Beyond Tourism Growth: Governance, Benefit Distribution and Inclusive Rural Development in Zambia’s South Luangwa Tourism Corridor

Tourism is widely promoted as a pathway for economic growth, conservation financing, and rural development in developing countries. However, tourism expansion does not always generate equitable livelihood improvements for communities surrounding protected areas. This study examines how governance systems influence tourism benefit distribution and inclusive rural development in Zambia’s South Luangwa Tourism Corridor. Adopting an interpretive qualitative case study design, the study draws on 30 key informant interviews involving government officials, conservation agencies, tourism operators, local authorities, Community Resource Boards, traditional leaders, civil society organizations, and community representatives. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis supported by NVivo software and guided by Governance Theory, Stakeholder Theory, and Inclusive Development Theory. Findings show that institutional fragmentation, limited community participation, unequal stakeholder power relations, and weak tourism value chain integration constrain inclusive outcomes. The study argues that governance-centred approaches are essential for strengthening participation, accountability, and equitable tourism benefit distribution.

Tourism governance; Community participation; Tourism benefit distribution; Inclusive rural development; Protected-area tourism; Zambia.

1. Tourism Governance, Sustainable Tourism and Inclusive Development [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2018). The Routledge handbook of sustainable tourism. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bianchi, R. V., & de Man, F. (2021). Tourism and sustainable development: A critical perspective on governance, justice and transformation. Tourism Geographies, 23(4), 673–691. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2019). Progress in tourism planning and policy: A post-structural perspective. Tourism Management, 70, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 610–623. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Scheyvens, R., & Biddulph, R. (2018). Inclusive tourism development. Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 589–609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Tourism Governance, Institutions and Inclusive Growth in Africa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dossou, T. A. M., Asongu, S. A., Kambaye, E. N., Dossou, K. P., & Alinsato, A. S. (2024). Governance, tourism and inclusive growth in Africa. International Social Science Journal, 74(252), 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12476 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rogerson, C. M., & Rogerson, J. M. (2021). Tourism, local economic development and inclusive growth in Africa: Contemporary challenges and opportunities. GeoJournal, 86, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Spenceley, A. (2021). Sustainable tourism development in Africa: Progress, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(9), 1500–1518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. UN Tourism. (2023). Tourism and the sustainable development goals: Journey to 2030. UN Tourism. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. World Bank. (2024). Zambia economic update: Unlocking Zambia’s tourism potential for inclusive growth. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Protected Areas, Conservation Tourism and Community Benefit Sharing [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Chidakel, A., Child, B., & Muyengwa, S. (2021). Evaluating the economic impacts of wildlife tourism in Zambia’s South Luangwa Valley. Ecological Economics, 182, Article 106933. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Koot, S., & Büscher, B. (2019). Giving land (back) to the local? The politics of conservation and tourism in Africa. Conservation and Society, 17(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Snyman, S. L., & Bricker, K. S. (2019). Living on the edge: Benefit-sharing and community involvement in protected-area tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(6), 761–778. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Spenceley, A., Snyman, S. L., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2019). Guidelines for tourism partnerships and concessions in protected areas: Principles and practice. IUCN. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Community Participation, Stakeholder Engagement and Inclusive Development [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Governance Theory and Institutional Arnstein, S. R. (2019). A ladder of citizen participation: Revisiting participation and power in development practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2019). The MSP guide: How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen University Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Analysis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, politics and the state (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms and new governance: Building participation and accountability. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2019). An integrative framework for collaborative governance: New developments and applications. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 693–706. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tourism Research Methodology and Qualitative Inquiry [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2023). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2018). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 45, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• An Analysis of Waste Management Practices in Selected Buffet Restaurants in Quezon City, Philippines
• Assessing the Effects of COVID-19 on Hospitality and Tourism Employment
• A Conceptual Framework for Profiling Stream Anglers in Malaysia
• Service Quality and Guests’ Satisfaction: Evidence from Banda Hilir, Melaka
• "Empowering Urban Communities through Sustainable Tourism: The Case of GLOW 2025 in Kampung Pengkalan Rama Pantai, Melaka"