Papers by GERALD TUMWINE
‘Loosing glory to poverty’ defines the shaping of most metropolitan towns labelled as rural areas... more ‘Loosing glory to poverty’ defines the shaping of most metropolitan towns labelled as rural areas today. As poverty claims a major role in defining rural areas especially in Africa and Uganda in particular, towns would not prefer backward growth. Many towns’ fate is defined by numerous circumstances and thus any form of decline in a town’s glory requires unique revitalization efforts to ensure that poverty and its related bearings, less overwhelm the ability of such regions to support native communities and their natural environments.
Namasagali town was the epitome of interest in this study and fits well the description of the situation above. A variety of methods employed to understand its state involved use
on site direct observation, structured questionnaires, structured interviews and secondary
data. The main objective was to investigate the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural tourism development and its implications for poverty alleviation and resource
restoration for the people living in Namasagali. This was achieved through assessing the tourism resource potential of the area, assessment of the community’s perceptions towards
viewing rural tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation. This was supported by the possibility of
proposing a viable community tourism assessment process which could be used to determine the community’s actual tourism potential as well as benefits of tourism development before deciding it as a strategy worth pursuing. The results were fascinating with most of the community members being unaware of the presence of the resources (natural, historical, cultural and unique) with the potential to support tourism development, most members too having less support for tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation, and similarly less support for tourism development as tool to drive community development. This was majorly attributed to low levels of education in Namasagali parish and lack of information amongst the dwellers.
It was therefore concluded that at the time this study was conducted, possibility and efforts to develop tourism in rural Namasagali would be a wasted effort. This was further
confirmed by evaluating the study’s results against the proposed community tourism assessment process needs/objectives that revealed lack in most of the areas vital to support tourism development. It was however thought possible to develop tourism development in the area given that not all the community members were negative and lacked support. For example results from observations revealed that there was potential in terms of resources capable of supporting tourism development. Recommendations included local authorities and the communities doing an asset and needs mapping to take stock of opportunities that they have and challenges that they
may face in tourism development, the local town council strengthening partnerships with the local business sector, the local community sector and general stakeholders, as well as the policy-makers to ensure a faster integrated tourism development process, and Local governments to recognize the importance of rural tourism at priority and help in creating healthy competitive business environment. The community tourism assessment process was viewed as the overall recommendation, should there be a need to adopt rural tourism as a mechanism for rural revitalization and resource restoration in Namasagali parish. Further research areas were based on the fact that the study preserved reference to the role of education and information to community involvement in tourism development and thus should be conducted to establish whether the development planners in various rural areas involved in tourism development have designed any basic principles in form of
educational and information material for facilitating community involvement to ensure constructive partaking in the industry.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Teaching Documents by GERALD TUMWINE
From 1925 to 1930, areas around L.George and L.Edward were named game reserves respectively. In ... more From 1925 to 1930, areas around L.George and L.Edward were named game reserves respectively. In 1952, the two reserves were combined and named Kazinga National Park
In 1954, the queen of England visited Uganda to commission Owen Falls Dam in Jinja. During the same time, she happened to pay a visit to Kazinga National Park, Welcomed by the then Omukama of Toro Kingdom Gerorge Lukiidi at Kikorongo near the equator, she addressed a large gathering of people. It was on 30th of April 1954 In commemoration (remembrance) of her visit to the park, Kazinga National Park was then renamed Queen Elizabeth National Park
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by GERALD TUMWINE
Namasagali town was the epitome of interest in this study and fits well the description of the situation above. A variety of methods employed to understand its state involved use
on site direct observation, structured questionnaires, structured interviews and secondary
data. The main objective was to investigate the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural tourism development and its implications for poverty alleviation and resource
restoration for the people living in Namasagali. This was achieved through assessing the tourism resource potential of the area, assessment of the community’s perceptions towards
viewing rural tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation. This was supported by the possibility of
proposing a viable community tourism assessment process which could be used to determine the community’s actual tourism potential as well as benefits of tourism development before deciding it as a strategy worth pursuing. The results were fascinating with most of the community members being unaware of the presence of the resources (natural, historical, cultural and unique) with the potential to support tourism development, most members too having less support for tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation, and similarly less support for tourism development as tool to drive community development. This was majorly attributed to low levels of education in Namasagali parish and lack of information amongst the dwellers.
It was therefore concluded that at the time this study was conducted, possibility and efforts to develop tourism in rural Namasagali would be a wasted effort. This was further
confirmed by evaluating the study’s results against the proposed community tourism assessment process needs/objectives that revealed lack in most of the areas vital to support tourism development. It was however thought possible to develop tourism development in the area given that not all the community members were negative and lacked support. For example results from observations revealed that there was potential in terms of resources capable of supporting tourism development. Recommendations included local authorities and the communities doing an asset and needs mapping to take stock of opportunities that they have and challenges that they
may face in tourism development, the local town council strengthening partnerships with the local business sector, the local community sector and general stakeholders, as well as the policy-makers to ensure a faster integrated tourism development process, and Local governments to recognize the importance of rural tourism at priority and help in creating healthy competitive business environment. The community tourism assessment process was viewed as the overall recommendation, should there be a need to adopt rural tourism as a mechanism for rural revitalization and resource restoration in Namasagali parish. Further research areas were based on the fact that the study preserved reference to the role of education and information to community involvement in tourism development and thus should be conducted to establish whether the development planners in various rural areas involved in tourism development have designed any basic principles in form of
educational and information material for facilitating community involvement to ensure constructive partaking in the industry.
Teaching Documents by GERALD TUMWINE
In 1954, the queen of England visited Uganda to commission Owen Falls Dam in Jinja. During the same time, she happened to pay a visit to Kazinga National Park, Welcomed by the then Omukama of Toro Kingdom Gerorge Lukiidi at Kikorongo near the equator, she addressed a large gathering of people. It was on 30th of April 1954 In commemoration (remembrance) of her visit to the park, Kazinga National Park was then renamed Queen Elizabeth National Park
Namasagali town was the epitome of interest in this study and fits well the description of the situation above. A variety of methods employed to understand its state involved use
on site direct observation, structured questionnaires, structured interviews and secondary
data. The main objective was to investigate the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of rural tourism development and its implications for poverty alleviation and resource
restoration for the people living in Namasagali. This was achieved through assessing the tourism resource potential of the area, assessment of the community’s perceptions towards
viewing rural tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation. This was supported by the possibility of
proposing a viable community tourism assessment process which could be used to determine the community’s actual tourism potential as well as benefits of tourism development before deciding it as a strategy worth pursuing. The results were fascinating with most of the community members being unaware of the presence of the resources (natural, historical, cultural and unique) with the potential to support tourism development, most members too having less support for tourism development as fostering job creation, entrepreneurial skills development and increasing income generation, and similarly less support for tourism development as tool to drive community development. This was majorly attributed to low levels of education in Namasagali parish and lack of information amongst the dwellers.
It was therefore concluded that at the time this study was conducted, possibility and efforts to develop tourism in rural Namasagali would be a wasted effort. This was further
confirmed by evaluating the study’s results against the proposed community tourism assessment process needs/objectives that revealed lack in most of the areas vital to support tourism development. It was however thought possible to develop tourism development in the area given that not all the community members were negative and lacked support. For example results from observations revealed that there was potential in terms of resources capable of supporting tourism development. Recommendations included local authorities and the communities doing an asset and needs mapping to take stock of opportunities that they have and challenges that they
may face in tourism development, the local town council strengthening partnerships with the local business sector, the local community sector and general stakeholders, as well as the policy-makers to ensure a faster integrated tourism development process, and Local governments to recognize the importance of rural tourism at priority and help in creating healthy competitive business environment. The community tourism assessment process was viewed as the overall recommendation, should there be a need to adopt rural tourism as a mechanism for rural revitalization and resource restoration in Namasagali parish. Further research areas were based on the fact that the study preserved reference to the role of education and information to community involvement in tourism development and thus should be conducted to establish whether the development planners in various rural areas involved in tourism development have designed any basic principles in form of
educational and information material for facilitating community involvement to ensure constructive partaking in the industry.
In 1954, the queen of England visited Uganda to commission Owen Falls Dam in Jinja. During the same time, she happened to pay a visit to Kazinga National Park, Welcomed by the then Omukama of Toro Kingdom Gerorge Lukiidi at Kikorongo near the equator, she addressed a large gathering of people. It was on 30th of April 1954 In commemoration (remembrance) of her visit to the park, Kazinga National Park was then renamed Queen Elizabeth National Park