The rural areas conservancy sites and ecotourism-climate change quandaries: an integrated rural initiative impact on environmental sustainability and livelihoods

The topic of climate change has gained attention recently (Fuzzi et al., 2006). Even though a number of factors make it impossible to make specific announcements about what climate change entails, global warming is still expected to worsen (Prudham, 2009; Levin et al., 2012). Naturally, a large portion of rural residents in Africa and Southern Africa reside in low-income areas; Musina municipality is no exception. Natural biodiversity, including tourism-related entities, is abundant in these areas. It is suggested that to manage the threats posed by climate change and increase subsistence, sustainable ecotourism can create a pattern of integrated rural development initiatives that converge toward agritourism and agricultural initiatives within such localities. They are nevertheless exposed to the effects of climate change. As such, it has dire consequences for global economic activity and subsistence (Arent et al., 2011). Although the fundamental goals of ecotourism are to promote sustainable travel by promoting social, economic, and environmental values, poorly planned and managed ecotourism facilities can have alarming effects (Ramaano, 2008, 2019).

Anagolously, Chikodzi et al. (2022), concentrating on South Africa’s United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO) heritage sites such as Table Mountain National Park of the Cape Floral Kingdom in the western cape and Mapungubwe National Park (MNP) in the far north of Musina local municipality and Musina town, advised that harsh environmental circumstances and climate change pose a hazard to heritage sites, jeopardizing the rich heritage data and tourism prosperity. In a similar study, Dube and Nhamo (2020) assert that climate change’s effects on protected sites, especially national parks, contribute to conservation challenges and negatively affect tourism. This was illustrated by a Kruger National Park (KNP) case, also significantly associated with Thulamela ruins, which are potentially rich cultural heritage and geotourism sites. Notwithstanding the aforementioned pertinent academic endeavors, there is still a dearth of research on sustainable tourism and strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change in the province, Vhembe district, and particularly in the study area. Yet, there is relevant literature on climate change in fields like agriculture, small-scale irrigation farming and its performance in the district (Van Averbeke, 2012); the adaptability and coping mechanisms of forest-based rural communities to climate variability and change (Ofoegbu et al., 2016); and integrated livelihoods, which include gender empowerment and water availability in the district (Nyahunda and Tirivangasi, 2020), among other areas. However, it may seem that a paucity of investigations and knowledge on livelihoods, sustainability and biodiversity management in the tourism sector – and especially in the study area – in relation to climate change still exists. This study is an exploratory piece of research that is justified by (a) a lack of prior research in the location; (b) a need to establish a baseline for future research; and (c) that the pertinent parks have features found in many other parts of the continent, and hence the findings may aid researchers assessing other parks and their policies. It is, therefore, one of the first and aims to bridge the existential scholarly gap by complementing general studies on climate change and other literature on forest livelihood in the research region and the district per se. Thus, consistent with the research gaps, findings, failings, and current situations, the recommendations are given on its conclusions. Hence, well-managed tourism establishments and decent tourism development policies can positively affect local development and the empowerment of communities in crucial environmental governance, preservation and ecotourism management aptitudes against climate change shocks (Goodwin, 2016; Gardner, 2016; Bushell and Bricker, 2017).

Likewise, the problem statement resides in the fact that, generally, despite abundant examination that focuses on the role of ecotourism in poverty relief and subsistence, there appears to be an impaired focus on a lack of sustainable and responsible tourism knowledge, adherence to right practices, managing local natural resources, enhancing sustainability and contributing to climate adaptation and mitigation strategies (Imran et al., 2014; Ramaano, 2022b, 2023f, 2024a). To this end, the probable detrimental environmental effects of ecotourism activities and products linked with climate change predicament within the local area communities and their conservancy sites, and vice versa, are associated with dire consequences on livelihoods. Thus, very broadly, an academic gap exists that this study seeks to bridge in its contribution to scholarly knowledge. It, therefore, regards the approach of sustainable tourism through responsible tourism activities, integrated rural livelihoods and decent ecotourism facilities as demonstrating leadership toward social accountability, corporate management and social conduct in battling environmental degradation and climate change matters (Enns et al., 2019). In this chronology, it is enough to consider that ecotourism can influence climate but is not unsusceptible to climate change take-ups and effects. For instance, harmful ecotourist exercises such as vegetation squashing and pollutant dumping, among others, can, in the long term, initiate climate change in dry land and coastal areas. Nevertheless, climate change also negatively affects tourism and ecotourism by disrupting profitable seasons and locations for touring opportunities, thus embodying a two-way connection between ecotourism, climate change and sustainability. RQ1: Can integrated rural livelihoods and ecotourism-triggered climate change consequences be remedied effectively within conservation-oriented outlying tourist destination regions? RQ2: How can integrated livelihoods and environmental sustainability be improved in the study area through sustainable and responsible tourism? In turn, from the dual implications of ecotourism to sustainability imperatives, strive to strictly hoist the positive impacts to promote integrated rural livelihoods and climate change adaptation efforts.

In keeping with its theoretical framework’s essence, this analysis supports the principles and justifications of theories pertaining to sustainable tourism. As latent components of an integrated rural livelihoods strategy in natural resources and protected area-based neighborhoods, it is carried out in tandem with the notions of responsible tourism and sustainability to promote tourism-oriented sustainable livelihoods against the dire consequences of climate change. The three pillars of ecotourism and sustainable development in terms of social, economic and environmental efficiencies are adopted by the aforementioned as their main objectives. Three key elements – nature, education and sustainability – are better ways to characterize ecotourism than the three paradigms they all share. With improved environmental sustainability as the ultimate goal, this has a major impact on mitigating current and future climate change shocks. Hence, it encourages sustainable and ethical livelihoods.

Sustainability in general means that resources should be used and managed by the current generation without compromising the needs of the future generation (NUTEK, 2008: 25). It is commonly divided into three main categories: social, environmental, and economic. Lowering their environmental impact and preserving resources are just two examples of the sustainable goals that many governments and businesses have dedicated themselves to. In terms of tourism and local communities’ subsistence, this entails the theory of sustainable tourism as already defined and ensures the protection of natural, cultural, and social resources and overall biodiversity (Robinson et al., 2019; Wiktor-Mach, 2020). It is indeed crucial for tourism development that can be sustained perpetually and for future generations, harmonizing with the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030 that follow in the footsteps of the UN’s eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the promotion of sustainable livelihoods (Labadi, 2022).

Tourism is regarded as crucial for economic development and livelihood enhancement for local communities, making it a significant building block toward the achievement of SDG 1 on eradicating poverty. However, the latter should be exercised cooperatively and in consideration of the essence of SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production of food and goods, where the tourism and hospitality industries should prioritize things like green marketing to ensure sustainable livelihoods and environmental sustainability, including within the marginalized, conservancy sites and natural resource-bound areas (Musavengane, 2019). These, together with ecotourism ideals, when practiced within the appropriate environment and with the right policies, are able to counterbalance the effects of climate change, in line with UN SDGs 3 and 13 on good health and well-being and climate action (Prud’homme and Raymond, 2016; Ramaano 2024a, 2024c, 2024d). To this end, García and Sanz (2018) posit that sustainable development and sustainability are closely related concepts. Thus, sustainable development is defined as a method of advancement that preserves the ability to meet the needs of the present without endangering the resources of the future and has important ethical components.

The concept of “sustainable tourism” encompasses all aspects of the travel experience, including consideration for social, cultural, and environmental issues as well as efforts to enhance visitor experiences and meet the needs of host communities (Liu, 2003; Weaver, 2007; Edgell, 2019). In the past decades, conversations about the fundamentals of sustainable development in the tourism industry have given rise to sustainable tourism (Chirieleison and Rizzi, 2023). In rural areas, sustainable tourism, among others, presents itself mainly in rural tourism forms such as ecotourism and agritourism (Murphy and Price, 2012). Rural tourism can be defined as the “country experience”, which encompasses a wide range of attractions and activities that take place in agricultural or non-urban areas (Keyser, 2002:332). Given their potential to support local livelihoods and their role in the conservation of indigenous and local biodiversity, education about ecotourism, agritourism and agro-ecotourism is more likely to be quickly understood by the local communities (Giampiccoli et al., 2020; Mudefi et al., 2024). But as was previously mentioned, if ecotourism is not conducted within the appropriate frameworks, its detrimental effects can jeopardize environmental sustainability and reasonable subsistence, as well as exacerbate climate change issues. For communities and the local government to provide sustainable livelihoods, decent tourism-oriented and integrated development policies are required (Ndwandwe and Gumbo, 2022). Sustainable development is the aim shared by both responsible and sustainable tourism. Therefore, the principles of sustainable tourism and responsible tourism are the same: upholding social justice, protecting the environment, and maximizing local economic gains (Perkumienė et al., 2020; Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Suffice to say, in South Africa, the Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism was a success. Hence, the term “responsible tourism” was first used in Cape Town in 2002 and is currently used extensively worldwide to describe travel that “creates better places for people to live in and better places to visit” (Nikhildas and Jagadeesan, 2021). It relates to the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, which was held from August 26 to September 4. They all built on the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from June 3–14, and the 1972 UN Declaration on the Human Environment in Stockholm (Handl, 2012; Emelie, 2020; Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). To promote viable tourism, responsible tourism practices are encouraged. These practices call for everyone to behave ethically when interacting with the environment and to ensure the feasible use of environmental resources, which are in turn valuable tourism assets (Koščak and O’Rourke, 2023). With responsible tourism, locals participate in decisions that impact and transform their lives and positively impact the preservation of the environment and cultural heritage (Sormin and Sihombing, 2023). Akin to the concept of sustainability, efforts toward lessened environmental degradation and climate change activities can be boosted within such a spectrum. Responsible tourism can be an important mitigation measure against the debilitating impacts of climate change that, in reverse motion, also threaten livelihood options. It therefore suggests the essence and need for the tourism industry, together with local communities in destination areas, to take a proactive stance toward protecting the environment by promoting sustainable and balanced travel.

Salpage et al. (2020) showed concern about the possible effects of ecotourism activities and behavior on wetlands’ integrity using a case study of Sri Lanka’s ecotourism sector. Thus, it is clear that climate change has an impact on ecosystems. In light of this, wetlands are the primary components of the development of ecotourism and are essential to the biodiversity of many protected areas. They serve as habitats for a number of keystone species, purify the air, and mitigate a variety of detrimental effects on the ecosystem, including pollution and imports that contribute to climate change. To this end, Wearing et al. (2020) remind us of the imperativeness of the UN initiative of 2008 on lowering emissions from deforestation from forest stocks, whose degradation is related to tourism and ecotourism facilities and activities that are capable of inducing degradation within and around protected areas and hospitality venues in destination areas. Hence, Ranjan (2023) and Li et al. (2023) single out ecotourism as an alternative livelihood strategy and an adaptation mechanism to dry area environments, water-deficient zones, and climate change-prone areas. Thus, Deason et al. (2023) cautioned us about the comprehensive value of tourism resources. They describe accounting for biodiversity and natural ecosystems as significant for ecotourism developments and strategies directed toward their maintenance against climate change globally. Given these, it is not surprising that nearly 20% of all travel and tourist activities occur in mountainous regions; these destinations also require careful consideration (Pan and Ryan, 2007). It suffices to say that the study area and the municipality comprise resourceful mountainous spots such as the Domboni and Mukununde Mountains and Mapungubwe cultural heritage landscapes (MCHLs) that can be sufficiently conserved, developed, and marketed consistent with the UNESCO and UN SDGs (Ramaano, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2023e). With this, Tagoranao and Gamon (2019) and Shang et al. (2023) view that well-formulated policies and procedures on ecotourism in adjusting the climate will broaden the feasibilities of people to profit from ecotourism products.

A routine of effects via pollution, ecological degradation, and deforestation ensures climate change puzzles. Henceforward, it is crucial to determine and rescue natural assets like ecosystem services and endangered species (Bennett et al., 2009). Thus, Charters (2009), De Witt (2011) maintain that climate change is just as existent as it is and that there is a duty to defend the integrity of ecotourism when paired with other potentially unfortunate tourism-based activities. In this narrative, Situmorang and Mirzanti (2012), and Saunders (2013) suggest that tourists and local communities be acquainted with the value of sound conservation and tourism exercises and the inherent significance of biodiversity. In South Africa, there are notable laws, acts and entities that have an impact on sustainability, biodiversity and conservancies. By establishing guidelines for environmental decision-making, organizations that will support cooperative leadership, and protocols for coordinating the environmental role played by state organs, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 seeks to establish cooperative environmental governance. To mitigate and adapt to climate change and promote sustainability, the NEMA 39, Act of 2004 regulates air quality and offers measures to prevent pollution and ecological degradation (Du Toit, 2016; Mubanga and Kwarteng, 2020). Likewise, effective environmental protection and monitored use, as well as matters related thereto, are the goals of the Environment Conservation Act (ECA), No. 73 of 1989 (Day, 2015; Ramaano, 2021b). Thus, it is vital to come to the meaningful realization that, among the many general explanations of climate change’s dire impacts, inadequate preservation of the natural environment overthrows endemic animal and plant species and keystones, ultimately resulting in their extinction. Subsequently, due to the modified intrinsic worth of biodiversity, the earth’s temperature will be higher, making the danger of climate change’s undesirable shocks a reality. Similarly, Legrand et al. (2013) maintain that biodiversity loss, deforestation, and international deprivation are overriding concerns for every future administrator in the hospitality industry and their facilities. Hence, when used and surveyed decently, “ecotourism, as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the wellbeing of local people,” is a latently viable alternative and a method to mitigate climate change (Ogara et al., 2013; Frost et al., 2014).

In many rural, biodiversity-endowed remote areas of developing nations, ecotourism is an evident form through which tourism can be sustainable. Likewise, Mudzengi (2022) asserts that in African nations endowed with natural biodiversity and indigenous resources, community ecotourism is capable of contributing substantially to local community development and environmental sustainability; meanwhile, climate change threatens the improvement of local livelihood outcomes. Analogously, Ryan et al. (2011), with a case study of the diaolou of Kaiping, Guangdong, in south China, remind us of the potential role that the UNESCO world heritage sites have on the socioeconomic status and lives of rural people. Consistent with the rationales for this study, it calls for robust conservation criteria and the maximum preservation of natural biodiversity areas and national parks against the effects of climate change and integrated rural livelihoods from locals and unsustainable tourists’ behavior. Akin to the aforementioned, Ashok et al. (2022) posit that, as a means of adapting to the effects of climate change, ecotourism has been recognized for its ability to maximize carbon storage, biodiversity restoration, and livelihood incentives. It can thus also help pave the way for the economic, environmental and social status of regions abundant in natural resources and cultural properties.

Likewise, Meetei et al. (2023) advance a similar view with a case study on the sustainability of the Himalayan ecosystem: climate change transformation necessitates extensive adaptations in farming and ecosystem management techniques by employing indigenous systems (IKS) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) for sacred ecosystems and agroforestry undertakings. In this regard, Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2006) and Roe (2018) maintain that creating ecotourism facilities is a sounder way to support developing nations in protecting their environment and raising the prestige of policy outcomes. It suffices to note that ECA 73 of 1989 is amended by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEMPAA) 57 of 2003, which aims to preserve and conserve ecologically feasible areas that are indicative of South Africa's biological diversity as well as its natural scenery and seascapes (Kirkman et al., 2021). It also creates a national registry of all national, provincial and local protected areas. Meanwhile, biodiversity, sacred forests, and agroforestry activities are livelihood system impulses essential for heritage tourism, cultural tourism, ecotourism and conservation expeditions (Ryan, 2002; Ryan and Aicken, 2005; Ramaano, 2008). Although this study does not use the sustainable livelihoods approach in its mission, what was just said emphasizes how important the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) is for ensuring rural subsistence, and this study highlights the essence of its future use in the conclusion and recommendation parts while realizing climate change dynamics. The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) (DFID, 1999) or the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) (UNDP, 2017), which were first introduced in the early 1990s, have become a central part of theoretical and practice fieldwork, particularly in rural areas of the developing world. The SLA favors some methods over others, even though it is not a method itself. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA), which evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), is an evaluation and learning approach that emphasizes enabling locals to take an active role in assessing their own lifestyle, issues and prospects to seek a transition in their circumstances. It can be helpful in developing livelihood strategies and rural tourism. The previously mentioned work is in concert with innovative methods like participatory learning and action (PLA) (Pandey et al, 2017; Natarajan et al., 2022). According to Chambers (1983, 2014), Scoones (2013), in SLA, individuals are the center of development. The five livelihood assets – human capital, social capital, physical capital, natural capital and financial capital – form the foundation of the sustainable livelihood approach (Bennett et al., 2009; Su et al., 2019). Similar to this, the study area’s assets can be easily attained through a variety of tourism development strategies, including initiatives related to agritourism, ecotourism, cultural tourism, and geotourism. To this end, Justina and Lantara (2023) generally remind us of the essence of government mechanisms for the sustainability report in facilitating the economic, social, and environmental performance of entities and facilities. Similarly, Jamaliah et al. (2021) further agree that, of late, intensified tourism and ecotourism corporations that are negatively affected by climate change ought to promote adaptive mechanisms. Henceforth, Day and Noakes (2021) note the existence of an instantaneous demand for ecotourism alliances to improve their soundness and construct their adaptation capability to avoid being negatively influenced by the aforementioned negative contributions. There is a potential necessary compound between conservation leadership, ecotourism, agritourism and inclusive tourism within the territory and other remote rural regions (Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). While ecotourism is primarily concerned with conservation, community-based tourism (CBT) brings locals into the tourism industry. Thus, nature-based tourism encompasses more extensive natural experiences; community-based tourism places an emphasis on community involvement (Mtapuri and Giampiccoli, 2019). Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), on the other hand, can integrate and reconcile the two and promote livelihoods through their synergies in the study area. Minimal impact nature conservation is the main goal of ecotourism (Wasonga et al., 2010; Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). However, ecotourism cannot always be sustainable consistent with its principles and may often be a victim of greenwash, as there are many possible negative impacts, such as vegetation trampling by vehicles and altering biodiversity and disturbance of natural habitats. Given these assertions, responsible tourism is encouraged for realistic sustainable ecotourism and responsible behaviors within the tourism industry. Consistent with the gist of this study, it will assist in preventing environmental consequences and mitigating climate change effects. To this effect, Spenceley (2012) endorsed responsible tourism, local economic development, and rural tourism products and livelihoods in South Africa.

Musina municipality includes the settlement of Vhembe District municipality. It is lodged in the remote northeastern domain of the Limpopo Province, bordering Zimbabwe in the north and Mozambique on the east side, adjacent to KNP. Thus, in the remote north, the municipality is almost Musina town, tied to Thulamela municipality. See [Figure 1] for the area map (Musina Municipality, 2019; Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). Hence, Figure 2 illustrates the imagined sustainable ecotourism and climate change-conscious livelihoods model for the municipality and rural communities. The north-western and south-eastern boundaries of Musina municipality keep patches of tomato and citrus companies (Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). A combination of agricultural production and tourism development ambitions is a viable choice in Musina municipality. There is a double affinity between tourism and agricultural activities; consequently, the notions of agro-tourism and ecotourism, alongside cultural heritage tourism, geo-tourism and ethnic tourism, are direct pathways via which tourism can be bearable in rural locations. For instance, unsustainable agricultural practices in destination areas that cause climate change will influence agriculture developments, including agro-tourism and ecotourism spin-offs within such environs. Enough to cite that agritourism complements the remuneration for farmers via cottage boarding, amongst other lures. Subsequently, an agreement between the two initiatives (agricultural systems and tourism dealers) in rural areas is practicable; for illustration, the locals produce commerce for the bordering ecotourism and hospitality platforms at arranged and funded prices. In these areas, increased agricultural productivity and adaptation to severe climatic impacts, such as drought, decreased rainfall, persistent dry spells and extreme heat, depend heavily on IKS (Gwenzi et al., 2016). In addition to drought-resistant crop varieties, some traditional farming methods include the use of mixed cropping farming systems and higher-yielding crop varieties (Lunduka et al., 2019). Therefore, the cited are also crucial for increasing the likelihood of agritourism products in the surrounding areas. Even though techniques like contour plowing are designed to prevent environmental issues like soil erosion, such marvels entice and excite tourists in the end (Ramaano, 2021a). Likewise, Sloan et al. (2012) assert that sustainable hospitality and tourism development are engines for sustainable development. Henceforth, it is a necessity for spurring corporations amid hospitality initiatives, biodiversity protection and an appreciable asset to protected wild areas (Prud’homme and Raymond, 2016). Therefore, agriculturalists’ attitudes toward forest management and ecotourism are crucial and worthwhile for integrative development (Mayett-Moreno et al., 2017).

Agritourism, ecotourism and tourism host activities exist in the Musina municipal area. These include Folovhodwe Nwanedi and Tshipise community-based farming and irrigation projects; Gumela river-based agricultural enterprises; Zwigodini [Madifha] Big Tree; and Tshipise Forever Resorts, amongst others. The study revealed that the Musina municipality has the advantage of having many tourism and hospitality initiatives. There are innumerable tourist attractions within Musina municipality and in the most rural parts. They maintain the Big Tree Nature Reserve, Nwanedi Nature Reserve (and resort), Big Tree Accommodation Lodge, and Domboni Caves. Still, Musina municipality and Musina town pride themselves on other tourist attractions. They comprise, amongst others, Limpopo River Lodge, Beria Madzonga Resort, Manalani Lodge, Bush Babe, Dongola Ranch, Baobab Caravan Park, Baobab Chalets, Tshiphale Park and Resort, Tshipako Guest House, Vhengani Resort, De Geb’s Resort (Gaba’s park in Muswodi Dipeni) and MNP (Ramaano, 2008, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2023e).

The techniques utilized in this study are exploratory and aim at examining the integrated environmental effects of climate change-bound ecotourism exercises in marginalized and protected sites in Musina municipality, South Africa, to summarize main characteristics and initiate new ideas that can be explored in future studies. The study is primarily a qualitative survey, with data collected using a variety of methods and analyzed non-inferentially using cross-tabulation analysis, central tendencies, frequency distribution and percentages, as well as manual categorization. As a result, it continued to adhere to the traditions of qualitative research while further transforming the qualitative focus group discussions to represent a quantitative nature with descriptive and simple statistics. The necessary research protocols were adhered to. The ethical clearance form issued for the main study by the university was for undertaking the research. It served to influence the entire research process in the study area. The study applied purposive sampling. Therefore, a literature review and focus groups constituted the main research methods. The reason for designating this kind of sampling was that the investigator thought to achieve the desired sample by utilizing the analytical method, which would preserve time (Patton, 2001).

The original sample size was calculated utilizing Taro Yamane’s formula (Yamane 1973). n = N/(1 + Ne²), where n is the sample size, N is the population size and e is the precision level. The given study area possesses Folovhodwe, Gumela, Tshipise, and Zwigodini villages in Musina municipality and holds 4,947 populations. Thus, the sample was established at 5% (e = 0.05), and the underpinning sample size was about 370; hence, this original sample size describes the primary study sample size, which only sets off the current investigation and the focus group discussion sub-sample size of the (n = 20). (4 focus group discussions conducted with up to 5 participants in each of the selected four villages, totaling 20 participants overall). Hence, this study significantly dwells on a focus group discussion subsample along with the supporting data collection methods. The poor livelihoods and facilities of the neighborhoods around the protected sites encouraged the choice of the study area. Four villages were thoughtfully selected and represented, which are Folovhodwe, Gumela, Tshipise, and Zwigodini, abutting diverse tourist entities such as the Nwanedi resort, Sagole Spa, and the Big Tree Nature Reserve (Ramaano, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e). Data were gathered employing primary and secondary methods according to the purpose of the study, using multiple methods. To this end, Khoo-Lattimore et al. (2019) offer better advice on the usage of mixed-methods research in tourism, which this study is not farfetched from. Hence, (a) literature reviews (general literature reviews mainly from March 1 to June 20, 2022 and extends to 2023 and 2024) collected the data; (b) focus group discussions (n = 20) [mornings and afternoons] from March 17 to 20, 2019; and (c) field observations (a field survey from March 1 to June 2019 and extends to 2023 and 2024).  Appendix 1 displays the table and details of the undertaking of focus group discussions (FGDs), and  Appendix 2 is the (FGDs) summary and guide on villages’ local communities. The rationale and nature of the data collection methods for the study were crucial. (a) Literature review: A literature review is a general review of a preliminary study on a subject. According to Snyder (2019), literature review as a research methodology compounds the basis for all sorts of studies and permits investigators to review their preparatory ranges. The literature review investigates scholarly information, bulletins, and other considerations associated with a suitable area of research (Van Lange Paul et al., 2015). (b) Focus group discussions: a focus group discussion is one of the much-desired primary sources of data; in this investigation, its relevance lies within the core of the study area and the gist intent of the examination (Colucci, 2007; Hennink, 2013). Hence, consistent with the research question, focus group discussion was an appropriate method for data gathering. Generally, focus group discussions are on perceptions, knowledge, thoughts, sentiments, and attributes on a specific topic. Hence, the focus group discussion method was appropriate for ecotourism, rural activities, and sustainability implications in the study area. Appendices provide further elaborations of focus group discussion (FGD) undertakings in  Appendices 1 and  2. (c) Field observations: field observation is a crucial complementary instrument in data collection as it delivers a first-hand understanding of data through actual captions and physical captions. Leedy (1989) exhibited that direct observation is one of the ways of forming an exact portrayal of an object. In this examination, the data from field observations provided a precise arrangement of the physical geography, biodiversity status, and people’s activities, behaviors, and actions in the study area. Consequently, the parties had mixed choices for appointment times for focus group discussions; some picked morning sessions, while others preferred midday slots. Furthermore, the distance controlled the research assemblages. About the whole research procedure and field observation, closer locations got morning slots, while midday slots were for the too remote once to finally and comprehensively achieve the data from the local communities. The literature review was necessary for acquiring the central realization of the study. Similarly, the distance regulated the research gatherings. For the whole research process and field observations, closer locations got morning slots, while far-flung ones got noon slots. As such, data from both local communities and their territories was organized. The literature review was essential for achieving the primary goal of the study. On this account, focus group discussions (n = 20) and field observations supplemented the cited data. Primary sources were the formative sources, such as eyewitness portrayals of the event (focus group discussions), but secondary sources were a little separated from primary sources and contained information from people who were not witnesses (literature review) (Snyder, 2019; Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).

Demographics are significant variables associated with the nature of any given community. The study area contains 45% females and 55% males. Jointly with the descriptive examination, Musina Municipality has 43.4% female-headed households and 56.6% male-headed homes. It is thus roughly balanced with Ramaano's (2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d) determinations that signify an irregular but natural imbalance among women and men, primarily the more immature age in the study area. Gender composition is an essential factor in any nation. Therefore, within the subsample of the focus group discussion, eight (40%) were women and 12 (60%) were men (n = 20). Such disparities in sex representation among the local village participants would generally serve to encourage gender equity improvements within the management of the adjacent tourism and hospitality entities.

Consistent with the quantitative data, Table 1 shows that only eight respondents demonstrated some knowledge of responsible tourism in battling environmental crises such as deforestation, environmental degradation and climate change. On the other hand, with 12 participants, the majority exhibited a counteracting acquaintance with such awareness. Hence, 60% of participants, in actuality, presented no expertise in responsible tourism or environmental consequence management. As a result, the central tendency for the negative responses was a 3 mean (μ), 3 median (M), and 3 mode values (Mo), with 2 range (X) and standard deviation values (σ) of 0.7071, and the positive response was a 2 mean (μ), 2 median (M), and 2 mode values (Mo), with 2 range (X) and standard deviation values (σ) of 0.7071. A high mean value indicates a pressing problem, while a low standard deviation indicates that the data are more closely packed around the mean. To this end, Zwigodini village dominated the negative responses in the reliability and validity breakdown, and participants from Folovhodwe village were the most outstanding in promoting the importance of responsible tourism in addressing environmental crises, with the majority of positive responses. There were qualitative assertions associated with findings such as the following:

(a) Explanations on the role of responsible tourism in combating environmental crises

Indeed, 40% expressed some knowledge of the significance of responsible tourism (e.g. its role in combating environmental crises such as deforestation, environmental degradation, and climate change). Henceforth, it is significant in tourism development and ecosystem management (Weaver, 2007). They pointed out that their student siblings had uncovered such information. Accordingly, they accept that responsible tourism is an advanced approach to sustainable tourism and offers better optional tourism resources and hospitality management mechanisms and platforms while simultaneously ensuring environmental sustainability (Line et al., 2018). The municipality can earn from using this option to advance livelihoods through biodiversity, tourism and agricultural spin-offs.

The quantitative nature of the data in Table 2 reveals that 13 respondents reacted negatively to their knowledge of alternative tourism and its role in achieving sustainability. On the other hand, a minority of seven respondents conveyed some knowledge about such exploration. Hence, 60% of participants opposed the notion of alternative tourism and its role in sustainability achievement. Consequently, it is significant for biodiversity, ecotourism management and livelihoods. To this end, the central tendency for the positive response was 1.75 mean (μ), 1.5 median (M), and 1 mode value (Mo), with a 2 range (X) and standard deviation values (σ) of 0.829. The negative responses were 3.25 mean (μ), 3.5 median (M), and 4 mode values (Mo), with a 2 range (X) and standard deviation values (σ) of 0.829. The higher the mean value, the more imperative the issue, and a low standard deviation would suggest data that is more clustered around the mean. Hence, alongside the reliability and validity analysis, Gumela and Zwigodini villages had the most evident negative replies, and Tshipise and Folovhodwe village participants were the most distinctive in showing knowledge of alternative tourism and its essence in sustainability attainment. The communities of the once-famous Sagole Spa and the Nwanedi resort, which are both now inactive and later being close to a complete collapse before current attempts for refurbishments, demonstrate great awareness of alternative tourism and its part in sustainability achievements given these scenarios (in Tshipise and Folovhodwe village communities). This is appropriate given that they once adored the full fruits of better managed community tourism in their residence. There were some qualitative quotes:

(a) Explanations of alternative tourism and sustainability achievements

It was clear from the focus group discussions that alternative tourism and its capacitating paragons are not well-established within the terminologies of the informers. Suffice it to say that alternative tourism mimics an accumulative sustainable tourism form and offers communities optimal resource utilization by being conscious of sustainability rationales (Nthiga et al., 2015). Hence, diverse opportunities exist for decent tourism development programs and community subsistence. Therefore, tourism and hospitality initiatives could benefit from these deeds. There is a strong need for empowering education and practice on alternative tourism and sustainability within various productions undertaken in the municipality, benchmarking with other areas elsewhere, locally and abroad (Temenos and McCann, 2012).

The data in Table 3 demonstrate that five groups shared the spoil, each with 15% of the representation, and were uniform in their response contributions. They include cutting riparian vegetation for orchards and roof thatching materials; thus, the over-utilization of biomass and tree resources for fuel wood and the over-debarking of trees. To this end, indigenous medicine and other economic purposes are responsible for these consequences. Henceforth, only 5% of informants indicated overutilizing mountain vegetation and tree resources, like timber harvest. A 20% representation of participants chose the main contributing factor as unsustainable tourism activities, demonstrating quantitative data. It represented the majority. To this end, activities like trampling vegetation by vehicles and scratching and cutting trees by ecotourists are more common and detrimental.

(a) Explanations of the main contributing factors to environmental management and climate

The 5% who represent reduced exploitation of the mountainous resource indicate latent ecotourism potential to merge with other forms of tourism (Chakraborty and Asamizu, 2014). Henceforth, heritage, geotourism and green tourism activities within such environs will be important in the region (Williams et al., 2020). The equally allotted 15% is an evident example of the apparent diverse environmental consequences necessitating improved natural resources management educational workshops for society. The defined 20% representation shows that unsustainable ecotourism activities are the most advanced crisis that needs urgent environmental attention. To this end, climate change-linked activities necessitate a significant reduction. The emphasis on sustainable tourism can enrich ecotourism facilities and farming activities while reinforcing community tourism and sustainability. However, such actions need aid from provincial and local governments through specific campaigns, symposiums, and seminars.

Therefore, quantitatively, the data in Table 4 depicts that 17 participants were against such a quest, clearly indicating the large number of respondents. With that, three (3) respondents advocated the attention campaign about the role of alternative tourism strategies and tourism management in the territory within their stretch. Ultimately, only 15.0% of participants demonstrated knowledge about the appraisal campaign in the region. To this end, Hanaček and Rodríguez-Labajos (2018) cautioned us of the dismal and imminent consequences of land use and administration modifications on cultural agroecosystem benefits and environmental disputes. Therefore, the central tendency for the negative responses was 4.25 mean value (μ), 4 median value (M) and 4 mode value (Mo), entailing a standard deviation value (σ) of 0.433, and the positive response was 0.75 mean value (μ), 1 median value (M) and 1 mode value (Mo), entailing a standard deviation value (σ) of 0.433. The higher the mean value, the more serious the issue, and a low standard deviation would implicate data that is more clustered around the mean. Some qualitative quotes were aired:

With the abovementioned quote and qualitative indications, it suffices to say that, just as Yen et al. (2013) postulated, riparian vegetation is a habitat for various insects and would not be merely vital to livelihoods but also resourceful to local cuisines, tourism entices and hospitality.

(a) Explanations on campaign-responsible tourism, alternative tourism and local climate change

The respondents (85.0%) reacted against the reality of the particularized awareness campaign, despite it being apparent that there is a necessity for such action, along with the principles of sustainable tourism regulations, CBNRM, and community tourism (CT) within the study area. Moreover, it was not clear from their explanations what their responses entailed.

In addition to the core and advancement of the investigation, the fieldwork and field observation examined a range of farming, tourism, and conservation activities. There was proof of a large number of tourism-related entities and initiatives, even though the majority of them faced difficulties. The newly established tourism and hospitality entities in the area are Vhengani Resort and Tshipako Guest House in Folovhodwe. Also, Tshiphale Park and Resort in Tshiphale Village is an extension of the jurisdiction of Folovhodwe, alongside Tanda and Tshikhudini, next to Nwanedi Nature Reserve and Resort. Later, they benefited from the success of the recent land reform and land restitution proposals and local governance. Generally, land reform in South Africa oversees and promotes land redistribution, land restitution, and land tenure reform. However, there were no newly constructed, alluring tourist amenities at the Big Tree Nature Reserve, and the fence was practically missing. As a result, Tshipise village’s Sagole spa was run-down and nonfunctional. Nevertheless, it was clear that the Domboni and Dambale mountains – along with Tshipise village – offered amusing phenomena and potential tourism appeal. Numerous countrified exercises were included in the survey, along with other entities and facilities. The initiatives toiled due to overcultivation, environmental degradation, hotter weather, and a lack of improvements and relief measures to counteract sudden local climate change and dry situations. Parches of land degradation and soil erosion within these areas and the Nwanedi Nature Reserve are common, accelerating climate change and variability and the potential effects on rural tourism developments. Traditional community-based agriculture in Tshipise and in and around Folovhodwe village, as well as small-scale commercial agriculture, necessitates tourism-oriented mitigation and adaptation headways, including indigenous knowledge of climate change and environmental management strategies. Conventional agricultural activities are essential agritourism features, including cultural tourism and ecotourism (Gao et al., 2014; Ana, 2017). Thus, they provide local food guarantees through small-scale agribusiness. The mixture of agriculture, rural tourism, CBNRM, CBT, participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) and climate-alert natural resource management in Musina municipality can be efficacious (Campbell and Ortíz, 2012; Ramaano, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2023e). Consequently, promoting rural tourism to flourish through sustainable ecotourism and agritourism is crucial. Agri-ecotourism, which combines both ecotourism and agritourism, concerns visitors partaking in sustainable farming and comprehending local produce in a socially accountable and eco-friendly manner within peripheral areas. In addition to the projected field observation, the residents needed to be educated about sustainable tourism that supports native biodiversity, agriculture and culture. This was made necessary by the guidelines and specific directions. Priorities include reviving the industry’s focus and developing new avenues for tourism product development. Due to this, outdated and inoperable facilities like the management setups for the Sagole Spa, Big Tree Nature Reserve, and Nwanedi Nature Reserve have clear goals for improvement. From this point forward, borderland tourism in Beitbridge and cultural heritage tourism in Mapungubwe National Park and heritage sites should be linked to agritourism, geotourism, cultural heritage, and rural and urban ecotourism. In line with this argument, tourism product mysteries such as land-use altercations and resource ambivalence should be minor. As such, biological resource observation institutions, including traditional and indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and intellectual property rights (IPR), are marked on several bases and often affect residents (Beltran, 2000; Milner-Gulland and Mace, 2009), and this can be essential bioprospecting in the area. The impulse is that such strategies facilitate local people while fostering conservation (Ramaano, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).

The literature reviews have a plethora of scenarios wherein adequate ecotourism management and conservation systems enabled entrepreneurship in tourism and agriculture locally and abroad (Campbell and Ortíz, 2011; Spenceley, 2012). In contrast, field observation on ecotourism and livelihoods in Musina municipality pinpointed great tourism possibilities with poor facility management that misrepresented meager current influences on livelihood enhancement (Ramaano, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e). Regardless, the overall focus group within the study area indicated an evident lack of attention to ecotourism management, environmental degradation, and climate change-linked activities. Besides, the pivotal position of sustainable and responsible tourism in launching proper ecotourism activities against climate change is to endorse ecological sustainability and livelihood development drives in the study area. Nevertheless, identical to this study’s appraisal, Campbell and Ortíz (2012) have maintained the positive role of ecotourism management, agricultural activities and agro-tourism initiatives as complimentary to local tourism and community empowerment. Hence, the outcome of the applicability of the responsible tourism concept in tourism planning and sustainability triumphs. Henceforth, field observation laid out the comprehensive tourism resources and agricultural exercises that can support CBNRM assignments through ecotourism and agritourism while nurturing inclusive tourism and community development initiatives. With these, the potential of integrative and participatory environmental and tourism administration systems to reinforce the specified efforts takes precedence.

There is a need for the local governments to promote tourism development policy, adhere to sustainable development, and foster sustainable tourism theory and its imperatives in terms of social, economic and environmental efficiencies. The mentioned can be a competent option for the study area inhabitants within and close to Dambale bushman rock paintings, Big Tree Nature Reserve, and Nwanedi Nature Reserve entities and facilities, enhance rural conservation site operations, value creation chain in ownership, optimal benefit and partnerships of tourism, and integrate rural development (RD) initiatives in the study area. Henceforth, it is significant in improving the efficient use of natural resources and ecotourism-bound and hospitality facilities and their activities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and furnishing proper community development assistance and subsistence. The cited would encourage the spirit of the MDGs, UN Agenda 2030, SDGs, poverty alleviation, and sustainability ideals (Mudzengi, 2022). Indeed, better facilities can advance the best standards for managing communities’ indigenous resources, and diverse farming can complete such businesses. It was exemplified by the need and urge for sustainable ecotourism, responsible tourism and agritourism activities. However, there is an indomitable need for a mutual procedure in Musina municipality to allow for an entire socio-economic outcome and accountability within national, regional, and provincial government entities. The cited would secure one common dream: biodiversity governance, community livelihoods, and the amplification of various industry outlets (Doyle, 2016). To that effect, awareness of participatory ecotourism planning, along with CBT, CBNRM and PGIS, would promote tourism development and community headway in the rural expanse while simplifying environmental management ecotourism-climate change awareness efforts and sustainability ambitions. It will be vital to support a comprehensive tourism policy to spur local resources and biodiversity administration, rectify past administration accounts, and suppress environmental hazards and climate change plights in the study area. Likewise, maintaining ecological management, equal allocation of natural resources within CBNRM and community-based organizations (CBOs), sustainable and responsible tourism efficiencies, granting access to every member of the community and overall gender equity in tourism and hospitality-based entities within their territory is a priority (Magome and Murombedzi, 2003; Andrews, 2008). To this end, a beneficially blended ecotourism management policy conscious of environmental degradation and climate change challenges could establish the essence of Musina municipality. Efforts should also be cognizant of the role of IKS and TEK in biodiversity management and heritage conservation in combating climate change while fostering integrated livelihood strategies and tourism administration activities for better environmental sustainability and subsistence within the local communities. This should form the basis of the tourism-oriented future integrated development plan (IDP) strategy.

Consonant with this study’s findings and demonstrated shortcomings in the study area, amongst others, the following shall be deemed as lessons that future researchers can address, and the given recommendations are made as ways in which limitations can be overcome. This examination utilized the Musina municipality as a microscopic exhibition of the role of progressive ecotourism governance and responsible tourism conduct in neutralizing environmental concerns and climate change crises in integrated rural and farming initiatives. Its limitations are directly related to its exploratory and qualitative natures and the smaller sampling, using only literature reports, existing document reviews, focus group discussions with field observation and an older map to depict the study area and the municipality. Cross-tabulation, central tendencies and simple statistics were used; nonetheless, such limitations have insignificant impacts on the realization of this study’s main goal. That is, the 370 sample size from the original primary investigation mainly served the purpose of presenting the four villages for focus group discussion. In this article, it is shown that perhaps a better approach to considering ecotourism and climate change-induced exercises in sustainable tourism and sustainability in rural territories should be within the context of responsible tourism advances and integrated livelihood. Moreover, for future studies, a more quantitative and explanatory approaches with inferential statistics and advanced analysis that generate concrete answers supplementing new ideas can be used. To achieve integrated sustainable livelihoods, it will be essential to connect active geographical depictions, ICT, the internet of things (IoT), and big data analytics. This will also be in line with the efficacy of CBOs focused on tourism, better ownership and control over relevant projects, and sustainable management and marketing of local tourism enterprises. With these in mind, future research should delve more deeply and highlight more stringently on the features, differences, and similarities of nature-based tourism, ecotourism and CBT and how CBNRM efficiently fits to spur local livelihoods within such spectrums. In this instance, further research can emphasize the importance of a tourism-oriented sustainable livelihood framework and strategies dissecting various livelihood assets emanating from rural tourism and ecotourism development, while also being aware of climate change threats and their mitigation and adaptation strategies. Rural natural resource management (RNRM) can benefit from the core of CBNRM, CBT, CBOs and PGIS initiatives, such as community-based GIS programs, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), and rapid appraisal (RA). The cited could maintain any diligent and probable effort in tourism pursuits, rural facility management, and destination marketing organizations (DMOs) strategies within the respective tourism guidelines amid climate change dilemmas (Ryan and Gu, 2009; Ramaano 2024b, 2024e). Since tourism policies have a significant impact on social and economic development, it is sufficient to consider that destination branding and marketing should take sustainability implications and ideals into account (Ryan and Gu, 2009).

Thus, Figure 2’s core arrangement of sustainable tourism fundamentals is based on the study’s general recommendations. It illustrates how policies that recognize the importance of stakeholders like the media and researchers can support the growth of ecotourism, tourism prospects, methods for raising awareness of climate change, and rural communities’ means of subsistence. To encourage responsible tourism, it is therefore essential to have integrated commitments from travelers, local communities, and biodiversity management areas. The management of conservation areas should have plans for emergency adaptation, mitigation and recovery from climate change, and the local communities should focus their integrated livelihoods on sustainability goals. Akin to the aforesaid, regarding eco-designs and the overall response to climate dilemmas, Ryan (2009) and Ryan et al. (2019) called for new approaches to production and consumption with the latest infrastructure and practices for living resiliently to climate-triggered challenges and the enhancement of tourism planning and environmental sustainability. With these in mind, the formulation of the tourism program ought to execute essential socio-economic, technological, and environmental steps and integrate livelihood facilities (Ramaano, 2022f, 2024b). Hence, tourism transactions, new paths’ establishment, synergies between sustainable tourism strategic affiliation and the prioritization of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Quantum GIS (QGIS), PGIS, and remote sensing (RS) in the finding and monitoring of tourism initiatives and facilities could be an integral creative approach. Simultaneously, other analogous outlets, such as the internet of things and “big data analytics,” are available for such endeavors (Gritta and Calabrese, 2023). Assuming a sustainable tourism strategy should include awareness, usefulness, and attitudes toward tourism products and undertakings and optimized beneficiation programs from the local government. That is, how the locals regard sustainable tourism as an embraced tactic could stimulate local economic development, alleviate poverty, and curb environmental degradation (Ramaano, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e). Therefore, it is consonant with the integrity of CBNRM and CBT establishments (Fabricius and Collins, 2007; Delgado-Serrano et al., 2018). Admittedly, tourism-based endeavors could enable sustainable community development. Broadly, it allows rural regions’ development within the municipality to serve as a benchmark globally and allow for advanced destination management. To this end, it would also be significant to overall encourage environmental-friendly practices at ecotourism facilities and hotels in the area (Adongo et al., 2023). It suffices to say that, within the purposes of food and agrotourism, farmers practice tourism exercises as a secondary means of income generation. Any rational tourism plan within rural communities should not distance itself from the prominent relationship between forestry, ecotourism, agriculture, and integrated rural development activities. However, such should be sensible to comprehensive climate change and sustainability imports within the environs.

It suffices to say that African rural regions are exemplified by agriculture and tourism in their usual qualities. Therefore, this could be necessary for rural communities elsewhere. Consistent with the comprehensive recommendation, indications are that preparing, designing, and adopting a possible inclusive tourism and livelihood approach should offer subsistence that is in accordance with the significance of the UN SDGs while being cognizant of climate change dilemmas (Jänis, 2011; Wezel and Jauneau, 2011; Ryan, 2020; Ramaano, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2023e). When compared to tourism development, agricultural development typically has a marginal advantage. In light of this, strategic tourism management that confines the importance of agriculture (agritourism) by conceptualizing a synergistic relationship as opposed to a juxtaposition and competitive analysis can be a crucial goal for communities living in remote and marginalized areas, especially for the study under consideration. This should endorse integrated rural development strategies (IRDs) that are anchored in sustainable and responsible tourism rationales to adapt to climate change impacts and use ecotourism as a catalyst. Similarly, the purpose of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) 16 of 2013 is to outline the relationship between land use management and other types of planning, as well as to establish models for land use management and spatial planning in the Republic. In addition, it offers support for the coordination, surveillance and evaluation of the land use management and spatial planning systems, as well as participatory inclusive, and efficient spatial planning at the various levels of government (Nel, 2016). To address sustainability, climate change and historical locational and regulatory imbalances, these are essential for policies, principles, norms and benchmarks for land use management and rural development initiatives.

The author profoundly acknowledges the reviewers and the editor for their invaluable input and SANSA Earth Observation for originally funding the study.

Declaration of interest: The author, Ramaano A.I., declares and confirms that there is no conflict of interest regarding this research paper.

Table A1 

Figure A1