The interviews conducted included open-ended questions about the community’s past and present characterization, the resident’s view of the community, community satisfaction, general concerns, future expectations, and tourism development. The interviews were taken by 34 individuals in the community who were knowledgeable and actively involved in the community, with no regard to social or economic status of interviewees. (Matarrita-Cascantea, Brennan, and Luloff, 2010:735)
As well, participant observation was used, which enhances the understanding of the group being observed. (Denzin, 1989:157) The participant observation methods used, included “conversations with local residents and extra-local persons knowledgeable of the community; reviewing local brochures, bulletin boards and newspapers; examination of secondary data from the National Census and Statistics Institute, university studies and Costa Rica’s State of the Nation publication; attending local community meetings; and observation of daily activities.” (Matarrita-Cascantea, Brennan, and Luloff, 2010:735) Through these measurements, it was concluded that sustainable tourism development could be achieved if community agency was strong and if locals maintained ownership and control of the community resources. This provides an example of successful community based tourism used in evaluating socially sustainable tourism development.
However, not all attempts at community based tourism as it refers to local empowerment and control have been successful, since many limitations are present. Limitations examined in the Langkawi Islands of Malaysia, include government control in decision making processes and weaknesses of the existing participatory approach. In the Langkawi Islands in Malaysia, excessive control by the government limited the locals involvement in the decision making process. (Marzuki, 2008:327) Locals were surprisingly aware of the situation, and knew that they didn’t have the opportunity to raise questions or concerns at the draft plan exhibition for new developments, and if an enquiry was made, it was likely not to be acted upon. One respondent was quoted as saying, “Usually, the decision was made at the top level of administration without in-depth involvement from the local level. Even when they (government officials) went to the local level, the approach used was not effective because we were not able to be actively involved.”(Marzuki, 2008:327)
Another major concern in Langkawi was the weakness of the existing participatory approach. It was found that locals were only involved in the early stages of participation, and left out of the major decision making processes. Surveys and interviews that were carried out, were merely to inform the residents of changes in the community, and less about their reactions or opinions. An officer from the government department did not deny these statements, saying “"One of the failures was when we did the Structure Plan or Local Plan, the consultant carried out the household survey among the community and they claimed that that was public participation. That was right, but it was only a one-way communication approach. I mean the residents just filled the questionnaire without having a discussion with the consultant to draft the plan together." (Marzuki, 2008: 327)
Both of these limitations demonstrate that methods were established that allowed for local participation, yet were not followed through ultimately to the final decision making process. This is seen frequently in sustainable tourism, where the initiatives and goals are established for sustainable practices to exist, but either fail to be acted upon entirely or are not completely followed through. As seen, community participation can lead to social empowerment and can work successfully in smaller communities where community agency is present, but can falter in places where government control is embedded in the culture and where existing participatory approaches are unsustainable.
There are several objectives of community based tourism, as it pertains to economic sustainability of the host community including increased local economic diversity through different entrepreneurial efforts as well as increased self-reliance of the host community.
These can be developed together with locals having direct access to natural resources, which would provide sustenance for the community, while at the same time, establishing self-reliance. (Shuman, 1998) This is particularly important, as “global economic forces and the internationalization of markets have proven to have devastating consequences on community life. In many areas the industrial base has been wiped out and little has replaced it except a growing service sector that, at best, provides low-wage, unstable employment. (Shragge, 1997:7)
With the formation of community-based productive, financial, and commercial institutions, communities can operate under a strong, economically sustainable base. As well, locally owned tourism enterprises deter leakages and promote local profits in the community. Examples of this include the Community Development Association: ADIFORT and the Association of Micro Entrepreneurs: AMITURFOR in Costa Rica. (Matarrita-Cascantea, Brennan, and Luloff, 2010:743)
A balance must be made, however, with the possibilities of economic growth and the conservation of the natural environment and resources. Several objectives pertaining to the environmental sustainability of the host community include local decision making in regard to the sustainable use of resources, protection of biological diversity, stewardship of natural resources, and management of waste products.
A case study on The La Ruta Moskitia Ecotourism Alliance (LARUMO Alliance) in Honduras consists of six indigenous communities which have developed local services and products within the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, that are 100% community owned and operated bringing all the financial benefits directly to the local community. (LARUMO Alliance, 2011) Employment is separated into “ecotourism enterprise groups” that include well-trained operations and financial managers, guides, boat drivers, cooks, and housekeepers who earn revenue through employment and by sharing end of year profits amongst the group. (LARUMO Alliance, 2011)
This is linked to environmental sustainability, as the locals earn income from local employment within tourism which in turn takes jobs away from hunting, over fishing, and “extractive land practices such as slash and burn agriculture and cattle grazing.” (LARUMO Alliance, 2011) This is an important aspect of community based tourism, especially for rural, resource-dependent communities, who rely heavily on the environment. Other ways LARUMO Alliance is a successful example of economic and environmental sustainable tourism development, is through supporting local conservation projects, using all natural building materials, keeping tour groups to 12 people or less, and in working to establish “special use” zones in the Reserve which protect the wildlife habitat. (LARUMO Alliance, 2011)
There are various ways in which economic sustainability is measured and evaluated as it pertains to community based tourism, including mapping, visualisation, and participatory GIS (geographical information systems). In the case study of Marahau, New Zealand to aid the community in future development and economic opportunities, an aerial photograph was chosen as a base map, which provided the greatest visual detail of the community area. (Hasse, Milne, 2005) Anderson et. al (2004) provided the photographs, coloured stickers, and a simple questionnaire to garner a response about the changes occurring in the community and their personal goals for future development.
The research demonstrated, that “the methodology was attractive to all ages, didn’t require respondents to have facility in writing or speaking, was challenging but enjoyable and was an educative experience for participants and researchers alike.” (Anderson et al. 1994:41)
Another form of measurement, suggested by Hasse and Milne (2005) is the combination of participatory approaches with GIS, what is termed as PAGIS. Hasse and Milne (2005) believe, that “There is the potential to develop more applicable participatory approaches to collecting, analysing and representing information from multiple stakeholders and combining those with the process benefits GIS can offer.” These methods can “enable local people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions and to plan, act, monitor, and evaluate.” (Hasse, Milne, 2005:278) By measuring economic sustainable tourism development, greater insight can be gained regarding the feelings and ideas of the local community about their future tourism development goals and in helping them achieve these goals.
Measurements involved in environmental sustainable tourism development include interviews, environmental management concepts, and the establishment of conservation projects and organisations. Interviews revealed that respondents had changed their view on the environment after the introduction of tourism to the local community. According to KI’s, La Fortunans appreciated nature more after interacting with tourists who came to their area for its natural environmental beauty, making locals realise what a beautiful place they come from.( Matarrita-Cascantea, Brennan, and Luloff, 2010:747) Conservation projects followed, with the establishment of ADIFORT came water treatment plants, recycling programs in schools, and reforestation efforts. La Ruta Moskitia now provides a baseline for other communities to copy and develop the same projects and sustainable benefits that they have in Honduras.
Limitations, however, are present, with the power struggles that often occur with the presence of multiple stakeholders that all possess differing opinions about community based tourism. Several limitations presented when dealing with the Sea Canoe case study involve the initial establishment of companies in Phuket and Ao Phangna by foreign expats, or farangs. In the case of Sea Canoe, for example, the high status of John Gray, a farang, have allowed the company to address local mafia intimidation, the corruption of local tourism and national park officials, and the illegal or unethical practices of several of Sea Canoe's competitors (Shepherd, 2002).
This is a benefit and a limitation, as it has been argued that having foreign investment and control in the community is not in the best interest of the locals if true community based tourism is to exist. As well, in interviews conducted with the owners of other sea kayaking companies, Kontogeorgopoulos discovered that “the success enjoyed by Sea Canoe, a ‘farang company’, has also provoked resentment among the Thai owners and employees of Sea Canoe’s competitors.” (Kontogeorgopoulos, 1995:14)
However, with the poor backgrounds of the locals combined with their lack of power against the government and competing companies, especially minority groups such as the Malay Muslims, farang involvement has been a catalyst for positive economic sustainable development in the area; primarily with the Sea Canoe case study. This is due to the fact that the Muslim minority possess low status within mainstream Siamese society, and are therefore less willing or able to address certain problems as directly or as forcefully as the farangs have done. (Kontogeorgopoulos, 1995). This demonstrates that blurred lines exist involving what is the best method for achieving community based sustainable tourism development.
Community based tourism in environmental terms has its limitations as well, with companies such as Sea Canoe who end up threatening the area and community which they are trying to protect. Sea Canoe’s exploitation of Ao Phangnga’s resources encouraged the rapid increase in the number of operators bringing tourists into the same caves and lagoons in Hong and Phanak. (Kontogeorgopoulos, 1995) By 1999, and continuing until this day, the total number of sea kayaking companies have climbed to 20, spinning off of the sole popularity and success of Sea Canoe. With competitor’s focusing less on safety issues and more on income from tourists, competitor’s carry up to 30 people per escort boat, and purchase inexpensive, spotty equipment. (Kontogeorgopoulos, 1995) For example, “Overcrowding and sloppy attention to safety led to tragedy in early-1997, when a guide from one of Sea Canoe's early competitors was dragged under a boat and killed by its propeller.” (Mecir, 2000) This is just one example of limitations that exist, when competition and greed take over medium to large communities and community agency seizes to exist.
As demonstrated, the success, in terms of sustainability, for any community-based tourism initiative lies in cooperating with the local communities and empowering them to continue to grow and develop tourism, while being aware of the limitations and pitfalls that tourism can bring. With various case studies showing ample examples of successful and effective community-based tourism efforts, as well as negative implications and limitations, it is shown that sustainability can be effectively accomplished in community-based tourism only if all aspects of community based tourism development can come together.
In the future, with a growing popularity in sustainability, hopefully small scale community-based tourism initiatives will be key in effectively developing sustainable tourist destinations. And in general, “the most useful way of thinking about sustainability is not necessarily to think of it as an end-point, but rather as a guiding philosophy which incorporates certain principles concerning our interaction with the environment.”(Holden, 2008 :162)
References
Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M.A., and Luloff, A.E. 2010. “Community Agency and Sustainable Tourism Development: The Case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 22 (1): 1-22.
The Berlin Declaration on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism, 1997
Din, K.H. (1996) Tourism development: Still in search of a more equitable mode of local involvement, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research,2, pp. 273–281.
Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. (2002). Tourism development, concepts and issues. Clevedon, UK: Channel
View Publications.
Shragge, E. (1997). Community economic development, in search of empowerment. Quebec, Canada:
Black Rose Books.
Shuman, M. (1998). Going local, creating self-reliant communities in a global age. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
