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.
the Hope Valley described by Bramwell and Sharman (2000). These issues include the scope of the participation by the community, the intensity of the participation by the community and the degree to which con- sensus emerges among participants. Reflecting back on the comments by Campfens (1997a), it is important to recognize that community partici- pation in tourism may be limited in some country contexts (Timothy, 1999;
Tosun, 2000). Other forms of tourism development within the alternative development paradigm, such as indigenous tourism and ecotourism, emphasize empowerment and participation (Scheyvens, 1999) (see Johnston, Chapter 7 this volume). In the case of Nunavut in the Canadian north, the Inuit have the opportunity to develop their own businesses as hotel-keepers, chefs, pilots, outfitters and others (Smith, 1996). In another example of ecotourism in the Monteverde Cloud Forest in Costa Rica, it must be noted that while some 80 new (mostly locally owned) tourism businesses have developed, many of the businesses are small and face limiting factors in terms of costs and marketing. There is also recognition that while ecotourism has led the rejuvenation of local arts and crafts in the Monteverde Cloud Forest, social impacts have occurred which have changed the community (Baez, 1996).
Partnerships and tourism
The importance of building partnerships not only between tourism businesses but also within communities to build on the benefits of tourism has received a great deal of attention in the tourism literature. Jamal and Getz (1995) advocated incorporating collaboration theory to community tourism planning and Reed (1997) furthered their work by suggesting that the power relations in a community need to be addressed to advance the explanations of community-based tourism planning. Based on research on community-based tourism planning in Squamish, Canada, Reed (1997) found that power relations may alter the outcome of collaborative tourism planning and may even preclude collaborative action, a finding echoed by Timothy (1998) in Indonesia. Two recently edited books have focused specifically on partnerships and collaboration in tourism (i.e. Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Crotts et al., 2000). Issues highlighted in the case studies by Bramwell and Lane (2000) on tourism collaboration and partnerships raise various questions that need to be explored, similar to those posed earlier in this chapter by Lord (1998) in terms of partnerships. Are there participants from government, business and non-profit sectors, and from national, regional and local policy arenas? To what extent is the collaboration pro- cess inclusive? Are all of the participants fully involved in the discussions and are all participants equally influential in the negotiations and decision- making process? To what extent is agreement reached and what are the
achievements or outputs of collaborative approaches? Hall (2000a) raises similar issues in discussing tourism collaboration and partnerships, stating that unless there are attempts to provide equity of access to all stakeholders then collaboration will become another tourism planning cliché. He also argues for a broader notion of collaboration, without which, there may be an undermining of the social capital required for sustainable development.
In trying to better identify the diversity of forms of partnerships, Selin (2000) proposes a preliminary typology of sustainable tourism partnerships covering issues such as the legal basis for partnerships, locus of control, organizational diversity and size, and time frame, all accessed by geo- graphical scale. Finally, the importance of strategic alliances in the tourism industry has begun to be recognized and that while firms or communities may need to compete against each other, it has also become important for collaboration to occur to benefit entire regions (Telfer, 2000b).
Community capacity and tourism
The components for building community capacity were highlighted from the perspective of community development literature in Table 9.1 and included primary building blocks, secondary building blocks and potential building blocks. As Reid and van Dreunen (1996) suggest, building com- munity capacity is one of the keys to social transformation. In investigating the process of community-based round-tables used to address conflict over tourism-related development in Canmore, a town adjacent to Banff National Park, Jamal and Getz (2000) found that some aspects of community capacity were enhanced. Developing capacity is also behind the Canadian Tourism Commission’s Product Club Programme, which provides funding for small tourism business in a community to work collaboratively and further develop their products for the tourism market (Telfer, 2003). The sense of building community capacity and community change through tourism can be seen in Bramwell and Lane’s (2000) exami- nation of how collaborative approaches in tourism could help further the core principles of sustainable development. Collaboration among a broad range of stakeholders, including non-economic collaboration, may promote consideration of the varied natural, built and human resources that need to be protected for present and future generations. Secondly, by involving stakeholders from a variety of fields with different interests, there may be greater potential for integrative approaches to policy making that can help promote sustainability. Thirdly, if multiple stakeholders affected by tourism development were involved in the policy-making process it could lead to a more equitable distribution of the benefits and costs associated with tourism. Increased participation should lead to increased awareness of the impacts of tourism on all stakeholders and this awareness
should lead to policies which are fairer in their outcomes. Finally, broad participation in policy making could help to democratize decision-making, empower participants and lead to capacity building and skill acquisition among participants (Bramwell and Lane, 2000).
Community change and tourism
The concepts of development and community have changed over time.Definitions of the two terms have broadened in scope as they continue to receive increased attention. Similarly, how a community responds to tourism development has also changed. Communities not only act as a resource for tourism, they also receive and generate tourists. Communities can be a potential motivator for tourists wanting to experience the way of life and the material products of different communities either around the world or around the corner (Richards and Hall, 2000a). As Richards and Hall (2000a) suggest, as communities become tourism attractions, both backstage and front stage areas are established with thetourist gaze being restricted to the staged authenticity of the front stage region. Brohman (1996) argues that community-based tourism development should strengthen institutions that enhance local participation and promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of the popular majority. Not all residents, however, wish to be on the receiving end of tourism, as studies on resident attitudes towards tourism development have revealed (Doxey, 1976). Other studies such as the work by Waldren (1996) on Majorca (Mallorca) and the concepts of insiders and outsiders illustrate that a community with its own symbolic boundaries and identities can continue as a community not in spite of the presence of outsiders but because of their presence. It is important to note that communities are complex entities and vary according to different country contexts and that they will change in different ways. Communities respond to tourism development, and various groups will be more welcoming to the introduction of tourism and the changes that result in their communities than other groups (Sharpley and Telfer, 2002). In developing a list of issues related to the planning of ‘new tourism’, Ryan (2002) suggests that communities need to be proactive and identify their visions before proposals for development occur.
While the above discussion of tourism in the context of empowerment, partnership, participation, community capacity, and community change fits within the alternative development paradigm, there are additional barriers to successful community development that must be noted. As suggested by Campfens (1997b) earlier in this chapter, in his framework for policy development, programme planning and community development practice, there are many contextual factors from the global to the local environment that might have an impact on the implementation of community
development. Various countries around the world allow citizen involve- ment at various levels, which can be traced through Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation. Critics of development theory state that it is often rooted in Western thought and note that other societies where there is no local voice or where it is lost in the power game of international politics and monetary movements have little ability to have an impact on any form of development including tourism. Other criticisms surrounding indigenous or community development such as problems of consensus building, barriers to participation, lack of accountability, weak institutions, and lack of integration with international funding sources (Wiarda, 1988;
Brinkerhoff and Ingle, 1989) can also be raised in terms of tourism and community development. In other regions, NGOs have taken on an impor- tant role in monitoring tourism development. Richards and Hall (2000b:
298) point out in terms of tourism development,
participation is often a problem of power relationships within the community, and empowerment practices, such as bottom-up planning strategies, are not matched by empowering philosophies. Unequal distribution of power and uneven flows of information can disenfranchise members of the community when decisions are taken about tourism development.
Joppe (1996) suggests that tourism continues to be driven by levels of government rather than community interests and there is a great deal of rhetoric surrounding community involvement. Jenkins (1993) identified the following impediments to public participation in tourism planning.
· The public generally has difficulty in comprehending complex and technical planning issues.
· The public is not always aware of, or understands, the decision-making process.
· The difficulty in attaining and maintaining representativeness in the decision-making process.
· The apathy of citizens.
· The increased cost in terms of staff and money.
· The prolonging of the decision-making process.
· Adverse effects on the efficiency of the decision-making process.
Hall (2000a,b) adds to the list above by pointing out a further problem of using a community approach to tourism planning. The structure of gov- ernance can lead to difficulties if tourism policies are not coordinated between different levels of government. For example, if a local commu- nity-based decision to reject tourism is at odds with a regional or national level plan to implement tourism, then conflicts can result. What is important in the discussion of community is that differences between communities need to be recognized.
A central question remains as to how community development should proceed in the context of tourism development. As described earlier in this
chapter, Rothman (1995) identified three differing approaches to com- munity intervention, which can result in community change. The three approaches are: (i) locality development;(ii) social planning/policy;and (iii) social action. Based on Rothman’s (1995) work, Table 9.2 illustrates
Characteristics Locality development Social planning policy Social action Direction Community change due
to tourism should be pursued through broad participation of a wide spectrum of people
Technical process of problem solving regarding substantive tourism development issues through expert planners
Presupposes an aggrieved or disadvantaged group that needs to organize to make demands surrounding tourism development Goal Process goals of working
together to increase community’s capacity with regard to tourism development
Focus on task goals to solve problems related to tourism development
Shifting of power relationships and resources in tourism development
Strategy for change
Involve a broad cross section of people in determining and solving problems related to tourism
Gathering data about potential tourism developments and making decisions on the most logical course of action
Crystallizing tourism development issues and mobilize people to take action
Characteristic change tactic
Consensus:
communications among groups
Consensus or conflict Conflict confrontation, direct action, negotiation Medium for
change
Guiding small, task oriented groups
Guiding formal organizations and treating data
Guiding mass organizations and political process Control Broad community
involvement in tourism development issues
Tourism planners as experts
Mobilize people to take action over tourism development
Approach Bottom up Top down Militant
Advantages Build community capacity with respect to tourism development
Draw on outside expert opinions for tourism development
Raise community awareness and challenge status quo over tourism developments Disadvantages Difficult to build
consensus around tourism development
Limited local involvement or control
Can lead to a fragmented approach Table 9.2. Community development intervention approaches and tourism.
Source: after Rothman (1995: 44).
a framework for understanding these approaches to community change through tourism. Ultimately, the approach taken that best builds commu- nity capacity for a given community and spreads the benefits of tourism would have the best chance of promoting community development.
Conclusion
This chapter has documented the changes in development paradigms over time (modernization, dependency, economic neo-liberalism and alter- native development), and it was noted that the potential for community development associated with tourism will be determined in part by the overriding development paradigm guiding the development process. In an era when the process of development is being questioned, the concepts of sustainable development as part of the alternative paradigm have come to the forefront. Within sustainable development are the calls for increased community participation and recognition of local conditions. As Campfens (1997b) suggests, several factors have considerable influence on the level at which community development is supported and can be practised. This chapter has outlined the main elements of community development, which have changed and become more holistic over time. Reflecting heavily on the community development literature, concepts such as empowerment, participation, partnership, community capacity and community change were explored as they relate to tourism development. An adapted frame- work was presented based on the main concepts of community inter- vention, (locality development, social planning/policy and social action), which can help in the understanding of the process at work in community tourism development. It is argued that tourism developments around the world are very situational and the potential for local involvement varies a great deal from place to place. By bringing in literature from outside tourism from two different fields (i.e. development theory and community development), this chapter has attempted to add to the knowledge base on issues related to tourism and community development. It is argued that it is important to recognize overriding development paradigms and their relationship to community development in understanding the process at work in community tourism development.
References
Apostolopoulos, Y., Sönmez, S. and Timothy, D.J. (eds) (2001)Women as Producers and Consumers of Tourism in Developing Regions. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.
Arai, S. (1996) Benefits of citizen participation in a healthy community initiative:
linking community development and empowerment. Journal of Applied Recreation Research21, 25–44.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation.American Institute of Planners JournalJuly, 216–224.
Baez, A. (1996) Learning from experience in the Monteverde Cloud Forest, Costa Rica. In: Price, M. (ed.)People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, pp. 109–122.
Britton, S. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World.Annals of Tourism Research9, 331–358.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds) (2000) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships:
Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Channel View, Clevedon.
Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. (2000) Approaches to sustainable tourism planning and community participation, the case of the Hope Valley. In: Richards, G.
and Hall, D. (eds)Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London, pp. 17–35.
Brinkerhoff, D.W. and Ingle, M.D. (1989) Integrating blueprint and process:
a structured flexibility approach to development management.Public Adminis- tration and Development9, 487–503.
Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for third world development.Annals of Tourism Research23, 48–70.
Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources.Canadian Geographer24, 5–12.
Campfens, H. (1997a) Comparisons and conclusions: an international framework for practice in the twenty-first century. In: Campfens, H. (ed.) Community Development Around the World. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 437–469.
Campfens, H. (1997b) International review of community development: theory and practice. In: Campfens, H. (ed.)Community Development Around the World.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 11–46.
Cardoso, F.H. (1979) The originality of the copy: the economic commission for Latin America and the idea of development. In: Hill, K.Q. (ed.)Toward a New Strategy for Development. Pergamon, Toronto, pp. 53–72.
Cater, E.A. (1987) Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research14, 202–226.
Checkoway, B. (1995) Six strategies of community change.Community Development Journal30, 2–20.
Crotts, J., Buhalis, D. and March, R. (eds) (2000)Global Alliances in Tourism and Hospitality Management. The Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.
Curry, S. (1990) Tourism development in Tanzania.Annals of Tourism Research17, 133–149.
Doxey, G.V. (1976) When enough’s enough: the natives are restless in Old Niagara.
Heritage Canada2(2), 26–29.
Fisher, R. (1995) Social action community organization: proliferation, persistence, roots and prospects. In: Rothman, J., Erlich, M. and Tropman, J.E. (eds) Strategies of Community Intervention, 5th edn. F.E. Peacock, Itasca, Illinois, pp. 327–340.
Frank, A.G. (1988) The development of underdevelopment. In: Wilber, C.K. (ed.) The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Toronto, pp. 109–120.
Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Gunn, C.A. (1994)Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC.
Hall, C.M. (2000a) Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy per- spective. In: Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds)Tourism Collaboration and Partner- ships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Channel View, Clevedon, pp. 143–158.
Hall, C.M. (2000b)Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Harrison, D. (1988)The Sociology of Modernization and Development. Unwin Hyman, London.
Haywood, K.M. (1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community.Tourism Management19, 105–118.
Hettne, B. (1990)Development Theory and the Three Worlds. Longman, New York.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: an Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Inskeep, E. and Kallenberger, M. (1992)An Integrated Approach to Resort Development:
Six Case Studies. World Tourism Organisation, Madrid.
Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.Annals of Tourism Research22, 186–204.
Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (2000) Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts:
the dialectics of consensus and process structures. In: Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (eds)Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability.
Channel View, Clevedon, pp. 159–182.
Jenkins, J. (1993) Tourism policy in rural New South Wales: policy and research priorities.GeoJournal29, 281–290.
Joppe, M. (1996) Sustainable community tourism development revisited.Tourism Management17, 475–479.
Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2000) The best of times and the worst of times – structural adjustment programmes and uneven development in Africa: the case of Ghana.
Professional Geographer52, 469–483.
Lord, J. (1998) Building genuine partnerships: potential, principles and problems.
Journal of Leisureability25, 3–10.
Marti-Costí, S. and Serrano-García, I. (1995) Needs assessment and community development: an ideological perspective. In: Rothman, J., Erlich, M. and Tropman, J.E. (eds)Strategies of Community Intervention, 5th edn. F.E. Peacock, Itasca, Illinois, pp. 257–267.
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982)Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts.
Longman, London.
McIntosh, R.W., Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1995) Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies, 7th edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
McKnight, J. and Kretzmann, J. (1997) Mapping community capacity. In:
Minkler, M. (ed.) Community Organizing and Community Building for Health.
Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, pp. 157–172.
Mitchell, B. (1997)Resource and Environmental Management. Longman, Harlow.
Mohan, G.E., Brown, B., Milward, H. and Zack-Williams, A. (2000) Structural Adjustment Theory, Practice and Impacts. Routledge, London.