Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia

Munukayumbwa Munyima; Gift Masaiti; Jason Mwanza

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia

Munukayumbwa Munyima^*

, Gift Masaiti

, Jason Mwanza

Published in International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 11, Issue 4)

Received: 4 September 2025 Accepted: 17 September 2025 Published: 17 October 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This article is based on the findings of a study that was carried out around Lake Kashiba in Mpongwe district of Zambia. In this article it is argued that there is a plethora of cultural heritage elements in Zambia. More than three quarters of these constitute the main tourist attraction and are ubiquitously located in rural parts of the country. This presents great potential for such communities to participate in local economic activities through tourism. The article used qualitative data obtained through field interviews with 79 participants and 2 focus group discussions. From the study findings, six themes namely: plethora of heritage elements; sustainability of heritage for tourism; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits emerged. Findings reveal that while there is great potential for cultural heritage based tourism to contribute to economic growth of rural areas hardly any economic benefits are realised by the local communities. This, to a large extent, could be attributed the lack of local community participation in tourism. The lack of local community participation and the resulting absence of economic benefits from tourism could be attributed to six main barriers namely: unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths. For economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism in rural areas to be realised, there is a need for supportive government policies and political will that would facilitate the participation of the local communities in the related activities. Such policies should prioritize the creation of awareness about the economic value of cultural heritage tourism among the concerned rural communities and building local capacity for their effective participation.

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 11, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
Page(s)	188-201
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Economic Activities, Heritage Based Tourism, Rural Communities, Tourists

1. Introduction and Background

After the COVID-19 pandemic during the period 2019 to 2020, the tourism industry’s contribution to global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had nearly doubled from 5.3 percent in 2020 to 9.1 percent in 2023

[1, 2]

. In the same period, Zambia’s tourism contribution to GDP more than doubled from 4.3 percent to over 9.0 percent

[3, 4]

. Ironically, despite this increase, tourist activities in rural parts of Zambia have remained economically unbeneficial to local communities. This paper is an extract from findings of a study titled “Economic benefits through cultural heritage tourism: A theoretical and technical account of local communities around Lake Kashiba in Zambia” that was carried out in 2021. The paper focuses on three objectives. First, to understand the nature of heritage based tourist attractions in Zambia. Second, to establish the potential economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism at Lake Kashiba. Third is to identify factors that may limit economic benefits from heritage based tourism for communities in rural areas.

Despite evidence of rural communities possessing rich cultural heritage with great economic potential through tourism, subsistence farming remains their preferred source of livelihood

[5-7]

. In Zambia, more than three quarters of main tourist attractions are cultural heritage based and located in rural parts of the country. This implies that such tourist attractions have been passed on from one generation to the next as an inheritance and yet the concerned local communities have hardly benefited from the economic potential of the tourism industry. Some studies have blamed this situation on government policies that do not promote the participation of rural communities in tourism activities

[8]

. In a number of instances, however, the situation is exacerbated by the absence of or inadequate awareness programmes to enlighten rural communities about the role that tourism based on local heritage resources could play in improving their economic situation. Elsewhere, evidence has shown that if economic activities around tourist destinations in rural areas are strategically integrated in the local tourism industry, concerned communities would have an idea about how they could engage in beneficial tourism-driven economic activities

[9-12]

. In Zambia, however, the government has taken a neoliberal orthodox approach that assumes that macroeconomic benefits from tourism in various parts of the country would eventually trickle down to the local communities

[11]

. This is, it is assumed, would be through a multiple of channels that include employment, public welfare and family networks, Therefore, to effectively deal with this uncertainty, it is the intention of this article to establish how rural communities could directly benefit economically from tourism through their existing cultural heritage endowment.

The article is arranged in four main parts. The first part is the study method and design, followed by findings, and then discussion. The last part is the conclusion and recommendations.

2. Study Method and Design

This article is informed by a descriptive narrative study that was carried out at Lake Kashiba that is found in Mpongwe, one of the rural districts on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. The lake is located some 154 Kilometres (Km) away from Ndola the provincial capital of Copperbelt province, 295Km from Lusaka the capital city of Zambia, and 772Km from Livingstone, the tourist capital of Zambia. Data was obtained through qualitative research that involved in-depth interviews with individual participants and two focus group discussion sessions with “custodians of culture” and “key stakeholders” in line with guidelines in the approved research ethnical clearance. To lay a foundation for the key finds, literature review and past work experience informed the first part detailing the nature of heritage based tourist destinations in Zambia. The rest of the findings are based on descriptive narratives collected from 79 in-depth interviews (IDI) participants and 10 others that participated in focus group discussion (FGD) as shown in Table 1. Transect walks by the researchers also helped to validate certain information given by participants.

Table 1. Description and number of study participants.

Category of participants	Number in IDI	Number in FGD	Total number
Organisations
Custodians of culture	4	4	8
Key stakeholders	23	6	29
Local community	25	-	25
Site attendants	2	-	2
Tourists	25	-	25
Total	79	10	89

Source: Field data, 2021

3. Findings

To put the economic potential of heritage tourism in rural areas into perspective, this article begins with a brief description of the nature of heritage based tourist attractions that were open for tourism in Zambia. The description of these sites is in terms of type, location and number of visitors received shortly before and after COVID-19. This description is based on a review of literature and personal past work experience. After the description, findings on potential economic benefits of cultural heritage based tourism are presented. The last part of this section presents factors that may limit local community economic benefits from heritage tourism.

3.1. Heritage Based Tourist Attractions

A review of literature has revealed that tourist attractions all over the world come in various forms that range from natural and anthropogenic features, to cultural elements and special events as well as interests

[13, 14]

. Of interest in this article are anthropogenic features and cultural elements that can all be classified as heritage based tourism attractions. Such attractions could further be grouped into two categories of either urban based heritage tourist attractions or rural based heritage tourist attractions.

Heritage tourist attractions that form the bedrock of rural tourism are the subject of this sub-section. The United Nations World Tourism Organisation describes “rural tourism” as that in which the visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature based activities, agriculture, cultural lifestyles, angling and sightseeing

[15]

. A majority of these attractions are founded on resources that have been inherited from one generation to another and this makes community ownership of such resources unquestionable. Zambia has registered over 4000 heritage elements or resources with potential to attract both scholarly and leisure visitors

[16]

. These resources are in form of cultural and natural attractions that are scattered in various parts of the country and therefore provide great economic opportunities as low laying fruits through sustainable tourism at such destinations. In Zambia, tourist attractions that are open to the public are either managed in-situ by the National Heritage Conservation Commission as declared national monuments or by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife as wildlife game parks, all under the authority of Ministry of Tourism. The focus of this section is on attractions that are in form of cultural or cultural related natural heritage that can attract tourists to rural destinations such as Lake Kashiba area over long-term. Attractions of cultural nature include both tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage elements.

3.1.1. Tangible Cultural Heritage Attractions

Tangible cultural heritage includes moveable elements such as sculptures, furniture, food, regalia, beverages, farm produce, working apparatus, instruments, artefacts, etc., and immovable elements such as buildings, shrines, historical sites, landscapes, water features, etc., associated with a particular community that have been passed on from generation to generation

[17, 18]

. All the over 4000 heritage elements on the national register in Zambia are of tangible heritage nature. Out of this number, only 26 were found to be officially open for tourism. Whether registered by the state or not, heritage resources (both cultural and natural), are common in every rural part of the country. As such, they present great potential of contributing to economic activities of such areas through tourism. This is more especially because rural tourist destinations are characterised by limited economic activities outside subsistence farming

[20-22]

. While there is no standard definition of what a rural area is, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) provides guidelines that helped to describe actual locations and nature of such areas. According to FAO

[23]

, what makes a place rural might be its sparse population, its proximity to town or city facilities or its location in a forest or farming community. Lake Kashiba is located in Mpongwe, a district fitting the description of a rural area, and therefore, heritage resources would be the main tourist attractions of that destination.

With 22 out of the 26 heritage sites that were found to be open for tourism being located in rural areas and showed great potential to attract increasing numbers of tourists

[16, 24-26]

, the tourism industry could leverage common economic activities of communities around such areas. Table 2 shows that all rural tourist destinations, except Chishimba Falls in Kasama district and Kundalila Falls in Serenje district, recorded an increase in the number of tourists after the COVID-19 pandemic period of 2020. However, the same table also presents a strange pattern in visitor numbers for Mutanda Falls, Nachikufu Falls and Nyambwezu Falls that recorded an increase in 2021 after the COVID-19 period but experienced a reduction in the year 2022. Many factors could have contributed to this scenario, but the general picture from the statistics show great potential for tourism growth at all rural tourist destinations in Zambia after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The evidence above indicates that with over 4000 heritage elements registered by the government and those that have not yet been registered in all parts of the country, the 26 that are open for tourism are a drop in the ocean. Therefore, this area possesses long-term and sustainable economic potential for tourism.

Table 2. Tourist numbers at heritage based destinations in Zambia (2020-2022).

S/n	Site Name	Type of attraction (cultural/natural)	District of location	Location: (Rural / Urban)	Number of visitor
S/n	Site Name	Type of attraction (cultural/natural)	District of location	Location: (Rural / Urban)	2020	2021	2022
1.	Chilambwe Falls	Natural	Kaputa	Rural	226	440	395
2.	Chilenje House	Cultural	Lusaka	Urban	524	556	1468
3.	Chinyunyu Hotspring	Natural	Rufunsa	Rural	3635	5396	5993
4.	Chipoma Falls	Natural	Mkushi	Rural	620	1079	1199
5.	Chishimba Falls	Natural	Kasama	Rural	7307	7081	9396
6.	Dag Hammarskjold	Cultural	Ndola	Rural	389	1490	2816
7.	David Livingstone	Cultural	Mpika	Rural	-	-	278
8.	Ingombe Ilede	Cultural	Chirundu	Rural	159	292	567
9.	Kalambo Falls	Natural	Mbala	Rural	1478	1658	1867
10.	Kifubwa	Cultural	Solwezi	Rural	1946	2130	2820
11.	Kundabwika Falls	Natural	Kaputa	Rural	135	187	197
12.	Kundalila Falls	Natural	Serenje	Rural	1253	381	1556
13.	Lake Kashiba	Natural	Mpongwe	Rural	566	721	648
14.	Lufubu Falls	Natural	Luwingu	Rural	599	1030	698
15.	Lumangwe Falls	Natural	Mporokoso	Rural	945	983	1248
16.	Mumbuluma Falls	Natural	Mansa	Rural	2059	2582	2612
17.	Mutanda Falls	Natural	Kalumbila	Rural	63	113	96
18.	Mwela Rock	Cultural	Kasama	Rural	1224	1409	2009
19.	Nachikufu Cave	Cultural	Mpika	Rural	166	264	133
20.	Ntumbacushi Falls	Natural	Kawambwa	Rural	2833	4697	3485
21.	Nyambwezu Falls	Natural	Mwinilunga	Rural	88	174	107
22.	Presidential Burial Site	Cultural	Lusaka	Urban	2478	3800	6723
23.	Railway Museum	Cultural	Livingstone	Urban	724	-	-
24.	Victoria Falls	Natural	Livingstone	Rural	86308	88915	167236
25.	Von Lettow Vorbeck	Cultural	Mbala	Urban	51	77	37
26.	Zambezi Source	Natural	Ikelenge	Rural	1	895	758

Source: Compiled from National Heritage Conservation Commission visitor statistics for 2019-2022.

3.1.2. Intangible Cultural Heritage Attractions

The meaning and significance of tangible cultural heritage is imbedded in the intangible aspects assigned to it by society and that constitutes intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage includes traditional beliefs, social practices, performing arts, indigenous knowledge, traditional skills, festive events, etc., of a particular community that have been passed on from one generation to the next

[17-19]

. Unlike the tangible cultural heritage that is officially documented and managed by the National Heritage Conservation Commission, intangible cultural heritage is not. It is merely implied in the meaning associated with tangible cultural heritage. Although not separately documented and managed, intangible cultural heritage elements are numerous in all parts of Zambia and they could stand alone or compliment the tangible cultural elements to attract tourists to rural parts of the country. This implies that, offering more of the many heritage elements for tourism over a long-term could sustainably boost economic activities in rural areas where the majority of this type of attractions are located.

From the findings in this section, two themes have emerged, namely: plethora of heritage elements; and sustainability of heritage for tourism.

3.2. Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Tourism

Findings from focus group discussions (FGD) with “key stakeholders” and “custodians of the local culture and traditions” as well as those from in-depth interviews (IDI) with individual “local community” participants revealed that Lake Kashiba area did not have sufficient resources that could provide economic benefits to locals. The general perspective was that there may be some economic potential in some local resources but that aspect was however not widely recognised by locals. For example, there were some misgivings about prospects for employment as only two people were employed at that tourist attraction. Therefore, additional facilities would be required to attract more visitors so as to create more employment opportunities for locals. This fact was reported by a number of participants but emphasised by one of them in the verbatim narration below.

“Yes, Lake Kashiba has economic value, but we need additional facilities to attract more visitors” (Male ‘Custodians’ FGD participant).

It was further revealed that the rest of the employment opportunities that existed were in form of uncertain and irregular piece-work, such as guarding motor vehicles for visitors; tour guiding; fetching firewood for visitors; and serving as luggage porters at a fee. However, in the long-term, if the number of tourists to the area increased, the local community anticipated to have more employment opportunities linked to tourism. They categorised these opportunities in two phases. The first phase was for short-term employment such bricklayers, drivers, cleaners, equipment operators, etc. Such opportunities would arise during construction of facilities to cater for the increasing number of tourists. These were however considered to be insignificant. Significant economic opportunities would be in the second phase when long-term employment would arise during the operation of the facilities. Employment opportunities in this phase would include bar attendants, cooks, drivers, house keepers, etc. Current piece-work, anticipated short-term, and long-term employment opportunities reported are in Table 3.

Table 3. Current and anticipated employment opportunities.

Currently (Piece-work only)

Employment at construction phase (Short-term)

Employment at operation phase (Long-term)

Guarding motor vehicles

Tour guiding

Fetching firewood

Luggage porter services

Bricklayers

Casual Labourers

Cleaners

Drivers

Equipment Operators

Security guards

Carpenters

Bar attendants

Cooks

Drivers

Gardeners

House Keepers

Laundry attendants

Porters

Receptionist

Security Guards

Tour Guides

Waiters/Waitresses

From this finding it is evident that employment opportunities is an emerging theme relating to potential economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism.

Apart from the possibility of being employed in the tourism sector, local community and key stakeholder participants showed ignorance about what other economic opportunities they could benefit from. After giving them a few examples of other possibilities on how they could utilise their cultural heritage for economic benefit through tourism, they opened up and revealed a huge potential in this aspect. This potential included the sale of various cultural heritage elements which could have a long value chain as this aspect involved a wide spectrum of the local community at different stages that include the youth, women and the elderly. Therefore one of the key findings relates to community involvement in business activities. Opportunities for doing business, particularly selling merchandise to tourists were considered to be among the viable means by which the local community could benefit economically. The merchandise mostly reported were traditional handicrafts and foods as well as beverages; firewood; and farm produce.

Findings further show that the local community were willing to vend some aspects of their cultural heritage in form of entertainment and services as well as sharing their cultural history for their economic benefit.

With regard to entertainment, the community was willing to establish cultural dance troupes that would perform for tourists at a fee. Other forms of entertainment were traditional ceremonies such as Chalilamulimba which is associated with the local Lamba/Lima royal establishment. It was further revealed that performance of Chalilamulimba ceremony and other traditional events at a venue with permanent structures would significantly increase visibility of Lake Kashiba as a tourist destination. Such visibility would increase opportunities for locals to sell their traditional products and foods to tourists in an organised fashion and thereby enabling them to benefit economically from tourism.

Cultural heritage services that were reported include the provision of traditional forms of accommodation commonly known as Ulwewo for over-night tourists as well as conducting guided tours at a fee. Locally conducted and guided tours to a local forest known as Manda Mushitu that is believed to have some cultural heritage significance is an aspect that was highly recommended for tourists to that area. Another service that was reported to have potential for business was the sharing of local knowledge and skills at a fee. The knowledge about medicines and medicinal plants as well as the knowledge of culinary and gastronomic practices were highlighted for such a business. Skills in the making of tools and equipment such as in blacksmithing and also in performing tasks such as the making of fire were also identified to have the potential for economic benefits to the local community.

The local cultural history regarding the legend of Abena Mbushi was reported to be a viable element of cultural heritage tourism at Lake Kashiba. The Abena Mbushi story is a legend about a local clan whose ancestors are believed to have committed mass suicide by drowning themselves in Lake Kashiba after family misunderstandings. While the lack may be considered to be an ancestral shrine by some current members of the Abena Mbushi clan, its story could be a significant selling aspect of the tourist product at Lake Kashiba.

Therefore, these findings present business opportunities as one of the themes emerging from potential economic benefits of cultural tourism.

Another key finding was that members of the local community through their customary laws owned most of the land around Lake Kashiba. Through IDI and FGD, the communities revealed how they envisaged to economically benefit from tourism at Lake Kashiba by providing land to investors at that destination. This was in fact considered to be surest way for the locals to have significant economic benefits from tourism as emphasised by a participant from Shamaoma village in quotation below.

“Traditional leaders should provide land for people that may want to invest in tourism at and around Kashiba and they should put in place a system where when one sells the land the traditional leadership and the community as a whole receives benefits” (Female ‘local community’ IDI participant).

Considering the limited economic opportunities for the local community, selling or leasing of land to investors could be motivated by short term family economic needs. Regardless of the motive for selling or leasing the land, it is undeniable that investments that would result from such land could be vital to creating employment and business opportunities from which the local community would benefit over the long-term.

It is therefore clear from this finding that leasing and/or selling of land is among the emerging themes from the potential economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism.

3.3. Factors Limiting Economic Benefits from Heritage Tourism

Despite revealing a number of potential economic benefits from which they could benefit through cultural heritage tourism the community raised concerns about obstacles that could limit or prevent such benefits. The major concern limiting the possibility of the community benefiting from tourism was the exclusive management of Lake Kashiba as National Monument by the National Heritage Conservation Commission. The community was totally excluded from the management of the tourist attraction alongside which they have lived for many generations. A search of literature revealed that this limitation could be attributed to the fact that both the National Heritage Conservation Commission Act, Chapter 173 of the laws of Zambia and the National Heritage Policy do not support the participation or provision of any tourism related economic benefits to concerned local communities. This finding implies that existing policies are unfavourable to local community participation and thereby denying them the possibility of benefiting from rural tourism.

In addition to the exclusion of the community from managing and benefiting from tourism, a number of other possible limiting factors were postulated. These include limited employment opportunities; limited business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive myths.

Employment opportunities in tourism were limited due to the fact that only two positions of site attendant were provided for the National heritage Conservation Commission organisation structure. Business opportunities were limited by the low number and short stay of tourists visiting the destination that translated into low revenue collections. Poor state of infrastructure particularly in relation to the access road was reported to be the main contributing factor to the low number of tourists visiting. It was further revealed that the few tourists that were able to make it to the destination, regardless of the poor state of the road, were also discouraged from staying long because of poor or non-availability of visitor facilities such as shelters, and toilets. Uncodified land tenure meant that locals were unable to lease out land, sell land to or use land as shareholding to partner with investors in tourism and there by denying them an opportunity to benefit economically.

This finding has revealed barriers to tourism economic benefits as an emerging theme on factors limiting economic benefits from heritage tourism.

4. Discussion of Key Findings

From the findings section a total of seven themes have emerged, namely: plethora of heritage elements; potential to attract tourists; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits. It is along these themes that the discussion section is arranged.

4.1. Plethora of Heritage Elements

With more than 4000 heritage elements recorded on the national register, Zambia has a plethora of heritage elements. These elements are in tangible and immovable form and therefore in-situ with mostly, rural communities living alongside them. As there are communities living alongside the tangible heritage elements it is inevitable that they have intangible cultural heritage aspects associated with them in the form of beliefs, social practices, performing arts, indigenous knowledge, traditional skills, festive events that have been passed on from one generation to the next

[17, 19]

. A combination of the tangible and intangible heritage elements present cultural heritage resources with unique potential to attract tourists to many rural parts of the country over a long period of time and in a sustainable manner.

4.2. Sustainability of Heritage for Tourism

In order for cultural heritage tourism to have sustainable long-term economic benefits, it must be valorised and appreciated as such by the concerned local communities. For such economic benefits to be sustainable, this paper suggests a four-stage cycle that could be critical. The suggested cycle would include four stage namely: cultural heritage safeguarding; valorisation of cultural heritage; economic benefits from cultural heritage; and transmission of cultural heritage, as demonstrated in Figure 1.

Source: Generated from field study findings, 2022

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Cultural heritage safeguarding for tourism cycle.

Cultural heritage safeguarding

For cultural heritage of the local community to continue to exist and play a role in rural tourism it ought to be safeguarded for the current and future generation. It is generally believed that the people that live in a community have more knowledge on how to regenerate ideas, efforts and resources to invigorate their cultural activities

[27]

. It is such ideas, efforts and resources of the concerned community that are needed to safeguard the local cultural heritage both in its intangible and tangible form for the related tourism to be sustained.

Valorisation of cultural heritage

Valorising the cultural heritage of the local community around Lake Kashiba would bring out desirable economic benefits for the concerned people. Valorisation of the local cultural heritage may help, not only to bring about economic benefits for rural communities, but also to motivate young generations to learn and preserve their culture and ensuring its continued existence

[10]

Economic benefits from tourism

Economic benefits from the safeguarding and utilising the local cultural heritage for tourism would have a positive impact on the lives of the local communities, from the young to the old and this would increase interest in the local heritage. Increased interest in the local cultural heritage among rural communities would ensure continuation of heritage based tourism activities for economic benefits even in posterity

[20, 28, 29]

. For this reason, tourism development has been accepted in many developing countries as an important tool for reducing poverty in rural areas

[30]

Transmission of cultural heritage

While culture is considered to be the oldest aspect of tourism,

[30-33]

it can only continue to play this role if it is transmitted from the old to the young generation. In this regard, economic benefits from cultural heritage based tourism would catalyse transmission of the local cultural heritage from generation to generation. Therefore, the role of cultural heritage as a tourist product, could present an opportunity for tourism related economic activities in rural areas to take place throughout the year.

The suggested cycle would in fact be in line with a number of theories that consider rural tourism development to be a process with different stages of growth

[34-36]

4.3. Employment Opportunities

The most anticipated form of economic benefit was employment opportunities. This finding is in agreement with a number of studies that have shown that the main economic contribution of rural tourism is expressed in terms of employment opportunities

[37-39]

. However, possible employment opportunities in such areas may not necessarily be restricted to aspects related to heritage based tourism but rather extend to spinoffs. While study participants were focusing on jobs such as guarding motor vehicles and carrying luggage in the short term, their long-term focus was on providing casual labour during construction of tourist facilities as well as working as cleaners or guards at the same facilities when they begin to operate.

The overall focus of the rural communities regarding employment is usually on the unskilled to semi-skilled jobs, which Giampiccoli

[10]

refers to as low profile jobs, regardless of whether such were cultural tourism related or not. However, in the present case, very few members of the local community would benefit from such employment opportunities. This is because at Lake Kashiba, tourist facilities that would provide services for which the locals could qualified are very few. This is because, as a number of studies have revealed, the lack of skills among rural communities has remained a factor in their employability

[40-42]

. This situation could be attributed mainly to limited access to quality education for the children of such communities.

Regardless of the number of and type of such facilities available at a rural destination, if they would result in increased numbers of tourists visiting the area, more economic opportunities than just employment would be created for the local communities and this would include business opportunities, a subject that is discussed in the next sub-section.

4.4. Business Opportunities

From the findings, perhaps the aspect with a wide and far reaching potential for long-term economic empowerment is business opportunities. Studies have shown that business opportunities of direct and far reaching economic benefits for rural communities would include the sale of tangible elements and intangible elements of their cultural heritage

[37, 43]

. At Lake Kashiba, their tangible cultural heritage elements would be in the form of handicrafts, food and beverages. Intangible cultural heritage elements would be in form of exposing tourists to the local culture through music and dance and sharing of the indigenous knowledge and skills. The legend of Abena Mbushi and the Chalilamulimba traditional ceremony would certainly be key aspects of the local intangible cultural heritage to be sold for tourism at that destination. Such a situation would be a positive contribution towards Zambia’s Eighth National Development Plan’s

[44]

focused on economic transformation and job creation through tourism.

The sale of cultural heritage elements in all forms for tourism could have multiple economic benefits to the local community through what is known as multiplier effect. Multiplier effect is an economics principle that has been defined differently by scholars

[45-47]

but suffice to simply say it is the change that takes place when an economic activity increases or decreases correspondingly affects other economic activities in a given environment. The easiest formula to calculate multiplier effects could be that adopted from Navi

[48]

as follows:

K =

\frac{1}{1 - MPC}

K =

\frac{1}{MPS}

K = Multiplier effect; MPC = Marginal Propensity to Consume (change in consumption resulting from an increase in earnings); and MPS = Marginal Propensity to Save (change in savings resulting from an increase in earnings).

This implies that by providing their local cultural heritage resources for tourism purposes, the local community around Lake Kashiba, through multiplier effects, would inadvertently introduce additional streams of income from tourists that used to come, strictly, to view the lake. Such streams of income would include the sale of cultural products and services, farm produce and an increase in returns on merchandise such as groceries. This would have a corresponding effect on many sectors such as agriculture, transport, and commerce from the local to district and to national levels.

4.5. Leasing and Selling of Land

There is no doubt that leasing and selling of customary land could have long-term economic benefits for rural communities. This is because the land sold to investors by local communities may just undergo change of use and most probably in a gainful way by value addition through capital investments. The Zambian government has provided for such investment in the country’s Tourism Investment Guide. This guide has identified and allocated 30 hectares of land around Lake Kashiba for private investment in the development of tourist facilities and amenities

[49]

. When such tourism development take place, it comes along with employment and business opportunities that can provide long-term economic opportunities for the concerned community. In South Africa, Mahony and Zyl

[50]

carried out a study that showed how three tourism projects, namely: Makuleke Tourism Initiative; Umngazi River Bungalows and Manyeleti Game Reserve helped to improve the livelihoods of rural communities and contribute to rural economic development. However, for rural communities to realise significant benefits from their land, either by leasing or selling, they need to secure title as a cooperation, association or individually to guarantee security of tenure.

While employment and business opportunities as well as the lease/selling of land have great economic potential to benefits local communities through tourism, findings revealed barriers that could limit or prevent this to happen as discussed in the next sub-section.

4.6. Barriers to Tourism Economic Benefits

Significant barriers identified in this study relate to unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths.

Unfavourable government policies

Unfavourable government policies on community based tourism in rural areas was identified to be a barrier to rural communities benefiting from locally generated revenue

[51, 52]

. Existing policies only seem to be beneficial to communities that live near wildlife national parks. This is intended to keep such communities from uncontrolled hunting (commonly referred to as poaching) of animals in Game Management Areas

[8]

. For the rest of the communities living around tourism attractions other than wildlife National Parks, benefits from direct tourism revenue may only be realised upon revision of applicable government policies. It is therefore hoped that the National Tourism Policy

[53]

will be effective in including the beneficial participation of local communities at tourist destinations. This is because studies have shown that failure to include cultural heritage interests and needs of local communities in local tourism development plans, makes it difficult to successfully develop rural tourism

[54-56]

Inadequate employment opportunities

Limited employment opportunities has been identified to be another significant barrier to formal employment among rural communities at rural tourist destinations. For Lake Kashiba, as is the case with many other rural areas, this could been attributed to the lack of skills resulting from limited access to quality education for the children in such areas

[40-42]

. Anecdotal sources of information have shown that employment in the National Heritage Conservation Commission requires minimum qualification of Grade 12 certificate and only two of such opportunities exist at Lake Kashiba

[57]

. A study by Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

[58]

established that a low number of available employment opportunities has a causal effect on the outflow of youth from rural to urban areas. This implies that the majority of children with the said qualifications migrate to urban areas where there are more employment and career development opportunities, leaving behind only those without the required qualifications. Without quality education, rural communities are not only left without skills, but also without knowledge and awareness of tourism and, as Paimin et al,

[42]

suggest, this limits the capacity of locals to effectively participate in the tourism industry through formal employment.

Inadequate business opportunities

While studies have shown that rural tourism can attract business opportunities

[40-42]

, findings of this study are compelling to argue that the low numbers of visitors to Lake Kashiba are not significant enough to have a positive impact on local businesses. As a result, this places limitations on the financial muscle of the local communities. Inadequate financial resources could in turn be a limiting factor to local community engagement in running business. This is in consonant with studies suggesting that the lack of financial resources for investment is one of the factors negatively affecting business opportunities in rural communities

[59, 60]

. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of the tourists that visit rural tourist attractions are often of low budget

[61, 62]

. Low spending tourists bring insufficient revenue to a destination and that in turn translates into inadequate financial resources available for the concerned local communities to invest and benefit from existing business opportunities.

Poor state of infrastructure

The poor state of the road from Mpongwe Township to Lake Kashiba and substandard visitor facilities such as visitor’ shelters and toilets were considered to be contributing to the relatively low number of tourists visiting that destination. This is in line with Rostov’s economic development theory that suggests that two main factors, namely: infrastructure development and capital investments, have an influence tourism development

[58]

. With a poor access road and visitor facilities, a rural destination such as Lake Kashiba has a slim chance of attracting tourists of high income levels. Studies have shown that people’s income levels, age and sex are variables affecting travel expenditure patterns

[63-65]

. Therefore, the low number of visitors from low income groups may translate into low revenue from tourism. This, in turn, could have a negative impact on the local community’s perception of tourism as a viable economic activity for that destination. The poor state of the access road, particularly, has a causal effect on employment and business opportunities as investment levels in such area would remain low and insignificant. Ultimately, this limits the market for economic activities such as farming, fishing, cultural performances, and the local Chalilamulimba traditional ceremony that could support tourism around Lake Kashiba.

This finding points to the fact that tourism in rural areas and provision of infrastructure may actually have a symbiotic relationship. Implying that while on one hand, tourism can attract provision of infrastructure, on the other hand, availability of infrastructure to and at a tourism destination could also attract more tourists. This presents the metaphorical egg and chicken situation that ought to be considered in the tourism development planning process.

Uncodified land tenure

The lack of title to land around Lake Kashiba could be a limiting factor to selling or leasing out of the land outside the gazetted Lake Kashiba National Monument area. This because the rest of the land is classified as customary and therefore regulated by the local ethnic chiefs. In Zambia, all land is vested in the President of the country

[66]

. However, the country recognised a dual system of land ownership, namely customary tenure and title registration tenure. The customary tenure system lacks codification and therefore does not provide security of tenure which is essential for any meaningful investment on the land

[67, 68]

. The lack of codification has proved to be a barrier to selling or leasing out land to potential investors as it has left members of rural communities without the capacity to negotiate partnership for investments.

Restrictive local myths

While myths surrounding Lake Kashiba such as those surround the Abena Mbushi legend were not widely reported to be a hindrance to the recognition of its potential for tourism among the local community, they were considered to be a possible barrier to some members of the local community that would have liked to participate in heritage based tourism as an economic activity. For example local people that have strong cultural beliefs may consider Lake Kashiba to be a shrine for the ‘Abena Mbushi’ clan and are therefore likely to follow all the myths associated with the legend. Such people believe that the lake should not be disturbed by tourism activities of any kind. That notwithstanding, some studies elsewhere have shown that myths and legends, as part of a community’s intangible cultural heritage, could actually help to promote cultural tourism

[18, 69, 70]

. However, this may only be encouraged if research is conducted to deeply understand such myths so as to facilitate decision on whether or not to exhibit such elements for tourism.

4.7. Implication of Findings

These findings have a few obvious implications that are inter-connected. At the top is that with over 4000 heritage elements on the national registered, all rural communities in Zambia have great potential for cultural heritage tourism using their locally available resources. However, due to a number of reasons including policy limitations, the concerned local communities are unaware of and therefore not benefiting from this potential. This is because they are technically excluded from participating in the tourism industry by unsupportive government policies. Which implies that even if the locals were aware of the economic potential of their cultural heritage resources, their exclusion from participating in the planning, development and management of such tourist destinations would be a demotivating factor.

All the above implications have highlighted the need to conduct more studies that may reveal more meaningful ways through which rural communities could participate in tourism by use their cultural heritage to benefit economically. Using findings of such research to create awareness of the multiple economic benefits of cultural heritage and to improve policies could be a sure way to encourage effective participation of local communities in the country’s tourism industry.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

This study has established that although most communities around rural tourist destinations in Zambia have cultural heritage with great potential to contribute to the economic growth of such areas, they are mostly excluded from participating in the tourism industry. Exclusion of rural communities from the tourism industry was evidenced by the absence of tourism based economic activities reported by the concerned communities at Lake Kashiba which is one of the heritage sites that are officially open four tourism. Such a paradox should not be allowed to exist at such a destination for three main reasons. First, the fact that majority of all heritage based tourist attractions that are open to the public in Zambia are located in rural places such as Lake Kashiba presents an obvious justification for tourism to have a role to play in the local economic activities for the benefit of locals. Second, the steadily increasing number of tourists since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a key indicator of the existing economic potential of heritage based tourism at such a rural destination and this could play a significant role in improving lives of local communities. Third, the fact that although government policy has not explicitly provided for the participation of rural communities in tourism and yet the locals have identified a plethora of their heritage resources that could enable them to benefit economically from this industry is a positive indication of the possibility to create employment and business opportunities for them. Recognition of these three aspects it would not only facilitate heritage based tourism and its related economic growth at rural tourist destinations but also ensure sustainability in the development and management tourism.

It should, therefore, go without saying that heritage based tourism is a low-lying fruit that could help to promote beneficial local community participation in economic activities of rural areas in Zambia. This should be encouraged for two main reasons. First, heritage based tourism has been established to have a wide and far reaching value chain in rural areas from which many people including the youth, women and the elderly could benefit economically. Second, tourism, generally, has a multiplier effect on many sectors beginning from the local to district and to national levels that could have a positive impact on economic activities of such sectors. Therefore, it cannot be denied that participation of the local communities around Lake Kashiba through their cultural heritage is crucial to bringing about tourism driven economic activities for the benefit of that rural destination. Local community participation would bring about an understanding of that community’s cultural values together with how they are formed regarding any proposed tourism development. This aspect is essential for making decisions that would not alienate but bring about mutual benefits to the locals and the non-local proponents of development.

Overall, rural community participation in economic activities through heritage based tourism would be enhanced by conducting research on the local cultural values and traditions that may have negative effects on the potential for economic growth. Such potential could be strengthened further by making government policy provisions that would not only encourage but also facilitate local community participation in tourism. This, coupled with improved access roads and an all-inclusive marketing and promotion strategy, would not only create fertile ground for economic growth around Lake Kashiba but also attract scholarly inquiry and discourse around this topic. Both of which are essential elements for achieving sustainable tourism development in such rural areas.

Abbreviations

APEC	Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
COVID-19	Coronavirus Disease
EU	European Union
FAO	Food and Agricultural Organisation
FGD	Focus Group Discussion
GDP	Gross Domestic Product
GRZ	Government of Republic of Zambia
IDI	In-depth Interview
K	Multiplier Effect
Km	Kilometres
MPC	Marginal Propensity to Consume
MPS	Marginal Propensity to Save
NHCC	National Heritage Conservation Commission
PhD	Doctor of Philosophy
RITUR	Revista Iberoamericana de Turismo (Ibero-American Tourism Journal)
UN	United Nations
UNDP	United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO	United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNWTO	United Nations World Tourism Organisation
UNZA	University of Zambia
WTTC	World Travel and Tourism Council
ZDA	Zambia Development Agency

Acknowledgments

The PhD field study from whose findings this article has been written was jointly supported by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the University of Zambia (UNZA). The UNESCO support was obtained through funding of the UNZA project to introduce a degree programme in Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding that ran from 2018-2021. The University of Zambia support came through admission of the first author into the institution’s Staff Development Fellowship for a period of 6 years from 2017 to 2023 while he was working as a Research Fellow before he retired in 2022. From 2022 up to the present, the first author is self-sponsored. At individual level, My Research Assistant, Mr Casiano Nzala, with whom I spend 3 months in the field, is greatly appreciated. Mr Benson Njobvu, a retired UNZA Lecturer, who proofread and edited this articles is equally acknowledged.

Author Contributions

Munukayumbwa Munyima: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Gift Masaiti: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Jason Mwanza: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	WTTC, 2022. The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism, 2022. Global Trends, World Travel and Tourism Council. Accessed, November 15 2024 from: https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/dokumenti/WTTC/EIR2022-Global_Trends.pdf
[2]	WTTC, 2023. The Economic Impact of Travel and Tourism, 2023. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, World Travel and Tourism Council.
[3]	ZDA, 2024. Tourism Sector Profile, 2024. Zambia Development Agency.
[4]	African Nature Based Tourism Platform (ANBTP), 2022 Country Summary Report: Zambia, January, 2022.
[5]	Mbatha, M. W., H. Mnguni, and M. Mubecua, 2021. “Subsistence Farming as a Sustainable Livelihood Approach for Rural Communities in South Africa.” African Journal of Development Studies (AJDS), Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 55-75. https://doi.org/10.31920/2634-3649/2021/v11n3a3
[6]	Siphesihle, Q., and M. Lelethu, 2020. “Factors Affecting Subsistence Farming in Rural Areas of Nyandeni Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province.” South African Journal of Agriculture Ext, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 92-105. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2020/v48n2a540
[7]	Hüller, S., J. Heiny, and I. U. Leonhäuser, 2017. “Linking Agricultural Food Production and Rural Tourism in the Kazbegi district. A qualitative study.” Annals of Agrarian Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasci.2017.02.004
[8]	Lindsey, P., V. Nyirenda, J. Barnes, M. Becker, C. Tambling, A. Taylor, and F. Watson, 2013. Zambian Game Management Areas. Wildlife Producers Association of Zambia.
[9]	Gohori, O., and P. Merwe, 2020. Towards a Tourism and Community Development Framework: An African Perspective. Sustainability, No. 12, 5305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135305
[10]	Giampiccoli, A., and M. Saayman, 2018. “Community-based Tourism development Model and Community Participation.” African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Vol. 7, No. 4.
[11]	Bwalya-Umar, B., and K. H. Mubanga, 2016. “Do Locals benefit from being in the Tourist Capital? Views from Livingstone, Zambia.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 0 (0). Accessed 23 June 2020 from: https://www.academia.edu/28977499/Do_locals_benefit_from_being_in_the_tourist_capital_Views_from_Livingstone_Zambia
[12]	Yang, L., 2015. Tourism Development and Poverty Alleviation. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally.
[13]	Pavlovic, N., S. Medic, and A. Tesic, 2015. “Relations, Interactions and Networks of Cultural Tourism Stakeholders in Rural Areas of Vojvodina.” Economics of Agriculture. Review Article, EP (62) 2: 481-485.
[14]	Matei, F. D., 2015. “Cultural Tourism Potential as part of Rural Tourism Development in the North-East of Romania.” In: 2nd Global Conference on Business, Economics, Management and Tourism, 30-31 October 2014, Prague, Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23. Elsevier, pp 453-460.
[15]	UN Tourism. Rural Tourism. Accessed December 13 2024 from: https://www.unwto.org/rural-tourism
[16]	NHCC, 2020 (np). Visitor Statistics for 2017-2020 National Heritage Conservation Commission, Lusaka.
[17]	Linaki, E., 2018. The Definition of Intangible and Tangible Cultural Assets in Digital Technology. Journal "Sustainable Development, Culture, Traditions". Volume 1b/2018. https://doi.org/10.26341/issn.2241-4002-2018-1b-3
[18]	UNESCO, 2003. Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2016 Edition, UNESCO, Paris.
[19]	UNESCO, nd. What is meant by ‘Cultural Heritage’? Retrieved 30 July 2024 from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/
[20]	UNWTO and ILO, 2014. Measuring Employment in the Tourism Industries – Guide with Best Practices, UNWTO, Madrid.
[21]	Kruzmetra, M., B. Rivza, and L. Jeroscenckova, 2013. “Culture Heritage as Important Product of Rural Tourism.” Economic Science for Rural Development, No. 32: 83-88.
[22]	UNDP, 2011. “Discussion Paper.” Tourism and Poverty Reduction Strategies in the Integrated Framework for Least Developed Countries. United Nations Steering Committee on Tourism for Development.
[23]	FAO, 2015. Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
[24]	NHCC, 2019 (np). Annual Site Returns for 2019. National Heritage Conservation Commission.
[25]	NHCC, 2021 (np). Annual site returns for 2021. National Heritage Conservation Commission.
[26]	NHCC, 2022 (np). Visitor Statistics and Revenue at Heritage Sites, 2019-2022. National Heritage Conservation Commission, Lusaka.
[27]	Osman, M. M., and A. A. Bakar, 2011. Significance of Community Involvement in Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage.
[28]	UNWTO, 2002. Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization.
[29]	Richardson, B. R., 2010. The Contribution of Tourism to Economic Growth and Food Security. Michigan State University, Prepared for USAID Mali, Office of Economic Growth. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.97140
[30]	Tang, L., 2017. The Overview of the Origin and Research of Rural Tourism Development. 7th International Conference on Management, Education and Information. Advances in Intelligent Systems Research, Vol. 156, Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/meici-17.2017.85
[31]	Richards, G. (ed.) 2001. Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. CABI International, Wallingford. Accessed 13 October 2023 from: https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994406.0000
[32]	Richards, G. (ed.) 1996. Cultural Tourism in Europe. CABI International, Wallingford.
[33]	Gyr, U., 2010. The History of Tourism: Structures on the Path to Modernity, in European History Online (EGO), Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz. Accessed, October 13 2023 from: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/gyru-2010-en
[34]	Minga, A, B. Zhuli, and D. Marku, 2020. “The Impact of Agro-Tourism on Poverty Reduction and Welfare in the Region of Korca.” European Academic Research, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 4983-4990.
[35]	Thakuri, I. B. M. and G. Nepal, 2018. “Community Oriented-Rural Tourism Development Model.” American Economic & Social Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.46281/aesr.v2i1.149
[36]	Streimikiene, D., and Y. Bilan, 2015. “Review of Rural Tourism Development Theories." Transformations in Business & Economics, Guest Editorial, Vol. 14, No. 2 (35), pp. 21-34.
[37]	Masilela, N, 2023. “Cultural Tourism in South Africa: A Case Study of the Experiences of Employees.” African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 326-338.
[38]	Mistriani N., R. P. Ardi, and H. Listyorini, 2018. Development Tourism Village Strategy of Samiran as a Creative Tourism Model in Central Java. 2nd International Conference on Tourism, Gastronomy, and Tourist Destination. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Volume 52, pp. 72-78.
[39]	Ismagilova, G., L. Safiullin, and I. Gafurov, 2015. “Using Historical Heritage as a Factor in Tourism Development.” Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 188 157 – 162. Accessed 9 October 2023 from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.355
[40]	Alharethi T., A. Abdelhakim, and A. Mohammed, 2024. “Drivers and Barriers towards Circular Economy in Rural Tourism Destinations: A Case Study of Tunis Village, Egypt.” Tourism and Hospitality, Vol. 5, pp. 639-656. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5030038
[41]	Wijesundara, S. R., and R. Ranasinghe, 2015. “Perceived Barriers for Employment in Tourism Industry among Rural Communities.” International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 1-15.
[42]	Paimin, N. F. V., S. Modilih, S. H. Mogindol, C. Johnny, and J. A. Thamburaj, 2014. Community Participation and Barriers in Rural Tourism: A Case Study in Kiulu, Sabah. SHS Web of Conferences 12, 01003. Accessed August 1 2024, from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20141201003
[43]	Boonzaaier, C. C., and L. Philip, 2007. Community-based Tourism and its Potential to Improve Living Conditions among the Hananwa of Blouberg (Limpopo Province), with Particular Reference to Catering Services during Winter.” Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol. 35. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfecs.v35i1.52914
[44]	GRZ, 2022a. Eighth National Development Plan, 2022-2026. Socio-economic Transformation for Improved Livelihoods. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.
[45]	Ganti, A., 2023. What Is the Multiplier Effect? Formula and Example. Accessed 14 October 2023 from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multipliereffect.asp
[46]	Rusu, S., 2011. “Tourism Multiplier Effect.” Journal of Economics and Business Research. No. 1, pp. 70-76.
[47]	Ennew, C., 2003. Understanding the Economic Impact of Tourism. Som Nath Chib Memorial Lecture, 14^th February.
[48]	Navi, 2023. What is Investment Multiplier and How to Calculate it? Navi, 16 March 2023. Accessed 18 October 2023 from: https://navi.com/blog/investment-multiplier/
[49]	GRZ 2022b. Zambia Tourism Investment Guide. Ministry of Tourism, Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.
[50]	Mahony, K. and J. V. Zyl, 2002. “The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three case studies in South Africa.” Development Southern Africa, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 83-103, Accessed, July 14 2024, from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03768350220123891
[51]	NHCC, 1989. National Heritage Conservation Commission ACT, Chapter 173 of the Laws of Zambia.
[52]	NHCC, 2018b. Heritage Conservation Policy. National Heritage Conservation Commission.
[53]	GRZ, 2015. National Tourism Policy. Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Government of the Republic of Zambia.
[54]	Thetsane R. M., 2019. “Local Community Participation in Tourism Development: The Case of Katse Villages in Lesotho.” Athens Journal of Tourism, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 123-140.
[55]	Harun R., G. O. Chiciudean, K. Sirwan, F. H. Arion, and I. C. Muresan, 2018. Attitudes and Perceptions of the Local Community towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Kurdistan Regional Government, Iraq. Sustainability, 10, 2991, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10092991
[56]	Gunjić, L., 2017. “Local Perceptions of Cultural Heritage and Tourism Development – Case study Bač, Serbia.” Ge-conservación, No. 11, pp. 57-62.
[57]	NHCC, nd. National Heritage Conservation Commission. Job Descriptions and Specifications for Unionised Staff. Accessed from Head Office on 10^th July 2024.
[58]	APEC, 2024. Youth Involvement in the Development of Sustainable and Safe Tourism in Rural Areas of APEC Economies. APEC Tourism Working Group May 2024.
[59]	Tunde, L. M., 2012. “Harnessing Tourism Potentials for Sustainable Development: A Case of Owu Water Falls in Nigeria.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 14, No. 1, 119-133. Accessed, 8 June 2019 from www.jsdafrica.com/Jsda/Vol14No1Spring2012A/PDF/Harnessing%20Tourism%20Potentials%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.Afolabi%20Monisola%20Tunde.pdf
[60]	Harris, J. M., 2000. Basic Principles of Sustainable Development. Global Development and Environment Institute, Working Paper 00-04. Medford.
[61]	EU, 2024. Tourism and Rural Development. Commission for Natural Resources, European Committee of the Regions. Eurostat. Statistics Explained. Accessed 5 November 2022 from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Economic_activity
[62]	Castro, C., 2019. “Rural tourism in Northern Portugal: Motivations and Barriers.” Revista Iberoamericana de Turismo- RITUR, Penedo, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 217-240. Accessed, August 15 2024, from: http://www.seer.ufal.br/index.php/ritur
[63]	Utami, D. D., 2023. Rural Tourism Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review onResources and Challenges. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1322-1344. https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720.434
[64]	Saayman, M., A. Saayman, and C. Du Plessis, 2005. “Analysis of spending patterns of visitors of three World Cup Cricket matches in Potchefstroom, South Africa.” Journal of Sport Tourism 10, 211–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775080600611491
[65]	Jang, S., J. A. Ismail, and S. Ham, 2002. “Heavy spenders, medium spenders, and light spenders of Japanese outbound pleasure travellers.” Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 9, 83–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v09n03_07
[66]	GRZ, nd. The Land Act of the Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka.
[67]	Scheyvens, R., 2007. Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus.” In: Hall, C. M. (ed.) Pro-Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction, Channel View, Clevedon, pp. 121-144. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.2167%2Fcit318.0?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
[68]	Van Loenen, B., 1999. Land Tenure in Zambia.
[69]	Lyngdoh, S. 2020. “The Role and Contribution of Myths, Legends and Folktales in the Promotion of Cultural Tourism”. Universe International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research.
[70]	Yavuz, M. C., M. Sumbul, N. E. Ergec, and I. C. Derdiyok, 2016. “Storytelling in destination brand communication: A qualitative analysis.” International Interdisciplinary Business-Economics Advancement Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 63-72.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Munyima, M., Masaiti, G., Mwanza, J. (2025). Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 11(4), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Munyima, M.; Masaiti, G.; Mwanza, J. Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2025, 11(4), 188-201. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Munyima M, Masaiti G, Mwanza J. Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2025;11(4):188-201. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11,
  author = {Munukayumbwa Munyima and Gift Masaiti and Jason Mwanza},
  title = {Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia
},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {11},
  number = {4},
  pages = {188-201},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  abstract = {This article is based on the findings of a study that was carried out around Lake Kashiba in Mpongwe district of Zambia. In this article it is argued that there is a plethora of cultural heritage elements in Zambia. More than three quarters of these constitute the main tourist attraction and are ubiquitously located in rural parts of the country. This presents great potential for such communities to participate in local economic activities through tourism. The article used qualitative data obtained through field interviews with 79 participants and 2 focus group discussions. From the study findings, six themes namely: plethora of heritage elements; sustainability of heritage for tourism; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits emerged. Findings reveal that while there is great potential for cultural heritage based tourism to contribute to economic growth of rural areas hardly any economic benefits are realised by the local communities. This, to a large extent, could be attributed the lack of local community participation in tourism. The lack of local community participation and the resulting absence of economic benefits from tourism could be attributed to six main barriers namely: unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths. For economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism in rural areas to be realised, there is a need for supportive government policies and political will that would facilitate the participation of the local communities in the related activities. Such policies should prioritize the creation of awareness about the economic value of cultural heritage tourism among the concerned rural communities and building local capacity for their effective participation.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia

AU  - Munukayumbwa Munyima
AU  - Gift Masaiti
AU  - Jason Mwanza
Y1  - 2025/10/17
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 188
EP  - 201
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
AB  - This article is based on the findings of a study that was carried out around Lake Kashiba in Mpongwe district of Zambia. In this article it is argued that there is a plethora of cultural heritage elements in Zambia. More than three quarters of these constitute the main tourist attraction and are ubiquitously located in rural parts of the country. This presents great potential for such communities to participate in local economic activities through tourism. The article used qualitative data obtained through field interviews with 79 participants and 2 focus group discussions. From the study findings, six themes namely: plethora of heritage elements; sustainability of heritage for tourism; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits emerged. Findings reveal that while there is great potential for cultural heritage based tourism to contribute to economic growth of rural areas hardly any economic benefits are realised by the local communities. This, to a large extent, could be attributed the lack of local community participation in tourism. The lack of local community participation and the resulting absence of economic benefits from tourism could be attributed to six main barriers namely: unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths. For economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism in rural areas to be realised, there is a need for supportive government policies and political will that would facilitate the participation of the local communities in the related activities. Such policies should prioritize the creation of awareness about the economic value of cultural heritage tourism among the concerned rural communities and building local capacity for their effective participation.

VL  - 11
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Munukayumbwa Munyima

Institute of Economic and Social Research, the University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8864-1535
Gift Masaiti

Department of Educational Administration, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8269-6499
Jason Mwanza

Department of Social Work and Sociology, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5976-8821

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Figure 1

Figure 1. Cultural heritage safeguarding for tourism cycle.

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Munyima, M., Masaiti, G., Mwanza, J. (2025). Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 11(4), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Munyima, M.; Masaiti, G.; Mwanza, J. Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2025, 11(4), 188-201. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Munyima M, Masaiti G, Mwanza J. Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2025;11(4):188-201. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11,
  author = {Munukayumbwa Munyima and Gift Masaiti and Jason Mwanza},
  title = {Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia
},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {11},
  number = {4},
  pages = {188-201},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20251104.11},
  abstract = {This article is based on the findings of a study that was carried out around Lake Kashiba in Mpongwe district of Zambia. In this article it is argued that there is a plethora of cultural heritage elements in Zambia. More than three quarters of these constitute the main tourist attraction and are ubiquitously located in rural parts of the country. This presents great potential for such communities to participate in local economic activities through tourism. The article used qualitative data obtained through field interviews with 79 participants and 2 focus group discussions. From the study findings, six themes namely: plethora of heritage elements; sustainability of heritage for tourism; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits emerged. Findings reveal that while there is great potential for cultural heritage based tourism to contribute to economic growth of rural areas hardly any economic benefits are realised by the local communities. This, to a large extent, could be attributed the lack of local community participation in tourism. The lack of local community participation and the resulting absence of economic benefits from tourism could be attributed to six main barriers namely: unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths. For economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism in rural areas to be realised, there is a need for supportive government policies and political will that would facilitate the participation of the local communities in the related activities. Such policies should prioritize the creation of awareness about the economic value of cultural heritage tourism among the concerned rural communities and building local capacity for their effective participation.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Potential Economic Benefits of Cultural Heritage Based Tourism for Rural Communities in Zambia

AU  - Munukayumbwa Munyima
AU  - Gift Masaiti
AU  - Jason Mwanza
Y1  - 2025/10/17
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 188
EP  - 201
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20251104.11
AB  - This article is based on the findings of a study that was carried out around Lake Kashiba in Mpongwe district of Zambia. In this article it is argued that there is a plethora of cultural heritage elements in Zambia. More than three quarters of these constitute the main tourist attraction and are ubiquitously located in rural parts of the country. This presents great potential for such communities to participate in local economic activities through tourism. The article used qualitative data obtained through field interviews with 79 participants and 2 focus group discussions. From the study findings, six themes namely: plethora of heritage elements; sustainability of heritage for tourism; employment opportunities; business opportunities; leasing and selling of land; and barriers to tourism economic benefits emerged. Findings reveal that while there is great potential for cultural heritage based tourism to contribute to economic growth of rural areas hardly any economic benefits are realised by the local communities. This, to a large extent, could be attributed the lack of local community participation in tourism. The lack of local community participation and the resulting absence of economic benefits from tourism could be attributed to six main barriers namely: unfavourable government policies; inadequate employment opportunities; inadequate business opportunities; poor state of infrastructure; uncodified land tenure; and restrictive local myths. For economic benefits of cultural heritage tourism in rural areas to be realised, there is a need for supportive government policies and political will that would facilitate the participation of the local communities in the related activities. Such policies should prioritize the creation of awareness about the economic value of cultural heritage tourism among the concerned rural communities and building local capacity for their effective participation.

VL  - 11
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download