2. DISCUSIÓN
3.1 RECOMENDACIONES
Although there are many cases of varying degrees of successful of community participation described in western academic literature, it is still difficult to achieve similar success in many developing countries. Nonetheless the western paradigm of community tourism has been influential in setting an agenda (Timothy, 1999), although it can be noted that Din (1997) stated that the notion of community participation may not be readily applicable to Third World destinations, because of many formidable operational, structural and cultural constraints to participatory principles in those countries (Timothy, 1999, Tosun, 2000). Tosun (2000) further explained that the following limitations hinder community participation in developing countries: limitations at an operational level that may include the ‘centralisation of public administration of tourism’, a lack of co-ordination and lack of information; the limitations in structural level include “poor attitudes of professionals”, a “lack of expertise”, domination by an “Elite”, “lack of appropriate legal system”, “lack of trained human resources”, the “high cost of community participation”, “lack of financial resources”; and the limitations at a cultural level may refer to the limit social and financial capital of poor people, and “apathy and low level of awareness in the local community” (pp.618-626). Indeed, early in 1987, Linton argued that “Third World” tourism had no record of participation by, and consultation of community residents, who had no opportunities to shape the phenomenon because tourism was dominated by foreign, outside investors and local elites (Linton, 1987).
As an example of this, in the case of Turkey, Tosun (1999) argued that residents had little ability to withstand the bargaining power of tour operators (Tosun, 1999). In 1994 the World Tourism Organization examined 25 cases studies of tourism planning in the developing world, and found that only the Sri Lankan tourism plan explicitly considered community consultation (WTO, 1994). Yet demands continue to be made and more recently, McDowall
- 52 -
and Choi (2010), who investigated residents’ perception of tourism impacts in one Thailand village, found that local residents wanted the government to include them in the decision process, and also wanted to be involved in the implementation of policies. In China, according to Xiao and Li (2004) who discussed regulations published by the National Tourism Administration of China between 1999 and 2003, none of the regulations included key words like “socio-cultural impacts, residents’ perception and attitudes, community participation in tourism planning…”(p.76).
Certainly it appears that most Chinese research on community participation in tourism has relied on introducing Western community participation models (Bao & Sun, 2007), and many scholars believed that it was an indispensable mechanism within the macroscopic system of sustainable tourism development (Liu, 2000). Normally, there are two ways to evaluate the extent of community participation, by (a) involvement in the decision-making process and (b) by participation in the benefits of tourism. The former generally empower local residents to determine their hopes and concerns for tourism, while the latter is always through employment (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986). In many developing countries, community participation has been used to help local residents obtain economic benefits, such as encouraging local people to operate small businesses, or find jobs in tourism industry, rather than give residents an opportunity to make decisions of public policy (Tosun, 2000). Indeed, Wang (2006), Bao and Sun (2007) confirmed that in China, participation in the benefits from tourism may be more important than participation in the planning processes, and local communities only participate in the economic activity, with a low or even no participation in decision making processes. This is thought to compare with western countries, where it is believed that local residents can enjoy participation in every aspect, such as planning, management, operation, benefits distribution (Bao & Sun, 2007, p.24). It is recognised that in the later stages of the tourist destination life cycle, it becomes even more difficult for local residents to conduct business due to the higher levels of competition from larger external capital. As such, local communities may lose control over business benefits and decision-making process, thereby further reducing the possibility of local participation (Pearce, 1989).
Currently, the studies in China about community participation mainly focus on the following topics: “comments and introduction theories in the West, macroscopic exposition of community participation modes in China, and advocacy of the idea of community participation in tourism planning” (Bao & Sun, 2007, p.11). However, the problem is, as
- 53 -
Ying and Zhou (2007) indicated, that it may not be possible for Chinese tourist destinations to completely copy western-style community participation principles, due to its special socio-economic and political and cultural setting. Indeed, in light of Ryan’s et al., view (2009) there are several reasons to explain why Western models cannot be easily transferred into a Chinese setting. They pointed out the: “man-nature relationships, the Chinese predisposition toward taxonomic process, the economic imperative, the socialist market system and erosion (of direct States control), and cultural components including the importance of the concept of a harmonious society” (as cited in Ryan & Gu, 2010, p.221).
Additionally, Bao and Sun (2007) also explored the main differences in community participation in tourism development between China and the West. They noted differences of social significance and points of interest, and the over-dependence of many tourist destinations in China on tourism with little development of other industries. The government has also only focused on the increasing economic benefits, but with low level awareness of subsequent negative effects. Other commentators such as Li (2002) have stated that the Chinese tourism industry and policy have focused only on the economic aspects, which may lead to the mistaken perception that there are no serious environmental issues associated with tourism development. Many local governments prefer to ignore potential negative impacts when writing tourism plans, which may lead to a reduction of local residents’ awareness of such negative effects. This lack of awareness may also contribute to a reduced motivation for participation in planning. A further factor is that, especially in China, it is likely that those residents who gain direct economic benefits from tourism are more likely to tolerate negative social and environmental consequences because of prior states of impoverishment (Chen &
Chiang, 2005).
Second, China’s top-down management styles as well as its strong centralism of government direction are major barriers to community participation in tourism development (Gu & Ryan, 2010). As previously stated, in China, the government has played simultaneous roles in tourism development that include being the operator, regulator, investment, stimulator, promoter, and coordinator as well as educator (Qiu, Zhang & Ap, 1999). As a result, tourism planning is highly centralised by government and local authorities. Local governments and authorities are solely responsible for the tourism planning and development, while the role of local residents was to passively accept all the changes. Bao and Sun (2007) stated that government dominates everything and only make decisions with developers, because they are
- 54 -
the main stakeholders who hold the power and resources, while the community lacks a right to know of planned future developments.
Thirdly, in China, the government owns the land, and has the right to designate anywhere for tourism development (Li, 2004). As such, local communities have no knowledge of any planned development until an enterprise actual commences the process, and communities can only passively allow developers to use their land for any state-supported projects (Bao & Sun, 2007; Ryan, Gu & Meng, 2009). Phayakvichien (2007) complained that local communities felt they did not have a channel to voice their opinion to the local government, and their concerns totally had no impact on government decisions. Fourth, China is a typical developing country, with a relatively low level of socio-economic development, and the majority of residents lack democratic awareness, especially in some rural areas. As such, local people may believe that it is the government‘s obligations to plan tourism development, and it is not appropriate for residents to become involved (Ying & Zhou, 2007; Timothy, 1999). Bao and Sun (2007) even argued that many Chinese local governments had long-standing mistaken ideas that it is because community residents are weak and foolish, that it is right that local government can freely made decisions for them. It was Wang (2011) who concluded that both the high level of central government regulation and very low level of community members’ democratic awareness explain why community participation is considered as being “superficial” in China. Other possible reasons may include lack of skills, time, and money, and decision makers consider participatory planning process as a difficult process, which has high financial costs, and thus time consuming and unproductive (Swarbrook, 1999; Boyd, 2000: Paul, 1987).
Although there are limits in community participation in tourism in China, Ying and Zhou (2005) discussed a new communal approach for Chinese tourism development, which would encourage community participation and help a little in preventing tourism’s negative impacts.
This approach requires the local community to act as the basic unit of destination; ensure residents get a certain proportion of the revenue from ticket sales; and have the right to run their own small tourism business, but should be under the coordination of the special corporation (p.102). Furthermore, Bao and Sun (2006) designed a community participation model for tourism development for communities in Yunnan and Guangxi Provinces (see Figure 2.4). Figure 2.4 shows under a top-down management style, how communities
- 55 -
participate in tourism and the interactions between the government, tourism enterprises, and the third party. From the Figure, it can be seen that all the stakeholders are restricted by contracts and laws that are vital for balancing the interests of government, private sector and community. Accordingly, author tries to use Qiyun Mountain case to versify this model’s reliability and possibility. In the top cycle of the model, it indicates the role of government dominance in most Chinese rural community like ‘Formulate public policy in tourism’,
‘Provide participation platform’; to prove this, current research will find the truth of whether Qiyun local government provide participation platform for local communities, and the extent to which Qiyun local people feel that they have a voice in planning tourism. In the left cycle of this model, Bao and Sun (2006) indicate that tourism enterprises ‘invest on tourism development in the community’ ‘provide participation opportunity to the community’. As such, in the following chapter 6 and 7, author will expose the truth related with these two statements to see whether this happen in Qiyun community. At the bottom of the model, Bao and Sun identified the role of the community in tourism development. Thus, based on these statements, later chapters will explore whether ‘community introduce participation approach in tourism development’, whether ‘tourism enhance education and skills training in the community’ whether ‘tourism establish community organizations’ and ‘foster community elite’.
- 56 -
Figure 2.4 Chinese community participation model Bao & Sun (2006, p. 143)
- 57 -
2.4 Chapter Summary
In summary, the current chapter identified the concepts of tourism impacts, stakeholder theory, and community participation to provide an overall framework for the current study.
Those literatures will be discussed and compared with the current findings in later chapters.
The next chapter will focus on describing the background of the researched destination, namely Huangshan city, Xiuning County, and Mt Qiyun, each of which will be introduced separately.
- 58 -