promises income from a landscape that is worth more than converted.
The logic is sound and the conditions for it are strict.
The income has to reach the households that would otherwise clear the land.
Where a is owned externally and staff are brought in, no such transfer occurs.
The community then carries the restriction and receives the photographs.
Visitor numbers are the second condition and are harder to control than to attract.
A site that becomes popular loses the quality that made it worth visiting, and the price falls with it.
on daily entry work where a single authority controls access and fail where several do.
The third condition is the one most often ignored in project documents.
Tourism is , and a household cannot eat for four months on income earned in two.
Projects that supported a second activity in the low season retained participants; projects that did not lost them to the old land use.
schemes have proliferated and mean very little to a visitor.
Most are self-declared, and the few that audit charge fees that a small operator cannot pay.
A simpler indicator is available and is rarely published: the share of that stays within twenty kilometres.
Any operation willing to publish that number is telling a visitor more than a certificate does.