Paper Edited

International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 4, Issue 5 May 2022, pp: 1551-1559 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252
Wetland Based Ecotourism for Sustainable Conservation

in Rwanda: A Case Study of Rugezi Wetland
Drocelle,Mutirende,Juvens Niyonzima,Jean Francois Christian,Kwizera
Universityof lay adventists of kigali
Facult of environmental studies
Option: Environmental Economics and Natural Resource Management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted: 15-05-2022 Revised: 20-05-2022 Accepted: 25-05-2022
ABSTRACT and result revealed that Rugezi wetland has greatly

Wetlands are among the most productive and degraded in 2000s where 48.59% of Rugezi total
important ecosystems on the earth, yet they have area was degraded for agriculture compared to
been subject to repeated and dramatic historical 26.76% in 1980.At the same time, the forest cover
losses, and until nowadays, they continue to be at as measure to conserve the wetland, has increased to
high risk of degradation and total destruction. This 10.34Km2 in 2000 from 7.62Km2 in 1980.In 2020,
study aimed at analyzing the wetland-based the wetland has restored and reached to 47Km2 out
ecotourism for sustainable conservation in Rwanda of 66.19Km2 which is 71.01% of total wetland.
particular Rugezi wetland as study area. In addition, Based on this, such contribution of ecotourism is
the study centered on application of remote sensing based on revenue sharing as ecotourism-based
technology, where three (3) Landsat images (1980; activity generated income.The study suggest that the
2000; and 2020) were classified using supervised relevant stakeholders must put more efforts in road
classification approach, with maximum likelihood contribution so that to help the arrival Eco tourist
technique, and served the analysis of Land Use and and the development of ecotourism which will
Land Cover (LULC) changes in Rugezi wetland. contribute to the sustainable conservation.
The study also focused on use of consultative Key words: Ecotourism, sustainable conservation
approach consisted of Questionnaire survey
addressed to local community and focused group I. INTRODUCTION
discussion addressed to Burera youth Community Wetlands are ecosystems in which water
whom in charge of Rugezi wetland conservation covers the land. They provide economical,
activities.The study findings revealed that the major ecological, societal and recreational benefits to
ecotourism activities that are practiced within humans (Menbere & Menbere, 2018). In fact,
Rugezi wetland are highlighted to be Bird watching, wetlands are commonly used as areas of agricultural
research-based ecotourism, cultural preservation , and grazing lands, in addition to their various
nature walking, hiking, and visiting Rugezi benefits they support human wellbeing by offering
waterfall. Secondly, it was also revealed that the food, fodder, fiber, fuel wood, timber and no timber
measures and technique used to enhance sustainable forest products, wetlands also play an essential role
conservation are highlighted to be Terracing around in the ecological condition of the environment and
the wetland high slopes, Setting buffer of 50 meters they are important in maintaining natural cycles,
from wetland, participation of local community in water purification, climate regulation, flood
plastic removal from wetland through umuganda, regulation and coastal protection (Menbere &
Forbidding from collecting the grasses in wetland Menbere, 2018). In this period of rapid global
and give them the substitute, Afforestation and development, riparian and wetland ecosystems have
reforestation along the wetland,revenue sharing, been terribly deteriorated with the rise in human
Establishment of art and craft cooperatives, demands for more available places for cultivation,
engagement of local community among wetland water management, lodging, and infrastructure
rangers. Moreover, to analyze the impact of development (Bhatt,S,2020).
Ecotourism in conservation of Rugezi wetland, the
LULC changes have been analyzed
DOI: 10.35629/5252-040515511559 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 1551
Wetland conservation through ecotourism is mainly is since 1980s when, wetlands became land reserves
key in developing countries, where governments in order to get solutions to the problem of
lack enough funds to manage their natural resources demographic pressure. However, many wetlands
including wetlands, which are now threatened by development schemes were introduced and
human activities (Chaikumbung et al, 2016). implemented without considering their hydrological
Through this approach of ecotourism wetlands and environmental traits (Hatege kimana&
ecosystem conservation is promoted and the same Twarabamenye, 2007).
time the local community livelihood is economically
improved through employment income. Wetlands It was in 2004 that Rwanda made different
represent a significant part of the worldwide tourism intervention to restore and rehabilitate Rugezi
experience and are expected therefore also to be a wetlands, and in 2006 Rugezi wetland was gazette
crucial part of the growth in demand for tourism as a Ramsar site by the Government of Rwanda (Nile
locations. The natural beauty of wetlands attracts Basin Initiatives, 2019). The restoration of Rugezi
people and this reflects the strong connection wetland had an impact on local community that lost
between the unique aesthetic appeal of wetlands and access to the wetland and the livelihood of the local
people (UNWTO, 2012). population that used to have benefit on ecosystem
On worldwide extent, wetlands have services provided by the wetland in the past was
deteriorated by 87% over the last 300 years and 54 challenged. Fortunately, the restoration efforts
% since 1900 (Wiberg et al., 2020). Wetlands are appear to have started to provide some benefits and
among the most productive and important new opportunities such as ecotourism were
ecosystems on the earth, yet they have been subject introducing in area in order to improve local
to repeated and dramatic historical losses, and until population livelihood
nowadays, they continue to be at high risk of (Hategekimana&Twarabamenye, 2007).
degradation and total destruction as it was estimated
that 50% of salt marshes and 35% of mangroves II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
have been either lost or degraded with the proportion 2.1. Study area description
exceeding 90% in some areas(Gibson et al., The research will be conducted on “Rugezi
2015).In fact, the word has lost wetland”, the only Ramsar site in Rwanda, located
64 to 71% of its wetlands during 20th and 21st in Northern Province, Burera District, where it is
centuries, and those losses have been larger and surrounded by six sectors: Butaro, Ruhunde,
faster than other previous centuries(Kharel, 2011). Kivuye, Gatebe, Rwerere, and Cyeru, within the
Buberuka highlands. Most of the residents around
By referring to the case of Africa, African the wetland are farmers who domesticate animals at
continent has high population growth with 32 home and feed them on the planted grass.
countries with highest growth rate world-wide, as
result of this fact the services that wetland provides
continue to be degraded considerably (Mitchell,
2013). The population pressure on fragile wetland
ecosystem has created various problems such as
decline and extinction of wild flora and fauna, loss
of natural soil nutrients, shrinking of water level and
the associated reduction of their benefits
(Menbere&Menbere, 2018). For the sustainable
conservation of wetlands, several studies have
recommended the use of ecotourism or nature- based
tourism as the efficient wetland‟s conservation
strategy. Ecotourism wetland conservation strategy
emphasis on conserving wetland ecosystem and can
also be a way to make wetlands economically viable,
and can provide employment and income for local
people (van der Duim&Henkens, 2007).
On case of Rwanda, before the colonial

period, the role of wetlands was not clearly known
because they were considered as marginal land. It
following sampling formula, which is applied in the

finite population (Krishnaswamy, Sivakuma,
Mathirajan, 2006) as follows:
It is computed as n = N / (1+Ne2).
Whereas:
e = the tolerable error (10% in this study).
N = population size
So, n=117205/(1+117205*0.1^2)=99.9
n=100
In every sector, 17 populations have been randomly
selected and 16 populations in two sectors.
2.3.Data Analysis and Interpretation

This research was principally based on use
of consultative approach and Remote sensing
(classification of satellite images) it is mainly
comprised of both qualitative research approach and
quantitative research approach. Also Remote
Sensing was more privileged techniques because the
research analyzed the sustainable conservation
measures through referring to wetland degradation
perspectives. Data analysis involves presenting the
collected data in the analytical framework. This was
focused on editing, coding and tabulation all
Figure 2.1 map showing location of Rugezi relevant information for easy understanding and
wetland interpretation. The Editing was conducted in order
to guarantee accuracy, consistency, completeness
2.2 Sample and data collection techniques and uniformity of the collected data for better coding
This research used simple randomly
sampling technique to select the population to III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
represent the population by randomly sampling 3.1. Main ecotourism activities that are practiced
because local community who lives around the in Rugezi wetland
wetland is concerned with the research case because This section presents the findings on main
they were considered to have some information ecotourism activities that are practiced within
related to the wetland. Random sampling was Rugezi wetland. Based on field observation findings
applied in selecting participants to local community the main ecotourism activities that is practiced in
questionnaire survey. Focus group was used on Rugezi wetland are highlighted as visiting Rugezi
Burera youth community because the Researcher waterfall, nature walking or wetland touring, bird
found it wise to have important information as long watching, hiking, research- based activity and
as they are in charge of wetland conservation and visiting culture preserved center controlled by
ecotourism activities.The secondary data that used Burera youth community. All those ecotourism
in this research were documents analysis and spatial activities are in details based on its specification as
datasets ,Remote sensing because of its capability of it is computed based on respondents‟ answers where
synoptic viewing and repetitive coverage provides among 100 respondents there is a certain number
useful information on land use/ cover dynamics. that estimate the ecotourism activities taken place at
Remotely sensed data was used in order to observe Rugezi and at which percentage tourists do these
and compare changes in land use/ cover due to tourists activities.
natural and human activities. The remotely sensed
data was important to compare with the primary
sources of data such the questionnaires and field
observations to enhance validity and reliability of
the results.
The number of local communities who
participated in the survey was selected using the
Table 1.1: Known ecotourism activities that are Terracing 10 10%

practiced in Rugezi wetland. around
Known Number Percentage wetland high
ecotourism slope
activities that are Afforestation 20 20%
practiced in and re-
Rugezi wetland afforestation
Rugezi waterfall 15 15% on buffer of
Nature walking 25 25% 50m from
wetland.
Bird watching 10 10%
Grabbing 70 70%
Research based 15 15% plastic and
ecotourism other
Cultural 30 30% hazardous
preservation in material in
cultural center.
wetland
Hiking 5 5% through
community
Total 100 100% work
(Source: Primary data, 2022)
(Source: Primary data, 2022)
According to the table, respondents
Based on respondent the most known ecotourism highlight their contribution on sustainable wetland
activity in Rugezi wetland is cultural preservation in conservation through intervening in practice of
cultural center because of curiosity to know the making terraces on side of Rugezi wetland, other
elements that kept in the cultural center and the 20 respondents highlight their participation in
history behind them. sustainable wetland conservation under practice of
afforestation and re-afforestation along 50m buffers
3.2. Terracing around the wetland high slopes, zone from wetland and remaining 70 respondents
Buffer of 50 meters and Plastic removal from intervene in community work through practice of
wetland through community work known as practice of plastic removal in wetland. Based on the
umuganda findings from questionnaire survey addressed to
As Rugezi wetland is mainly found on high local community, community work known as
slope of Buberuka highland, the practice of making „Umuganda‟ is key measure that is participated by
terraces on the side slope of wetland is among the many respondents for sustainable wetland
key measure used to control such tremendous soil conservation practice.
erosion that cause flooding inundation in wetland.
This table shows the Wetland conservation 3.3 The contribution of wetland-based
measure that local community intervene ecotourism to the sustainable wetland
within,where they participate in Terracing around conservation
wetland high slope, Afforestation and re- 3.3.1. Rugezi wetland: Land Use Land Cover;
afforestation on buffer of 50m from wetland 1980, 2000 and 2020
,Grabbing plastic and other hazardous material in Maximum likelihood technique in
wetland through community work. Supervised classification was used for preparing
LULC map of Rugezi wetland for 1980, 2000 and
Table 3.2: Local community participation in 2020. The user accuracy, the producer accuracy,
conservation activities overall accuracy and kappa coefficient for each year
Wetland Number of percentage are calculated.
conservation respondents
measure
that local
community
intervene
within
Table.1: Rugezi wetland LULC classes, 1980

Classes Area in Percentage
sq.km (%)
Wetland 36.87 55.70
Agricultural 17.71 26.76
land
Water body 2.72 4.11
Forest 7.62 11.51
Built-Up 1.27 1.92
Total 66.19 100.00
According Table above, the spatial

distribution of LULC of 1980; the part of wetland
that was not deteriorated was most dominant class
among other LULC classes in 1980 which occupied
36.87km2 out of total wetland area of 66.19Km2, it
means it was 55.7% of the total wetland area that
was not deteriorated.
Likewise, Agricultural was the second dominant
LULC class in 1980, where it covered 17.71Km2 out
of 66.19Km2 which is 26.76%. the third LULC class
was the forest cover with 11.51% of total wetland
area, it means 7.62Km2 out of 66.19Km2. The
fourth one was the water bodies with 2.72Km2 out
66.19Km2. The least LULC class was the built- up Figure .3.3.2: Rugezi wetland LULC classes
area in 1980. Built up area covered 1.92% of total map, 2000 Resources(Priamry data,2022)
wetland area.
Table.2Rugezi wetland LULC classes
Classes Area in Percentage
sq.km (%)
Wetland 19.43 29.35

land
Forest 10.34 15.62
Built-Up 1.52 2.30
Total 66.19 100.00
In 2000, wetland degradation was very

high and visible. Among the activities that
compensate this degradation, agriculture is the most
contributor where it shifts from 17.71Km2 in 1980
Figure 3.3.1.Rugezi wetland LULC map, 1980
to 32.16Km2 in 2000. This was very noticeable and
very visible degradation because the undisturbed
The ecotourism in the area was started in
wetland was only covering 19.43Km2 out of total
1983 with only one activity which is research and no
wetland of 66.19Km2.According to the study of
known institution which was in charge of this
Hategekimana&Twarabamenye (2007), they
ecotourism. The reason one to elaborate the status of
revealed that the degradation of the Rugezi wetland
Rugezi wetland in the period near the ecotourism
began to be evoked from 2000s. In other words, the
was started.
appearances of this degradation were almost sudden.
However, information from scientific report done
by RRAM, pointed out that this degradation was
noticed to have occurred gradually
by different anthropogenic activities led by different

stakeholders (government projects, authorities and
population).
The forest cover also has increased to
10.34Km2 in 2000 from 7.62Km2 in 1980. This was Area in sq.km Percentage
good measure to conserve the wetland but Classes (%)
afforestation around the wetland alone was not Wetland 47.00 71.01
enough without other measures like limiting from
exploiting the wetland. Water bodies did not change land
much; it means it was not disturbed. Built up also
did not affect the wetland too much.
In the study of Hategekimana & Forest 13.81 20.86
Twarabamenye (2007), stated that the southeast Built-Up 0.34 0.51
zones which was degraded from 1960-1983, due to
the dynamiting effect of the rock wall to create Fels Total 66.19 100.00
outlet, which sent the water to tea plantation project
Table 3: Rugezi wetland LULC classes, 2020
in Mulindi. As result, the water level fell rapidly and
the whole part was reclaimed for agriculture
The wetland in 2020, based on the LULC
(RRAM, I998). The outlet was dammed;
analysis was restored at the highest level as
consequently, the water level got raised. The zone
demonstrated by an increase in the undisturbed
has been restored, the restoration reached not only
wetland from 19.43Km2 in 2000 to 47Km2 in 2020.
the rewetting but also created the water bodies. The
Also the forested area as measure of conservation
Northern part was most seriously degraded part as it
was increased from 10.34Km2 in 2000 to
was completely cultivated and the effects was
13.81Km2 in 2020. The agriculture in wetland also
started to be noticeable in 2000s
reduced in 2020 to 3.19Km2 from
Until that time, we can say that, the
32.16 in 2000. And finally the built up area around
hypothesis set at the beginning of this research is
the wetland has reduced from 1.52Km2 in 2000 to
true. There is no contribution of Ecotourism in
0.34Km2 in 2020.The factors that contributed to
conservation of Rugezi wetland, because the
this high level conservation are the
ecotourism was started in 1983 but the wetland
following,reclamation of wetland and declared as
degradation continues instead of reduction after
RAMSAR wetland in 2006 has had a great impact in
ecotourism.
the wetland restoration,the development of
Ecotourism and establishment of Burera youth
Figure.3: Rugezi wetland LULC map, 2020
community initiative, as NGO who initiate to
conserve the Rugezi wetland ecosystem with
purpose of ecotourism developmentand the local
community participation in wetland conservation.
3.4 Discussion
Wetlands play a vital role to the
community, such as fresh water provision, flood
prevention, aesthetic and recreational benefits, etc.
However, Wetlands should be recognized as a
critical component of long-term livelihood and
natural resource management strategies, rather than
as resources to be utilized as quick fix solutions to
address food and water shortages, as has been
typified by Rugezi wetland.
This study presents the important results
about how ecotourism has contributed to the
sustainable conservation of Rugezi wetland.
Currently, the ecotourism activities in Rugezi
wetland are highlight to be bird watching, visiting
Rugezi waterfall, cultural preservation and museum,
nature walking, and research-based activity. The
total area of 66.19Km2 for Rugezi
wetland as was extracted from Rwanda national based development for sustainable wetland
spatial data infrastructures were used in this conservation. The key highlighted challenge is lack
research. The Rugezi wetland degradation and of infrastructure development, limitation of weather
analysis has done based on changes detection from condition, wetland soil type, and high rise of wetland
images classification (supervised classification destroyers known as Abarembetsi. The opportunities
using maximum likelihood) of three different years that are considered as boaster of ecotourism related
1980, 2000 and 2020.The timeline of 20 years of activity which result to sustainable wetland
analysis is enough to make any changes comparison conservation are highlighted to be based on
on wetland. The ecotourism is said to be started in research-based practice with particularity that
1983, the reason why this research makes changes Rugezi wetland in a special niche for different kind
detection from 1980. The findings showed that of bird internationally.
Rugezi wetland has greatly degraded in 2000s
where 48.59% of Rugezi total area was degraded for IV. CONCLUSION
agriculture compared to 26.76% in 1980.The Wetlands play a vital role to the
appearances of this degradation were almost sudden. community, such as fresh water provision, flood
However, information from scientific report done by prevention, aesthetic and recreational benefits, etc.
RRAM, pointed out that this degradation was However, Wetlands should be recognized as a
noticed to have occurred gradually by different critical component of long-term livelihood and
anthropogenic activities led by different natural resource management strategies, rather than
stakeholders (government projects, authorities and as resources to be utilized as quick fix solutions to
population). The southeast zones which were address food and water shortages, as has been
degraded from 1960-1983, due to the dynamiting typified by Rugeziwetland.Rugezi wetland were
effect of the rock wall to create Fels outlet, which exploited by local people by doing different
sent the water to tea plantation project in Mulindi activities,including agricultural ,collecting
and the northern part was completely cultivated and grasses,and others which were leading to the strong
the effects was started to be noticeable in 2000s. At deterioration of the wetland since 2000,since 1983
the same time, the forest cover as measure to there were a kind of ecotourism where there were
conserve the wetland, has increased to 10.34Km2 in research activities done by different
2000 from 7.62Km2 in 1980, this was good progress researchers.From its deterioration it has been
but forest increase only is not enough to say that the restored and In 2020, the wetland has restored and
sustainable conservation of wetland. reached to 47Km2 out of 66.19Km2 which is
In 2000, the conclusion can be that there is 71.01% of total wetland-thank to reclamation of
no strong contribution of ecotourism to sustainable wetland and declared as wetland in 2006 together
conservation of wetland, because the ecotourism with the development of Ecotourism and
started in 1983 but the serious degradation establishment of Burera youth community initiative,
noticeable in 2000. as NGO who initiate to conserve the Rugezi wetland
In 2020, the wetland has restored and ecosystem with purpose of ecotourism development.
reached to 47Km2 out of 66.19Km2 which is Ecotourism has contributed much in wetland
71.01% of total wetland-thank to reclamation of conservation but the important things ecotourism
wetland and declared as wetland in 2006 together did, is to engage the local community in the
with the development of Ecotourism and conservation activities .The contribution of
establishment of Burera youth community initiative, ecotourism is clearly visible and the hypothesis of
as NGO who initiate to conserve the Rugezi wetland this research said that there is no contribution of
ecosystem with purpose of ecotourism development. ecotourism in Rugezi wetland sustainable
Ecotourism has contributed much in wetland conservation is not true based on the findings.
conservation but the important things ecotourism
did, is to engage the local community in the REFERENCES
conservation activities .The contribution of [1]. Agrawal, A., Gibson, CC, Zacarias, DA, Anup,
ecotourism is clearly visible and the hypothesis of KC, Rijal, K., Sapkota, RP, Goalkeeper, T.,
this research said that there is no contribution of Island, Z., Miller, CC, Huijbens, E., Lamers,
ecotourism in Rugezi wetland sustainable M., Hunt, CA, Durham, WH, Driscoll, L.,
conservation is not true based on the findings. Honey, M., Nayomi, G., Gnanapala, WKA,
Lastly, the study highlighted the key Zambrano, AMA, Broadbent, EN, & Durham,
challenges and opportunities facing ecotourism- WH (2017). "Challenges and Potentials of
Ecotourism as a form of Conservation and
Sustainable Development.Tourism". Leisure ecotourist. In Asian tourism: Growth and

and Global Change, 22 (3): 251–258Ahmed, S. change (pp. 279-288): Routledge.
U., &Gotoh, K. (1967). Cost-Benefit Analysis [14]. Chaikumbung, M., Doucouliagos, H., &
of Environmental Goods by Applying the Scarborough, H. (2016). The economic value
Contingent Valuation Method.In Ange of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-
wandteChemie International Edition, 6(11), regression analysis. Ecological Economics,
951–952. 124, 164-174.
[2]. Altmann, M. C. G. (2016). Wildlife-based [15]. David A. Fennell (2020)Ecotourism - 5th
ecotourism as sustainable conservation Edition - - Routledge Book
strategy: Ecological and management
indicators of conservation impact. [16]. Derhe, M. A., Tuyisingize, D., Eckardt, W.,
[3]. ARCOS. (2019). Policy Brief Rwanda Emmanuel, F., &Stoinski, T. (2020).Status,
Wetlands Biodiversity: Valuable but diversity and trends of the bird communities in
Vulnerable Asset Executive Summary. Volcanoes National Park and surrounds,
[4]. Aryal, C. (2019). Wetland Based Ecotourism Rwanda. Bird Conservation International,
for Sustainable Development in Nepal. 30(1), 1-20.
Research Nepal Journal of Development [17]. Diamantis, D. (1999). The concept of
Studies, 2(1), 1–12. ecotourism: Evolution and trends. Current
[5]. Bagul, A. H. B. P. (2009). Success of issues in Tourism, 2(2-3), 93-122.
Ecotourism Sites and Local Community [18]. Diamantis, D., &Roches, L. (2017). The
Participation in Sabah. Victoria University of Concept of Ecotourism: Evolution and Trends
Wellington, January 2009, 163–166. Concept of Ecotourism: Evolution and Trends.
[6]. Basin, N. (2019).Rwanda Wetlands August.
Governance and Management Profile.Nile [19]. Du, J., Qiao, X., Zhang, M., Di, B., & Tang, Y.
Basin Initiative. (2017). Wetlands in the Jiuzhaigou World
[7]. Becken, S. &Schellhorn, M. (2007). Natural Heritage site of south-west China:
Ecotourism, energy use and the global climate: classification and recent changes. Marine and
Widening the local perspective. Critical issues Freshwater Research, 69(5), 677-689.
in ecotourism: Understanding a complex [20]. Evans, J., & Russell-Smith, J.
tourism phenomenon, 85-101. (2020).Delivering effective savanna fire
[8]. Bendell-Young, L. I., Bennett, K. E., Crowe, management for defined biodiversity
A., Kennedy, C. J., Kermode, A. R., Moore, conservation outcomes: An Arnhem Land case
M. M., ... & Wood, A. (2000). Ecological study. International Journal of Wild Land Fire,
Characteristics of Wetlands Receiving an 29(5), 386-400.
Industrial Effluent. Ecological Applications, [21]. Farrier, D., & Tucker, L. (2000). Wise use of
10(1), 310-322. wetlands under the Ramsar Convention: a
[9]. Benineza, G. G., Rwabudandi, I., challenge for meaningful implementation of
&Nyiransabimana, M. J. (2019). Landslides international law. Journal of Environmental
hazards assessment using geographic Law, 12(1), 21-42.
information system and remote sensing: [22]. Finlayson 1, C. M., Davidson 2, N., Pritchard
Gakenke District. In IOP Conference Series: 3, D., Milton 4, G. R., & MacKay 5, H.
Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 389, (2011).The Ramsar Convention and
No. 1, p. 012015). IOP Publishing. ecosystem-based approaches to the wise use
[10]. Bhatt,S. (2020). Ecotourism: An Innovative and sustainable development of wetlands.
Approach to Biodiversity Conservation and Journal of International Wildlife Law &
Community Development. In Corporate Policy, 14(3-4), 176-198.
Biodiversity Management for Sustainable [23]. Menbere, I. P., &Menbere, T. P.
Growth (pp. 95-112).Springer, Cham. (2018).Wetland ecosystems in Ethiopia and

[11]. Black, R., &Cobbinah, P. B. (2018).Local their implications in ecotourism and
attitudes towards tourism and conservation in biodiversity conservation. Journal Iof Ecology
rural Botswana and Rwanda. Journal of and The Natural Environment, 10(6), 80–96
Ecotourism, 17(1), 79-105. [24]. Metz, T., & Ukpokolo, I. (2017). Themes, Issues
[12]. Boonratana, R. (2010). Community-based and Problems in African Philosophy.
tourism in Thailand: The need and justification [25]. MINIRENA. (2008). « Etablissementd‟ un
for an operational definition. Kasetsart Journal inventaire national rapide des marais et
of Social Sciences, 31(2), 280-289. élaboration de 5 avant-projets d‟
[13]. Cheung, S. C. (2007). Wetland tourism in arrêtésministérielsrelatifs aux marais »
Hong Kong: From birdwatcher to mass [26]. MINITERE.(2003). National strategy and action
in Rwanda.Ministry of Lands Resettlement and Conservation at Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary,

Environment, Kigali, Rwanda. April, 1–80. Karnataka, India. 3(3), 88–93.
[27]. Mitchell, S. A. (2013). The status of wetlands, [40]. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar,
threats and the predicted effect of global climate M., &Ramayah, T. (2017). Factors Influencing
change: The situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Residents‟ Perceptions toward Tourism
Aquatic Sciences, 75(1), 95–112. Development: Differences across Rural and
[28]. Mitsch, W.J., &Gosselink, J.G. (2000). The value Urban World Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel
of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape Research, 56(6), 760–775.
setting. Ecological economics, 35(1), 25-33. [41]. Ramazanova, M., Tortella, B., Kakabayev, A,
[29]. Mondino, E., & Beery, T. (2019).Ecotourism Bulai, M., (2018). Ecotourism as a tool for local
as a learning tool for sustainable sustainable development: The case of Burren,
development.The case of Monviso Ireland. 46. 109-118.
Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, Italy. 10.15551/lsgdc.v46i2.08.
Journal of Ecotourism, 18(2), 107-121. [42]. REMA.(2005). Rwanda Environment
[30]. Muganda, M. (2009).Community Involvement Management Authority Economic Analysis of
and Participation in Tourism Development in Natural Resource Management in Rwanda
Tanzania.1–211. Kigali, Rwanda.
[31]. Muziri, C., Banhire, T., &Matamanda, A. R. [43]. REMA.(2009). STATE OF ENVIRONMENT
(2019).Wetlands under the Impact of Urban Summary for Decision Makers.5–6.
Development in Zimbabwe.The Sustainability [44]. REMA. (2018). Rwanda Compendium of
Ethic in the Management of the Physical, Environment Statistics, Kigali, Rwanda
Infrastructural and Natural Resources of [45]. Sivo, L. C. (2007). Ecotourism and
Zimbabwe, 321. Environmental Conservation: A Case Study of
[32]. Nabahungu, L. N. (2012). Problems and Nacula District, Fiji. The University of South
opportunities of wetland management in Pacific, Thesis, 232.
Rwanda Author: Nsharwasi Léon Nabahungu. [46]. RRAM.1988. Ruhengeri and its resources. An
[33]. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and Descriptive environmental profile of Ruhengeri Prefecture,
Research: Data Type versus Data Analysis. USAID, Kigali.92
Language Teaching Research, 19, 129-132. [47]. Sproule, K. W. (1996). Community-based
[34]. Ndomba, P.M., Magoma, D., Mtalo, F. W., & ecotourism development: identifying partners in
Nobert, J. (2010).Application of SWAT in the process. Yale F&ES Bulletin, 99(January
Natural Wetland Catchments.A Case of 1995), 233–250.
RugeziCatcment in Rwanda.Nile Basin Water [48]. Stapleton, S. R. (2020). Toward critical
Science & Engineering Journal, 3(3). environmental education: a standpoint analysis
[35]. Noll, D., Scott, A., Danelutti, C., Sampson, J., of race in the American environmental context.
Galli, A., Mancini, S., Sinibaldi, I., Santarossa, Environmental Education Research, 26(2),
L., Prvan, M., & Lang, M. (2019).A guide to 155-170.
plan and promote ecotourism activities and [49]. Thomas, Y. (2013). Assessing community
measure their impacts in Mediterranean participation in selected ecotourism projects in
Protected Areas following the MEET the Brong-Ahafo Region, Ghana. Journal of
approach.Desti MED project, Interreg Med Ecology and The Natural Environment, 5(7),
Programme. 112. 133–143.
[36]. Nor, E., Hassan, K. E., Shuib, A., Kunasekaran,
P., Johari, S., & Adam, S. (2018). Local
Community Participation in Ecotourism
Development in TasikKenyir, Malaysia. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 36(1), 85–92.
[37]. Popovych, R.O., &Bihlo, A. (2020).Inverse
problem on conservation laws.Physica D:
Nonlinear Phenomena, 401-132175.

[38]. Ramírez, F., & Fennell, D. (2014). A
comprehensive framework for ecotourism and
wetland restoration: the case of Bogotἁ,
Clombia. Journal of Ecotourism, 13(2-3), 128-
151.
[39]. Rao, N. M., &Pawar, R. (2013).Assessment of
Community Participation in Ecotourism and

Paper Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)

Volume 4, Issue 5 May 2022, pp: 1551-1559 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Wetland Based Ecotourism for Sustainable Conservation

ABSTRACT and result revealed that Rugezi wetland has greatly

On case of Rwanda, before the colonial

following sampling formula, which is applied in the

2.3.Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 1.1: Known ecotourism activities that are Terracing 10 10%

Table.1: Rugezi wetland LULC classes, 1980

According Table above, the spatial

Wetland 19.43 29.35

In 2000, wetland degradation was very

by different anthropogenic activities led by different

Sustainable Development.Tourism". Leisure ecotourist. In Asian tourism: Growth and

Growth (pp. 95-112).Springer, Cham. (2018).Wetland ecosystems in Ethiopia and

in Rwanda.Ministry of Lands Resettlement and Conservation at Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary,

Nonlinear Phenomena, 401-132175.

You might also like