Tourism Management 1994 1.

5(2) 9&108

Community participation in tourism

planning
David G Simmons
Department of Parks, Recreation and Touri.sm, Lincoln Univer,sity, PO Box 84, Canterbury, New
Zealand

Tourism planners are being asked to use greater community participation in tourism planning.
There are two reasons for this. First, the impacts of tourism are felt most keenly at the local
destination area and, second, community residents are being recognized as an essential
ingredient in the ‘hospitality atmosphere’ of a destination. However, while many planners rush
towards involving various publics in their work they do so without a full consideration of the
progress of public participation techniques employed in other aspects of planning. Moreover,
while many authors advocate greater public involvement few have tested or evaluated methods
appropriate to secure local residents’ interest and support for tourism planning. This paper
reports on a research programme for Huron County, Ontario (Canada), that sought to apply
and evaluate a three-stage participation programme for county residents.

Keywords: tourism planning. public participation. local tourism

It appears that tourism planners are setting off down paper concludes with a discussion of the require-
a road already extensively travelled by planners in ments for, and the potential contribution of, public
other spheres. This paper links recent tourism plan- participation in tourism planning.
ning literature, which calls for greater participation
in tourism planning, to the wider literature and The community approach
experience of public participation in other areas of
During the 198Os, a widening view of tourism as an
planning. The current trend in tourism planning is to
industry drew attention to the resources that sustain
incorporate resident input into destination area
it. ’ Among tourism’s resources, the residents of
planning, because residents themselves are being
destination areas are being seen increasingly as the
seen increasingly as essential part of an area’s ‘hospi-
nucleus of the tourism product. It is also recognized
tality atmosphere’. A review of the public participa-
that tourism’s impacts, both positive and negative,
tion literature raises major issues that should guide
are most apparent at the level of the destination
the public’s involvement in tourism planning. Parti-
community. In response, tourism planners highlight
cipation mechanisms must be chosen to match the
the need to decentralize tourism planning and to
desired output from participation and current stage
integrate it into overall community objectives.2m5
of planning. When set against the diffuse nature of
Central to these ideas is greater public involvement
the tourism industry, its composite product and the
in defining a ‘community tourism product’ - the
subtle evolution of tourism at the local level, it is
amalgam of resources that a community wishes to
suggested that considerable public education will be
present to the tourism market. According to Mur-
required if residents are to have the confidence to
contribute fully. phy:
For this research a set of three methods is The product and image that intermediaries package
adapted, tested and evaluated for their usefulness in and sell is a destination experience. and as such
tourism planning. While the results indicate general creates an industry that is highly dependent on the
support for further tourism development within the goodwill and cooperation of host communities.
study area, they also demonstrate that the general It is the citizen who must live with the cumulative
public is capable of participating in tourism plan- outcome of such developments and needs to have
ning. The focus of this paper is not only on the greater input into how his community is packaged
results but also on the methods themselves. The and sold as a tourist product.’

98 0261-.5177/94/020098-l I 0 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

 Community parricipation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

Goals for tourism should be integrated into overall business groups. Throughout the history of public
community objectives, since they represent but one participation commentators have noted that agen-
of several activities within many economies. cies seemingly promoting participation may, in fact,
Getz described the requirements for this integra- employ a variety of strategies - manipulation, ther-
tion as: apy, consultation, placation - aimed instead at re-
taining political or bureaucratic control and deflect-
goal oriented - with clear recognition of the role ing public involvement.‘4.‘s
to be played by tourism in achieving broad societ-
al goals; Objectives of public participation programmes
democratic - with full and meaningful citizen In a review of 21 selected case studies Sewell and
input from the community level up; Phillips ” highlight three fundamental tensions for
integrative - placing tourism planning issues into the design and implementation of public participa-
the mainstream of planning for parks, heritage, tion programmes. These are:
conservation, land use and the economy;
systematic - drawing on research to provide con- A high degree of citizen involvement. Two factors
ceptual and predictive support for planners, and are important: the number of citizens involved
drawing on the evaluation of planning efforts to and the degree of individual participation. It is
develop theory. difficult to achieve a high degree of participation
with large numbers of people because most tech-
By these means, tourism planning can become more niques cannot facilitate both. In response many
like other planning foci, in that it should be ‘a planning texts now describe a range of techniques
process, based on research and evaluation, which for public participation.‘7-‘9 Evaluative studies
seeks to optimize the potential contribution of tour- have led to a classification of techniques on
ism to human welfare and environmental quality’.’ factors such as: degree of public contact; user
While all scales of planning (international, nation- sophistication; degree of two-way communica-
al, regional and community) are important for tour- tion; level of public activity required; and agency
ism, planning at the community level is vital if any costs (including staff time and preparation).
region wishes to deliver tourism experiences which Achieving equity in participation. Sewell and
ensure both visitor satisfaction and ongoing benefits Phillips define equity in participation as ‘the
for the residents of destination areas. The various extent to which all potential opinions are
impacts associated with tourism growth, the frag- heard’.‘” A review of participation for other
mented nature of the industry and concerns over planning issues demonstrates that representation
regional development and long-term environmental has been more forthcoming from interest groups
change suggest that there is a role for government than from the general public. The outcome has
agencies as central players in tourism planning at
been that the process of participation has tended
each of the levels described above.X.’
to become conservative,21 often institution-
alized,22 and representative of a socio-economic
Public participation in planning and environmental elite.23 The involvement
of interest groups per se should not, on its own,
The public’s right to participate in the planning of
constitute a problem, however, as the central
activities that affect their daily lives is now a widely
issue is to ensure a balance of differing view-
accepted principle throughout the democratic world.
points.”
While this ideal has proved difficult to achieve,
Efficiency of participation. Most often measures
participation in planning is often guaranteed by law
of efficiency are concerned about the amount of
at the municipal and regional levels of govern-
time, personnel and other agency resources re-
ment.“&13* The public’s involvement has been
quired to effect the public participation program-
sought in the planning of a diverse range of issues
me. The public also has a view of efficiency,
including urban development, housing, transport,
however. Their ongoing interest and motivation
energy, parks and recreation, and water resources
rests squarely on their appraisal of how their
management. As tourism has risen in significance as
views have influenced planning decisions.25 All
a tool for regional development, it too must face the
evaluative studies highlight the need for both an
call for increasing public scrutiny and involvement.
informed public and the ability of the public to
It should be noted at the outset that this discussion
appraise the utility of their efforts in planning.
is based on the search for a ‘genuine partnership’
involving: the general public, representatives of va- Among these three elements, high efficiency may
rious sectors of the tourism industry, political and not be compatible with high levels of citizen involve-
ment and equity. ‘In fact . it may not be possible
* Among works cited are general historical reviews in North to achieve the three maxima simultaneously. Conse-
America,“‘,” North America compared with the UK1’ and one quently, government agencies have to trade-off each
for Ontario. Canada. ” of these goals simultaneously.‘2h A move back to-

Tourism Management 1994 Volume I.5 Number 2 99

Community participation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

wards efficiency has occurred recently, brought ab- has reviewed and recommended the use of the
out by the high cost of widespread involvement and ‘Nominal Group Technique’ as a consensus-
lengthy planning delays. It has also become apparent generating device, although he demonstrated its
that different techniques will address differing objec- usefulness on industry and communit opinion lead-
tives for participation and different stages and styles 4y
ers rather than the public at large. * The NGT is
of planning. No technique can fulfil alone all the similar to other focus group methods, and to the
requirements of participation and a ‘staged Delphi technique, with the added advantage of
approach’, using a variety of techniques, will be ensuring an equality of participation and a ranked
required as planning moves from normative (policy) output that is not easily achieved under other group
to an operational context. methods.43 Concurrent with the research that forms
the basis of this paper a similar variation of the
The potential for public participation in tourism Delbecq technique, as developed by Delbecq and
planning Van der Ven, appears to have been tested in
The nature of tourism development poses additional British Columbia communities.“’ In the great major-
challenges in the design and implementation of ity of cases, however, the destination area commun-
community participation in planning. First, the pro- ity is seen as a resource for tourism3” and negative
cesses of tourism development, identified in the local attitudes as ‘barriers to be overcome’.45
writings of Doxey,” Butler,*s and Keller29 suggest While there has been a strong call to involve
that tourism often has a high degree of initial residents in tourism planning, this is occurring with-
involvement and acceptance from the residents of out careful consideration of past experiences in
destination areas. It is not until after considerable public participation, or of the special features of
development that residents begin to appraise and tourism development. The need to search for and
take action on negative changes brought by tourism evaluate participation techniques applicable to tour-
development. Uncertainties and misunderstandings ism planning is the focus of the research that follows.
about tourism are more likely in the absence of
adequate resident involvement.
Second, finding members of the public representa-
An application of public participation to
tive of commonly held views, to engage in tourism
tourism planning
planning, is likely to be problematic. This is especial- The goal of the research, which is discussed in the
ly so given the wide range of factors that might shape remainder of this paper, was to develop and evaluate
their perceptions, and the difficulty of finding gener- an initial public participation programme for tourism
alizable patterns of resident response. This study planning. Because of the composite nature of the
therefore involved preliminary research to identify industry, visitor groups and the diverse nature of the
local issues and to establish their significance for tourism product, resident’s knowledge of tourism
local residents. was expected to be poor. A first objective, there-
These special features of tourism development fore, was to explore residents’ knowledge of tourism
suggest that a participation process is required that is and their perceptions of information currently avail-
ongoing, and educational for all parties involved. able. A second set of objectives sought to adapt and
Moreover, because of a potentially poor knowledge implement a set of three participation mechanisms
of tourism, and of how it evolves in local destination available for tourism planning. Methods of research
areas, considerable promotional input and facilita- (and participation) have therefore become central to
tive efforts may be required to convince the general the present study. Similarly, to examine the require-
public that their input is needed and worthwhile. ments for representative participation, the charac-
teristics of residents associated with differing posi-
Current planning practice tions with regard to tourism development have also
The call for greater community involvement has been examined.
already begun to be presented formally in Finally, residents’ beliefs about their community’s
government-sponsored approaches to tourism plan- existing and potential ‘tourism product’, and their
ning. While considerable attention has been given to perceptions of tourism’s impacts were sought, with a
the post hoc assessment of (social) impacts,3c34 a view to assisting residents to develop and interpret
thorough analysis of participation methods and specific tourism development strategies in the con-
mechanisms is lacking in both officially sponsored text of the chosen study area. A post hoc evaluation
tourism planning guidelines and in the academic is then made of the participation process and results.
literature. Among the techniques most commonly
used for involving the public in tourism planning are
Study area
surveys.-- +a7 Other recommended methods include
scenarios4 and gaming techniques (role plays).“8.39 Huron County, Ontario, was used as a case study. It
Elsewhere other authors have attempted to segment fulfilled the important criterion of not having under-
local residents’ attitudes toward tourism.40.41 Ritchie gone extensive tourism development which might

100 Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2

 Communiry participation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

have produced consolidated and hardened attitudes Table 1 Schedule of methods

among residents. Further criteria were for an area
Method Step Objectives
with the appropriate scale of jurisdiction and legal
mandate to effect tourism planning. Informal I Checklist of issues
interviews Search for variables
In many respects Huron County represents a Familiarization with study area
typical first world agricultural area. It comprises
Analysis
340 300 ha, arranged in 26 municipalities (ie five
towns, five villages and 16 townships) which in 1986 Postal survey II Testing of issues raised in
had a total population of 56 000 (Figure 1). interviews and the literature
Analysis Quantitative data
The area has an agricultural-based economy, with
no significant developments or exposure to tourism, Focus groups III Data interpretation
Development options
save the lakeshore village of Bayfield (pop 720)
which holds the largest boating marina on the Cana- Analysis
dian shores of Lake Huron. It has few notable SYNTHESIS IV THE COMMUNITY TOURISM
resources for tourism, although the area possesses PRODUCT
an extensive shoreline with good highway access. It
is, however, close to large concentrations of urban
populations (eg London, Ontario 100 km, Toronto Interviews were exploratory and informal. The goal
225 km, Detroit 260 km) and county leaders actively was to establish the relevance of the general issues
look towards further tourism development. expressed in the literature to the perception and
status of tourism development in the study area.
Methods Interview data were major elements shaping the
Two major points underscore the development of survey instrument.
the research methodology: the integration of parti- Second, a postal survey established the quantita-
cipation methods and a sequential refining of the tive foundation of the research. The sample was
research focus. The assumption that the ‘general designed to draw systematically from each of the 26
public’ knew little of tourism and its consequences, constituent municipalities of the study area. The
or their role in the tourism product, required a County Office of Planning and Development’s com-
commitment to an understanding of residents’ views puterized ‘geographic information system’ readily
on these matters. An interactive and participatory accommodated the requirements for a random start
approach was also required to assist residents in and systematic sample (to ensure geographic
defining their ‘community tourism product’. Con- spread), and the subsequent printing of address
versely, to gauge the breadth and salience of resi- labels. The questionnaire contained an introductory
dents’ wishes across the county and to generate data letter from the County Chairman, and offered an
and statistical relationships necessitated a quantita- incentive of ‘dinner, bed and breakfast’ at a local
tive element within the methodology. historical tourist inn. Free postal return was also
For this research it was held that an ‘integration’ included. Questions were grouped into four themes:
of field and survey methods would greatly increase general issues facing the county, options for tourism
understanding of the research problem and the development, a set of statements exploring attitudes
validity of data. The research process was therefore and beliefs about tourism and tourists, and back-
based on issues raised and interpreted by residents ground demographic items. Reminder notices were
themselves. The three participation methods (Table mailed out two weeks after the questionnaires.
1) and analysis of resultant data have also allowed Twelve hundred survey forms were sent out. The
for a sequential refining of focus, With increasing accountable response of 40%, while satisfactory by
knowledge of residents’ views it has been possible to North American experience,4h does raise questions
establish potential tourism development options as of representativeness and non-response. To allay
well as define constraints which might shape future these concerns, a supplementary telephone survey of
tourism development. 100 non-respondents was undertaken. Results from
this second exercise demonstrated that the survey
Interviews. Interviews were held with a range of response included a full range of opinion concerning
opinion leaders who might be expected to hold tourism development in the study area. Comments
well-articulated positions both for and against tour- made during the follow-up telephone sample suggest
ism development. Seventeen interviewees were it was the low knowledge of - and concern for -
selected in consultation with the County Director of tourism as an issue, and the nature of survey
Planning and Development. The list included tour- methods themselves, that contributed to the overall
ism industry representatives, management personnel response rate. When measured against county statis-
from local conservation authorities, mayors and tical data the survey is broadly representative of all
municipal clerks, recreation groups (eg anglers), municipalities and the county demographic profile.
agriculturalists and members of a historical society. Of any group it was young adults who are underrep-

Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2 101

 Community participation in lourism plunrzing: David G Simmom

Huron County

t
-N-

o 2 4 8 I6 miles
J
Grord

Key
-
County limits -1--B

Township limits ** ..,.. . .

Mojor town I l Town 0

Provincial highways ----@-- SOUTHERN ONTARIO

County roods

Railways

Figure 1 Map of the study area

102
 Community participation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

resented, and who may warrant additional attention To determine the requirements for representative
in future studies of this type. Survey respondents participation, a number of factors were examined for
were also asked whether they would be prepared to their association with key beliefs about, and atti-
take part in a later focus group to discuss and tudes toward, tourism development. Variables from
interpret survey data. an ‘experiential’ group (self-assessed contact with
visitors in work and non-work situations, employ-
Focus groups. The final data gathering strategy ment or business ownership especially in the tourism
involved the calling together of small groups (n = industry) were consistently the most strongly associ-
&12) of residents who had both completed the ated with support for further tourism development.
previous survey and had indicated interest in further For a group of spatial variables it was only when a
involvement in the study. Survey respondents were direct focus was made on the lakeshore village of
invited to participate because they were already Bayfield (the most intensely developed tourism cen-
familiar with the study’s objectives, and poor know- tre) that statistically significant relationships
ledge of tourism had already been identified as an emerged, suggesting a core of concern over further
impediment to participation. Three locations - development. Demographic variables offered little
Wingham, Seaforth and Bayfield - were chosen to association with attitudes towards further develop-
represent a spectrum of tourism and opportunity ment aside from an employment-related variable
throughout the county. Participants were first given that is paralleled in the experiential group.
the opportunity to interpret and review results from These data suggest that the nexus of concern
the postal survey. This task also provided a quantita- about how tourism development should proceed
tive framework for the generation of specific tourism appears to hinge on those who might directly or
development options, and assisted in overcoming indirectly benefit from, or compete with, tourism’s
the previously identified knowledge gaps among resource base. These include agriculturalists and
residents. In a second task, specific tourism develop- retirees who seek resource and amenity values of a
ment options were developed and ranked using the different type from visitors and the tourist industry.
‘nominal group technique’ (NGT). In discussion, Positive support for tourism comes from those in-
key planning constraints shaping future tourism de- volved with the retail and service business commun-
velopment were elaborated. Data from this latter ity, especially those most closely associated with
task were then used to reanalyse previous survey tourism, either as an investment or as an employee.
data relating to future planning constraints (Table 1,
Step IV). Defining the ‘community tourism product’
As well as discussing the previous data, focus group
participants were asked to participate in a ‘nominal
Results group exercise’.4” The ‘nominal group technique’
Residents throughout the county were generally requires participants first to generate an individual
supportive of further tourism development. Tourism list of responses to an open-ended question. After
apparently has room to grow, but not to dominate, listing all group members’ ideas, a voting and discus-
with two-thirds of survey respondents wishing to see sion procedure leads to the generation of an ordered
the county ‘attract more visitors’ and, in a separate list of responses. For this exercise participants were
question, two-thirds not wishing tourism to grow to asked to consider ‘desirable tourism developments
become the ‘mainstay of the economy’. For a full (facilities, events, programmes, options . .) for
review of results, see Simmons.47 When set against implementation in Huron County’.
other development options, tourism is a clear secon- The five top-ranked options for each group are
dary choice behind traditional developments in agri- presented in Table 2.
culture and light industry. Residents’ appraisals of In terms of specific developments, the desirability
their own and visitors’ amenity requirements de- of a county tourism coordinator was independently
monstrate a high degree of compatibility with three identified and ranked highly in all three focus
of the top four items (shopping, recreation areas and groups. Discussion focused around the need for
special events) listed for both groups. At each stage better data and information, and the need for a
of the research, residents were able to identify coordinating agency to prevent unnecessary com-
potential benefits more readily than potential costs. petition (eg clashing dates) among local events and
The current availability of information on tourism promotions. Other development options focused
was rated as barely adequate by residents with primarily on the further deployment of natural and
one-third rating it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Concern social resources. Participants believed that there was
was expressed for wishing to understand the nature already much to offer the visitor.
of the industry and the trade-offs that tourism de- Participants in this aspect of the study demons-
velopment might bring. Marketing and promotion, trated a far broader view of the tourism product than
although often high on the industry’s agenda, was is often advocated by industry representatives. For
the lowest rated information requirement. example, the top-ranked options represent primarily

Tourism Management 1494 Volume I5 Number 2 103

Communily participution in tourism planning: hvid G Sirnmonr

Table 2 Top-ranked options: focus groups’ potential tourism development option9

Wingham Seaforth Bayfield

1. County tourism County tourism County tours
coordinator coordinator from Bayfield
2. Dam Maitland river Promote existing County tourism
(+ parkland development) local attractions coordinator
3. Cross-country ski/ Promote wildlife Boat excursion
hiking trails areas on lake
4. Develop resort Promote local Attract resort
camping events and shows complex
5. County ‘theme’ Develop winter Family activity
tours sports programmes

Note: a Other options common to all groups: farm experience tours; ‘bed and breakfast’ accommodation

public or community initiatives that fit closely the As data from a similar list of items had been
existing resource base (existing parks, trails), rather requested from survey respondents, survey data
than purely private enterprise which is often associ- were then able to be re-analysed based on the factors
ated with industry sources. It is only in the more that were identified in the group discussion develop-
touristically developed Bayfield that development ment options arising from the nominal group techni-
initiative is placed primarily on private enterprise. que. Three combinations representing almost half of
The county was seen to have a major role to play all responses predominate. These are:
in the planning and development of tourism. In
areas wishing to develop tourism the county was l lakeshore development, medium scale, with local
seen as an initiator of development. Additionally, it ownership (18.7%);
is seen as the major regulator of tourism develop- l development throughout the county, medium
ment, as well as the principal agency for dissemina- scale, with local ownership (15.1%);
tion of information about tourism. The public’s l development throughout the county, at a mix of
perception of these diverse and changing public scales, with local development (14.1%).
agency roles is likely to be an important one, but so
The common element is local ownership, with only
far has received scant attention in the tourism
19% of all respondents grouped into options that
literature.‘“.“”
would involve ‘outsiders’. Elaboration of this item in
Shaping future development focus groups suggested that this position was also
based on a deep-seated fear of ‘loss of control’ over
After the generation of rank-order ‘options for
their rural way of life, visual landscape and environ-
development’, (Table 2), the top-ranked options
ment. Small and medium scales of development that
were discussed by focus group members to clarify
do not impose on the visual landscape predominate
the nature of group participants’ support for their
in residents’ wishes. Smaller scale operations also
choices. The researcher then introduced discussion
offer greater opportunities for local involvement and
on a group of major variables drawn from the
investment.
tourism planning literature, which could more
Overall, 52% of the total sample opted for de-
generally shape future tourism development. These
velopments that were spread throughout the county,
factors focused on the effects of scale, location and
rather than exclusively inland or on the lakeshore.
ownership of their proposals. Both highly ranked
Discussion in focus groups suggested different pers-
items from Table 2, and lowly ranked ‘options for
pectives on this item. Inland communities wished to
development’ (from the complete list of group ideas)
have ‘some piece of the action’, while residents of
were discussed to explore the mix of factors that
the lakeshore village of Bayfield saw it as a way to
might best represent residents’ desires for future
reduce the pressure of crowding. a
tourism development. It was, however, only in dis-
The foremost finding of this research is that the
cussing low, or non-ranked items, that the question
general public have been able to move significantly
of ownership emerged as a major item. One insight-
towards defining an acceptable style of tourism
ful interpretation from a group member makes this
development, and specific tourism development op-
clear.
tions that they see as desirable for their community.
The reason I did not vote [as others did not vote] for Residents would prefer to see the development of
commercial theme parks is that they would simply their county as a local responsibility in the first
be too intrusive. It is not that I am against them, instance. While existing attractions and facilities
it is just that they would involve outside money, and should continue to form the basis of the product,
ultimately local residents would have little or no there are recurrent concerns that development
control over what happens or where it happens. should be spread throughout the study area, and that

104 Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2

 Community parlicipation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

Table 3 Evaluation of methods

Evaluation
criteria Participation Efficiency Output’
method Type” Numbe? Representativeness cost Time Public Planners

Interviews 2 LOW High High Med Med Low

Survey 1 High High High High Low Med
Focus groups 2 Low Med Med Med High Highd

Nofes: a Type of communication: one way, or two way.

’ Numbers of participants contacted via the listed method.
’ Output refers to the perceived utilities for the two principal actors, the public and planners.
“ To argue other than increasing utility would be to argue against the sequential integration of the three chosen research steps.

local control and ownership should be promoted. postal survey was supported considerably by analysis
While some of the options raised by residents may of the preceding interviews. While surveys can reach
not be feasible, the specific developments listed and a broad spectrum of residents in a representative
the configuration of the three principal planning and way, the major drawbacks as a participation
development constraints suggest styles of tourism mechanism are that they offer only one-way com-
development that would achieve a consensus of munication and tend to require a high degree of user
support. sophistication. Overall, surveys also rate poorly as
an educational device. While the shortcomings of
surveys are generally well known and documented,
Evaluation of participation mechanisms these can often be minimized by careful construc-
A formal evaluation of participation mechanisms tion. Surveys, however, do confer the important
was not included as part of the research programme, advantage of providing an efficient collection of
but has been undertaken after its completion. The readily quantifiable data on known issues.
evaluation criteria represent the three sets of ten- While total costs were high for this postal survey,
sions inherent in public participation and identified when assessed on a ‘per contact’ basis they are seen
earlier in this paper. Previous models for the evalua- as efficient. For this investigation the postal survey
tion of public participation’7.“0,5’ were also con- has provided a necessary framework to refine tour-
sulted to confirm their use as appropriate criteria. ism development options, in the absence of a satis-
Data sources include taped transcripts of interviews factory general knowledge of tourism by residents.
and focus groups, informal closing discussion with Likewise, the testing and balancing of interviewees’
interviewees, focus group discussants, discussions views via a broadly focused survey remains a central
with county planners and the author’s field notes. A part of this research. Indeed, because surveys offer a
summary of the evaluation is presented in Table 3. high degree of specificity they may be viewed as
The table highlights the trade-offs between the more successful in this research than other mechan-
various mechanisms employed for this study. Inter- isms (eg public meetings, public hearings) that
views were used in this research to explore current would also offer potential for broad resident contact
tensions surrounding tourism development, and to but with less structured input.
gain familiarity with the study area. Interviewees, Overall, focus group discussions are seen as the
while few in number, were chosen to represent the most satisfactory participation mechanism. This is
broad spectrum of positions vis-h-v& tourism de- due in no small part to the contributions of the two
velopment. High costs were associated with this preceding steps. The nominal group technique re-
method partly because interview scheduling, inter- quires only moderate user sophistication, and has a
view length and analysis are time consuming, and high educational component. A key component of
partly because the author was not resident in the the focus groups was that the generation of desirable
study area. The opportunity for two-way com- tourism development options was based on partici-
munication, on a one-to-one basis, which also in- pants’ knowledge of survey results. Moreover, once
volves a considerable educational element, led to these specific options were identified, related be-
favourable reviews by interviewees. Interviews that nefits and costs of tourism development are more
are focused could provide considerable insight else- readily discussed. In this regard, the focus groups
where in planning, for example in the generation of are similar to advisory groups, which were one of the
alternatives. They are, however, not a consensus- favoured means of participation identified in the
building device, and would therefore require coor- survey.
dination with other mechanisms to fulfil the broader While each of the three methods has made a
requirements for balanced public participation. contribution, no method alone stands out above
Surveys are a common method for seeking quan- others in shaping the outcome. An important con-
titative data for planning. In this case study, the clusion is, therefore, that public participation in

Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2 105

Communify participation in tourism plunning: David G Simnumt

tourism planning will need to be more than a ‘one- life’ and the visual and environmental impacts.
shot’ attempt at information gathering. Different However, this fear was not easily identified, and
research (and in this instance participation) methods only became apparent when focus group participants
address different information requirements. Defin- discussed low-ranked options from the nominal
ing the objectives of participation and identifying group technique.
appropriate means for public input are therefore Retention of the local ownership of tourism re-
seen as essential prerequisites to securing the pub- sources and facilities was seen as an essential step in
lic’s interest. Survey respondents indicated that their achieving this goal. While this outcome may be
participation choices were shaped first by a desire difficult to achieve, it does suggest that community-
for two-way, focused communication. Among the based approaches to tourism planning must be con-
options offered in the survey, ‘open houses’ and cerned not only with defining suitable tourism de-
‘advisory committees’ were ranked highly. How- velopments, but also with implementation by way of
ever, at a second level the need for balancing views human resource development (skills training and
via contact with a broader segment of the population support), and the empowerment of local groups.
is acknowledged by residents. Surveys have the Increasing attention is also being given to how
potential to fulfil this function. The need for tourism perceptions and impacts of tourism change over
planning enjoyed strong support, with the county time. Among these, it is the changing attitudes of
emerging as an overriding first choice as coordinator destination area residents and the loss of local
of this function. control that are emerging as primary concerns. A
In the longer term, meaningful participation will corollary is the need for both resident participation
ultimately be based on two features: residents’ and planning processes that are ongoing and adap-
knowledge base, which in this study they have tive to different stages of development. Different
assessed as barely adequate; and residents’ percep- information objectives have been addressed by each
tions of how their input (time and energy) will be of the three methods chosen for this study. Within
influential in shaping decisions. While the second of the spectrum of techniques available for public parti-
these features was readily acknowledged by partici- cipation, other methods will similarly address diffe-
pants in this research it will require ongoing moni- rent information needs and resource constraints, and
toring and evaluation to determine the long-term now need to be applied and evaluated for their
influence of this current exercise. Based on resi- contribution to tourism planning.
dents’ wishes, the county has, however, already Notwithstanding the above, the public’s know-
made initial steps to develop advisory committees to ledge of tourism appears, at best, to be barely
ensure continued public involvement in tourism adequate to instill confidence in the soundness of
planning. Both of the above issues will require their contribution. Public education therefore has a
substantial and ongoing commitment from planning key role to play. Its twin objectives should be to
agencies, and from industry representatives, who are enable residents to contribute fully to both tourism
also likely to be sceptical of measures that they see planning and to their essential roles in the wider
as wasteful of their resources, and as constraining hospitality experience of their visitors. While little is
development. known or written of differing approaches to com-
munity education for tourism, information needs
arising from this study are seen to exist at two levels.
Discussion First, there is evidence of a need for greater public
This paper has traced the increasing call for residents awareness about tourism, its benefits and its costs,
of tourism destination areas to be involved in plan- how the industry is structured, about its current
ning. It has applied and evaluated three mechanisms contribution to a community’s welfare, and about
that might prove suitable for this task. Residents how tourism might evolve. Second, there exists the
involved in this research have demonstrated their need for a genuine sharing of information between
willingness for involvement, and have been able to the principal actors in planning, including the busi-
develop both specific tourism development options ness sector, to provide the basis for informed deci-
and indicate general constraints that should shape sion making.
future development. Regardless of all this, the community tourism
Local initiatives in developing attractions are seen product per se, whether seen from a resident’s
as a first preference in product development. If such perspective or in terms of a visitor’s experience,
involvement fosters support for tourism, it is a remains largely outside the direct control of the
compelling reason for a style of tourism that is well tourist industry. Successful management of the out-
integrated with local business and lifestyle. The put of residents’ participation as described in this
major fear of residents is ‘loss of control’. This is research will require strong links to statutory plan-
represented by a lack of control over investment and ning mechanisms (such as land-use planning), as well
subsequent development, but is also manifest in as understanding by planners of the community’s
concerns about the attrition of their ‘rural way of desires which they can advocate in their many deal-

106 Tourism Munagrmenr 1994 Volume 15 Number 2

 Community participation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

ings with potential developers. It should be empha- Branch, Ottawa, Canada (1979)
18Butcher, H., Collis, P., Glen A. and Sills, P. Community groups
sized that this research has focused on developing
in action - case studies and analysis, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
strategies acceptable to residents of developing tour- London (1980)
ist areas. Community-based approaches will not “Smith, F.J. and Hester, R.T. Community goal setting, Hutch-
dispense with the need for marketing and/or land- inson Ross, Stroudsburg, PA (1982)
*‘SewelI, W.R.D. and Phillips, S.D. op tit, Ref 16, p. 354
based planning approaches for tourism. However,
“Burton, T.L. ‘A review and analysis of Canadian case studies in
when integrated with these they are seen as an public participation’, in Sadler, B. (ed) Involvement and environ-
essential starting point to provide a broader perspec- ment: proceedings of the Canadian conference on public participa-
tive that accommodates residents’, as well as tour- tion Vol 2. Environment Council of Alberta. Alberta. Canada.
ists’, objectives for engaging in tourism. (1979) pp. ‘3-16
220’Riordan, T. ‘Participation through objection: some thoughts
Further research is now required to examine and
on the UK exoerience’. in Saaler, B. red) Involvement and
evaluate other methods of participation, and the environment: proceedings of the Canadian conference on public
structures that would ensure the ongoing support of participation - 1977 (2 vols), Banff (1979) pp. 13&164
the general public. Focus groups and the ‘nominal *“Smith L.G. ‘Public participation in policy making: the state-of-
group technique’, as used for this study, offer con- the-art in Canada’, Geoforum, 15(2), pp. 25%259 (1984)
Z4Berger, T.R. ‘The Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry’, Queen’s
siderable promise and should now be replicated in Quarterly, X3, pp. 1-12 (1976)
other settings. Size of community is also likely to be *‘Wolfe J. ‘Evaluation of objectives: a case study and commen-
important. The study area for this exercise repre- tary on’ public participation’, Plan Canada, 19(l), pp. 38-48
sents a rural community made up of many smaller (1979)
%Sewell, W.R.D. and Phillips, S.D. op tit, Ref 16, p. 354 (1979)
towns and villages. Larger urban concentrations will
“Doxey, G. ‘A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants:
pose additional problems for planners seeking com- methodology and research inferences, in Proceedings of the
munity input. Travel Research Association, 6th Annual Conference, San Diego,
CA, pp. 195-198 (1976)
“Butler, R. ‘The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution:
References implications for managers of resources’, Canadian Geographer,
24, (1976) pp. 5-12
‘Travis, A. ‘The need for policy action’, in The impact of tourism “Keller, C.R. ‘Centre-periphery tourism development and con-
on the environment, OECD, Paris (1980) trol’, in Leisure tourism and social change, Centre for Leisure
‘Spanoudis, C. ‘Trends in tourism planning and development’, Research, Dunfermline College, Edinburgh, Scotland (1984)
Tourism Management, 3(4), (1982) pp. 314-318 pp.. 77-84
‘Getz, D. ‘Tourism planning and research: traditions, models and “Plzam, A. ‘Social and cultural costs and benefits’, Workshop on
futures’, Proceedings of the Australian travel workshop, Bunbury, measuring the impact of tourism (Hong Kong), PATA Research
Western Australia, November (1987) Authority, San Francisco, CA (1983)
4Haywood, M. ‘Responsible and responsive tourism planning in “Duffield, B. and Walker, S. ‘The assessment of tourism im-
the community’, Tourism Management, 9(2), (1988) pp. 105-112 pacts’, in Bisset, R. and Tomlinson, P. (eds) Perspectives on
‘Howell, R.L. and Bemisderfer, T.R. South Carolina tourism environmental impact assessment, Reidel, Dordrecht (1983)
development handbook: a primer for local communities, Dept of pp. 476516
Recreation and Park Administration, Clemson University, Clem- ‘Kendall, K. and Var, T. The perceived impact of tourism: the
son, SC (1982) state of the art, Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Business
‘Murphy, P.E. Tourism: a community approach, Methuen, New Administration Discussion Paper, British Columbia (1983)
York (1985) p. 16 “Liu, J.C., Sheldon, P.J. and Var, T. ‘Resident perception of the
‘Getz, D. op tit, Ref 3, p. 3ff environmental impacts of tourism’, Annals of Tourism Re.Pearch,
‘OECD The impact of tourism on the environment, General 14(l), (19X7) pp. 17-37
Report, OECD, Paris, France (1980) “Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. Tourism: economic physical and
‘Murphy, P.E., op tit, Ref 6, p. 36 social impacts, Longman, London (1982)
“Sadler, B. (ed) Involvement and environment: proceedings of the ‘United States Department of Commerce, US Travel and Tour-
Canadian conference on public participation (2 vols), Banff, 4-7 ism Administration, Economic Development Association, Tour-
October (1977) ism Today, US Dept of Commerce, Washington, DC (19X6)
“Sewell, W.R.D. and Coppock, J.T. Public participation in ‘“Keller, C.P. ‘Planning future tourism development for a small
planning, Wiley, London (1977) town in southwestern Ontario: a case study’, Recreation Re.warch
“Johnston, ‘Citizen participation in local planning in the UK and Review, 12(3), pp. 3640
USA: a comparative study’, Progress in Planning, 21(3), (1984) “Ritchic, J.B.R. ‘Consensus policy formulation in tourism:
pp. 149-221 measuring resident views via survey research’, Tourism Manage-
17Bregha, F.J. (nd) Public participation in planning policy and ment, 9(3), (19X8) pp. 19%212
programme, prepared for Community Development Branch, “Loukissas, P. ‘Public participation in community tourism plan-
Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario, Canada ning: a gaming simulation approach’, Journal of Travel Research,
14Arnstein, S.R. ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the 22(l), (19X3) pp. lx-23
American Institute of Planners, 35, (1969) pp. 216224 ‘“Murphy, P. ‘Community driven tourism planning’, Tourism
“Glass, J. ‘Citizen participation in planning: the relationship Management, 9(2), (198X) pp. 96-104
between objectives and techniques’, Journal of the American ““Davis, D., Allen, J. and Coscnza. R.M. ‘Segmenting local
Institute of Planners, 45, (1979) pp. 180-189 residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions toward tour-
‘%ewell, W.R.D. and Phillips, S.D. ‘Models for the evaluation of ism’, Journal of Travel Research. 27(2), (1986) pp. 2-X
public participation programmes’, Natural Resources Journal, 19 “‘Allen, L.R., Long, P.T., Purdue, R.R. and Kiselbach. S. ‘The
(April) (1979) pp. 337-358 impact of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of
“Vindasius, D. Public participation techniques and methodolo- community lift’, Journal ofTrave Research, 27(l), (1988) pp. 16
gies; a resume, Environment Canada, Social Science Series No 12, 21
Inland Waters Directorate, Water Planning and Management “‘Ritchie. J.B.R. ‘The nominal group technique: an approach to

Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2 107

Community participation in tourism planning: David G Simmons

consensus policy formulation in tourism’, Tourism Management, unpuhlishcd PhD thesis. Department of Geography. University
6(2), (1985) pp. 82-94 of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (1989)
“Delbecq 1A.J. 3Van der Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (;roq~ ‘XKrakover, S. ‘Development of tourism resort areas in arid
techniques for program plunning: a guide to the nominal group and regions’, in Gradus, Y. (ed) De.vert development. Rcidel, Dor-
De/phi processes, Scott, Foresman, Glenview. IL (1975) drecht, (1985) pp. 271-284
“‘Delhecq, A.L. and Van der Ven, A.H. ‘A group process model ““Pearce, D.G. Tourist development (2nd edn) Topics in Applied
for problem identification and program planning’. Journal of Geography, Longman, London (1989)
Applied Behavioural Science. 7(4j, (7971) pp. 46492 ” ‘“Priscoli, J.D. ‘Beyond public hearings: suggested techniques for
‘sTourism British Columbia Tourism develonmmt: a communitv public participation in a transnational resource managcmcnt
strafegy manuul, Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. environment’, Proceedings of a Workshop on Public Participa-
British Columbia, Canada, (1986) p. 50 tion, Michigan, 23-24 June (1975)
“Bahhic, E. The practice of .wcial research (3rd edn), Wads- 51Sinclair, M. ‘The public hearing as a participatory &vice:
worth, CA (1983) evaluation of the IJC experience’. in Sewell. W.R.D. and Cop-
“Simmons. D.G. ‘Destination arca residents’ participation in pock, J.T. (eds) Public purticipution in plunning, Wiley. London
tourism planning: a case study in Huron County, Ontario’. (1977)

108 Tourism Management 1994 Volume 15 Number 2