Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of an integrative model for community participation in tourism
development. Termed as motivation–opportunity–ability (MOA), the model integrated two streams of research, “means”
and “ends” oriented studies, with the intent of providing a holistic view of community participation research. To test the
hypothesized relationships, data were collected from a stratified random sample of households in Charleston, South Carolina.
The data provided some support for the model; the findings suggest that the extent to which community members participate
in the tourism development process depends on motivation, opportunity, and ability to participate. Practical and theoretical
implications have been discussed within the general framework of community participation.
Keywords
MOA model, tourism participation, motivation, opportunity, ability, community participation
Community participation is often thought of as simply a tool participation and then tests the efficacy of the model by
used to involve locals in community planning and develop- using community survey data.
ment. In reality, it is a much more complex phenomenon in
which individuals voluntarily take action to “confront oppor-
tunities and responsibilities of citizenship” (Tosun 2000, Literature Review
p. 615). The challenges involved in attempting to universally The discussion of community participation in tourism plan-
apply this definition are readily apparent in the divergent ning is often embedded in the portion of sustainable tourism
goals of locals, as well as in a broad range of sociocultural, literature that addresses some of a community’s most funda-
political, and economic conditions that can lead to different mental concerns, such as the desire to increase current living
levels of participation (Tosun 1999). standards without compromising the quality and quantity of
Although several useful conceptual and practical commu- resources today or for future generations while providing
nity participation models have been developed in the past, visitors with worthwhile experiences (McIntyre 1993).
factors affecting community members’ participation in tour- Recognizing community participation as one of the integral
ism development are seldom interpreted concomitantly with components of sustainable tourism, extensive research has
different levels of participation. Most research has focused on been conducted to promote the role of public participation as
either the means (process or conditions) or the ends (outcomes a tool in managing community tourism resources (see Aas,
or end results) of participation. The integration of these two Ladkin, & Fletcher 2005; Garrod 2003; Timothy 1999; Jamal
streams of research is deemed to be important as it can poten- and Getz 1995). The majority of scholars have taken either a
tially enhance our understanding of different facilitators/ “means” or an “ends” approach when investigating commu-
inhibitors of participation and their influences on community nity participation in the context of tourism. Examples for the
members’ participatory behavior. Apart from adopting either means of community participation include community mem-
one of these two approaches, most studies (e.g., Li 2006; bers’ personal interests, available time, and affiliations with
Tosun 2006; Wang and Wall 2006) have used single-location the local tourism office. Examples for the ends of participa-
case studies; others have been qualitative in nature despite tion include the success or failure of tourism development in
filling the literature gap in cross-cultural environments (e.g.,
Nyaupane, Morais, and Dowler 2006; Cole 2006; Ying and 1
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon
Zhou 2007). This is not to imply that these studies are not 2
University of South Carolina, Columbia
3
valuable to community participation literature; on the con- Texas A&M University, College Station
trary, they are akin to the building blocks leading to a more Corresponding Author:
holistic participation model. Taking a quantitative approach, Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
this study first proposes an alternative model for community Email: ercan@sc.edu
the community and the support received from community characteristics, such as personal interest, knowledge, confi-
members. In the current study, means refers to the participa- dence, awareness, resources, education, and time (Reid 2003;
tion process or conditions enabling community participation Cole 2006; Addison 1996), which may collectively play a
to occur while ends refers to their level of participation. role in explaining participation decisions. Thus, there is a
need for integrating such factors into a participation model
that may lend itself to a broader analysis of community par-
Participation Process or ticipation behavior.
Conditions—Means-Oriented Studies As a response to shortcomings in the relevant literature,
Studies that fall into this category build explanatory models Timothy and Tosun (2003) adopted a more integrative approach
outlining the stages of the participation process. For exam- in developing a Participatory, Incremental, Collaborative/
ple, using the base model developed by Drake (1991), Garrod Cooperative (PIC) planning model in which participation in
(2003) offered nine stages of local participation in planning tourism planning, implementation and monitoring of tourism
and managing ecotourism. These nine stages include deter- plans, and collaboration among stakeholders are the focus of
mining the role of local participation in a project, choosing a the discussion. Although their model is also process oriented,
research team, conducting preliminary studies, determining the description of each construct of the model and the obsta-
the level of local participation, assessing appropriate partici- cles to adopting the PIC planning model reflect a broader
pation mechanisms, indicating dialogue and educational spectrum of key factors such as inadequate representation, tra-
efforts, pursuing collective decision making, developing an dition, power, lack of awareness, financial resources, time, and
action plan and implementation scheme, and monitoring and peripherality. The model suggests that community members’
evaluating outcome. participation in tourism planning depends not only on power
Although the stages of participation are not provided in relationships but also on personal factors.
Jamal and Getz’s (1995) work, they adopted a process-
oriented approach and applied the theoretical constructs
of collaboration to tourism destinations. They defined col- Participation Level—Ends-Oriented Studies
laboration as a process of joint decision making among Community participation is not a dichotomous structure with
stakeholders and suggested that input from all related entities only two forms of participation, either participation or lack
is necessary throughout the process in order to solve the of participation; it is a continuum. The range of different
problems related to community-based tourism. Aas, Ladkin, levels of participation is also termed a “typology of partici-
and Fletcher (2005) also applied this theory to heritage man- pation” in the literature (Arnstein 1969; Pretty 1995; Tosun
agement by evaluating an UNESCO/Norwegian government 1999). A typology containing a range of participation levels
project in Luang Prabang, Laos, by assessing its success among can be interpreted as the outcomes or the end products of
stakeholders. participation. Arnstein (1969), Pretty (1995), Choguill (1996),
These studies offer valuable insights into the power and Tosun (1999), and Selin (1999) are the pioneers in the devel-
control of different stakeholders over decision-making pro- opment of typologies of community participation. Only
cesses. The emphasis on power in participation literature Tosun (1999) and Selin’s (1999) typologies of participation
is reflected in the definition of “community participation” are directly related to tourism.
(Jamal and Getz 1995, p. 188) as “stakeholder collaboration Four decades ago, one of the pioneers of participation
in which joint decision-making occurs among autonomous, research, Arnstein (1969), divided community participation
key stakeholders of an inter-organizational, community tour- into eight levels and used ladder rungs as a metaphor for these
ism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain and/ levels: manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placa-
or to manage issues related to the planning and development tion, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. She
of the domain.” Although the term power is not directly further classified manipulation and therapy as nonpartici-
applied in the definition, the authors (Jamal and Getz 1995, pation because the main purposes of these two rungs are
p. 190) indicated that “legitimacy and power become critical to educate or cure the community members; she classified
considerations in the selection of stakeholders for an interor- informing, consultation, and placation as tokenism since the
ganizational collaboration, for they influence every stage of participants only act as advisories rather than decision makers;
the collaboration process.” and she classified partnership, delegated power, and citizen
Although the collaboration concept in tourism planning control as citizen power, as participants have a stronger voice
can be considered a breakthrough in community participa- in the decision-making process. Citizen power increases as
tion research, it does little to integrate individual factors the rungs progress from manipulation to citizen control.
that holistically contribute to variations in participation out- Although Arnstein’s (1969) work led to greater under-
comes. Community members’ participation in the tourism standing of the relationship between community participation
development process depends not only on the social, politi- and citizen power, the proposed ladder of community par-
cal, and economic considerations but also on their individual ticipation was deemed to have a lack of applicability to
tourism; the greater the benefits perceived, the greater the centralization of political structure, the
higher the level of participation. lower the level of community participation in tourism.
Opportunity. Opportunity is defined in the brand-processing Ability. Jamal and Getz (1999) suggested that just because
context as occurring when the “circumstances evidenced individuals have the right to participate does not mean they
during ad exposure are favorable for brand processing” have the ability to do so. Ability is a complex phenomenon
(MacInnis and Jaworski 1989, p. 7). In the context of tourism composed of a combination of factors, such as awareness,
planning, it can be defined as the circumstances that allow experience, knowledge, skills, accessibility to information,
for and/or facilitate public involvement in the participation and financial resources.
process. Opportunity occurs when tourism developers adopt Lack of awareness has been identified as one of the pri-
a participatory approach and provide a supportive frame- mary factors constraining community participation (Timothy
work for community participation. Participation cannot occur 2002; Tosun and Timothy 2003). Community members, in
without political opportunities or an open channel of commu- low-income countries in particular, are usually unprepared
nication between the tourism developers and the community for localized tourism development due to their lack of travel-
(Behaire and Elliott-White 1999). According to Aas, Ladkin, ing experience and a lack of awareness of the need for and
and Fletcher (2005), “Establishing channels of communica- benefits of tourism development (Timothy 2002). As tourism
tion is perceived to be a straightforward and initial step is a relatively new concept for many of these communities,
towards stakeholder involvement” (p. 43). Furthermore, local residents are often uninformed about the tourism indus-
Peters (1999) warned that proceeding to tourism develop- try (Timothy 1999). Timothy (1999, p. 374) further indicated
ment without proper channels of communication between that “educating residents of developing countries is one way
planners and stakeholders can lead to development that is of building awareness, so that they will be better qualified
uncontrolled and destructive. to make informed decisions in their own communities.”
As indicated, the type and amount of participation varies Simmons (1994) noted that education can both strengthen
in each situation. The variability of participatory opportuni- the public’s confidence and increase their ability to effec-
ties is typically due to diverse local political structures and tively participate. Timothy and Tosun (2003) suggested using
the unequal distribution of power within the community. In public education techniques, including television advertise-
addition, many low-income countries are still characterized ments, newspapers, brochures, courses, and training. Locals’
by paternalistic, centralized, top–down bureaucratic political ability to access information and learn about tourism devel-
structures that make community participation difficult or opment in their community is frequently dependent on the
impossible (e.g., Aas, Ladkin, and Fletcher 2005; Milne and willingness of tourism developers to share information.
Ewing 2004; Tosun 2000). Political parties in many low- Often, in an effort to minimize interference, tourism devel-
income countries are unlikely to share their power with the opers are reluctant to share information or include locals in
public by adopting a participatory approach (Tosun 2001). the planning process (Cole 2006).
However, a paradigm shift has occurred in some high-income Kayat (2002) indicates that the ability to take advantage
countries, such as the United Kingdom, where urban policy of the economic opportunities that arise via the tourism
was developed during the 1980s and 1990s to include a development process is related to levels of participation.
greater number of stakeholders in the policy-making process This idea also holds true when looking at individual financial
(Bahaire and Elliott-White 1999). Even though decentraliza- resources; those with greater financial resources are more
tion and fragmentation of responsibilities has led to greater likely to participate than those with limited resources. Evi-
public participation in governmental decision making, the dence of this can be seen in low-income countries such as
current political structure still places greater emphasis on Indonesia where the concerns of day-to-day survival out-
encouraging citizens to voice their opinions about public ser- weigh those of long-term planning and conservation (Timothy
vices rather than involving them in local development 1999). Bahaire and Elliott-White (1999) also pointed out that
projects (Bahaire and Elliott-White 1999). This demonstrates some members of a community have more power than others
that both the level and type of community participation is based on their ability to contribute financially to tourism
dependent on the degree of openness and decentralization of development; those with greater financial resources appeared
local governmental policy as well as the extent to which a to have a stronger voice in the planning process than those of
government is willing to relinquish at least some control to more modest means.
the public. The discussion of ability in community participation can
The following hypothesis has been formulated to test the be tested with the following hypothesis:
debate on opportunity:
Hypothesis 3: The level of participation is positively re-
Hypothesis 2: The level of participation is negatively lated to the public’s ability to participate: the greater
influenced by the centralized political structure. The the ability, the higher the level of participation.
Table 2. Paired Sample Means Difference Test between Respondents and Nonrespondents (n = 31)
Standard
Items Response Type Mean Deviation t p
The opportunities to participate depend on the openness of measurement scales while the latter is important for testing
the political structure in the local community. Four statements the proposed hypotheses.
included on the questionnaire measured whether the local
political structure provided opportunities for community mem-
bers to participate in the tourism development process. These Findings
opportunities are synonymous with channels of communica- Demographic Profile of Respondents
tion as stated in Aas, Ladkin, and Fletcher’s (2005) study of
community participation. The measurement items included in The final sample was composed of 54.5% (156) males and
the current study are “Tourism officials host meetings or other 45.5% (130) females. The majority of the respondents
forums,” “Tourism officials are interested in hearing my opin- (95.5%) were not employed in tourism. Among the 13 respon-
ions,” “Tourism officials represent my interests in terms of dents who are working in the tourism industry, 2 were
tourism development,” “Tourism officials provide opportuni- working part-time while 11 were working full-time. The
ties for me to be represented in decision-making bodies.” average age of respondents was 52 years and most respon-
The survey was conducted across different communities dents (95%) were 30 years or older. More than one-third of
in Charleston, South Carolina. After data collection, the data respondent households (38.3%) make $40,000 to $79,999,
were manually entered into the Statistical Package for Social about a quarter of respondents (23.5%) make $100,000 or
Science (SPSS) where initial analyses on the demographic more, and 10.7% make $30,000 to $39,999 a year before
information of respondents were conducted. Structural equa- taxes. More than half of the respondents (58.1%) had received
tion modeling (SEM) was then performed in Analysis of a degree from a 4-year college or institution for higher
Moment Structures (AMOS) software to test the hypothe- education.
sized relationships among the constructs and the overall fit
of the proposed model. SEM contains two major compo-
nents of analysis: confirmatory factor analysis and multiple Assessment of Reliability and
regression analysis (Byrne 2001). Confirmatory factor Validity of Measurement Scale
analysis was used to determine latent constructs based on The reliability of each factor was determined using
observed variables, while regression analysis was used to Cronbach’s alpha. A low alpha coefficient suggests the item
interpret the relationships among the latent constructs. has a low contribution to its construct (Churchill 1979).
The former is necessary for examining the validity of Cronbach’s alpha values of all measurement scales in the
Motivation
Perceived tourism benefits .860
I believe tourism is a strong economic contributor to my community .858
I believe tourism is good for my community’s economy .908
Tourism diversifies the economy in my community .796
I like tourism because it brings new income to communities .761
Tourism creates new markets for our local products .674
Opportunity .809
Tourism officials host meetings or other forums .737
Tourism officials are interested in hearing my opinions .818
Tourism officials represent my interests in terms of tourism development .811
Tourism officials provide opportunities for me to be represented in decision-making bodies .823
Ability
Awareness .854
I am fully aware of the issues related to tourism development in my community .855
I keep up with the news regarding tourism development .869
I am familiar with tourism development .872
I receive information about tourism development in my community .745
Knowledge .836
I know a lot about tourism in my community .835
I have knowledge about tourists in my community .820
I know about the likely impacts of tourism .809
I know a lot about my community .765
I know how I can participate in tourism development .661
Participation levels .902
I contribute to tourism decision making in my community .781
I share my opinions with officials regarding tourism .853
I provide assistance/resources for tourism development .806
I initiate contacts with tourism officials whenever necessary .872
I meet with officials to discuss tourism issues .845
I do what is asked by tourism office/officials .772
current study were larger than .80, indicating satisfactory distributed. The results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests
reliability of the constructs (see Table 3). (Massey 1951) in SPSS suggested that the data were not
Construct validity was assessed by both convergent and normal (p < .001). Further investigations in AMOS also indi-
discriminant validity. The convergent validity of the mea- cated mild (<±3) skewness and kurtosis of the data. Therefore,
surement scales was examined by using t-tests (Bollen maximum likelihood (ML), recommended to be a robust esti-
1989), in which a statistically significant contribution of an mator when fitting the model to moderate nonnormal data
item to its posited underlying construct indicates adequate (Muthén and Kaplan 1992), was used for testing model fitting
convergent validity (Marsh and Grayson 1995). The results and hypothesized relationships in AMOS.
of t-tests suggested that all measurement scales used in the Since chi-square (χ2) is sensitive to sample size (Byrne
current study had satisfactory convergent validity. The 2001), the fit of the proposed model with the data was exam-
discriminant validity was examined by monitoring the inter- ined by using the root mean square error of approximation
correlations among variables. The discriminant validity is (RMSEA; Steiger and Lind 1980) and the comparative fit
problematic when the correlation between two variables is index (CFI; Bentler 1990). The RMSEA was .058 and CFI was
greater than .85 (Kline 2005). It was found in the current .933 in this study (Table 4), which met the minimum require-
study that all correlations were lower than .85. Accordingly, ment of model fit recommended by Schermelleh-Engel,
the validity of measurement scales has been established. Moosbrugger, and Müller (2003; .05 < RMSEA ≤ .08) and
Bentler (1990; CFI > .9), respectively. Therefore, both fit
indices suggested that the model had an acceptable fit to
Model Fitting and Hypotheses Testing the data.
Before testing the model fitting and hypotheses, a normality Further effort was invested in testing the hypothesized
test was first conducted to determine if the data were normally relationships among the constructs in the MOA model. The
Table 4. Estimation of Fit Indices of the Proposed Model 2005). The tendency to utilize public participation in agen-
cies’ decision making is evident in diverse areas, including
Model χ (df)
2
RMSEA CFI
forest planning (e.g., Buchy and Hoverman 2000), landscape
Proposed model 494.5 (247) .058 .933 planning (e.g., Dearden 1981), park management (e.g.,
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
Speller and Ravenscroft 2005), water resource management
CFI = comparative fit index. (e.g., Smith 2002), and community tourism planning (e.g.,
Jamal and Getz 1995). It is the intention of this study to inte-
grate the means of participation with the ends of participation
in one theoretical framework to enhance understanding of
Table 5. Hypotheses Testing Results community participation in the tourism context.
The integration was enabled by using the MOA frame-
Standard
Path Standard Critical work. Using this model as a basis of the analysis, motivation,
Regression Paths Coefficient Error Ratio (t) p opportunity, and the ability to participate were theorized as
the three antecedents of participation. A mail survey was
Benefits/ -.251 .092 -4.379 <.001 subsequently conducted in South Carolina to test the model,
Motivation → and the MOA model was found to have an acceptable fit to
Participation
Opportunity → .355 .063 5.803 <.001
the data. This suggests that the extent to which community
Participation members participate in the tourism development process
Ability → .501 .075 6.520 <.001 depends on motivation, opportunity, and the ability to partici-
Participation pate. However, careful interpretation of the results is needed
owing to the negative relationship between the perceived
benefits of tourism and the level of participation. Despite the
various benefits of tourism noted in past studies, such as gen-
test results are illustrated in Table 4. Hypothesis 1 exam- erating income and creating job opportunities (Jurowski,
ined the relationship between perceived benefits of tourism Uysal, and Williams 1997; Ritchie 1988), the failure to
and participation in tourism development. It was hypothe- support Hypothesis 1 in the current study suggests that
sized that there would be a positive relationship between community members may not always participate in tourism
these two constructs. Although the AMOS output suggested even though they think tourism benefits the community.
there was a statistically significant relationship between the Several reasons might have contributed to this negative rela-
two variables (p < .001; Table 5), the direction of the relation- tionship. First, although a perceived benefit is one of the
ship was negative rather than positive. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 major factors behind residents’ support of tourism develop-
was rejected by the data. One possible explanation for this ment (Gursoy, Jurowski, and Uysal 2002), it is not the only
result is that despite some perceived benefits of tourism, the factor influencing their attitudes. Perceived costs of tourism
costs of tourism may have outweighed the benefits and thus should also be taken into consideration as a motivator to par-
caused some community members to be unwilling to partici- ticipate. This notion is supported by exchange theory, which
pate in tourism development. has been applied to residents’ attitudes studies to explain
Hypothesis 2 tested the positive relationship between community reactions toward tourism development (Ap 1990;
the opportunity to participate in tourism development and Jurowski, Uysal, and Williams 1997; Lindberg and Johnson
participation levels. This hypothesis was supported by the 1997; Teye, Sirakaya, and Sonmez 2002). This theory sug-
test result (p < .001). The results of Hypothesis 3 suggest gests that residents are more likely to support community
that there would be a positive relationship between the abil- tourism development when the perceived benefits outweigh
ity to participate in tourism development and participation the perceived costs. Various costs of tourism have been
levels. This hypothesis was also supported by the AMOS recorded in past studies, including overdevelopment of
output (p < .001). tourism, increasing crime rates, and creating negative envi-
ronmental impacts (Sirakaya, Jamal, and Choi 2001;
Mathieson and Wall 1982). Therefore, it is likely in this
Discussion study that despite the number of benefits perceived by com-
Historically, public participation has typically been dis- munity members, the perceived costs of tourism might have
cussed in political science and sustainable land use literatures outweighed the benefits and, thus, led to a lack of participa-
(Buchy and Hoverman 2000). However, recognition of the tion by community members. Future studies should include
public’s right to participate in activities that are directly or perceived costs of tourism in their investigations to examine
indirectly related to their daily life has been widely accepted if this is the case.
not only as a fundamental principle of democracy but also to Second, although residents may realize some benefits from
sustainable tourism (Simmons 1994; Choi and Sirakaya tourism activity in their community, these benefits accrue to
the whole community rather than to individuals. In other increasing the public’s awareness and knowledge of tourism
words, residents are not the direct beneficiaries of tourism development locally (Simmons 1994; Timothy and Tosun
development. In accordance with consumer behavior litera- 2003). Since the current study examined only two aspects of
ture (Petty, Unnava, and Strathman 1991), it is suggested that the public’s ability to participate in tourism, namely their
the perceived benefits of tourism should be personally rele- awareness and knowledge of tourism, future studies may
vant to community members in order to motivate them to examine the influences other aspects of ability, such as
participate in tourism development. Therefore, in future stud- financial resources, travel experience, and accessibility to
ies, the measurement scale of the perceived benefits of information have on the level of participation.
tourism may need to be personalized rather than generalized
to the whole community.
Another possible reason for the negative relationship Conclusions
between perceived tourism benefits and participation levels Two points must be made at this juncture. First, the philoso-
could be due to community members’ lack of interest in phy of community participation has stimulated a vast amount
participating in tourism (Goodson 2003). Despite the bene- of research. Most researchers have adopted this new concept
fits they are receiving from tourism, community members of tourism and are applying it to a variety of destinations.
may think tourism officials will take care of local tourism, The proliferation of case studies in this area has provided the
and it is not necessary for them to become involved in the basis to integrate these fragmented pieces together and com-
decision-making process. Future research could examine bine two streams of research (means and ends approaches)
this possibility. into one model. Second, traditional community participation
Hypothesis 2 tested the relationship between the political research has focused on the ways in which public participa-
structure and the level of community participation in tour- tion improves tourism planning and decision making and
ism. The support of this hypothesis suggests that the level of how the process can be facilitated through various participa-
participation is influenced by the openness of the local politi- tion techniques. The model proposed in the current study and
cal structure in supporting the general public’s involvement its associated hypotheses views participation from the stand-
in tourism decision making. This result provides some evi- point of participants and addresses the factors that determine
dence to Aas, Ladkin, and Fletcher’s (2005) notion that the whether residents would participate and, if they participate,
channel of communication is both an initial step and a basic how their participation behavior would be influenced.
criterion of community participation. The lack of opportu- The purpose of this study was to propose and test the effi-
nity to participate in tourism development as a result of a cacy of an alternative theoretical framework for participation
top–down governing structure may act as an obstacle to in community tourism development. Motivation, opportu-
interested parties. Although it has been noted in the literature nity, and ability have been proposed to be critical factors in
that the evolution of governing has shifted toward a more determining participation decisions. It is argued that these
participatory approach in the Western world (Timothy 1999), three elements are the three antecedents of participation and
this change may not be equally applicable to developing that different intensities of each antecedent can lead to differ-
countries, For instance, Tosun (2001) identified six major ent levels of participation. This argument was supported by
constraints to community participation in Turkey, includ- the data, with the exception of a negative relationship found
ing a one-party political system. Therefore, despite the between perceived tourism benefits and the level of commu-
important role communication plays in community par- nity participation. The acceptable fit of model to the data
ticipation, community members are unlikely to take part further suggests that the MOA model can be a succinct frame-
in tourism development unless there is a shift in the local work to analyze factors influencing a decision to participate
political paradigm. in community tourism development.
Hypothesis 3 tested the relationship between community The MOA model of community participation contributes
members’ ability to participate in tourism and their level of to current literature in two ways. From a theoretical perspec-
participation. The results of this study indicate that the level tive, the MOA model synthesizes participation research by
of awareness and knowledge of tourism development have a emphasizing commonalities found in studies from several
positive influence on community members’ participation. fields, including advertising, consumer behavior, tourism,
Therefore, even though the local political system is open to and public participation. Moreover, initial tests provide evi-
public participation, community members may not partici- dence that favors the efficacy of the model. In a practical
pate due to a low level of awareness and knowledge of sense, the model can be applied to tourism destinations with
tourism. This finding is in accordance with Jamal and Getz’s the purpose of enabling or facilitating community participa-
(1999) notion that both the right and the ability to participate tion. Then tourism developers can identify specific reasons
should be present for community participation to occur. Edu- for a lack of participation. Predictions of community partici-
cation via various means such as television broadcasting, pation levels can be made based on the analysis of
newspapers, and pamphlets may be effective mechanisms in the presence/absence and the various levels of motivation,
opportunity, and ability. Based on the predictions, strategies Beirne, P. (1993). “The Rise of Positivist Criminology: Adolphe
for inhibiting/facilitating community participation can be Quetelet’s ‘Social Mechanics of Crime.’” In Inventing Crimi-
developed and implemented. The MOA model can be manip- nology: Essays on the Rise of “Homo criminalis,” edited by R. A.
ulated based on tourism developers’ needs and purposes. For Farrell. New York: SUNY Press, pp. 65-110.
instance, if a lack of opportunity is identified as a major Bentler, P. M. (1990). “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural
factor leading to nonparticipation, the planning agency may Models.” Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-46.
consider holding public meetings, or introducing a mecha- Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Con-
nism that promotes public participation. In some cases, the sumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
public may not be aware of opportunities to participate. It is Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
important to communicate these opportunities to the public New York: John Wiley.
through various media sources such as television, leaflets, Buchy, M., and S. Hoverman (2000). “Understanding Public Par-
and public communiqués. ticipation in Forest Planning: A Review.” Forest Policy and
The MOA model should be further tested in different con- Economics, 1: 15-25.
texts. The measurement of the constructs should be further Byrd, E. T. (2003). An Analysis of Variables That Influence Stake-
refined given the reasons provided in the previous section. holder Participation and Support for Sustainable Tourism
The analysis of the stated hypotheses across different com- Development in Rural North Carolina. Doctoral dissertation,
munities will provide a broader view as to how different North Carolina State University.
characteristics of communities could lead to a variety of par- Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos:
ticipation levels. Alterations to the conditions under which Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ:
participation decisions are made can be observed and their Lawrence Erlbaum.
influences should be analyzed. Longitudinal research both Choguill, M. B. G. (1996). “A Ladder of Community Participation for
within one community and across different communities could Underdeveloped Countries.” Habitat International, 20 (3): 431-44.
also prove to be beneficial. Choi, H. S., and E. Sirakaya (2005). “Measuring Residents’ Attitude
toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tour-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests ism Attitude Scale.” Journal of Travel Research, 43, 380-394.
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the Churchill, G. A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Mea-
authorship and/or publication of this article. sures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research,
XVI (February): 64-73.
Funding Cole, S. (2006). “Information and Empowerment: The Keys to
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for Achieving Sustainable Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tour-
the research and/or authorship of this article: Data collection was ism, 14 (6): 629-44.
made possible by internal research grants of the College of Hospi- Davidson, T., and L. Gentry (2001). The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
tality, Retailing and Sports Management of USC. Home Security. Indianapolis: Alpha Books.
Dearden, P. (1981). “Public Participation and Scenic Quality Anal-
References ysis.” Landscape Planning, 8: 3-19.
Aas, C., A. Ladkin, and J. Fletcher (2005). “Stakeholder Collabora- Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total
tion and Heritage Management.” Annals of Tourism Research, Design Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
32 (1): 28-48. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored
Addison, L. (1996). “An Approach to Community-based Tourism Design Method, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Planning in the Baffin Region, Canada’s Far North – A Retrospec- Drake, S. P. (1991). “Local Participation in Ecotourism Projects.”
tive.” In Practicing Responsible Tourism, edited by L. C. Harrison In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, edited by
and W. Husbands. New York: John Wiley, pp. 296-329. E. Whelan. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 132-63.
Ap, J. (1990). “Residents’ Perceptions Research on the Social Garrod, B. (2003). “Local Participation in the Planning and Man-
Impacts of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4): agement of Ecotourism: A Revised Model Approach.” Journal
610-16. of Ecotourism, 2 (1): 33-53.
Arnstein, S. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of Goodson, L. (2003). Tourism Impacts, Community Participation and
the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4): 216-24. Gender: An Exploratory Study of Residents’ Perceptions in the
Bahaire, T., and M. Elliott-White (1999). “Community Participa- City of Bath. PhD thesis, Brunel University, Uxbridge, London.
tion in Tourism Planning and Development in the Historic City Gursoy, D., C. Jurowski, and M. Uysal (2002). “Resident Attitudes:
of York, England.” Current Issues in Tourism, 2 (3): 243-76. A Structural Modeling Approach.” Annals of Tourism Research,
Batra, R., and M. L. Ray (1986). “Situational Effects of Advertising 29 (1): 79-105.
Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, Jamal, T. B., and D. Getz (1995). “Collaboration Theory and Com-
and Opportunity to Respond.” Journal of Consumer Research, munity Tourism Planning.” Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1):
12 (March): 432-49. 186-204.
Jamal, T. B., and D. Getz (1999). “Community Roundtable for Tour- Peters, H. (1999). “Making Tourism Work for Heritage Preservation:
ism Related Conflicts: The Dialectics of Consensus and Progress Lijiang, a case study.” In UNESCO and the Nature Conservancy,
Structures.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7: 290-313. Yunnan. International Conference on Anthropology, Chinese
Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, and D. R. Williams (1997). “A Theoretical Society and Tourism, Kunming.
Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism.” Petty, R. E., R. H. Unnava, and A. J. Strathman (1991). “Theories of
Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2): 3-11. Attitude Change.” In Handbook of Consumer Behavior, edited
Kayat, K. (2002). “Exploring Factors Influencing Individual Par- by H. H. Kassarijian and T. S. Robertson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
ticipation in Community-based Tourism: The Case of Kampung Prentice Hall, pp. 241-79.
Relau Homestay Program, Malaysia.” Asia Pacific Journal of Prentice, R. (1993). “Community-driven Tourism Planning and
Tourism Research, 7 (2): 19-27. Residents’ Preference.” Tourism Management, 14: 218-27.
Kenry, C. (2003). Uncle Max. New York: Kensington Books. Pretty, J. (1995). “The Many Interpretations of Participation.” In
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Focus, 16: 4-5.
Modeling, 2nd edition. New York: Guilford. Reid, D. G. (2003). Tourism, Globalization and Development:
Li, W. J. (2006). “Community Decisionmaking: Participation in Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto.
Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1): 132-43. Ritchie, J. R. B. (1988). “Consensus Policy Formulation in Tour-
Lindberg, K., and R. L. Johnson (1997). “Modeling Resident ism.” Tourism Management, 9: 199-216.
Attitudes toward Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): Rothschild, M. L. (1999). “Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Con-
402-24. ceptual Framework for the Management of Public Health and
MacInnis, D. J., and B. J. Jaworski (1989). “Information Process- Social Issue Behaviors.” Journal of Marketing, 63 (October):
ing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework.” 24-37.
Journal of Marketing, 53 (October): 1-23. Schermelleh-Engel, K., H. Moosbrugger, and H. Müller (2003).
MacInnis, D. J., C. Moorman, and B. J. Jaworski (1991). “Enhanc- “Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Sig-
ing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and nificance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures.” Methods
Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads.” Journal of of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2): 23-74.
Marketing, 55 (October): 32-53. Selin, S. (1999). “Developing a Typology of Sustainable Tourism
Marsh, H., and D. Grayson (1995). “Latent Variable Models of Partnerships.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7 (3&4): 260-73.
Multitrait-Multimethod Data.” In Structural Equation Modeling: Simmons, D. G. (1994). “Community Participation in Tourism
Concepts, Issues and Applications, edited by R. Hoyle. Thou- Planning.” Tourism Management, 15 (2): 98-108.
sand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 177-98. Sirakaya, E., T. Jamal, and H. S. Choi (2001). “Developing Indica-
Massey, F. J. (1951). “The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Good- tors for Destination Sustainability.” In The Encyclopedia of Eco-
ness of Fit.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46: tourism, edited by D. B. Weaver. New York: CABI, pp. 411-32.
68-78. Sirakaya-Turk, E. (2007). “Concurrent Validity of the Sustainable
Mathieson, A., and G. Wall (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical Tourism Attitude Scale.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (4):
and Social Impacts. London: Longman. 1081-84.
McGrew, J. M. (2005). Think Safe: Practical Measures to Increase Sirakaya-Turk, E., Y. Ekinci, and A. G. Kaya (2008). “An Examina-
Security at Home, at Work, and throughout Life. Hilton Head tion of the Validity of SUS-TAS in Cross-Cultures.” Journal of
Island, SC: Cameo. Travel Research, 46: 414-21.
McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Smith, W. J. (2002). “The Clearinghouse Approach to Enhancing
Local Planners. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organizations. Informed Public Participation in Watershed Management Utiliz-
Milne, S., and G. Ewing (2004). “Community Participation in ing GIS and Internet Technology.” Water International, 27 (4):
Caribbean Tourism.” In Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, 558-67.
Development, Prospects, edited by D. T. Duval. London: Rout- Speller, G., and N. Ravenscroft (2005). “Facilitating and Evaluat-
ledge, pp. 205-17. ing Public Participation in Urban Parks Management.” Local
Muthén, B., and D. Kaplan (1992). “A Comparison of Some Meth- Environment, 10 (1): 41-56.
odologies for the Factor Analysis of Non-normal Likert Vari- Steiger, J. H., and J. C. Lind (1980). “Statistically Based Tests for
ables: A Note on the Size of the Model.” British Journal of the Number of Factors.” Paper presented at the Annual Spring
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45: 19-30. Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, LA.
Nyaupane, G. P., D. B. Morais, and L. Dowler (2006). “The Role of Taylor, G. (1995). “The Community Approach: Does It Really
Community Involvement and Number/Type of Visitors on Tour- Work?” Tourism Management, 16 (7): 487-89.
ism Impacts: A Controlled Comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Teye, V., E. Sirakaya, and S. Sonmez (2002). “Resident Attitudes
Northwest Yunnan, China.” Tourism Management, 27: 1373-85. toward Tourism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research,
Okazaki, E. (2008). “A Community-based Tourism Model: Its 29 (3): 668-88.
Conception and Use.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (5): Timothy, D. J. (1999). “Participatory Planning: A View of Tourism
511-29. in Indonesia.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2): 371-91.
Timothy, D. J. (2002). “Tourism and Community Development Development.” International Journal of Arts Management, 7 (1):
Issues.” In Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, edited 22-33.
by R. Sharpley and D. Telfer. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Channel Ying, T., and Y. Zhou (2007). “Community, Governments and
View, pp. 149-64. External Capitals in China’s Rural Cultural Tourism: A Com-
Timothy, D. J., and C. Tosun (2003). “Appropriate Planning for parative Study of Two Adjacent Villages.” Tourism Manage-
Tourism in Destination Communities: Participation, Incremen- ment, 28: 96-107.
tal Growth and Collaboration.” In Tourism in Destination Com- Yoon, Y., J. S. Chen, and D. Gürsoy (1999). “An Investigation of
munities, edited by S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, and R. K. Dowling. the Relationship between Tourism Impacts and Host Commu-
Cambridge, MA: CABI, pp. 181-204. nities’ Characteristics.” Anatolia: An International Journal of
Tosun, C. (1999). “Towards a Typology of Community Participa- Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10 (1): 29-44.
tion in the Tourism Development Process.” Anatolia: An Inter-
national Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10 (2): Bios
113-34. Kam Hung is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel and
Tosun, C. (2000). “Limits to Community Participation in the Tour- Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
ism Development Process in Developing Countries.” Tourism Research interests include tourism marketing and tourist behavior
Management, 21: 613-33. and psychology.
Tosun, C. (2001). “Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Develop-
ment in the Developing World: The Case of Turkey.” Tourism Ercan Sirakaya-Turk is the Alfred Sloan research professor of
Management, 22: 289-303. tourism in the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Manage-
Tosun, C. (2006). “Expected Nature of Community Participa- ment at the University of South Carolina. He has published a
tion in Tourism Development.” Tourism Management, 27 (3): significant number of articles in the area of tourism destination
493-504. marketing and developmental policy in tourism journals, such as
Tosun, C., and D. J. Timothy (2003). “Arguments for Community the Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, Tour-
Participation in the Tourism Development Process.” Journal of ism Management, and Tourism Analysis, and completed numerous
Tourism Studies, 14 (2): 2-15. grants exceeding $1 million. He teaches tourism economics, mar-
Wang, Y., and G. Wall (2006). “Administrative Arrangements and keting, and research methods classes.
Displacement Compensation in Top-Down Tourism Planning—
A Case from Hainan Province, China.” Tourism Management, Linda J. Ingram has a master’s degree in natural resource devel-
28: 70-82. opment from the department of recreation, park and tourism
Wiggins, J. (2004). “Motivation, Ability and Opportunity to Par- sciences at Texas A&M University where she is currently working
ticipate: A reconceptualization of the RAND Model of Audience on her dissertation to complete her PhD in Tourism Development.