ISSN: 2157-7625

生態系と生態学のジャーナル

オープンアクセス

当社グループは 3,000 以上の世界的なカンファレンスシリーズ 米国、ヨーロッパ、世界中で毎年イベントが開催されます。 1,000 のより科学的な学会からの支援を受けたアジア および 700 以上の オープン アクセスを発行ジャーナルには 50,000 人以上の著名人が掲載されており、科学者が編集委員として名高い

オープンアクセスジャーナルはより多くの読者と引用を獲得
700 ジャーナル 15,000,000 人の読者 各ジャーナルは 25,000 人以上の読者を獲得

インデックス付き
  • CAS ソース インデックス (CASSI)
  • 索引コペルニクス
  • Google スカラー
  • シェルパ・ロミオ
  • 環境研究へのオンライン アクセス (OARE)
  • Jゲートを開く
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • ウルリッヒの定期刊行物ディレクトリ
  • Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) へのアクセス
  • 電子ジャーナルライブラリ
  • レフシーク
  • ハムダード大学
  • エブスコ アリゾナ州
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • SWBオンラインカタログ
  • 仮想生物学図書館 (vifabio)
  • パブロン
  • ジュネーブ医学教育研究財団
  • ユーロパブ
このページをシェアする

抽象的な

The Impact of Variant Local Involvement in Community Based Ecotourism: A Conceptual Framework Approach

Israel Petros Menbere, Kassahun Abie, Hadis Tadele and Getahun Gebru

This study was conducted to determine the impact of variant local involvement in ecotourism and associated strengths and weaknesses of the Adaba-Dodola community based ecotourism project, in South Ethiopia. Households from CBECT program and non-program communities, focus groups of CBECT participants and nonparticipants, and key-informants from culture and tourism office and from Oromia forest and wildlife enterprise were the target respondents. The primary data were collected through questionnaires, interviews and focused group discussions. Document reviews were also made to support the study. The quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics while the qualitative data were analyzed in the form of narrations. The result of the study indicated that participants were highly benefited compared to nonparticipants due to the different level of participation and ways of involvement in ecotourism activities. Participants were benefited economically while nonparticipants enjoyed benefits associated with natural services. This led to positive perception to exist in participants than nonparticipants. As a result, the perception of communities towards ecotourism had been impacted by the difference of ecotourism support in the livelihood of participant and nonparticipant communities. In relation to this, working with community and promoting experience sharing for communities were the main strengths of ecotourism program according to participants while majority of nonparticipants stated as there were no major strengths to the ecotourism project. Subsequently, both groups identified insufficient implementation of the CBECT program as the main weakness of ecotourism in the area.