See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232924533

Towards a Typology of Community Participation in the Tourism Development

Process

Article  in  Anatolia · December 1999

DOI: 10.1080/13032917.1999.9686975

CITATIONS READS

122 2,577

1 author:

Cevat Tosun
Gazi University
30 PUBLICATIONS   3,354 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental performance of tourism accommodations in the protected areas: Case of Goreme Historical National Park View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cevat Tosun on 25 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism

development approach in the Developing World
Cevat Tosun
School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mustafa Kemal Universitesi, Turizm Islet. Otel. Yuksekokulu,
Numune Mah. Dr. Sadik Ahmet Cad. 31200 Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey

Received 4 March 2003; received in revised form 9 January 2004

Abstract

This study has attempted to examine and explain the stages in the emergence of the participatory tourism development approach
under prevailing socio-economic, cultural and political conditions in developing countries without ignoring rural, peripheral areas of
the developed world. It identifies three stages. These are: (1) the emergence of the pressures from external and internal factors on the
central government to accept, support and facilitate the implementation of a participatory development approach, (2) the emergence
of political will at central level, and (3) enacting legal measurements, re-structuring administrative systems at operational level and
the actual community consultation or participation process. These stages are explored and elaborated under the guidance of three
propositions. It concludes that political will at central level, enacting relevant legal measurements, empowering local communities
and cooperation of dominant elite groups are sine qua non for the emergence and operationalization of the participatory tourism
development approach as a pro-active tourism development strategy in a given developing country.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Participatory development; Tourism; Stages; Limits; Developing countries; Peripheral areas

1. Introduction education, more accessible services of welfare state,

The origin of current community participation is
based on three main historical antecedents. These are
western ideologies and political theories; the Third World
community development movement of the 1950s and
1960s; and finally Western social work and community
radicalism (Midgley, 1986a). Accumulation of participa-
tory experience in the social, political and economic life
of Western societies has become the modern source
of inclination for community participation in the tour-
ism development process (CPTDP). The accumulated
participatory experience in other parts of life and wider
enabling economic, social, political and cultural fac-
tors such as more democratic government, high level of
E-mail address: cevattosun@hotmail.com
etc. in Western countries have built the infrastructure
for the participatory tourism development approach.
Thus, the participatory tourism development approach
in the developed world had become a reality in the early
1980s whereas it has not been recognized yet in the devel-
oping world in the early 2000s (Göymen, 2000; Tosun,
2001).
The concept of participatory tourism development
approach appears not to have been fully considered in
the context of developing nations. For example, how
will it emerge? How can its emergence as a development
strategy be initiated or accelerated? Who can help in this
process? In what stages will it pass so as to become a
reality? These questions and the similar ones have not
been fully answered. It is the main objective of this arti-
cle to find answers for some of these questions in general
and to examine stages in the emergence of community

0016-7185/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.003
334 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
participation in the conventional tourism development
process in the context of developing countries in partic-
ular based upon a set of propositions developed to lead
the discussion. Admittedly, this is not an easy task.
Many complexities such as lack of transparencies, polit-
ical instability, lack of information and data about
developmental issues, and undemocratic special circum-
stances make it difficult to simultaneously highlight
tourism and local participation in developing nations.
In the existence of these difficulties for finding evidence
to strictly support every contention about CPTDP this
paper may reflect in part a polemic based upon the
authorÕs observations and experiences.
The literature review regarding community participa-
tion practice and theory shows that there is no standard-
ized community participation or involvement procedure.
Bradley and Karunadasa state that ‘‘despite many
examples of projects involving various degrees of com-
munity participation, there is no clearly defined commu-
nity participation procedures which will guarantee a
successful project in every situation’’ (1989, p. 132).
The process of community involvement in development
efforts differs according to sectors of the economy in a
country and prevailing local conditions under which
community involvement will be practiced (see Alterman,
1982; Chetkov-Yanoov, 1986; Din, 1997; Paul, 1987;
Bamberger, 1991 and Skelcher, 1993; Sofield, 1996;
Tosun, 2000; Timothy and Tosun, 2003). Not surpris-
ingly, there seems to be no examples of a community
participation process developed for the tourism sector
at practical or normative levels. The absence of a stand-
ardized community participation process may be desira-
ble since attempts to produce standard steps for the
community involvement process may severely limit the
flexibility necessary to satisfy community requirements
and to meet actual site conditions. However, there is a
need, therefore, to develop and disseminate sector-
related guidelines or at least advise on the use of com-
munity participation in projects relevant to specific
country contexts. These arguments may partly reveal
the necessity of studying CPTDP separately from com-
munity participation in other sectors such as housing,
education, health services, etc.
It should be noted that this study is selective in its
coverage. In its limited scope, it discusses community
participation in the context of tourism development in
developing countries although the evolutionary model
suggested by this study may partly apply to community
participation in the other sectors of developing econo-
mies, and community participation in tourism and the
other sectoral development projects in rural, peripheral
areas of economically advanced countries. On the other
hand, this study does not cover CPTDP in under-devel-
oped nations such as sub-Saharan countries in Africa
where necessary institutional arrangements for democ-
ratization process have not been established and people
face difficulty to satisfy their immediate basic needs
(Chazan, 1993; Dei, 2000; Diamond, 1995; Dieke,
1991, 2000; Jones, 1990; Todaro, 1994).
After giving a brief conceptual description of commu-
nity participation in general and CPTDP in particular,
this study will consider general characteristics of devel-
oping countries. Then, the study will discuss stages in
the emergence of participatory tourism development ap-
proach by taking into account socio-economic, political
and cultural factors in the developing world under the
guidance of the proposed propositions. The evolution-
ary stages of participatory tourism development model
are presented in Fig. 1. Finally, based upon overall dis-
cussion several conclusions will be drawn.
2. Scope of participatory development approach
In general, according to traditional democratic the-
ory, participation is a political activity, civic duty and
individual right. Indeed, it is an indicator of political
well being, and sine qua non of a democracy (Dowse
and Hughes, 1986). However, in a number of demo-
cratic countries, voting only in a political election is no
longer regarded as a satisfactory form of the participa-
tion in public affairs. Political representation based on
historic pattern is inadequate to meet the needs of
fast-changing societies (Wilkins and Passett, 1971). Par-
ticipation as the act of voting in the periodic election of
representatives is a narrow and restrictive view of the
role of community participation. Hence, common use
of the term community participation does not cover
the more conventional forms of democratic participa-
tion such as voting for elected officials, voting on refer-
endum and other issues, running for and holding elected
office, and the use of law suits (Cvetkovich and Earle,
1994). The central concept of participation in decision
making and development planning goes far beyond the
political right to vote in elections. In other words, mean-
ingful participation should go beyond control over re-
sources and institutions exercised through periodic
election, because such control may only be nominal. Un-
less there are self-protecting and self-realizing ways for
the hitherto excluded, adult franchise and going to the
polls may not mean much. Administration of the whole
system may be operated in such a way that it may be-
come a fact that mass of the people do not have a real
share in it, and in frustration then it may opt not to
be actively involved.
Although community participation as a development
strategy is clearly different from political participation as
a political act or civic duty, most scholars accept that the
term community participation is ambiguous and vague
(Godschalk, 1971; Midgley, 1986a; UN, 1981; Tosun,
2000). It appears that confusion and vagueness predom-
inate concerning the operational meaning of community
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352 335

Emergence of Pressures Factors

External Pressures Internal Pressures
Factors Factors
World Tourism Organization, Non-governmental Stage-1
International Monetary Fund, Organizations, Emergence of pressures
International Tour Operators, Local Communities, on central government
European Union, Educational Progress, and military and business
World Bank, Consciousness, etc.. and elites to implement
The United Nations, etc.. participatory development
approach

Dominant
Elite Groups

Bodies of Central Government

Stage-2
Political acceptance
National Tourism Bodies Committee process, and
at the Cabinet of preparation of
Assembly Level Ministries relevant law and
regulation

Local Bodies
Stage-3
Administrative
Bodies
Appointed

Elected Non-governmental re-structuring as a

Bodies Organizations part of the political
and legislative process,
community consultation
and community
participation

Appointed Elected Steering

Task Forces Committee

Keys:

Two-way communication and Mandatory direction

feedback in a form of based upon law and
recommendations regulation

Fig. 1. Stages in emergence of community participation in tourism.

participation since the concept of community participa-
tion is a subject to multiple definitions that reflect differ-
ent ideological interpretations of development and may
take diverse forms, which range along a continuum. At
one end, it can initiate participatory movement at the
grassroots level without technocratsÕ sponsorship; at
the other, professionals and politicians impose it by
structuring the organization (Lisk, 1985; Moser, 1989;
Morgan, 1993). This makes it impossible to encapsulate
within one definitive term. It may be, therefore, those
decision-makers, technocrats and other sponsors of such
(participatory) initiatives are more concerned with
implementation procedures than definitions.
Comprehensive reviews of the historical development
of community participation have been provided by a
number of researchers in development studies and rele-
vant organizations such as the World Bank (WB),
World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the Uni-
ted Nations (UN) (see Cohen and Uphoff, 1980; Green
and Isely, 1988; Gow and Vansant, 1983; Midgley,
1986a; Morgan, 1993; Moser, 1989; Stone, 1989; UN,
1975, 1981, etc.). While it is not appropriate to provide
a detailed historical account of the concept of commu-
nity participation in the development process, it appears
to be essential to give a brief explanation of the term to
establish a conceptual framework in the context of this
paper.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council res-
olution 1929 (LVIII) proposed the concept of participa-
tion in development as follows: ‘‘participation requires
336 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
the voluntary and democratic involvement of people in
(a) contributing to the development effort (b) sharing
equitably in the benefits derived there from and (c) deci-
sion-making in respect of setting goals, formulating pol-
icies and planning and implementing economic and
social development programs’’ (Midgley, 1986a, p. 25).
Although the UN did not clearly mention distribution
of some power hitherto excluded, the proposed resolu-
tion for the concept of community participation implies
and requires a certain level of power sharing and trans-
ferring to have-not individuals.
According to Arnstein, citizen participation is ‘‘the
redistribution of power that enables the have-not citi-
zens. . . it is the means by which they can induce signifi-
cant social reform, which enables them to share in the
benefits of the affluent’’ (1969, p. 216). In this definition
of participation, the most important point is the degree
of power distribution. Arnstein has approached this in
terms of a ladder or typology of citizen participation
including eight levels, which are classified in turn among
three categories relative to authentic citizen participa-
tion. Pretty (1995) describes community participation
at seven levels that run from manipulative participation
to self-mobilization. Each level allows for the differing
degrees of external involvement and local control, and
reflects the power relationships between them. While
manipulative participation represents unfair or pseudo
participation in which non-local people have all power
and control over the development process, self-mobiliza-
tion describes full control and power of local people
over all aspects of the development process.
Stiefel and WolfeÕs (1994) approach to the defini-
tional argument of community participation seems to
be identical with ArnsteinÕs approach and PrettyÕs
model. They all emphasize community participation as a
categorical term for citizen power that has a paramount
importance since it may reflect a range of possible power
distribution to have-not individuals in community in the
real world. In short, unlike many other attempts to pin
down the elusive nature of community participation,
these categorical and flexible approaches for community
power succeed in clarifying the concept of community
participation, which is analytical and comprehensive.
However, it should be noted that although commu-
nity participation is presented as an important tool to
achieve sustainable tourism development in general, it
has many constrains. It is assumed that the greater the
degree of community participation is, the better devel-
opment or planning will be. This may not be the case
in reality because of paternalism, racism, clientelism,
lack of financial resources and lack of expertise in addi-
tion to the other structural problems in many develop-
ing countries and peripheral areas of the developed
world (Tosun, 2000). You can have a high degree of
community participation in the decision making process
of development projects, but if local elite or foreign
interests own major industries and land, any participa-
tion will mean little in terms of economic gains and will
inevitably fall under manipulation or pseudo participa-
tion. On the other hand, the longevity and intensity of
community participation is not adequately addressed.
In terms of participation, local people may be placed
fairly high up the ladder, but enthusiasm may wane over
time, be lower than expected, or be preempted by other
concerns beyond the communityÕs control, such as the
political and economic instability prevailing in many
developing countries.
2.1. Definition of community participation in the
tourism development process
Community participation as a tourism development
strategy has been accepted and supported by many
scholars of tourism. However, the review of the tourism
literature suggests that different phareses have been used
interchangeably to explain the participatory develop-
ment strategy (see Blank, 1989; Haywood, 1988; Ins-
keep, 1994; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Keogh, 1990;
Murphy, 1985; Simmons, 1994; Prentice, 1993; Ryan
and Montgomery, 1994; Tosun and Jenkins, 1998;
etc.). This may imply that there is no agreement among
scholars on what the term means. Consequently, sub-
stantial arguments have been raised for CPTDP.
Although giving a comprehensive review of these argu-
ments may be helpful, here is not the place to touch
upon them in any further detail. As implied, each re-
searcher should define and explain the term CPTDP to
suit their studies and fulfill their pre-determined spe-
cific goals since it is very difficult to establish a universal
valid definition of community participation.
Nevertheless, this study considers CPTDP as an
adaptive and categorical (flexible) paradigm that allows
local communities in various tourist destinations at dif-
ferent levels of development to participate in the deci-
sion making process of tourism development including
sharing benefits of tourism development, and deter-
mining type and scale of tourism development in their
localities (Tosun, 2000). In the context of this arti-
cle community participation is considered as a tool to
design tourism development in such a way that intended
beneficiaries (indigenous people) are encouraged to
take tourism development matters into their own hands
via mobilizing their own resources, defining their felt-
needs, and making their own decisions about how to
use tourism for meeting their own needs. In other words,
community participation as a tourism development
strategy is based on community resources, needs and
decisions. To a large extent, in the context of a partici-
patory development approach host communities them-
selves determine tourism policies. Hence, members of
host communities are the main actors of development.
This may imply that host communities themselves can
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
only determine the best for their own needs. However,
someone may ask that if the basic needs for food and
shelter are what concern people in local tourist destina-
tions the most, do they have the motivation and are they
ready to participate in tourism? Do people at the local
level have the necessary skills and training to provide
meaningful input? How will community participation
be carried out under the wide-spread political and eco-
nomic instability? What and who will guarantee enthusi-
asm for local CPTDP? It is difficult to deny those
limitations about community participation in the con-
ventional tourism development process, but it should
be accepted that host communities would learn the pol-
itics of tourism development by participating in local
institutions and associations that make decisions on
tourism projects and other local developmental issues.
Clearly, ‘‘We do not learn to read or write, to ride or
swim, by merely being told how to do it but by doing
it, so it is only by practicing popular government on a
limited scale, that people will ever learn how to exercise
it on a large scale’’ (Low, 1991, p. 86).
In brief, the working definition of CPTDP for this
study accepts community participation as a categorical
term that legitimizes various forms (direct, indirect, ac-
tive, passive, etc.) of participation at different levels
(local, regional and national) under specific circum-
stances. Obviously, participation is not an aim for local
communities, but a means to create opportunities to
take tourism development matters into their hands
through utilizing their potential resources and having
more information about tourism development issues.
The main aim of CPTDP is to empower host communi-
ties in a gradual process to take control over tourism
development in particular and other local matters in
general. This can be achieved by participation of local
communities in the decision making process of tourism
development and in the benefits of tourism.
Before progressing further, it seems to be beneficial to
give a brief characteristic of developing countries since
this study will examine and explain stages in emergence
of community participation as a tourism development
strategy under common prevailing conditions in devel-
oping countries.
3. Common characteristics of developing countries
At the risk of overgeneralization, developing coun-
tries collectively refer to Asian, Latin American and
the former second world countries to distinguish them
from the economically advanced Ôcapitalist democraticÕ
countries. In the context of this article, while developing
nations/countries here refer to countries not regarded by
the WB as High Income Economies, as well as about a
dozen oil-rich states and a few island economies with rel-
atively high GNP per capita (see Harrison, 1992, p. 2),
337
some under developed countries such as sub-Saharan
countries where basic needs of people have not been sat-
isfied and institutional arrangements for basic democra-
tization process have not initiated are not considered in
the scope of this study. Clearly, in this heterogeneous
collection of nation states some countries are closer
to ÔdevelopmentÕ than the others. However, most devel-
oping countries are characterized by a number of struc-
tural deficiencies. These common features of developing
countries can be given under three main traditional
headings.
3.1. Socio-economic features
• Low level of living. General levels of living tend to be
very low for the vast majority of people in the devel-
oping world. ‘‘This is true not only in relation to their
counterparts in rich nations but often also in relation
to small elite groups within their own societies’’ (Tod-
aro, 1994, p. 38). These low levels of living are man-
ifested quantitatively and qualitatively in the form of
low income (poverty), inadequate housing, poor
health, limited or no education, high infant mortality,
low life and work expectancy, and in many cases a
general of malaise and hopelessness (Graham, 1994;
Pinch, 1997; Todaro, 1994).
• Lack of services of welfare state. The vast majority of
people are excluded from socio-economic life. The
state does not feel responsible for providing unem-
ployment benefits, general health insurance, child
benefits, etc. (Jones, 1990; Tosun, 2001).
• High rates of population growth and dependency
burdens (Nafziger, 1990; Todaro, 1994).
• Low per capita national income (see Todaro, 1994).
• Low economic growth rates.
• Increasing income inequality (Todaro, 1994).
• High and increasing unemployment and under-
employment.
• Inadequate human resources (Nafziger, 1990; Thirl-
wall, 1990).
• Narrow resources base.
• Low level of capital accumulation (Todaro, 1994).
• Dependence on primary products (Killick, 1981;
Todaro, 1994).
• Declining terms of trade.
3.2. Political features
• High level of centralization in public administration
system (UN, 1981; Tosun, 2000).
• Wide-spread patron–client relationships (Ayata,
1994; Escobar, 1994; Wang, 1994).
• Elite domination in political life (Das Gupta, 1995;
Diamond et al., 1995; Levy and Bruhn, 1995; Lamou-
nier, 1995).
338 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
• High level of favoritism and nepotism (Tosun, 2000).
• Inadequate or no democratic experience.
• High level of political instability.
• High level of clashes among supporters of different
ideologies or tribes.
3.3. Cultural features
• The given socio-economic and political factors natu-
rally have shaped cultural features of people in devel-
oping countries.
• The vast majority of the people in the developing
world have been excluded from socio-political life
owing to the fact that, as UN (1981) argued, they
are absorbed by the daily challenge of survival, which
makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for them to
become actively involved in issues of public concern.
• Lack of education, a high incidence of health prob-
lems and widespread poverty tend to perpetuate
exclusion of local people from their affair.
• Satisfaction of basic needs of majority depends on
government administrators who are all too often
insensitive to its true needs or insufficiently attuned
to its interests. ‘‘This dependence is intensified by
the lack of effective community organizations that
can be instrumental in defining and advancing the
collective interests of the poor’’ (UN, 1981).
• Many governments in developing nations have
focused on serving organized groups such as civil
servants and employed workers in the modern sec-
tors of the economy. People in rural areas living on
farming have not been given enough opportunities
to use basic welfare services such as hospitals and
schools.
• The vast majority of people are motivated to meet
their basic needs and felt-needs by ignoring wider
socio-political issues which indeed prevent them
from satisfying their these needs in more efficient
ways.
• Centuries of poverty and injustice have bred an over-
whelming fatalism among the poor. It can be difficult
for people to gain confidence enough in their own
power to control things for themselves. In no small
measure, traditional social structures account for this
inertia (Mathur, 1995).
• The poor live in highly stratified societies, with castes
and classes clearly demarcated in a rigid hierarchical
order. Religion, language, ethnicity and other social–
cultural forces divide the poor and undermine their
chances of making a united challenge to the position
of powerful elite groups.
• Exclusion of the grassroots for years from the affairs
has affected their dignity and rendered them apathetic
about taking a hand in matters beyond their immedi-
ate family domain (Hollnsteiner, 1977).
• Apathy among the poor stops them effectively
demanding that the institutions which serve them
accommodate their needs. The output is that ‘‘their
plight worsens and their capacity for effective action
is further weakened. A vicious cycle of poverty rein-
forces a vicious cycle of bureaucratic dysfunction’’
(Miller and Rein, 1975, p. 7).
The above argument suggests that the biggest chal-
lenge for the poor in the developing world appears to
be mere survival that occupies all their time and con-
sumes their energy. Under such conditions, it may be
a luxury for these hitherto excluded to take an active
and direct role in a participatory program, which also
requires time and energy that they cannot afford.
4. Stages in emergence of participatory tourism
development approach
The emergence of participatory tourism development
strategy in the developed world is a fruit of the Ôdemo-
cratic-capitalist stateÕ, and wider enabling socio-eco-
nomic and cultural factors, that have been ushered in
by the industrial revolution experienced last century in
Western Europe and North America. However, such
enabling factors and environment do not exist in the
developing world that may have prevented the emer-
gence of a participatory tourism development approach
in these countries. Although there are several studies on
participatory tourism development strategy in the con-
text of developing countries, a theoretical framework
has not been established to lead discussions regarding
participatory tourism development issues. Thus, it is
not easy to develop a proper guideline for a participa-
tory tourism development approach. However, there is
some research regarding community participation issues
in education, irrigation projects, family planning, hous-
ing, etc. in developing countries in development studies
that may give a rough idea to design a model for emer-
gence and implementation of a participatory tourism
development approach. The relevant researches in devel-
opmental studies imply that generally participatory ini-
tiatives have come from central government via
encouragement or enforcement of international organi-
zations (Benicourt, 1982; Gow and Vansant, 1983;
Midgley, 1986b; Moser, 1989; Page, 2003; Paul, 1987;
Oakley and Marsden, 1984; Stone, 1989; UN, 1975,
1981; etc.). By taking into account the given socio-eco-
nomic, political and cultural features of developing
nations and based upon research in development stud-
ies, three main stages are determined in the emergence
of a participatory tourism development approach in
developing countries. These stages are: (1) the emer-
gence of pressures from internal and external factors
on central governments of developing countries to
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
accept, support and facilitate implementation of a par-
ticipatory development approach, (2) the emergence of
political will at the central level, and (3) enacting legal
measurements, re-structuring administrative system at
operational level, and the actual community participa-
tion process. These stages are figuratively shown in
Fig. 1.
Moreover, a set of three propositions is developed be-
low as a guide to these stages, for managers, planners
and researchers studying the domain of participatory
tourism development approaches. They relate to the
main stages in emergence of a participatory tourism
development approach as a planning and destination
management tools. Each proposition is considered as
an essential requisite for emergence of a participatory
tourism development approach. The propositions are
based upon the premise that this domain is a product
of a certain level of achievement in economic, political,
cultural and social development in developing countries
and peripheral areas of the developed world sharing
many of the same characteristics given for developing
nations. A higher level of development in economic, so-
cial and political life ushers in better conditions for the
emergence of a participatory tourism development ap-
proach. Generally speaking, these propositions support
the adage that tourism does not bring development,
but development brings tourism (Tosun et al., 2003).
Evidently, ‘‘the tourism sector is a small element of
prevailing sophisticated socio-political, cultural and
economic system in developing countries. Hence, achiev-
ing sustainable tourism development largely depends
upon this macro socio-political and economic structure,
and as a small element of this macro system, the tourism
sector cannot develop itself in a sustainable manner’’
(Tosun, 1998, p. 602). The participatory development
model offers a dynamic and flexible approach for har-
monizing and incorporating the often diverse views
and interests. Thus, it is a useful tool to achieve a com-
munity-responsive, community driven, community-sen-
sitive and sustainable tourism development in
culturally sensitive tourist destinations.
4.1. Proposition one and stage one
External and internal pressures on the central govern-
ment of developing countries are required to take initia-
tives for the emergence of a participatory tourism
development approach since there is lack of political will
at the central level in many developing countries to
implement CPTDP because of its implications for the
distribution of power and resources (Tosun, 2000).
The implication of such a formidable political obstacle
is that deliberate help and collaboration of national
and international organizations are essential to over-
come this political obstacle to facilitate emergence of
participatory tourism development approach.
339
At this stage, the question of who will initiate CPTDP
should be answered. In this regard, the role of govern-
ment is essential. Particularly, central government and,
civil and military elites must be forced and encouraged
to accept and support community participation. It is ar-
gued that ‘‘in promoting popular participation, govern-
ments must be prepared to accept its consequences,
among which could be a re-alignment of political and
economic power at the local, intermediate and national
levels’’ (UN, 1981, p. 6). Otherwise, it seems to be impos-
sible to formulate and implement a participatory tourism
development strategy in developing countries. But one
can rightly ask that ‘‘why should central government
and the elite groups do this?’’ Oakley and Marsden rec-
ognize that ‘‘The concept of participation as empower-
ing. . . faces formidable barriers and that it is. . . difficult
to imagine governments and local established structures
offering other than powerful opposition’’ (1984, p. 27).
The past experiences of community involvement prac-
tices suggest that some pressures or push factors seem
to be necessary to initiate a participatory tourism devel-
opment approach in the developing world (Harrison,
1994; Göymen, 2000; Oakley and Marsden, 1984; UNDP
and WTO, 1992 cited in Inskeep, 1994; Tosun, 2000).
Moreover, the socio-cultural, economic and political
structures of many developing countries reveal that the
emergence of a participatory tourism development ap-
proach from these countriesÕ internal dynamics seem to
be very difficult in the foreseeable future without some
exogenous pressures. The case of Iraq and many other
countries in the Middle-East may be a good example in
this regard. That is to say, some push factors are needed
for inducing the internal dynamics of developing coun-
tries to overcome elite opposition to alternative develop-
ment strategies such as community participation, and for
encouraging central governments to initiate participa-
tory development strategy.
The reader is reminded here that these arguments for
creating pressures on central governments and various
elite groups of developing nations not to oppose to par-
ticipatory development approach should not imply that
this study suffers from an inherent belief in top-down or
centralized approaches to encourage community partic-
ipation. It should be clearly underlined that highly cen-
tralized and over-empowered governments in many
developing countries have very strong opposition to
decentralize some of their power and implement alterna-
tive development strategies (Tosun and Timothy, 2001).
Therefore, external pressures are needed to force these
central governments to facilitate the implementation of
the participatory development approach in the absence
of strong internal pressure factors. However, for the
sustainability of a participatory development strategy
local people and local organizations including local
non-governmental organizations and elected local bod-
ies must be empowered.
340 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
The historical, political and economic situations in
many developing countries may recommend that possi-
ble sources of the external pressures as push factors
would be various departments of the UN, WB, Interna-
tional Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU),
World Tourism Organization (WTO), international tour
operators and multinational companies, etc. For exam-
ple, some of these organizations can provide financial re-
sources in the form of loans and aid for the governments
of developing countries to finance participatory initia-
tives in tourism. They can also share their experience
via direct help of their human capital. They can give free
consultancy service to establish non-governmental
organizations in local tourist destinations to encourage
local people to take part in tourism development. In
other words, through various financial, technical and
political instruments these organizations can play an
important role in the emergence of participatory tourism
development strategy in the developing world.
As Stiefel and Wolfe (1994, p. 212) state, ‘‘interna-
tional organizations, the international lending insti-
tutions, major donor countries and development
co-operations agencies increasingly have become the
prime force behind community development programs,
community involvement and development of self-help
initiatives at the grassroots level. This is not surprising
owing to the fact that most developing states have prob-
ably not much choice but to follow what these prime
forces recommend’’. Evidently, these international
organizations have already made substantial contribu-
tions to the current socio-economic and political struc-
ture of many developing countries such as Turkey,
Egypt, India, Mexico, Argentina, etc. Particularly, the
IMF and WB have played very active and important
roles in determining strategies for the economy of these
countries by structuring economic adjustments pack-
ages. However, although these organizations typically
interact with the central governments of the developing
countries, there appear to be no cases (tourism and/or
non-tourism) where they have successfully worked with
local groups. Moreover, as the current political and eco-
nomic crisis in these countries show, the present strate-
gies designed and recommended by these international
organizations have isolated a vast majority of the people
from their affairs and almost put them out of the eco-
nomic and political system of these countries. This may
suggest that these organizations should find ways to
work directly and more closely with local groups. There
seems to be enough good reasons for some of those inter-
national organizations to put pressures on governments
of these countries to initiate participatory development
approaches as an alternative development strategy. While
they are encouraging central governments and the elite
groups to accept and support CPTDP, they should also
help local communities and local non-governmental
organizations to take part in their affairs including tour-
ism development. This may be achieved by providing
financial supports, giving consultancy services and train-
ing local communities to organize themselves to partici-
pate more actively in socio-political and economic
affairs affecting their daily life. Tourism may be used as
a pilot sector for participatory initiatives since tourism
development has wider impacts on socio-cultural, eco-
nomic and political structures of host communities in
developing nations. These strategies may also be valid
for peripheral areas of the developed world. The IMF
and WB can encourage developing countries to imple-
ment a participatory tourism development approach by
using outstanding external debts of these countries as a
pressure tool. They can require this as pre-conditions
of loans. On the other hand, for example, Turkey is eager
to join the EU. Thus, the EU has the opportunity to put
pressure on Turkish governments to move towards par-
ticipatory development approach in general and tourism
in particular as it is doing for resolution of the conflict
over Cyprus between Turkey and Greece.
As Tosun and Jenkins (1998) argue, the WB and Uni-
ted Nations Development Program (UNDP) working in
conjunction with specialist agencies such as the Interna-
tional Labor Organization and WTO acting as Execut-
ing Agencies for tourism projects have played an
increasingly significant role in supporting tourism plan-
ning and development in developing countries. In the
1990s the UN via its Lome Convention has provided
the major source of funding for tourism planning and
investment programs for Eastern European coun-
tries. However, these international organizations have
focused on ensuring that commissioned studies are pro-
fessionally executed. Hence, they tend to select the
established multinational companies to undertake these
major studies. As a result, the way in which these inter-
national organizations have tried to help developing
countries to develop tourism plans and investment pro-
jects has increased dependency by the developing coun-
tries on the developed world. Moreover, such efforts of
the international organization to facilitate tourism
development in developing countries have intensified
non-participation of indigenous people in tourism devel-
opment since the international consulting companies,
which have executed the commissioned studies, have gi-
ven little attention to indigenous local organizations and
consulting companies. This lack of institutional co-oper-
ation has also contributed to emergence of the reality
that in developing countries tourism is an industry for
foreigners run by foreigners.
Although some agencies such as the UNDP stimu-
lates developing countriesÕ governments to appoint rele-
vant indigenous bodies such as the National Tourist
Board/Ministry of Tourism to act as executing agencies
for some projects (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998), more sys-
tematic and localized efforts of international organiza-
tions are needed for the emergence and success of
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
participatory tourism development approach. On the
other hand, it should be reminded that, historically,
international donor agencies have given loans and finan-
cial aid to central governments of developing countries
to accelerate industrialization processes. However, evi-
dences from Argentina, Turkey, Mexico, India, etc. sug-
gest that these financial resources made available to
central bodies of these countries seem to have been
wasted owing to the corrupt party politics, nepotism
and wide-spread patron–client relationships. For exam-
ple, the last economic crisis emerged in Turkey because
of corrupt-party politics and allocation of public re-
sources including loans borrowed from international
agencies based-upon patron–client relationships, rather
than entrepreneurial-skills and qualifications (Tosun
et al., 2003). Thus, international donor agencies should
give financial support to developing countries based-
upon certain pre-conditions such as transparent eco-
nomic policies, establishment of democratic institutions,
empowerment of non-governmental organizations and
enacting laws that guarantee freedom of speech and reli-
gion, decentralization and equal opportunity right for
job, education, health services, etc. Ultimately, these
democratic developments may create a better climate
for CPTDP.
4.2. Proposition two and stage two
Legal structures in many developing countries do not
encourage local people to participate in their local af-
fairs; rather the legislative structure puts a distance be-
tween grass-roots and formal authorities, and it is
difficult to understand how it is operated from a lay per-
sonÕs point of view. Without a proper legal back-up,
mere political will at the central level cannot make com-
munity participation a reality in many developing coun-
tries where the ruling partyÕs access to immense state
resources, and the clientelistic tradition that gives the
political class wide scope in distributing state resources.
Thus, political acceptance of participatory tourism
development strategy at the central level should manifest
itself via enacting relevant legal measurements.
The second stage in the emergence of participatory
tourism development approach is the process of estab-
lishing legal structure and developing institutional
arrangements for participatory development approach
by the central government.
A necessary condition for the effectiveness of pop-
ular participation in development is its endorse-
ment as a national policy. Popular participation
in development increases in scope when the gov-
ernment and other national institutions go beyond
this Ôacceptance in principleÕ and give it political
legitimacy and legal standing by facilitating its
inclusion in development activities (UN, 1981, p. 6).
341
Evidently, ‘‘even states with non-authoritarian rule
share fundamental characteristics with developing world
authoritarian states; their manifestations are different
from those prevailing in western countries’’ (Sangmpam,
1992, p. 401). However, Ô‘‘where governments are
authoritarian-personalist, oligarchic, or radical-collec-
tivist, there is a tendency for the authorities to prevent,
limit or manipulate popular involvement in decision
making. Too much participation may be viewed as
politically threatening or economically damaging so that
de-participation, a conscious attempt to reduce partici-
pation, comes to be favored’’ (Hughes, 1985, p. 53).
The above discussion suggests that political accept-
ance of and developing legal structure for CPTDP at
the central level is essential for its effective implementa-
tion. To Bradley and Karunadasa (1989), failure of
many participatory development projects stems from
lack of support from relevant institutions or absence
of proper institutional arrangements. In brief, this stage
has two important sub-stages. The first is the political
process within which the approach will be proposed
and discussed among and between various ministries
in national assemblies of developing countries. The sec-
ond is a legislative and regulative process. This process
seems to be very important since it will structure and
give guidelines for the implementation of the participa-
tory development approach at operational level.
To Smith (1984), the legal right and opportunities to
participate are some of the pre-requisites for community
participation in the development process. It goes with-
out stating that there is a substantial distinction between
the legal right to participate and the discretionary
opportunity afforded participation by decision-makers.
Moreover, as Hughes (1985) contends, often-official atti-
tudes towards popular participation are ambivalent.
Although governments may proclaim the value of com-
munity participation as their policy statement, the prac-
tice may be less consistent with such proclamations.
Thus, one can find examples wherein participatory proc-
esses are periodically undermined by the withholding of
information, resources or real freedom of action or at-
tempts by governments to use community participation
as a means of co-opting popular effort and support for
centralized decisions, rather than for delegating real
power over decision making and resources to local-
level bodies concerned with development. Experiences
regarding community participation suggest that ‘‘wide
participation was often precluded by the locus standi
provision of tort law’’ (Smith, 1984, p. 254). In this re-
gard, it is stated that ‘‘the education of local residents
and the involvement of local in the economic benefits
of tourism are happening in theory. . . However, resi-
dents and other stakeholders participation in decision
making has not been recognized as important in plan-
ning documents, nor has it been addressed in prac-
tice. . .’’ (Timothy, 1999, p. 33). Thus, the legal right to
342 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
participate in the tourism development process should
encourage and reward local people. For example, ex-
penses of the local people to take part in the participa-
tory activities of tourism development should be
covered. These kinds of expenses should not be seen
only for participatory activities, but they should also
be accepted as basic expenses on citizen education to
achieve conscientization of the local people with regard
to the complexities and the potential impacts of tourism
development, which is badly needed in the developing
world (see Mitchell and Reid, 2001).
National tourist boards and national planning organ-
izations of developing countries should prepare compre-
hensive proposals for legislation and regulation of
participatory tourism development approach with col-
laboration of each other, experts at universities, NGOs
and private sectors. At this point, lessons should be de-
rived from the participatory development programs
supervised by international aid agencies such as the
WB, UN and WTO. If necessary, views of these organ-
izations should be taken. Implementing the approach in
a few local tourist destinations should do pilot-test of
participatory development approach. Based upon the
test results, the legislation and regulation should be re-
vised and improved.
4.3. Proposition three and stage three
Although participatory rights as legal protection and
political acceptance are essential, they do not themselves
guarantee authentic CPTDP due to lack of powerful
institutions at local level to design and operate partici-
patory tourism development approach. This partly con-
firms de KadtÕs (1979) assertion that the ability of local
authorities to impose laws and regulations are limited
and directed by important interest groups outside the
community in the developing world. Thus, formulation
and implementation of any kind of community partici-
pation approach requires decentralization of the politi-
cal, administrative and financial powers of central
government to local government at least to some extent.
It is essential to establish or re-organize local institutions
to defend, protect and reflect concerns and interests of
local people for effective participatory development
approach.
Legislation and regulation should specify administra-
tive structuring and institutional arrangements at the
operational level. This also has a crucial role in the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of CPTDP. Members of the
municipal and provincial councils (elected), neighbor-
hood headmen (elected) and representatives of local
non-governmental organizations including religious
organizations, ethnic societies, and environmentalist
groups should assign a task force to lead community
participation and to establish a steering committee
(SC) whose members should be elected from the mem-
bers of the municipal council, provincial government
and neighborhood headmen. Particularly, popularly
elected local bodies and local non-governmental organ-
izations should have a mandatory legal right to manage
and control the participatory development process at the
local level, the other local bodies should have a right to
take part in the participatory development process at a
non-decisive level. This SC may be named as Local
Development Organization (LDO).
A task force, whose members should work under
the management and supervision of the LDO, should
be appointed by the elected local bodies and local
non-governmental organizations to conduct community
participation and consultation. Members of the task
force should cover more than professional people in
the Western planning and development model. The task
force may consist of enthusiastic local champions, NGO
workers and leaders, tourism operators and professional
people from different disciplines. The LDO should ap-
proach universities, national planning organization, na-
tional tourist board, relevant ministries, NGOs and
private sector to get experts to be employed as volunteer
consultants to the task force for a certain period of time.
In this process, there should be two-way communication
and continuous feedback between the task force and
LDO. Members of LDO should personally join in the
community participation and consultation activities. If
there is conflict between LDO and the task force, the
local bodies should resolve the problems.
Emergence of the steering committee and the task
force may bring about the following advantages: (1)
there will be a certain group of people responsible for
tourism development, management and control, (2) the
committee may use effectively potential political power
of the host community to meet the needs of the local
people, (3) the committee may prevent various interest
groups from exploiting the host community, and (4)
the committee may help local authorities impose the
laws and regulations by learning from their experience.
However, it should be kept in mind that while the SC
provides much valuable input into tourism devel-
opment, this community group tends to act more like
traditional planners who ignore preferences of the com-
munity as they become more informed or sophisticated
about the tourism development issues (Syme and Eaton,
1989).
Moreover, it should be accepted that Western notions
of public participation may not be readily transferred to
the developing world. A relatively small group of indi-
viduals can exercise control over dominant resources
and personnel, and control the outcome of all key deci-
sions within the community. Increased local participa-
tion may simply transfer control over development
from one elite group to another (Brohman, 1996; Tosun,
2000). Thus, the tourism task force and/or steering com-
mittee may in fact be local elite that exploit their special
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
knowledge and contacts to take advantage of local com-
munities. That is to say, the committee cannot be as-
sumed to be neutral from the start, let alone as the
process gets underway and various factions (whether
private or public) begin to lobby hard. Power cannot
be swept aside by any task force, whether legitimate or
otherwise. Often dedicated but naive professionals tend
to emphasize a focalized view of problems, rather than
seeing them as dimensions of a totality. This may sug-
gest that local people should be helped to establish a
counter power against local elite who tend to circumvent
best-intentioned efforts at participation if community-
based tourism projects are to succeed. This may be
achieved by empowering local people by supporting
them to own and operate establishments (businesses)
in the tourism sector and educating them to control
development in general. However, it is not an easy task.
By now, community power and control over tourism
development appear not to have been subjected to dis-
cussion on its own at the beginning phase of the plan-
ning process.
The efficiency and effectiveness of a participatory
tourism development approach will substantially be
determined by quantity and quality of community input
that will come out as an output of actual community
participation process. Hence, SC should be in continu-
ous touch with the task force during the community
consultation process. If it is needed, members of SC
should personally be involved in the community partic-
ipation and consultation process to ensure that sufficient
and accurate information is gathered. However, it
should be noted here that it is not claimed that political
and administrative decentralization is an easy task or
will be effective right away. As Tosun and Jenkins
(1996) argue, it is not easy to persuade central govern-
ment to delegate its various powers, particularly in a
developing country, to regional or local authorities.
On the other hand, citizens in the local tourist destina-
tions may not be ready to take on the responsibilities.
This might be true that if the basic needs for food and
shelter are what people in a developing tourist destina-
tion concern the most and they lack the necessary skills
and training to provide meaningful input.
5. Critical issues in community participation in tourism
development
This study has attempted to raise discussion on the
gradual emergence and implementation of CPTDP. An
evolutionary model has been suggested for this purpose.
Fig. 1 shows the stages in this evolutionary model. How-
ever, it seems that several issues require further discus-
sion so as to clarify some points raised in this paper.
These are: evidence for community participation and/
or non-community participation practices in developing
343
countries and in peripheral areas of the developed
world; and necessity of considering CPTDP separately
from community participation in other sectors such as
education, housing, and health services, etc.
5.1. Evidence for participatory and non participatory
tourism development practices
Although it is beyond this study to consider commu-
nity participation in tourism development in the context
of developed countries, one may ask whether or not this
evolutionary process of community participation is valid
for developed countries. As mentioned, many developed
countries in Western Europe and North America have
the experience of pre-industrial phase which led these
countries to establish democratic institution by partici-
pation of a vast majority of their society. Whereas devel-
oping countries do not have such pre-industrial phase
experience, and an elite minority has initiated the
democratization process, and shaped and legalized dem-
ocratic institutions so as to protect and secure their long
term interest at the expense of their society (Ayata, 1994;
Diamond et al., 1995; Escobar, 1994; Tosun, 2000;
Tosun and Jenkins, 1998; etc.). As Todaro asserts that
the correctness of economic policies alone is often not
sufficient to determine the outcome of national strategies
for critical development problems in developing coun-
tries. ‘‘The political structure and the vested interests
and allegiances of ruling elites. . . will typically determine
what strategies are possible and where the main road-
blocks to effective economic and social change may
lie’’ (1994, pp. 36–37).
Moreover, pattern of power and wealth distribution
among various groups in most developing countries is it-
self the reflection of their economic, social and political
histories and likely varies from one nation to the other.
Nonetheless, developing nations are ruled by a small
group of well-organized powerful elites to a larger extent
than developed countries are (Seckelmann, 2002; Tod-
aro, 1994; Tosun et al., 2003). It should be recognized
that there are internal and external limitations to CPTDP
in developing countries. While the internal obstacles stem
from socio-cultural, political, administrative and eco-
nomic dynamics of developing countries, external obsta-
cles are ushered in by the structure of international
tourism industry that has dependency, as its central fea-
tures, on the international tour operators and multina-
tional companies (Öztürk, 1996; Tosun, 1999). This
argument may suggest that tourism growth in developing
countries is beyond the control of these countries. There-
fore, implementation of a participatory tourism develop-
ment approach as a pro-active development strategy is
largely at the mercy of foreigners such as international
tour operators and multinational companies.
However, it is not claimed that these limits do not
exist at any level or to any extent in the developed world.
344 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352

Some of these limits to participatory tourism develop- developed countries. By and large, such difference
ment approach may be observed especially in rural re- manifests itself in three ways. First, local commu-
gions of or peripheral regional economic development nities in some developing countries devote minor
in advanced economies as well. For example, it is re- attention to issues of tourism development and
ported that there are various barriers to local people planning as they are much more troubled by the
participating in tourism development in Baker Lake, lo- lack of clean and hygienic food and drink and suit-
cated in the barrenlands, about 200 km west of Hudson able shelter in the short time frame. Second, lack of
Bay, Canada. Some of these barriers are cultural democracy in many developing nations dictates
remoteness, lack of trained local work force and lack that the will of the ruling class expresses the pro
of financial resources at local level (Woodley, 1993; Uni- bono publico (the public good). Third, there is
versity of Guelph, 1990). Similarly, the Curry County, no system that would allow social outputs to be
Oregon sustainable nature-based tourism project case determined by the people most immediately
study reflects, to some extent, some of pathologies of affected by them, even in the presence of local gov-
participatory tourism development faced in the develop- ernment, as tourism is usually looked upon as an
ing countries. While this project in a resources-depend- industry of national concern (1997, p. 135).
ent area of the US involved consultants from outside
Students of tourism writing on community participa-
and local people (professionals, tourism operators,
tion agree that CPTDP has not taken place in the form
NGO representatives), it too faced similar issues of
of citizen power or active/direct participation in devel-
being driven by external financial resources (USDA For-
oping countries (Brohman, 1996; Din, 1997; Harrison,
est Services, Oregon government agencies) and difficul-
1994; Linton, 1987; Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Timo-
ties with getting local people involved. While the focus
thy, 1999; Seckelmann, 2002; Tosun, 2000; Tosun and
on survival did not preclude participation, it was simi-
Jenkins, 1998). On the other hand, it is interesting to
larly hard to get the broad public involved. Government
note that while scholars of tourism writing on commu-
officials (city, county, state, and federal employees)
nity participation in economically advanced economies
whose participation time could be compensated as part
have focused on benefits of participatory tourism devel-
of their employment were overrepresented. Many re-
opment (Blank, 1989; Gunn, 1988; Haywood, 1988;
source workers, whose adjustment to industry changes
Keogh, 1990; Murphy, 1985; Reed, 1997; Simmons,
the project was ostensibly addressing, did not partici-
1994; etc.), researchers writing on community par-
pate. The tourism development project thus was more
ticipation in the context of developing nations have
of a partnership between the Forest Service, the local
emphasized challenges of community-based tourism
Chamber of Commerce, and the elected county commis-
development (Brohman, 1996; Din, 1997; Harrison,
sioners. So like the cases in developing countries, it was
1992; Long, 1991; Tosun, 2000, etc.). Moreover, it is rec-
dominated by the local elite even though businesses, a
ognized that CPTDP has emerged from and been refined
citizensÕ environmental and social assessment commit-
in the context of developed countries. It has also been
tee, and a local non-profit tourism board were estab-
popularized by advocates writing on developed coun-
lished (Forbes, 1998).
tries. These scholars have made substantial contribu-
These limited cases from economically advanced
tions to the studies of the participatory tourism
countries may suggest that rural, peripheral areas of
development approach by advocating it under prevailing
the developed world may share many of the same char-
conditions in the developed world. However, practical-
acteristics as given for developing countries. Obviously,
ity of participatory tourism development approach in
‘‘effects of these problems on operation of the participa-
developing countries seems not to be considered in detail
tory development approach vary from developed
(Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). After examining several
nations to developing nations’’. To Tosun, ‘‘it is likely
tourism development plans in developing nations, Mow-
that these limitations make CPTDP less probable in
forth and Munt have stated that ‘‘the push for local par-
developing countries that do not have the basis of the
ticipation comes from a position of power, the first
pre-industrial phase experienced last century in Western
world: the principles of local participation, however, is
Europe and North America where now better economic,
easier to promote on paper from a distance than it is
legislative and political structure are in operation than in
to practice at the local level’’ (1998, p. 242).
developing countries’’ (2000, p. 614).
Linton argues that ÔThird WorldÕ tourism has been
After analyzing participatory tourism development
set up by agreements between foreign image-makers/
issues with special reference to Egypt in a comparison
investors and local elites. There has been no participa-
with CPTDP in the developed world, Wahab concludes
tion by, and consultation of, the people of the host
that
country in shaping the phenomenonÕ (1987, p. 96). To
Community participation in the tourism develop- Din, the notion of CPTDP Ômay not be readily applica-
ment process differs in developing countries from ble to Third World destinations where public scrutiny is
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
lacking owing to a universal ignorance of the planning
procedureÕ (1997, p. 78). Harrison (1994) contends that
there are few examples from developing nations of
where CPTDP has successfully occurred. Research con-
ducted on CPTDP in Indonesia found that local people
involvement in the economic benefits of tourism is
occurring in theory, but not in practice (Timothy,
1999). Moreover, results of one study suggest that cen-
tral government, local bodies and private sector repre-
sentatives have not supported the notion of CPTDP in
Turkey (Tosun, 1998). Another study conducted by
the former undersecretary of Ministry of Tourism in
Turkey concludes that
. . .the lack of a strong political culture and devel-
oped mechanisms of participation result in an elite
minority dominating the scene, creating a suitable
atmosphere for clientelistic relations. Such rela-
tions between political/bureaucratic patrons and
entrepreneur/developer clients may be contrary to
overall national and local interests, creating a neg-
ative image of tourism activity. . . emergence of
partnership approach has failed because of not
only incomparable authority and resources of pub-
lic partners but also timidity of non-governmental
partners embedded deeply in the local political cul-
ture (Göymen, 2000, pp. 1035–1042).
The WTO (1994) has given 25 case studies of tourism
planning in the developing world. Only one of them, the
Sri Lanka tourism plan, considered community consul-
tation (indirect participation or degree of tokenism)
via tourism committees composed of local interest
groups and local agents of central government. How-
ever, it has not been operationalized and remained as
a proposal. In brief, the above quotations and limited
examples from several developing countries and periph-
eral areas of the developed world may suggest that there
seems to be no evidence which show that participatory
tourism development practices have taken place or have
gone beyond community consultation or manipulative
participation.
Although the validity of this model for devel-
oped countries where bottom-up democratization has
achieved in relative term is not specifically considered
within the context of this study, a brief literature review
suggests that there are also evidence for CPTDP in eco-
nomically advanced countries. For example, local commu-
nity as stakeholders participated in the decision making
process of tourism development in Vancouver Island,
British Columbia (DÕAmore, 1983; Murphy, 1992).
While some aspects of community capacity in Can-
more, a town adjacent to Banff National Park, were
enhanced via various financial and educational instru-
ments to enable local people to participate actively in
tourism development (Jamal and Getz, 2000; Telfer,
2003) because of strong opposition of 20 community
345
based groups to Disney America Project in Prince Will-
iam County, VA, US. Disney officials could not carry
out their project effectively and efficiently and decided
not to implement the project in the state of Virginia
(Farhl and Spayd, 1994; Hawkins and Cunningham,
1996). The result of community struggle for stopping
DisneyÕs America project may be seen as a contempo-
rary example of democratic community participation
and citizen power in an economically advanced country.
This kind of participatory democratic incidence may not
occur in developing countries because of strong and
wide-spread clientelistic relations between political/
bureaucratic patrons and entrepreneur/developer clients
that impede emergence of democratic political culture
and establishment of mechanisms for local community
participation (Ayata, 1994; Göymen, 2000; Tosun,
2001). For example, in Hatay County, Turkey opposi-
tion of local people to the construction of airport on
the fertile agricultural soils of Amik Plain has not been
taken into account. Some bird lover groups have also
expressed their opposition to the airport project because
they believe that airplanes will flight over birdsÕ migra-
tion line, and thus the airport will be very harmful for
natural life. Neither the unorganized bird lover groupsÕ
opposition nor strong concern of local farmers about
their fertile agricultural lands could have impeded the
airport construction project.
Moreover, the tourism development project in North-
umberland County, Ontario, Canada may be another
example of participatory tourism development in the
context of developed countries. Various stakeholders
representing diverse cross section interest groups in the
county as well as provincial representatives from the
Ministries of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Munic-
ipal Affairs, and Economic Development and Trade
were invited to participate in community workshop
organized by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (Joppe,
1996). Furthermore, while community-based tourism
planning in the Baffin Region, Canada has created an
appropriate step towards greater political self-determi-
nation for local communities (Addison, 1996 quoting
Reimer and Dialla, 1992), residents in Bedford County,
PA, USA expressed overwhelming opposition, which re-
sulted in the withdrawal of the proposal despite strong
local government support for a plan to develop the old
hotel at taxpayer expense (Bourke and Luloff, 1996).
While the above overall discussions reveal that there
is evidence for CPTDP in economically advanced coun-
tries, they also exemplify that CPTDP seems to occur
rarely in the sense of Western paradigms in developing
countries and in peripheral areas of the developed
world. However, it may not be right to claim that local
people involvement does not happen at all in the devel-
oping countries and peripheral regions of the developed
world. In some parts of world, local cultural attributes
of a community and its decision-making traditions that
346 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
are already in place may require grassroots participation
in the decision making process of local matters. For
example, Solomon Islands culture requires consultation
with communities, if that consultation does not take
place; rights have been affronted with the result that vio-
lence can occur. As it is clearly reported in the Solomon
Islands case, ignorance of local culture which requires
proper consultation with local people by foreign inves-
tor escalated a conflict. The dispute between the local
people (the customary land owners) and the foreign
investor has not only created a conflict, but it also
brought about a serious diplomatic rift between two
sovereign states (Solomon Islands and Australia). The
Ôfinal result was the complete dismantling of the resort
and repossession of the island by the local communityÕ
(Sofield, 1996, p. 183). Obviously, every host community
does not have such a strong participatory culture.
Therefore, it should not be generalized for all host com-
munities, and the expectation from this strategy should
not be exaggerated.
5.2. What differentiates community participation in
tourism from community participation in the other
sectors of an economy?
As noted, the evolutionary stages identified for com-
munity participation in tourism may, to some extent,
apply to community participation in other sectors of
developing nations. However, there are three main char-
acteristics that differentiate community participation in
tourism from community participation in other sectors
such as housing, education, health, agriculture, etc. It
is believed that these peculiarities of tourism and the
participatory tourism development approach deserve
to be studied separately from community participation
in the other sectors.
First, it should be recognized that reasons for and
forces behind tourism development in developing coun-
tries are very different from these of housing, education,
family planning, health projects, etc. Although involve-
ment of local communities in these developmental ef-
forts has been supported to satisfy basic needs of local
people, tourism development has been encouraged pri-
marily to increase foreign currency earning that is badly
needed for the finance of industrialization and repay-
ment of foreign debt. While international organizations
and central governments of the developing world have
supported and manipulated, respectively, local people
to be involved in the implementation process of the
development efforts such as family planning and irriga-
tion projects at collaborative level (Desia, 1995; Oakley
and Marsden, 1984; Mathur, 1995; Moser, 1989), polit-
ical and business elites have seen tourism as their
own business, and thus they have not encouraged local
peopleÕs participation in the tourism development proc-
ess (Brohman, 1996; Long, 1991; Poirier, 1997; Tosun,
2001). Developing countries have seen tourism as an
easy, effective and relatively cheap instrument for
achieving export-led industrialization as recommended
by the international donor agencies. ‘‘Thus, tourism is
too important for the central government to leave to
local communities and non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) at local level’’. Not surprisingly, tourism devel-
opment issues are administered and represented at the
level governmental bodies not lower than cabinet
level. That is to say, tourism as a primary source of
foreign currency earning and employment generation
is perceived as a national priority that pre-dominates
over secondary objectives and wider issues such as pre-
serving cultural heritage, environment, local people
involvement, fair distribution of economic growth, etc.,
all of which comprise the principles of participatory devel-
opment approach and sustainable tourism development
(Tosun, 2001). Consequently, tourism development in
many tourist destinations in developing countries is
not driven by the community, but driven by local elites
in conjunction with international tour operators and
multinational companies. This has led to a complete iso-
lation of indigenous local people from tourism develop-
ment taking place in their localities.
In brief, the reasons for and forces behind tourism
development, the structure of international tourism sys-
tem, and characteristics of tourism sector that differenti-
ate it from the other sectors of an economy appear to be
main limitations to participatory tourism development
approach in developing countries. These limitations
have different implications for and spell different obsta-
cles to CPTDP from citizen participation in commu-
nity development projects. Therefore, it may not be
claimed that what has been discussed here in terms of
tourism development has same implications for the
other sectoral developments in developing countries and
peripheral regional development in the developed world.
Second, although education, health, housing and
agriculture are activities that are related directly to basic
and immediate felt needs of local people, tourism devel-
opment appears to be a secondary issue for many local
communities in the developing world where, as popu-
larly argued in the literature, tourism is an industry
developed for and by foreigners due to the fact that
developing countries lack financial and qualified human
resources to invest in and manage tourism particularly at
local level. While the local people do not have accepta-
ble houses, schools of national standard, proper irriga-
tion systems and modern agricultural equipment,
luxury hotels and leisure facilities for tourists have re-
ceived a major share from public funds as incentives
to comfort the Western mass tourist by creating protec-
tive ecological bubble of his accustomed environment
(Cohen, 1972; Long, 1991; Tosun, 2002). It is a fact that
citizens tend to participate only when strongly moti-
vated to do so, and most of the time they are not moti-
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
vated (Rosener, 1982). It should be difficult to persuade
host communities to participate in tourism that seems to
have no or little direct contribution to their basic and
felt needs.
Third, tourism is a new phenomenon in relative terms
for indigenous people in the developing world and in the
peripheral areas of the developed world. While local
people have been working in traditional sectors such
as agriculture and fishery, central governments have ini-
tiated tourism in their localities by encouragement of
international tour operators and multinational compa-
nies that have aimed at opening more and more locali-
ties for tourism so as to create fierce price competition
among them and increase their own profit margin. In
both peripheral regions of developed and developing
countries, local people are not very familiar with the
modern tourism industry. Culturally, they seem to be re-
mote from this service sector of economy. In addition to
this cultural remoteness of local people, there are limited
skills, business culture, entrepreneurship and financial
resources at local levels to enable genuine local partici-
pation (Barnes and Hayter, 1994; Freudenberg, 1992;
Tosun, 1998; Woodley, 1993). As Din asserts, ‘‘Unlike
the ideal-typical case as depicted in evolutionary models
in tourism literature, the extent of local entrepreneurial
involvement is usually very limited, owing to the fact
that the local indigenous groups are rarely adequately
pre-adapted to the business culture in tourism’’ (1988,
p. 563). But, without a financial and entrepreneurial
commitment by local communities, community partici-
pation as a strategy might be ineffective. It should be
noted that removing especially the cultural barriers to
participatory tourism development approach requires
long educational process and flexibility rather than
once-over rigid development efforts. Participatory
capacity cannot be built like a road or dam; it must be
developed. This is a universally valid principle of partic-
ipatory development approach in both developing and
developed countries.
Fourth, although community-based tourism projects
in their nature are at small scale, integrated tourism
industry favors larger entities. Tour operators do not
find it worthwhile dealing with small accommodation
establishments and the other small businesses that pro-
vide services for tourists (Ioannides, 1998; Timothy
and Ioannides, 2002; Tosun et al., in press). Thus, both
community-based tourism projects in the developing
and developed world face problems in accessing tourists.
For example, the 35 largest outbound nature tour oper-
ators had 90% of the market. The five largest operators
alone held 40% of the total market (Higgins, 1996).
These operators have established destinations, tours,
and suppliers. As they can also be held liable for the neg-
ligence of suppliers they contract within the destinations
visited, the tour operators tend to favor larger entities
over smaller, local suppliers.
347
6. Conclusion
The study provides concrete examples for participa-
tion and non-participation in tourism development both
in developing and developed world. It is hoped that
these practices of non-participation and participation
in tourism under different political cultures and differ-
ent institutional arrangements would be of interest to
human geographers and may motivate them to study
CPTDP in further details. It should be noted that this
study does not propose a standard step and is not an at-
tempt to develop a rigid framework or guideline for the
emergence of participatory tourism development strat-
egy in developing countries and peripheral areas of the
developed world. But, it has intended to open a much-
needed debate on how a participatory tourism develop-
ment approach may emerge and in which stages it may
pass through. The main conclusion of this paper is that
only forms of local participation likely to break existing
patterns of power and unequal development. However,
without removing various socio-cultural, financial, eco-
nomic, political and administered obstacles to participa-
tory development approach, efficient and fruitful forms
of community participation will not emerge. Based upon
the overall discussion, several broad recommendations
can be drawn, which may function as policy implications
for the emergence of a participatory tourism develop-
ment approach and as well as conclusions for this study.
First, central governments in many developing coun-
tries have accepted tourism as a relatively easy, effective
and cheap instrument to achieve their short term objec-
tives such as satisfying the requirements of international
donor agencies and maximizing interests of their clients
whose support is essential for the patron (central gov-
ernment) to become in power. Moreover, the opportu-
nity to derive foreign exchange from tourism export
and employment created by tourism are opportunities
not easily ignored in developing countries (Jenkins,
1982). It appears to be very difficult for the central gov-
ernments owing to the pressures brought to bear on
them by their clients and macro-economic imperatives
to accept and support a participatory tourism develop-
ment strategy without sufficient external pressures since
CPTDP, whose main objective is to satisfy basic and
felt-needs of local people, contradict interests of political
and business elite. In other words, the emergence of a
participatory tourism development strategy within the
dynamics of developing countries is not probable in
the foreseeable future owing to the given socio-cultural,
political and economic limitations prevailing in many
developing countries. This suggests that sufficient pres-
sure from external bodies such as NGOs, IMF, WB,
UN, WTO, EU, etc. is sine qua non to encourage and
persuade governments of developing countries to initiate
participatory tourism development strategy. Of course,
these international organizations should not play a role
348 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
of the big brother to tell them what to do and what is the
best for them, but they may encourage and lead them via
financial and monetary aids, and consultancy services to
establish institution and enact necessary law and regula-
tion to operationalize CPTDP.
Second, although external pressures on governments
of developing countries are essential to initiate participa-
tory tourism development approach, it is not sufficient
for the success of local people participation in tourism
development because in many developing nations
although there is a formal structure of constitutional,
multiparty democracy, these democratic institutions
and regulations are not shared with the majority. In
these countries democracy is limited to business elites
and states elites (e.g. Thailand, Brazil, South Korea,
Chile, etc.) (Diamond et al., 1995).
The prevailing political culture and socio-economic
conditions may imply that a strong and coherent legal
back up is needed for emergence and success of CPTDP
alongside political acceptance of it at the central level. In
other words, mere political will at central level cannot
guarantee effective and efficient operation of participa-
tory tourism development approach in the absence of
relevant legal measurements. It is a fact that most devel-
oping countries approached tourism development in an
ad hoc way. A participatory tourism development ap-
proach as a pro-active tourism development strategy
has emerged in the developed world where the basis
of the pre-industrial phase was experienced in last cen-
tury, democratic regime has been well-established, and
macro-economic problems have been relatively solved.
Although it is assumed that increasing democracy holds
greater possibilities for community participation as it al-
lows for empowerment of local people and NGOs,
democracy will not necessarily lead to the implementa-
tion of participatory approaches. The central govern-
mentÕs implementing a legal structure for participatory
development/laws mandating public involvement do
not equal public involvement in actual decision mak-
ing. In developed countries like the US, even with legis-
lation mandating community involvement, true public
participation may be negatively impacted as govern-
ments use the process to educate the public/shape the
decision or to steer opposing sides towards a pre-se-
lected compromise decision (Douglas, 1993). This may
suggest that unless democratization process genuinely
empowers local people and NGOs so as to establish a
delicate balance among various interest groups includ-
ing business elite and government agencies, effective
participation in the development process may not ena-
ble local people to protect their interest. In brief, it
appears that the emergence and the operationaliza-
tion of a participatory tourism development approach
may be difficult without implementing the described
political, entrepreneurial financial and developmental
strategies.
Third, models of tourist destination life-cycle suggest
that local people at the initial stage of tourism develop-
ment (exploration stage) own and operate small scale
guest-houses, economy class hotels or souvenir shops,
and work as workers in the tourism industry (Tosun,
1998). However, unfortunately ‘‘much of third world
tourism today is not small-scale. . .’’ (Clancy, 1999, p.
5). In a gradual manner local control over tourism
development is lost as local tourist destinations attract
more psychocentrics and institutionalized tourists who
prefer familiar and popular tourist locations (Cohen,
1972; Plog, 1973). In the emergence of a strong compe-
tition under the imperfect market conditions, these lo-
cally owned small businesses in the tourism industry
cannot survive and are closed. That is to say, as a local
tourist destination moves towards development stage
from exploration stage (initial stage of tourism develop-
ment), local people may lose control over local tourism
development. In brief, relatively larger capital flows to
local tourist destinations tend to threaten local control
over local tourism development, rather than strengthen-
ing local people to participate in the benefits and deci-
sion making process of tourism development in a
better way. This may reflect the assertion that ‘‘the tech-
nical, economic and commercial characteristics of mod-
ern tourist travel favor the development of integrated
enterprises, further reducing the possibility of local par-
ticipation’’ (Pearce, 1989, p. 94). In this regard, it may
be recommended that international donor agencies and
NGOs should encourage both governments of develop-
ing and developed nations to provide special fiscal and
monetary incentives for local indigenous people to
own and operate small scale tourism establishments,
particularly in peripheral regions. These deliberate
measurements must be taken at the Ôexploration stageÕ
of tourist destinations to empower local people to keep
control over tourism development before local destina-
tions become more popular and attractive for large cap-
ital owners.
Fourth, a participatory development strategy in gen-
eral and CPTDP in particular is a local issue at opera-
tional level, to a large extent. However, this highly
localized issue cannot be operationalized under the
highly centralized public administration system prevail-
ing in many developing countries. As Poirier (1997)
argues, developing countries recognized that tourism is
too important to leave to the market, and governmental
posts at the cabinet level were created to develop, mon-
itor and administer tourism policy. Therefore, there is a
need for re-structuring public administration system and
local governments to be a source of democratic commu-
nity participation. This suggests that political and
administrative decentralization is sine qua non to move
towards a more participatory tourism development
strategy. The main aim of decentralization should be
to re-organize local governments to defend, protect
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
and reflect concerns and interests of local people in their
administrative units. Moreover, the decentralization
process should remove clientelism catered for business
interests at the expense of indigenous communities in
many local tourist destinations. While local govern-
ments are given more legal and political rights, more
financial resources should also be provided to enable
them to use their new legal and political power. In other
words, a shift from local government (the power to gov-
ern) to local governance (the act of governing) should be
achieved. ‘‘The shift is dependent upon the mobilization
and empowerment of civil society and a citizen-oriented
management approach in government institutions’’
(McEwan, 2003, p. 469).
However, it should be kept in mind that the local elite
could shape and direct organs of local government and
participation for their own benefit. This means that
tourism development is still kept in the hands of a
few. Decentralization and participatory initiates should
not move patron–client relationships to local level. This
may recommend that a mechanism of control and man-
agement of development must be established at local le-
vel with co-ordination of central bodies. While this
mechanism creates flexibility at the bottom, it should
also provide the opportunity for supervision. The right
mix of supervision and local autonomy must be found
by taking into account national, regional and local spe-
cific circumstances. In addition, it should be recognized
that it is difficult for developing countries to stop the
catering to business interests since they do not have
many choices to attract the most needed capital for
industrialization. In fact, this is a bigger problem than
tourism. This may be true for all economic and political
activities in many developing countries.
Fifth, although political acceptance of a participatory
strategy at central level, decentralization of public
administration system, and enacting relevant legal meas-
urements are essential to initiate participatory tourism
development strategy, these may not be enough to make
this strategy a reality without empowering local people
to take an active role in tourism development. This
may imply that empowerment of local people to take
tourism development matters in their hands is needed
for the success of a participatory tourism development
approach. As Tosun (2000) suggests, governments
should carefully introduce deliberate measures to enable
indigenous people to take advantage of the opportuni-
ties brought by tourism if the intended objectives are
to distribute benefits to the local communities. One of
the important strategies, in this regard, may be to
encourage local people to make a financial commitment
via various educational, financial and fiscal tools in
tourism development in their localities. However, it is
a fact that the members of indigenous local communities
are rarely adequately preadapted to the business culture
in tourism. By taking into account this cultural issue and
349
wider socio-economic and political circumstances, sys-
tematic empowerment strategies should be employed
to make a participatory tourism development approach
a reality for achieving a more sustainable tourism
development.
Sixth, it is clear that there are some distinctions be-
tween mass or conventional tourism and forms of alter-
native tourism in terms of CPTDP. Participation of
local communities in sharing benefits and in the decision
making process of mass tourism appears to be very dif-
ficult and have almost never occurred in the form of cit-
izen power or self mobilization in the developing nations
context, but involvement of local people in forms of
alternative tourism is supposed to be easy in relative
terms because of the nature of alternative tourism (espe-
cially ecotourism and sustainable tourism) and cultural
attributes of local communities under which local partic-
ipation in alternative tourism takes place. Clearly,
CPTDP is in part determined by cultural attributes of
local communities. In this context, it may be said that
although community participation in decision making
for tourism in the sense of Western paradigms seems
to rarely occur in developing countries, it may not be
right to claim that local people involvement does not
happen at all. Public participation in tourism develop-
ment can take place in many forms, ‘‘which may be a re-
sult of a melange of place-specific conditions, such as the
cultural attributes of the community and its decision-
making traditions that are already in place’’ (Timothy,
1999, p. 388).
Seventh, it should be noted that participatory capac-
ity cannot be built like a road or dam; it must be devel-
oped. This implies that participation of local people in
the decision making process and benefits of tourism
should take place in a gradual manner. In this regard,
more efforts are needed to examine and explain how this
gradual process can be achieved with special references
to local destinations. While it is observed that rural re-
gions or peripheral areas of the developed world share
many of the same characteristics given for developing
countries and, thus, face similar limitations to CPTDP
observed in developing countries, Solomon Island case
is a proof that cultural attributes of a host community
and its decision making traditions may make a difference
in terms of participatory development approach. These
may suggest that efficiency and effectiveness of CPTDP
also depend on local or regional conditions under which
local communities in question live. That is to say, its
emergence and implementation is determined more by
local conditions than by national conditions.
Finally, it should be noted that it is impossible to dis-
cuss every relevant issue of CPTDP here in this study
since the scope of community participation as a strategy
for development is very wide and inter-related to eco-
nomic, social, cultural and political histories of the devel-
oping nations and peripheral regions of the developed
350 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
world. For a better understanding of participatory
development approaches in the context of tourism devel-
opment, more studies and analyses are recommended.
Then, the findings of these studies may lead researchers
and practitioners to provide a better set of policy recom-
mendations for the emergence and implementation of
participatory development strategies.
References
Addison, L., 1996. An approach to community-based tourism plan-
ning in the Baffin Region, CanadaÕs Far North: a retrospective. In:
Harrison, L.C., Husbands, W. (Eds.), Practicing Responsible
Tourism. Wiley, New York, pp. 296–312.
Alterman, R., 1982. Planning for public-participation––the design of
implementable strategies. Environment and Planning B––Planning
and Design 9 (3), 295–313.
Arnstein, R.S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 35, 216–224.
Ayata, A.G., 1994. Roots and trend of clientelism in Turkey. In:
Roniger, L., Ayata, A.G. (Eds.), Democracy Clientelism and Civil
Society. Lynne-Rienner Publisher, London, pp. 49–63.
Bamberger, M., 1991. The role of community participation in
development planning and project management. Economic Devel-
opment Institute of The World Bank.
Barnes, T., Hayter, R., 1994. Economic restructuring, local develop-
ment and resource towns: forest communities in coastal British
Columbia. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 17 (3), 289–
310.
Benicourt, J., 1982. Popular participation in development in Africa.
Assignment Children 59/60, 57–77.
Blank, U., 1989. The Community Tourism industry Imperative: The
Necessity, The Opportunities, Its Potential. Venture Publishing,
State College.
Bourke, L., Luloff, A.E., 1996. Rural tourism development: are
communities in southwest rural Pennsylvania ready to participate.
In: Harrison, L.C., Husbands, W. (Eds.), Practicing Responsible
Tourism. Wiley, New York, pp. 277–295.
Bradley, RM., Karunadasa, H.I., 1989. Community participation in
the water supply sector in Sri Lanka. Journal of the Royal Society
of Health 109 (4), 131–136.
Brohman, J., 1996. New directions in tourism for third world
development. Annals of Tourism Research 23, 48–70.
Chazan, N., 1993. Between liberalism and statism: African political
cultures and democracy. In: Diamond, L. (Ed.), Political Culture
and Democracy in Developing Countries. Lynne-Rienner Publish-
ers, London, pp. 37–66.
Chetkov-Yanoov, B., 1986. Participation as a means to community
co-operation. In: Levi, Y., Litwin, H. (Eds.), Community and
Co-operatives in Participatory Development. Gower Publishing
Company Limited, Aldershot, pp. 21–34.
Clancy, M.J., 1999. Tourism and development: evidence from Mexico.
Annals of Tourism Research 26 (1), 1–20.
Cohen, E., 1972. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social
Research 39, 164–182.
Cohen, J.M., Uphoff, N.T., 1980. ParticipationÕs place in rural
development: seeking clarity through specificity. World Develop-
ment 8 (3), 213–235.
Cvetkovich, G., Earle, T.C., 1994. The construction of justice––a case
study of public participation in land management. Journal of
Social Issues 50 (3), 161–178.
DÕAmore, L., 1983. Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host
community. In: Murphy, P.E. (Ed.), Western Geographical Series,
vol. 21, pp. 135–160.
Das Gupta, J., 1995. India: democratic becoming and developmental
transition. In: Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M.S. (Eds.),
Politics in Developing Countries. Lynne-Rienner Publishers, Lon-
don, pp. 263–322.
de Kadt, E., 1979. Social planning for tourism in the developing
countries. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 36–48.
Dei, L.A., 2000. Community participation in tourism in Africa. In:
Dieke, P.U.C. (Ed.), The Political Economy of Tourism Develop-
ment in Africa. Cognizant Communication Corporation, New
York, pp. 285–298.
Diamond, L., 1995. Nigeria the uncivic society and the descent into
praetorianism. In: Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M.S. (Eds.),
Politics in Developing countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Lon-
don, pp. 417–492.
Dieke, P.U.C., 1991. Policies for tourism development in Kenya.
Annals of Tourism Research. 18, 269–294.
Dieke, P.U.C., 2000. The Political Economy of Tourism Development
in Africa. Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York.
Desia, V., 1995. Community Participation and Slum Housing: A Study
of Bombay. Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M., 1995. Introduction: what makes
for democracy. In: Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M.S. (Eds.),
Politics in Developing Countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers,
London, pp. 1–66.
Din, K.H., 1988. Reports: social cultural impacts of tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 15, 563–566.
Din, K.H., 1997. Indigenization of tourism development: some
constraints and possibilities. In: Oppermann, M. (Ed.), Pacific
Rim Tourism. CAB International, New York, pp. 76–82.
Douglas, R.W., 1993. Forest Recreation. Prospect Heights. Waveland
Press, IL.
Dowse, E.R., Hughes, J., 1986. Political Sociology. John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester.
Escobar, C., 1994. Clientelism and social protest: peasant politics in
Northern Colombia. In: Roniger, L., Ayata, A.G. (Eds.), Democ-
racy, Clientelism and Civil Society. Lynne Rienner Publisher,
London, pp. 65–87.
Farhl, P., Spayd, L., 1994. Eisner ended Disney plan, The Washington
Post, September 30, Al.
Forbes, B., 1998. Curry County sustainable nature-based tourism
project. In: Hall, C.M., Lew, A.A. (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A
Geographical Perspective. Addison-Wesley Longman Limited,
Essex, pp. 145–156.
Freudenberg, W.R., 1992. Addictive economies: extractive industries
and vulnerable localities in a changing world economy. Rural
Sociology 57 (3), 305–322.
Godschalk, D.R., 1971. Participation, Planning and Exchange in Old
and New.
Gow, D.G., Vansant, J., 1983. Beyond the rhetoric of rural develop-
ment participation: how can it be done? World Development 11,
427–446.
Graham, C., 1994. Safety Nets, Politics and the Poor: Transi-
tions to Market Economies. The Brooking Institution, Washing-
ton, DC.
Green, EC., Isely, RB., 1988. The significance of settlement pattern for
community participation in health––lessons from Africa. Human
Organization 47 (2), 158–166.
Göymen, K., 2000. Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of
Tourism Research 22, 1025–1048.
Gunn, C.A., 1988. Tourism Planning, Second ed. Taylor and Francis,
New York.
Harrison, D., 1994. Learning from the old south by the new south. The
case of tourism. Third World Quarterly 15 (4), 707–721.
Harison, D., 1992. International tourism and the less developed
countries: the background. In: Harrison, D. (Ed.), International
Tourism and the less Developed Countries. Belhaven Press,
London, pp. 1–19.
 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
Haywood, K.M., 1988. Responsible and responsive tourism planning
in the community. Tourism Management 9 (2), 105–118.
Hawkins, D., Cunningham, J., 1996. Never-never land when interest
groups prevail: DisneyÕs America project, Prince William County,
VA, USA. In: Harrison, L.C., Husbands, W. (Eds.), Practicing
Responsible Tourism. Wiley, New York, pp. 350–365.
Higgins, B.R., 1996. The global structure of the nature tourism
industry: ecotourists, tour operators, and local businesses. Journal
of Travel Research 35 (2), 11–18.
Hollnsteiner, M.R., 1977. People power: community participation
in the planning of human settlements. Assignment Children 43,
11–47.
Hughes, A., 1985. Alternative forms and levels of participation: a
general survey. In: Lisk, F. (Ed.), Popular Participation in Planning
for Basic Needs. The University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52–96.
Inskeep, E., 1994. National and Regional Tourism Planning. A World
Tourism Organisation (WTO) Publication. Routledge, London.
Ioannides, D., 1998. Tour operators: the gatekeepers of tourism. In:
Ioannides, D., Debbage, K.G. (Eds.), The Economic Geography of
the Tourism Industry. Routledge, London, pp. 139–158.
Jamal, B.T., Getz, D., 1995. Collaboration theory and community
tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 186–204.
Jamal, T., Getz, D., 2000. Community roundtables for tourism-related
conflicts: the dialectics of consensus and process structures. In:
Bramwell, B., Lane, B. (Eds.), Tourism Collaboration and Part-
nerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Channel View,
Clevedon, pp. 159–182.
Jenkins, C.L., 1982. The effects of scale in tourism projects in
developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 229–250.
Joppe, M., 1996. Everything must be connected to everything else: an
ecosystem approach to tourism development in Northumberland
County, Ontario, Canada. In: Harrison, L.C., Husbands, W.
(Eds.), Practicing Responsible Tourism. Wiley, New York, pp.
313–329.
Jones, H., 1990. Social Welfare in Third World Development.
MacMillan, London.
Keogh, B., 1990. Public participation in community tourism planning.
Annals of Tourism Research 17, 449–465.
Killick, T., 1981. Policy Economics A Textbook of Applied Economics
on Developing Countries. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd,
London.
Lamounier, B., 1995. Brazil: inequality against democracy. In:
Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M.S. (Eds.), Politics in Devel-
oping Countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, London, pp. 119–
170.
Levy, D.C., Bruhn, K., 1995. Mexico: sustained civilian rule without
democracy. In: Diamond, L., Linz, J.J., Lipset, S.M.S. (Eds.),
Politics in Developing Countries. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc,
London, pp. 171–218.
Linton, N., 1987. Trends in tourism and development: a third world
perspective. Tourism Management (June), 96–97.
Lisk, F., 1985. A EditorÕs introduction. In: Lisk, F. (Ed.), Popular
Participation in Planning for Basic Needs. The University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 1–14.
Long, V.H., 1991. Government–industry–community interaction in
tourism development in Mexico. In: Sinclair, M.T., Stabler, M.J.
(Eds.), The Tourism Industry: An International Analysis. CAB
International, Wallingford, pp. 205–222.
Low, N., 1991. Planning, Politics and the State: Political Foundations
of Planning Thoughts. Unwin Hyman, London.
Mathur, H.M., 1995. The role of social actors in promoting partic-
ipatory development at local level: a view from India. In:
Schneider, H., Libercier, M.H. (Eds.), Participatory Development
From Advocacy to Action. OECD Publication, Paris, pp. 153–169.
McEwan, C., 2003. Bringing government to the peopleÕ: women, local
governance and community participation in South Africa. Geofo-
rum 34, 469–481.
351
Midgley, J., 1986a. Community participation: history, concepts and
controversies. In: Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardiman, M., Narine, D.
(Eds.), Community Participation, Social Development, and the
State. Methuen, London, pp. 13–43.
Midgley, J., 1986b. Community participation, the state and social
policy. In: Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardiman, M., Narine, D. (Eds.),
Community Participation, Social Development, and the State.
Methuen, London, pp. 144–159.
Murphy, P.E., 1992. Data gathering for community oriented tourism
planning: case study of Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
Leisure Studies 11, 65–79.
Miller, S.M., Rein, M., 1975. Community Participation: Past and
Future. In: Jones, D., Mayo, M. (Eds.), Community Work Two.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 3–23.
Morgan, L.M., 1993. Community Participation in Health: The Politics
of Primary Care in Costa Rica. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Moser, C., 1989. Community participation in urban projects in the
Third World. Progress in Planning 32 (2), 73–133.
Mowforth, M., Munt, I., 1998. Tourism and Sustainability: New
Tourism in the Third World. Routledge, London.
Murphy, P.E., 1985. Tourism A Community Approach. Methuen,
New York.
Nafziger, E.W., 1990. The Economics of Developing Countries.
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Oakley, P., Marsden, D., 1984. Approaches to Participation in Rural
Development. International Labour Office, Geneva.
Öztürk, Y., 1996. Marketing Turkey as a tourist destination. Doctoral
Thesis, The Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, UK.
Page, B., 2003. Communities as the agents of commodification: The
Kumbo Water Authority in Northwest Cameroon. Geoforum 34,
483–498.
Paul, S., 1987. Community participation in development projects: The
World Bank experience. World Bank Discussion Papers, No. 6.
The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Pearce, D.G., 1989. Tourist Development. Longman, Essex.
Pinch, S., 1997. Worlds of Welfare: Understanding the Chang-
ing Geographies of Social Welfare Provision. Routledge,
London.
Plog, S.C., 1973. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (Novem-
ber), 13–16.
Poirier, R.A., 1997. Political risk analysis and tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 24 (3), 675–686.
Prentice, R., 1993. Community-Driven Tourism Planning and Resi-
dentsÕ Preferences. Tourism Management 14 (3), 218–227.
Pretty, J., 1995. The many interpretations of participation. In Focus
16, 4–5.
Reed, M., 1997. Power relations and community-based tourism
planning. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 566–591.
Rosener, J.B., 1982. Making bureaucrats responsive: a study of the
impact of citizen participation and staff recommendations on
regulatory decision making. Public Administration Review 42 (4),
339–345.
Ryan, C., Montgomery, D., 1994. The attitudes of bakewell residents
to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism
Management 15 (5), 358–369.
Sangmpam, S.N., 1992. The overpoliticized state and democratization.
Comparative Politics (July), 401–417.
Seckelmann, A., 2002. Domestic tourism: a chance for regional
development in Turkey?. Tourism Management, 23:85–92.
Simmons, D.G., 1994. Community participation in tourism planning.
Tourism Management 15 (2), 98–108.
Skelcher, C., 1993. Involvement and enpowerment in local public
services. Public Money and Management 13 (3), 13–19.
Smith, L., 1984. Public participation in policy making the state of the
art in Canada. Geoforum 15 (2), 253–259.
352 C. Tosun / Geoforum 36 (2005) 333–352
Sofield, T., 1996. Anuha Island Resort, Solomon Islands: a case study
of failure. In: Butler, R., Hinch, T. (Eds.), Tourism and Indigenous
Peoples. International Thomson Press, London, pp. 176–202.
Stiefel, M., Wolfe, M., 1994. A Voice for the Excluded Popular
Participation in Development. Zed Books Ltd, London.
Stone, L., 1989. Cultural cross-roads of community participation in
development: a case from Nepal. Human Organisation 48 (3), 206–
213.
Syme, J.G., Eaton, E., 1989. Public involvement as a negotiation
process. Journal of Social Issue 45 (1), 87–107.
Telfer, D.J., 2003. Development issues in destination communities. In:
Singh, S., Dallen, J.T., Ross, K.D. (Eds.), Tourism in Destination
Communities. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp. 135–180.
Thirlwall, A.P., 1990. Growth and Development with Special Refer-
ence to Developing Countries. Macmillan Education Ltd, London.
Timothy, D., 1999. Participatory planning: a view of tourism in
Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 371–391.
Timothy, D.J., Ioannides, D., 2002. Tour operator hegemony:
dependency, oligopoly, and sustainability in insular destinations.
In: Apostolopoulos, Y., Gayle, D.J. (Eds.), Island Tourism and
Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean
Experiences. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 181–198.
Timothy, D.J., Tosun, C., 2003. Appropriate planning for tourism in
destination communities: Participation, incremental growth and
collaboration. In: Singh, S., Timothy, D.J., Dowling, R.K. (Eds.),
Tourism in Destination Communities. CABI Publishing, Cam-
bridge, pp. 181–204.
Todaro, M.P., 1994. Economics For a Development World. Longman,
New York.
Tosun, C., 2002. Host perceptions of tourism impacts: a comparative
study. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 231–253.
Tosun, C., 2001. Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the
developing world: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management 22 (3),
285–299.
Tosun, C., 2000. Limits to community participation in the tourism
development process in developing countries. Tourism Manage-
ment 21 (6), 613–633.
Tosun, C., 1999. An analysis of contributions of international inbound
tourism to the Turkish economy. Tourism Economics 5 (3), 217–
250.
Tosun, C., 1998. Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the
local level: the case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management 19
(6), 595–610.
View publication stats
Tosun, C., Timothy, D.J., 2001. Shortcomings in planning approaches
to tourism development in developing countries: the case of
Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement 13, 352–359.
Tosun, C., Jenkins, C.L., 1996. Regional planning approaches to
tourism development: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management 17
(7), 519–531.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D.J., Öztürk, Y., 2003. Tourism growth, national
development and regional inequality in Turkey. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 11 (2&3), 133–161.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D.J., Parpairis, A., MacDonald, D., (2004).
Cross-border co-operation in tourism marketing for sustainable
tourism development: the case of Greece and Turkey. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing.
Tosun, C., Jenkins, C.L., 1998. The evolution of tourism planning in
Third World Countries: a critique. Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research 4 (2), 101–114.
United Nations, 1975. Popular Participation in Decision Making for
Development. United Nations, New York.
United Nations., 1981. Popular Participation as a Strategy for
Promoting Community-level Action and National Development.
Department of International Economic and Social affairs. United
Nations, New York.
University of Guelph., 1990. tourism/hospitality education and train-
ing study for the Northwest Territories, 1990–1995, Unpublished
report prepared for the Department of Education, Government of
the Northwest Territories.
Wang, F., 1994. The poltical economy of authoritarian clientelism. In:
Roniger, L., Ayata, A.G. (Eds.), Democracy, Clientelism and Civil
Society. Lynne Rienner Publisher, London, pp.181–206.
Wahab, S., 1997. Sustainable tourism in the developing world. In:
Wahab, S., John, J.P. (Eds.), Tourism Development and Growth.
Routledge, London, pp. 129–146.
Wilkins, J., Passett, A.B., 1971. Introduction: Citizen participation. In:
Cahn, S.E., Passett, A.B. (Eds.), Citizen Participation: Effective
Community Change. Praeger Publishers, New York, pp. 1–9.
Woodley, A., 1993. Tourism and Sustainable Development: the
Community Perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R., Wall, G.
(Eds.), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Plan-
ning, Managing. Heritage Resources Centre University of Water-
loo, Waterloo, pp. 135–146.
World Tourism Organization, WTO, 1994. National and Regional
Tourism Planning. A WTO Publication. London, Routledge.