Structural Barriers, Community Disempowerment, and the Paradox of Local Support: Evidence from Ankasa Conservation Area, Ghana

1. Introduction

Community-based tourism (CBT) is widely promoted as a strategy for rural sustainable development [1,2,42], particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it promises poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and community empowerment [3,4]. However, despite its theoretical appeal, CBT has often failed to meet expectations [5,6,7,8]. In practice, especially in conservation areas, communities face governance complexities, external control, and limited benefits, leading to persistent challenges that conventional CBT models struggle to navigate effectively [9,10,52].

Central to these implementation challenges is the persistent problem of community disempowerment, a process whereby local residents are systematically excluded from meaningful participation in tourism planning, management, and benefit-sharing arrangements [11,12,44,54]. This disempowerment manifests through various mechanisms including opaque governance structures that privilege external stakeholders, elite capture processes that concentrate benefits among socially and economically advantaged community members, and structural economic limitations that constrain communities' ability to participate effectively in tourism value chains [2,13,14]. Understanding the relationship between structural barriers, community disempowerment, and local support for tourism development has become increasingly critical as tourism continues to expand in environmentally sensitive areas across the Global South. Local community support represents a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable tourism development, providing the social license necessary for tourism operations while contributing to conservation outcomes and visitor experiences [24,35]. Yet the mechanisms through which structural impediments influence community attitudes and behaviors toward tourism remain poorly understood, both theoretically and empirically In Africa, conservation tourism combines biodiversity protection with rural development [9,15] but remains shaped by colonial legacies, external dominance, and power imbalances that limit local benefits [3,16,17,18,48]. Ghana represents a particularly interesting case for examining community-based tourism challenges and opportunities in West Africa because while it has strong tourism potential and supportive policies, community participation in CBT remains constrained by weak institutions, elite capture, and implementation gaps [8,19,20,46,53]. The Ankasa Conservation Area exemplifies these challenges, where communities continue to experience minimal involvement and benefits despite various attempts to develop community-based ecotourism initiatives [2,8,14,19,20]. Despite the promise of community-based tourism (CBT), a persistent gap exists between theory and practice, particularly in protected areas where structural barriers undermine empowerment and weaken local support. While disempowerment in tourism contexts is well-documented, limited research explains how structural barriers create disempowerment and shape community attitudes [27,34]. Most studies examine these issues in isolation, leading to fragmented understanding [37]. This gap is significant both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, it restricts the development of frameworks that capture barrier–disempowerment–support relationships. Practically, it limits the effectiveness of interventions, which often address symptoms rather than root causes [1,66]. In Africa, where CBT receives major investment, evidence-based approaches are urgently needed. Moreover, existing frameworks such as social exchange theory and stakeholder theory remain inadequate, as they overlook power imbalances and governance failures central to community responses [5,27]. This study seeks to address identified research gaps by systematically examining how structural barriers lead to com-munity disempowerment and reduced local support, guided by three research questions: (a) What is the relationship between structural barriers and community disempowerment? (b) How does disempowerment influence local support for tourism? (c) What mechanisms connect structural barriers to disempowerment? The study contributes to the community-based tourism literature and to broader understanding of sustainable tourism development in conservation contexts by providing validated instruments to measure barriers, disempowerment, and support. The study test and refine existing frameworks for understanding community responses to tourism development. Also, the research provides context-specific insights into community-based tourism challenges in West African conservation areas, contributing to the limited but growing literature on African tourism development. Furthermore, the study's findings have practical implications for tourism policy and development practice, providing evidence-based guidance for addressing structural barriers to community empowerment and enhancing the sustainability of conservation tourism initiatives

2. Literature Review, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Structural Barriers in Community-Based Tourism

Research consistently identifies three categories of structural barriers that constrain meaningful community participation in tourism development [3,4,20]. In Ghana, these patterns often replicate colonial-era extractive structures where benefits flow upward while costs remain localized [5,46]. Studies across Kenya's conservancies similarly document how governance failures create "participation fatigue" among communities [6].

Elite capture represents a second critical barrier [7,8,62]. Research in East African conservation areas demonstrates how tourism benefits consistently flow to educated elites and traditional leaders while marginalized groups remain excluded [9]. In conservation areas in Ghana, poor infrastructure, limited financial services, and inadequate skills constrain communities' ability to participate meaningfully in tourism value chains [10,11,53,56].

2.2. Community Disempowerment and Local Support

The relationship between disempowerment and local support represents an underexplored dimension of sustainable tourism. Early research assumed direct relationships between negative experiences and declining support [14,15] but contemporary evidence reveals more complex patterns. In African conservation contexts, communities often maintain support despite experiencing clear costs, driven by limited alternatives and hope for future benefits [16,17].

Research in tourism communities in Ghana found that despite widespread dissatisfaction with governance and benefit distribution, support for tourism development remained high due to perceived future potential [5]. Similar findings across West Africa reveal communities distinguish between support for tourism as a concept versus satisfaction with current implementation [18]. However, empirical research specifically examining how disempowerment processes influence support remains scarce, particularly in conservation settings.

Social Exchange Theory (SET) has dominated understanding of community attitudes toward tourism but shows significant limitations in explaining responses where communities support tourism despite experiencing net costs [19,20]. Studies in African conservation contexts provide compelling evidence that communities maintain support even when experiencing resource access restrictions and minimal economic benefits, challenging SET's cost-benefit assumptions [16,17].

Stakeholder theory offers alternative insights emphasizing relationships and governance processes, but empirical applications at the community level remain limited [21,22]. Integration of these frameworks with empowerment literature may yield more robust understanding of community responses in power-laden contexts.

This review identifies four critical gaps: (1) limited systematic research examining the full pathway from barriers through disempowerment to support outcomes; (2) methodological reliance on qualitative approaches that cannot test theoretical relationships empirically; (3) insufficient research in African conservation tourism contexts despite their global significance; and (4) theoretical frameworks inadequate for explaining community responses in contexts of significant power imbalances. The present study addresses these gaps through quantitative investigation of barrier-disempowerment-support relationships in Ankasa Conservation Area in Ghana.

2.3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development

The conceptual framework integrates three complementary theories. Empowerment, Social exchange and Stakeholder theories. The framework posits a sequential relationship whereby structural barriers create community disempowerment, which influences local support for tourism development. This model moves beyond simple cost-benefit explanations to examine how structural impediments systematically constrain community agency. Based on the framework below, two hypotheses were developed and tested in the study:

Hypothesis 1.

Structural barriers have a positive effect on community disempowerment.

Hypothesis 2

. Community disempowerment has a positive effect on reduced local support for sustainable tourism.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The Ankasa Conservation Area (ACA) is geographically positioned at 5°17′ North latitude and 2°39′ West longitude, within the Jomoro District of southwestern Ghana, directly bordering the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire [41,50]. It encompasses two formerly distinct reserves, the Ankasa Re-source Reserve and the Nini Suhien National Park [41,51]. Together, they form the only protected enclave within the wet evergreen high forest zone in Ghana, a globally significant ecosystem that supports remarkable biodiversity, including forest elephants, chimpanzees, bongos, and over 600 butterfly species [41,50,51,63]. Initially gazetted as the Ankasa River Forest Reserve in 1934 to safeguard hydrological systems for agriculture, ACA later underwent phases of timber exploitation. The institutional tide turned with the launch of the Protected Areas Development Programme (PADP) in 1997, culminating in the 2000 management plan that re-envisioned ACA as a hub for biodiversity preservation, community-based natural resource management, and ecotourism. This shift also introduced Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs), which were designed to decentralize power and integrate local actors into conservation governance [41,50]. Most residents are smallholder farmers cultivating both food crops (e.g., plantain, cassava, vegetables) and cash crops (e.g., cocoa, coconut, oil palm) [49]. While the conservation area boasts of ecotourism infrastructure such as visitor centers, nature trails, and iconic attractions like the Bamboo Cathedral and the “Big Tree,” the economic spillovers to local residents remain minimal.

Figure 1. Ankasa Conservation Area and adjacent communities.

Figure 1. Ankasa Conservation Area and adjacent communities.

3.2. Measures

This study employed a five-point Likert scale to measure all items, ranging from 1, indicating Strongly Disagree to 5, Strongly Agree. A total of 11 items were adapted from established studies to align with the present research framework. Minor wording adjustments were made to ensure contextual relevance. Barriers to Community Empowerment was operationalized using three items adopted from [40]. Community Disempowerment was measured with four items adapted from [14]. Also, reduced Local Support for Tourism was assessed using four items derived from [26]. Prior to the main survey, the questionnaire was reviewed and pre-tested by academic experts and the instrument’s appropriateness for data collection confirmed

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection took place during three field visits to the Ankasa Conservation Area between 5 May and 25 May 2024. The target population comprised the economically active community residents (N = 1,368) of Ankasa, Fawmang, and Amokwaw communities. The study adopted purposive sampling method [59], and a total of 210 respondents were purposively selected. The sampling process followed three main criteria: Local community residents engaged in non-tourism activities, residents engaged in tourism-related activities, and elected or appointed community leaders. Participants included residents, CREMA Executive Committee (CEC) members, assemblymen, tour guides, guesthouse owners, and community elders. Potential respondents were approached by the research team and provided with a brief overview of the study’s objectives. Participation was entirely voluntary, and questionnaires were administered only to those who consented. A minimum of 150 valid responses is recommended for structural equation modeling [31]; to meet this requirement, 210 questionnaires were distributed. After excluding incomplete responses, a final dataset of 205 valid cases was retained for analysis.

The study model comprised three latent variables, each measured by their respective observed indicators. Data analysis proceeded as follows: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the constructs and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized relationships among constructs [30]. All analyses were conducted using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation in Stata 16.

4. Results

4.1. Participants’ Profile

The study comprised 205 respondents from the Ankasa Conservation Area, with a balanced gender distribution (52% male, 48% female). The sample was dominated by adults aged 36-65 years (46%), followed by youth aged 18-35 years (40%), and older adults aged 66-85 years (14%). Most respondents had completed Junior High School education (59%), while 23% had primary education and only 3% had tertiary education. The majority of respondents (76%) were engaged in farming, with traders comprising 11% of the sample. Monthly household incomes were predominantly in the GH₵ 2000-2900 range (43%), with 25% earning GH₵ 1000-1900. Notably, 96% of respondents reported that tourism contributed 0% to their household income, highlighting the limited direct economic benefits from tourism activities in the area (Table 1).

4.2. Measurement Model

The measurement model was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess construct reliability and validity before testing structural relationships. All constructs demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.766 to 0.863, and Composite Reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.819 to 0.865, all exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70. Convergent validity was established as all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, ranging from 0.518 to 0.648. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and ranged from 0.542 to 0.848, with most exceeding 0.70 (Table 2). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.770, confirming the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis.

The hypothesized structural model demonstrated excellent fit to the data based on multiple fit indices. The chi-square test was non-significant (χ² (42) = 46.315, p = 0.299), indicating no significant difference between the observed and ex-pected covariance matrices. The normed chi-square (CMIN/DF = 1.103) was well below the recommended threshold of 3.0. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.022, 90% CI: 0.000-0.054) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = 0.055) were both below 0.08, indicating close fit. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.995) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = 0.993) exceeded 0.95, demonstrating excellent incremental fit. These indices collectively con-firm that the proposed model adequately represents the underlying data structure.

Hypothesis 1 was supported, demonstrating that perceived barriers have a statistically significant positive effect on community disempowerment with a standardized path coefficient (β) = 0.192, p = 0.015, and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.037-0.347. This indicates that higher levels of structural barriers lead to increased feelings of disempowerment among community members. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, as disempowerment did not significantly predict reduced local support for tourism (β = 0.058, p = 0.480, 95% CI: -0.105-0.221). This suggests that the relationship between disempowerment and local support is more complex than initially hypothesized (Table 3 and Figure 3).

5. Discussion

This study investigated the relationships between structural barriers, community disempowerment, and local support for tourism development in in the Ankasa Conservation Area of Ghana. The findings provide empirical insights that both confirm established theoretical propositions and challenge conventional assumptions about community responses to tourism development in conservation contexts. The significant positive relationship between structural barriers and community disempowerment (H1: β = 0.192, p = 0.015) provides robust empirical validation of theoretical propositions that have dominated community-based tourism literature for decades. This finding aligns with extensive research demonstrating how governance deficiencies, elite capture, and economic limitations systematically marginalize local communities from tourism benefits [2,7,14,43,47]. The standardized path coefficient indicates that structural barriers account for approximately 3.7% of the variance in community disempowerment, representing a meaningful effect size in social science research contexts. The empirical validation of this relationship is particularly significant given the predominant reliance on qualitative methodologies in previous studies. While case studies have consistently documented instances of community exclusion and marginalization [5,10,11,45,57,61,63], the present study provides quantitative evidence of the systematic nature of these processes. The finding that 96% of respondents reported no tourism income despite living adjacent to a conservation area with tourism potential underscores the pervasiveness of exclusionary mechanisms identified in the conceptual framework. The confirmed barriers-disempowerment relationship validates empowerment theory's emphasis on structural im-pediments to community empowerment [20,23,24,58]. It also supports political ecology perspectives that highlight how power imbalances and institutional weaknesses perpetuate marginalization in development contexts. The finding extends tourism specific applications of these broader theoretical frameworks. The results resonate strongly with Ahmed and Gasparatos's [2,65] work in Ghana, which similarly demonstrated how structural factors create systematic exclusion despite development interventions. The parallel findings across different sectors suggest that structural barriers to community empowerment represent endemic challenges in Ghana's development landscape rather than tourism-specific phenomena. Comparison with Mawutor and Hajjar's [14] research on community forest governance in Ghana reveals similar patterns of elite capture and governance failures. However, the present study's quantitative approach enables more precise estimation of effect sizes and provides a foundation for comparative analysis across different natural resource management contexts. The non-significant relationship between community disempowerment and reduced local support (H2: β = 0.058, p = 0.480) represents the study's most theoretically provocative finding. This result directly challenges linear assumptions in social exchange theory and tourism area life cycle models, which predict declining support as negative impacts accumulate [15,19,25]. Three explanations emerge for this paradox. First, communities may distinguish between support for tourism as a development strategy versus satisfaction with current implementation. Second, temporal considerations may create disconnect between immediate negative experiences and long-term expectations. Third, cultural factors specific to Ghanaian contexts such as traditional hospitality values, collective decision-making, and historical experiences may moderate the disempowerment-support relationship.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The mixed findings necessitate theoretical framework refinement rather than wholesale rejection. Social exchange theory’s limitations in contexts where costs exceed benefits have been noted previously [16,17,20], but this study provides quantitative evidence in conservation tourism contexts. The theory requires extension beyond cost-benefit calculations to incorporate structural factors influencing communities' ability to realize benefits and exercise agency. Stakeholder theory offers additional explanatory potential through its emphasis on relationship quality and procedural justice [27,28]. Communities may distinguish between relationships with tourism as a sector versus specific operators or governance institutions. Integration of empowerment theory, social exchange theory, and stakeholder theory may better explain complex community responses in power-laden contexts.

5.2. Practical and Policy Implications

The study's findings must be interpreted within the specific context of Ankasa Conservation Area in Ghana, but they have broader implications for community-based tourism theory and practice. The area's characteristics such as significant biodiversity value, complex institutional arrangements, and communities' limited economic alternatives are representative of conservation tourism contexts across Sub-Saharan Africa. The persistence of community support despite disempowerment may reflect broader patterns of resilience and adaptation in African communities facing development challenges. Research in other sectors suggests that communities often maintain optimism about development interventions while adapting to their limitations [31]. This resilience perspective offers more nuanced understanding than deficit-based models that assume communities will inevitably oppose development initiatives that fail to deliver promised benefits. However, the resilience interpretation should not justify complacency about addressing structural barriers. The finding that communities maintain support despite disempowerment represents both an opportunity and a warning. It provides a window for implementing necessary governance reforms before support potentially erodes, but it also risks enabling continued exploitation of community goodwill without addressing underlying inequities. The confirmed barriers-disempowerment relationship provides clear guidance for interventions: transparent revenue-sharing mechanisms, meaningful community participation structures, capacity-building programs, and accountability measures. The persistent support finding suggests comprehensive intervention packages rather than isolated reforms, leveraging current community goodwill to build equitable governance systems. For conservation organizations and tourism operators, the findings emphasize the importance of process-oriented approaches that prioritize community agency and participation alongside outcome-oriented measures of success.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

The cross-sectional design precludes definitive causal inferences. The local support construct showed weakest psycho-metric properties, and focus on "reduced support" may not capture attitude complexity. Single conservation area- focus limits generalizability across different cultural and institutional contexts. The non-significant disempowerment-support relationship suggests mediating variables warrant investigation to ex-plain this relationship through mixed-methods approaches. Cultural dimensions require deeper investigation of how indigenous knowledge systems, traditional governance, and local values influence attitudes.

5.4. Conclusion

This study provides empirical evidence that structural barriers significantly contribute to community disempowerment in tourism contexts while revealing the unexpected resilience of local support for tourism development. The findings challenge linear assumptions in dominant theoretical frameworks while confirming the importance of addressing structural barriers to community empowerment. The path to sustainable tourism in conservation areas requires urgent attention to governance deficits that create disempowerment while recognizing that community support is a complex phenomenon influenced by factors beyond simple cost-benefit calculations. The persistence of support despite disempowerment represents both an opportunity for building more equitable partnerships and a responsibility to not exploit community goodwill without addressing underlying structural inequities. The ultimate goal should be transforming resilient hope into empowered collaboration that benefits both conservation objectives and community wellbeing