Wall et al. [1] defined tourism as “the study of people away from their usual habitat, of the establishment which responds to the requirement of travelers and of the impacts that they have on the economic, physical and social wellbeing of their host”. Both the tourist and the host community have roles to play for a successful tourism trip and sustainable development.

Tourism development is increasingly viewed as an important tool in promoting economic growth, alleviating poverty, job creation, as well as contributing to national development goals Robert [2]. Tourism could contribute meaningfully to the economic development of Nigeria if properly harnessed [3].

The community a tourist visits is often termed the host community; Cook et al. [4] defined the host community as towns or cities that welcome visitors and provide them with the desired services. Smith [5] also defined host communities as people who live in the vicinity of the tourist attraction and are either directly or indirectly involved with, and /or affected by the tourism activities. Tourism involves some elements of interactions between the tourist and the destination environment. The consequences of these interactions are often referred to as the impacts of tourism.

Social exchange theory (SET), used here, suggests that residents are likely to support tourism as long as the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs.

SET is based on the principle that human beings are reward seeking and punishment avoiding and that people are motivated to action by the expectation of profits. SET assumes that social relations involve exchange of resources among groups seeking mutual benefits from exchange relationships.

There are a number of factors influencing residents attitudes towards tourism development related to its Economic, social, cultural and environmental implications that have been examined using social exchange theory. SET is concerned with understanding the exchange of resources between parties in an interaction situation where the objects offered for exchange have value, are measurable, and there is mutual dispensation of rewards and costs between actors [6]. From a tourism perspective, SET postulates that an individual’s attitudes towards this industry, and subsequent level of support for it development, will be prejudiced by his or her valuation of resulting outcomes in the community. Exchanges must occur to have tourism in a community. Residents must develop and promote it, and then serve the needs of the tourists. Some community residents reap the benefits, while others may be negatively impacted. Social exchange theory suggests people estimate an exchange based on the expenses and profit incurred as a result of that exchange. An individual that perceives benefits from an exchange is likely to evaluate it positively; one that perceives costs is likely to evaluate it negatively. Thus, residents perceiving their benefiting from tourism are likely to view it positively, and vice versa. Overall, we may conclude that residents are likely to participate in an exchange if they believe that they likely to gain benefits without incurring unacceptable costs, they are inclined to be involved in the exchange and, thus endorse future development in their community.

Ramchander [7] proposed that tourism progress through the stages of exploration, involvement, development. Consolidation, stagnation and then decline or rejuvenation and that there is a correlation between these stages and the attitude of residents to tourists.

The first stage in the destination life cycle starts with small numbers of tourists who visits the area gradually due to limitation such as accessibility to the area but as development begins, impacts become prominent with increase in number of visitors this leads to stagnation which then determines the viability of the destination.

The initial stage is typified by a new found curiosity in travelling to the area. In the second stage, services are introduced to serve the needs of the tourists, the third stage is characterized by robust physical development in the area’s product and services [8]. However, this rapid development becomes an issue to the residents and to policy agents as regards the impacts of the development on host communities. It is in the development phase that the economic, sociological, cultural and environmental impacts become prominent.

Ramchander [7] highlighted that in the consolidation stage the rate of increase of visitors’ decline though total numbers are still increasing and may exceed that of permanent residents. At stagnation, peak tourist volumes (carrying capacity) have now been reached and the destination is no longer fashionable, the destination now relies upon repeat visitors from more conservative travelers. The last phase is usually determined largely by two positive or negative impacts that have occurred during the development phase. Hence the final stage of decline depends on the host community’s ability to cope with identified tourism impacts. However, if policies to sustain the balance between precious resources and tourist demands are enacted, decline will in all probability be averted Ratz [8].

Area for the study

The study was carried out in cross river national park in cross river state. The Cross River National Park (CRSNP) lies between latitude 5° 05’and 6°29’ N and longitude 8°15 and 9°30’ E. The park is situated in the south-eastern part of Nigeria in Cross River State. The Cross River state National Park has one of the oldest rainforests in Africa, and has been identified as a biodiversity hot spot. The park has a tropical climate characterized by a rainy season between April and November (Figures 1-5).

Figure 1: Cross river national park.

Figure 2: Cross river national park location on map.

Figure 3: CRNP okwangwo division - a clear view.

Figure 4: Okwangwo division - a clear view.

Figure 5: Oban division showing on Map.

Research design

The research design adopted for this study was a survey design.

Population for the study

The population of the study covers the host communities of the cross river national park. The population of the study comprised 3,431 people from the selected communities in the study area.

Sample/sampling technique

The simple random sampling technique was used to select three villages adjourning the national park, out of the six villages found the area. The three selected communities were nyaye, osomba, and oban. Residents ranging from eighteen (18) years and above both male and female were sampled. In other, however, to sample a fair representation of respondent across the selected villages, the projected population figure was subjected into the formula and a sample size of 358 was used.

Instrument for data collection

The study made use of both primary and secondary methods of data collection. The primary data were raw data collected from people directly involved. This comprised of data collected from questionnaire and oral interview. The secondary data was gotten from studies related to the research topic such as journals, books, newspapers.

Data collection technique

The researcher administered 358 questionnaires by hand to the residents of the communities at cross river national park. Also the questionnaires administered to the residents of the community were retrieved on spot by the researcher.

Data analysis technique

Simple descriptive statistics, likert scale and chi- square statistics were used to analyze the information gotten from the data.

Research question 1: what are the tourist attractions in your community?

It can be explained in Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of tourist attractions in cross river national park.

Research question 2: what was the Economic life of the host communities before the development of cross river national park?

It can be explained in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of respondents based on their economic life before the development of the park.

Research question 3: How did tourism development affect the economic life of the host communities of cross river national park after the development of the tourism destination?

It can be explained in Table 3.

Table 3: Economic life of host communities after the development of the park.

Research question 4: what are the problems inhibiting the improvement and sustainability of the economic benefits from the development of tourism for the host communities of the destination?

It can be explained in Table 4.

Table 4: Problems inhibiting the improvement and sustainability of economic benefits from the tourism development of the destination.

Research question 5: what are the ways of improving and sustaining the economic benefits from the tourism development for the sustainability of the destination?

It can be explained in Table 5.

Table 5: Ways of improving and sustaining the economic benefits from tourism development.

There is significant difference in the economic life of the host communities of the destination before the development of the national park (Table 6).

Response	fo	fe	fo-fe	(fo-fe)2
SA	10	26.88	-16.88	284.93	10.60
A	25	24.63	0.37	0.1369	0.006
U	2	15.88	-13.88	192.65	12.13
D	60	95.5	-35.5	1,260.25	13.19
SD	261	195.1	65.9	4,342.81	22.26
SA	8	26.88	-18.88	356.45	13.26
A	7	24.63	-17.63	310.82	12.62
U	-	15.88	-15.88	252.17	15.88
D	53	95.5	-42.5	1808.25	18.91
SD	290	195.1	94.9	9,006.01	46.16
SA	15	26.88	-11.88	141.13	5.25
A	15	24.63	-9.63	92.74	3.77
U	10	15.88	-5.88	34.57	2.18
D	122	95.5	26.5	702.25	7.35
SD	196	195.1	0.9	0.81	000.42
SA	5	26.88	-21.88	478.73	17.81
A	15	24.63	-9.63	92.74	3.77
U	8	15.88	-7.88	62.09	3.91
D	120	95.5	24.5	600.25	6.29
SD	220	195.1	24.9	620.01	3.18
SA	15	26.88	-11.88	141.13	5.25
A	10	24.63	-14.63	214.04	8.69
U	5	15.88	-10.88	118.37	7.45
D	128	95.5	32.5	1,056.25	11.06
SD	200	195.1	4.9	24.01	0.12
SA	7	26.88	-19.88	395.21	14.70
A	10	24.63	-14.63	214.03	8.69
U	8	15.88	-7.88	62.09	3.91
D	137	95.5	41.5	1,722.25	18.03
SD	196	195.1	0.9	0.81	000.42
SA	30	26.88	3.12	9.73	0.36
A	24	24.63	-0.63	0.397	0.02
U	4	15.88	-11.88	141.13	8.89
D	118	95.5	22.5	506.25	5.30
SD	182	195.1	-13.1	171.61	0.88
SA	125	26.88	98.12	9,627.53	358.17
A	101	24.63	76.37	5,832.38	236.79
U	90	15.88	74.12	5,493.77	345.96
D	26	95.5	-69.5	4,830.25	50.58
SD	16	195.1	-179.1	32,076.81	164.41
					1468.63

Table 6: Computation of chi-square statistics.

Contingency Table 4: Economic life of host communities of cross river national park before the

Table 4 above showed that x² calculated value was 1468.63 while x² tabulated value was 41.337. Since x² calculated value was 1468.63 and was greater than x² table value which was 41.337 (x²_cal 1468.63>x²_tab 41.337), therefore the null (H_O) hypothesis was rejected while the alternative (H₁), hypotheses was accepted indicating that, there is no significant difference in the economic life of the host communities of the destination before the development of the national park.

Table 1 above showed that tourist attractions in the destination were identified as botanical garden, traditional arts & craft, forest/ groves, festivals, animals, waterfall, wildlife museum, bird watching, gorilla viewing points and butterflies. This is in line with the work of [9] that Nigeria possess abundant natural and cultural resources which are capable of attracting tourists.

Table 2 above indicated that majority of the respondents living in the communities are not educated and their major occupation was farming. This is in consonance with agrarian life style in rural setting in Africa [10]. Also majority of the host communities are low income earners that find a ready source of income and food for sustenance from the forest. This is in line with the works of [11-13] that worldwide, indigenous communities in forested areas are low income earners who build their economic activities around forest mining such as hunting of animals, forest-based farming, timber logging, gathering of building materials, materials for local craft, medicinal herbs and plants and nontimber forest products (NTFPs) such as leaves, fruits and honey. No economic breakthrough, no employment and no improvement in their standard of living.

Table 3 above showed that respondents agreed that tourism has led to the enhancement of local talents such as craft development, creation of business opportunities in their communities after the development of the park had 3.4, and 3.4 mean respectively. While respondents disagreed that tourism has created job opportunities, building of health centers, provision of school facilities, construction of roads, provision of power supply, and eradication of poverty after the development of the national park had the following mean; 2.3, 2.7, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 mean respectively. The infrastructural facilities like boreholes, health centers, school facilities e.g., chairs, desk, tables etc. have completely deteriorated; schools cannot accommodate their enrolment, making teaching and learning not very conducive. This is in line with the work of (DN, 2010) that the dearths of infrastructure in Nigeria are taken for granted and have been identified as the biggest challenge that Nigeria tourism faces. The livelihood situation is growing worse by the day; the forest communities have been alienated from their forest resources and occupation (farming), poverty is wide-spread in the communities. This indicates that the Park project had low community perception of its intended goals. The project does not have the community backings and participation. It may seem that proponents of the park failed to consider the community‘s interests and welfare. Since there is no community involvement and participation, the community does not in any way benefit from the proceeds from the park. This indicated that residents perceived the impacts of tourism as negative rather than positive.

Table 4 showed the problems inhibiting the improvement and sustainability of economic benefits from the tourism development of the destination. The study revealed that the host communities were explicit in their complaints against the following as problems inhibiting the improvement and sustainability of economic benefits from the tourism development of the destination. Lack of local participation and integration in the management of the park (83.8%) Restriction of locals from forest resources (98.6%) the host communities were restricted from carrying out farming which was their major source of livelihood and income, This finding agrees with the findings of Saberwal et al. [14] who noted that the creation of National Parks imposes restrictions on access to the forest in order to protect wildlife. Not implementing the tourism plans and activities promised to locals (69.8%), is said to be another problem inhibiting the sustainability of economic benefits from the tourism development of the destination, according to the host communities there were verbal promises of providing alternatives before park operations started but was not fulfilled this was a reason for trespass into the park area to gather forest products, hunting of animals for protein and income among others. Not having the locals in mind in the management of the park (97.8%), and high prices of commodities (50.3%).

Table 5 above showed the ways of improving and sustaining the economic benefits from tourism development. The overall mean was 5.3 which were higher than the decision rule that stated that any mean response above 3.0 should be regarded as a positive impact. Therefore respondents were of the opinion that improving and sustaining the economic benefits from tourism development can be done through provision of Economic incentives to those who suffer loss, Involving locals in tourism planning and development of tourism this is in line with the work of Zhao et al. [15] who noted in their studies that for tourism to empower the economy of the destination, there is need for utmost collaboration and effectiveness of destination competitiveness and local participation. Residents’ response showed that Economic incentives to those who suffer loss, Involving locals in tourism planning and development of tourism, Ensuring successful implementation of tourism plans and activities towards the host communities (mean 5.7, 5.6 and 5.4) were the most significant of the variables used to identify the ways of improving and sustaining the economic benefits from tourism development.

Table 6 presented the hypothesis of the research work which stated that there is significant difference in the economic life of the host communities of the destination before the development of the national park. x² calculated value was greater than x² tabulated value (x²_cal>1468.63 x²_tab 41.337). The null (H_O) hypothesis was rejected and the alternative (H₁), hypotheses was accepted. This means that there is no significant difference in the economic life of the host communities of the destination before the development of the national park. From this study, the overall mean response on the perception of economic life of the host communities before the development of cross river national park was 2.9 (<3.0) which indicated that poverty is wide-spread in the destination.

This work has attempted to evaluate the economic influence of tourism development on host communities of cross river national park, the major findings of the research led to the following conclusion:

• Tourist attractions in cross river national park consists of both natural and cultural resources which are capable of attracting large number of tourists and as such creating impacts on the host communities.

• Tourism development in Cross River national park did not make a significant positive impact on the host communities.

The following recommendations were drawn from the work:

• Tourism stakeholders should create awareness programs on the impacts of tourism especially the economic impacts of tourism.

• Economic benefits associated with tourism should be maximized and equally distributed amongst local communities.

• Application of economic incentive to those who suffer losses.

• Active participation of host communities which is a prerequisite for sustainable tourism development should be encouraged and promoted in tourism development process to give the host communities a sense of ownership and control over the resources of the country.

Alternative income-generating activities should be promoted and sustained around parks to reduce reliance by the host communities upon extractive activities carried out for commercial purposes.