Tourism and biodiversity dynamics in African conservation systems: gradual ecological change, social trade-offs and adaptive governance

1 Introduction

Nature-based tourism has become a central component of conservation and development strategies across Africa, contributing to biodiversity protection, national economies, and local livelihoods. Across terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems, tourism generates revenue that supports protected area management, incentivises wildlife conservation, and creates economic opportunities for surrounding communities. Early work by Krug (2000) and James et al. (2000) established the economic rationale underpinning conservation investments, while more recent analyses, such as Spenceley et al. (2019) and Chidakel and Child (2022), show that the realization of these benefits is shaped by governance systems and institutional arrangements. Mutanga et al. (2024) further highlight the uneven distribution of tourism benefits and the structural challenges that continue to shape conservation outcomes across the Africa region.

At the same time, tourism introduces a range of ecological pressures. Research on ecotourism impacts has consistently documented wildlife disturbance, habitat degradation, and changes in species behavior and distribution associated with tourism activities. For example, Newsome et al. (2012) and Steven et al. (2011) demonstrate how wildlife responses are altered by sustained human presence, while Bateman and Fleming (2017) identify broader ecological consequences linked to recreational use of natural areas. Building on this, Mutanga et al. (2025a) show that tourism contributes to multiple, interacting pathways of biodiversity disturbance, including habitat change and ecosystem-level impacts. These pressures are often linked to repeated wildlife viewing, infrastructure development, and the spatial concentration of tourism activities, through which effects intensify over time, particularly in high-use areas, where congestion and overuse have been observed in protected areas such as Kruger National Park, South Africa and the Chobe National Park riverfront, Botswana (Ferreira and Harmse, 2014; Mutanga et al., 2025b). In addition, tourism can influence broader ecological processes, especially where it interacts with other land-use pressures such as agriculture and settlement expansion. While these studies provide important insights, they are typically focused on specific sites or dimensions of ecological change, limiting understanding of how tourism-related pressures accumulate and interact across ecological processes.

A further limitation lies in the separation of ecological processes from social and governance dimensions within the tourism-biodiversity literature. Tourism outcomes are not shaped by ecological conditions alone but are also influenced by governance systems, institutional arrangements, and power relations. As Mosimane and Silva (2015) show, benefit-sharing mechanisms play a central role in determining local outcomes, while Yitbarek et al. (2013) demonstrate how governance processes influence conservation outcomes more broadly. Similarly, Mutanga et al. (2025a) illustrate how governance tensions, stakeholder conflict, and decision-making processes shape tourism outcomes in practice. In many cases, however, benefit-sharing systems remain poorly defined, lack transparency, and fail to deliver equitable outcomes, contributing to dissatisfaction and weakening support for conservation, as noted by Spenceley et al. (2019) and Tubey (2025). At the same time, participation in tourism and conservation decision-making is often limited in practice, despite being formally recognized. Studies by Muchapondwa and Stage (2015), Bello et al. (2017), and Robinson and Makupa (2015) show that governance systems are frequently characterized by centralized control, unequal power relations, and constrained local influence. These findings indicate that tourism-related outcomes are produced through governance processes that shape how costs and benefits are distributed across stakeholders.

This review contributes to scholarship on tourism-biodiversity relationships in Africa. It brings together insights from ecological, social, and governance perspectives to examine how tourism influences biodiversity, how these changes give rise to social-ecological trade-offs, and how they are shaped through governance. In doing so, the review positions tourism as a cumulative influence through which ecological change, social outcomes, and governance responses are continuously produced and interconnected. First, it synthesizes dispersed evidence on tourism-related ecological mechanisms, showing how these changes accumulate over time. Second, it examines how ecological processes intersect with social and governance structures, highlighting the interconnected nature of trade-offs. Third, it situates tourism within broader discussions of environmental change, opening space for further theoretical and empirical work on how tourism interacts with wider ecological and institutional conditions. In this review, gradual ecological change refers to the cumulative, process-based nature of tourism-related ecological change, arising from repeated disturbance, spatial concentration of activities, and interactions among ecological processes within the system, rather than a temporal sequence of change across the review period.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the conceptual framework underpinning the analysis. Section 3 presents the methods. Section 4.1 examines the mechanisms through which tourism drives biodiversity change, while Section 4.2 analyses the resulting trade-offs and governance responses. Section 5 concludes the paper and outlines key research gaps and future directions.

2 Conceptual framing and theoretical grounding

The review is grounded in a social-ecological systems (SES) perspective, which conceptualizes conservation landscapes as integrated systems linking ecological processes, human activities, and governance arrangements (Ostrom, 2009). This perspective is informed by resilience thinking, which emphasizes how such systems respond to disturbance, adapt to change, and reorganize over time (Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004; Folke, 2006; Biggs et al., 2012), and by adaptive governance scholarship, which highlights the importance of learning, flexibility, and cross-scale coordination in managing complex systems (Folke et al., 2005). Within these systems, biodiversity underpins ecosystem services, tourism economies, and human wellbeing, particularly in nature-based tourism contexts (Egoh et al., 2012; Wangai et al., 2016).

Environmental change in these systems is not only driven by acute disturbances, but also by gradual and cumulative pressures that emerge through repeated interactions over time (Folke, 2006). Tourism is conceptualized here as one such pressure. Although often framed as a low-impact or non-consumptive activity, nature-based tourism involves continuous human-environment interactions that generate sustained ecological pressure through mobility, infrastructure development, and resource use (Gössling and Hall, 2006; Hall, 2006). These pressures accumulate through repeated activities such as wildlife viewing, off-road driving, and boating, and may only become evident over longer temporal and spatial scales (Eftestøl et al., 2021). This shifts attention from isolated impacts to cumulative processes of ecological change.

Tourism-related pressures operate within broader systems shaped by interacting drivers, including land-use change, climate variability, and increasing resource demand (Lindsey et al., 2022). These interactions influence ecological processes, shape ecosystem functioning, and affect the distribution of costs and benefits across social groups. An SES perspective therefore highlights that tourism-related change is produced through the interaction of ecological processes, social structures, and governance arrangements, with the effectiveness of governance partly dependent on how institutional arrangements correspond to the spatial and temporal scales of ecological processes (Cumming et al., 2006). This framing provides the basis for examining how tourism influences biodiversity through specific ecological mechanisms, generates trade-offs between conservation and livelihoods, and gives rise to governance challenges in tourism-dependent systems.

Figure 1 presents tourism as a gradual and cumulative influence within a SES. Tourism processes, including use, access, and infrastructure development, are shown as generating cumulative pressure on the system through repeated and spatially concentrated activities. These pressures act on ecological processes within the system, influencing biodiversity and ecosystem functioning over time.

The figure also situates tourism within a broader set of interacting external stressors, particularly climate variability and land-use change, which exert additional pressure on the system and interact with tourism-related impacts. These stressors influence ecological dynamics directly, while also shaping the conditions under which tourism operates. Governance systems, comprising the state, communities, and the private sector, are represented as interacting with the system through decision-making, regulation, and resource management. These governance processes mediate how tourism pressures are generated, managed, and distributed, thereby influencing both ecological and social outcomes. Overall, the figure illustrates that tourism does not act in isolation but operates as part of a dynamic system in which cumulative pressures, external stressors, and governance processes interact to produce biodiversity outcomes over time and across scales.

3 Methods

This study adopts a structured qualitative literature review approach to examine how tourism shapes biodiversity in conservation systems, with a particular focus on ecological mechanisms, associated trade-offs, and governance responses. The approach draws on established methods of thematic analysis and qualitative synthesis (e.g., Braun and Clarke, 2006; Thomas and Harden, 2008; Snyder, 2019), as widely applied in environmental and tourism research (e.g., Anderson et al., 2015; Bateman and Fleming, 2017; Perumal et al., 2021). The review focuses on conservation contexts across Africa, drawing primarily on savanna and forest systems, with additional evidence from riverine contexts, while selectively incorporating global literature for conceptual framing and comparative insights (e.g., Mutanga et al., 2025a). Relevant literature was identified through a targeted search of major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search was conducted between February and April 2026 and covered publications from 2000 to 2026. This timeframe was selected to capture the expansion of research on tourism-biodiversity interactions during a period in which sustainability, conservation governance, and social-ecological systems became increasingly prominent in tourism scholarship, thereby providing a comprehensive evidence base for examining contemporary tourism-biodiversity relationships. The search used combinations of keywords related to tourism, biodiversity, and conservation in African contexts, including “tourism,” “nature-based tourism,” “wildlife tourism,” “ecotourism,” “biodiversity,” “conservation,” “protected areas,” “wildlife behavior,” “habitat disturbance,” “community-based tourism,” “livelihoods,” “governance,” and “Africa.” The search process was iterative, allowing for the refinement of keywords and the inclusion of additional studies identified through reference lists of relevant publications.

The initial search yielded approximately 429 publications. These were screened in a stepwise manner, beginning with titles and abstracts to assess relevance, followed by full-text review to confirm alignment with the scope of the study. The screening process resulted in a final sample of approximately 93 studies. Studies were included if they addressed tourism-biodiversity interactions within conservation contexts, with a primary focus on African systems. Both empirical and conceptual studies were considered, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, books, theses, and selected high-quality reports. Only English-language publications were included. Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on non-conservation tourism contexts, such as urban or mass tourism settings, or did not engage with biodiversity or conservation outcomes. Global studies were included selectively to support conceptual framing but were not part of the primary analytical focus. The study selection process is summarized in Figure 2.

Data from the selected studies were extracted and analyzed thematically using a qualitative synthesis approach (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Extracted information included study context (e.g., location and ecosystem type), tourism activities examined, reported ecological responses, and documented social, economic, and governance-related outcomes. This information was systematically recorded in a structured extraction matrix and coded manually using an inductive and iterative process. Initial descriptive codes captured the main issues emerging from the studies, including tourism pressures, wildlife behavioral responses, habitat disturbance, species interactions, livelihood and economic outcomes, participation, governance arrangements, and institutional pressures. These codes were compared across studies and progressively refined and grouped into broader themes as relationships and recurring patterns became apparent. One author undertook the primary coding, after which the emerging themes and their organization were reviewed and discussed among the authors. This collaborative review was used to refine the themes, resolve differences in interpretation, and ensure that the final thematic structure was consistent with the evidence across the reviewed studies. As coding was not undertaken independently by multiple researchers, formal intercoder agreement was not calculated. The resulting themes were organized into two main analytical dimensions: (i) ecological mechanisms through which tourism influences biodiversity, focusing on behavioral change, habitat degradation, and altered species interactions, and their implications for ecosystem functioning, and (ii) trade-offs and governance responses in tourism-conservation systems with attention to economic and livelihood outcomes, governance and participation, ecological implications, institutional dynamics, and cross-scale pressures. The synthesis focused on identifying cross-cutting patterns and relationships across studies, rather than evaluating individual studies in isolation. As part of the synthesis, the quality and analytical contribution of the selected literature were considered in relation to the relevance of each source to the review questions, the transparency of the methods or analytical approach, the extent to which reported conclusions were supported by the evidence presented, and the credibility of the source. Given the diversity of empirical, conceptual, and gray literature included in the review, studies were not assigned numerical quality scores. Rather, these considerations informed the interpretive weight given to individual sources, with greater emphasis placed on evidence that was methodologically transparent, directly relevant to the review questions, and supported by converging findings across studies. Particular attention was given to the cumulative nature of tourism impacts, the spatial distribution of tourism pressures, and the role of governance in shaping conservation outcomes. This approach informed the identification of research gaps and the development of a future research agenda.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Mechanisms: how tourism drives biodiversity change

Tourism-related pressures drive biodiversity change through a set of interconnected ecological mechanisms operating across multiple levels of SES. This study identifies three primary pathways through which these effects emerge: wildlife behavioral change, habitat degradation, and altered species interactions (Figure 3). Tourism activities such as wildlife viewing, vehicle movement, and infrastructure development initiate changes in movement patterns, activity, and habitat use, degrade environmental conditions and resource availability, and reshape predator-prey relationships, competition, and community structure (Higham and Shelton, 2011; Pickering, 2010; Mulero-Pázmány et al., 2016). These pathways interact to redistribute wildlife across space and time, modify encounter rates among species, and alter the conditions under which ecological processes occur. The effects of tourism therefore extend beyond immediate disturbance to influence ecosystem functioning, including resource distribution, trophic relationships, and ecological connectivity (Egoh et al., 2012). Over time, these cumulative and spatially uneven processes contribute to broader shifts in species composition, distribution, and ecological organization.

Climate variability and land use influence ecological processes by shaping environmental conditions and modifying habitat availability across the landscape (IPCC, 2013; Foley et al., 2005). Changes in rainfall influence vegetation growth and water availability, thereby affecting resource distribution and habitat suitability (Chapman et al., 2022). Land use associated with tourism and surrounding activities alters habitat structure and connectivity through infrastructure development and landscape modification (Gössling and Hall, 2006; Dong et al., 2008), contributing to habitat fragmentation and shifts in species distributions (Brooks et al., 2002; Gondo and Mutanga, 2024). The combined effects of these ecological processes contribute to biodiversity change, reflected in shifts in species composition, distribution, and ecological organization.

Table 1 synthesizes the ecological pathways through which tourism-related disturbances translate into biodiversity change, linking behavioral responses, habitat conditions, and species interactions to broader ecosystem-level outcomes.

Table 1. Ecological pathways through which tourism drives biodiversity change.

4.1.1 Wildlife behavioral change

Tourism activities frequently alter wildlife behavior through repeated human presence and disturbance, representing one of the most immediate pathways through which tourism influences biodiversity. Encounters with tourists, vehicles, and associated infrastructure elicit a range of responses, including avoidance, increased vigilance, displacement, aggression, and, in some cases, habituation (Bateman and Fleming, 2017; Higham and Shelton, 2011). These responses vary across species and contexts, but consistently modify patterns of movement, activity, and habitat use, with implications for how wildlife utilize space and resources and for the distribution of ecological processes within the system. By changing where and when wildlife move, feed, and seek refuge, these behavioral adjustments redistribute the use of habitats and ecological resources, laying the foundation for broader changes in ecological interactions across conservation landscapes.

Wildlife responses extend beyond habituation to include both spatial and temporal adjustments. Animals may shift movement patterns or activity periods to reduce exposure to disturbance. In Etosha National Park, Namibia, large mammals modify diel activity patterns in response to disturbance around waterholes and road networks, with some species increasing nocturnal activity during periods of high human presence (Patterson, 2025). African lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) in the same system also select areas associated with lower disturbance. Similar responses are reported in East African safari systems, where wildlife alter feeding behavior, movement, and activity in response to vehicle presence (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001; Lindsey et al., 2007), and in Kenya, where tourism pressure is associated with behavioral disruption and elevated stress in heavily visited areas (Ikiara and Okech, 2002). Comparable patterns occur in forest-based tourism systems. For instance, in Dzanga-Ndoki National Park, Central African Republic, western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) undergoing habituation initially exhibit fear, aggression, and vocalization, but gradually shift toward tolerance with repeated exposure (Blom et al., 2004). This process involves increased movement and energetic costs during early stages of habituation and is associated with sustained physiological stress linked to repeated human interaction (Shutt, 2014). Such changes influence patterns of movement and habitat use, with implications for resource use and ecological functioning over time. In Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, close-range gorilla tourism frequently occurs below recommended distance thresholds, increasing disturbance and reducing natural avoidance behavior (Weber et al., 2020). As such, these shifts in movement, activity patterns, and disturbance responses alter how wildlife use space and time, with consequences for patterns of resource use and the conditions under which species interact within the system. The resulting redistribution of wildlife also changes the frequency and timing of encounters among predators, prey, competitors, and social groups, creating new interaction patterns that extend the effects of tourism beyond individual behavioral responses.

Behavioral responses to tourism are closely linked to physiological stress. In Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa, elephants (Loxodonta africana) exposed to high tourist pressure exhibit increased vigilance, aggression, and displacement, together with elevated glucocorticoid levels during peak tourism periods (Szott et al., 2019, 2020). Similar patterns are reported in other tourism contexts, including increased stress hormone levels during human interaction in South Africa (Millspaugh et al., 2007) and behavioral and movement changes linked to tourism activities in Botswana (Lama, 2017). These findings indicate that repeated tourism exposure can function as a chronic stressor with implications for individual fitness. These behavioral and physiological responses emerge through sustained and repeated interactions rather than isolated events, modifying patterns of movement, habitat selection, and activity budgets, increasing energetic costs and potentially reducing reproductive success (Beale and Monaghan, 2004). Apparent habituation may therefore mask underlying stress or the displacement of more sensitive individuals, indicating that tolerance to human presence does not necessarily imply negligible ecological impact, but reflects continued behavioral adjustment to persistent disturbance. When these responses persist across populations and over time, their effects extend beyond individual animals to influence species interactions, patterns of habitat occupancy, and ultimately ecosystem functioning. The cumulative nature of these adjustments highlights how repeated tourism disturbance can progressively reshape biodiversity and reduce the resilience of tourism-dependent conservation systems.

4.1.2 Habitat degradation

Tourism contributes to habitat degradation through direct physical disturbance and broader environmental modification, particularly in areas where use is concentrated. Activities such as off-road driving, repeated vehicle movement, trampling, and infrastructure development alter vegetation structure, compact soils, and accelerate erosion, leading to a gradual decline in habitat quality (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Newsome et al., 2012). These impacts are amplified in ecologically sensitive areas where visitor pressure is high (Ikiara and Okech, 2002), with consequences for vegetation productivity, soil stability, and associated ecological processes. In addition, tourism-related pollution, including waste accumulation, wastewater discharge, and emissions, further degrades environmental conditions, affecting soil and water quality and extending impacts beyond visibly disturbed sites (Christ et al., 2003; Gulistan et al., 2020; Mutanga et al., 2025b; Zhang and Lu, 2022). The resulting changes in habitat quality influence the availability and distribution of ecological resources, prompting shifts in wildlife movement and habitat use that extend the effects of local disturbance across wider conservation landscapes.

Similarly, Belsoy et al. (2012) associate repeated human use with changes in vegetation, soils, and ecological processes over time, while Pickering (2010) shows that impacts intensify where activities are repeatedly concentrated rather than dispersed. In African wildlife tourism systems, such concentration is evident along accessible routes and key viewing sites. In Chobe National Park, Moswete et al. (2017) document persistent congestion along the Riverfront at major viewing points, whereas Ferreira and Harmse (2014) show that tourism use in Kruger National Park is structured around road networks and focal attractions. As a result, disturbance accumulates in specific locations, increasing pressure on vegetation and soils in high-use areas while reducing use elsewhere, thereby redistributing ecological processes across the landscape. This uneven distribution of disturbance creates spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality, concentrating wildlife and ecological processes in some areas while displacing them from others. Consequently, the ecological effects of tourism extend well beyond heavily visited sites through changes in habitat use, resource availability, and the spatial organization of biodiversity.

Tourism infrastructure reinforces these processes by reshaping both habitat structure and access. Road networks extend the spatial reach of disturbance by enabling repeated use of previously less-disturbed areas (Perumal et al., 2021). In Katavi National Park, Tanzania, road upgrading involved extensive clearing of woody vegetation, altering woodland structure (Caro, 2015), while in Kibale National Park, Uganda, road presence contributes to habitat fragmentation and sustained ecological pressure (Krief et al., 2020). Increased accessibility also facilitates more frequent human activity across the landscape (Perumal et al., 2021), as reflected in Kenya where repeated game driving contributes to soil compaction and vegetation damage (Gathoni et al., 2022). Beyond physical disturbance, tourism development often entails the extraction and overuse of natural resources, including water, land, and vegetation, which further alters habitat structure and ecosystem conditions (Christ et al., 2003; Ikiara and Okech, 2002). By altering habitat connectivity and patterns of accessibility, tourism infrastructure influences how wildlife move through the landscape and how ecological interactions unfold across space. These changes reinforce feedbacks between habitat modification, wildlife redistribution, and continued tourism use, increasing the complexity of managing conservation landscapes under growing tourism pressure.

The resulting effects extend beyond individual sites to influence ecological processes at broader spatial scales. As vegetation structure, soils, and habitat configuration are altered, the distribution of resources and the arrangement of habitats shift, shaping patterns of habitat use and the conditions under which species interact. In turn, these changes reinforce patterns of concentrated use and disturbance, contributing to uneven ecosystem functioning and longer-term biodiversity change, particularly where the intensity and spatial concentration of tourism are not effectively managed. The persistence of these feedbacks illustrates that habitat degradation is not an isolated outcome of tourism but part of a broader process through which ecological change accumulates over time.

4.1.3 Species interactions

Tourism-related disturbance alters species interactions by modifying patterns of movement, activity, and space use, thereby influencing how species encounter one another. Changes in diel activity and spatial co-occurrence reshape predator-prey interactions by altering the timing and likelihood of encounters. In sub-Saharan Africa, Patterson (2025) shows that tourism-related pressures shift activity patterns of both carnivores and ungulates, affecting temporal overlap, while Lasky (2022) demonstrates that human presence modifies space use and co-occurrence among species. Such shifts can influence predation risk and encounter rates, with implications for energy transfer and trophic processes, while operating across spatial and temporal scales that link local behavioral responses to broader ecosystem functioning.

Tourism disturbance frequently shifts wildlife activity toward nocturnality, altering temporal relationships among species (Gaynor et al., 2018; Mills and Harris, 2020). Such shifts modify predator access to prey and hunting success, as reflected in Kruger National Park where leopard activity responds to vehicle presence (Smyth et al., 2025), and in the Serengeti where tourism reduces carnivore hunting success in the presence of vehicles (Minja, 2025). Frizzelle (2021) characterizes humans as a “super-predator,” highlighting how strong behavioral responses to human presence drive these changes. By altering temporal overlap and hunting success, tourism reshapes predator-prey relationships and trophic structure, with consequences for population-level responses and ecosystem processes.

Tourism infrastructure further restructures interactions by redistributing wildlife across space (Mulero-Pázmány et al., 2016; Quintana et al., 2022). Roads and tourism activity concentrate disturbance in high-use areas, leading to avoidance and shifts in habitat use. In Zimbabwe, elephant distribution in Zambezi National Park is structured by vehicle density (Rooney, 2019; Rooney and Schulte, 2026), while in Kruger National Park animals avoid heavily used roads (Mulero-Pázmány et al., 2016). Across southern Africa, road networks reinforce these spatial patterns (Quintana et al., 2022). The resulting redistribution of wildlife alters where predators and prey overlap, redistributing predation pressure across the landscape and contributing to spatially uneven ecological processes. In turn, this redistribution reinforces patterns of use and avoidance, feeding back into how species interact over time.

Tourism also alters interactions among predators by modifying patterns of space use and activity (Searle et al., 2021). In African savannas, coexistence among large carnivores such as lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) is structured through spatial and temporal partitioning Durant (1998); Holekamp et al. (1997); Cooper (1991). Disturbance that alters these mechanisms changes how predators encounter one another. Searle et al. (2021) show that human disturbance modifies patterns of avoidance and association among carnivores, indicating that these interactions are sensitive to external pressures. In Etosha National Park, lions and hyenas adjust habitat selection in response to tourism activity (Patterson et al., 2025). Changes in predator space use and activity can therefore influence encounter rates, competition over carcasses, and access to shared resources, with implications for survival, reproductive success, and guild structure. As these interactions change, they contribute to shifts in trophic organization and ecosystem functioning.

Tourism-induced behavioral changes also reshape within-species and group-level interactions. In Ghana, primate groups exposed to high tourism activity show increased aggression, reduced home range size, and altered spatial organization (Badiella-Giménez et al., 2021), while in Zanzibar, tourism influences activity budgets in red colobus monkeys (Warkentin, 2019). In Central African forest systems, gorilla habituation alters movement and group behavior (Blom et al., 2004), influencing resource use and interactions within and between groups, including processes such as seed dispersal and forest regeneration. These changes reorganize social structure, space use, and access to resources, with implications for population-level responses and ecological processes.

Changes in the distribution of ecosystem engineers further extend these interaction effects. In Madikwe Game Reserve, tourism alters elephant movement and space use (Szott et al., 2019, 2020). Because elephants play a central role in shaping vegetation structure, nutrient redistribution, and habitat heterogeneity, changes in their movement patterns influence ecosystem processes across spatial scales. In the Amboseli ecosystem, sustained pressure on elephant populations has contributed to the conversion of woodland into grass-dominated habitats through intensive browsing (Western and Mose, 2023). These vegetation changes alter resource availability and habitat structure, influencing patterns of co-occurrence, competition, and predator foraging. Through these pathways, tourism-related disturbance contributes to cascading effects across trophic levels, consistent with broader evidence on herbivore-driven trophic cascades (Ripple et al., 2014), while reinforcing spatial patterns of interaction and ecosystem functioning over time. These interaction changes occur within broader SES in which ecosystem processes underpin key services, including provisioning, regulating, and cultural benefits that support both biodiversity and human livelihoods (Egoh et al., 2012; Wangai et al., 2016).

Tourism-driven ecological change emerges through the reorganization of wildlife across space and time, with consequences for how resources are used and how species encounter one another. Shifts in movement, habitat conditions, and species interactions alter patterns of ecological organization and reinforce feedbacks between behavior, habitat structure, and community processes. In some contexts, these altered conditions may also facilitate additional ecological processes, including increased potential for disease transmission associated with closer human-wildlife contact (Odeniran et al., 2018; Weber et al., 2020) and the spread of non-native species through the movement of people, vehicles, and materials across sites (Anderson et al., 2015; Lockwood et al., 2005; Jauni et al., 2015). Over time, these interacting processes contribute to cumulative and spatially uneven changes in ecosystem functioning, ultimately shaping biodiversity outcomes, particularly where tourism intensity and concentration are not effectively managed.

4.2 Trade-offs and governance responses in tourism-based conservation systems

Tourism-based conservation systems in Africa are associated with a set of interconnected trade-offs arising from the simultaneous pursuit of biodiversity protection, economic development, and social inclusion. The following sections examine these trade-offs across key domains, focusing on how they manifest in economic and livelihood outcomes, governance and participation, ecological implications, institutional arrangements, and cross-scale pressures.

4.2.1 Economic and livelihood outcomes

Tourism-based conservation is characterized by uneven distribution of economic benefits relative to the costs borne by local communities. While tourism generates substantial revenue and is widely promoted as a mechanism for financing conservation, evidence across protected areas shows that only a limited share reaches local populations, and where it does, distribution is often inconsistent and poorly aligned with local expectations (Spenceley et al., 2019; Tubey, 2025; Krug, 2000). This creates a tension between tourism-generated economic gains and uneven livelihood outcomes at the local level. This imbalance is shaped not only by revenue availability but by governance processes that determine how benefits are allocated. Weak institutional arrangements, including unclear benefit-sharing mechanisms, limited transparency, and weak accountability, undermine distribution systems and contribute to persistent dissatisfaction among communities (Yitbarek et al., 2013; Mosimane and Silva, 2015). As a result, tourism benefits do not necessarily translate into locally perceived gains, weakening incentives to support conservation.

These outcomes are further influenced by broader political-economic influences. Power asymmetries shape access to resources, control over revenue, and participation in decision-making, often resulting in elite capture or external appropriation of benefits (Calfucura, 2017; Gayo, 2025; Akama et al., 2011; Duffy, 2005). At the same time, conservation imposes tangible costs on communities, including restricted access to land and resources, human-wildlife conflict, and livelihood trade-offs associated with conservation restrictions (Korir et al., 2013; Spenceley et al., 2019). In many contexts, communities experience both tourism-related benefits and ecological or livelihood costs simultaneously, reflecting outcomes that are uneven and sometimes contradictory (Galvin et al., 2018). The resulting imbalance reflects a mismatch between those who benefit from tourism and those who bear its costs.

4.2.2 Governance and participation

Formal inclusion of communities in conservation governance does not necessarily translate into meaningful influence over decision-making. Governance challenges related to benefit-sharing and tourism development are closely linked to limited transparency, weak accountability, and restricted community influence (Robinson and Makupa, 2015; Bello et al., 2017; Muchapondwa and Stage, 2015). While participation is widely promoted as a mechanism for improving conservation and livelihood outcomes, evidence across African contexts shows that it is often constrained, resulting in limited influence over key decisions (Robinson and Makupa, 2015; Bello et al., 2017; Sebele, 2010).

In many cases, decentralization remains partial, with authority over tourism development, revenue allocation, and regulatory enforcement continuing to be centralized within state institutions or shaped by external actors (Muchapondwa and Stage, 2015; Gayo, 2025). Structural constraints, including limited access to information, weak technical capacity, and unequal bargaining power, further limit meaningful participation and reinforce existing inequalities. A gap therefore persists between the design of participatory governance frameworks and their implementation in practice. Participation functions less as a mechanism of control and more as a procedural feature shaped by institutional arrangements, power relations, and broader political-economic conditions, creating a tension between inclusion and influence.

4.2.3 Ecological implications of tourism

Tourism expansion places increasing pressure on ecological systems, particularly in wildlife-based destinations where activities are concentrated in high-value areas such as riverfronts, waterholes, and wildlife corridors. This spatial concentration generates localized disturbance through repeated wildlife viewing, habitat degradation, and behavioral disruption, with effects that extend beyond specific sites to influence broader ecological processes, including movement patterns and species interactions. As a result, tourism impacts are spatially concentrated but systemically distributed. As tourism intensity increases, these pressures accumulate through congestion and repeated disturbance, raising concerns about both ecological and social carrying capacity (Maingi, 2019; Korir et al., 2013). Evidence from protected areas shows that such pressures are already evident in practice. In Kruger National Park, high visitor densities have led to congestion and the exceedance of social carrying capacity in specific areas, highlighting limitations in existing management strategies (Ferreira and Harmse, 2014). Similarly, persistent vehicle congestion at wildlife sightings along the Chobe Riverfront continues despite the introduction of decongestion routes, illustrating the difficulty of managing concentrated tourism activity (Moswete et al., 2017).

These pressures emerge cumulatively through the gradual intensification of tourism over time rather than from isolated activities. In many conservation contexts, tourism growth is driven by state planning, private investment, and external demand without clearly defined ecological thresholds, resulting in reactive rather than proactive management. This creates a tension between continued tourism growth and the ecological limits of conservation systems, particularly where governance responses are unable to regulate the intensity and distribution of use effectively (Tubey, 2025; Maingi, 2019).

4.2.4 Institutional dynamics

The shift from state-led conservation to multi-actor governance has increased the diversity of actors involved in tourism-based conservation, including government agencies, community institutions, private operators, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and donors (Muchapondwa and Stage, 2015; Hall, 2011; Bramwell and Lane, 2011). Government agencies typically retain primary responsibility for policy development, regulation, licensing, and enforcement, while private tourism operators influence conservation outcomes through investment and tourism operations. Community institutions contribute to local stewardship and benefit-sharing, although their influence over strategic decision-making often remains constrained. NGOs and donor organizations commonly support conservation through funding, technical expertise, research, and capacity building. Consequently, the influence of these stakeholder groups is not evenly distributed, with government agencies and private operators generally exercising greater authority over tourism planning and resource allocation than local communities. While this diversification can enhance resource mobilization, knowledge exchange, and collaboration, it also complicates coordination, accountability, and the alignment of interests across actors. Institutional arrangements are therefore often characterized by overlapping mandates, unclear decision-making authority, and fragmented governance across sectors, which constrain effective tourism management and conservation outcomes (Akama et al., 2011; Calfucura, 2017; Tubey, 2025). Differences in governance structures further shape how these systems function, influencing the ability of protected areas to capture tourism revenue, distribute benefits, and support conservation objectives (Chidakel and Child, 2022; Krug, 2000; James et al., 2000). The involvement of multiple actors thus creates a balance between opportunities for collaboration and challenges of coordination and control, particularly in complex and transboundary contexts such as the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area.

4.2.5 Cross-scale pressures

Tourism-based conservation systems operate within broader environmental and socio-economic contexts that shape how trade-offs emerge and are managed. Climate variability and change, including rising temperatures, rainfall variability, and extreme events, are reshaping ecosystems, influencing wildlife distributions, and affecting tourism infrastructure and operations (Dube et al., 2024; Hoogendoorn and Fitchett, 2018; Nyamwange, 2016). These changes interact with tourism pressures, amplifying ecological impacts and increasing the complexity of governance responses. At the same time, conservation areas are embedded within wider land-use systems characterized by agriculture, settlement expansion, and population growth, which intensify pressure on ecological resources (Gayo, 2025). Governance systems must therefore respond not only to tourism-related pressures but also to external drivers operating across scales. However, limited financial and technical capacity, weak institutional coordination, and competing development priorities constrain effective responses. These constraints reflect a broader problem of institutional fit, where governance arrangements do not necessarily correspond to the scale and complexity of the ecological and social processes being managed (Young, 2002). This limits the ability of governance systems to manage tourism sustainably under increasing external pressures that operate beyond the scale of local management.

Table 2 brings together the key patterns through which tourism-related trade-offs emerge within conservation systems. It makes visible how spatial concentration, cumulative growth, and cross-scale interactions shape ecological change, uneven economic and social outcomes, as well as governance and institutional challenges.

Table 2. Tourism-induced trade-offs and governance responses.

4.3 Synthesis of tourism-induced change in conservation systems

The synthesis across the reviewed literature indicates that tourism-related change in conservation systems is best understood not as a series of discrete ecological and social impacts, but as an interconnected process through which pressures accumulate and propagate across the social-ecological system. Three recurring characteristics emerge from the evidence. First, tourism pressure is frequently spatially concentrated and repetitive, particularly around wildlife-viewing sites, road networks, tourism infrastructure and other high-use areas. These pressures initiate ecological responses through changes in wildlife behavior, habitat conditions and species interactions, which may reinforce one another and extend beyond the locations where disturbance initially occurs. Second, ecological change is closely connected to social and economic outcomes. Tourism generates revenue, employment and conservation incentives, while simultaneously producing uneven costs through restricted access, human-wildlife interactions, congestion and unequal benefit distribution. The conservation implications of tourism therefore depend not only on the magnitude of ecological pressure but also on how benefits, costs and decision-making authority are distributed within the system.

Third, governance emerges as the principal mechanism through which these interacting pressures and trade-offs are mediated. Where management is adaptive, spatially responsive and participatory, measures such as zoning, visitor limits, regulated access, benefit-sharing and co-management can modify tourism pressures and their consequences. Conversely, weak coordination, limited local influence, fragmented institutional responsibilities and reactive management can allow localized pressures to accumulate into broader ecological and social effects. These dynamics are further shaped by climate variability, land-use change and population pressure, which interact with tourism and may amplify existing stresses. These findings show that tourism-related biodiversity change emerges from interactions among tourism intensity, ecological processes, social trade-offs, governance arrangements and wider cross-scale pressures, rather than from visitor activity alone.

5 Conclusion

The review demonstrates that the conservation implications of nature-based tourism in Africa cannot be understood solely in terms of whether tourism produces positive or negative impacts. Viewed through a SES perspective, the findings show that tourism operates within conservation systems in which ecological processes, human activities and governance arrangements are interconnected. The effects of tourism depend on its intensity and spatial concentration, the ecological processes through which disturbance is transmitted, and the social and institutional conditions under which tourism is developed and managed. The evidence reviewed shows that repeated and concentrated tourism use can progressively alter wildlife behavior, habitat conditions and species interactions, with consequences that extend beyond individual sites and activities.

At the same time, tourism's contribution to conservation is conditional on how its economic and social outcomes are distributed. Revenue generation and livelihood opportunities can strengthen incentives for conservation, but these gains do not necessarily translate into positive conservation outcomes where communities bear disproportionate costs, receive an unequal share of tourism benefits, or have limited influence over decision-making. The distribution of tourism's benefits and costs therefore emerges as an important determinant of its contribution to conservation.

The review further establishes that management responses need to correspond to the cumulative and spatially uneven character of tourism-related change. Where pressures are concentrated but governance is fragmented or reactive, ecological and social effects may persist despite individual management interventions. The findings consequently point to the importance of managing the intensity and distribution of tourism use alongside the institutional arrangements through which costs, benefits and decision-making authority are negotiated. This is particularly important where tourism pressures interact with climate variability, land-use change and population pressure.

Overall, the review concludes that the sustainability of nature-based tourism in African conservation systems depends less on tourism presence or growth in itself than on the conditions under which tourism operates and is governed. From a SES perspective, the findings demonstrate that sustaining tourism's contribution to conservation requires attention to the relationships among ecological limits, social and economic outcomes, and governance responses, rather than managing these dimensions separately. This requires management that is capable of responding to cumulative and cross-scale change while recognizing the interconnected nature of tourism and conservation systems.

6 Research gaps and future directions in tourism-biodiversity systems

The review highlights important gaps in the current evidence base on tourism-biodiversity interactions in Africa, reflecting limitations in both the scope and integration of existing research. Empirical studies remain unevenly distributed across the continent, with a strong concentration in a relatively small number of well-studied conservation areas. This limits the extent to which existing findings can be applied across the diversity of ecological settings, governance arrangements, and tourism models that characterize conservation systems in Africa. Important limitations are also evident in the temporal and analytical scope of existing research. Much of the literature focuses on short-term or site-specific impacts, providing limited insight into cumulative, long-term, and cross-scale processes. As a result, tourism is often examined as a series of discrete effects rather than as a gradual driver of system-level change, constraining understanding of ecological thresholds, feedbacks, and longer-term system responses. At the same time, research remains fragmented across ecological, social, and governance domains. These dimensions are rarely integrated within a single analytical framework, limiting understanding of how ecological change translates into social outcomes and how these processes are shaped by governance arrangements. The current evidence base is also shaped by a strong focus on high-visibility species and locations, particularly large mammals in flagship protected areas. While these systems are important, this emphasis risks overlooking less visible ecological processes and tourism impacts in other ecosystem types, including wetlands and marine environments.

These gaps point to the need for more systematic, comparative, and longitudinal approaches to research on tourism-biodiversity interactions in Africa. Greater attention to underrepresented regions, longer timeframes, and cross-scale interactions would strengthen understanding of how tourism-related pressures unfold over time. Progress in this area will also depend on studies that examine cumulative impacts, integrate ecological and social data, and engage directly with governance processes as central components of tourism systems. As tourism continues to expand across the continent, advancing a more integrated and context-sensitive evidence base will be essential for both academic insight and policy relevance.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work the author(s) used Microsoft Copilot in order to improve readability and language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published paper.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Aby Sene-Harper, Clemson University, United States

Reviewed by: Shobeir Karami, Persian Gulf University, Iran

Alfayo Koskei, Egerton University, Kenya