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.

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.

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.

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.

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]).

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.

When asked to describe the current heritage tourism situation in SDM, a participant responded that:

The findings suggested a significant disconnect between strategic planning and realities, because of poor governance, resource constraints and low levels of community engagement.

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.

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.

A participant indicated that:

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.

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.

A participant indicated that:

Another indicated that:

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.

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.

A participant indicated that:

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.

A participant indicated that:

Another indicated that:

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.

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.

A participant indicated that:

Another indicated that:

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.

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.

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.