An Appraisal of Tourists’ Satisfaction with Community-Based Tourism for Sustainability in Ekiti State, Nigeria

^1*Nathaniel Ileri OMOTOBA, ²Oluwatuyi OMOTOSO, ³Jacob Oluwafemi, ORIMAYE

Corresponding Author: ^1*Nathaniel Ileri OMOTOBA, ^1,3Department of Tourism Studies, National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria

²Department of Geography and Planning Science, Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti, Nigeria

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6290754 | Received: 13.01.2022 | Accepted: 10.02.2022 | Published: 25.02.2022

ABSTRACT

This research work appraises the level of satisfaction of community-based tourism for sustainability in Ekiti State. The study used sustainability indicators as variables for assessing the tourists’ satisfaction. The study used the Demand and Supply Theory as the basis of its theoretical bedrock. The study depended on a primary source of data. A total of 900 copies of well-structured questionnaires were administered to target respondents in nine communities of the study area. Eight hundred sixty-five copies of the administered questionnaires were retrieved and subjected to coding and analysis using MS Excel and SPSS, respectively. The data collected were represented using frequency and mean tables. It was found out that the tourists and community dwellers were not satisfied with community-based tourism using sustainability indicators. It was recommended that amenities be made available at the host communities, including power supply, potable water, good roads, accommodation, parking facilities, relaxation centre, electricity, pipe-borne water, etc. This will undoubtedly increase the visibility of tourists sites in Ekiti State and beyond.

Keywords: Community based tourism, Sustainability, Tourist Satisfaction, Ekiti State

Introduction

Community-Based Tourism refers to tourism in which community dwellers (often poor, rural, and economically relegated) invite tourists to their communities to provide overnight accommodation (George and Erick, 2012; Liedewij, 2013). The residents make income as entrepreneurs, land managers, service and products providers, and; employees. At least part of the tourists’ earnings is set aside for developmental projects that provide advantages to the community. In Community-Based Tourism, tourists relate with the ecosystem which includes wildlife, habitats, flora and fauna while appreciating the different cultures, rituals, gastronomy and heritage. The community will be aware of the social and commercial value placed on their natural and cultural legacy and birthright through tourism and thus will promote community-based conservation of resources (Sachin, Menon, Sankaranarayanan, and Arunachalan, 2014).

Community-Based Tourism is just one of several terms used to describe holidays that benefit travellers and destinations. Words like green, responsible, fair trade, positive, or ethical tourism are synonymous with Community-Based Tourism. They are all about treading lightly on people’s homes and cultures, about positive interactions between guests and host communities, and about an awareness of our impacts on the well-being of the places where we take our holiday. Essentially, such holidays seek to minimize the adverse effects of tourism and maximize the benefits of the host (Michael, Victor, and Michael, 2008)

Community-Based Tourism is often seen as an excellent illustration of sustainable tourism development. According to Brohman (1996) and Hatton (1999), what motivates the participation of local people are the benefits accrued from different projects that are as a result of CBT Community development is the bedrock of Community-Based Tourism. Due to the small-scale nature of CBT projects, the projects are mostly owned by the community and the accommodation facilities are managed by the localities which bring in high income. This would develop local communities by providing additional income and revenues. In addition, the local people decide which of their heritage and cultural products to share with tourists in an attempt to reduce the impact of tourists on them. Finally, Community-Based Tourism projects would also have fewer harmful effects on the pristine and undisturbed natural environment. The small-scale character of Community-Based Tourism also means that a small number of visitors/tourists are visiting and therefore do not trigger congestion of the social, cultural, and natural environment (Liedewij, 2013; Musa and Mary, 2017).

Another motivation for the participation of local people in CBT is that the accumulated profits will only be shared among a few numbers people because of their relatively small population. There has been increasing worry that benefits be more extensively dispensed, especially since localities often carry the costs in the form of constrained or loss of the right of use to resources at the sites. It is also crucial and critical to note that the objectives of Community-based Tourism do not only focus on the conservation of the natural resource and economic development (Lucchetti and Font, 2013) but also on cultural protection, poverty alleviation, community and gender empowerment, and income generation are primary reasons. Being clear about what you want to do, monitoring and assessing are key to any intervention and planning effort. Thus, improving and increasing the preservation and conservation of resources is very important in CBT. Increasing revenues and an increasing number of recipients are some of the ways Community Based Tourism can contribute to the economic development of local communities. Likewise, Community Based Tourism must strive to make visitors feel at home while providing a socially and environmentally compliant tourism product (Kiper, 2013).

In community-based tourism, sustainability is very important. Organizations and cities are focusing on developing indicators to quantify progress. An indicator reports the state or condition of something. In terms of sustainable development indicators, Astleithner et al. (2004) restrict this definition to a policy-related variable described in a way that will be assessable over time and space. Sustainable development indicators can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively; however, the difference between the indicators and the accustomed ecological or economic indicators is their concentration on nexuses across different sectors. Ecological and economic indicators are still a fraction of sustainable development indicators through incorporation. Indicators are vital in holding communities and governments answerable to their sustainability goals and targets (Newman & Jennings 2008). Indicators offer data to steer policies and allow for judgments to be made across metropolises and districts. The effects and problems of policies and plans of sustainable development on the urban environment can also be revealed through indicators (Munier 2005).

Indicators are most helpful in planning for sustainability when linked to thresholds or targets of sustainable development. Thresholds are scientifically controlled points where the state of things will dramatically change. Targets are often defined by policymakers or through a public discussion and point to levels that must be achieved in the future if sustainability goals are to be reached. There are several concerns associated with selecting, using, and reporting indicators of sustainable development (Yeri, 2012).

The selection of indicators is in two categories which are top-down and bottom-up. For the top-down approach, policymakers define the goals and indicators that accompany the plans; the data collected requires the expertise of professionals for interpretation because of its high technicality. For the bottom-up approach, relevant stakeholders in the community are consulted to select appropriate indicators. The two methods differ in the area of complexity. The processes involved in the top-down approach are tools that permit greater depth of probe, while the techniques of the bottom-up approach are more rudimentary and comprehensive. However, it is likely to conglomerate the approaches to produce a crossbreed approach; however, this depends solely on the framework. The two approaches reveal the need to create indicators grounded inaccurate scientific data and stress-free indicators for the understanding of the public and decision-makers. A way out of the problem is to select a set of “core” indicators, which span the breadth of a community’s sustainability goals. These core indicators should be easily understandable and demonstrate the linkages between numerous sustainability goals. There would remain an elongated list of more technical and specific indicators for usage by city staff alongside the core indicators, which will be widely publicized (Yeri, 2012)

The indicator set retains the thematic/sub-thematic framework adopted in 2001. It follows most nations' practice of using national sustainable development indicator sets in this way, and it is directly related to the monitoring of national sustainable development strategies. Inequality, Administration, Wellness, Literacy, Population, Environmental Hazards, Ambience, Terrain, Seas, Oceans and Coasts, Freshwater, Ecology, Economic Growth, World Economic Relationship, Consumption and Production Patterns, to name a few CSD indicator themes. The categories of indicators cut along the four ‘pillars’ (economic, environmental, social, and institutional) are no longer evident in the newly revised set. This transformation highlights the hydra-headed character of sustainable development and the benefits of putting its pillars together. New cross-cutting subjects like poverty and natural disasters were launched as a result, while existing cross-cutting themes like consumption and production patterns were improved. Because poverty encompasses a wide range of challenges, keeping it as a sub-theme under equity was conceptually constraining. As a result, it has been separated into its theme, with sub-themes on income, sanitation, drinking water, energy access, and living circumstances.

Natural risks were a sub-theme of the now-defunct 'institutional capacity,' which did not adequately reflect the topic's complexity. Two other novel concepts are global economic governance and collaboration. New indicators in the global economic partnership reflect pressing topics including trade and development finance. Only crime-related indicators are currently included in the indicators for the theme of 'governance.' To generate acceptable, assessable, and universally accepted indicators on other dimensions of governance, significant methodological work is required. Based on the review, this study used indicators of sustainability to appraise the level of tourists’ satisfaction with community-based tourism in Ekiti State.

2. The Study Area

Ekiti State is a region that is between the Greenwich Meridian's latitudes of 70151N and 80051N, and the Equator's longitudes of 4⁰45¹E and 5⁰45¹E. (see Figure 1). It is bordered on the south by Ondo State, on the west by Osun State, on the east by Kogi State, and on the north by Kwara State. The state is a mountainous zone with rock layers that rises over 250 meters above sea level.

Ekiti State is located in southwest Nigeria (see Figure 1), and it was proclaimed a state on October 1, 1996, by General Sanni Abacha, the then-head of state.

Ekiti offers serenity, tranquillity, and a wide diversity of tourist attractions such as unique wildlife, extended rivers, magnificent waterfalls, vast tracks of pristine nature ranging from tropical forest, favourable hilltop holidaying climates, remarkable warm and cold-water springs oozing out and touching, yet retaining its thermal identity. Other attractions include ways of life preserved in local traditions, rich and speckled handicrafts, and other colourful products portraying or illustrating native arts, dance, lifestyle, and the genuine and unsophisticated but friendly attitude of both the indigenes and non-indigenes that resides in the State. Ekiti State is fortunate and blessed with many tourist sites in potentials and developed sites. Examples of tourism sites in Ekiti State are Arinta Waterfall at Ipole-Iloro, Ikogosi Cold and Warm Spring, Orole hills, Ogunnire festival, Erin-Ayonigba River, Kosegbe stone Udiroko festival, Laduwo festivals, among others. These sites are essential to their host communities in the study area. For example, the Erin-Ayonigba River is known for its healing characteristics.

3. Methods

The study was carried out in Nine Local Government Areas out of the Sixteen Local Government Areas of Ekiti State. The Local Government Areas were selected from the study's three Senatorial Areas: Ekiti North, Ekiti Central, and Ekiti North Senatorial Districts using stratified random sampling techniques. From Ekiti North Senatorial District; Oye Local

Government Area, Ikole Local Government Area, and Moba Local Government Area were selected for the study, from Ekiti Central Senatorial District; Ado Local Government Area, Irepodun/Ifelodun Local Government Area, and Ijero Local Government Area were selected while from Ekiti South Senatorial District; Gbonyin Local Government Area, Ekiti Southwest Local Government Area and Ise/Orun Local Government Area serves as Local Government Areas for the study. Nine communities were then randomly selected from the nine Local Government Areas. The communities are Oye Ekiti from Oye Local Government Area, Ikole Ekiti from Ikole Local Government Area, Otun Ekiti from Moba Local Government Area, Ado Ekiti from Ado Local Government Area, Iyin Ekiti from Irepodun/Ifelodun Local Government Area, Ijero Ekiti from Ijero Local Government Area, Aisegba Ekiti from Gbonyin Local Government Area, Ogotun Ekiti from Ekiti Southwest Local Government Area and Ise Ekiti from Ise/Orun Local Government Area.

The work relied on a primary source of data: the administration of questionnaires. A total of 900 copies of questionnaires were randomly administered to the target population. The questionnaire was administered using the 2016 projected population to be sure of unbiasedness on the researcher's part. Out of the 900 copies administered, 865 copies were retrieved, accounting for 96% of the total number of questionnaires. The data collected was coded using Ms Excel 2019 and analyzed using SPSS v 23. The data were represented using the frequency table. The mean value of each indicator was obtained and compared with the value gotten using the Chi-square analytical method.

4. Results and Discussion

The result of the work is presented in table 1 below. The table shows the level of satisfaction of community dwellers using the significant indicators of sustainable development: economic, infrastructural, socio-cultural, and environmental sustainability.

The table is divided into four parts, i.e., economic development, infrastructural development, socio-cultural development, and environmental sustainability. Table 1 (1) shows that funding tourist attraction sites have been a significant problem since the funding level is still at zero or deficient levels. It is thus noted that the communities are not economically okay. Funding by either governmental or non-governmental organizations will, in a long way, help the development of tourism and then, will indeed have positive effects on the host communities, thus will increase the satisfactory level of community dwellers, especially on Community-Based tourism. This finding corroborates with the work of Ayeni (2012), who noted that funding of major tourist centres in Nigeria has resulted in the retard of the tourism industry; in her recommendations, she said that it is necessary that tourist centres should be adequately funded so that it can also give back in folds to the nation.

Tourism demand and supply are fundamental concepts in tourism; a sizable percentage were altogether dissatisfied with the available markets for tourism products. This market can only be functional when all amenities are put in place, and the facilities are nowhere to be found in the study area. For there to be a functioning market for tourism products as the case may be, it is thus essential to work on social amenities and infrastructural facilities; as such, it will surely give such attraction sites a facelift and will surely increase the patronage. For example, Masip (2006) noted that tourism product development is the product of the synergy between supply and demand factors. The supply factor comes to play in marketing strategies.

Table 1 Development for Satisfaction of Community Members in Community-Based Tourism

VD=Very Dissatisfied, Dissatisfied, Unsure, Satisfied, Very Satisfied, M=Missing

The significance of various developments is low, as shown in table 2. This contrasts with the chi-square value, which shows that all the sustainable development indicators are highly significant in community-based tourism development. As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis because the chi-square computed value of 75.4 is greater than the table value of 26.3. This implies that the rate of unemployment in Ekiti state is very alarming; over 28.3% are unemployed (Datanonym, 2018), and Ekiti state is very blessed and rich in untapped tourism potentials as noted by Adeyemo, Akinbode, and Bada (2018) and Olawuyi and Alabi (2018). If these potentials can be tapped into, it will lead to significant employment. Still, since Community-Based Tourism has not encountered any form of development, especially in the study area, employment opportunities have not been forthcoming through tourism. Thus, Khathi (2001) noted that local tourism has the potential for job creation even in disadvantaged communities; also, Kaushal (2017) reported that tourism could create more and new jobs, but it is centred around the extensive development of Community tourism.

Lopez-Guzman, Borges, and Cerezo (2011) and Alvarez-Garcia, Duran-Sanchez, and Rio-Rama (2018) also noted the advantages of scientific coverage of community-based tourism to achieve sustainable tourism and strategy for social development. They said that research and development have assisted in popularizing the subject matter; “Scopus has better coverage in the areas of community tourism due to collecting a greater number of articles, journals and signatures and its articles receiving a greater number of citations.” In contrast, in this research, the respondents noted that there is still a lag in the research and development in community-based tourism. This implies that researchers are not focused on community tourism, especially in the study area. Concomitantly, this is also common in developing countries, especially those that are not dependent on tourism for their external earnings.

This corroborates with Ibimilua and Ibimilua's (2015) findings, who noted that rural tourism is threatened by fear of criminalities, violence, and insecurity. To bolster this, Okosun and Olujimi (2016) also stated that apart from lack of infrastructural facilities, insecurity is another problem militating against a successful and sustainable Community-Based tourism (see also Omotoba, Omotoso, and Igbalajobi, 2016). In their research on Arinta waterfall, Ijasan and Izobo (2012) noted that transportation, poor communication systems, and poor access routes are some of the problems militating against efficient planning and development of this centre. In this research work, housing, water, and electricity are also necessary infrastructures to be put in place for the success of Community-Based Tourism in any region. According to Tamir (2015), the quality of life of local people for Community-Based tourism can be achieved by providing essential amenities such as suitable housing, potable water, and power supply. In the same vein, Harwood (2010) noted that facilities are needed to plan for Community-Based tourism in a remote location.

There are cultural entities in the study area. If branded and rebranded, these entities will be helpful in the areas of tourism. This is also in tandem with Omotoba's (2015) work, which noted that the sustainability of cultural entities could assist in the rejuvenation of tourism, which will consequentially serve as a tool for regional development. Sebele (2006) pointed out that tourism improvement will surely help improve the standard of living in an economically viable and sustainable manner. The indicator of innovation-diffusion is to know the level of knowledge-driven and cultural exposure. Part of the innovations that can be brought about by Community-Based Tourism is entrepreneurship development, diversification of products, among others. New items are an example of innovation, and they are especially important in experience-based industries where clients are looking for something different as well as high-quality products (Eide, 2013)

Environmental sustainability is one of the fundamental markers of sustainable development since it is more concerned with environmental issues. Alvarez-Garcia, Duran-Sanchez, and Rio-Rama (2018) noted that although tourism is known to have made a significant contribution to the economy of many communities, its unplanned growth around the world has also contributed to environmental degradation and negative social-cultural impacts which has led to growing concerns about preservation and conservation of natural resources, human welfare, and long-term economic viability. Anstrand (2006) also noted that the focus of Community-Based Tourism should be more on nature conservation.

Rada, Zatelli, and Mattolin (2014) noted that waste generation in tourist centres of the world is a product of the patronage level, i.e., high patronage will undoubtedly lead to increased generation of waste and vice-versa. The major problem in the study area is the general method of waste disposal, and most of these wastes are deposited haphazardly, which poses serious environmental issues in such sites. The peculiarity of Ado Ekiti on the dissatisfaction of air quality is the current urbanization process in the state capital. This results from the destruction of the natural ecosystem and conversion into a built environment, and it can also result from the unplanned simile-mundane nature of Ado core.

In table 2 above, 9.6% of the respondent believed that the level of development of Community-Based Tourism is significantly worse, 36.2% thought that the level of development is worse, 13.4% were undecided, 34.2% believed that there is an improvement. In comparison, 5.4% believed there is a significant improvement in the general development of Community-Based Tourism in the study area.

5. Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendations

This study assessed how satisfied community members/tourists are with tourism in their communities using the sustainable development indicators. The study showed that the mean value of all indicators is below three (3), which depicts that the tourists were not satisfied with most of all the indicators listed as variables for the research work except cultural entity, which has its mean above 3. The tested hypothesis on the impacts of community-based tourism and local satisfaction shows that the level of pleasure of the local community is a product of the various effects of tourism. Also, there is a relationship between the general development of tourism and the various level of satisfaction of sustainability indicators.

Apart from power, drinkable water, adequate roads, and other social amenities that may make communities functional, the study proposes that infrastructure be made available for the host communities. It is necessary to make the sites themselves accessible. Until now, the majority of tourism destinations in the communities have been inaccessible; this reflects government indifference and community residents' unwillingness to participate. Other amenities that can contribute to the joyous satisfaction of residents and potential tourists should also be provided. Majorly, accommodation, parking facilities, relaxation centre, electricity, pipe-borne water, and others should be made available by the public-private sector and the community itself. This will undoubtedly increase the visibility of tourists’ sites in Ekiti State and beyond. The level of satisfaction of tourists will tell to a large extent if they will publicize the site positively or negatively and if they will be motivated to show up at the site again.

References:

• Adeyemo, A., Akinbode, T. and Bada, A. O. (2018). Tourism planning and development: a panacea to economic recession in Nigeria. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Sports, Vol. 33, pp. 5-11.
• Alvarez-Garcia, J., Duran-Sanchez, A. and Rio-Rama, M. (2018). Scientific Coverage in Community-Based Tourism: Sustainable Tourism and Strategy for Social Development. Sustainability Vol. 10, 1158.
• Anstrand, M. (2006).Community-Based Tourism and Socio-Culture Aspects Relating to Tourism: A Case Study of a Swedish Student Excursion to Babati (Tanzania). A report on environment and development in Sodertourns University.
• Astleithner, F., Hamedinger, A., Holman, N. and Rydin, Y. (2004): Institution and Indicators – The Discourse about Indicators in the Context of Sustainability. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, Vol. 19, Iss. 1, pp7-24

· Ayeni, D.A. and Ebohon, O.J. (2012).Exploring Sustainable Tourism in Nigeria for Developmental Growth. European Scientific Journal, Vol. 8, No. 20, pp 126-140

• Brohman J. (1996): New Directions for Tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 23, No 1, pp48-70
• Datanonym (2018).States of states data; Ekiti State (Rate of Unemployment).Retrieved from http://yourbudgit.com/dataportal/states/Ekiti
• Eide, D (2013). Innovation within and between tourism firms. In Lindberg, F. (eds.) Innovation and Value Creation in Experience-Based Tourism. The 22^nd Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Bodo and Lofoten Islands, Sept. 24-27, 2013 pp 11-14
• George, O. and Erick, V. (2012): Integrating Tourism with Rural Development Strategies in Western Kenya. American Journal of Tourism Research, 1, No 1, pp1-8
• Harwood, S. (2010). Planning for Community-Based Tourism in a Remote Location. Sustainability 2012, No. 2, pp 1909-1923
• Hatton M. (1999): Community Based Tourism in the Asia Pacific. Ontario/CTC/APEC School of Media Studies, Humber College

· Ibimilua, A.F. and Ibimilua, F.O. (2015). Rural Tourism in Ekiti State, Nigeria: Issues, Trajectories. Opportunities Entrepreneurship and Implications for Rural Business Development.American Journal of Tourism Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 18-25.

• Ijasan, K.C. and Izobo, M.O. (2012). Assessing Community engagement in Tourism Planning and Development in Nigeria: A Case Study of Arinta Waterfall Tourist Resort, Ipole Iloro, Ekiti State. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp 11-20
• Kaushal, N. (2017). How tourism can create jobs, exports, and GDP growth and better brand India. Economic Times in ET Commentary, India
• Khathi, M.G. (2001). Investigating the potential for job creation in the tourism industry with particular reference to disadvantaged communities. Economy Policy Research Institute.
• Kiper, T. (2013): Role of Ecotourism in Sustainable Development. Advances in Landscape Architecture, 2, No 1, pp773-801
• Liedewij V. B. (2013): Community-Based Tourism: Local Participation and Perceived Impacts, A Comparative Study Between Two Communities in Thailand. A Master’s Thesis Submitted to Radburd University, Nijmegen
• Lopez-Guzman, T., Borges, O. and Cerezo, J.M. (2010).Community-Based tourism and local socio-economic development; a case study in Cape Verde.African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 1608-1617
• Lucchetti V.G. and Font X. (2013): Community Based Tourism: Critical Success Factors. The International Centre for Responsible Tourism Review, pp1-21.
• Masip, J.D. (2006). Tourism product development: a way to create value, the case of La Vall de Lord.Datzira Develoment Services, Barcelona
• Michael H., Victor K. and Michael P. (2008): Introduction: Tourism in Southeast Asia Revisited. In Tourism in Southeast Asia: Challenges and New Direction, Michael H., Victor K. and Michael P. (Ed). Malaysia pp1-3
• Munier, N. (2005): Introduction to Sustainability. Dorgrecht, Netherlands, Springer
• Musa, G.M., and Mary P (2017): Relationship between Tourism and Local Community Development in Terms of Health in Arusha Region, Tanzania. European Journal of Business and Management 9, No 3, pp67-75
• Newman, P. and Jennings, I. (2008): Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. Washington DC; Island Press.
• Okosun, S.E. and Olujimi, J.A.E. (2016).Assessment of Local Government Council and Community-Based Development Associations in the Provision of Infrastructure in Ilawe Ekiti, Nigeria. In Ebohon, O.J., Ayeni, D.A., Egbu, C.O. and Omole, F.K. Proceedings of the Joint International Conference (JIC) on 21^st Century Human Habitat: Issues, Sustainability and Development. 21-24 March 2016, Akure, Nigeria.Pp1467-1483.
• Omotoba N.I. (2015): Facilities Availability and Tourists’ Satisfaction of Cultural Festivals in Ekiti State, Nigeria. The American Journal of Innovative Research and Applied Sciences, Vol. 1, No 8, pp280-293
• Omotoba, N.I., Omotoso, O. and Igbalajobi, O.J. (2016).An Assessment of Government and Heritage Custodians Roles in the Development of Cultural Tourism in Ekiti State, Nigeria.In Connecting Research to Society for National Development. Book of Proceedings for 3^rd EKSU International Conference and Research Fair between 19^th and 21^st of September, 2016. Office of Research and Development, EKSU, Ado Ekiti. Pp 7-11.
• Rada, E., Zatelli, C. and Mattolin, P. (2014). Municipal solid waste selective collection and tourism. Waste Management,180, pp 187-197, 2014
• Sachin P., Menon N.R., Sankaranarayanan K.C. and Arunachalan P. (2014): Community Based Coastal Tourism: A Case Study of Kadalundi Vallikunnu Community Reserve. International Journal of Economic Issues 1, No 1, pp101-121
• Sebele, S.L. (2005). The Social Impacts of Community-Based Tourism: A Case Study of Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust in the Central District of Botswana. A dissertation submitted to the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
• Tamir, M. (2015). Challenges and Opportunities of Community-Based Tourism Development in Awi Zone: A Case Study of Guagusa and Banja Woredas, Ethiopia. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Sports Vol. 11, pp 50-78
• Yeri, L. (2012): Indicators for Sustainability: How Cities are Monitoring and Evaluating their Success. Canadian International Development Agency, Canada.