments? …………………………………………………………………….. 
…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 
- 266 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR GTA, NCRC, AND TBI 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
 
STUDY ON ‘ASSESSING RESIDENTS’ EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM 
NATIONAL PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY’ 
 
 
1. How many ecotourism destinations are there in Ghana? 
2. How many of them are community-based? 
3.  How many ecotourism destinations do you work with? 
4. What is the destination(s)? 
5. What exactly did you do? 
6. One tenet of ecotourism is to provide human, social, environmental, economic, 
psychological and political empowerment to local communities. Do you think it is 
important to empower local communities along these lines? Why….. 
7. Is there a benefit sharing mechanism for ecotourism communities? 
8. What is the nature of this if yes, and if no, should there be one and why? 
9. What roles can you play to empower community members along the various lines  
human empowerment…., social …., environmental….., political….., economic…, 
psychological ……. 
10. Do you collaborate with local communities? 
11. How are you collaborating with local communities to empower them? 
12. Do you collaborate with other institutions? 
13. How are you collaborating with other institutions to empower local communities? 
14. What are your challenges and how are you addressing them? 
 
 
- 267 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 6: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CHIEFS AND ELDERS OF THE 
COMMUNITIES AND DISTRICT ASSEMBLIES 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
 
STUDY ON ‘ASSESSING LOCAL EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM 
NATIONAL PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY’ 
 
1. Has government acquired the land used for ecotourism? 
2. Have all financial obligations been fulfilled? 
3. What is the nature of land tenure in the community? Do community members have access 
to land? 
4. Does it have any effect on ecotourism? 
5. How? 
6. Do you receive financial benefit from ecotourism? 
7. How regular if yes? 
8. Do you engage in any decision regarding the planning and management of ecotourism? 
9. How often? 
10. At what level do you involve in planning and decision making? 
11. Are you involved in meetings organized by management? 
12. Are your concerns taken into consideration? 
13. Do you have avenues to share your concerns? 
14. Has the community received any social infrastructure from ecotourism? 
15. What are these? 
16. What about capacity building for residents? 
17. What about environmental groups, programs etc. 
18. What about programs to boost businesses? 
19. Programs to improve culture and tradition 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
20. Do you have a public place of convenience? 
21. What about dump sites? 
22. What are some of the challenges facing ecotourism in the area? 
23. How can they be addressed 
24. Do you think there is the need to have ecotourism framework? 
 
- 269 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 7: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR RESIDENTS 
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON 
 
STUDY ON ‘ASSESSING LOCAL EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE 
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF KAKUM 
NATIONAL PARK AND BOBIRI FOREST AND BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY’1 
 
Introduction and respondent identification 
 
1. What is your name? 
2. How old are you? 
3. Any religious affiliation? 
4. Highest educational level? 
5. Occupation? 
6. Marital status? 
7. Occupation? 
8. Have you any dependent? 
9. What knowledge about the forest do you have? 
10. Have you any training on alternative livelihoods 
11. Do you belong to any social group? 
12. Have you received any infrastructure from ecotourism? 
13. Do you own any land? 
14. What knowledge about environmental management do you have? 
15. Are you in any environmental group? 
16. What kind of environmental laws do you have? 
17. Do you adhere to environmental laws? 
- 270 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
18. Are you employed? 
19. Is your work related to ecotourism? 
20. Are your dependents employed? 
21. Do you attend community meetings? 
22. Do you take part in decision during these meetings? 
23. Are you proud about ecotourism? 
24. Are there issues on ecotourism you want to talk about? 
- 271 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 8: SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF EMPOWERMENT USED FOR 
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 
 
Human empowerment 
e1 - Training in alternative livelihoods  
e2 - Involved in alternative livelihoods 
e3 - Have skills 
e4 - Children trained in livelihoods activities 
Social empowerment 
e5 - Ecotourism connected me to community 
e6 - Ecotourism preserve culture 
e7 - Ecotourism helps improve my relationships with others 
e8 - Ecotourism helps improve infrastructure 
e9 - Community has received infrastructure from ecotourism 
e10 - Own land 
Environmental empowerment 
e12 - Adherence to traditional practices 
e13 - Adherence to byelaws 
Economic empowerment 
e15 - A relative job related to ecotourism 
e16 - Access loans from banks 
e17 - Visitors buy from community 
e18 - Hope for future benefits 
Political empowerment 
e19 - Avenues to share concerns 
e20 - Attend social meetings 
- 272 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
e21 - Activities done at meetings 
e22 - Concerns are addressed 
e23 - Traditional authorities have avenues to share concerns 
Psychological empowerment 
e24 - I am proud about ecotourism in my community 
e25 - Ecotourism has increased my confidence 
e26 - Ecotourism has increased my self-esteem 
e27 - I am happy because of ecotourism in my community 
 
 
 
 
- 273 - 
 
University of Ghana  http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh
APPENDIX 9: ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL 
  
- 274 -