This document summarizes a study examining the expected nature of community participation in tourism development by different interest groups in Ürgüp, Cappadocia, Turkey. The study found that local people strongly supported spontaneous participation, while local bodies and central bodies supported more coercive or induced participation that maintains existing power structures. The private sector also supported less community participation. This reveals tensions between interest groups over how much control the local community should have in tourism development planning and decision making. More research is still needed to develop effective models for meaningful community participation.
Vip Call US 📞 7738631006 ✅Call Girls In Sakinaka ( Mumbai )
Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process
1. Expected Nature of Community Participation in
Tourism Development
By
Professor Cevat Tosun, PhD
Director, MTA Program
Eisenhower Chair & Professor of Tourism Studies and
Management, School of Business
The George Washington University, USA
September 24, 2021
2. Table of Contents
Objectives
Conceptual Framework
Research Method
Study Results
Data Analysis
Conclusion
Implications
Recommendation for Future Research
2
3. Objective
To examine the nature of community participation in the tourism
development process (CPTDP) expected by interest groups
including:
local community,
local agencies,
local tourism operators and
central bodies
with special references to a specific local tourist destination; Ürgüp,
Cappadocia in Turkey.
3
4. Conceptual Framework
By their very nature definitions of concepts are neither true nor
false: they are only more useful or less useful. ...
However:
If concepts do not have real or set meanings can lead to
conceptual anarchy, a problem with no entirely satisfactory
solution.
Thus, conceptual clarity is important to avoid any possible
normative confusions.
4
5. A Working Definition of Local Tourist Destination
Community
It is an area of common territory where the aggregation of
individuals intend to live considerable part their life, rear their
children, share the basic conditions of life, have almost no choice
to live in an alternative territorial unit, and thus, have to live with
whatever the outcomes may be of TD.
5
6. Critical Evaluation of Working Definition
Should we consider second home owners & non-local tourism
operators as genuine members of local community?
?
share the basic conditions of life in the tourism destination?
intend to live their life in the community?
Do they
6
7. An Important Point in Studying CP
It is different to take 'the community as a field in which to
study something else than the community itself.
As tourism scholars we consider mainly the community as a
field in which we examine the TDP.
In fact, community itself is far beyond the scope of approaches
to development.
It is a subject of sociology in its own right.
7
8. Two Main Considerations of CP in Development
Planning :
The philosophical considerations are related to political theories
of democracy.
Pragmatic considerations are mainly related to the failure of
plans and the decision making process which could not determine
public preferences correctly. Therefore, CP is necessary …
8
9. Forms of Community Participation in the TDP
CPTDP can take various forms depending on the social, cultural,
political & economic conditions existing in a given community.
9
10. 8.Citizen control Degrees
of
Citizen
Power
Degrees
of
Citizen
Tokenism
Non-participation
Induced Participation
Top-down; passive; formal;
mostly indirect; degree of
tokenism, manipulation; pseudo
par.; participation in
implementation
and sharing benefits; choice
between proposed alternatives
and feedback.
Coercive Participation
Top-down, passive; mostly
indirect, formal; participation
in implementation,
but not necessarily sharing
benefits; choice between
proposed limited alternatives
or no choice; paternalism,
non-participation, high degree
of tokenism and manipulation.
Pretty’s (1995) typology
of participation
Arnstein’s (1971) typology of
participation
Tosun’s (1999) typology of
community participation
1. Manipulation
4.Consultation
5.Placation
6.Partnership
7.Delegated power
1. Manipulative
participation
2. Passive
participation
3. Participation
by consultation
4. Participation for
material incentives
5. Functional
participation
6. Interactive
participation
7. Self-mobilization
2.Therapy
3.Informing
Spontaneous Participation
Bottom-up; active par.;
direct participation;
par. in decision making,
authentic par.; self planning;
Figure 1. Normative Typologies of Community Participation
10
11. Limitation of the Model
The number of citizens to be included is not considered.
No analysis of significant roadblocks such as paternalism, racism,
gender discrimination and cultural remoteness of local people to
tourism is made;
There is no overt reference to ownership of services while the
process or the type of CP is apparently considered.
Intensity and longevity of CP is not adequately discussed. E.g.,
motivation of local people may wane over time, or be preempted by
other concerns beyond the community’s control, such as political
and economic stability.
11
12. Quantitative
Local household surveys
Local agency surveys
Qualitative
Key informant interviews with:
Local private sector businesses
Central government agencies
Local agencies
Research Method
12
18. Data Analysis
A. Quantitative
A1. Descriptive
Central tendencies (Mode, median and mean)
Frequency distribution
Standard deviation (Median and mean)
Variation ratio (mode)
B. Qualitative
•Interview transcription & interpretation
A3. Bivariate
Correlation analysis
t-test
One way of ANOVA
A2. Multivariate
Factor analysis
Multiple regression
18
20. Conclusion (1/3)
Participation in TDP by different interest groups varies with their
power, objectives, and expectations from CP, and these also shape
their attitudes towards types of CP.
The overall result may be partly explained by power-distribution and
power relationship among the interest groups and political culture in
the tourism destination.
Local agencies wish to share benefits of TD, but they also wish to
retain the power to decide on how to share, and how much to share,
with the local community. This may reflect a wide-spread political
culture of an elite in Turkish politics – Coercive Participation
.
20
21. Attitudes of local people towards CPTDP may reveal:
a reaction against the prevailing mass TD that has been induced,
shaped and managed by non-local power holders,
a longer term movement toward the need for a new public
administration of tourism,
their immediate felt-needs,
the attitudes of the representatives of private sector and
central bodies may reflect wide spread clientelism that tends to
prevent the emergence of alternative development approaches
including CP.
Conclusion (2/3)
21
22. Conclusion (3/3)
The attitudes of the central bodies may be a reflection of the
“corporatist governance model” that assumes a shared-power
world, but the power is shared among a few in the tourism
destination.
Such a narrow and clientelistic consensus is unrepresentative and
unable draw lessons from the new conditions rapidly emerging due
to the globalization of tourism supply and demand.
22
23. Implications
There is a strong demand of local people for emergence of a
different or alternative approach to tourism development.
Further ignorance of this demand and isolation of local people
from the TDP may lead to develop negative socio-cultural
conditions for sustainable tourism development.
23
24. Recommendation for Future Research
Although this study addresses a weakness in the tourism
literature, more studies are needed to develop a model to better
understand how to involve local communities effectively in
TDP.
Only then will the results of these studies provide a better set
of policy recommendations for developing a participatory
tourism development.
24
