Abstract
Background: Heritage tourism is a mechanism for rural development, poverty reduction and cultural preservation in South Africa, but implementation gaps prevent it from being effective.
Aim: The aim was to identify challenges in implementing the heritage tourism strategy.
Setting: The study was conducted in Sekhukhune District Municipality (SDM), Limpopo, from a community-based tourism (CBT) perspective.
Method: Semi-structured interviews were used with four participants, including community leaders and officials from SDM, from Sekhukhune Development Agency and Limpopo Tourism Agency. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo.
Results: Sekhukhune District Municipality’s cultural assets or heritage are not developed and poorly marketed. Governance is fragmented, with community involvement and participation largely tokenistic. Therefore, even newly imagined socio-economic opportunities, such as job creation or development of small businesses as the process evolves, are not realised.
Conclusion: Addressing the plan–practice gap needs participatory governance; community empowerment and equitable benefit-sharing; and a level of coordination and cohesion which includes masterplans, marketing and promotion, investment in infrastructure and structure and plan, and provision of community forums.
Contribution: The study contributes to the discourse on sustainable rural tourism by applying a CBT lens to diagnose implementation gaps in heritage tourism planning. It further advances tourism planning frameworks by demonstrating practical relevance for aligning local tourism governance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 8 and SDG 11) in rural South Africa.
Keywords: community-based tourism; sustainable development; heritage; rural communities; cultural preservation; infrastructure.
Introduction
Heritage tourism is widely considered one of the avenues to sustainable rural development, providing both economic diversification and cultural continuity (Geng et al. 2025). In South Africa, tourism is generally positioned as a ‘post-apartheid’ mechanism for job creation, poverty relief and inclusive growth, especially in previously disadvantaged areas (Rogerson & Visser 2020). The Sekhukhune District Municipality (SDM) in the Limpopo province fits this narrative as its heritage is diverse related to the Bapedi, Afrikaner and Ndebele peoples and its cultural, archaeological and historical heritage (Phori 2023). To capitalise on this potential, both formal and informal planning have started. An initial planning intervention has been the development of the Sekhukhune Tourism Routes (STR) by the SDM as a means to package and promote the heritage of the area’s attractions to domestic and international travellers (SDM 2019). In developing the STR, the SDM was strategically committed to leveraging heritage tourism for the community benefit. However, as documented throughout South Africa, there is a seemingly unbridgeable chasm between deliberate and strategic tourism objectives and the practical implementation (Ramukumba & Matyile 2024). This potentially represents an ‘implementation gap’, a period of disconnection between the programmatic decisions embodied in the plans and the practical aspect of tourism development and management in the district.
The study critically investigated the barriers and opportunities to the implementation of the strategic heritage tourism plans in SDM. The goal of the study was to identify challenges in implementing the heritage tourism strategy in SDM. In doing so, the study followed these key objectives: (1) to examine how local stakeholders perceive the situation of success regarding the existing heritage tourism strategies, (2) to explore the main obstacles preventing the success of the heritage tourism strategies, (3) to examine what role they envision for tourism development, for the local community, and (4) finally, the study provides recommendations for closing the gap between plan and practice to produce more sustainable and inclusive heritage tourism in the district. This study directly contributes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by evaluating how heritage tourism in rural municipalities like SDM can promote inclusive economic participation, cultural preservation and sustainable local livelihoods (United Nations 2015).
Literature analysis
Heritage tourism as a development tool, policy and planning
Heritage tourism, broadly defined as travelling to sense cultural, historical and natural heritage assets, is internationally recognised as a fundamental driver of sustainable development (Geng et al. 2025). It provides opportunities for local economic differentiation, job creation and shoring up cultural identity, especially in rural areas (Poria, Butler & Airey 2003). In South Africa, the democratic transition brought heritage tourism to the fore as an economic tool and a symbolic project of nation building (Marschall 2012). Since then, it has been positioned by policymakers as a rural development initiative to foster equality and pride in local identities (Rogerson 2018). However, heritage tourism is not sustainable by default; the sustainability of heritage tourism depends on working carefully through effective investment in infrastructure and the equal participation of host communities (Phori 2023; Sharpley & Telfer 2015).
South African tourism planning has created a framework in which national-level policies have been articulated through the White Paper on the Development and Promotion of Tourism (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [DEAT] 1996) and the National Tourism Sector Strategy (NTSS) (National Department of Tourism [NDT] 2017). Furthermore, a study by Phori (2023) developed a framework for developing sustainable heritage tourism for rural municipalities, with specific reference to SDM. This framework is regarded as a tool for an inclusive and consultative stakeholder approach to heritage tourism development in a practical manner, which can be applied to other similar rural municipalities. All these frameworks are aimed at inclusivity, sustainability and community engagement. On the municipal level, Integrated Development Plans use tourism in strategic planning as a means to localise those national plans (Rogerson & Nel 2016). However, research has highlighted that municipalities do not all have the institutional or financial capability to effectively deliver these plans (Donaldson 2018). As a result, those programmes often do not turn into reality. This is illustrated within the case study of the STR. While the development represents efforts for planned tourism, it will not become a reality if the strength of resource investment, implementation and management are not in place.
Implementation gaps in tourism policy
The ongoing disconnect between planning and practice is well established in the literature (Donaldson 2018; Ramukumba & Matyile 2024). Challenges are attributed to weak finance, limited competence, a lack of inter-agency collaboration and inadequate stakeholder engagement (George 2017). In South Africa, these challenges are intensified by the structural legacies of apartheid, which have rendered some rural areas backwards and disconnected from tourism markets (Visser 2016). The Limpopo province and the experiences of other rural destinations demonstrate that heritage tourism plans remain unrealised hopes, with little chance of yielding benefits (Mearns 2012) if not managed effectively.
Case studies have shown this gap in implementation. For instance, while the KwaZulu-Natal Battlefields Route displayed success in terms of historical education, limited signposting, marketing fragmentation and poor roads limit effective utilisation (Rogerson & Visser 2020). Similarly, Robben Island, which is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site and receives global recognition, has experienced internal struggles of governance and management issues, including inadequate visitor management and decreased tour quality (Magwaxaza & Steyn 2019). Likewise, the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape in Limpopo has well-formulated plans for heritage tourism, but fragmentation of funding and land use conflict have inhibited local community integration (Mashiyi 2019). These examples show relevant issues of how strategic directives relate to the operational front lines.
Conceptual model: Community-based tourism
Community-based tourism (CBT) serves as a useful framework for understanding heritage tourism strategies in rural areas such as SDM. Community-based tourism is generally understood to be a form of tourism that is locally owned, managed or heavily influenced by local communities, with the stated aim to create local socio-economic and cultural gains (Spenceley 2022). In contrast to normative top-down tourism models, CBT is centred on community empowerment, participation and the redistribution of benefits to local (host) communities (Scheyvens 1999).
As illustrated in the conceptual model (Figure 1), the CBT lens is valuable for understanding the ‘implementation gap’ in respective heritage tourism strategies. While the municipal tourism plans, such as the STR, are exploratory, they clearly set out intentions, which are often restricted in their implementation because of structural issues such as poor governance, insufficient infrastructure or limited community involvement (George 2017; Rogerson & Visser 2020). The CBT framework highlights that heritage tourism in rural places would even be successful if the local community is not only a beneficiary, but an involved stakeholder in the decision-making, ownership and sharing of benefits (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018). The conceptual model in framing tourism and the ‘implementation gap’ within the CBT framework illustrates the importance of participatory governance and capacity building and the processes in order for the heritage tourism strategies to go beyond words to action.
 |
FIGURE 1: Bridging the plan–practice gap through community-based tourism. |
|
By structuring heritage tourism development around governance, participation, capacity building and benefit distribution, the model aligns with established CBT scholarship while extending its application as a diagnostic tool for identifying implementation failures at the municipal level. The model corresponds with general CBT scholarship by emphasising that inclusivity and local ownership are vital for sustainability outcomes. In the case of SDM, heritage tourism initiatives face the possibility of remaining extractive unless established on fair processes outlined in structures that safeguard cultural resources but enhance local well-being (Geng et al. 2025). Therefore, the relevance of integrating CBT principles into heritage tourism principles assists with ameliorating ongoing issues of poverty and unemployment while creating cultural pride and resilience (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018; Rogerson & Visser 2020). This framework adds to the theoretical contribution this study makes in showing how CBT can be used as a diagnostic and pragmatic tool in closing the plan–practice gap in rural tourism development.
Community-based tourism brings two interrelated propositions to the fore: firstly, that local communities as custodians of natural and cultural resources should be central to management and use (Timothy & Boyd 2003) and secondly, that true participation legitimises tourism development and ensures sustainability (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018). In addition to economic returns, CBT focuses on protecting traditions, affirming identities and promoting social cohesion (Zapata et al. 2011).
The success of heritage tourism relies on local communities engaged in active participation (Timothy & Boyd 2003). Participation in an ethical manner legitimises development and ensures equitable and fair distribution of the benefits (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018). In South Africa, community engagement is often shallow, if at all; if it is local communities that are involved, it is often tokenistic (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri 2014). Case studies reflecting on and evaluating CBT show that tourism benefits continue to go to places or operators from outside the local communities, and local community members remain peripheral to the whole process (Manyara & Jones 2007).
There are examples of progress, but limited and far between. For example, in KwaZulu-Natal, community-oriented examples on Zulu cultural villages have shown how tourism was present with income generation and the preservation of traditions when groups retained ownership and agency (Ramukumba & Matyile 2024). In other studies on heritage attractions such as the Rain Queen Modjadji’s heritage facilities, it is noted how weak integration of voices from the community, coupled with limited financial investment, has hindered potential for heritage tourism development (Rogerson 2006). Unfortunately, in SDM, where poverty is experienced and unemployment is ongoing, community engagement is not only beneficial but essential to its legitimacy and sustainability.
Since 1994, CBT has been promoted in South Africa as a policy instrument for rural development and poverty alleviation (Rogerson 2006). Many, if not all, CBT efforts notably face issues of poor governance, over-reliance on the external organisation and not sufficiently being integrated into the mainstream tourism planning (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri 2014). This ultimately reflects a gap in implementation across the tourism profession; the quest for community empowerment is stated but not satisfactorily executed. The lens provided by CBT for SDM highlights that it must move past planning documents to deeply consider policy-generated community empowerment. And this looks like building community capacity, an ownership structure that ensures local residents are hired first and a system for fairly distributing tourism benefits. Application of this lens framework onto SDM’s heritage tourism framework will capture what are the structural obstacles to implementing them most effectively and indicate a pathway towards inclusive and sustainable tourism.
Research methods and design
This research employed a qualitative approach to examine the disconnect between heritage tourism policy aims and their implementation in the SDM. A qualitative approach was appropriate given the study’s exploratory focus on governance practices, institutional interactions and stakeholder perspectives, which are best explored through detailed, context-aware inquiry (Creswell & Poth 2018; Patton 2015). Purposive sampling was used to select participants with direct roles or experience in heritage tourism planning, development and implementation in the district. Four key stakeholders were interviewed as shown in Table 1, representing the municipal government, a provincial tourism agency, a district development agency and the local community. Their selection was based on strategic roles within heritage tourism governance rather than on statistical sampling criteria.
| TABLE 1: Profile of interview participants. |
Although the sample size is small, it is appropriate given the study’s focus on elite and institutional actors, whose positions provide access to policymaking, decision-making processes and implementation details. In qualitative research on governance and tourism policy, small, information-rich samples are common when the goal is in-depth analysis rather than broad generalisation (Creswell & Poth 2018; Patton 2015). The main aim was to gather diverse institutional perspectives across different governance levels rather than to reach a set number of participants.
Data collection involved semi-structured interviews that balanced consistency with flexibility, enabling probing of emerging, context-specific issues. An interview guide, grounded in the literature on CBT, heritage tourism governance and policy implementation, directed the process. Major themes covered included policy awareness, stakeholder coordination, resource availability, community participation and institutional constraints. Each participant was interviewed individually for about 45–60 min. All interviews were conducted with informed consent and centred on participants’ professional experiences and views regarding heritage tourism in the SDM.
The interview data were analysed through thematic analysis, involving an iterative cycle of familiarisation, coding and theme creation using the NVivo software package. Codes were initially developed inductively from the data and then grouped into larger themes aligned with the study’s conceptual framework, focusing on governance, participation, capacity and implementation challenges. To improve analytical accuracy, these themes were cross-referenced with policy documents, such as national and municipal tourism and heritage policies. This triangulation of documents and interviews enhanced the credibility of the results by situating participant narratives within the wider policy context.
Ethical considerations played a key role throughout the research. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality, and pseudonyms were used to protect their identities. The participant profile table offers context while maintaining anonymity. Trustworthiness was strengthened by detailed documentation, systematic coding and the inclusion of verbatim quotes to highlight main themes. Although the results are not meant to be statistically generalisable, they provide valuable analytical insights into the institutional and governance issues affecting heritage tourism in rural South African settings.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Tshwane University of Technology, Faculty of Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (No. FCRE2021/FR/ 08/001-MS [2]).
Results
This study made use of a qualitative research approach with interviews of four purposively selected participants: a community leader, a senior official from SDM, a senior official from the Sekhukhune Development Agency (SDA) and a senior official from Limpopo Tourism Authority (LTA). The purpose of interviewing these participants was to gain more depth and detail regarding the items dealt with in the questionnaires with other tourism stakeholders. The justification for this approach was for the sustainable heritage tourism development to have effective leadership, commitment and the will to fulfil the objectives. Also, the sustainable heritage tourism development needs strategies, as well as planning, monitoring and a constant adjustment of plans, which involves conscious leadership. The selection of the four participants is based on the purpose and aims of the study.
Participants chose not to have their names disclosed for ethical reasons of confidentiality associated with the researcher and participants. Participants will be termed as the community leader, SDM official, SDA official and LTA official. The semi-structured interviews had 10 questions.
Discussion
Current heritage tourism situation in Sekhukhune District Municipality
The purpose of this section is to unpack the perceived current heritage tourism situation in the SDM in order to understand the status of heritage tourism as perceived by participants. The participants have indicated that among all the heritage tourism attractions, there is still a lot of development that needs to be done. Table 2 provides an overview of these results.
| TABLE 2: Current heritage tourism situation in Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
When asked to describe the current heritage tourism situation in SDM, a participant responded that:
‘The SDM is full of rich heritage which include(s) the history of Bapedi and AmaNdebele. Most heritage resources remain underdeveloped, with a potential to becoming heritage tourism attractions.’ (P3)
The findings suggested a significant disconnect between strategic planning and realities, because of poor governance, resource constraints and low levels of community engagement.
Main heritage tourism attractions in the Sekhukhune District Municipality and their need for further development
The main aim was to identify the heritage tourism sites that are considered the main tourism attractions in the SDM and their development needs. Participants identified more congruent heritage tourism attractions, and all implied that the sites are neglected, with none or limited funding and poor maintenance; therefore, they are not even suitable for tourists. In the results analysis, the Tjate Heritage Site was continually identified as the flagship site; the other sites mentioned, by two different participants were Mohlake Royal Valley, Manche Masemola and Lenao la Modimo. Two participants indicated that the Ekholweni Annual Heritage Festival attracted visitors, while another stated that the Kgosi Mampuru II Annual Commemoration attracted people of all backgrounds.
The neglect of these tourist attractions demonstrates how even high-profile tourism sites do not attract ongoing investment. This theme highlights ongoing structural challenges of weak governance and insufficient funding. The results also highlight an ongoing ‘implementation gap’, whereby municipal frameworks, such as tourism master plans and route developments such as STR, remain mostly aspirational. As George (2017) and Bramwell and Lane (2010) state, weak institutional capability, poor inter-agency cooperation and underfunding of plans prevent implementation. Like SDM, pre-strategic documents exist, yet tourist sites such as the Tjate Heritage Site remain underdeveloped and considered outside the tourism planning folds.
A plan for heritage tourism development in the Sekhukhune District Municipality
Although the participants (Table 3) agreed that developing heritage tourism in the SDM was conceptually vital, there were mixed reactions about the current plans regarding the development of heritage tourism in the area.
| TABLE 3: Heritage tourism development planning in the Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant replied by saying:
‘There is a master tourism plan which was developed around the year 2000–2003, but nothing has come out of that plan.’ (P2)
Another participant indicated that:
‘There is a plan between Fetakgomo-Tubatse Local Municipality and the National Heritage Council plans to incorporate Tjate into Liberation Heritage Route as part of its preservation and further development. This local municipality has a plan to further develop Tjate, which is separate from the Liberation Heritage Route.’ (P3)
Interpreted through the CBT lens, these findings demonstrate that community empowerment is primarily rhetorical rather than substantive (Giampiccoli & Mtapuri 2014). Residents are expected to be supportive of tourism development, but very few opportunities exist for them to affect decision-making or access benefits. This reflects broader critiques of CBT in the Global South, in which projects tend to rely on external agencies and neglect to establish true local ownership (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018).
Sekhukhune tourism routes developed by the Sekhukhune District Municipality
Limpopo is currently one of the most popular provinces for domestic tourism in the country, after Gauteng and Western Cape provinces (Statistics South Africa 2024). This highlights the importance of having significant tourist attractions, which not only entice visitors to spend money but also encourage them to extend their stay in the province. Participants (Table 4) were asked about their awareness of the STR plan developed by the SDM.
| TABLE 4: Sekhukhune Tourism Routes developed by the Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant indicated that:
‘The routes I think were developed around 2011 if not mistaken, but were just recently reviewed and launched. There are three identified routes which is Marota Tourism Route, Platinum Route and Mafulo a Matala Tourism Route. All of the names of these routes have got meanings. Like for an example: Within the Platinum Route, there are several mines that will give the tourist a true mining experience. Marota Tourism Route has a rich heritage that offers a gateway to authentic Africa. The Mafulo a Matala Route provides great opportunities for nature-based adventure tourism.’ (P1)
An important contradiction exists between promoting mining and heritage tourism as avenues for development. Mining has the potential to support immediate livelihoods in a short term, while on the other hand destructing the heritage tourism resources, therefore limiting the full development of tourism. This contradiction depicts the structural challenge of heritage tourism and other local economic development goals.
Major challenges to heritage tourism development in Sekhukhune District Municipality
Challenges for some developing destinations may be linked to political and security issues and unfavourable government policy for tourism in that area and poor infrastructure (Douglas, Lubbe & Kruger 2012). The participants (as shown in Table 5) were asked to identify major obstacles in relation to the development of heritage tourism in the SDM. There seemed to be ingrained issues obstructing the evolution of heritage tourism in the district.
| TABLE 5: Major challenges to heritage tourism development in Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant replied by saying:
‘There are currently conflicting developments in the areas. There are currently growing illegal mining activities taking place in Sekhukhune area which outweighs the issue of tourism development. Due to the high unemployment in the area, residents have been left to choose what will quickly bring food on the table. The same is happening in Musina and Mapungubwe which is now replicating in Sekhukhune District where mining activities are disturbing the issue of tourism development in those areas. One other challenge is the budget allocated for tourism development to the municipalities is not enough.’ (P2)
Issues in SDM are similar to those identified on the KwaZulu-Natal Battlefields Route (Rogerson & Visser 2020) and the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape (Mashiyi 2019), where infrastructural deficiencies, a lack of promotional activities and fragmented governance limited heritage tourism opportunities. These similarities bolster the argument that rural municipalities often lack the institutional capacity for complex tourism, underscoring the need for targeted capacity development (Donaldson 2018).
Host community role in heritage tourism development
To ensure the success and continuity of any tourism development initiative, it is crucial to have the support and collaboration of the local community. Local government, policymakers and businesses must consider the views of residents and actively seek their endorsement (Dimitrios et al. 2014). Results are presented in Table 6.
| TABLE 6: Host community’s role in heritage tourism development. |
A participant indicated that:
‘Residents should appreciate [the] tourism resources they have. They should work together with the Department of Basic Education in ensuring that learners start to consume local tourism products from [an] early age. The residents should ensure the preservation and conservation of heritage resources within the municipality. The people of Sekhukhune must be the drivers and actively participate in tourism.’ (P3)
Although there are barriers identified by participants in this study, there are also potential opportunities to better implement the principles of CBT. Typical leadership work and community support for heritage preservation, as well as current pathway initiatives, are all starting points for participatory governance. If the Sekhukhune communities are empowered through training, enabled ownership structures and included in provincial tourism marketing, the SDM communities would be in a prime position to close the gap between planning and implementation.
Organisational role in tourism development in the area
This section focuses on the role of various stakeholders in the tourist industry in the SDM. Table 7 presents results showing organisational role in tourism development. It is necessary that other organisations participate in determining the direction of the tourism industry in which they have a stake to ensure sustainable tourism development.
| TABLE 7: Organisational role in tourism development in the area. |
A participant indicated that:
‘Ours is to facilitate tourism within the district in ensuring that local residents and businesses understand tourism offerings within [the] Sekhukhune area. We help identify possible tourist attractions for development and facilitate training in building capacity amongst local communities.’ (P1)
Another indicated that:
‘The mandate of the LTA is to promote, foster and develop tourism to and within the Limpopo province and the same is extended to Sekhukhune as one of the five districts within the province.’ (P2)
The results showed that SDM and LTA primarily have the same functions of raising awareness of tourism, identifying available products and building capacity. While this aligns with provincial (NDT 2016) and national mandates, the lack of effective planning among SDM, SDA and LTA suggests a fragmented governance system of tourism planning and development. This is a symptom of the implementation gap with South African tourism planning, with problematic implementation based on good intentions of overlapping mandates and weak institutional integration (Bramwell & Lane 2010; Donaldson 2018). From the CBT perspective, this institutional disconnect ultimately leads to community disempowerment, as residents cannot be engaged on a meaningful level when the government actors are not aligned. Effective CBT requires multistakeholder cooperation on behalf of the local agency (Scheyvens 1999), which was not yet in play in SDM.
Actions taken to promote heritage tourism in Sekhukhune District Municipality
Promotion of heritage tourism is a function and responsibility of authorities and institutions at the national, provincial and local levels. Table 8 highlights how heritage tourism in SDM is promoted.
| TABLE 8: Actions taken to promote heritage tourism in the Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant indicated that:
‘It is the responsibility of the LTA to promote tourism within Limpopo province. So, we have put a promotional material for Sekhukhune District which has been available for distribution, and we will continue to do so should there be an appetite to market and promote heritage tourism products in the area.’ (P2)
The marketing efforts to promote SDM seem to be of very little value, with much of the effort being print materials that show no sign of ongoing campaigns or digital campaigns. In comparison to other heritage tourism sectors in South Africa, like KwaZulu-Natal’s Battlefields Touring Route, the limited promotion of SDM has reduced visibility and place in the market (Grobler 2009). As in the case of much criticism regarding tourism planning in rural areas, the tourism plan only exists on paper and does not progress into action (George 2017). Within a CBT framework, limited marketing not only decreases the number of visitors but also decreases the benefits for local entrepreneurs. The lack of a marketing strategy that includes participatory marketing prevents communities from being proactive about how their heritage is represented, as Giampiccoli and Mtapuri (2014) point out with regard to CBT being often conceptual, but not in practice.
Heritage tourism benefits for the residents of the Sekhukhune District Municipality.
Tourism is an industry that revolves around people and is recognised for its ability to generate employment opportunities in diverse regions, from urban to rural areas. Participants (as shown in Table 9) were asked to indicate how heritage tourism benefits the residents of the SDM.
| TABLE 9: Heritage tourism benefits for the residents of the Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant indicated that:
‘Tourism creates jobs which can help to diversify the local economy. Tourism also supports small businesses and enable[s] them to grow. In many cases, if tourism is developed properly, it will spread economic benefits to businesses and people who aren’t included in traditional destination marketing.’ (P2)
Another indicated that:
‘If heritage tourism is developed, it will be a great opportunity as jobs will be created for locals. There will be no need for locals to move to other provinces in search for greener pastures.’ (P4)
Stakeholders mentioned that there are possible socio-economic benefits of heritage tourism, for example, jobs, small enterprises and reductions in emigration. However, these remain primarily hypothetical, and little direct evidence of experiencing these benefits has developed. The discrepancy between the anticipated and realised benefits signifies the peril of inevitable extractive tourism frameworks, where projects position empowerment while community members have little lived experience of involvement with the payment of ‘community tourism’ (Manyara & Jones 2007). In principle, within a CBT framework, benefits are to be defined, equitably distributed and would correspond to the established community ownership frameworks (Spenceley 2022). The SDM case illustrates that, in the absence of institutional capacity and authentic participation, the idea of tourism as a development strategy may effectively maintain the implementation gap instead of bridging it.
Advice on how to develop heritage tourism in the Sekhukhune District Municipality
Guidelines for enhancing heritage tourism encompass getting local communities ready and providing them with assistance, motivating their involvement in tourism activities and advising officials not to undermine traditional leadership. Table 10 presents results on how to develop heritage tourism in SDM.
| TABLE 10: Advice on how to develop heritage tourism in the Sekhukhune District Municipality. |
A participant indicated that:
‘The responsible parties should not undermine the community and traditional leaderships. They must get in touch with the locals and look at how other heritage tourism attractions in other areas are performing.’ (P4)
Another indicated that:
‘Every part of Sekhukhune is an open tourism attraction. We just need to prepare the locals to value what they have. The district has 75 traditional leaders which is the largest around the world amongst the districts. So, imagine if all the 75 royal houses are developed into heritage tourism products. Opportunities are there, they just need to be tapped.’ (P3)
Community leaders underscored respect for traditional authority, equipping locals to appreciate their heritage, and tapping into Sekhukhune’s broad network of traditional leaders. These observations identify heritage stewardship as both a problem and a potential: while traditional leaders could act as anchors for CBT endeavours, they can be omitted from top-down municipal planning. Literature demonstrates how failure to recognise local governance structures diminishes legitimacy and sustainability (Giampiccoli & Saayman 2018). Embedding CBT principles, such as in SDM, will require intention to balance formal government planning with traditional leadership and bottom-up agency. Failure to balance these, development risks continue to be externally driven, exacerbating the very implementation gap it attempts to ameliorate.
Sekhukhune District Municipality’s heritage tourism can be positioned in the early ‘involvement development’ stage, as there exists introduced planning but scarce investment, infrastructure and visitation flows. Stagnation remains a probable risk without more fully embedding community and institutional capacity. Findings suggest that heritage tourism development in SDM is not a matter of vision but operational. By reframing strategies in the context of CBT principles that foreground empowerment, benefit sharing and participatory governance, the sporadic processes can transition from rhetoric to sustainable practice.
Overall, the findings show that the implementation issues in SDM are not merely isolated operational problems but are rooted in governance, coordination and participation systems. When viewed through the CBT framework used in this study, these challenges highlight an ongoing gap between policy goals and institutional capacity. Therefore, the following conclusion synthesises the empirical themes with the conceptual framework to derive specific recommendations for heritage tourism planning and execution.
Conclusion
Recommendations
This study investigated the ongoing gap between tourism planning and practice in the SDM, using the CBT framework and integrating the heritage tourism development framework proposed by Phori (2023). Results show that, despite strategic documents such as the STR plan, turning policy into action remains weak. Challenges include fragmented governance, inadequate infrastructure, poor promotional activities and limited community involvement, issues shared with other rural heritage areas such as the KwaZulu-Natal Battlefields Route and the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape (Mashiyi 2019; Rogerson & Visser 2020). The study also noted that competing land uses, especially illegal mining, have further hampered heritage conservation and eroded community trust in tourism efforts.
The findings support existing research that sustainable rural tourism development in South Africa faces challenges because of institutional incapacity, poor coordination and superficial stakeholder engagement (Donaldson 2018; Ramukumba & Matyile 2024). However, the study advances this discussion by utilising Phori’s (2023) framework, which highlights multi-stakeholder collaboration, participatory governance and local ownership as interconnected pillars for heritage tourism development. Consistent with Giampiccoli and Saayman (2018) and Scheyvens (1999), the study underscores that tourism benefits are more likely to be realised when communities, traditional authorities and municipal bodies jointly establish tourism priorities and participate in decision-making.
To address the identified challenges, the study recommends developing an Integrated Heritage Tourism Masterplan that aligns municipal, provincial and traditional authority objectives, guided by the strategic priorities of the NTSS (NDT 2017) and the White Paper on the Development and Promotion of Tourism (DEAT 1996). The masterplan should emphasise coordinated governance through a District Tourism Forum that encourages inter-agency collaboration between SDM, the LTA and the SDA. Investment in tourism infrastructure, destination marketing and visitor facilities at key heritage sites should be increased to improve visibility and competitiveness (Geng et al. 2025). Furthermore, regulating competing land uses such as illegal mining through the Spatial Development Framework will protect cultural landscapes, while measurable performance indicators and participatory monitoring mechanisms will enhance accountability and transparency.
Implementing these recommendations through the lens of Phori’s (2023) framework would enable SDM to shift from fragmented policy efforts to a coherent, inclusive model of heritage tourism management. By emphasising community empowerment, integration of local governance and evidence-based monitoring, heritage tourism can develop from a rhetorical aspiration to a practical tool for cultural sustainability and socio-economic transformation in the district.
Limitations of the study
This study provides valuable insights into the challenges of implementing heritage tourism in the SDM, although some limitations should be acknowledged. The study utilises a small, purposively chosen sample of four participants. While suitable for exploratory qualitative research on governance and institutional dynamics, the results are not meant to be statistically generalisable. Instead, they provide analytical insights into policy-practice gaps identified by key stakeholders involved in heritage tourism planning and implementation. Additionally, the study emphasises institutional and leadership perspectives, which might under-represent views from smaller tourism operators or community members. This focus was deliberate, aiming to analyse policy interpretation, coordination and implementation within formal governance structures. Moreover, as data were collected through semi-structured interviews, findings may reflect participants’ subjective views. To enhance credibility, interview data were triangulated with relevant national and municipal policy documents. Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights to heritage tourism scholarship by highlighting implementation challenges in a rural district that has been less studied and by showcasing the importance of qualitative, governance-centred research in tourism policy analysis.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Madiseng M. Phori’s doctoral thesis titled ‘A sustainable heritage tourism development framework for the Sekhukhune District Municipality, Limpopo’, submitted to the Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology in 2023. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by Uwe P. Hermann and co-supervised by Leane Grobbelaar. The article has since been revised and adapted for journal publication. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
Competing interests
The author, Uwe P. Hermann, serves as an editorial board member of this journal. The authors Madiseng Phori and Leane Grobbelaar have no other competing interests to declare.
CRediT authorship contribution
Madiseng Phori: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. Uwe P. Hermann: Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Leane Grobbelaar: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because of reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author, Madiseng Phori, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B., 2010, ‘Sustainable tourism and the evolving roles of government planning’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903338790
Creswell, J.W. & Poth, C.N., 2018, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 4th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), 1996, White paper on the development and promotion of tourism in South Africa, Government of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.
Dimitrios, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. & Szivas, E.M., 2014, ‘Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts’, Tourism Management 45, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.05.006
Donaldson, R., 2018, ‘Small town tourism in South Africa’, GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 83(3), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68088-0
Douglas, A., Lubbe, B.A. & Kruger, E.A., 2012, ‘Would a single regional visa encourage tourist arrivals in southern Africa?’, Development Southern Africa 29(3), 488–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2012.706042
Geng, Y., Li, H., Zhang, X. & Wang, L., 2025, ‘Bibliometric analysis of sustainable rural tourism’, Nature Human Behaviour 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05213-z
George, R., 2017, Managing tourism in South Africa, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Giampiccoli, A. & Mtapuri, O., 2014, ‘Community-based tourism: An exploration of the concept(s)’, South African Geographical Journal 96(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427212X13431568321500
Giampiccoli, A. & Saayman, M., 2018, ‘South African community-based tourism operational guidelines: Analysis and critical review’, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 10(6), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1463653
Grobler, J., 2009, ‘The Battlefields Route: A product of heritage tourism’, African Historical Review 41(1), 62–78.
Magwaxaza, N. & Steyn, J.N., 2019, ‘Tourism management challenges on Robben Island World Heritage Site, South Africa’, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 8(5), 1–14.
Manyara, G. & Jones, E., 2007, ‘Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty alleviation’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost723.0
Marschall, S., 2012, ‘Tourism and memory: Representation and re-invention of heritage in post-apartheid South Africa’, Critical Arts 26(1), 16–31.
Mashiyi, N.F., 2019, ‘The challenges of managing a World Heritage Site: The case of Mapungubwe cultural landscape, South Africa’, Journal of Heritage Tourism 14(4), 351–365.
Mearns, K.F., 2012, ‘Lessons from community-based ecotourism projects in South Africa: A review of stakeholder participation and capacity-building’, African Journal of Business Management 6(10), 3640–3649.
National Department of Tourism (NDT), 2016, Operational guidelines for community-based tourism in South Africa, Government Printings, Pretoria.
National Department of Tourism (NDT), 2017, National tourism sector strategy, Government of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.
Patton, M.Q., 2015, Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 4th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Phori, M.M., 2023, A framework for developing sustainable heritage tourism for rural municipalities: The case of Sekhukhune District Municipality, South Africa, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. & Airey, D., 2003, ‘The core of heritage tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 30(1), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6
Ramukumba, T. & Matyile, N., 2024, ‘Challenges to rural development through tourism: A South African case study’, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 13(4), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720.572
Rogerson, C.M., 2006, ‘Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: The role of pro-poor tourism’, Local Environment 11(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830500396149
Rogerson, C.M. & Nel, E., 2016, ‘Planning for local economic development in spaces of despair: Key trends in South African local economic development planning’, Local Economy 31(1–2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215623731
Rogerson, C.M. & Visser, G., 2020, ‘Recent trends in South African tourism geographies’, GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 29(2), 398–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29377-2_1
Scheyvens, R., 1999, ‘Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities’, Tourism Management 20(2), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00069-7
Sekhukhune District Municipality (SDM), 2019, Tourism routes strategy, Sekhukhune District Municipality, Groblersdal.
Sharpley, R. & Telfer, D.J., 2015, Tourism and development: Concepts and issues, 2nd edn., Channel View, Bristol.
Spenceley, A., 2022, ‘Socio-economic impacts of community-based tourism: Evidence from the field’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(7), 89–97.
Statistics South Africa, 2024, Domestic tourism survey, Government of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.
Timothy, D.J. & Boyd, S.W., 2003, Heritage tourism, Pearson, Harlow.
United Nations, 2015, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York, NY, viewed 28 October 2025, from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
Visser, G., 2016, ‘The geographies of South African tourism development’, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 5(3), 1–15.
Zapata, M.J., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P. & Vanderschaeghe, M., 2011, ‘Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua’, Current Issues in Tourism 14(8), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.559200
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
