Qualitative study reports that tourism influences well-being in local residents, highlighting inequities and barriers in Bwindi's protected areas.
Background: Protected areas (PAs) increasingly aim to balance biodiversity conservation with community well-being. Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP), a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, a sanctuary for mountain gorillas, exemplifies this tension, having displaced indigenous Batwa communities while promoting tourism-driven growth. Aim: This study examines how tourism influences residents’ well-being and identifies systemic barriers to equitable benefit-sharing in BINP peripheral areas. Setting: Focused on Mukono – one of the 27 parishes bordering BINP – the research highlights a region marked by subsistence farming, tourism-driven infrastructure and soaring land prices, disproportionately affecting marginalised groups like the Batwa. Methods: The qualitative case study integrated semi-structured interviews (n = 70) and Likert-scale surveys with long-term residents, complemented by gender-responsive follow-ups. Thematic analysis applied biocultural, capabilities and multidimensional well-being frameworks. Results: Tourism bolstered livelihoods through jobs, infrastructure and global visibility but intensified inequalities via land displacement, rising costs and exclusion from high-skilled jobs. Residents prioritised well-being as basic needs, economic stability, social respect and spiritual health, yet structural barriers – limited education, landlessness and gender categorisation – constrained access to opportunities. Conclusion: While tourism fosters growth, equitable outcomes require policies to address systemic inequities. Contribution: The study advances inclusive tourism and conservation scholarship by centring local voices, advocating for gender-responsive programmes, land rights reform and participatory governance to align tourism with community values and justice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Ssebaggala (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: