Local community perceptions of tourism revenue sharing around Kibale National Park

Abstract

Tourism revenue sharing (TRS) is a policy mechanism designed to channel a portion of revenues generated from national parks to adjacent local communities, with the aim of improving livelihoods, reducing human–wildlife conflicts, and strengthening support for conservation. In Uganda, the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) allocates 20% of park entry fees to neighbouring communities. However, the extent to which these funds meet community expectations and influence conservation remains contested. This study assessed local community perceptions of tourism revenue sharing around Kibale National Park, focusing on its structure and effectiveness, community awareness, satisfaction and participation, and the challenges that hinder equitable and transparent implementation. The research adopted a descriptive design, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods. Data were collected from 115 household respondents in Bigodi Parish (villages of Nkingo, Kihoima, Nyabubare, Busimba, Kyabakwerere, among others) using structured questionnaires, and from 15 key informants including Uganda Wildlife Authority officials, local government leaders, and community representatives. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse quantitative data while qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Findings revealed that while 67% of respondents were aware of the TRS framework, there were significant knowledge gaps about fund management and eligibility. Most respondents identified schools, health centres, roads, and water facilities as funded projects, yet less than half (46.1%) believed that funds reached intended beneficiaries. Satisfaction levels were mixed, with 53.9% expressing some satisfaction while 46.1% reported dissatisfaction, particularly due to delays, lack of transparency, and elite capture. Participation in TRS was limited, with less than half of households attending meetings or contributing ideas. Conservation outcomes were moderately positive, as 61% felt TRS motivated conservation, though its effect on reducing human–wildlife conflict remained limited. The study concludes that TRS has delivered visible community projects and encouraged some conservation-friendly attitudes, but weaknesses in governance, inclusivity, and accountability reduce its effectiveness. Recommendations include improving transparency through open reporting and independent audits, strengthening community sensitization, ensuring inclusive participation of women and youth, and aligning TRS projects more directly with conservation and livelihood needs. The findings provide important insights for policymakers, Uganda Wildlife Authority, and other stakeholders in designing equitable, transparent, and community-centred benefit-sharing programmes that balance conservation and local development.