Tosun Timothy

Abstract
This article presents a
normative model of the
argument for participatory
tourism development. It is
purposely tentative in manner
to attract further attention
from tourism scholars,
practitioners and decisionmakers.
The normative model
of community participation in
the tourism development
process has been built on a set
of seven propositions. They
deal with the relationships
between the participatory
tourism development approach
and the implementation of
tourism plans, achieving
sustainable tourism
development, increasing tourist
satisfaction, preparation of
better tourism development by
tourism professionals, fair
distribution of costs and
benefits among stakeholders,
satisfaction of locally-felt
needs, and strengthening the
democratisation process in
local tourist destinations.
While the arguments for
community participation are
presented positively, it is also
noted that the validity and
practicality of these arguments
may not be feasible in some
developing countries and
peripheral regions in
advanced economies owing to
the existence of various
operational, structural and
cultural limitations.
Dr. Cevat Tosun is an Associate
Professor and Director, School of
Tourism and Hotel Management,
Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay,
Turkey.
Dr. Dallen J. Timothy is an Associate
Professor, Department of Recreation
Management and Tourism, Arizona
State University, USA.
2 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
Arguments for
Community
Participation in
Introduction
the Tourism
Development
Process
Cevat Tosun
and
Dallen J. Timothy
Although participation of a local community in the affairs
governing its life dates back to the beginning of human society
(Hollnsteiner, 1977), the participatory development approach has
been employed as a modern instrument for better development since
the 1950s under different names (de Kadt, 1982; United Nations,
1981). Citizen participation has been recognised as a major element
of political dynamics in the post-industrial era. This may reflect the
response of governments to community actions that emerged in the
absence of the affluence and security of the period following World
War II. The increase in demand for citizen participation has ushered
in a longer-term movement toward a new understanding in public
administration and approaches to development.
In this context, community participation in the development
process is defined as development designed in such a way
that intended beneficiaries are encouraged to take matters
into their own hands, to participate in their own
development through mobilising their own resources,
defining their own needs, and making their own decisions
about how to meet them.
(Stone, 1989, p. 207)

Clearly, public participation is a
powerful tool to educate the
community in rights, laws and
political prudence. Participation
is a development instrument and,
more broadly, a body of influence,
which is capable of undermining
the related vices of ignorance,
indolence and class conflict.
Moreover, it is contended that
since the leadership of society
would inevitably be in the
hands of an elite, it was
necessary to ensure that its
members were educated in the
broadest sense and deeply
valued individual liberty and
democracy. The individual
would, therefore, learn the
politics of democracy by
participating in local
institutions and associations
(Low, 1991, p. 86).
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.
(Mill, 1973, p. 186, cited
in Low, 1991, p. 86).
On the basis of this argument, it
is proposed that active and direct
participation of local people in
local affairs is an indispensable
tool for public education
(Timothy, 2000), without which,
democracy and individual liberty
cannot function.
Tosun (2000, pp. 616-617) argued
that
the infrastructures of
community participation are
the legacies of western ideology;
the influence of community
development programs in
developing countries; western
social work and community
radicalism; and the United
Nations’ (UN) participatory
development programs, which,
indeed, provided a source of
inclination for community
participation as a modern
concept in housing, transpor-
tation, education, health, etc.
Naturally, accumulations of
participatory experiences in
social, political and economic
life have become the modern
sources of inclination for
community participation in the
tourism development process.
Proponents of participatory
tourism development have
studied community empowerment
in the tourism development
process in great detail and
improved significantly its
conceptual foundation (Gunn,
1988; Haywood, 1988; Keogh,
1990; Murphy, 1985; Reed, 1997;
Scheyvens, 2002; Simmons, 1994;
Timothy, 1999; Timothy & Tosun,
2003; Tosun, 1999, 2000).
However, these scholars appear
to consider this pro-active
approach in a reactive manner.
This may be owing to the fact
that arguments for communitybased
tourism development have
not been examined and discussed
on their own in a systematic way.
Therefore, the current status of
arguments for community-driven
tourism appears to be
underdeveloped. However, a
critical review of tourism
literature and developmental
studies reveals that a set of
strong arguments might be
developed by taking into account
distinguished characteristics of
the tourism industry. Within this
context, the main objective of this
article is to develop a set of
propositions as a framework for
understanding participatory
tourism development. After a
brief conceptual description of
community participation and
arguments for it in general, the
article focuses on a set of
arguments for grassroots
participation in the tourism
development process. The study
then draws several conclusions
based on the forgoing analysis.
Because there are relatively few
examples of participatory tourism
development in the real world,
not every contention is supported
by empirical evidence. As a
result, by nature, this article is
somewhat tentative as it
attempts to increase the debate/
discussion about communitybased
tourism development.
Scope of arguments for
community participation
Community participation as an
end and means has been
examined from political, sociological,
environmental, geographical,
bureaucratic, management,
economic and tourism development
perspectives. Thus,
scientists from many disciplines
have contributed to the evolution
and understanding of the concept
of community participation. As a
result, the meaning and scope of
community empowerment have
varied according to the goals of
the users and the socio-political,
cultural and economic conditions
in which it is used. Therefore, it
may be correct to state that
community participation is not
a simple matter of faith but a
complex issue involving
different ideological beliefs,
political forces, administrative
arrangements and varying
perceptions of what is possible.
(Midgley, Hall, Hardiman &
Narine, 1986, p. ix).
The wide differences in rationalities
between the social actors
engaged in encounters reflect that
these actors often appear to be
following scripts in separate,
incompatible dramas, indifferent
to, or contemptuous of, one
another (Stiefel & Wolfe, 1994).
Hollnsteiner (1977) has argued
that people’s participation in
formulating the kinds of
communities where they live goes
beyond a simple reference to
traditional ideological debate
about participatory development.
These arguments show that
participation as a development
strategy is not an end itself, nor
is it simply a tool for accelerating
economic growth, which is often
incorrectly presented as
'development' in political
platforms and social daily life.
Hollnsteiner (1977) and White
(1982) argued that community
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 3

participation is an instrumental
end, which is aimed at achieving
ultimate community goals. The
ultimate goal is 'development',
defined as a
multidimensional process
involving major change in
social structures, popular
attitudes, and national
institutions, as well as the
acceleration of economic
growth, the reduction of
inequality, and the eradication
of absolute poverty.
Development in its essence,
must represent the whole gamut
of change by which an entire
social system, tuned to the
diverse basic needs and desires
of individuals and social
groups within that system,
moves away from a condition of
life widely perceived as
unsatisfactory and toward a
situation or condition of life
regarded as materially and
spiritually better.
(Todaro, 1989, p. 89)
Naturally, different arguments
have emerged for community
participation in development
among scholars and practitioners
from diverse disciplines. White
(1982, p. 20) outlined nine
different but interrelated and
interdependent arguments to
support the importance and
necessity of community
participation in the development
process. These are as follows:
• More will be accomplished
• Services can be provided at
lower cost
• Participation has an intrinsic
value for participants
• It is a catalyst for further
development efforts
• Participation leads to a sense
of responsibility for the project
• It guarantees that a felt need
is involved
• Participation ensures things
are done in the right way
• It uses indigenous knowledge
and expertise
• It frees communities from
dependence on professionals.
Indeed, Hollnsteiner (1977)
raised arguments in favour of
community participation before
White's argument. Hollnsteiner
(1977, p. 13) contended that
involving people in the decisions
that affect their own lives is
significant for several reasons:
a sense of responsibility
through direct involvement,
rectification of planners'
misconceptions and general
increase in community's selfreliance.
Boaden, Goldsmith, Hampton &
Stringer (1982) approached the
issue from a public administration
point of view. They
argued that four main reasons
have made community participation
necessary as an
alternative strategy at the local
level. These reasons are
functional fragmentation of public
administration, centralisation of
local government, professionalisation
of service provision, and
the increasing remoteness of
government from people.
However, it should be kept in
mind that these issues were
conceptualised in the United
Kingdom in the early 1980s.
Thus, these reasons may not be
equally valid for other countries
today. This might suggest that
the grounds for public
participation may change
according to socio-cultural and
political conditions and level of
economic development. Although
these arguments have been
studied with special reference to
health, education, rural development
and transportation, they
have not been examined in the
context of tourism. Thus, the aim
of this paper is to examine these
issues and arguments from a
tourism perspective.
Arguments for community
participation in the tourism
development process
As previously noted, the legacy of
western ideology, the influence of
community development
programs in developing countries,
and western social work and
community radicalism as
4 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
historical antecedents of participatory
development provided an
inclination toward community
participation as a modern concept
in housing, transportation,
education, and health. To
Midgley (1986b), community
participation emerged as a viable
development approach consequent
to various UN participatory
development programs. These
historical antecedents of
community participation may
also be seen as a source of
aspiration for public participation
in the tourism development
process. Since popular involvement
has been previously used as
a development strategy in other
areas of social, political, and
economic life, it has also provided
guidelines in the context of
tourism. Indeed, arguments for
community-based tourism may
have different explanations,
which could stem directly from
features of the tourism industry
specifically. Arguments for the
participatory development
approach are considered under
seven sub-headings and seven
tentative propositions. It should
be noted that these cases for
participatory tourism development
are not mutually exclusive.
Proposition 1: Community
participation is a vital element in
the implementation of tourism
plans and strategies.
Public participation stimulates
the formulation of implementable
policies, the assumption being
that if community members
believe they have a say in a fair
and open process of policy and
plan development they may be
willing to accept the outcome of
that process (Buck, 1984;
Timothy, 1999). Grassroots
empowerment is an essential
element in formulating comprehensive
plans and an important
tool in ensuring their feasibility.
In future if the bureaucracy just
makes the plan as if the citizens
did not exist, it will be hard to
get citizen understanding and
co-operation.
(Broadbent, 1988, p. 139).

Plumlee, Starling & Kramer
(1985) and Haywood (1988)
supported this assertion, that
community members must be
involved in and lead plan
formulation, including determining
goals in order to arouse
community support that will
ultimately lead to acceptance and
implementation of the plan.
The outcome of numerous tourism
impact and resident attitude
studies in tourist destinations
has been a call for increased
public participation and, in
particular, a more communityoriented
approach to tourism
planning.
(Keogh, 1990, p. 450)
According to the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs of
the United Nations Secretariat
(1971, p. 61),
Where the targets of a plan are
not fully realised this is often
attributed as much to
inadequate public involvement.
The World Tourism Organization
(WTO) (1980) established an
inventory of 1619 assorted
tourism plans in 1980. The
survey concluded that only 66.5%
have been implemented. Nearly
half (43.5%) of the plans were
categorised as unimplementable.
In this regard, Tosun (1998)
argues that although there are
various reasons for unimplemented
plans, which can vary
from place to place, an analysis of
the evolution of tourism planning
and tourism literature suggests
that community participation has
not even been considered in
tourism plans during the 1980s
and 90s.
The public now demands that
their concerns be incorporated
into the decisions-making
process. However, there has
been little public involvement in
tourism planning.
(Mathieson & Wall, 1982, p.181)
This appears to be a natural
consequence of the over centrali-
sation of tourism planning and
destination management. As
Timothy (1999) and Tosun (2000)
contend with special reference to
developing countries, most
tourism development plans have
been prepared by central
authorities who may not be aware
of conditions under which the
plans will be implemented at
local levels by their regional
or/and local extensions. Thus,
planning and developing with
local authorities and communities
rather than for them may help
central bodies know what local
resources are available for
tourism development. Alluding to
this kind of situation, Murphy
(1983, p. 188) stated,
the lack of sufficient consultation
and planning at the local
level has certainly contributed
to the delay and demise of
many projects and policies
proposed by central planning
agencies.
Public participation in the
planning process and plan
implementation is important
owing to the fact that tourism
development takes place in
existing and well-established
socio-cultural, political, economic,
and administrative environments.
For some forms of alternative and
special interest tourism, sociocultural
and environmental
considerations are particularly
sensitive, and participation of the
local community in planning and
implementation is necessary to
ensure that the industry benefits
the local community and is not
disruptive to its everyday life
(Inskeep, 1991). In brief, without
citizen support, implementing
even the best-prepared plan may
be very difficult (van Harssel,
1994). This implies that success
in tourism development depends
on strong community support
(Getz, 1983).
Proposition 2: Community
participation contributes to
sustainable tourism development
in several ways.
Many students of tourism have
supported this proposition.
Particularly since the publication
of Murphy's (1985) book,
Tourism: A community approach,
the concept of community
participation in tourism development
has become a central issue
in the debate on sustainability.
In this regard, Woodley (1993, p.
137) states
a community-based approach to
tourism development is prerequisite
to sustainability.
It has also been contended that
An important aspect of
sustainable development is
emphasising community-based
tourism. This approach to
tourism focuses on community
involvement in the planning
and development process, and
developing the types of tourism,
which generate benefits to local
communities. It accrues to
local residents and not to
outsiders. Maximising benefits
to local residents typically
results in tourism being better
accepted by them and their
actively supporting conservation
of local resources.
(Inskeep, 1994, p. 8)
It is commonly noted that the
more that community residents
benefit from tourism, the more
likely they will be to protect the
area's natural and cultural
heritage and support tourism
activities (McIntyre, Hetherington
& Inskeep, 1993; Timothy,
1999). On the other hand,
community involvement in
establishing desirable conditions
is perhaps the single
most important element of
growth management in tourist
destinations.
(Williams & Gill, 1994, p. 184)
Pearce (1994) noted that
community involvement represents
a technique for limiting
negative social impacts. Ryan
and Montgomery (1994, p. 369)
asserted,
communities need only to be
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 5

educated about the benefits of
tourism, and that their
involvement in good visitor
management techniques will
actually solve problems.
That is to say, a reasonable
degree of consensus, which might
be reached via public participation,
is requisite for
sustainable tourism development.
The limits of local tolerance to
tourism can be increased through
resident participation, thereby
potentially increasing social
carrying capacity as well
(D'Amore, 1983; Tosun, 2002).
This is defined as
that point in the growth of
tourism where local residents
perceive, on balance, an
unacceptable level of social
disbenefits from tourist
development.
(D'Amore, 1983, p. 144)
In other words, communities have
a limited capacity to absorb
tourists. Growth beyond this
threshold may result in negative
social or ecological impacts and
diminishing returns on
investments (Allen, Long, Perdue
& Kieselbach, 1988). As Murphy
(1985, p. 153) puts it,
tourism … relies on the
goodwill and cooperation of
local people because they are
part of its product. Where
development and planning do
not fit in with local aspirations
and capacity, resistance and
hostility can … destroy the
industry’s potential altogether.
Many tourist destinations were
undeveloped rural areas prior to
the growth of tourism, which may
imply that historically local
communities in tourist destinations
were marginalised from
socio-economic and political life in
relative terms. This lack of
experience makes community
control over resources difficult.
On the other hand, no matter how
much substantive knowledge
exists on a particular subject, and
no matter how we develop our
capabilities in information
handling, operation research, and
prediction, if there is little
opportunity to develop a community's
capacity for improved
decision-making within the
framework of a democratic
process, there is a real possibility
that large investments in
planning will have been in vain
(Fagence, 1977). Community
participation may help the
industry contribute to national
development better in the long
term if local people have a voice
in decision-making (Tosun, 1998).
In this way, the participatory
approach can be an instrument
for economic growth and
sustainable development at both
local and national levels.
Additionally, the participatory
development strategy can be used
as a tool to improve a community's
capacity for making
decisions within the democratic
process. This is badly needed,
particularly in the developing
world.
In brief, this argument suggests
that community involvement has
become an indispensable part of
sustainable tourism development
since it has the potential to help
protect and preserve sociocultural,
historical and natural
resources essential for tourist
experiences, achieve a more
equitable distribution of tourism
costs and benefits among
stakeholders, and increase the
mutual benefits among tourists
and destination residents by
building a better understanding
between them.
Proposition 3: Community
participation increases tourist
satisfaction
Tourism itself will probably not
be sustainable without a
sufficient number of satisfied
customers. If the visitor does not
feel that a place is worth a visit
then it will wane in popularity
(Cooper, 1993). Since destination
communities are accepted and
promoted as an important
component of the product, there
should be no doubt that tourists’
6 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
satisfaction will be affected by the
willingness, or lack thereof, of
community members to support
the industry, which may be
determined by how much they
benefit from tourism development.
As D'Amore (1983, p. 143)
stated,
another component of supply of
tourism resources is the
attitudes and behaviour of the
hosts, since these qualities form
a significant part of the tourist
experience.
Another advocate of participatory
tourism development has argued
that
while all scales of planning are
important for tourism
development, planning at the
community level is vital if any
region wishes to deliver tourism
experiences which ensure both
visitor satisfaction and ongoing
benefits for the residents of
destinations areas.
(Simmons, 1994, p. 99)
Taylor (1995, p. 488) observed
that a
friendly community is desirable
for all kinds of inward
investment but for the tourist
destination it is the stuff of
advertising.
Alluding to local hospitality and
friendliness, Wood (1994) points
out that what is consumed by
tourists, except some specific
services (e.g., bed and breakfasts)
remains largely undefined.
Indeed, the undefined part,
largely the local flavour, may be
the most important component of
the tourism product. Tourists can
buy another breakfast and switch
their hotels, but changing
destinations is difficult because
most of them have very limited
time and money. Moreover, unsatisfactory
holiday experiences
may mean dissatisfaction for the
entire year since tourists perceive
holidays as a necessity and way of
coping with job stress. The
participatory development
strategy may be a means of

increasing the tangibility of an
intangible tourism product and
improving tourist satisfaction by
creating a reasonable consensus
between tourism and the host
community, which may motivate
local people to be more
hospitable. In other words,
participation in tourism planning
may create a sense of ownership
among residents - that it was
their own decision to develop
tourism in its present form.
Public involvement may also be
used to maintain a unique
lifestyle, fulfil residents'
aspirations, and prevent
alteration of destination qualities
to suit tourist expectations.
Thus, visitor satisfaction will
increase as they seek places that
are unique and different from
their own communities.
In brief, this discussion suggests
that building mutually desirable
and beneficial relationships
through participatory development
may increase satisfaction of
both hosts and guests during
their temporary encounter.
Proposition 4: Community
participation helps tourism
professionals design better
tourism plans.
It has been noted that
the tendency of professional
self-interests to produce
bureaucracy is by now a setpiece
of sociology.
(Tillotson, 1994, p. 512)
Thus, reordering priorities within
the planning and economic
development professions may be
necessary. Planning for people is
now old fashioned, while planning
with and by people is in style
(Robinson & Shaw, 1991). Public
participation provides additional
local insight for architects,
planners, and administrators
directly involved in development
projects. Low-income groups and
other traditionally marginalised
groups in society can give their
middle and upper class counterparts
new insights. This is not an
easy task, for after years of
technical training, the planning
specialist sometimes loses his/her
capacity to empathise with the
viewpoints of other social classes.
Professional training of elite
specialists commonly engenders
an attitude of knowing best,
but, by failing to involve the
ordinary people, these
developers impose external
solutions and foster paternalism;
they also frequently
make mistakes that are
monumentally costly and
wasteful.
(Midgley, 1987, p. 10)
Thus, people's participation
might rectify planning errors by
making it possible for clients to
explain to technicians-managers
what will work and what will not
in local conditions. It is a wise
listener who takes these points
seriously and evaluates plans and
programs accordingly (Boaden e t
a l., 1982). What an Australian
Aboriginal woman said is
relevant to the issue:
If you have come to help me;
You can go home again; But if
you see my struggle; as part of
your own survival; Then
perhaps we can work together.
(ANGOC, 1989, p. 4, quoted in
Colchester, 1994, p. 69)
Since the emergence of tourism as
an economic phenomenon in
many developing countries,
tourism developers have pushed
the process to maximise economic
benefits by attracting the highest
possible numbers of visitors and
building tourism infrastructure
(Tosun, 2001). Particularly in
developing countries, tourism
plans have been prepared by
central governments as though
local communities do not exist,
resulting in a missing, but
critical, ingredient (Timothy,
1999; Timothy & White, 1999;
Tosun, 2000). This may be a
result of the fact that
tourism planners are generally
persons with qualifications in
urban and regional planning,
urban design, or landscape
architecture who have evolved a
specialisation in tourism and
resort planning through
experience.
(Inskeep, 1988, p. 370)
Inskeep (1988, p. 370) states that
The planners or the government
should involve the residents in
the decision making process of
developing tourism and give
them sufficient opportunities to
receive its benefits through
employment at all levels, easy
access to tourist facilities and
attractions, and equity
ownership of facilities and
services... Planners should
develop tourism gradually so
that residents have sufficient
time to understand and adapt
to it, and the scale of tourism
should remain at a level that
allows the society to cope with
it.
Grassroots participation as a
catalyst instrument builds a
relationship among planners,
decision makers and local
communities. It creates opportunities
for tourism professionals
to go beyond traditional bureaucratic
paternalism, wherein
agencies and technocrats believe
they understand the desires of
community members, and they
alone know what is best for
destination residents. On the
other hand, tourism professionals
can use community views
generated through empowering
activities as input for tourism
plans and as a base to persuade
decision-makers to implement
participatory tourism development.
The above argument suggests
that
central to this communitydriven
tourism planning is an
explicit recognition that experts
cannot judge the perceptions,
preferences or priorities of host
communities.
(Pearce, Moscardo & Ross,
1996, pp. 10-11)
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 7

A present-oriented mentality
makes it difficult for tourism
professionals to project beyond
current needs and problems.
Hence, public participation may
generate invaluable input for
planners to prepare a better
development plan for sustainable
tourism development.
Proposition 5: Public
participation contributes to a fair
distribution of costs and benefits
among community members.
Tourism development generates
social, cultural, economic and
environmental costs and benefits.
However, these have not been
distributed fairly among stakeholders
because of the disconnection
between local people,
tourism, and power structures
among interest groups.
Eadington and Smith (1992)
argued that the current style of
tourism development has already
created 'winners' and 'losers'
among local people. Furthermore,
many of the 'winners' in
third world resort communities
are outsiders who may be viewed
as exploiters of the native
population and rapists of the
land. There may be, as the
International Institute of
Tourism Studies (1991, p. 9)
reported,
a need to recognise that tourism
must benefit the local
community and that there must
be broad-based participation in
tourism development decisions
at the community level.
Several scholars have recognised
that local residents have received
limited and unequal benefits from
tourism although they must live
with its negative consequences
(e.g., Brohman, 1996; Timothy,
1999; Tosun, 2001; Tsartas,
1992). Contributing to this
situation,
tourism entrepreneurs within a
community may not actually be
part of that community. They
may be 'off-comers', strangers
who import qualities which do
not and cannot stem from the
group itself, or they may be in
some ways marginal, perhaps
better equipped to profit from
tourist enterprises.
(Taylor, 1995, p. 488)
In some destinations, the
environmental and socio-cultural
costs of tourism development
outweigh its economic benefits.
The following statement provides
evidence in this regard.
Having ruined their own
environment, having either
used up or destroyed all that is
natural people from the
advanced consumer societies
are compelled to look for
natural wildlife, cleaner air,
lush greenery and golden
beaches elsewhere. In others
words, they look for other
environments to consume.
Thus armed with their bags,
tourists proceed to consume the
environment in countries of the
Third World - the last
unspoiled corner of earth.
(Hong, 1985, p. 12, quoted in
Brohman, 1996, p. 58-59).
We don't want tourism. We
don't want you. We don't want
to be degraded as servants and
dancers. This is cultural
prostitution. I don't want to see
a single one of you in Hawaii.
There are no innocent tourists.
(Pfafflin, 1987, p. 577)
This quote and the previous one
show that local people in many
tourist destinations perceive
tourism negatively. Moreover,
often international tourists are
seen as exploitative, lavish, and
hedonic foreigners who lack crosscultural
understanding and
communication skills (Din, 1989;
Dogan, 1989).
Tourism development diversifies
previously homogeneous communities,
and these communities
exhibit different responses to the
growth of the industry (Dogan,
1989). Indeed, tourism not only
creates heterogeneous communities,
it also changes power
structures in tourist destinations
commonly at the expense of
8 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
indigenous people who may be
excluded from tourism development
and decision making
altogether. In this context, Hall
and Jenkins (1995, p. 77) argue
that
awareness of the political
dimensions of tourism, and
more particularly the uneven
allocation of power in a society
or a community, should caution
us about the representativeness
of outcomes of tourism
planning exercises.
In some countries, particularly at
the beginnings of tourism
development, the domain of
bargaining quickly becomes
focused narrowly upon certain
material reciprocities. Entrepreneurs
seek an exaction fee for
public space, an abatement of
property tax and other
development incentives. The
rounds of negotiation continue
without regard for long-term
consequences: distributional
inequities and externalities. For
example, Tosun (2001) claims
that the Turkish tourism
industry received generous
incentives during the 1980s,
which may be partly due to
pressures by private entrepreneurs
on decision-makers,
which has resulted in inequalities
in the early 2000s. In many
ways, tourism development has
created a get rich mentality. The
end product may be that local
people increasingly come to feel
alienated, and consider that
tourists’ needs are catered to
ahead of local needs, and that
infrastructure and facilities are
not available to locals (D'Amore,
1983).
These arguments suggest that
many tourist destinations need
an alternative approach to
tourism development, which may
spread both its costs and benefits
equitably and which would be
more sensitive to its sociocultural
impacts. Moreover, a
large proportion of local people
should benefit from tourism
rather than merely bearing its
residual burdens. Community-

ased development may provide
more opportunities for destination
communities that have
not yet reaped the benefits of
tourism.
Proposition 6: Community
participation can help satisfy
locally identified needs.
It is important that tourism
development patterns reflect the
needs and desires of local
communities (Inskeep, 1994).
Several examples exist of projects
that have failed when the real
needs of community were not
taken into account (cf. Bradley &
Karunadasa, 1989). Thus,
projects should be molded to meet
people's needs, and not vice versa.
While local people do need better
hospitals, schools, houses and
food, it may be naïve to suggest
that tourism will necessarily and
automatically address these
needs. For example, Long (1991,
p. 210) noted that in Santa Cruz,
a burgeoning tourist destination
in Mexico,
Local infrastructure was in
some aspect deficient and stores
could not maintain adequate
supplies and groceries for the
burgeoning populace. Public
transportation was inadequate;
buses had sporadic schedules
and taxis were usually full.
Residents complained that a
visit to the public clinic took an
entire day, as there were
insufficient facilities and staff
for the demand. Medical
services in the area had
improved according to most of
the respondents, but many were
still dissatisfied with the
services available. Many said
they sought out private doctors
in the town of Pochutla, an
hour's bus ride away.
[ M o r e o v e r ] the original
residents of Santa Cruz did not
have cars and had to walk the
kilometer over the hill
separating Santa Cruz and La
Crucecia to visit people, go to
work, seek out services or go to
the stores that were divided
between the communities. As
they walked over the steep hill,
cars and trucks raced by,
forcing the pedestrians into the
drainage ditch along the side of
the road. The locals’ use of
roads did not appear to have
been considered in road design,
as no sidewalks were installed.
Participatory planning - something
quite uncommon in
developing societies - may help
local people's needs (Timothy,
1999; Tosun, 2000).
Communities are the
destination of most of
travelers...it is in communities
that tourism happens. Because
of this, tourism industry
development and management
must be brought effectively to
bear in communities.
(Blank, 1989, p. 4)
The empowerment of the
destination community members
is essential to maximise the socioeconomic
benefits of tourism
(Inskeep, 1991). The
International Institute of
Tourism Studies (1991, p. 9)
claimed that
resident responsive tourism is
the watchword for tomorrow;
community demands for active
participation in the setting of
the tourism agenda and its
priorities for tourism
development and management
cannot be ignored.
Community-oriented tourism
development requires finding a
way of creating more workable
partnerships between the tourism
industry and local communities
and developing facilities both for
hosts and guests (Timothy, 1998).
The participatory approach leads
to a greater sense of empowerment
in addressing community
problems, as well as greater
ownership over the plans and
activities that result from the
community participation process.
As a result, community
participation will serve as an
educational and empowering
process for host communities to
become partners with those able
to assist them, identify problems
and needs, and increasingly
assume personal responsibility to
plan, manage and control tourism
development.
Proposition 7: Community
participation strengthens the
democratisation process in tourist
destinations.
As part of the
metamorphosis of the
democratic process ... the
residents of communities and
regions affected by tourism are
demanding to be involved in
the decisions affecting their
development.
(Ritchie, 1993, p. 379).
In this regard, community
involvement in tourism development
has become a new standard
in tourism planning (Prentice,
1993). The more participatory
the tourism development process
is, the more feedback and input in
various forms will flow toward
official bodies, which might
narrow the gap between the
community and bureaucratic
decision-makers. Communication
between communities and
decision-makers must be a twoway
process from the bottom up
and the top down. This
democratisation process has the
potential to increase awareness
and interest within the
community about local and
regional issues - something badly
needed in many tourist
destinations, particularly in
developing countries. Initiating
community participation and
ultimately community control
may be more crucial in developing
countries than in developed
countries since, as most scholars
claim, democratic principles are
all but completely non-existent in
the less-developed world. In
many less-developed countries
tourism has become a priority
sector in public policy owing to its
considerable economic impact.
This leads Jenkins (1980, p. 27) to
argue that
tourism in developed countries
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 9

can be regarded as a mainly
social activity with economic
consequences; in developing
countries it is largely an
economic activity with social
consequences.
As third world governments have
placed paramount importance on
tourism in public policy,
alienation of community members
from this sector may mean the
alienation of people from
economic, socio-cultural and even
political life in some areas where
tourism has become a major
source of income and a dominant
social activity.
According to Wruth (1992, p.
293), a popular government that
does not seek popular input is
a prologue to a farce or a
tragedy and knowledge will
forever govern ignorance: and a
people who mean to be their
own governors, must arm
themselves with the power
which knowledge gives.
Empowerment is a way of gaining
knowledge that may arm a
community to challenge outside
and elitist interests in tourist
destinations.
Community members are not only
the consumers of public and
private goods and services, they
are also designers and producers
of a product. Thus, as noted in
Rose and Hanmer (1975, p. 33)
variant democracy is very
limited, in that it regards the
citizen only as a 'consumer' and
not as a 'doer’.
In this regard, it is inadequate
and unfair to package community
values, beliefs and cultures and
market them internationally
without giving residents
opportunities to decide on the
scale and form of that product.
To do otherwise is undemocratic,
albeit commonplace. Thus,
assessing the community's
regional hopes, aspirations,
and values requires reasonably
high-quality and diverse public
input if the views of those who
value public involvement in the
planning process as a desirable
part of democracy are accepted.
(Syme, Macpherson & Seligman,
1991, p. 1780)
Moreover, it is the process of
political debate that determines
appropriate policy in a democracy
(Davidoff, 1965). Community
involvement in the policy
planning process and decisionmaking
is an indispensable
component of political debate.
It is now commonly recognised
that there is a growing global
trend from centralised to
decentralised power, where
political control has moved away
from central governments to
lower order civil divisions (i.e.,
states, cities, towns and
neighbourhoods). This trend has
begun giving opportunities to
residents to deal with their own
problems and concerns (Naisbitt,
1984). It can be argued that the
community tourism approach was
ushered in by the decentralising
trend, which results from real
democratisation processes, and
community involvement further
encourages democratic governance.
In this context, Davidoff
(1965) argued that if democratic
urban governance is encouraged
by the planning process, citizen
participation must be guided and
supported in the planning
process.
Democratic theories have always
considered participatory democracy
a societal value, which
advocates extensive direct
participation in decision-making
by as many members of the
system as possible. It has long
been accepted that selfdetermination
by ordinary
citizens and other stakeholders
permits them to reach rational
and effective decision-making and
fulfil their potentials (Fong,
1986). If community participation
is accepted as a tourism
development strategy, local
people may articulate and realise
their own interests and promote
10 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
the stability and efficacy of social
institutions in the tourist
destination.
In less-developed countries,
although the poorest groups are
in the majority, they are the least
influential and seldom able to
express their views. Their
powerlessness is often conveniently
interpreted as passivity
and indifference, but the real
problem is lack of opportunity for
their direct involvement (Midgley,
1986a). Also, state development
programs tend to favour elite
groups. If tourism is a crosscultural
and international socioeconomic
activity, and one of the
biggest industries in the world,
destination communities should
be given opportunities to
determine the scale and types of
tourism development they wish to
pursue. Rapid mass tourism
growth threatens traditional
people’s simple way of life by
accelerating the process of
modernisation and social change,
something with which they may
not be able to cope. By organising
local people and making them
aware of their situation,
community participation provides
a mechanism for the mobilisation
of the masses and a collective
means of redress (Midgley, 1986b;
Timothy, 2000).
In the context of tourism, it is
accepted that
the public’s right to participate
in the planning activities that
affect their daily life is now a
widely accepted principle
throughout the democratic
world.
(Simmons, 1994, p. 99)
The tourism development process
should lead to the participation of
various groups from social classes
that represent the diverse
interests of the destination
community.
This would not only discourage
undemocratic, top-down
decision making, but also
provide opportunities for
communities to use their own

esources and popular
creativity to find locally
appropriate methods of tourism
development.
(Brohman, 1996, p. 61)
In addition, since planning has a
temporal dimension, planning by
public authorities can become
difficult and cumbersome owing
to changes brought about by
elections and other political
transformations.
This lends further support to
the need to involve residents
and other key stockholders into
a flexible and dynamic
planning process that can
sustain the changing
administration and adjust to
other forces impacting on the
tourism system
(Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 199)
in a more democratic manner.
Conclusion
This paper has presented a set of
normative arguments in favour of
the participatory tourism
development approach. It has
purposefully taken an optimistic
viewpoint and advocacy approach
in an effort to highlight the
benefits of participatory tourism
development and attract the
attention of tourism scholars,
practitioners and decisionmakers.
The arguments for
community participation in
tourism development were
conceptualised around a set of
seven propositions that deal with
the relationships between
participatory tourism development
and the implementation of
tourism plans, achieving
sustainable tourism development,
increasing tourist satisfaction,
fair distribution of costs and
benefits of tourism between
involved stakeholders, satisfaction
of local-felt-needs and
strengthening democratisation
process in local tourist
destinations.
Clearly, arguments developed in
favour of participatory tourism
development may not be found
equally valid from every point of
view. Some may be thought to
apply in some localities and
others in different ones, but they
are not in general mutually
exclusive, and taken together
they make a sensible argument.
It should be noted that
community participation in the
tourism development process has
emerged and been refined in the
context of developed countries.
Advocates writing on developed
countries have also popularised
it. Therefore, these prescriptive
and tentative propositions were
developed for a participatory
approach are essentially based
upon theoretical frameworks and
principles that planners from the
developed world employ in
tourism planning (Timothy, 1999;
Tosun, 2000). Thus, the validity
and implementability of those
arguments in various conditions
in developing countries may be
uncertain. In the developing
world context, there are most
certainly operational, historical,
structural, and cultural obstacles
to this pro-active tourism
development approach (Din, 1989;
Harrison, 1994; Mitchell & Reid,
2001; Timothy, 1999; Tosun,
2000)
Operational barriers include
centralisation of public administrations
systems including
tourism, lack of co-ordination
among private and various public
bodies responsible for tourism
development (Timothy, 1998),
and a lack of information made
available to local people in tourist
destinations. Structural obstacles
refer to elite domination,
clientelism, unwillingness of
decision-makers to implement the
participatory approach in general,
negative attitudes of tourism
professionals in designing a
participatory tourism plan, a lack
of financial resources, a shortage
of qualified human resources,
discouraging legal frameworks,
and a dearth in expertise.
Cultural limits include limited
capacity and desire of poor
people, apathy by some residents,
traditions of power, and low
levels of awareness throughout
local communities.
The success of participatory
tourism development will depend
upon many factors including
relationships among interests
groups and levels, types, scales,
directions and stages of tourism
development. For example, the
existence of some types of
barriers in some tourist destinations
will have negative
implications for implementing
community empowerment. By no
means does this article claim
universal validity in terms of the
arguments for participatory
development, for some of the
arguments might not be entirely
applicable in all destination
countries. Significant limits to
this approach may also be encountered
in rural or peripheral
regions of advanced economies as
well. Thus, participatory tourism
development may not be feasible
under every condition in all
tourist destinations.
Finally, future research should
test these propositions with
special reference to specific local
or national destinations alongside
the provision of strategies to
practice the participatory
approach advocated here.
Moreover, possible barriers to
public participation in tourism
development might be a research
topic on their own accord, as
these will vary from place to place
and from time to time.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 11

12 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
References
Allen, R.L., Long, T.P., Perdue, R.R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The
impact of tourism development on residents' perceptions of
community life. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16-21.
ANGOC (1989). People’s participation and environmentally
sustainable development. Manila: Asian NGO Coalition for
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
Blank, U. (1989). The community tourism industry imperative: The
necessity, the opportunities, its potential. State College, PA:
Venture.
Boaden, N., Goldsmith, M., Hampton, W., & Stringer, P. (1982).
Public participation in local services. Harlow: Longman.
Bradley, R.M., & 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.
Broadbent, J. (1988). State as process: The effect of party and class
on citizen participation in Japanese local government. S o c i a l
Problems, 35(2), 131-144.
Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for third world
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 48-70.
Buck, J.V. (1984). The impact of (US) citizen participation programs
and policy decisions on participants' opinions. Western Political
Quarterly, 37(3), 468-482.
Colchester, M. (1994). Sustaining the forests: The community based
approach in South and Southeast Asia. Development and
Change, 25(1), 69-100.
Cooper, C. (1993). An introduction to tourism. In C. Cooper, J.
Fletcher, D. Gilbert & S. Wanhill, (Eds.), Tourism: Principles
and practice (pp. 7-12). London: Pitman.
D'Amore, L. (1983). Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host
community. In P.E. Murphy (Ed.), Tourism in Canada: Selected
issues and options (pp. 135-159). Victoria, BC: University of
Victoria, Department of Geography.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of
the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.
de Kadt, E. (1982). Community participation for health: The case of
Latin America. World Development, 10(7), 573-584.
Din, K.H. (1989). Islam and tourism: Patterns, issues, and options.
Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 542-563.
Dogan, H.Z. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Social cultural impacts of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 216-236.
Eadington, W., & Smith, V.L. (1992). Introduction: The emergence of
alternative forms of tourism. In V.L. Smith & W.R. Eadington
(Eds.), Tourism alternatives: Potentials and problems in the
development of tourism (pp. 1-12). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Fagence, M. (1977). Citizen participation in planning. O x f o r d :
Pergamon.
Fong, P.F.W. (1986). Citizen participation and administrative
decentralisation in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 10(1/2),
207-217.
Getz, D. (1983). Tourism, community organisation and the social
multiplier. In Leisure, Tourism and Social Change -
Proceedings of the International Geographical Union
Commission of the Geography of Tourism and Leisure, 2, 85-99.
Gunn, C.A. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor
and Francis.
Hall, C.M., & Jenkins, M.J. (1995). Tourism and public policy.
London: Routledge.
Harrison, D. (1994). Learning from the old south by the new south?
The case of tourism. Third World Quarterly, 15(4), 707-721.

Haywood, K.M. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning
in the community. Tourism Management, 9, 105-118.
Hollnsteiner, M.R. (1977). People power: Community participation in
the planning of human settlements. Assignment Children,
43,11-47.
Hong, E. (1985). The third world while it lasts: The social and
environmental impact of tourism with special reference to
Malaysia. Penang: Consumers’ Association of Penang.
Inskeep, E. (1988). Tourism planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 54, 360-371.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable
development approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Inskeep, E. (1994). National and regional tourism planning. London:
Routledge.
International Institute of Tourism Studies (1991). Global assessment
of tourism policy. Washington, DC: The George Washington
University.
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community
tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 186-204.
Jenkins, C.L. (1980). Tourism policies in developing countries: A
critique. International Journal of Tourism Management, 1( 1 ) ,
36-48.
Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism
planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 449-65.
Long, V.H. (1991). Government-industry-community interaction in
tourism development in Mexico. In T. Sinclair & M.J. Stabler
(Eds.), The tourism industry: An international analysis ( p p .
205-222). Wallingford: CAB International.
Low, N. (1991). Planning, politics and the state: Political foundations
of planning thoughts. London: Unwin Hyman.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and
social impacts. Harlow: Longman.
McIntyre, G., Hetherington, A., & Inskeep, E. (1993). S u s t a i n a b l e
tourism development: A guide for local planners. Madrid: World
Tourism Organisation.
Midgley, J. (1986a). Community participation: History, concepts and
controversies. In J. Midgley, A. Hall, M. Hardiman, & D.
Narine (Eds.), Community participation, social development,
and the state (pp. 13-43). London: Methuen.
Midgley, J. (1986b). Community participation, the state and social
policy. In J. Midgley, A. Hall, M. Hardiman & D. Narine (Eds.),
Community participation, social development, and the state (pp.
144-159). London: Methuen.
Midgley, J. (1987). Popular participation, statism and development.
Journal of Social Development in Africa, 2(1), 5-15.
Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardiman, M., & Narine, D. (1986). Preface. In
J. Midgley, A. Hall, M. Hardiman & D. Narine (Eds.),
Community participation, social development, and the state (pp.
vii-ix). London: Methuen.
Mill, J.S. (1973). Essays on politics and culture. Glouster, MA: Peter
Smith.
Mitchell, R.E., & Reid, D.G. (2001). Community integration: Island
tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 28,113-139.
Murphy, P.E. (1983). Tourism as a community industry. T o u r i s m
Management, 4, 180-193.
Murphy, P.E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York:
Methuen.
Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.
Pearce, P.L. (1994). Tourism-resident impacts: Examples,
explanations and emerging solutions. In W.F. Theobald (Ed.),
Global Tourism (pp. 104-123). Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 13

14 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03
Pearce, P.L., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G.F. (1996). Tourism community
relationships. Oxford: Elsevier.
Pfafflin, G. (1987). Concern for tourism: European perspective and
response. Annals of Tourism Research,14, 576-579.
Plumlee, J.P., Starling, J.D., & Kramer, K.W. (1985). Citizen
participation in water quality planning: A case study of
perceived failure. Administration and Society, 16(4), 455-73.
Prentice, R. (1993). Community-driven tourism planning and
residents' preferences. Tourism Management, 14, 218-227.
Reed, M. (1997). Power relations and community-based tourism
planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 566-591.
Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993). Crafting a destination vision: Putting the
concept of resident-responsive tourism into practice. T o u r i s m
Management, 14, 379-89
Robinson, F., & Shaw, K. (1991). Urban regeneration and community
involvement. Local Economy, 6(1), 61-72.
Rose, H., & Hanmer, D. (1975). Community participation and social
change. In D. Jones & M. Mayo (Eds.), Community Work Two
(pp. 25-45). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell
residents to tourism and issues in community responsive
tourism. Tourism Management, 15, 358-369.
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development. Harlow: Prentice
Hall.
Simmons, D.G. (1994). Community participation in tourism
planning. Tourism Management, 15, 98-108.
Stiefel, M., & Wolfe, M. (1994). A voice for the excluded popular
participation in development. London: Zed Books.
Stone, L. (1989). Cultural cross-roads of community participation in
development: A case from Nepal. Human Organisation, 48, 206-
13.
Syme, G.J., Macpherson, D.K., & Seligman, C. (1991). Factors
motivating community participation in regional water allocation
planning: A test of an expectancy value model. E n v i r o n m e n t
and Planning A, 23(12), 1779-1795.
Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: Does it really work?
Tourism Management, 16, 487-489.
Tillotson, S. (1994). Citizen participation in the welfare-state: An
experiment, 1945-57. Canadian Historical Review, 75(4), 511-
542.
Timothy, D.J. (1998). Cooperative tourism planning in a developing
destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(1), 52-68.
Timothy, D.J. (1999). Participatory planning: A view of tourism in
Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 371-391.
Timothy, D.J. (2000). Building community awareness of tourism in a
developing country destination. Tourism Recreation Research,
25(2), 111-116.
Timothy, D.J., & Tosun, C. (2003). Appropriate planning for tourism
in destination communities: Participation, incremental growth
and collaboration. In S. Singh, D.J. Timothy & R.K. Dowling
(Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 181-204).
Wallingford: CAB International
Timothy, D.J., & White, K. (1999). Community-based ecotourism
development on the periphery of Belize. Current Issues in
Tourism, 2(2/3), 226-242.
Todaro, M.P. (1989). Economic development in the third world. New
York: Longman.
Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the
local level: The case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management,
19, 595-610.
Tosun, C. (1999). An analysis of contributions of international
inbound tourism to the Turkish economy. Tourism Economics,
5, 217-250.

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism
development process in developing countries. T o u r i s m
Management, 21, 613-633.
Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in
the developing world: The case of Turkey. T o u r i s m
Management, 22, 289-303.
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of tourism impacts: A comparative
study. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 231-253
Tsartas, P. (1992). Socio-economic impacts of tourism on two Greek
Isles. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 516-533.
United Nations (1981). Popular participation as a strategy for
promoting community-level action and national development.
New York: Department of International Economic and Social
affairs, United Nations.
United Nations Secretariat (1971). Income distribution policies in
centrally planned economies. International Social Development
Review, 9, 62-66.
van Harssel, J.V. (1994). Tourism: An exploration. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
White, A.T. (1982). Why community participation? A s s i g n m e n t
Children, 59/60, 17-34.
Williams, P.W., & Gill, A. (1994). Tourism carrying capacity
management issues. In W.F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism
(pp. 174-187). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Wood, R.C. (1994). Some theoretical perspectives on hospitality. In
A.V. Seaton, C.L. Jenkins, R.C. Wood, P.U.C. Dieke, M.M.
Bennett, L.R. MacLelan & R. Smith (Eds.), Tourism: The state
of the art (pp. 737-744). Chichester: Wiley.
Woodley, A. (1993). Tourism and sustainable development: The
community perspective. In J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler & G. Wall
(Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring,
planning, managing (pp. 135-146). Waterloo: Heritage
Resources Centre, University of Waterloo.
World Tourism Organisation (1980). Physical planning and area
development for tourism in the six WTO regions. Madrid: World
Tourism Organisation.
Wurth, A.H. (1992). Public participation in technological decisions: A
new model. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 12( 6 ) ,
289-293.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 15