THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. `03 , pp.

2 11

Arguments for Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process

Cevat Tosun and Dallen J. Timothy

Abstract
This article presents a normative model of the argument for participatory tourism development. It is purposely tentative in manner to attract further attention from tourism scholars, practitioners and decision-makers. The normative model of community participation in the tourism development process has been built on a set of seven propositions. They deal with the relationships between the participator tourism development approach and the implementation of tourism plans, achieving sustainable tourism development, increasing tourist satisfaction, preparation of better tourism development by tourism professionals, fair distribution of costs and benefits among stakeholders, satisfaction of locally-felt needs, and strengthening the democratization process in Focal tourist destinations. While the arguments for community participation are presented positively, it is also noted that the validity and practicality of these arguments may not be feasible in some developing countries and peripheral regions in advanced economies owing to the existence of various operational, structural and cultural limitations.

Introduction Although participation of a local community in the affairs governing its life dates back to the beginning of human society (Hollnsteiner, 1977), the participatory development approach has been employed as a modern instrument for better development since the 1950s under different names (de Kadt, 1982; United Nations, 1981). Citizen participation has been recognized as a major element of political dynamics in the post-industrial era. This may reflect the response of
Arguments for Community Participation

governments to community actions that emerged in the absence of the affluence and security of the period following World War II. The increase in demand for citizen participation has ushered in a longerterm movement toward a new understanding in public administration and approaches to development. In this context, community participation in the development process is defined as development designed in such a way that intended beneficiaries are encouraged to take matters into their own hands, to participate in their own development through mobilizing their own resources, defining their own needs, and making their own decisions about how to meet them. (Stone, 1989, p. 207)

Clearly, public participation is a powerful tool to educate the community in rights, laws and political prudence. Participation is a development instrument and, more broadly, a body of influence, which is capable of undermining the related vices of ignorance, indolence and class conflict. Moreover, it is contended that

since the leadership of society would inevitably be in the hands of an elite, it was necessary to ensure that its members were educated in the broadest sense and deeply valued individual liberty and democracy. The individual would, therefore, learn the politics of democracy by participating in local institutions and associations. (Low, 1991, p. 86). We do not learn to read or write, to ride or swim, by merely being told how to do it but by doing it, so it is only by practicing popular government on a limited scale, that people will ever learn how to exercise it on a large scale. (Mill, 1973, p. 186, cited in Low, 1991, p. 86).

On the basis of this argument, it is proposed that active and direct participation of local people in local affairs is an indispensable tool for
Arguments for Community Participation

public education (Timothy, 2000), without which, democracy and individual liberty cannot function. Tosun (2000, pp. 616-617) argued that the infrastructures of community participation are the legacies of western ideology; the influence of community development programs in developing countries; western social work and community radicalism; and the United Nations' (UN) participatory development programs, which, indeed, provided a source of inclination for community participation as a modern concept in housing, transportation, education, health, etc. Naturally, accumulations of participatory experiences in social, political and economic life have become the modern sources of inclination for community participation in the tourism development process. Proponents of participatory tourism development have studied community empowerment in the tourism development process in great detail and improved significantly its conceptual foundation (Gunn, 1988; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990; Murphy, 1985; Reed, 1997; Scheyvens, 2002; Simmons, 1994; Timothy, 1999; Timothy & Tosun, 2003; Tosun, 1999, 2000). However, these scholars appear to consider this proactive approach in a reactive manner. This may be owing to the fact that arguments for community-based tourism development have not been examined and discussed on their own in a systematic way. Therefore, the current status of arguments for community-driven tourism appears to be underdeveloped. However, a critical review of tourism literature and developmental studies reveals that a set of strong arguments might be developed by taking into account distinguished characteristics of the tourism industry. Within this context, the main objective of this article is to develop a set of propositions as a framework for understanding participatory tourism development. After a brief conceptual description of community participation and arguments for it in general, the article focuses on a set of arguments for grassroots participation in the tourism development process. The study then draws several conclusions based on the forgoing analysis. Because there are relatively few examples of participatory tourism development in the real world, not every contention is supported by empirical evidence. As a result, by nature, this article is somewhat tentative as it attempts to increase the debate/ discussion about community based tourism development.
Arguments for Community Participation

Scope of arguments for community participation Community participation as an end and means has been examined from political, sociological, environmental, geographical, bureaucratic, management, economic and tourism development perspectives. Thus, scientists from many disciplines have contributed to the evolution and understanding of the concept of community participation. As a result, the meaning and scope of community empowerment have varied according to the goals of the users and the socio-political, cultural and economic conditions in which it is used. Therefore, it may be correct to state that community participation is not a simple matter of faith but a complex issue involving different ideological beliefs, political forces, administrative arrangements and varying perceptions of what is possible. (Midgley, Hall, Hardiman & Narine, 1986, p. ix).

The wide differences in rationalities between the social actors engaged in encounters reflect that these actors often appear to be following scripts in separate, incompatible dramas, indifferent to, or contemptuous of, one another (Stiefel & Wolfe, 1994). Hollnsteiner (1977) has argued that people's participation in formulating the kinds of communities where they live goes beyond a simple reference to traditional ideological debate about participatory development. These arguments show that participation as a development strategy is not an end itself, nor is it simply a tool for accelerating economic growth, which is often incorrectly presented as 'development' in political platforms and social daily life. Hollnsteiner (1977) and White (1982) argued that community participation is an instrumental end, which is aimed at achieving ultimate community goals. The ultimate goal is 'development', defined as a multidimensional process involving major change in social structures, popular attitudes, and national institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic growth, the reduction of inequality, and the eradication of absolute poverty. Development in its essence, must represent the whole gamut of change by which an entire
Arguments for Community Participation

social system, tuned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory and toward a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually better. (Todaro, 1989, p. 89) Naturally, different arguments have emerged for community participation in development among scholars and practitioners from diverse disciplines. White (1982, p. 20) outlined nine different but interrelated and interdependent arguments to support the importance and necessity of community participation in the development process. These are as follows: More will be accomplished Services can be provided at lower cost Participation has an intrinsic value for participants. It is a catalyst for further development efforts Participation leads to a sense of responsibility for the project It guarantees that a felt need is involved Participation ensures things are done in the right way It uses indigenous knowledge and expertise It frees communities from dependence on professionals.

Indeed, Hollnsteiner (1977) raised arguments in favour of community participation before White's argument. Hollnsteiner (1977, p. 13) contended that involving people in the decisions that affect their own lives is significant for several reasons: a sense of responsibility through direct involvement, rectification of planners' misconceptions and general increase in community's self-reliance. Boaden, Goldsmith, Hampton & Stringer (1982) approached the issue from a public administration point of view. They argued that four main reasons have made community participation necessary as an alternative strategy at the local level. These reasons are functional fragmentation of public administration, centralization of local government, professionalisation of service provision, and the increasing remoteness of government from people. However, it should be kept in mind that these issues were conceptualized in the United Kingdom in
Arguments for Community Participation

the early 1980s. Thus, these reasons may not be equally valid for other countries today. This might suggest that the grounds for public participation may change according to socio-cultural and political conditions and level of economic development. Although these arguments have been studied with special reference to health, education, rural development and transportation, they have not been examined in the context of tourism. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine these issues and arguments from a tourism perspective.

Arguments for community participation in the tourism development process

As previously noted, the legacy of western ideology, the influence of community development programs in developing countries, and western social work and community radicalism as historical antecedents of participatory development provided an inclination toward community participation as a modern concept in housing, transportation, education, and health. To Midgley (1986b), community participation emerged as a viable development approach consequent to various UN participatory development programs. These historical antecedents of community participation may also be seen as a source of aspiration for public participation in the tourism development process. Since popular involvement has been previously used as a development strategy in other areas of social, political, and economic life, it has also provided guidelines in the context of tourism. Indeed, arguments for communitybased tourism may have different explanations, which could stem directly from features of the tourism industry specifically. Arguments for the participatory development approach are considered under seven sub-headings and seven tentative propositions. It should be noted that these cases for participatory tourism development are not mutually exclusive.

Arguments for Community Participation

Proposition 1: Community participation is a vital element in the implementation of tourism plans and strategies. Public participation stimulates the formulation of implementable policies, the assumption being that if community members believe they have a say in a fair and open process of policy and plan development they may be willing to accept the outcome of that process (Buck, 1984; Timothy, 1999). Grassroots empowerment is an essential element in formulating comprehensive plans and an important tool in ensuring their feasibility.

In future if the bureaucracy just makes the plan as if the citizens did not exist, it will be hard to get citizen understanding and co-operation. (Broadbent, 1988, p. 139).

Plumlee, Starling & Kramer (1985) and Haywood (1988) supported this assertion, that community members must be involved in and lead plan formulation, including determining goals in order to arouse community support that will ultimately lead to acceptance and implementation of the plan. The outcome of numerous tourism impact and resident attitude studies in tourist destinations has been a call for increased public participation and, in particular, a more community oriented approach to tourism planning. (Keogh, 1990, p. 450) According to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (1971, p. 61), Where the targets of a plan are not fully realized this is often attributed as much to inadequate public involvement.
Arguments for Community Participation

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1980) established an inventory of 1619 assorted tourism plans in 1980. The survey concluded that only 66.5% have been implemented. Nearly half (43.5%) of the plans were categorized as unimplementable. In this regard, Tosun (1998) argues that although there are various reasons for unimplemented plans, which can vary from place to place, an analysis of the evolution of tourism planning and tourism literature suggests that community participation has not even been considered in tourism plans during the 1980s and 90s. The public now demands that their concerns be incorporated into the decisions-making process. However, there has been little public involvement in tourism planning.

(Mathieson & Wall, 1982, p.181) This appears to be a natural consequence of the over centralization of tourism planning and destination management. As Timothy (1999) and Tosun (2000) contend with special reference to developing countries, most tourism development plans have been prepared by central authorities who may not be aware of conditions under which the plans will be implemented at local levels by their regional or/and local extensions. Thus, planning and developing with local authorities and communities rather than for them may help central bodies know what local resources are available for tourism development. Alluding to this kind of situation, Murphy (1983, p. 188) stated, the lack of sufficient consultation and planning at the local level has certainly contributed to the delay and demise of many projects and policies proposed by central planning agencies.

Public participation in the planning process and plan implementation is important owing to the fact that tourism development takes place in existing and well-established socio-cultural, political, economic, and administrative environments. For some forms of alternative and special interest tourism, sociocultural and environmental considerations are particularly sensitive, and participation of the local community in planning and implementation is necessary to ensure that the industry benefits the local community and is not disruptive to its everyday life
Arguments for Community Participation

(Inskeep, 1991). In brief, without citizen support, implementing even the best-prepared plan may be very difficult (van Harssel, 1994). This implies that success in tourism development depends on strong community support (Getz, 1983).

Proposition 2: Community participation contributes to sustainable tourism development in several ways.

Many students of tourism have supported this proposition. Particularly since the publication of Murphy's (1985) book, Tourism: A community approach, the concept of community participation in tourism development has become a central issue in the debate on sustainability. In this regard, Woodley (1993, p. 137) states

a community-based approach to tourism development is prerequisite to sustainability.

It has also been contended that An important aspect of sustainable development is emphasizing community-based tourism. This approach to tourism focuses on community involvement in the planning and development process, and developing the types of tourism, which generate benefits to local communities. It accrues to local residents and not to outsiders. Maximizing benefits to local residents typically results in tourism being better accepted by them and their actively supporting conservation of local resources. (Inskeep, 1994, p. 8) It is commonly noted that the more that community residents benefit from tourism, the more likely they will be to protect the area's natural and cultural heritage and support tourism activities (McIntyre, Hetherington & Inskeep, 1993; Timothy, 1999). On the other hand,
Arguments for Community Participation

community involvement in establishing desirable conditions is perhaps the single most important element of growth management in tourist destinations. (Williams & Gill, 1994, p. 184)

Pearce (1994) noted that community involvement represents a technique for limiting negative social impacts. Ryan and Montgomery (1994, p. 369) asserted,

communities need only to be educated about the benefits of tourism, and that their involvement in good visitor management techniques will actually solve problems.

That is to say, a reasonable degree of consensus, which might be reached via public participation, is requisite for sustainable tourism development. The limits of local tolerance to tourism can be increased through resident participation, thereby potentially increasing social carrying capacity as well (D'Amore, 1983; Tosun, 2002). This is defined as that point in the growth of tourism where local residents perceive, on balance, an unacceptable level of social disbenefits from tourist development. (D'Amore, 1983, p. 144) In other words, communities have a limited capacity to absorb tourists. Growth beyond this threshold may result in negative social or ecological impacts and diminishing returns on investments (Allen, Long, Perdue & Kieselbach, 1988). As Murphy (1985, p. 153) puts it, tourism ... relies on the goodwill and cooperation of local people because they are part of its product. Where development and planning do not fit in with local aspirations and capacity, resistance and hostility can ... destroy the industry's potential altogether.

Arguments for Community Participation

10

Many tourist destinations were undeveloped rural areas prior to the growth of tourism, which may imply that historically local communities in tourist destinations were marginalized from socio-economic and political life in relative terms. This lack of experience makes community control over resources difficult. On the other hand, no matter how much substantive knowledge exists on a particular subject, and no matter how we develop our capabilities in information handling, operation research, and prediction, if there is little opportunity to develop a community's capacity for improved decision-making within the framework of a democratic process, there is a real possibility that large investments in planning will have been in vain (Fagence, 1977). Community participation may help the industry contribute to national development better in the long term if local people have a voice in decision-making (Tosun, 1998). In this way, the participatory approach can be an instrument for economic growth and sustainable development at both local and national levels. Additionally, the participatory development strategy can be used as a tool to improve a community's capacity for making decisions within the democratic process. This is badly needed, particularly in the developing world. In brief, this argument suggests that community involvement has become an indispensable part of sustainable tourism development since it has the potential to help protect and preserve sociocultural, historical and natural resources essential for tourist experiences, achieve a more equitable distribution of tourism costs and benefits among stakeholders, and increase the mutual benefits among tourists and destination residents by building a better understanding between them. Proposition 3: Community participation increases tourist satisfaction Tourism itself will probably not be sustainable without a sufficient number of satisfied customers. If the visitor does not feel that a place is worth a visit then it will wane in popularity (Cooper, 1993). Since destination communities are accepted and promoted as an important component of the product, there should be no doubt that tourists' satisfaction will be affected by the willingness, or lack thereof, of community members to support the industry, which may be determined by how much they benefit from tourism development. As D'Amore (1983, p. 143) stated,
Arguments for Community Participation

11

another component of supply of tourism resources is the attitudes and behaviour of the hosts, since these qualities form a significant part of the tourist experience. Another advocate of participatory tourism development has argued that while all scales of planning are important for tourism development, planning at the community level is vital if any region wishes to deliver tourism experiences which ensure both visitor satisfaction and ongoing benefits for the residents of destinations areas. (Simmons, 1994, p. 99) Taylor (1995, p. 488) observed that a friendly community is desirable for all hinds of inward investment but for the tourist destination it is the stuff of advertising. Alluding to local hospitality and friendliness, Wood (1994) points out that what is consumed by tourists, except some specific services (e.g., bed and breakfasts) remains largely undefined. Indeed, the undefined part, largely the local flavour, may be the most important component of the tourism product. Tourists can buy another breakfast and switch their hotels, but changing destinations is difficult because most of them have very limited time and money. Moreover, unsatisfactory holiday experiences may mean dissatisfaction for the entire year since tourists perceive holidays as a necessity and way of coping with job stress. The participatory development strategy may be a means of increasing the tangibility of an intangible tourism product and improving tourist satisfaction by creating a reasonable consensus between tourism and the host community, which may motivate local people to be more hospitable. In other words, participation in tourism planning may create a sense of ownership among residents - that it was their own decision to develop tourism in its present form. Public involvement may also be used to maintain a unique lifestyle, fulfil residents' aspirations, and prevent alteration of destination qualities to suit tourist expectations. Thus, visitor satisfaction will increase as they seek places that are unique and different from their own communities.

Arguments for Community Participation

12

In brief, this discussion suggests that building mutually desirable and beneficial relationships through participatory development may increase satisfaction of both hosts and guests during their temporary encounter.

Proposition 4: Community participation helps tourism professionals design better tourism plans.

It has been noted that the tendency of professional self-interests to produce bureaucracy is by now a setpiece of sociology. (Tillotson, 1994, p. 512) Thus, reordering priorities within the planning and economic development professions may be necessary. Planning for people is now old fashioned, while planning with and by people is in style (Robinson & Shaw, 1991). Public participation provides additional local insight for architects, planners, and administrators directly involved in development projects. Low-income groups and other traditionally marginalised groups in society can give their middle and upper class counterparts new insights. This is not an easy task, for after years of technical training, the planning specialist sometimes loses his/her capacity to empathise with the viewpoints of other social classes. Professional training of elite specialists commonly engenders an attitude of knowing best,

but, by failing to involve the ordinary people, these developers impose external solutions and foster paternalism; they also frequently make mistakes that are monumentally costly and wasteful. (Midgley, 1987, p. 10)

Thus, people's participation might rectify planning errors by making it possible for clients to explain to technicians-managers what will work
Arguments for Community Participation

13

and what will not in local conditions. It is a wise listener who takes these points seriously and evaluates plans and programs accordingly (Boaden et al., 1982). What an Australian Aboriginal woman said is relevant to the issue: If you have come to help me; You can go home again; But if you see my struggle; as part of your own survival; Then perhaps we can work together. (ANGOC, 1989, p. 4, quoted in Colchester, 1994, p. 69)

Since the emergence of tourism as an economic phenomenon in many developing countries, tourism developers have pushed the process to maximize economic benefits by attracting the highest possible numbers of visitors and building tourism infrastructure (Tosun, 2001). Particularly in developing countries, tourism plans have been prepared by central governments as though local communities do not exist, resulting in a missing, but critical, ingredient (Timothy, 1999; Timothy & White, 1999; Tosun, 2000). This may be a result of the fact that

tourism planners are generally persons with qualifications in urban and regional planning, urban design, or landscape architecture who have evolved a specialization in tourism and resort planning through experience.

(Inskeep, 1988, p. 370)

Inskeep (1988, p. 370) states that

The planners or the government should involve the residents in the decision making process of developing tourism and give them sufficient opportunities to receive its benefits through employment at all levels, easy access to tourist facilities and attractions, and equity ownership of facilities and services... Planners should develop tourism gradually so that residents have sufficient time to understand and adapt to it, and the scale of tourism should remain at a level that allows the society to cope with it.
Arguments for Community Participation

14

Grassroots participation as a catalyst instrument builds a relationship among planners, decision makers and local communities. It creates opportunities for tourism professionals to go beyond traditional bureaucratic paternalism, wherein agencies and technocrats believe they understand the desires of community members, and they alone know what is best for destination residents. On the other hand, tourism professionals can use community views generated through empowering activities as input for tourism plans and as a base to persuade decisionmakers to implement participatory tourism development. The above argument suggests that central to this communitydriven tourism planning is an explicit recognition that experts cannot judge the perceptions, preferences or priorities of host communities. (Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996, pp. 10-11)

A present-oriented mentality makes it difficult for tourism professionals to project beyond current needs and problems. Hence, public participation may generate invaluable input for planners to prepare a better development plan for sustainable tourism development.

Proposition 5: Public participation contributes to a fair distribution of costs and benefits among community members. Tourism development generates social, cultural, economic and environmental costs and benefits. However, these have not been distributed fairly among stakeholders because of the disconnection between local people, tourism, and power structures among interest groups. Eadington and Smith (1992) argued that the current style of tourism development has already created 'winners' and 'losers' among local people. Furthermore, many of the 'winners' in third world resort communities are outsiders who may be viewed as exploiters of the
Arguments for Community Participation

15

native population and rapists of the land. There may be, as the International Institute of Tourism Studies (1991, p. 9) reported, a need to recognize that tourism must benefit the local community and that there must be broad-based participation in tourism development decisions at the community level. Several scholars have recognized that local residents have received limited and unequal benefits from tourism although they must live with its negative consequences (e.g., Brohman, 1996; Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2001; Tsartas, 1992). Contributing to this situation, tourism entrepreneurs within a community may not actually be part of that community. They may be 'offcomers', strangers who import qualities which do not and cannot stem from the group itself, or they may be in some ways marginal, perhaps better equipped to profit from tourist enterprises. (Taylor, 1995, p. 488)

In some destinations, the environmental and socio-cultural costs of tourism development outweigh its economic benefits. The following statement provides evidence in this regard.

Having ruined their own environment, having either used up or destroyed all that is natural people from the advanced consumer societies are compelled to look for natural wildlife, cleaner air, lush greenery and golden beaches elsewhere. In others words, they look for other environments to consume. Thus armed with their bags, tourists proceed to consume the environment in countries of the Third World - the last unspoiled corner of earth. (Hong, 1985, p. 12, quoted in Brohman, 1996, p. 58-59).

We don't want tourism. We don't want you. We don't want to be degraded as servants and dancers. This is cultural
Arguments for Community Participation

16

prostitution. I don't want to see a single one of you in Hawaii. There are no innocent tourists. (Pfafflin, 1987, p. 577)

This quote and the previous one show that local people in many tourist destinations perceive tourism negatively. Moreover, often international tourists are seen as exploitative, lavish, and hedonic foreigners who lack crosscultural understanding and communication skills (Din, 1989; Dogan, 1989). Tourism development diversifies previously homogeneous communities, and these communities exhibit different responses to the growth of the industry (Dogan, 1989). Indeed, tourism not only creates heterogeneous communities, it also changes power structures in tourist destinations commonly at the expense of indigenous people who may be excluded from tourism development and decision making altogether. In this context, Hall and Jenkins (1995, p. 77) argue that awareness of the political dimensions of tourism, and more particularly the uneven allocation of power in a society or a community, should caution us about the representativeness of outcomes of tourism planning exercises. In some countries, particularly at the beginnings of tourism development, the domain of bargaining quickly becomes focused narrowly upon certain material reciprocities. Entrepreneurs seek an exaction fee for public space, an abatement of property tax and other development incentives. The rounds of negotiation continue without regard for long-term consequences: distributional inequities and externalities. For example, Tosun (2001) claims that the Turkish tourism industry received generous incentives during the 1980s, which may be partly due to pressures by private entrepreneurs on decision-makers, which has resulted in inequalities in the early 2000s. In many ways, tourism development has created a get rich mentality. The end product may be that local people increasingly come to feel alienated, and consider that tourists' needs are catered to ahead of local needs, and that infrastructure and facilities are not available to locals (D'Amore, 1983). These arguments suggest that many tourist destinations need an alternative approach to tourism development, which may spread both its
Arguments for Community Participation

17

costs and benefits equitably and which would be more sensitive to its sociocultural impacts. Moreover, a large proportion of local people should benefit from tourism rather than merely bearing its residual burdens. Community based development may provide more opportunities for destination communities that have not yet reaped the benefits of tourism.

Proposition 6: Community participation can help satisfy locally identified needs.

It is important that tourism development patterns reflect the needs and desires of local communities (Inskeep, 1994). Several examples exist of projects that have failed when the real needs of community were not taken into account (c Bradley & Karunadasa, 1989). Thus, projects should be molded to meet people's needs, and not vice versa. While local people do need better hospitals, schools, houses and food, it may be naive to suggest that tourism will necessarily and automatically address these needs. For example, Long (1991, p. 210) noted that in Santa Cruz, a burgeoning tourist destination in Mexico, Local infrastructure was in some aspect deficient and stores could not maintain adequate supplies and groceries for the burgeoning populace. Public transportation was inadequate; buses had sporadic schedules and taxis were usually full. Residents complained that a visit to the public clinic took an entire day, as there were insufficient facilities and staff for the demand. Medical services in the area had improved according to most of the respondents, but many were still dissatisfied with the services available. Many said they sought out private doctors in the town of Pochutla, an hour's bus ride away. [Moreover] the original residents of Santa Cruz did not have cars and had to walk the kilometer over the hill separating Santa Cruz and La Crucecia to visit people, go to work, seek out services or go to the stores that were divided between the communities. As they walked over the steep hill, cars and trucks raced by, forcing the pedestrians into the drainage ditch along the side of the road. The locals' use of roads
Arguments for Community Participation

18

did not appear to have been considered in road design, as no sidewalks were installed. Participatory planning - something quite uncommon in developing societies - may help local people's needs (Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2000). Communities are the destination of most of travelers ...it is in communities that tourism happens. Because of this, tourism industry development and management must be brought effectively to bear in communities. (Blank, 1989, p. 4)

The empowerment of the destination community members is essential to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of tourism (Inskeep, 1991). The International Institute of Tourism Studies (1991, p. 9) claimed that resident responsive tourism is the watchword for tomorrow; community demands for active participation in the setting of the tourism agenda and its priorities for tourism development and management cannot be ignored.

Community-oriented tourism development requires finding a way of creating more workable partnerships between the tourism industry and local communities and developing facilities both for hosts and guests (Timothy, 1998). The participatory approach leads to a greater sense of empowerment in addressing community problems, as well as greater ownership over the plans and activities that result from the community participation process. As a result, community participation will serve as an educational and empowering process for host communities to become partners with those able to assist them, identify problems and needs, and increasingly assume personal responsibility to plan, manage and control tourism development.

Arguments for Community Participation

19

Proposition 7: Community participation strengthens the democratization process in tourist destinations.

As part of the metamorphosis of the democratic process ... the residents of communities and regions affected by tourism are demanding to be involved in the decisions affecting their development. (Ritchie, 1993, p. 379). In this regard, community involvement in tourism development has become a new standard in tourism planning (Prentice, 1993). The more participatory the tourism development process is, the more feedback and input in various forms will flow toward official bodies, which might narrow the gap between the community and bureaucratic decisionmakers. Communication between communities and decision-makers must be a two-way process from the bottom up and the top down. This democratization process has the potential to increase awareness and interest within the community about local and regional issues something badly needed in many tourist destinations, particularly in developing countries. Initiating community participation and ultimately community control may be more crucial in developing countries than in developed countries since, as most scholars claim, democratic principles are all but completely non-existent in the less-developed world. In many less-developed countries tourism has become a priority sector in public policy owing to its considerable economic impact. This leads Jenkins (1980, p. 27) to argue that

tourism in developed countries can be regarded as a mainly social activity with economic consequences; in developing countries it is largely an economic activity with social consequences. As third world governments have placed paramount importance on tourism in public policy, alienation of community members from this
Arguments for Community Participation

20

sector may mean the alienation of people from economic, socio-cultural and even political life in some areas where tourism has become a major source of income and a dominant social activity. According to Wruth (1992, p. 293), a popular government that does not seek popular input is a prologue to a farce or a tragedy and knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. Empowerment is a way of gaining knowledge that may arm a community to challenge outside and elitist interests in tourist destinations. Community members are not only the consumers of public and private goods and services, they are also designers and producers of a product. Thus, as noted in Rose and Hanmer (1975, p. 33) variant democracy is very limited, in that it regards the citizen only as a 'consumer' and not as a 'doer'. In this regard, it is inadequate and unfair to package community values, beliefs and cultures and market them internationally without giving residents opportunities to decide on the scale and form of that product. To do otherwise is undemocratic, albeit commonplace. Thus, assessing the community's regional hopes, aspirations, and values requires reasonably high-quality and diverse public input if the views of those who value public involvement in the planning process as a desirable part of democracy are accepted. (Syme, Macpherson & Seligman, 1991, p. 1780)

Moreover, it is the process of political debate that determines appropriate policy in a democracy (Davidoff, 1965). Community involvement in the policy planning process and decision-making is an indispensable component of political debate. It is now commonly recognized that there is a growing global trend from centralized to decentralized power, where political control has moved
Arguments for Community Participation

21

away from central governments to lower order civil divisions (i.e., states, cities, towns and neighbourhoods). This trend has begun giving opportunities to residents to deal with their own problems and concerns (Naisbitt, 1984). It can be argued that the community tourism approach was ushered in by the decentralizing trend, which results from real democratization processes, and community involvement further encourages democratic governance. In this context, Davidoff (1965) argued that if democratic urban governance is encouraged by the planning process, citizen participation must be guided and supported in the planning process.

Democratic theories have always considered participatory democracy a societal value, which advocates extensive direct participation in decision-making by as many members of the system as possible. It has long been accepted that self-determination by ordinary citizens and other stakeholders permits them to reach rational and effective decision-making and fulfill their potentials (Fong, 1986). If community participation is accepted as a tourism development strategy, local people may articulate and realize their own interests and promote the stability and efficacy of social institutions in the tourist destination.

In less-developed countries, although the poorest groups are in the majority, they are the least influential and seldom able to express their views. Their powerlessness is often conveniently interpreted as passivity and indifference, but the real problem is lack of opportunity for their direct involvement (Midgley, 1986a). Also, state development programs tend to favour elite groups. If tourism is a cross-cultural and international socioeconomic activity, and one of the biggest industries in the world, destination communities should be given opportunities to determine the scale and types of tourism development they wish to pursue. Rapid mass tourism growth threatens traditional people's simple way of life by accelerating the process of modernization and social change, something with which they may not be able to cope. By organizing local people and making them aware of their situation, community participation provides a mechanism for the mobilization of the masses and a collective means of redress (Midgley, 1986b; Timothy, 2000).

Arguments for Community Participation

22

In the context of tourism, it is accepted that the public's right to participate in the planning activities that affect their daily life is now a widely accepted principle throughout the democratic world. (Simmons, 1994, p. 99) The tourism development process should lead to the participation of various groups from social classes that represent the diverse interests of the destination community. This would not only discourage undemocratic, top-down decision making, but also provide opportunities for communities to use their own resources and popular creativity to find locally appropriate methods of tourism development. (Brohman, 1996, p. 61) In addition, since planning has a temporal dimension, planning by public authorities can become difficult and cumbersome owing to changes brought about by elections and other political transformations. This lends further support to the need to involve residents and other key stockholders into a flexible and dynamic planning process that can sustain the changing administration and adjust to other forces impacting on the tourism system (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 199) in a more democratic manner.

Arguments for Community Participation

23

Conclusion

This paper has presented a set of normative arguments in favour of the participatory tourism development approach. It has purposefully taken an optimistic viewpoint and advocacy approach in an effort to highlight the benefits of participatory tourism development and attract the attention of tourism scholars, practitioners and decisionmakers. The arguments for community participation in tourism development were conceptualized around a set of seven propositions that deal with the relationships between participatory tourism development and the implementation of tourism plans, achieving sustainable tourism development, increasing tourist satisfaction, fair distribution of costs and benefits of tourism between involved stakeholders, satisfaction of localfelt-needs and strengthening democratization process in local tourist destinations. Clearly, arguments developed in favour of participatory tourism development may not be found equally valid from every point of view. Some may be thought to apply in some localities and others in different ones, but they are not in general mutually exclusive, and taken together they make a sensible argument. It should be noted that community participation in the tourism development process has emerged and been refined in the context of developed countries. Advocates writing on developed countries have also popularized it. Therefore, these prescriptive and tentative propositions were developed for a participatory approach are essentially based upon theoretical frameworks and principles that planners from the developed world employ in tourism planning (Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2000). Thus, the validity and implementability of those arguments in various conditions in developing countries may be uncertain. In the developing world context, there are most certainly operational, historical, structural, and cultural obstacles to this pro-active tourism development approach (Din, 1989; Harrison, 1994; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Timothy, 1999; Tosun, 2000) Operational barriers include centralization of public administrations systems including tourism, lack of co-ordination among private and various public bodies responsible for tourism development (Timothy, 1998), and a lack of information made available to local people in tourist destinations. Structural obstacles refer to elite domination, clientelism, unwillingness of decision-makers to implement the participatory approach in general, negative attitudes of tourism professionals in
Arguments for Community Participation

24

designing a participatory tourism plan, a lack of financial resources, a shortage of qualified human resources, discouraging legal frameworks, and a dearth in expertise. Cultural limits include limited capacity and desire of poor people, apathy by some residents, traditions of power, and low levels of awareness throughout local communities. The success of participatory tourism development will depend upon many factors including relationships among interests groups and levels, types, scales, directions and stages of tourism development. For example, the existence of some types of barriers in some tourist destinations will have negative implications for implementing community empowerment. By no means does this article claim universal validity in terms of the arguments for participatory development, for some of the arguments might not be entirely applicable in all destination countries. Significant limits to this approach may also be encountered in rural or peripheral regions of advanced economies as well. Thus, participatory tourism development may not be feasible under every condition in all tourist destinations. Finally, future research should test these propositions with special reference to specific local or national destinations alongside the provision of strategies to practice the participatory approach advocated here. Moreover, possible barriers to public participation in tourism development might be a research topic on their own accord, as these will vary from place to place and from time to time.

-END-

Dr. Cevat Tosun is an Associate Professor and Director, School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey. Dr. Dallen J. Timothy is an Associate Professor, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, Arizona State University, USA.

Arguments for Community Participation

25