International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Research (IJECR) ISSN 2250-0006 Vol.

3, Issue 4, Oct 2013, 7-14 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SUKUR WORLD HERITAGE SITE, MADAGALI, ADAMAWA STATE NIGERIA
FINANGA Y. A & HUSAIN M. A Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
Tourism has a major impact on local communities in tourist destinations. It can be a significant source of income and employment for local people. It can also pose threat to an areas social fabrics and its natural and cultural heritage, upon which it ultimately depends, but if it is well planned and managed it can be a force for their conservation. Sukur World Heritage Site is the first World Heritage Site (WHS) in Nigeria and the first Cultural Landscape in Africa designated with that status by UNESCO in 1999. However, the Site is still under-developed and the development in the site is very slow and haphazardly pursuit. Hence, the aim of the study is to assess the Physical and Socio-economic Impacts of Tourism in the Sukur Area. The study basically adapted the descriptive research design. Data were obtained by participants observation, questionnaires and interviews as well as by retrospective means. The most strongly perceived positive impact is income and cultural identity while, the most strongly perceived negative impact is the general increase in the prices of goods and services. Though, the negative impacts have increased more than the positive impacts improved. The study revealed that the support for tourism is strong among the local residents of Sukur area. Since the perception of the residents is receptive towards tourism development in the area, comprehensive planning and development of the site is highly recommended.

KEYWORDS: Tourism Development, Socio-Economic Impacts, Residents, Tourists, Sukur World Heritage Site INTRODUCTION
World Tourism and Travel Council (WTTC, 2008), maintained that tourism is a worldwide phenomenon touches which the highest and deepest aspiration of all people and is also an important element of socio- economic development in many countries. Indeed, tourism has a major impact on local communities in tourist destinations. It can be a significant source of income and employment for local people. It can also pose a threat to an areas social fabrics and its natural and cultural heritage, upon which it ultimately depends. But if it is well planned and managed, it can be a force for their conservation. Sukur World Heritage Site is the first World Heritage Site (WHS) in Nigeria and the first Cultural Landscape in Africa declared by UNESCO in 1999. However, the Site is still under-developed and the ongoing development in the site is very slow and haphazardly pursued. Although there are many studies on socio economic impact of tourism development in many destinations; Rtz, 2000; UNEP, 2002; Acharya, 2003; Mbaiwa, 2003; and Kausar, 2010 just to mention but five. However, there are very few research studies on Sukur WHS in general (David and Sterner, 2004; NCMM, Yola, 2003 and Yakubu, 2000). Besides, there has been no known study on the impact of tourism in the Sukur destination. The aim of this study therefore is to assess the physical and socio-economic impacts of tourism in Sukur area (i.e. Sukur WHS core and buffer zones). The study based its findings on the evaluation of local (residents) perception on the impacts of tourism development, and the assessment of the socio-economic characteristics of Residents and Visitors/Tourists in the Sukur area.

Finanga Y. A & Husain M. A

A WHS is an area of attraction; historical and cultural value that is usually nominated, declared and enlisted by UNESCO Heritage Bureau. WHS includes sites of universal value. According to World Heritage Council (WHC, 1996), our cultural and natural heritages are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration. They are touchstones, points of reference, and a form of identity. Thus, the WHC defined cultural landscapes as distinct geographical areas or properties uniquely representing the combined work of nature and of man (UNESCO, 2005). The Sukur World Heritage Site, Madagali L.G.A. of Adamawa State - Nigeria In 1999, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) inscribed Sukur, located in the Mandara Mountain of Northeast Nigeria, on the World Heritage List (WHL). Attention was first focused on Sukur as a polity in Mandara highlands of Northeastern Nigeria about 3000ft above sea level during the 19 th century by the German explorer, Heinrich Barth. The area nominated as Sukur Cultural Landscape covers a total area of 1888.91 acres (764.40 hectares) and lies within N10 44 26.016 E13 34 18.984. According to the NCMM (Adamawa state office, 2007), the population of Sukur is about 12, 000. It was this plateau and its adjoining low land settlement that was inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage list in November 1999 (UNESCO, 2005). The Sukur cultural landscape with the palace of the Hidi (chief) on a hill dominating the villages below, the terraced fields and their sacred symbols, and the extensive remains of a former flourishing iron industry, is a remarkably intact physical expression of a society and its spiritual and material culture. The cultural landscape of Sukur is eloquent testimony to a strong and continuing spiritual and cultural tradition that has endured for many centuries (NCMM, 2003). Socio-Economic Impacts of Tourism Development Tourism is often spoken is often seen as an industry, even though it does not comprise a single type of business. It is believed that tourism is the largest economic sector in the world and its importance is indisputable. In support of this point the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC, 2008), estimated the global travel and tourism industry to generate $5.89 trillion of economic activity and over 238.3 million jobs directly and indirectly. One of the reasons why the tourism industry is so important is the fact that it has a positive secondary influence on a number of other industries and sectors, such as transport, telecommunication, hotel, culture and sports. Although, tourism is currently one of the fastest growing industries in the world, contributing to global economics and employment, however, the rapidly growing size and significance of the tourism industry has given rise to increased critical review of its social and environmental consequences (Berno and Bricker 2002; Pederson, 2002; UNEP, 2002; Mason 2003; UNWTO, 2003; Goeldner and Ritchie, 2009). The impacts of tourism development can be categorized as social, economic and environmental impacts with each having both positive and negative impacts. Studies on the socio-economic impacts of tourism development in many destinations (WHS) revealed that the social impacts of tourism are the effects of direct and indirect relations with tourists, and of interaction with the tourism industry on host communities, these could be both positive and negative. While, the economic impacts of tourism are the direct or indirect, positive and negative effects of tourism on the economic development of an area/destination. Also, the environmental impacts of tourism are the positive and negative effects of tourism development on the physical environment (Rtz, 2000; Pederson, 2002; UNEP, 2002; Acharya, 2003; Mbaiwa, 2003; and Kausar, 2010; Wallevik and Jiddawi, undated). It is therefore obvious that tourism is indeed an ever increasing industry that has both positive and negative impacts with consequences on the host communities. The positive impacts of tourism include; increases in incomes,

Socio-Economic Impact of Sukur World Heritage Site, Madagali, Adamawa State Nigeria

employment opportunities, development of infrastructure, provision of tourist and recreational facilities, generation of government revenues and foreign exchange, multiplier effect, cultural identity, language skills, meeting people, preservation of heritage and tradition, foster peace, civic involvement and pride, conservation of wild life and forest, education and research, and improved standards of living. Moreover, the negative impacts of tourism often arise as a result of poor planning and management. These can create; changes or loss of indigenous identity and values, culture clashes, physical influences causing social stress, crime, child labour, infrastructure cost, increase in prices, leakage, depletion of natural resources, pollution, and environmental deterioration. These impacts are mainly caused by development and by the presence of tourists in a destination (Rtz, 2000; Pederson, 2002; UNEP, 2002; Goeldner and Ritchie, 2009). However, a tourist destination is always (only) considered successful when the positive impacts outweigh the negative impacts. Hence, adequate planning, conservation and management are necessary to increase positive impacts of tourism in a destination and reduce the negative impacts. This implies that tourism is a positive tool in regional development planning and the purpose for the study is to uncover how receptive the community is to tourism through residents perceptions. The results of the research would determine the entry point for the development of the Sukur World Heritage Site.

METHODOLOGY
The survey method of research was used for this study. The study needed data on local (residents) perception on the impact of tourism, the socio-economic characteristics of the residents and tourists/visitors, in the Sukur area. Data were basically obtained by participants observation, questionnaires and interviews as well as literature review. The study population comprised of residents and visitors at the hilltop and downhill within the boundaries of the declared Sukur WHS and its buffer zone. Simple random sampling was used to administer a total of 300 questionnaires to selected respondents; 30 questionnaires were administered to selected visitors at the site (representing an average number of about one month registered visitors) while, 270 questionnaires were randomly administered to selected residents. The selected resident respondents were located in markets, motor parks, schools, festival ground, as well as in some households. While the questionnaires for the visitors were kept with the tourist guide who administered to visitors within a period of three months. Data obtained were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics (tables, simple percentages, frequencies, means, modes and standard deviation).

RESEARCH RESULTS
The socio-economic characteristics of the residents and visitors/tourists are shown in table 1, while the perceptions of the residents on the implications of tourism in the study area are shown in table 2 as obtained via the questionnaires. Socio-Economic Characteristics of Residents and Tourists/Visitors The results in table 1 show that there are differences between the socio-economic characteristics of the residents and that of the visitors. Although, majority of both the residents and tourists respondents are male, the residents respondents were only 14% more than the female, unlike the tourists who were 100% male. The age range of the resident respondents indicates that majority of the respondents are between 16-45 years making 68%, while the tourists age ranges between 26-55 years representing 88%. The average ages of the residents and tourists respondents are 38 and 43 years respectively. However, the marital status of residents and tourists are the same (29% singles and 71% married) i.e. considering those divorce/separated as also married.

10

Finanga Y. A & Husain M. A

Table 1: Socio-Economic Differences between Residents and Tourists at the Site Parameter SEX Variables Male Female Total <16 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 >55 Total Singles Married Divorced Total Students Civil Servants Business Private Workers Farmers Others Total Tertiary Secondary Primary Informal None Total <4,000 4,001-8,000 8,001-12,000 12,001-16,000 16,001-20,000 >20,000 Total Residents Frequency 133 101 234 7 48 57 55 28 39 234 68 145 21 234 45 23 40 16 79 17 220 37 69 38 16 72 232 90 28 33 23 31 0 205 Tourists Percentage 57 43 100 3 21 24 23 12 17 100 29 62 9 100 20.5 10.5 18 7 36 8 100 16 30 16 7 31 100 44 14 16 11 15 0 100 Frequency 24 0 24 0 2 5 9 7 1 24 7 16 1 24 6 11 2 2 1 2 24 19 4 0 1 0 24 0 1 1 2 1 15 20 Percentage 100 0 100 0 8 21 38 29 4 100 29 67 4 100 25 47 8 8 4 8 100 79 17 0 4 0 100 0 5 5 10 5 75 100

AGE (YEARS)

MARITAL STATUS

OCCUPATION

EDUCATION

INCOME/MONTH ()

Source: Field Survey, 2008 Table 1 shows that only 46% of the residents are educated (having up to secondary education) but, 96% of the tourists are educated. However, majority of the residents are farmers (36%) and the minority are civil servants (11%) but the reverse is the case with the tourists whose majority are civil servants (47%) and minority are the farmers (4%). Monthly income shows that all the tourists respondents earn above the poverty line but about half (44%) of the resident respondents earn below the poverty line. Average monthly income of the residents is 7,600 and that of the tourists is 19,600. Perceptions of Residents on the Impacts of Tourism Development in Sukur WHS The results show that the residents opinions on the 15 respective areas of positive and negative impacts of tourism development in the site have not positively improved or worsened significantly nor negatively increased or decreased significantly. The most improved areas of positive impacts which were considered to have improved slightly are income and cultural identity, each with a mean of 4.0 but a standard deviation of 0.4 and 0.9 respectively. Also, employment opportunities, general infrastructure, cultural facilities, meeting people, language skills and security were rated to have improved slightly.

Socio-Economic Impact of Sukur World Heritage Site, Madagali, Adamawa State Nigeria

11

Table 2: Perceptions of Residents on the Positive Impacts of Tourism in Sukur WHS Area of Impact 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean S.D Inference Employment Opportunity 3 8 56 144 23 234 3.8 0.7 Improved Slightly Income 0 4 11 197 19 231 4.0 0.4 Improved Slightly General Infrastructure 0 11 71 133 16 231 3.7 0.7 Improved Slightly Cultural facilities 12 7 53 132 27 231 3.7 0.9 Improved Slightly Leisure and sport 5 21 72 96 32 13 234 2.8 1.0 No difference facilities 6 Shopping facilities 4 55 100 53 19 231 3.1 0.9 No difference 7 Meeting people 8 20 56 122 27 233 3.7 0.8 Improved Slightly Conservation of old 8 7 52 103 63 9 234 3.1 0.8 No difference building 9 Cultural identity 8 7 44 100 75 234 4.0 0.9 Improved Slightly 10 Religion 4 72 56 56 43 231 3.3 1.1 No difference 11 Housing condition 12 20 103 81 15 231 3.3 0.9 No difference 12 Security 12 12 67 125 15 231 3.5 0.9 Improved Slightly 13 Language skills 3 43 23 117 44 230 3.7 1.0 Improved Slightly 14 Conservation of wildlife 15 44 99 61 14 233 3.1 0.9 No difference 15 Conservation of forest 16 69 93 38 15 231 2.9 0.8 No difference 16 Overall Average 3.5 0.9 Improved Slightly Keys: 1 = Worsened Significantly, 2 = Worsened Slightly, 3 = No difference, 4 = Improved Slightly, 5 = Improve Significantly, S.D = Deviation Source: Field Survey, 2008 However, conservation of forest, conservation of old building, conservation of wildlife, shopping facilities, leisure and sports, housing conditions and religion have neither improved nor worsened (no difference). Therefore, in general there is slight improvement in the areas of positive impacts analyzed in the 15 areas with an average mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 0.9 indicating a good level of homogeneity. From Table 3, the most increased negative areas of impacts are prices of goods and services, congestion as well as noise with a mean of 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9, and a standard deviation of 0.9, 0.9 and 0.7 respectively. Other areas strongly considered to have increased slightly include; alcoholism, drug abuse and gambling. Those areas that were weakly considered to have increased slightly are; littering, pollution and deforestation. While, bush burning, theft, hunting, unemployment, prostitution and vandalism have neither increased nor decrease (no difference). Table 3: Perceptions of Residents on the Negative Impacts of Tourism in Sukur WHS S/N Area of Impact 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean S.D Inference 1 Congestion 104 75 48 5 2 234 1.8 0.9 Increase slightly 2 Prices of goods and services 140 43 43 5 3 234 1.7 0.9 Increase slightly 3 Noise 92 84 48 4 6 234 1.9 0.7 Increase slightly 4 Theft 8 31 169 15 9 232 2.9 0.1 No difference 5 Prostitution 12 43 160 9 8 232 2.8 0.4 No difference 6 Gambling 16 20 180 12 4 232 2.1 0.7 Increase slightly 7 Alcoholism 77 83 63 9 0 232 2.0 0.8 Increase slightly 8 Drug abuse 36 104 79 9 4 232 2.2 0.7 Increase slightly 9 Littering 57 80 60 28 8 233 2.4 1.1 Increase slightly 10 Vandalism 28 33 124 40 7 232 2.8 0.9 No difference 11 Unemployment 40 44 55 84 8 231 2.9 1.4 No difference 12 Pollution 59 61 95 10 7 232 2.3 1.0 Increase slightly 13 Deforestation 98 49 66 11 9 233 2.1 1.2 Increase slightly 14 Hunting 27 56 78 47 24 232 2.9 1.3 No difference 15 Brush burning 23 62 71 51 26 233 3.0 1.3 No difference 16 Overall Average 2.4 0.9 Increase slightly Keys: 1 = Increased Significantly, 2 = Increase Slightly, 3 = No Difference, 4 = Decrease Slightly, 5 = Decrease Significantly, S.D = Deviation Source: Field Survey, 2008 S/N 1 2 3 4

12

Finanga Y. A & Husain M. A

Furthermore, the relationship between the residents and tourists were also obtained as shown in table 3. Majority (95%) of resident respondents supported the presence of visitors and only 5% did not support. Also, 94% of the resident respondents accepted that they benefit from tourists and 6% did not agree they benefit from tourists. Table 4: Relationship between Residents and Tourists in Sukur WHS Support for the Presence of Visitors 1 Support 2 Dont support Total Source: Field Survey, 2008 S/N F 221 12 233 % 95 5 100 Benefit from Visitors Benefit Dont benefit F 217 15 232 % 94 6 100

RESEARCH DISCUSSIONS
The study shows that there are wide differences between the socio-economic characteristics of the residents and that of the tourist. In fact, the tourists socio -economic characteristics can be said to be the opposite of that of the residents, which signals the potential (existence) of impacts. This is in agreement with Mathieson & Wall (1982), who claimed that the larger the cultural and economic difference between tourists and local residents, the more obvious and more significant the changes in individuals and communitys; quality of life, value systems, attitudes, behavioral patterns and family relationships among others. The most significant difference in the socio-economic characteristics is income, where the tourists are averagely twelve thousand naira richer than the resident per month as shown in table 1. The effect of this can be seen in the perceived improvement in income (table 2) as well as increase in the prices of goods and services (table 3). The improvements in income basically results from the prosperous/large spending of tourists (because tourist are mostly charged more than residents of the area) on transport services, foods and drinks especially during festivals when the tourists are many. Of course, the presence of many tourists leads to higher demand for these goods and services thereby increasing their prices on one hand and creating more opportunity for engagement/employment on the other hand. The improvement in income and employment appears to be a common impact in many destinations e.g. Lake Balaton in Hungary (Rtz, 2000), Lumbini in Nepal (Acharya, 2003), and Borobudu, Indonasia (Kausar, 2010). Another clear socio-economic difference between the tourists and residents is education, where almost all the tourists are not only educated but highly educated as compared to the few residents that are educated. This educational variation implies differences in behaviours, dressings, languages, ethics, values and lifestyles among others between the residents (uneducated) and the tourist (educated). Since the residents perceived meeting people and language skills have improved slightly as shown in table 2, it means there is contact between the tourists and residents which makes cultural clashes as well as changes on residents who may attempt to copy some of these attributes from the visitors possible. Although, the improvements and increases in both the positive and negative areas of impacts were perceived to be slight, the negative impacts have increased more than the positive impacts have improved. The areas perceived to have improved positively are: income, cultural identity, employment opportunities, general infrastructure, meeting people, cultural facilities, language skills and security. While the areas perceived to have increased negatively are: prices of goods and services, congestion, noise, alcoholism, gambling, deforestation, drug abuse, pollution and littering. Fortunately the residents of Sukur WHS have a strong positive attitude towards tourists and tourism development in the area. The presence of visitors in the site was considered accepted by the resident respondents because it was believed to be beneficial as shown in table 4. Therefore, since it is believed that the success of tourism development depends very

Socio-Economic Impact of Sukur World Heritage Site, Madagali, Adamawa State Nigeria

13

much on the attitudes and behavior of the residents of a destination towards tourists, residents can support or oppose the presence of tourist and tourism development by their attitudes towards tourist (Ratz, 2000 & UNEP, 2002). Hence, the future of tourism development in Sukur WHS can be said to be bright especially when the benefits of tourism development continue to increase in the area.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It can be concluded that there exists both positive and negative impacts in Sukur WHS, which is mainly caused as a result of the presence of tourists in the area. The most strongly perceived positive impact is income and cultural identity while, the most strongly perceived negative impact is the general increase in the prices of goods and services. Although, the negative impacts have increased more than the positive impacts have improved, the residents believed that tourism have impacted the area positively in the last 10 years. Besides, the site can be said to have not exceeded its required carrying capacity. Fortunately, the study shows the perceptions of the residents of Sukur WHS towards tourism development in the area as very receptive. Since the perception of the residents is very receptive towards tourists and tourism development in the area, there should be immediate and continual efforts towards maintaining and increasing the benefits of tourism development in the area. Thus, a comprehensive development plan for the site should be prepared and appropriately implemented. This will boast and enhance the positive impacts of tourism to a significant level in the area as well as minimizing the negative impacts to a level most insignificant, thereby making the development of tourism in Sukur WHS successful.

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. Acharya, P. (2003). Socio-economic Impacts of Tourism in Lumbini, Nepal: A Case Study. Berno, T & Bricker, K (1999). Sustainable tourism Development: The long Road from Theory to Practice. David, N and Sterner, J. (2004). Sukur Cultural Landscape UNESCO World Heritage Centre. www.whc.unesco.org/en/list Retrieved March, 2005. 4. Goeldner, C. R and Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (11 th Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 5. Kausar, D. R. K. (2010). Socio-Economic Impacts of Tourism on a World Heritage Site: Case Study of Rural Borobudur, Indonesia. A Ph.D Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of International Development Nagoya University. 6. Mason, P., (2003). Tourism Impacts, Planning and Mangaement. In Kausar, D. R. K. Socio-Economic Impacts of Tourism on a World Heritage Site: Case Study of Rural Borobudur, Indonesia. A Ph.D Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of International Development Nagoya University. 7. Mathieson, A & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. In Rtz, T. The Socio-cultural Impacts of Tourism: Case of Lake Balaton. Research Support Scheme Czech Republic 8. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003). Socoi-economic and Environmenal Impacts of Tourism Development on the Okavango Delta, North West Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 54:447-467. 9. National Commission for Museum Monuments, Yola (2003). Guide Book to Sukur World Heritage Site. Amana printing Enterprise. Jimeta-Yola.

14

Finanga Y. A & Husain M. A

10. National Commission for Museum and Monuments, Abuja. (2006) Sukur Cultural Landscape. UNESCO World Heritage Site. Adamawa state Nigeria. Management and Business Plan 2006 2011 Cycle. 11. Pedersen, A., (2002). Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. www.whc.unesco.org Retrieved November, 2012. 12. Rtz, T. (2000). The Socio-cultural Impacts of Tourism: Case of Lake Balaton. Research Support Scheme Czech Republic 13. Shongwe, I., Sykes, P., Ramphomane, M., Thomson, G. and Payne, B. M. (2002) South African Tourism Industry Empowerment and Transformation Annual Review 2002. Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). www.infonomics.co.za 14. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), (2002). Socio-cultural Impacts of Tourism.

http://www.unep.fr/pc/tourism/sust-tourism/htm. Retrieved April, 2008. 15. United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), (2005). Sukur Adamawa Nigeria. Africas first cultural landscape and Nigerias first World Heritage Site. Patrimone mundial. World Heritage patrimore mundial. 16. Wallevik, H. B and Jiddawi, N., (undated). Impacts of Tourism on the Activities of the Women of Southeast Coast of Unguja, Zanzibar. 17. World Heritage Council (WHC), (1996). In Ratz, T. The Socio-cultural Impacts of Tourism: Case of Lake Balaton. Research Support Scheme Czech Republic 18. World Tourism and Travel Council (WTTC), (2008). World Economic Impact: Estimates and Forecasts. In Goeldner, C. R and Ritchie, J. R. B. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (11 th Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 19. Yakubu, A. (2000) Planning and Design for Tourism Potentials for Sukur Kingdom in Madagali Local Government Area, Adamawa State. An unpublished B.Tech. Project. Federal University of Technology, Yola.