Local Stakeholders Participation in Developing Rural Tourism
Local Stakeholders Participation in Developing Rural Tourism
Local Stakeholders Participation in Developing Rural Tourism
INTRODUCTION
Gearing a sustainable community based rural tourism (CBRT) programme into
practice is essentially dependent on strong participation from host communities and
their stakeholders. As United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO, 2005
in Graci and Dodds, 2010: 185) point out:
Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all relevant
stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and
consensus building.
The above statement suggested that sustainable tourism (and CBRT in this context)
may not be successfully implemented without continuous support and participation
of all relevant stakeholders. Therefore, determining the host communities and their
stakeholders perception and support towards sustainable CBRT development is the
first crucial step in planning for sustained the tourism activities. To further address
this matter, this paper will, firstly, discusses the concept of stakeholders participation
in sustainable CBRT with respect to types of community participation, strengths,
motivations and barriers to participation. Secondly, a discussion on the survey of
local stakeholders, which were, carried out in three CBRT sites in the East Coast of
Malaysia to assess the likelihood of local stakeholders to be included in sustainable
CBRTs decision-making process. This paper concludes by commenting on the
proposed process to enhance participation of local stakeholders in developing and
sustaining sustainable CBRT.
LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPATION IN SUSTAINABLE CBRT
31
32
Table 1: Continued
Types
Interaction
From Table 1, the highest level of participation is when communities achieve selfmobilization, which allows community members to establish their own tourism
operations without assistance from other ventures, especially from government or
foreign business bodies. In certain cases, however, especially when communities
and their stakeholders feel that they are not capable or not ready to manage the
potential risks from CBRT development, maintaining a certain level of partnership
and empowerment, without pushing themselves to the top of the participation ladder
has gained more favour.
As the tourism activities develop in their areas, communities come to realise the
importance of the tourism network and its influences on the development of local
tourism products. Furthermore, tourism is a vulnerable sector and very sensitive to
any global or national changes (Hamzah, 2004). Global economic downturn or the
effects of diseases such as the Influenza A (Swine flu) pandemic recently, has
significantly influenced global and national travel patterns. If such events continue,
they will not only decrease the number of in-coming international and local tourists,
which will result in lower revenue and income to local operators; in the long term,
they could jeopardise the survival of sustainable CBRT itself. Due to the vulnerability
of local tourism to external changes, some CBRT operators in Malaysia have found
it is safer to maintain their partnership with other investors or agencies, whereby
communities could enjoy tourisms benefits, although they have to bear potential
costs or risks from global changes that could occur in the future (TPRG, 2009).
While some authors agree that community participation can be a positive force
towards achieving sustainable CBRT development (Okazaki, 2008; Aref and
Redzuan, 2008; Hassan et al., 2006), others seemed to differ (Sebele, 2009; Liu,
2006; Taylor, 1995 in Okazaki, 2008:511; Rattanasuwongchai, 2001). A community
and stakeholders participation approach may, according to George (2004) and Njoh
(2002), sometimes fail to identify the influences of elites within the communities in
the participation process. For many areas such as in Africa (Sebele, 2009), in
Thailand (Rattanasuwongchai, 2001) and in Malaysia (Liu, 2006), tourism projects in
rural areas are driven by foreign ownership or the private sector or even by powerful
and wealthy individuals within the community and do not contribute much to the
community itself. Community and stakeholders participation are only discussed in
superficial terms but the primary goal is to make a profit for such commercial
entities, and for a few powerful individuals and families within the community
33
(Sebele, 2009; Yaman and Muhd, 2004). Indeed, it causes displacement, increased
costs, economic leakages, loss of access to resources and socio-cultural disruption
among the locals.
Strengths of participation
Despite all the criticisms that have been described above, there is still a growing
interest and awareness among social scientists to implement a community
participation approach in planning and development of sustainable CBRT. Okazaki
(2008:512), in summary, has listed four strengths of a community participation
approach (Table 2).
Table 2: Strengths of community participation.
1. Local issues have a direct influence on the tourist experience: a backlash by the
locals results in hostile behaviour towards tourists (Pearce, 1994). Thus, tourists
environments should be created in harmony with the social climate, where residents
will benefit from tourism and not become the victims (Wahab and Pigram, 1997).
2. Local assets the image of tourism is based on the assets of the local community,
including not only the local people but also the natural environment, infrastructure,
facilities and special events or festivals; therefore, the cooperation of the host
community is essential to access and develop these assets appropriately (Murphy,
1995).
3. Local driving force public involvement functions as a driving force to protect the
communitys natural environment and culture as tourism products, while
simultaneously encouraging greater tourism-related income (Felstead, 2000).
4. Tourism vulnerability because the tourism industry is sensitive both to internal
and external forces, many tourism development plans are often only partially
implemented or not at all (Bovy, 1982). Moreover, even those that are fully
implemented are not always sustainable. Thus, to increase the feasibility and
longevity of projects, all plans should be linked with the overall socioeconomic
development of the community.
Source: adapted from Okazaki (2008: 512)
34
Participation in
Sustainable CBRT
Development
To help conservation
of tourism resources
Want to improve
language skill (learn
English)
Motivation to
Participation
To improve
management skills
To earn a
supplementary income
Barriers to Participation
Government
Overcoming
Challenges
Perceived resistance of
communities as a partner in
SCBRT development
Jurisdictional issues
Attitudes of government
towards rural communities
Structural barriers within
government
Network Organizations
Mechanisms to give a
voice to rural communities
Access to Information
Recognized need for increased access
to information
Rural ICT program
Horizontal Initiatives
Partnerships between
communities, governments,
organizations and agencies
Presentation
Presenting facts and research to
policy makers about rural issues
Barriers to participation
This section discusses barriers to sustainable CBRT participation under two different
points of view; that is from those of the host communities and the government. The
identification and organisation of these barriers are based on review of the literature
and by examine previous research works by Dukeshire and Thurlow (2002), Krank
et al. (2010) and Stone and Stone (2011). However, such barriers are unique to
particular CBRT sites including those in Malaysia and most of the barriers have
been eliminated through well-planned, well-developed and good management of
CBRT programmes accompanied by experienced and motivated host communities.
Nevertheless, these list of barriers may be useful in understand common issues
35
Not to scale
Site 2: Teluk
Ketapang Village,
Kuala Terengganu,
Terengganu
Site 3: SeterpaVillage,
Kota Bharu, Kelantan
Site 1: Kuala
Medang Village,
Lipis, Pahang
Figure 2: Locations of the three villages in the East Coast of Malaysia. Source: adapted
from ECERDC (2008)
36
As shown in Table 3, the main economic reason for participation is to earn extra
income (43%), followed by to improve the living conditions (21%). This result was
quite similar to findings from literature review whereby respondents are attracted by
stable incomes offered by jobs in tourism activities, and with the sort of income that
could enable them to improve their living standards. For businesspeople,
participation in tourism activities helps to market their products and services through
tourism road shows and exhibitions held at local and international level (17%). As for
tourism coordinators, their active engagement in tourism planning and development
(via local CBRT organisers) at the local level is crucial, as their performance has
been the subject for a regular monitoring by the government agencies (8%). Based
on the information provided by the local organisers, the government agencies can
determine any future needs for improving and enhancing the development of
tourism products including training, promotional and marketing, financial aid, etc.
(Research fieldwork in 2010). Other economic reasons are to increase personal
savings (7%) followed by the need for income from tourism activities to pay business
loans and as a means to support their family members (2% in both cases).
Table 3: Respondents principal reasons for participating in tourism activities (all villages)
Freq. (n=)
%
Economic and entrepreneurship reasons
To earn extra income
25
43.0
To enjoy a better living condition (stable jobs)
12
21.0
To increase market opportunity for their products
10
17.0
As a part of requirement by aid agencies
5
8.0
To increase savings
4
7.0
To pay the business loans
1
2.0
To contribute more money to the family or parents
1
2.0
Total
58
100.0
Social-cultural and leadership reasons
To promote local and traditional cultures
26
45.0
To build self-esteem and co-operation between member of the
11
19.0
community and with tourists
As a vital part of youth development to become the future
9
16.0
leaders
As a spare time activities
7
12.0
To increase the opportunities to be included in tourism
5
9.0
continuous training and workshops
Total
58
100.0
Environmental reasons
To help keeping the village clean and beautiful
30
52.0
To increase awareness of and to learn more about
17
29.0
environmental and natural resources conservation
Increasing the practice of waste handling (recycle, reuse and
11
19.0
reduce)
Total
58
100.0
Source: Research fieldwork in 2010
respondents who are involved in tourism have also explained that they were
motivated by the need to develop future leadership, especially among young people
in the community (16%). If local tourism can be developed and offer a better future
for the younger generation, they are more likely stay (Research fieldwork in 2010).
The findings have also suggested that the respondents were motivated to become
involved in tourism as their spare time activities (12%) as well as to increase their
opportunities to be included in tourism training and workshops (9%).
From the environmental point of view, more than 50% of the respondents indicated
they are driven by the need to help in keeping the village clean and beautiful, and
the other 29% suggested the notion, to increase awareness and understanding of
environmental and natural resources conservation. These findings have suggested
that there is a positive change in attitude. During an interview, the CBRT coordinator
of Kuala Medang said that it took more than five years for the CBRT committee just
to educate local people not to litter. Meanwhile, the remaining 19% have indicated
to increase the practice of waste handling (reduce, reuse and recycle) as one of
their reasons.
Assessment of likelihood to be included in decision-making process
The greater engagement of local community and stakeholders in the decision
making process is a critical element for tourism to become sustainable (Graci and
Dodds, 2010). The survey also explored the likelihood of respondents to be included
in decision-making process and the result was presented in Figure 3. A majority of
respondents felt that the likelihood of their being included in the decision-making
process is improving (78%). However, 5% believed that their likelihood is declining,
while the other 17% remained unsure.
Not sure
Declining
16.5%
5.4%
77.6%
Improving
Based on the data collected during the extended fieldwork (2010), continuous
support support and participation from the communities and their stakeholders
(related with result in Figure 3) are influenced by two major factors:
i.
The presence of strong local leaders who command respect and are capable
of inspiring a sense of ownership among the local community on CBRT
programmes. As evidence in all three villages, the CBRT leader of Kuala
Medang is seen to be a dedicated senior district officer who volunteers to
initiate sustainable CBRT programmes. As for Teluk Ketapang, the leader is
a local primary school teacher who has been appointed by the village
committee. The leader of Seterpa is a lecturer who is a self-appointed
spokesperson for the community. Although the local leaders, as identified,
are people of different professions and backgrounds, they share, however,
the same qualities, i.e. they accepted their appointments as part of their
38
CONCLUSION
The scope or context of CBRT is very broad, involving multi-dimensional inputs, and
many stakeholders (with various interests) need to be involved. As a response to
these variety of needs, the participation of relevant stakeholders in decision-making
process, as presented in the survey of respondents of three villages could
coordinate discussion on raising issues in local tourism, and to protect local interest
and increase stakeholders voices/shares over certain issues of interest.
Furthermore, the community is the party, who often receives direct impacts from any
policies or planning outcome, as imposed by other parties (especially government
agencies and private investors).
The study also discovered that an active engagement with decision-making process
could expand the host communities and stakeholders learning curve through: (1)
Receiving direct exposure to organisational leadership and training programmes
provided by government agencies (especially by the Institute for Rural
Advancement, INFRA); (2) Enhancing the stakeholders understanding on the
sustainable CBRT concept by working closely with government agencies through
training and educational programmes such as discussion forum and experience
sharing, motivational talks, exhibitions and educational trip visits (Research
fieldwork in 2010). This new knowledge could potentially enhance the stakeholders
understanding of sustainable tourism including in CBRT development and its
implementation in the local context.
As demonstrated by this study, participation is important to maintain stakeholders
continuous support towards local tourism programmes. Furthermore, with their
likelihood for being included in decision-making, the local communities could share
their skills and local knowledge considered as inputs and provide direction needed
to carry out planning for tourism.
Engaging the host communities in the development process, however, is not without
challenges. Information on communities perception towards their participation in
sustainable CBRT and identification of enabling and constraint factors for
participation are essential as the starting point of CBRT programmes. Further
studies are required to determine whether the communities, especially their
committees and participants are ready to carry out the full implementation of the
programme (i.e. whether they possess the knowledge, skill and good leadership for
the process). Similar considerations are also applicable to other CBRT sites that
might share (or not) the same circumstances as these three villages.
39
REFERENCES
Aref, F. and Redzuan, M. (2008). Barriers to Community Participation Toward
Tourism Development in Shiraz, Iran. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences
5(9):936-940.
Bahaire, T. and Elliott-White, M. (1999). Community participation in tourism planning
and development in the Historic City of York, England. Current Issues in Tourism,
2(2&3), pp. 243-276.
Cornell, D. (1997). Participatory development: an approach sensitive to class and
gender. Development in Practice 7 (3), pp. 248-259.
Dukeshire, S. and Thurlow, J. (2002). Challenges and Barriers to Community
Participation in Policy Development. Rural communities Impacting Policy Project.
http://www.ruralnovascotia.ca/documents/policy/challenges%20and%20barriers.p
df
Dunn, S. (2007). Toward empowerment: Women and community-based tourism in
Thailand. Unpublished M.A. thesis: University of Oregon.
George, E. W. (2004). Commodifying Local Culture for Tourism Development: The
Case of One Rural Community in Atlantic Canada. The University of Guelph:
Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Graci, S. and Dodds, R. (2010). Sustainable Tourism in Island Destinations. London:
Earthscan.
Hamzah, A. (2004). Policy and Planning of the Tourism Industry in Malaysia.
Proceedings. The 6th ADRF General Meeting, 2004, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hassan, F., Badarulzaman, N., Omar, M. Z. and Rindam, M. (2006). Sustainable
Tourism in Plantation Areas in Malaysia: Case of Felda Land Scheme, paper
presented at the NIE-SEAGA Conference: sustainability and Southeast Asia,
Singapore, 28-30 November.
Krank, S., Wallbaum, H. and Gret-Regamey, A. (2010). Constraints to
implementation of sustainability indicator systems in five Asian cities, Local
Environment, 15 (8): 731-742.
Liu, A. (2006). Tourism in rural areas: Kedah, Malaysia. Journal of Tourism
Management, 27 (2006), pp. 878 889.
Logar, I. (2010). Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An
assessment of policy instruments, Tourism Management 31 (2010), pp. 125-135.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.005
Njoh, A. J. (2002). Barriers to Community Participation in Development Planning:
Lessons from the Mutengene (Cameroon) Self-Help Water Project. Community
Development Journal, 37 (3), pp. 233-248.
Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (5), pp. 511-529.
Rattanasuwongchai, N. (2001). Rural Tourism The Impact on Rural Communities
II. Thailand.
Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges:
Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana, Tourism Management
31 (2010), pp. 136-146.
Stone, L. S. and Stone, T. M. (2011). Community-based tourism enterprises:
challenges and prospects for community participation: Khama Rhino Sanctuary
Trust, Botswana, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (1): 97114.
TPRG (2009). Business Strategy and Implementation Plan for the Proposed
Homestay and Kampungstay Tourism Development. Johor: Bureau Innovation &
Consultancy, UTM. Unpublished consultation report.
Yaman, A. R. and Muhd, A. (2004). Community-based Ecotourism: A New
Proposition for Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation in
Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences 4 (4): 583-589.
40