Garrod (2003) recognises that the participatory planning approach makes certain that there is a need not only to ensure that local stakeholders become beneficiaries of tourism development as well as to integrate them fully into the relevant planning and management processes. Sproule (1996) raises the issue of participation since it empowers people to take part in the decision- making process. In many cases it is only those who are politically connected or affluent who are involved in the control and management of the tourism venture (Sproule, 1996).
Timothy (2002) suggests that stakeholder involvement should include lower-level governments since they are by and large ignored in the tourism development literature. Community development initiatives have a better chance of being accepted by locals if developers begin to acknowledge that diverse groups have different interests depending on their role in, affinity within, and utilisation of the community (Fennell, 2003). In many cases communities are not consulted before a protected area is created and are not included in key decision-making processes (Garcia-Frapolli et al., 2009). Johannson and Diamantis (2004) point out that before an ecotourism lodge is established the locals need to be made aware of what impacts are likely to be derived from having tourists coming to the area, both in positive and negative terms and how to ensure a sustainable future for the local population in respect of natural resources, culture and traditional values.
Timothy (2002) affirms that participation in decision-making leads to community members determining their own goals for development and having a significant voice in the organisation and administration of tourism. Communities often perceive external conservation initiatives as a reminiscence of a previous imperial domination era and as a concern of elites who are insensitive to rural people’s livelihoods (Berkes, 2004; Wilshusen et al., 2002). In many cases communities are not consulted before a protected area is created and are not included in key decision-making processes.Garrod (2003: 37) emphasises that:
The participatory planning approach implies recognition of the need not only to ensure that local stakeholders become beneficiaries of tourism development but also to integrate them fully into the relevant planning and management processes. This is particularly important in the context of ecotourism, where genuine sustainability can only truly be aspired to with the effective participation of all the stakeholders involved. The integrity of the natural resource base is fundamental to the aspirations of sustainable ecotourism development, and this dependence needs to be recognised by all of those whose activities have impacts on these resources. The same is true of the interdependence of stakeholders because of their reliance on a common resource base. As a result, the impacts of one stakeholder group on the natural environment can have important implications for the sustainability of the activities of other stakeholder groups.
Thus, community ecotourism initiatives need to be founded on the belief of trust and transparency (Fennell, 2003). Actions and decisions need to be communicated through the use of bulletin boards and visual media for those community members who cannot read. Moreover, the relative lack of proper training among tourism officials can be seen as a barrier to allowing community input into the process (Timothy, 2002). Sproule (1996) asserts that issues dealing with finances are critical elements in dividing a community. Opportunities for local ownership are not always equally accessible to the entire population and these are some examples such as the distance of residence from key tourist sites, lack of education, social status and family connection which may contribute to this (Timothy, 2002).
In addition, Scheyvens (2002) states that a crucial issue dealing with active participation in tourism is community control. This means that communities should have the power to decide whether or not tourism is an appropriate development option and in what form it should be pursued. Drake (1991: 149) offers a model of local participation in the development of ecotourism projects:
• Phase 1: Determine the role of local participation in the project. This consists of an assessment of how local people can assist in setting goals through efficiency, increasing project effectiveness, building beneficiary capacity and sharing project costs.
• Phase 2: Choose a research team. The team should include a broad multidisciplinary approach and contain people in the social sciences and those within the media.
• Phase 3: Conduct preliminary studies. Political, economic and social conditions of the community should be studied in the context of the environment from existing documents as well as survey-related work. Identification and assessment of the following is essential: needs, key local leaders, media, the community’s commitment to the project, intersectoral involvement, traditional uses of the land, the type of people interested in the project and why, the role of women, who will manage and finance the project, land ownership and cultural values.
• Phase 4: Determine the level of local involvement. Local involvement occurs along a continuum from low-intensity to high intensity involvement. This must be determined additionally to when the involvement is to occur. There may be cases where government is not helpful of local government, intermediaries such as NGOs who can be used to assist local participation.
• Phase 5: Determine an appropriate participation mechanism. This is affected by the level of intensity of the participation, the nature of existing institutions such as government, NGOs, citizens’ group and the characteristics of the local people. This may include information sharing and consultation which usually takes the form of a citizen advisory committee with representatives from many groups within the community.
• Phase 6: Initiating dialogue and educational efforts. The use of the press is important in this phase as a means by which to build consensus through public awareness. Key community representatives can be used in this process. The ecotourism team should explain the goals and objectives of the project, how the project will affect the community, the values of the area, any history of threats and the benefits of the project.
• Phase 7: Collective decision-making. This is a critical stage that synthesises all research and information from the local population. The ecotourism project team present the findings of their research to the community, together with an action plan.
• Phase 8: Development of an action plan and implementation scheme. In this phase, the team and community develop an action plan for implementing solutions to identified problems. For instance, if members of the community express the need to increase the community’s standard of living, the team may act in response to purchasing agricultural produce from local people at market rates or on a contractual basis.
• Phase 9: Monitoring and evaluation which is often neglected may occur frequently and over the long term.
2.10.1 The need for leadership
A fundamental principle underlying the process of community development is the element of leadership (Fennell, 2003; Garrod, 2003). Garrod (2003) suggests that the development of ecotourism involves a number of stakeholders who will inevitably hold different views and aspirations about how the activity could and should be developed in their local area. Prideaux (2002) suggests that to maximise leadership potential of the participatory planning, the needs of the local community leaders who are willing and able to represent the interests of their particular stakeholders. Garrod (2003) states that the more the local community leaders are involved, the more committed they are to the participatory planning process, the more likely it is that the group will recognise and address the critical issues.
2.10.2 Empowering the local community
Scheyvens (1999) refers to four dimensions of empowerment which can be categorised as economic, social, psychological and political which are used in a multidimensional nature of development. Garrod (2003) refers to economic empowerment as the local community’s ability to make and take opportunities for economic development through the development of ecotourism. Timothy (2002) suggests that economic empowerment is essential because it provides opportunities for residents and entire communities to benefit financially from tourism.
Empowerment of the local community should be the crucial objective of ecotourism since it will assist in the enhancing of the local community in the planning and management process, and in turn, this will eventually enhance the potential for sustainable ecotourism to be developed in the local area concerned (Garrod, 2003).
Scheyvens (2002) affirms that when taking into consideration whether or not a community has been economically empowered by a tourism venture, it is vital to consider opportunities which have arisen in respect of both formal and informal sector employment and business opportunities. Moreover, Garrod (2003) states that a community that is economically empowered is one where incomes are being improved and lasting employment is generated, where the economic benefits of ecotourism development are shared equitably among the community as a whole, and where the local community maintains access rights to the community’s resource base.
Frequently elites manage to secure most of the economic benefits arising from tourism development in a community and it is difficult for some groups such as women and youth to benefit from such economic opportunities (Scheyvens, 2002).
Beyond economic dynamics, psychological empowerment is significant in developing self- esteem and pride in local cultures, traditional knowledge and natural resources (Timothy, 2002).
Garrod (2003) suggests that a community that is psychologically empowered is one where local people are comfortable with the role played by ecotourism in their community, and positive about its potential to continue to generate benefits in the future. Scheyvens (2002) suggests that tourism initiatives which respect and show interest in issues pertaining to traditional culture can be empowering for local people. In this regard, ecotourism is perceived as being sensitive to local norms and is respectful of local traditions, thus empowering local people to contribute to the development of ecotourism (Garrod, 2003).
Social empowerment refers to the ability of the local community to establish the social impacts of ecotourism development. Social empowerment will result in ecotourism making a contribution to the social cohesion and integrity of the local community, rather than detracting from it (Garrod, 2003). Scheyvens (2002) refers to an empowered community as a strong community group comprising of youth and women who actively participate in community meetings. Garrod (2003) contends that social empowerment is most likely to be found in those communities where part of the net returns from ecotourism are recycled back into the local community in the form of investment in local infrastructure or the funding of social projects. Social empowerment assists in maintaining a community’s social stability and has the power to lead to cooperation and enhanced schemes, for example, education and health (Timothy, 2002).
Political empowerment refers to the ability of the local community to convey their apprehensions and for those concerns to have an actual impact on the direction, format and speed of ecotourism development (Garrod, 2003). Political empowerment is inclusive of representational democracy wherein residents can influence and raise concerns about development initiatives (Timothy, 2002). The local community should be involved in monitoring and evaluating tourism projects over time. Diverse interest groups within a community, including women and youth, need to be represented on community and broader decision-making bodies (Scheyvens, 2002). Political empowerment is best attained when power is decentralised from the national to local level (Garrod, 2003).
Fennell (2003) suggests that education must play a vital role in the empowerment process such as providing the necessary means to enable people to make informed choices. Fennell (1999) argues that experiential education and training are important in enabling local communities to develop ecotourism so that it is not just another commodified product where benefits and natural resources are abused. For the process of learning to be beneficial it has to include the local community (Desai, 2005). Timothy (2002) maintains that officials must try to build public awareness, especially in regions of the world where economic and social circumstances have kept locals from having experiences as travellers of tourism, for example, and through media campaigns, education courses for residents involved in tourism formally and informally.
2.10.3 Social Capital
Social capital has been viewed as a missing link in development and has become a focal point for policy, practice and research in recent years (Jones, 2005). However, social inequalities are seldom confronted in either social capital theory or policy and there is an inherent affinity to idealise communities which are treated as existing without structured power relations and conflict (Harriss and De Renzio, 1997; Murphy, 2002). According to Pretty and Ward (2001), when social capital is entrenched within rural participatory communities equitable and sustainable solutions are derived to local development problems. Fennell (2003) suggests that ecotourism may be more efficiently operationalised through the shared information, knowledge and interconnectedness between different stakeholders liable for tourism development. Trust and reciprocity lubricate cooperation through reducing transaction costs since people no longer have
to invest in monitoring the behaviour of others, resulting in the building of confidence to move ahead in collective or group activities (Jones, 2005).