Linking Culture and the Environment

192 Local Participation and Attaining Sustainable Tourism
Only in Guaimoreto, the Garífuna culture demonstrated more permanent
solidarity and unity, bound by ethnicity and against perceived general
social injustices. As formal nationals groups, they have taken some legal
actions to further their cause but have failed to do so at the local level in this
region. None the less, the Garífuna congregated much more in informal
group activities, presented their culture as a tourist attraction and seemed to
maintain strong community network of support and solidarity.
In other communities, it was surprising to find that many people trusted
foreigners more than members of their own community. They believed that,
unlike their own, others had more altruistic motives and were not as susceptible
to the temptations of corruption prevalent in their society. With remnant
attitudes of colonial and neocolonial times, the poor still view the foreigner
as a provider of aid, jobs and wealth.
Along similar lines, people expected outside investment to develop tourism
and large resorts to accommodate large numbers of tourists. They were
not familiar with the concept of ecotourism; nor did they consider smallscale,
low-impact tourism as adequate development. Having little or no capital
for investment and viewing tourists as rich people with fancy expectations,
they did not conceive the possibility of being a part in that industry.
Despite (or perhaps because of) a very limited understanding of the industry
and its implications in developing destination sites, the support for tourism
development was overwhelmingly positive at both locations. People perceive
tourism as a favourable development in their community because they believe
it creates jobs, pays better, stimulates development and encourages cultural
exchange. As a general rule, respondents viewed tourism as possible and
attractive sources of employment and income and, hence, development, but
expected government or outside investors to take the initiative. Support for its
development was very strong and enthusiastic, even if foreign to them.
Although social structures, democratic principles and practice, education,
information and communication were mediocre, people on both sites
showed a surprisingly high level of support for conservation efforts, tourism
development, and a willingness to learn and change, given the opportunity.
Considering that the majority of the population depends on natural resources
for their subsistence, the Foundations working in the regions count with a
remarkable endorsement of their goals. In addition, dire poverty and high
unemployment make the residents of these areas eager to try any alternative,
which might alleviate or improve their well being.
Coupled with their generally agreeable view of tourism and tourists, the
populations demonstrated, on the one hand, a willingness and preparedness
to embrace tourism development, if this meant an improvement in their
quality of life. On the other hand, their deficiencies in community cooperation
and involvement would indicate that they do not possess the adequate
resources or skills to successfully participate in a strategic planning process,
at this time. Significant and long-term commitment to modification in institutional
structures, functions and common objectives would be necessary on
the part of all stockholders for such development to take place.