Visitor Characteristics in Mount Elgon National Park
 

        During the summer 1997, visitor questionnaires collected by Mount Elgon National Park over a four year period, but
        previously unused, were collated and analysed. The information contained within these was combined with information
        from other sources, including the Park Management, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Uganda Tourist Board, Mount Elgon
        Conservation and Development Project (MECDP), Guides and Porters, and visitors themselves. This has been used
        to show that certain aspects of the present tourism on Mount Elgon fits well with the ideals being pursued by
        management, where tourism acts in support of the objectives of conservation and non-consumptive use of park
        resources. Other aspects of the present tourism, especially the management and accommodation of larger groups, seem
        to suggest that caution is needed in their development, as certain characteristics of large groups may lead to animosity
        between hosts and guests, or less integration than is desired. On the whole the present tourism on the mountain seems to
        offer great potential, and is currently in a state that might be considered ‘sustainable’.

The Tourism Development Strategy for Uganda (UNDP/WTO 1993), and opinions voiced by the Uganda Tourist Board (UTB) and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), show that Uganda at the national level is looking for a very specific type of tourism (pers. comm.; Ignatious Nakishero of UTB; UWA 1995; Grindley 1997). This is one where low numbers of high-spending visitors will be the mainstay of the industry, based, at least at present, on natural attractions,. In many areas the benefits are to be spread such that tourism supports the country’s conservation objectives. Mount Elgon National Park (MENP) was used as a case study location to assess the present tourism situation in one protected area, on which to base comments on the suitability of the voiced conservation objectives.

The research conducted over the summer 1997 gives evidence of visitor types, motivations, perceptions and behaviour. The main aim of the research was to offer observations on present visitor types to the Park Management, and to examine the potential that current tourism in MENP might offer for the pursuance of the park’s (community-based) conservation efforts. Based on this work, recommendations for the future development of tourism in MENP were made through personal contact with various actors within the park, and are presented at the end of this chapter.
 

The most important data source used here is the visitor questionnaire survey, conducted by the park over the last four years. Despite the amount of time that these have been in use, the informality of the process and the limited resources of the park have jointly meant that until now the 92 questionnaires completed since 16 January 1994 (until 2 July 1997) had not been analysed. The questionnaires are in three different formats, as they were adapted changing requirements over time. Their variety reflects the fact that they were designed to indicate a number of aspects of visitors and their perceptions. Due to limitations of space not all of the information contained within these questionnaires is considered pertinent here.

The questionnaires have been given out on an ad hoc basis, from the MENP Head Quarters in Mbale. No strict sampling method is adopted, and no record is kept of those people to whom the questionnaires are given. It is therefore difficult to estimate the percentage which are returned. This is likely however to be quite low (estimates of around 20% are offered by park staff), since it requires that visitors return to the park head office. It would therefore need considerable commitment from visitors passing back briefly through Mbale to return the questionnaires they had been issued, or to be prepared to post back their completed questionnaires. The questionnaires are only in English, and although requested, there is no guarantee that they have been completed after a trek rather that before.

It is difficult to say therefore what type of sample that these questionnaires represent, and no attempt has been made to correlate any of the characteristics they record. However, they are felt to be fairly representative of the visitors to the park (being effectively issued at random), and the nature and extent of some of the comments offered suggest people had taken some time to complete them thoroughly. Despite this, evidence from other sources has been used to validate any conclusions drawn from the questionnaire data.
 

The official park records, which are used for the compilation of UWA visitor statistics, are collected on a monthly basis from receipt books by the resident information clerk from each visitor centre (Mbale, Budadiri, Kapkwai and Kapkwata), and figures sent to Mbale. The categories of tourists given in park statistics are therefore those demanded on the receipt, which are a reflection of the pricing system imposed by UWA.

The information collated during the research period came from the MENP visitors books, also situated in the four visitor centres. These are meant to record several tourist characteristics which are not specified on the park entry receipt. Due to the very recent development of the two centres at Kapkwai and Kapkwata, information is only available from the Mbale (HQ) and Budadiri (Sasa trail) visitor books. The exact details recorded have changed somewhat since 1994, which has meant that for continuity only country of origin, duration of visit and trail taken are used here. Information on gender and age recorded during 1996 is also available. The records are in some places incomplete, but the visitor figures they offer seem to concur with the official figures, suggesting a fairly accurate representation.

It is worth re-emphasising here that the term ‘visitor’, used here to describe the people about which the MENP questionnaire and visitor statistics show characteristics, is one which, by default, is defined by the park. ‘Visitor’, in its following usage, is in reference to paying visitors, and not simply anybody entering the park, such as local people going about their normal activities. It is also almost exclusively foreign visitors that are so defined, since these are the visitors that MENP is most interested in qualifying.

An attempt to remedy this has been made since 1996, where the visitor centres are now returning information about the numbers of VIPs and ‘students’ visiting the park, i.e. those people who are granted free entry. It is highly unlikely though that visitor books will deliberately record local citizens, since most of these will be guides and porters -people not recorded as policy. Most locals will also not be considered as needing to sign the visitor book or complete questionnaires even if they do pay, since the park is more interested in non-nationals.
 

Contributors to the research are already acknowledged elsewhere, but it is worth clarifying those consultees used for the formulation of visitor characteristics and perceptions. Apart from senior park staff, Brad Weltzien (US PCV) and officials at the MECDP, a great deal of useful information came from rangers, porters, guides and the information clerks at Kapkwata and Budadiri - those people who have the closest relationship with visitors and spend the longest with them. Despite biases that the act of research by westerners may have introduced, some frank opinions towards tourism were still received.

Informal interviews were also conducted with 11 groups of visitors encountered during the research period. Although an analysis of this limited number of respondents is not included here, their views are integral to the picture of visitor characteristics and perceptions discussed. As with all respondents, where their views are confirmed by other sources they have been considered fairly representative of the situation.
 
 

By far the biggest nationality represented in the visitor questionnaires is British, followed by Germans and Americans (Figure 1). The breakdown into groups in Table 1 shows, moreover, that by far the most significant source country for non-Ugandan visitors is western Europe, followed closely by north America and Australia (including Canada and New Zealand) - the traditional countries of origin for international tourism. This matches with the tourism development strategy’s analysis of origin, which estimated for example that European countries would make up over two-thirds of the entire Ugandan tourism market by 2002 (UNDP/WTO, 1993). It should be noted however that Uganda is underrepresented here as a country of origin since the questionnaire is used almost exclusively with foreign visitors.

Save for the development strategy’s predictions, information on trends in numbers of visitors of different nationalities are non-existent. The record book information shown in Figure 2 confirms the most important groups as British, German and American, but with the Dutch, Norwegians, Australians, Israelis and Ugandans all highly significant in 1996, and a general trend to increase in most of the groups between 1995 and 1996 (figures for 1997 are lower since they are incomplete). The greater diversity of nationalities recorded in the visitor books implies that the questionnaires do not give a representative cross-section of visitors, perhaps due to their being written exclusively in English, though the limited sample size could be an important factor.

Limited information is available regarding the gender and age characteristics of visitors. Information is available from the questionnaires, and a limited set of data was compiled from the visitor book entries for 1996, which were remarkably well maintained that year. This is presented in Table 2. The data from both sources was incomplete, and many visitors gave gender but not age, or vice versa, so the figures do not tally. And because children, and those under three years (who are allowed free entry) would not be paying or completing questionnaires personally, it is difficult to know how many passed in family groups but were not recorded.

The age groupings are used for convenience, and are not something adopted by the park in their record collection. They show quite clearly that, not surprisingly, most people recorded fall into the 21-25 and 26-30 age categories. The younger group of 17-20 year-olds is also quite large, representing a number of school groups, both Ugandan (NGO workers and teachers taking children on excursions) and international, as well as some independent travellers. Older visitors are also important, with the 31-40 category taking a significant proportion of total visitors. Slightly more males were recorded from both sources, with the male to female ratio at just under 2:1.
 

Questionnaire respondents showed a wide variety of different occupations, classified according to the categories given in Table 3. The most obvious point to note here is the number of students visiting MENP, which agrees with the tourism strategy’s assertion that at present the predominant form of tourism is backpackers and independent travellers (UNDP/WTO, 1993). Also, it is interesting to note how many skilled professionals - a group covering a diversity of vocations - are visiting the park. Since there are virtually no organised tours available to MENP, these people are also travelling independently, and might well be being lumped together with students as ‘travellers’ in the national strategy, as opposed to being seen as a relatively distinct group. Skilled professionals such as physiotherapists, managers, engineers and so on are not the usual image of backpackers.

Interview findings and personal observations suggest visitors are taking part in several types of holiday in Uganda, of which Mount Elgon forms a part. The occupational findings suggest this is appealing to people with a wide variety of social status. Unfortunately there is not enough data available to attempt any correlations, though it would be of interest to see how many of these professionals are also resident in Uganda, i.e. ex-patriots and aid and NGO workers. The implication is that, although travelling independently, these people should not necessarily be viewed as in the same ‘low budget’ category as traditional backpackers might be. Informal tourism might be bringing more money to the park than is perhaps being recognised.
 

The visitor questionnaire also enquires as to what the main attractions of Mount Elgon were to the respondent, and offers eight possibilities (as well as ‘other’). Although it does not specifically ask for all the reasons that might have motivated the visitor, most respondents ticked multiple boxes. Of the options provided, Trekking was by far the most popular (80 responses; categorised as ‘hiking’ in earlier questionnaires), followed by Flora; see Figure 3. This evidence seems to imply that the other aspects are not considered to be strong points in the product that Elgon offers, or more likely that most sources of information appear to concentrate on the trekking aspect of the mountain.

This is important for future marketing initiatives, and closely relates with the findings pertaining to the information sources that visitors are using. Although Mount Elgon is generally conceded to offer little in the way of game viewing, other than a few primate species, it does have some good bird watching potential. From the visitor questionnaire, the number of people currently coming to view birds is minimal. Mount Elgon also possesses a large number of impressive caves, some a matter of minutes from the existing trails, but about which very few visitors appear to be aware. All of these features could offer the option of encouraging longer aggregate visitor stays, if only the information was made available. Guides would be ideal for this kind of interpretation, though other means of encouraging a diversity of activities whilst in the park could be examined.
 

The questionnaire analysis reveals that of 102 specified information sources (some respondents giving two or three), the most often cited was the Lonely Planet guide (see below for reference), with 34 respondents giving this reply. This was followed by ‘friends’ (19); then other/non-specified guide books (18); MENP HQ in Mbale (16); the Bradt Guide (Briggs 1996)(8); and lastly Kampala (various sources such as the Backpackers campsite, UTB and UNP/UWA)(7). Very few people therefore are contacting the park before arrival (those specifying the HQ as a source of information probably got it just prior to trekking). Although the ‘friends’ category might indicate a number of visitors having connections in Uganda (or being resident), it might also be possible that visitors are gleaning information from fellow travellers, and this certainly appeared to be the case with some of those tourists consulted.

It is hardly surprising that several of the visitors consulted stated they would have liked more accurate information before arriving, blaming guide books for the deficiency. Similarly the visitor questionnaire asks if people found the information from whatever source they had used ‘sufficient’, to which 27 replied in the negative, as opposed to only 33 who said it had been. Notwithstanding the ambiguity of the question, it is concerning that people are arriving ill-prepared, and thus having their experience detracted from.
 

From the visitor questionnaires, a clear pattern of transport to the mountain (as the question is phrased) emerges. Out of 92 responses (again some respondents indicating more than one answer), by far the most frequently used mode of transport was taxi or pickup (65), followed by private hire (13) and private car (11). Although not choices on the questionnaire, 2 people said they had used bicycles, and 1 said they had reached the mountain on foot. Those people on organised tours (very few) would probably have indicated the use of private car or hire, so it is evident that public transport is the most common means of transport amongst those who answered the survey.
 

Figure 4 groups the lengths of stay in Uganda given on the visitor questionnaires into five categories. Although the format of the answers varied, they have all been translated here into the number of days. The largest category is clearly a duration in Uganda of between 15 and 31 days, which also corresponds with visitors specifying two, three or four weeks, and includes the response ‘one month’. There are also a surprising proportion of visitors staying for 32 to 112 days (between one and four months), which is considered to be a reasonable amount of time for a tour, beyond which respondents might be regarded as residents (in fact 9 people gave this specific response; not included in the table). This agrees with MENP official statistics, which put foreign residents at 27% of total (paying) visitors in 1995, and 23% in 1996 (official records, pers. comm; MENP HQ.).

Duration of stay in the park is more difficult to determine, but the park visitor books show that the average length of park entry is 2.87 days so far this year (up to 8 June). This is lower than the tour operators’ survey conducted by UTB, which gave the average stay in MENP as 4.5 nights, although this is still quite high compared with the other national parks. It is also likely that this figure will increase, with the development of Piswa trail and the visitor centre at Kapkwata now encouraging longer round trips. In any case, the length of stay appears to be determined only by the fact that certain itineraries are promoted by the park, and that trekking alone is thought to be the main motivation for visits. Whilst this agrees with the motivational findings, there may well be potential for extending visit length further. Cost might well be a limiting factor here, and certainly warrants more investigation.
 

The route taken on the mountain is elicited by both the visitor survey and the park visitor books, though the latter are unreliable except for very recently. Table 4 confirms the expectation that the Sasa trail is by far most heavily subscribed route by a large margin.
 

Almost all questionnaire respondents (80) put themselves in the independent category over organised tour, with only 5 tour groups being recorded. Those groups that did respond as being with a tour included one group of Venture Scouts (from Avon, UK), one group with Abercrombie and Kent, one group with Rainbow International (an volunteer-based aid organisation), and two groups with World Challenge.

World Challenge arrange expeditions for school groups. Each group takes one official leader with them supplied by World Challenge, and joins a number of projects in a developing country over the course of several weeks. The aspects of World Challenge tours of interest here are shared with most of the other organised groups; informal, semi-organised, and with details arranged mostly in-country. Given the informality of these current tour groups, they are considered to be more robust than the more formal tour packages that are seen elsewhere. The responsibility of having few details pre-arranged appears to be one of the attractions, and means the park has to do little to meet their specific requirements.
 

Little is recorded about where visitors to the park are staying, but the low cost of local accommodation and the limited availability of serviced camping mean that ‘hotel’ accommodation is a likely norm. The visitor questionnaire asks respondents where they stayed during their visit, and over half (60) mentioned at least one local hotel. These ranged from the Mount Elgon Hotel in Mbale (UG 35,000/= [£22] per night for the cheapest room) to the Salem Brotherhood (UG 4,000/= [£2.50] for a hostel room). Accommodation employed by visitors was also located in a number of the main villages around the mountain.
 

The range of comments on the questionnaire regarding what respondents enjoyed most and least about their visit is extensive, due to the open nature of the question. Combined with first-hand experience of visitors interviewed over the summer some generalisations can be made. Two main groups of responses to the question of what was most enjoyable have been identified here; these two categories have been termed ‘physical beauty’ and ‘experience’. Physical beauty relates to the mountain’s geology, ‘views’, flora, ‘nature’ and so on. Experience is more personal, in that it includes such responses as ‘adventure’, ‘peace and solitude’ and remoteness, as well as reaching Wagagai summit and talking to the rangers and guides. The responses are well mixed, but visitors seem to be most impressed by the mountain itself, and then by the more personal aspects of the actual trek.

Finally, although not a perception of the park, the question relating to whether the respondent is travelling on a low budget or not does indicate some aspect of visitors’ attitudes towards their visits. To this question, 78 out of 84 respondents answered that they were ‘budget travellers’, whilst only 2 said they were not, and 4 put themselves in the ‘intermediate’ category. What this might imply is difficult to say, since budget size is a personal opinion, but it does at least suggest that visitors to MENP are concerned with the cost of their trip.
 

Due to the constraints on the collection of good quality information over the research period, the observations offered here are obviously generalisations. What research has shown however is that groups of visitors share some common features. These are summarised briefly below before discussion as to the value of this information for future tourism management.

One of the most interesting observations to be made about tourism in MENP is the large number of Ugandans visiting the park, though little is known about them. Better data on the visitors of international origin however mean that certain characteristics can be discerned; they are mixture of students and professionals; they are spending on average two to four weeks in Uganda; they are mostly in their twenties to forties; they are travelling independently, and using local transport and a diversity of local accommodation; they consider themselves as low budget travellers, and are mostly travelling using guide books; they were until recently only using the Sasa route; they are attracted by the idea of trekking, but suffer in various respects from a shortage of information or from inaccurate information, some of which is outwith the control of MENP management; they have few complaints that MENP could directly tackle, and are generally happy with their experience of the park.

Foreign residents are also an important group being recorded as visitors, who could perhaps be considered as domestic tourists. Many of these are probably short-term workers with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and this group might well account for the majority of park visitors recorded by the questionnaires who were in Uganda for over four months. Additionally, is it possible that a small but significant number of the foreign non-residents visiting the park are either NGO workers from Tanzania or Kenya, or the friends of NGO workers in Uganda, Tanzania or Kenya. All of these countries are attracting foreigners to positions as diverse as voluntary teacher and water technician, and Uganda in particular sees a substantial number of volunteers in its schools and hospitals every year.

The independent nature of travel associated with MENP visitors, and their duration of stay in Uganda alone suggest they may well be the types of people for whom cultural differences are not so stark. Combined with the likely importance of NGO workers and their friends, the current situation seems to be more an exchange of cultures rather than anything more concerning. The current tourism situation also encourages visitors to spend several days in the company of local guides and porters, in local shops and so on, which further mitigates against the cultural differences between visitor and host. For tourism to make an impact on the resource usage patterns of local people it will have to increase quite substantially, but the relatively unstructured product means that presently benefits are not being concentrated as much as they might. If this situation is anything to go by, then the signs bode well for future development. There is no evidence available at present to suggest the economic importance of visitors currently reaching the park, except what is receipted in the park office (which is a significant but not exclusive proportion of visitors’ local spending). This should warrant more research, given the desirability of a tourism which spreads its benefits.

From the foregone, it appears there is an obvious message here regarding Uganda’s present approach to tourism development in its national parks. Put simply, if UWA wants low impact tourists, spending their money as widely as the tourism product offered will allow, then MENP is currently a paradigm of success. Backpackers, ex-pats, NGO workers and Ugandan citizens form the majority of present visitors, and the informality of the current situation in MENP appears to lend itself to something approaching ‘sustainability’, however hard it may be to define the term.

MENP is currently nowhere near over-dependence on tourism or saturation of tourists. There is anecdotal evidence that larger groups are unpopular locally, and may well be hiring few local people and bringing in their own food (World Challenge and Raleigh International are cases in point). If organised tours are encouraged, and up-market ones at that, then these problems might well increase. Furthermore, there is little doubt that MENP is already contributing in some way to the tourism product which Uganda offers, and which it hopes will keep people in-country, spending money, for some time. It is questionable whether organised tours are likely to keep people in Uganda for as long as current visitors to MENP say they are staying. In this sense, careful development of tourism in MENP could help support other park objectives, while still allowing MENP to contribute to a national strategy which recognises that each tourism location has its own foibles and unique charateristics, and therefore its own role to play. Caution is needed, but pragmatism and open-mindedness can easily be excersised further to guide the future use of tourism, to improve the economic situation of MENP and those living in and around it, whilst still maintaining the area’s physical and social integrity.
 

More specifically, recommendations for the future development of tourism in MENP suggested by the foregone research can be made. These were communicated personally to various tourism actors within the Park at the end of the research period. The most important are summarised below:

 Clarification of pricing - complicated pricing categories tend to create a negative image, where
        the total entrance fee payable is made up of several individual payments depending on nationality,
        age, duration of visit and so on. Although most visitors appear to be happy with their visit, there is
        evidence that paying a camping fee when there is no option, or paying significantly more if one is a
        foreign rather than Ugandan national for example, may cause undue tension. Indicating example
        total entry prices to visitors, perhaps in table format, will shift the emphasis away from the many
        individual payments that entry necessarily comprises

 Publicity- As a main point of arrival in Mbale, the bus park could be a valuable source of
        information to visitors regarding MENP and how to go about arranging a trek. Similarly, the Mtatu
        (local taxi bus) park in Mbale is the main point for transport to the reserve. Better signs in Mbale
        would make arranging a visit/trek easier for visitors, and help present a more coherent product. this
        is especially important when visitors are currently dependent on guide book information, which can
        easily be out of date. Expectations are very important in determining peoples’ level of enjoyment,
        and if these are based on old information then problems that could otherwise be avoided by better
        local information will only serve to benefit all.

 Tourist sensitivity - Information on the reserve itself is already of a good standard, as are
        guidelines for responsible tourism. However, there is little guidance on what would be acceptable
        behaviour towards local people, and what constitutes sensitive tourism more generally. Clear advice
        on this aspect of tourism within MENP would help tourists to minimise their impact. Furthermore,
        more emphasis in tourist information on the peoples of the MENP and its environs would help
        tourists understand the problems the area faces, the reasons for this, and how their visit is helping to
        alleviate them.

 Limiting group numbers - Large groups behave differently to smaller ones, and have
        different impacts. By imposing a maximum group number - perhaps by limiting the number of
        visitors per guide - would give a better experience for the visitor and allow better interaction
        between local people and tourists. Large groups can be split whilst in the reserve, creating more
        work for guides and porters, and thus would not be deterred. This would have obvious advantages
        for visitor safety, given the important role guides play in this respect. The pricing system for guides
        could be changed so that there was less of an inclination for larger groups to for simply to save
        money, e.g. by charging a rate per person for groups over a certain size.

 Ticketing - Currently, visitors that have paid for a trek on the mountain are still required to pay
        again for entrance into the Kapkwai centre, and the short walks on offer there. This probably deters
        people from visiting if they have already paid for a trek, although Kapkwai offers good
        interpretation on MENP and also the possibility for pre-trek acclimatisation. By making tickets for
        longer park entry valid for Kapkwai before or after their official start/finish dates, visitors already in
        the area would be encouraged to this important educational facility. This would help generate more
        funds at the site, and also encourage longer stays and therefore more spending in the surrounding
        area.
 

Briggs. P., (1996) Guide to Uganda, Bradt Publications, UK
Else, D., (1993) Trekking in East Africa, 1^st Edition, Lonely Planet Walking Guide, Lonely Planet Publications, Australia
Grindley, Mark E., (1997) Tourism for Conservation? A critique of current tourism development planning in
        Uganda’s  protected areas, using the example of the Mount Elgon National Park. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation
        in Rural and Regional Resources Planning, University of Aberdeen, unpublished.
Lonely Planet, (1995) Africa on a Shoestring, 7^th Edition, Lonely Planet Publications, Australia.
UNDP/WTO, (1993) Integrated Tourism Masterplan, Republic of Uganda, FinalReport, (UGA 91/010), Madrid.
UWA, (1995) Policy Document of Uganda Wildlife Authority, September 1995, UWA, Kampala
 

Project Co-ordinator, Field Work, Report Writer: Mark E. Grindley