Comprehensive tourism development, where all aspects of regional tour- ism (e.g. facilities, services, institutional elements, etc.) are planned and coordinated in a holistic manner, has been strongly advocated in the litera- ture. In this way, tourism is seen as an interdependent system that needs to be planned and developed in an organized and inclusive manner (Inskeep, 1991; Dowling, 1993; Pearce, 1995; Hall, 2000). Gunn (1994) argues that all elements of regional tourism (e.g. lodging, attractions, information, transportation and marketing) need to be coordinated to avoid conflicts between industry subsectors. While this view is important within the context of tourism, it has received its share of critics in the past, who highlight the virtual impossibility of including all elements of regional systems in the planning process at one time (Hudson, 1979; Mitchell, 1989).
Other scholars have argued for the need to integrate tourism into the broader development strategy of a country or region (Inskeep, 1991;
Marcouiller, 1997). In this sense, tourism should not be planned alone.
Instead it should be planned within a more extensive development
framework (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Marcouiller, 1997). Such an approach, experts suggest, will increase efficiency, equity, and adaptability, as compo- nents of the industry are planned together and integrated into regional development goals.
Participatory (community-based) planning
Community-based tourism is viewed as a more sustainable approach to development than traditional mass tourism (Murphy, 1985, 1988), for it allows host communities to free themselves from the hegemonic grasp of outside tour operators and powerful leaders at the national level. In fact, Woodley (1993: 137) argues that participatory tourism development is ‘pre- requisite to sustainability’. Grass-roots empowerment is seen to develop the industry in harmony with the ‘needs and aspirations of host communities in a way that is acceptable to them, sustains their economies, rather than the economies of others, and is not detrimental to their culture, traditions or, indeed, their day-to-day convenience’ (Fitton, 1996: 173). This argument, that the host community’s goals and desires for tourism should be at the forefront of development, has acquired a significant following among development specialists in recent years (e.g. Murphy, 1988; Inskeep, 1991;
Prentice, 1993; Bramwell and Sharman, 2000). According to Long (1993), if destination residents are not involved in the tourism growth process, implementing even the most well-meaning and well-planned development programmes will be obstructed by the very people who were supposed to be involved. According to Murphy (1985: 153), ‘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 aspira- tions and capacity, resistance and hostility can . . . destroy the industry’s potential altogether.’
This approach to planning recognizes that the private and public sectors, the host community, advocacy groups and business representatives are all interdependent stakeholders in a complex and dynamic tourism domain, where no single individual or group can resolve strategic tourism issues by acting single-handedly. Jamal and Getz (1995) argue that to achieve sustainability, stakeholders must work together to meet common objectives.
Based in part on the work of Friedmann (1992), Scheyvens (1999) con- ceptualizes empowerment in tourism as being economic, psychological, social and political (Table 10.1). Economic empowerment allows residents and entire communities to benefit financially from tourism. Psychological empowerment is vital for developing self-esteem and pride in local cultures, traditional knowledge and natural resources. Social empowerment assists in maintaining a community’s social equilibrium and has the power to lead
to cooperation in important areas like education and health care. Finally, political empowerment is best manifest in representational democracy where people can make their opinions known and raise concerns about development initiatives. True political empowerment requires that agen- cies and groups that initiate tourism projects seek contributions from com- munity members and other stakeholders in decision-making (Arnstein, 1969; Friedmann, 1992).
Incorporating these ingredients of empowerment, community-based tourism can be viewed in at least two ways: public participation in decision-making and local involvement in the benefits of tourism (Timothy, 1999b). Participation in decision-making means that residents have opportunities to voice their own hopes, desires and fears for develop- ment and contribute to the planning process from their own expertise and experiences, thereby gaining a meaningful voice in the organization and administration of tourism (Timothy, 2002). While relatively few residents of developing countries have experiences as tourists, they have plenty of familiarity with local sociocultural and environmental conditions.
Type Signs of empowerment
Economic Tourism brings long-term financial benefits to a destination community. Money is spread throughout the community. There are notable improvements in local services and infrastructure.
Psychological Self-esteem is enhanced because of outside recognition of the uniqueness and value of their culture, natural resources and traditional knowledge. Increasing confidence in the community leads members to seek out further education and training opportunities. Access to jobs and cash leads to an increase in status for usually low-status residents, such as women and youth.
Social Tourism maintains or enhances the local community’s equilibrium.
Community cohesion is improved as individuals and families cooperate to build a successful industry. Some funds raised are used for community development initiatives like education and roads.
Political The community’s political structure provides a representational forum through which people can raise questions and concerns pertaining to tourism initiatives. Agencies initiating or
implementing the tourism ventures seek out the opinions of community groups and individual community members, and provide chances for them to be represented on decision-making bodies.
Table 10.1. Types of community empowerment in tourism development.
Source: after Scheyvens (1999).
Representing a step in this direction, development specialists now see the value of indigenous knowledge and environmental management prac- tices (Berger, 1996; Boonzaier, 1996; Strang, 1996; Dei, 2000) and argue that answers to many difficult questions about host environments can be found in the communities themselves, for in most instances, traditional societies do not see themselves as unconnected from nature. Indigenous systems of pastoralism, hunting and agriculture are frequently the most sustainable forms of resource management (Timothy, 2002). The Maasai people of East Africa, for example, have long used
large areas for extensive grazing in ways that have sustained natural ecosystems and allowed relatively harmonious co-existence of wildlife and people. The Maasai did not hunt except in severe famine. In the past, they limited forage offtake levels by restricting access to grazing and water at certain seasons. They practiced rotational grazing and the opportunistic movement of herd to take advantage of spatially and seasonally erratic rainfall.
(Berger, 1996: 184) Timothy (2002) argues that in cultural terms, local control of decision- making is crucial because residents have a greater tendency to plan in a way that is more in harmony with cultural traditions – something that can be important in building ethnic pride. Exogenous power, however, results in negative impacts because outsiders cannot understand in as much depth the traditional approaches to unique situations. When control lies in the hands of external forces, community cohesion and cooperative spirit diminish, and practices such as unhealthy competition and individualism have a tendency to replace the traditional emphasis on group welfare (Berger, 1996). Baez (1996) suggests that the success of tourism in Monteverde, Costa Rica, is a result of the local people being in control and working in groups towards the common good, as prescribed by social conventions. This results in more harmonious relationships throughout the community, consistency and solidarity.
Resident involvement in planning also allows communities to protect sacred spaces from irreverent tourists, and gives a voice to locals who have traditionally been under-represented (e.g. women and ethnic minorities) (Timothy, 2001). Such segments of society must be given a louder voice in planning and policy making if the goals of sustainability are to be realized, for they are an important part of society and are affected directly by the existence of tourism (Timothy, 2002).
For reasons of harmony, equity, and holistic growth, tourism planning should also include other stakeholders, in addition to residents, such as advocacy groups, public agencies, business associations and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). It is now widely accepted that planning and development must include all parties at the grass-roots level (Murphy, 1988; Simmons, 1994; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun, 1999, 2000).