Peet (1999) generalized the positions of those in the post-development camp into three categories that rejected the way of thinking and the mode of living produced by modern development. These categories include radical pluralism, simple living and reappraising non-capitalist societies. Peet (1999) suggests that support for local initiatives and the importance of community involvement in the development process are among the recurring themes from those in the post-development camp.
Having briefly traced the evolution of development thought and its relationship to tourism and community development, it is important to address the meaning of community development in more detail from the perspective of empowerment, participation, partnership, community capacity and community change.
locality-relevant functions are carried on. An often cited, early definition of community development comes from the UN which defined it tentatively as
‘a process designated to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation and the fullest possible reliance on the community’s initiative’ (United Nations, 1955: 6).
Walter (1997) argues however that there needs to be a shift in looking at community as a social/demographic entity or unit to a community as a multidimensional/dynamic whole or system. This expanded notion of community describes the way in which various dimensions of community such as people and organizations, actions, consciousness and context are integrally related to each other to form the community. The definition draws in multiple stakeholders with diverse interests crossing both horizon- tal and vertical dimensions, therefore including those who formerly would have been considered to be outside the community. As the community is viewed as multidimensional, consciousness becomes an integral part as it draws in the full spectrum of perceptions, cultural constructs and frame- works through which interaction occurs (Walter, 1997). Finally, community interaction occurs within the context of larger society and cultures, a place in history and in a physical environment. This notion of understanding the value and belief systems is also highlighted by Pedlar (1996) in her explora- tion of individual interest and collective interests in terms of community.
Campfens (1997b) argues that community development is a demon- stration of the ideas, values and ideals of the society where it is taking place.
In an humanitarian perspective it can be a search for community, mutual aid, social support and human liberation in an alienating, oppressive, competitive and individualistic society. In its more pragmatic institutional sense, it may be viewed as a means for mobilising communities to join state or institutional initiatives that are aimed at alleviating poverty, solving social problems, strengthening families, fostering democracy and achieving modernisation and socio-economic development.
(Campfens, 1997b: 35) Nozick’s (1993) list of principles of sustainable community development also focus on building community capacity and include: (i) economic self-reliance; (ii) ecological sustainability; (iii) community control;
(iv) meeting individual needs; and (v) building a community culture.
Martí-Costa and Serrano-García (1995) suggest that community develop- ment is a process through which consciousness-raising promotes the utiliza- tion of human resources leading to the empowerment of individuals.
Empowerment
In a review of the literature, Arai (1996) outlined five main concepts con- nected to empowerment. Empowerment involves a change in capacity or
control, or correspondingly an increase in power and the ability to use power. Secondly, empowerment is multidimensional in terms of psycho- logical, economic, social and political change. The third condition is that empowerment is a multilevel construct and the previously mentioned changes occur within an individual, group or community. The fourth concept is that it is important to understand empowerment within a holistic framework, which acknowledges the interactions of the process of empower- ment between various levels (individual and community) and dimensions (psychological, economic, social and political). Finally, the fifth compo- nent is that empowerment is a process or framework that describes changes which occur in an individual, group or community as they mobilize them- selves towards increased citizen power (Arai, 1996) (see Johnston, Chapter 7 this volume; Scheyvens, Chapter 12 this volume).
Participation
Various authors have developed typologies or scales of public involvement in the planning process. These typologies address the notion that not all participation is actual participation and that those in power may speak to the citizens but they may not listen and implement what they have been told. In a classic, often-cited article, Arnstein (1969) developed a ladder of citizen participation with eight levels. The bottom two rungs of the ladder (manipulation andtherapy) are outlined as non-participation levels, which have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. The objective here is not to enable people to participate in the planning process but to enable those in power to educate or cure the participants. The third and fourth levels (informingandconsultation) move into the area of token- ism where participants have the opportunity to speak but they have the lack of power to ensure that their message will be heeded. Arnsteins’ fifth level is placation, which is a higher level to tokenism but the power still belongs in the hands of the elite. The final three levels of the ladder have increasing levels of citizen control. The sixth level of partnership allows citizens to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with those in power. In the seventh level of delegated power and the eighth level of citizen control, citizens have the majority of the decision-making seats or they have full managerial control.
In another context, Pretty (1994) developed a typology of how people participate in development programmes. Participation ranges from passive participation where people are told what development project is proceed- ing to self-mobilization where people take initiatives that are independent of external institutions. Pretty (1994) argues that if development is to be sustainable, then his fifth level of functional participation has to be achieved to involve local people forming their own groups to meet prede- termined objectives related to the development project. A framework of
the process of personal empowerment proposed by Arai (1996) suggests that people move from a state of powerlessness to increasing levels of empowerment though awareness, connecting and learning, mobilization and contribution. The movement through these stages in the framework is not necessarily linear and there is no end point where one is said to be empowered. The process is cyclical or helical.
Partnership
Within the concept of community development is the building of partner- ships, which has collaboration at the heart of most definitions (Lord, 1998).
One of the key questions in building partnerships is whether or not those who presently hold the power will willingly agree to share this power (Lord, 1998). In considering the power relations in partnerships, Lord (1998) raises several questions. Who will benefit? Who will be harmed? Is there a common purpose and value? What beliefs about people and change are inherent in the project? How will those differences be addressed? Who will control the process? How will partners work together so that each partner’s experience is honoured? How will participation be maximized? How will valued resources be shared? Shaffer and Anundsen (1993) state that the way in which decisions are made and power is shared, either builds or undermines relationships, strengthens or sabotages success or renews or deadens vitality. However, in what was identified as ‘partnership shock’
(Lord, 1998: 7), the authors have found that ‘the formal, procedural nature of most partnerships maintains rationality and existing power relations’.
Community capacity
In looking at low-income urban areas, McKnight and Kretzmann (1997) argue that for community development to occur, policies must be made on the capacities, skills and assets of the residents. Reid and van Dreunen (1996) also suggest that capacity building is one of the keys to social trans- formation. McKnight and Kretzmann (1997) established a framework for mapping community capacity, which can be used to generate capacity inventories. The primary building blocks in the map are the assets and capacities located inside the neighbourhood, which are largely under neighbourhood control. These can be divided into those that belong to individuals and those that belong to associations. The secondary building blocks are located within the community but largely controlled by out- siders. These assets can be grouped into three categories including private and not-for-profit organizations, public institutions and services, and other physical resources. In the final cluster of assets are the resources, which
originate outside the neighbourhood and are controlled by outsiders. The community, whether it is led by existing community organizations, commu- nity development corporations, or a new asset development organization, needs to build bridges to persons and organizations outside the neigh- bourhood. These outside organizations include government, banks, corpo- rations, churches and other neighbourhood advocacy groups. Table 9.1 displays a partial list of the building blocks.
Community change
The above discussion has looked at some of the key concepts associated with community development and interventions. As outlined in the first section of this chapter on development, it is also important to incorporate the various theoretical underpinnings as they apply to development and community development. Checkoway (1995) suggested six strategies for
Primary building blocks
Asset and capacities located inside the neighbourhood largely under neighbourhood control
Individual assets
Skills, talents and experience of residents Individual businesses
Home-based enterprises Personal income Gifts of labelled people
Organizational assets Associations of businesses Citizen’s organizations Cultural organizations Religious organizations
Secondary building blocks
Assets located within the community but largely controlled by outsiders
Private and non-profit Higher education
institution Hospitals Social service
agencies
Public institutions and services
Public schools Police Libraries Fire departments Parks
Physical resources Vacant land
Commercial and industrial Structures
Housing
Energy and waste resources Potential building blocks
Resources originating outside the neighbourhood controlled by outsiders Welfare expenditures
Public capital information expenditures Public information
Table 9.1. Building blocks for mapping community capacity. Source: McKnight and Kretzmann (1997).
community change including: mass mobilization, social action, citizen participation, public advocacy, popular education and local services devel- opment. The strategy that should be selected is the one that has the greatest potential to empower the community. Rothman (1995) identifies three differing approaches to community intervention, which are: (i) locality development; (ii) social planning/policy; and (iii) social action. The local- ity development approach argues that community change should occur through broad participation of a wide spectrum of people at the local community level in determining goals and taking civic action. Locality development is closely linked to the definition of community development presented by the UN in 1955. This approach focuses on promoting process goals such as community competency and social integration. Leadership, direction and control are found from within the local group. Rothman (1995) raises concerns with such an approach that emphasizes consensus.
With such a heavy reliance on the local community it may become inappropriate especially if the locality has lost its hold and patterns of life are significantly influenced by powerful national or regional forces.
The social planning/policy emphasizes a technical process of problem solving based on data and driven by social science thinking and empirical objectivity. Community participation is not at the core of this approach;
rather, change in a complex modern environment requires expert planners to improve social conditions with the ability to gather and analyse quantitative data and manoeuvre large bureaucratic organizations. There is a reliance on needs assessments, decision analysis and the use of statistical tools. At the centre of this approach is to develop and implement plans and policy frameworks in effective and cost-efficient ways (Rothman, 1995).
This rational approach has been criticized for its assumption that problems can be clearly defined when in fact they are connected to a myriad of issues in society. Others argue that interest groups should have more say in planning. In addition, in an age of fiscal restraint, many plans aim at getting by without the ability due to finances of developing elaborate schemes based on the analysis of data (Rothman, 1995).
The final approach is social action, which is based on a disadvantaged segment of the population organizing to make demands on the larger community for more resources or better treatment. The approach can be militant it its orientation towards advocacy. The approach tries to make fundamental changes in the community in terms of redistribution of power and gaining access to decision-making. Practitioners in this realm try to empower and benefit the poor, oppressed or disenfranchised. The approach is influenced by the writings of Marx, Fourier, Bakunin and Habermass (Rothman, 1995). This approach has been known for frag- mentation among the groups that practise social action. Fisher (1995) has developed a further expansion of the social action approach for the 1990s, updating one of Rothman’s three approaches originally developed
in 1968. These three approaches are similar to the concepts of social learn- ing, policy analysis and social mobilization as identified by Friedmann (1987).
Before linking the concepts of community development to tourism, the chapter focuses on the work of Campfens (1997a), who prepared a useful framework for comparing community development across six countries.
He described his three-part ‘framework theory’, as an outline for policy development, programme planning and community development practice.
The first part of the framework focused on contextual factors broken down into the global environment, which is becoming increasingly inter- connected. At the global level, there has been a shift from East–West ideo- logical rivalries to a new reality of North–South and domestic inequalities.
There has been a rise in international capitalism, multinational cor- porations, speculative money markets, communications technology and heightened competition for export markets. There have been increases in social turbulence, human rights abuses and mass movements of refugees, immigrants and migrant workers, and population growth primarily in the Third World. The contextual factors at the national and regional level include urban and rural issues, and urban to rural migrations. It is impor- tant to understand the level of ethno-cultural/religious homogeneity or heterogeneity, state of the economy (developed or underdeveloped) and the relations between state and civil society. Finally, there needs to be an understanding of the democratic environment and whether there is a high degree of centralization or if the society is decentralized with a high level of local control.
The second part of Campfens’ (1997a: 468) framework focuses on emerging themes in community development practice. These themes include nurturing associative communities and mobilizing circles of solidarity, self-reliance and the role of NGOs, people-development focus, group and organizational expressions of popular and community participa- tion, social justice agenda and human rights, and finally, global networking and a worldwide civil society.
The third and final part of Campfens’ (1997a: 468) framework focuses on approaches to community development, some of which are presented here. The continuum approach to practice extends from the micro level to the global level. There is a focus on group or cooperative development for mutual aid and social action. Locality development is concerned with com- munity economic development and the liveability of the local environment.
The third approach, structural functional community work is also an important approach to community development as it works towards the development of relevant policy frameworks and focuses on organizational structure and partnerships. Categorical focused community development is aimed at self-reliance and the alleviation of social problems. In particular this approach focuses on economically, politically, and socially excluded
groups. The final approaches include the formulation of self-empowering organizations, ‘social learning’ training workshops for experts and local activists, and an ‘intergroup’ social interaction approach relying on mutual understanding and conflict resolution.
The above discussion has set out in some detail the nature of commu- nity development along with a series of frameworks that have been pro- posed regarding what needs to be considered to promote community development. The final section of the chapter builds on the previous section by linking tourism and community development together.