. .. .4“... .
. ”Bard. a)” A
I Etnibihnrnm

n1 ingv in“ it.

. . . . ‘ . I . . A ,. v . 1‘

. 1.... , . . . ... : . .. . . .

3, , .. . . . . . _ ‘ .

:i .1 ...v ... A . . . . . . . .. , . , ‘ . . amt: .2! Lam.” .
. . . 9;. 11.8. . , . A . . . ‘ =1. ‘
V. V 5.0;: . J) , . , . ,. . : .. , . . , . . . (:ébfi
L. . . . .. . ‘ . . ‘ . L . fir”: ‘Iufiflql. fitt-

t . 41%..»qu NW .1.

.174?
_— z :1:
v3,

UM. .. . .
f . 4 m

firmmmmwmz
fimfiflfnfi?

W

~

‘ .3
, .t
(.51.
931:7:

&. 10?:
..v:v....t .
"will: :i
.5 1). {it
.zbflyosawlqtlxlix .
.rlidufin
. . '94-)?
14$ 1..
I0.

 

.ilkitpi :vlql
‘ .|..l 1...... ‘ 1.1;:
. I I.

r.“

. .‘I
‘ l( (5...:
1.30.; 73‘.
5‘
gut}:
. at)... (I:

Lg

£9379} o..,
my. anwzflflhr

_ a! .:(v s1.rnl|nL......Wl.H:X
.1... . inked; an; .«I......_.. .3
3! .3K...Iu.kTah!..d.. NHA‘ .,

1 v.;.(: .

 

II.

 

 

753.3 7 llllllllllllillllllllillillllllllllIIHIHHIHIIIIIUIIlilli

L E5" HAIRY 302074 1033
. ,7 momma 5....

University I

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

UNDERSTANDING LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN
ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT.
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SEL CT PUBLISHED LITERATURE

presented by

Sudhiani Prat iwi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
degree 1n

 

 

9... ..a 5. flag.

Major professor

Date S/é/wo

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
m 3;}; 951 “E55 % £063
5 52084541: -
car 1 7 2931
{0 '7 1 7 '03
set“ i t 2002

 

MN??? 90%

 

mg 21 38201111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 Mass-p.14

 

UNDERSTANDING LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN ECOTOURISM
DEVELOPMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECT PUBLISHED
LITERATURE
By

Sudhiani Pratiwi

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2000

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN ECOTOURISM
DEVELOPMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECT PUBLISHED
LITERATURE
By

Sudhiani Pratiwi

Ecotourism is a form of tourism that combines conservation and development
goals. Many factors influence the relative success of ecotourism in accomplishing these
goals. One of the factors is the nature and extent to which local communities are involved
in such projects.

This study examined local community participation with regard to ecotourism
development by identifying the source and nature of project goals, levels of participation
in which communities were involved and characteristics of the participants. Information
was collected fi'om written materials. In particular, seventy-three case studies were
gathered from various sources of published literature and from correspondence with three
international nongovernmental organizations (N GO’s). These case studies were then
reviewed and content analyzed.

Results indicated that the goal of most ecotourism projects in the case studies was
to empower the community. However, in most of the case studies the source of the
project goal was outsider driven and community members were involved only in process
nominal and action initiation levels of participation. In addition, in terms of the
representation of community members, participation most often reflected “by the road ”
and “elite” biases. Recommendations for policy, planning and fiIture research are

provided.

Copyright by
Sudhiani Pratiwi
2000

This study is dedicated to those whose existence and voices have been ignored and

whose innocence have been used for the advantages of others.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals have extended their help and assistance to the completion of
this research. I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Dennis B. Propst, my major
professor and advisor, for his supportive efforts and insight throughout my program and
for making this research possible. I would like to thank the other committee members,
Dr. Joseph D. F ridgen and Dr. Maureen H. McDonough, who provided invaluable ideas
and information for this study.

I would also like to express my gratitude and deep appreciation to Dr. Betty van
der Smissen for her encouragement and support during times of confusion and frustration
and to whom I learned and experienced a wonderful teaching and learning process.

My sincere thanks and deep appreciation to my husband, Harijanto Suwamo, and
my daughter, Halimun Pumama Kasih, for their unconditional support, cheerfulness and
companionship throughout my study. I thank other family members and friends for their
encouragement. My special thanks to Nancy Knap, my friend and my editor for several
initial drafts of my thesis, Lisna Utami and Kalsom Kayat for their encouragement and
understanding and to whom I learned a wonderful meaning of friendship.

Special thanks go to WWF Hungary, Netherlands and Zimbabwe for sending me
related case studies. I also want to express my gratitude to several fellow researchers for

their generosity and cooperation by sending me their studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Introduction ........................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................ 4
Beneficiaries .......................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

Ecotourism: Definitions and Concepts ............................................ 6
Ecotourism and Tourism Compared ............................................... 9
Theoretical Basis for Community Participation .................................. 14
Need for Local Community Participation in Ecotourism
Development ....................................................................... 17
Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation ................... 18
Community Participation: Definitions and Levels of Participation ........... 21
Definitions .................................................................... 21
Levels of Participation ...................................................... 23
Characteristics that Define Communities .......................................... 27
Community Participation for Ecotourism Development ........................ 28
Problem Statement ................................................................... 3O
Objectives of the Study .............................................................. 31

CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Content Analysis: Definitions and Approaches .................................. 35

vi

Examples of Studies Using the Content Analysis Method .....................

Research Design ......................................................................

Nature of the Data Collected ..............................................
Sampling Frame ............................................................
Procedures ....................................................................
Reliability ...................................................................
Validity ........................................................................

Data Analysis ................................................................

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER V

Characteristics of the Case Studies ........................................
Source of the Project Goal ..................................................
Goal of the Project ...........................................................
Levels of Participation ......................................................
Characteristics of the Communities Involved ...........................
Cross Tabulation Analysis of Selected Variables .......................
Discussion ....................................................................
What Kind of Community Participation ? .......................

Levels of Participation ...................................
Characteristics of the Communities Involved .........

Comparison of Case Findings to the Literature Reviewed... .
Limitations ...................................................................

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions ..................................................................

vii

41

42

42

42

45

50

53

55

58

60

62

63

71

80

84

84

87

92

96

97

99

Goal of Community Participation ................................ 100
Levels of Participation ............................................ 101
Characteristics of the Communities Involved ................... 102

Comparison of Case Findings to the Literature Reviewed. . .. 102

Recommendations ........................................................... I 03
Policy Recommendations .......................................... 103
Planning Recommendations ....................................... 104
Research Recommendations ...................................... 105
APPENDICES
Appendix A E-mail Messages to NGOs ................................. 107
Appendix B List of E-mail Address ..................................... 109
Appendix C List of Ecotourism Case Studies Based on the Types
of Literature .................................................................. I 12
Appendix D Guidelines for Raters ........................................ 126
Appendix E Codebook ..................................................... I33
LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................... 137

viii

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7. .

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.

Table 20.

LIST OF TABLES

Types of reliability designs ...................................................
Validity in content analysis ...................................................
List of variables to be identified ..............................................

Agreement and disagreement between raters for case
study 1 ...........................................................................

Agreement and disagreement between raters for case
study 2 ...........................................................................

Agreement and disagreement between raters for case
study 3 ...........................................................................

Interraterreliability ...............................
Geographic locations of case studies ........................................
Level of development growth of case study countries .....................
Source of the project goal ...................................................
Empowerment and capacity building of the community ..................
Community members participating in preliminary data collection ......
Community members volunteering their time and effort ..................
Community members hired by the project ..................................
Private enterprises developed by community members ...................
Consultation mode: public meetings .........................................
Consultation mode: focus groups .............................................
Consultation mode: other consultation methods ...........................
Community members involved in decision making ........................

Community involvement in action initiation ...............................

ix

38

39

46

51

51

52

52

59

60

61

62

8

65

66

67

68

69

69

71

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.

Involvement of community members living within the project
boundaries .......................................................................

Involvement of community members living near the project
boundaries .......................................................................

Involvement of community members living far from the project
boundaries .......................................................................

Involvement of family .........................................................
Involvement of religious organizations ......................................
Involvement of local academic institutions .................................
Involvement of local government agencies .................................
Involvement of other local institutional groups ............................
Involvement of high-income members of the local community .........
Involvement of middle-income members of the local community ......

Involvement of low-income members of the local community ..........
Involvement of men ............................................................
Involvement of women .........................................................
Involvement of both men and women .......................................

Crosstabulation: source of the project goal by empowerment of
community ......................................................................

Crosstabulation: source of the project goals by involvement of
community in decision making ...............................................

Crosstabulation: empowerment of community by involvement of
community in decision making ................. . ..............................

Crosstabulation: source of the project goal by involvement of
community in action initiation .............................................

Crosstabulation: involvement of community in action initiation by
involvement of community in decision making ............................

72

72

73

74

74

75

76

76

77

78

78

79

79

80

81

82

82

83

84

Table 40. Levels of participation in which community members were involved... 91

Table 41. Characteristics of communities participating in ecotourism 95
projects ...........................................................................

xi

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.

Figure 8.

LIST OF FIGURES

Characteristics of ecotourism ...............................................
Ecotourism development in the context of tourism development

Relationship between community participation and ecotourism
development ..................................................................

Spectrum of different levels of participation ..............................
Research procedures .........................................................
Research procedures in content analysis ...................................
Data analysis ..................................................................

Comparison between the kind of participation in case studies and the
kind of participation called for in the literature ............................

\ xii

10

15

19

26

34

37

56

88

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Although conservation and development are often at odds, ecotourism has
become a way for developing countries to achieve both conservation and development
goals. There are many factors influencing the relative success of ecotourism in
accomplishing these goals. One of the factors may be the nature and the extent to which
local communities are involved in such projects.

Ecotourism is a form of tourism that Should be both environmentally responsible
and potentially beneficial to local people (Wood et al., 1991). In fact, the involvement of
the local community in ecotourism projects has become an important issue in
development studies (Furze et al., 1997). For example, Wall and Ross (1998) suggest
that ecotourism can be used as a tool to achieve the goals of resource conservation and
local development if it is effectively managed and incorporates local communities, non-
governmental organizations (NGO’S), conservation agencies and development assistance
agencies.

While many ecotourism projects have been developed in or near protected areas
such as national parks, protected forests, and natural reserves (Furze et al., 1997; Gurung,
1995), these areas usually exclude the local population who may depend on the natural
resources in those areas (Gurung, 1995). This approach creates a conflict between local
populations and other parties involved in the projects. As a result, both sides have
experienced adversity, such as a lack of access to resources for local people and a lack of

support from the local community for the projects.

Yet, local communities can contribute to the success of ecotourism projects by
sharing their knowledge about the local areas, participating in conservation programs,
and providing human resources (Davis, 1993; Furze et al., 1997; Saunier & Meganck,
1995). At the same time, local communities can benefit from projects through
employment opportunities, improved social conditions and continued access to local
resources.

While participation of a local community increases the chances of an ecotourism
project being successful, problems remain with how participation is conceptualized and
practiced. For example, Drake (1991) defined community participation as the capability
of local communities to be involved in projects that will affect their lives. However,
Rahnema (1992) cautioned that participation is not always used to benefit a local
community. He has pointed to a number of ways in which the term “participation” has
been deployed, including as a meaningless term to manipulate local people into accepting
government programs that meet the objectives of the national government but that may,
in fact, conflict with those of the local community. The term has also been used to attract
funding from donors but without any real effort to implement a participatory element into
a development project. There also is the ploy to project the image that by being labeled
participatory a project will avoid the mistakes of past non-participatory projects
(Rahnema, 1992). In all of these cases, participation has been used in name only, with no
substantive form.

In contrast, Chambers (1995) points to different ways in which participation is put
into practice, although participatory projects may benefit certain groups while excluding

others. For example, he indicates that participatory projects often reflect a “by the road

bias” in which those who live nearest the project participate and benefit while those
living somewhat more distant do not. The other examples are “elite bias” and “male
bias.” Elite bias describes participation that includes only those people who have power
and money, such as political or religious leaders, farmers using modern agricultural
methods and materials, and those with social connections to strategic institutional
structures, while the poorest and more powerless people are excluded. Male bias is used
to describe the situation in which participants are primarily men, with women’s roles
limited or non-existent.

McDonough and Wheeler (1998) discuss the importance of categorizing
community participation based on behaviors, activities and goals. According to these
authors, participatory behaviors and activities “vary along a spectrum anchored at one
end by provision of labor for project implementation and at the other by projects where
local communities control all project features fi'om objectives to outcomes” (McDonough
& Wheeler, 1998). Similarly, perceptions of project goals vary. Those they reviewed
(Dudley, 1993 cited in McDonough and Wheeler, 1998; Lane, 1995 cited in McDonough
and Wheeler, 1998; Nagel, 1992 cited in McDonough and Wheeler, 1998) contend that
community participation goals can be either viewed “as a means”, “an end”, or a “hybrid
reality.” Participation as a means refers to participation that is used to accomplish project
goals. Examples include the use of physical labor to reduce labor costs and community
management of projects. Thus, the focus tends to be on the use of communities as
technical assistance to accomplish externally determined goals (Dudley, 1993 cited in

McDonough and Wheeler, 1998). Participation as an end refers to participation where

empowerment and capacity building of the community are project goals. Thus, the focus

is on community development and community members are typically involved in the
decision-making process from beginning to end (Lane, 1995 cited in McDonough and
Wheeler, 1998). Participation as a hybrid reality refers to participation that has the
characteristics of both “as a means” and “an end” no matter what the initial plan (Nagel,
1992 cited in McDonough and Wheeler, 1998).

Variations in how participation is conceptualized and practiced lead to questions
pertaining to the kind of participation used in practice. What is the source and nature of
project goals? In what levels of participation are communities usually involved? How are
authority and responsibility shared? Who is involved in ecotourism development
projects? Since most research to date on community participation in ecotourism

development has not clearly addressed these questions, further study is needed.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature and extent of local
community participation in international ecotourism development projects. The study
aims to address the question, where on the spectrum of participation do most ecotourism
projects fall? Through a review of ecotourism case studies, views and experiences about
. how communities have participated in ecotourism projects are identified and described.
Whether or not the type of participation practiced in the case studies corresponds to the

type of participation called for in the ecotourism literature also is analyzed critically.

Beneficiaries

This study builds on previous research concerning ecotourism and community
participation. The results and discussion sections of this study may assist decision makers
in creating more effective policies concerning ecotourism development. Furthermore, the
views and experiences of local communities from all over the world presented in this
study can help other local communities understand the implications of various types and
levels of participation. These communities may also learn how to be more involved in
ecotourism development. In addition, this study may be used as preliminary research for

future empirical studies on ecotourism and community participation.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study investigates the nature and extent of local community participation in
international ecotourism development projects. The literature review includes definitions
and concepts of ecotourism, a comparison between ecotourism and tourism, the
theoretical basis for community participation, a discussion of the need for community
participation in ecotourism development, a description of advantages and disadvantages
of community participation, definitions and concepts of community participation and
definitions and characteristics of communities. Based on the literature reviewed, the
kinds of community participation that are suitable for ecotourism projects are discussed,

followed by the problem statement and objectives of the study.

Ecotourism: Definitions and Concepts

The term ecotourism emerged in the early 19803. It has been used for many
purposes such as to label the growth of the number of tourists visiting natural areas, as a
marketing toOl and to refer to a form of tourism development that integrated the goals of
development and conservation. At that time, there was no specific definition of
ecotourism.

In 1988, the first definition of ecotourism was introduced by Ceballos-Lascurain
(Allcock et al., 1994 cited in Furze et "al., 1997; Mitchell, 1998; Wall & Ross, 1998). He
defined the term as

traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the
specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild

plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and

present) found in these areas. (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1988 cited in Mitchell, 1998)

By the mid 19908, at least four parties contributed to the development of the
ecotourism concept by attaching different goals based on their own interests (Lindberg et
al., 1998). First, the tourism industry viewed ecotourism is an effective marketing tool to
attract visitors to natural and cultural areas. Second, economic development professionals
viewed ecotourism as a means to provide employment in areas that lack other forms of
resource development. Third, conservation and resource management professionals
viewed ecotourism as a way to gain revenue to finance conservation programs and as an
educational tool to promote conservation programs. Finally, those who are concerned
about the negative impact of tourism development on the environment saw a need to
promote the sustainability of tourism resources and development.

Those now affiliated with ecotourism research and development define the
concept further. For example, the Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as:

purposeful travel to natural areas to understand the culture and the natural history

of the environment; taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem;

producing economic opportunities that make the conservation of the natural

resources beneficial to the local people. (Wood et al., 1991)
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
describes ecotourism as

environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural

areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural

features — both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor

impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local
populations. (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996)

The Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe in 1993 describes ecotourism as
all forms of tourism development, management and activity, which maintains the
environment, social and economic integrity and well being of natural, built and
cultural resources in perpetuity. (F urze et al., 1997)

Ecotourism is also defined as a form of tourism activity which entails the non-

consumptive use of resources (Furze et al., 1997). Wall and Ross (1998) view ecotourism

as an approach to protecting natural areas through the generation of revenues, the

establishment of environmental education and the involvement of the local community.
In terms of facilities, Ceballos-Lascurain (1996) and Boo (1990) suggest that

ecotourism should use environmentally friendly technologies and local resources.

Ceballos-Lascurain (1996) uses the term “ecotechniques” to express the type of

technology that should be used in ecotourism:

Ecotechniques should be used whenever possible. Such techniques include: solar
energy, capture and utilization of rain water, recycling of waste, natural cross
ventilation (instead of air conditioning), self-sufficiency in food production
(through use of orchards, “ecological farms”, aquaculture, etc.), use of
underground wiring, use of locally available building materials and native
technology, and the blending of architectural shapes with the natural environment.
From the definitions, it can be inferred that there are several aspects of
ecotourism. First, the tourist engaged in ecotourism should like to travel to natural and
cultural environments and be willing to learn about and appreciate local cultures and
local areas. Second, ecotourism usually takes place in natural and sometimes protected
areas and/or cultural environments. Third, in terms of activity, ecotourism should
promote environmental education and a nonconsumptive use of resources with a low

impact on the environment. Fourth, its facilities should use environmentally friendly

technologies and local resources. Fifth, as a new development approach, ecotourism

allows a combination of economic growth and conservation goals in its development.
Sixth, the development process of ecotourism should minimize negative impacts on
society and the environment and foster the active involvement of local communities.
Finally, ecotourism is expected to bring economic benefit to the local communities
(Figure 1).

Despite the “positive” meanings of ecotourism, some people believe that the term
has been used for marketing purposes and for the justification of the exploitation of
tourism resources in protected areas. In other words, the conservation goals are merely a
ploy. For instance, Wight (1993) contends

any terms prefixed with the term ‘eco’ will increase interest and sales. Thus, in

the last few years there has been a proliferation of advertisements in the travel

field with references such as ecotour, ecotravel, ecovacation, ecologically
sensitive adventures, eco(ad)ventures, ecocruise, ecosafari, ecoexpedition and, of
course, ecotourism.

Berle (1990 cited in Orams, 1995) argues that

ecotourism also threatens to destroy the resources on which it depends. Tour boats

dump garbage in the waters off Antarctica, shutterbugs harass wildlife in National

Parks, hordes of us trample fragile areas. This frenzied activity threatens the
viability of natural systems. At times we seem to be loving nature to death.

Ecotourism and Tourism Compared
Tourism has also been defined in many ways. For example, it has been called a
phenomenon of relationships between such actors as tourists, businesses, governments
and host communities (McIntosh et al., 1994). It is viewed also as a form of industry that
attracts visitors and satisfies their needs and meets their expectations (van Hassel, 1994

cited in Mitchell, 1998). In addition, it is also regarded as an “evolutionary process”

 

CECOI‘OURISM)

 

 

 

Type of tourist
likes to travel to natural areas and cultural environments and is
willing to learn and appreciate local cultures and areas.

 

 

 

 

Place
usually natural, sometimes protected areas or cultural
environments.

 

 

 

 

Activity
promotes environmental education and nonconsumptive use of
resources with a low impact on the environment.

 

 

 

 

Facilities
use environmentally fiiendly technologies and local resources.

 

 

 

 

Development approach
combines economic growth and conservation goals.

 

l

 

 

Development process
- should have a minimum negative impact on society and the
environment and actively involve local communities.
- should bring economic benefit to local communities.

 

Figure 1. Characteristics of ecotourism

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

related to tourist activity ( Noronha, 1976 cited in Gartner, 1996).

As an evolutionary process, Noronha (1976 cited in Gartner, 1996) describes
three stages of tourism development. The first is the discovery of destinations by tourists.
The second is the construction of tourism facilities and services by government agencies,
local communities and/or private agencies. The last stage is the creation of a complete
and formal tourism business activity which could be run by government agencies, private
enterprises and/or local communities.

Butler (1980) argues that tourism evolves in six stages: exploration, involvement,
development, consolidation, stagnation and rejuvenation. Butler’s exploration is
equivalent to Noronha (1976 cited in Gartner, 1996). In Noronha’s first stage,
exploration, the tourism destination is found by tourists. In the involvement stage some
parties such as government agencies, private enterprises, and host communities show an
interest in providing tourism facilities. In the development stage, tourism facilities are
developed extensively by the parties involved. It is also characterized by the emergence
of advertising and promotion of the tourism destination. In the consolidation stage, the
impact of tourism development is acknowledged, especially by the host communities. In
the stagnation stage, the carrying capacity of the area has been reached meaning that the
environment and society may not be able to accept further tourism development and that
the interest of tourists in visiting the destination area has decreased. As a result of the
stagnation stage, rejuvenation occurs. In this last stage, the number of tourists may
increase, become stable or decline depending on the uniqueness of the area.

Two major approaches to tourism development are prevalent in the literature:

mass tourism and sustainable tourism development or “green tourism”(Butler, 1990).

ll

Mass tourism development is characterized by the rapid development of tourism facilities
where economic benefit is the main goal and environmental and social impact
considerations are lacking (Butler, 1990; Gartner, 1996). It is also described as
uncontrolled, unorganized and unplanned growth and development (Butler, 1990;
Gartner, 1996).

Growing concerns about the degradation of the environment and society by
tourism activities led to the emergence of a sustainable tourism development approach. It
was inspired by the concept of sustainable development. AS defined by World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), sustainable development is

a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of

investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional

change are made consistent with future as well as present needs. (WCED, 1987)
Sustainable tourism development is defined as

a concept intended to reduce the reliance on short-term profits and shift it to long-

terrn returns by protecting the resources which originally attracted tourists to the

area. (Gartner, 1996)

In addition, it is further defined as

a type of development that connects tourists and providers of tourists facilities and

services with advocates of environmental protection and community residents and

their leaders who desire a better quality of life. (McIntyre, I993)

The previous definitions infer that sustainable tourism development is a
development concept or approach that promotes conservation and development goals.
There is also a future orientation to the approach whereby natural and cultural resources

are protected, nourished and/or replenished before they are irretrievably degraded. In

addition, this approach advocates the involvement of the host community.

12

Related to Butler’s work on the evolution of tourism development, the emergence
of sustainable tourism development is a reaction to the stages of consolidation and
stagnation. The feeling is that sustainable tourism development may be able to minimize
or avoid the negative impact of these stages.

The goals and approaches of sustainable tourism development may appear similar
to the goals and approaches of ecotourism development (the main goal being to protect
the resources while developing the areas). On the other hand, there are at least three
differences between them. The first difference is the type of tourist. While the type of
tourist in the sustainable tourism development is not specifically defined, the ecotourist
is clearly defined as the tourist who likes to travel to natural and cultural areas and is
willing to learn and appreciate the local culture and environment. The second difference
is activity. The difference in the type of tourist leads to a difference in the type of
activity. Although one of the goals of both sustainable tourism development and
ecotourism is to conserve the environment, environmental education is not specifically
promoted in sustainable tourism development. In ecotourism, education is part of the
agenda. The third difference is the place in which tourism is developed. The sustainable
tourism development concept could be applied anywhere, but ecotourism is usually
developed in natural areas or cultural environments, especially in or near protected areas.

From the comparison, ecotourism could be labeled either a unique concept or a
part of sustainable tourism development. Because the definitions are not noticeably
different, it is often assumed that ecotourism development is part of sustainable tourism
development. In fact, ecotourism has been considered a part of the sustainable tourism

development approach, specifically applied to tourism that develops in natural and/or

13

protected areas (Figure 2). This assumption is supported by Gunn (1994) who states that
“ one current expression of sustainable development is called ecotourism.”

Figure 1 notes that active community participation sets ecotourism apart from
other types of development (e. g. industrial development). The basis and function of

community participation in general is explained by three theories.

Theoretical Basis for Community Participation

Three difl‘erent theories that can be used as a basis for understanding community
participation are democratic theory, social mobilization theory and social exchange
theory (Howell et al., 1987). Developed by eighteenth century political philosophers, the
basic assumption of the democratic theory is that all community members should have
equal rights to express their concern on the public issues that affect them. To achieve this
type of community rights, opportunities to become involved should be provided by those
with authority. If opportunities to become involved are not provided, it is unlikely that the
community will show their interest and concern on public issues (Pateman, 1970 cited in
Howell et al., 1987).

The basic assumption of social mobilization theory is that people who are
involved in organizations or activities are more likely to be informed and to become
aware of public issues (Olsen, 1982 cited in Howell et al., 1987). It is stated as follows:

. . . people can be mobilized for political involvement through participation in all

kinds of community activities or special interest associations: groups such as

fi'aternal or service organizations, business or professional associations, labor

unions, charitable or welfare agencies, educational groups, neighborhood
associations, and recreational clubs. (Howell et al., 1987)

14

 
 
 
 

  

Tourism
development

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protected Rural Urban Other
areas areas areas
The sustainable tourism 7 The mass tourism
development approach development approach
i I
The ecotourism Other sustainable
development tourism development
approach approachesl

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Ecotourism development in the context of tourism development

 

1 Sustainable rural tourism development such as agro-tourism and sustainable urban tourism
development such as urban greening programs and historical site tourism development are
examples of other sustainable tourism development approaches. The difl‘erences between

these sustainable tourism development approaches and ecotourism development are the
place in which tourism is developed and the focus of development.

15

This theory suggests that a new program or development project will receive more
support if it is closely linked to the activities of existing groups or organizations in the
community.

Finally, social exchange theory proposes that people usually participate in social
activities to obtain benefits (Homans, 1961 and Blau, 1964 cited in Howell et al., 1987;
Kelly, 1952). It is assumed that “ if a particular social activity is not perceived as
beneficial, an individual is not likely to engage in it unless coerced, or unless motivated
by an overriding loyalty or altntism” (Howell et al., 1987). This theory suggests that three
important factors must be established to initiate participation: minimize the costs,
maximize the rewards and establish a mutual trust among the parties involved. In terms
of the costs, time is the main cost that affects the efl‘ectiveness of the participation
(Howell et al., 1987). In terms of the rewards, the most desired reward is the opportunity
to influence the decision-making process (Howell et al., 1987). To establish a mutual
trust among the parties involved, project managers must demonstrate their efforts and
concern for public needs and wishes (Howell et al., 1987).

The need for community participation in planning and policymaking has emerged
since the late 19605 (Sewell & Phillips, 1979). There are many reasons for this
emergence. For example, Simmons (1994) contends that community members have the
right to be involved in a development process that may affect them. In addition,
community participation in the planning process provides a source of data, helps educate
various publics and reinforces public acceptance of planning (Farrel et al., 1976 cited in

Sewell & Phillips, 1979). Community participation is also a way to gain local support

16

(Drake, 1991; Simmons, 1994). In the following section, the need for community

participation in ecotourism development is discussed.

Need for Local Community Participation in Ecotourism Development

The main goal of ecotourism development is the sustainability of natural
resources and local economies (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Wall & Ross, 1998). Those
affiliated with ecotourism research and development believe that the local community
can play an important role in achieving this goal. For example, in terms of the
conservation of natural resources, the local community can contribute to preliminary data
collection by sharing their knowledge of the environment (Furze et al., 1997). The local
community can also serve the role of local administrator or Steward by maintaining and
protecting the environment (Davis & Ebbe, 1993; Saunier & Meganck, 1995; Wall &
Ross, 1998).

In terms of economic development, the project could use local resources (Boo,
1990). For example, the project may hire community members for many types of jobs
depending on the capability of each member. The project may also use local sources to
develop ecotourism including accommodations, facilities, food, and transportation. In
addition, to control the impact of project development, the community may act as a local
agent (Wall & Ross, 1998). Both the project and community members could benefit from
this relationship.

The literature above supports the idea that the involvement of local communities
relates to the successfirl achievement of ecotourism goals. It is assumed that the

community could act as a steward to conserve biological diversity and natural resources

17

while performing as a local control for economic development and infrastructure to
ensure that these developments do not exceed the carrying capacity of local environment
(Wall and Ross, 1998). Adapted from Wall and Ross (1998), this relationship is
illustrated in Figure 3.

The need for community participation in ecotourism development has been
established. The remaining literature review examines advantages and disadvantages of
community participation, definitions and concepts of participation, definitions and
characteristics of the term “community”, and the kind of participation called for in the

ecotourism development literature.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation

There are several advantages of community participation in development projects.
For example, community participation could promote community empowerment
(McNeely, 1993 cited in Chambers & Ham, 1995; Oakley, 1991 cited in Robinson,
1996;). Through empowerment, a community may have opportunities to access
information, express their concern, strengthen their ability to identify and address
development issues, and take greater control over the outcome of a development project.
Community participation also could improve the capacity building of the community
(Paul, 1987). Through participation in the project, community members may have
Opportunities to become involved in activities such as training, workshops, and group
discussions. In these activities, community members could learn and/or expand their

knowledge.

18

 

 

ECOTOURISM

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROTECTION OF
NATURAL AREAS
I v 1
Generation of revenue Environmental Local involvement
education
Conservation of biological Economic development
diversity and natural resources and infrastructure
STEWARDSHIP LOCAL
CONTROL
, SUSTAINABILITY

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Relationship between community participation and ecotourism development

Source: adapted from Wall & Ross, 1998

19

 

Community participation may improve project efficiency and effectiveness. Sewell and
Phillips (1979) define project efficiency as “the cost of pursuing a given objective” and
project effectiveness as “the extent to which a given objective was actually
accomplished.” Project efficiency can be achieved through the willingness of community
members to volunteer their time and effort for the project, to be employed by the project
and to share their resources with the project.

Project effectiveness may be enhanced as the community gains a greater
understanding of the goal of the project. This understanding may alter their perceptions
of and self-interest in the importance of achieving the goal of the project. However,
community participation does have several disadvantages. For example, Brandon (1993)
mentions that if not managed properly, community participation could raise a conflict
between the project and the community or among the community members themselves.
In terms of the conflict between the project and the community, it may difficult to reach
agreement on how authorities and responsibilities would be shared. With regard to
community members, conflicts may be based on differing values or conflicting goals of
various social classes or ethnic groups.

Paul (1987) also identifies several disadvantages of community participation: it is
a time consuming, costly and a very complicated process. Specifically, it takes time to
organize public meetings, to inform the community about the project, and to achieve
agreement between the parties involved. Organizing participation also requires a lot of

money for such things as for publication materials, transportation and accommodation.

20

Community Participation: Definitions and Levels
Definitions

The need for community participation in development projects was established
and has expanded over the last fifty years, but there is little agreement in the meaning of
community participation. To arrive at some consensus on the meaning of community
participation, definitions of community and theories of community participation were
reviewed. In addition, literature from areas such as environmental management, ntral
development and planning science are reviewed.

Community participation has been defined based on its goals, approaches and
levels. In terms of goals, community participation can be viewed as a means, an end or a
“hybrid reality” (Dudley, 1993 cited in McDonough & Wheeler, 1998, Nagle, 1992 cited
in McDonough & Wheeler, 1998 and Lane, 1995 cited in McDonough & Wheeler, 1998).
It is viewed as a means if communities are used to accomplish extenally determined
project goals by providing labor or technical assistance (Dudley, 1993 cited in
McDonough & Wheeler, 1998).

Community participation is viewed as an end if the goal is to empower and
improve the capacity building of the local community (Lane, 1995 cited in McDonough
& Wheeler, 1998). This type of participation occurs in projects which focus on
representativeness and community development. The definition of community
participation by Cernea (1985) represents this view:

...empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather

than passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions, and control the
activities that affect their lives.

21

The definition of participation by Drake (1991) may also represent this type of
participation. Drake (1991) states that participation is ”the ability of local community to
influence the outcome of development projects such as ecotourism that have an impact on
them.”

Community participation is viewed as a “hybrid reality” if participation has the
characteristics of both a means and an end (Nagel, 1992 cited in McDonough & Wheeler,
1998). For example, the initial goal of participation may be to provide labor but, when
consulted, communities may impose their opinions and ideas. On the other hand, the
initial goal of participation may be to empower the community, but it may be found that
participation has also some practical benefit in obtaining the project goal more
efficiently. Participation as a “hybrid reality” is usually Unplanned.

In terms of approach, Chambers and Ham (1995) divide community participation
into two categories: coercive and interactive. In the coercive approach, the ideas of
development, conservation and partnership come from outside of the community from
such sources as government agencies, private enterprises, or non-governmental agencies.
The local community chooses only to accept the idea or not. On the other hand, in the
interactive approach, the ideas of development, conservation and partnership come from
within the community. The community alone identifies what they need and what they
want. It may even develop a co-management project with government agencies, private
enterprises, and non-govemmental agencies to share authorities and responsibilities.

Brandon (1993) argues that there are two types of community participation

approaches: a beneficiary approach and a participatory approach. In the beneficiary

22

approach, members of the local community may gain benefits fi'om the proposed project,
but they are not involved in the decision-making process.

In the participatory approach, members of the local community are involved in
the decision-making process. It is assumed that they will also benefit from the proposed
project. By including the community in the decision making process, it could be assumed
that community members take part in determining the project goals.

Cohen and Uphoff (1977) believe that participation can be either “externally
imposed” or “internally initiated.” In externally imposed participation, the community is
not involved in the decision-making process. On the other hand, in the internally initiated
approach, participation combines community self determination with external forces. In
this case, the community is involved in the decision-making process.

Although all of the authors use different terms to define participation, they all
tend to agree that participation in projects varies along a spectrum from reducing labor

costs of the project at one end to control of the entire project at the other.

Levels of Participation

In addition to the definitions, three sources discuss the levels of community
participation. These levels are consistent with the spectrum of participatory behaviors
concept offered by McDonough and Wheeler (1998). First, Perez (1997) argues that there
are five levels of community participation: information sharing, process nominal,
consultative, decision making, and action initiation. At the information sharing level,
local communities are informed by the project planner or community. This level is

considered as the lowest level in terms of participation. In this stage, the project staff may

23

have already collected some data about the area. Community members may individually
or collectively contribute to such data collecting. The types of the community
involvement in this stage may be field surveys, interviews or public meetings. The main
characteristic of this stage is that community members volunteer their time and effort (i.e.
to attend public meetings and be involved in preliminary data collection).

At the process nominal level, community members may participate by providing
resources for the project. The involvement of community members may be through
activities such as working for the project or developing their own private enterprises. In
terms of working for the project, the project may hire community members based on
member capabilities. In terms of developing private enterprises, community members
may provide lodging and food for tourists, open restaurants and craft stores, or work as
tour operators. In this stage, some of the community members may begin to gain
economic benefits from the project. This stage is usually characterized by individual
involvement.

At the consultative level, community members are consulted on some
development issues related to the project. Consultation may include public meetings,
focus groups, public opinion surveys or other consultative methods (Sewell & Phillips,
1979) and occurs before the project is developed. At this level of participation, the local
community is usually represented by community leaders. The leaders may share their
knowledge, perspective, and opinions of the project, but their opinions may or may not
influence the nature and the content of the project. At this level, local community

members may start to take a position as a group.

24

At the decision-making level, communities have opportunities to influence the
nature and the content of the project. Decisions are made before and during project
development. This level is characterized by the involvement of some key community
leaders in the management project (Furze et al., 1997; Reimer, 1994).

Finally, at the action initiation level, communities are asked to improve their
ability to manage and control the project implementation. At this level, community
members should be ready to be empowered and proactive in implementing the project.
Community involvement may be through activities such as formal and informal training
as well as involvement in developing and maintaining tourism facilities.

While Perez divides participation into five levels, Paul (1987) classifies the levels
of participation into four categorizes: information sharing, consultation, decision making
and action initiation. Except for the absence of the process nominal level, Paul’s and
Perez’s levels are virtually identical. For the purpose of this study, a combination of
Perez’s and Paul’s levels of participation is used (Figure 4).

Brandon and Wells (1992 cited in Mitchell, 1998) argue that in addition to the
four levels of participation presented by Paul (1987), evaluation should be considered as
the final level of participation. However, some literature indicates that evaluation is not
the final level of participation (Drake, 1991; Furze et al., 1997; Henderson & Bialeschki,
1995; Kraus & Allen, 1997; Miloon, 1991).

Kraus and Allen (1997) and Blalock (1990) infer that evaluation can be either an

integral part of the project or a separate project or stage of development. As an integral

25

5:83:22; he £26. 808%.. no .550on .v oSwE

 

Sign Sgt;

 

 

_§3_

 

+

+ ,

 

 

 

 

case: 8:2

I

 

 

wee—«E :ofifion

 

T,— eoznzago I 3:80: 8035 _l._ mats—m 532:8:—

 

 

 

 

A

a

A w a

 

a m

_ Egan—Eta me .2264

 

 

 

26

part of the project, evaluation can occur in the beginning, during or at the end of the
project (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1995). AS a separate project or stage of development, it
means that the development process is divided into three stages: planning,
implementation and evaluation (Drake, 1991; Furze et al., 1997; Miloon, 1991). This type
of evaluation is performed by an external or an independent agent (Henderson, 1991;
Kraus & Allen, 1997). Thus because the parties affected are not the evaluators, evaluation

should not be considered as the final level of participation.

Characteristics that Define Communities

Understanding how community is defined and conceptualized helps identify
characteristics of community members. This identification will be used to address the
question, who is involved in participation?

Community has been defined in many ways. For example, it has been defined
based on its similarity in locality or territorial boundary (Setty, 1994; Wilkinson, 1974
cited in Tasosa, 1993), interest ( Setty, 1994; Wilkinson, 1974 cited in Tasosa, 1993) and
sentimental binding (Drijver, 1991 cited in Robinson, 1996; Isely, 1988 cited in
Robinson, 1996; Nisbet, 1966; Setty, 1994). In terms of similarity in locality and
sentimental binding, community is described as follows:

Territorial boundary and the sentimental binding are the essential factors in a

community. The groups of people that live within a geographic region have the

uniformity or similarity in many customs and habits, such as food, clothing,

occupation, etc. . Another factor, which is the outcome of face-to-face, intensive

functional interaction, is the community sentiment. This sentiment, that makes

them feel that they are one or the “we” feeling is the life of the community. . . A

community then means a group of people living in a given area with common
interests, bound by a sense of and common mode of living. ( Setty, 1994)

27

In terms of similarity in interest or concern, community has been defined as

. . . a wide range of groups, from loosely structured aggregates of individuals who

share sets of similar economic, occupational, and social interests or similar

concerns about a common geographic area, to highly structured organizations
with specific issue position and influence strategies. (Wilkinson, 1974 cited in

Tasosa, 1993)

Despite its similarities, the community has also been defined as a firnction of its
heterogeneous entities. For example, communities may consist of different ethnic
groups, religions, genders, education levels, age groups and economic levels (Chambers,
1995; Drijver, 1991 cited in Robinson, 1996, Green & Isely, 1988 cited in Robinson,
1996; Furze et al., 1997; Oakley & Marsden, 1984; Peters, 1994). These diverse
components of community indicate differences in interests, wealth and power ( Oakley &
Marsden, 1984, Drijver, 1991 cited in Robinson ,1996).

In summary, the community should be viewed not only as based on its similarities
but also based on its heterogeneous entities. Identifying the similarities and

heterogeneous entities of a community could help when attempting to understand the

characteristics of community members who are involved in participation.

Community Participation for Ecotourism Development
The literature pertaining to ecotourism development, community theory and
community participation was reviewed and analyzed. One result of this literature review
was being able to identify points of agreement regarding the kind and levels of
participation that are particular to ecotourism development and the characteristics of the
community involved in ecotourism development.

It was clear from the literature reviewed that ecotourism development Should

28

benefit and actively involve the local community (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Furze et al.,
1997). This type of project could benefit the community if empowerment and capacity
building of the community were included in project goals (Brandon, 1993; Chambers &
Ham, 1995; Cohen & Uphotf, 1977; Furze et al., 1997; McDonough & Wheeler, 1998).

According to the literature on community participation, community members are
considered actively involved if they are involved the decision-making process (Brandon,
1993; Chambers & Ham, 1995; Cohen & Uphoff, 1977; Furze et al., 1997; McDonough
& Wheeler, 1998). The literature also indicates that if the community is involved in all
levels of participation in some way, both the community and the project may benefit from
this involvement (Furze et al., 1997; Metcalfe, 1995; Paul, 1987 cited in Mitchell, 1998;
Sewell & Philips, 1979). Therefore, it can be interpreted that the ecotourism project
should use all levels of participation and should involve local community members in
those levels of participation, especially in the decision-making process.

Participation that has the goal of community empowerment through the
enhancement of local decision-making and control is, therefore, assumed as the
appropriate kind of participation for ecotourism development considered in this study.

In terms of the characteristics of the community involved, the literature indicates
that the community involved should be the affected or local community (Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1996; Furze et al., 1997; Sewell & Phillips, 1979; Uphoff, 1993). The
literature on community theories states that the community is characterized by its
homogenous and heterogeneous entities (Chambers, 1995; Drijver, 1991 & Isely, 1988
cited in Robinson, 1996; Nisbet, 1966; Peters, 1994; Rahnema, 1992; Setty, 1994).

According to the literature on community participation, if participation is expected to

29

benefit the community, it should involve community members that represent the full
range of characteristics in the community (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994; Rahnema,

1992).

Problem Statement

Despite the call for ecotourism projects to be participatory, both for their success
and for the ethical implications of extending tourism into rural communities, only a few
studies regarding local community involvement in ecotourism projects have been
published. For example, Jones (1997) explored the development of an ecotourism project
which focused on community education in Mexico. Reimer (1994) examined
participatory paradigms and applied them to an economic development project in an Inuit
community. Peters (1994) studied the relationships and processes involved in the attempt
to integrate conservation of natural resources with socioeconomic development in a
national park setting in Madagascar. And Tasosa (1993) evaluated community action in
tourism planning in terms of the application of a community action plan theory in two
communities in British Columbia.

Most of these studies are limited to single site case studies and have not directly
addressed the broader issue of what kind of participation is usually used in ecotourism
development. In addition to the broader issue, several sub issues of those who were
involved in such projects, in what stages of development were they involved, and how
authority and responsibility were shared also need to be addressed. Thus, there remains a
lack of research that assesses the nature and the extent of community participation in

ecotourism development projects. In addition, there is a need to study if participation

30

applied in real-life cases correspond to participation called for in the literature. This study

attempts to address these gaps.

Objectives of the Study

The first main objective of this study is to identify the kind of community
participation that is most commonly used in international ecotourism development
projects. There are two sub-objectives: the first is to identify the levels of participation in
which the communities are usually involved, and the second is to identify the
characteristics of the communities that are involved. The second main objective is to
determine if the kind of participation applied in the case studies corresponds to the kind
of participation called for in the literature. The third main objective is to make

recommendations for policy, planning and further research.

31

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature and extent of local
community participation in international ecotourism development projects. There are
several research methods that could be used to achieve this purpose including field
research (Babbie, 1998), case study research (Yin, 1989) or content analysis
(Krippendorff, 1980; Riffe et al., 1998). Two main factors were considered in choosing
the most suitable method for this study: study objectives, and time and financial
constraints.

The field research method requires the researcher to travel to the areas where
ecotourism development projects exist to collect data. While it would be an advantage to
have primary data, this method would require large amounts of time and money,
especially considering the large number of ecotourism projects required for this study.
Due to limitations of time and money, this method was deemed infeasible.

The case study research method is another alternative. This method permits the
researcher to analyze one or multiple case studies (Yin, 1989). Data are gathered through
documentary information, archival records, interviews or direct observations. This
method is not frequently used (Yin, 1989), and literature regarding this method is also
rarely found. Therefore‘, the researcher did not feel confident using this type of research
method, especially since there was a desire to analyze a fairly large number of case

studies.

32

Content analysis is another alternative research method that may be used for this
study. According to Babbie (1998), Berellson (1952 cited in Krippendorff, 1980) and
Fraenkel et al. (1996), the content analysis technique has been used widely for various
type of research studies. For example, it has been used to trace trends, to compare media,
to understand organizational patterns, to infer attitudes, values, and cultural patterns in
different countries, and for various other functions. This method has several advantages
(Babbie, 1998; Borg et al., 1989; Fraenkel et al., 1996; Singleton et al., 1993). It is an
unobtrusive research method that rarely has any consequences for the subject being
studied. Data can be collected from written materials. It allows the researchers to analyze
large volumes of data without space and time limits. And it does not require a large
research Staff or special equipment. In terms of time and money, this research method is
economical.

However, content analysis also has some disadvantages (Babbie, 1998; Fraenkel
et al., 1996). For example, it is limited to the examination of recorded communications
typically oral, written or graphic. There also is a question regarding the validity of data
measurement: reliability problem may occur in terms of consistency in coding data.

Based on the above discussions, though it has some disadvantages, the content
analysis method seems to be the most appropriate method for this study. Therefore, this
chapter includes a discussion of the definitions and approaches of the content analysis
method including the nature of the data collected, sampling design, procedures,
reliability, validity, and data analysis. The research design of this study is described alter

this discussion. In general, the procedures of this study are presented in Figure 5.

33

8338... 5.88..— .m Saw...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .333. 0... tone...
flux—S...
38.80 95893.... v.3 968.13.. .«e 8.3.558 a 9.6... .3 38:5... 2... Bang... H
203 838...; 33:8 .53 15 .835... ...o... .3 3.2.5.... 803 8:56 3.8 2:. .33 on»;
. -
56...... 83.2.8 _
...a .828 2......58 .8... 628...... 22.. 28.8.. 3.2.9 .36. 5.2.8 .2388 as 5.2.2, 8.38...
. —r y . l
.3336... x _
as. as... .2... 2s. ...a .82. 83 8.8.. $.32... .828... 2.. 52.3.2 .3238 o... ..........o. 8.38....
. _
_ ,
— .5303. 3032.. v5. 33>»... 2322: 05 ..o 18.3 203 8.39.3 @380 TI 3.39.3 wfivoo @233
. . .
.33 203 . .
— ”5.9.3... 0339.... v.3 3.8.32.8 no 5.3.388 a 3.858% 959:8 b=532aéoz .83 mam—mg @2260
a
a
.2383: 3:83.... :8... 8:5... 88 53388 ”3.38.. 52...... 8 v8.8: 33 3.3 05. All .82. Ego—0.. 833
.
52383: _
2.....8. 3.8.3.8... 2.. 8.8. 8282.. .8. 2 8.8.2.5.... 22.2 ...a 8%. ,
2.. on a 38.25.. 2.3? .83... 2.3.888. .2... 522...... 2.. 2.. so: a .829... All 2.2.8.... 88.8. 8.35 _

2350... .332..an 2.. 533.053.. .«e £25— .23 ..— AN 2553—05.. Eur;
E p.33 23...... 338.25... no we... :23 A. “33—03.. 203 2.38.... £9.88. 085.
m

 

 

 

 

_

 

 

.3303... 9.03 BEE—Eco $6 $50.80 was £82.52.
was 83022. 515558.... «2.380 ...a «.8252. .8505 392.55.. 5.3858
gagggggaggmogogvfiagon

;

£9.83. «.530...
v.3 2.5.88: 05 >533—

 

 

 

fl

 

.235... 2.. a. 8.. 8:8 228. .2... 8%.
.8... 2.. s 888...... .2... 282.8 2 ...a 28...... 2.88.8. 383...... 2. 8.8.2.22.
Ego—moggfiag ofiaamwfl>£8mm>vammmfiuoomoeaflp

 

 

 

5...... ..o 82...... @353

 

 

 

 

34

Content Analysis: Definitions and Approaches

There are a variety of working definitions of content analysis. Henderson (1991)
and Krippendorf (1980) explain that content analysis is a research technique used to
analyze documents, records, transcribed conversations, letters, or anything in textual
form. Riffe et al. (1998) view content analysis as a systematic and replicable quantitative
technique used to explain or infer the communication of the concept being studied.
Finally, Fraenkel et al. (1996) define content analysis as “a technique that enables
researchers to study human behavior in an indirect way, through an analysis of their
communications.”

According to Borg et al. (1989) and Henderson (1991), the types of data collected
are usually written maten'als such as words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, sections,
chapters and books. Other forms of communications such as music, pictures, songs, or
gestures also can be used (Borg et al., 1989; Fraenkel et al, 1996, Henderson, 1991).

The data can be gathered using two types of sampling design: non-probability and
probability (Riffe et al., 1998). Non-probability sampling is used if no adequate sampling
fi‘ame exists. Two forms of non-probability techniques are convenience and purposive
sampling. In the convenience technique, the sample is selected whenever and wherever it
is available. In the purposive technique, samples are selected by using certain criteria
(Riffe et al., 1998).

Probability sampling is used if the population is known and the sampling frame
can be drawn. Forms of probability sampling include simple random sampling,
systematic sampling and stratified sampling. The simple random technique is used if all

units of the population have an equal chance of selection. In systematic sampling,

35

samples are selected based on every particular (It) unit of the sampling frame. The n units
are determined by dividing the sample size by the sampling frame. In stratified sampling,
the population is divided into smaller groups. Groups should be homogenous. Samples
are selected randomly within those groups.

The literature indicates there are at least thirteen steps of research procedure in a
study that employs content analysis (Borg et al., 1989; Riffe et al., 1998; Fraenkel et al.,
1996, and Krippendorfi‘, 1980). The thirteen steps are: identify the research problem,
review the theory and previous research, assert specific research questions and
hypotheses, define relevant content, specify formal design, create dummy tables, develop
coding protocol, specify population, specify sampling frame, pretest analysis, process the
data and report the results (Figure 6).

Fraenkel et al. (1996) note that there are two types of content within a
communication that affect the coding design: manifest content and latent content. The
manifest meaning of content analysis data refers to “the obvious, surface content - the
words, pictures and images that are directly accessible to the naked eye or ear” (Fraenkel
et al., 1996). Inferences as to the underlying meaning are not made. It is sufficient to
simply count the number of times the word appears. The latent content of a document
refers to the meaning underlying what is said or shown. Latent content requires
inferences, which can be made by considering the manner, order, and composition of the
text (Sebo, 1996).

Reliability is “the extent to which a measure gives consistent results” (Ritchie &

Goeldner, 1994). According to Babbie (1998) and Krippendorff (1980), there are three

36

 

Identify Research Problem

1

Conceptualization Review Theory
and Previous Research

1

Assert Research Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......................................... q .---------------------------------------.

 

 

Define Relevant Content

I

Specify Formal Design

I

Create Dummy Tables

I

Develop Coding Protocol
Design [

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specify Population

[

Specify Sampling Frame

1

Pretest

1

Establish Reliability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Process Data:
Analysis Qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis or a
combination of the wo

1

Report the Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Research procedure in content analysis

Adapted from Borg et al., 1989; Fraenkel et al., 1996; Krippendorff, 1980; Rifle et al., [998

37

types of reliability designs in content analysis. They are stability, reproducibility and
accuracy. Stability is the degree to which a data gathering process is invariant or
unchanging over time. Reproducibility is the degree to which a data gathering process
can be recreated under varying conditions or settings, or using different coders or raters.
Accuracy is the degree to which a data gathering process conforms to a known standard,
or yields what it is intended to yield. The differences between the three types of reliability

designs are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Types of reliability designs

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Reliability Errors Assessed Relative Strengths
reliability Designs
Stability Test-retest Intra-observer inconsistencies Weakest
Reproducibility Test-test Intra-observer inconsistencies Modest
and inter observer
disagreements
Accuracy Test-standard Intra-observer inconsistencies, Strongest
inter observer disagreements
and systematic deviations
from a norm

 

 

 

 

Source: Babbie, 1998; Krippendorfl‘, 1980.

Krippendorff (1980) describes three types of validity in content analysis: data
oriented, product oriented and process oriented (Table 2). Data oriented validity is
defined as how well a method of analysis represents the information in or associated with
available data. Semantical and sampling validity designs may be used to assess data
oriented validity. Semantical validity is usually used to estimate how well the researcher

can create operational working definitions for each category of the concept being studied

38

 

Table 2. Validity in content analysis

 

Types of
validity

Typology of validity

Descriptions

 

Data oriented

Semantical validity

Assesses the degree to which the researcher
can create operational working definitions
to measure each category of the concept
being studied.

 

Sampling validity

Assesses the degree to which available data
come from unbiased sample of a universe.
The data must be statistically representative
of that universe.

 

Product oriented

Predictive validity

Assesses the degree to which predictions
obtained by one method agree with directly
observed facts.

 

Correlational validity

Assesses the degree to which findings
obtained by one method correlate with
findings obtained by another.

 

 

Process oriented

 

Construct validity

 

Assesses the degree to which the analytical
procedure can represent relationships in the
context of data.

 

Source: Krippendorfi‘, 1980.

(Krippendorff, 1980; Riffe et al., 1998). In the more commonly employed types of

validity, semantical validity is similar to content validity2 (Babbie, 1998). Sampling

validity design is used to measure the degree to which the data collected come from an

appropriate sample (Krippendorff, 1980). Riffe et al. (1998) include sampling validity as

part of external validity. They contend that external validity is used to establish “the

broader meaning and importance of research to audiences beyond the scientific

community” (Riffe et al., 1998).

Product oriented validity is used to assess how well a method works under a

variety of circumstances (Krippendorfi‘, 1980). Predictive and correlational validity

39

 

designs may be used to assess product-oriented validity. Predictive validity design refers
to “ a test that correlates a measure with some predictive outcome” (Riffe et al., 1998).
Correlational validity refers to an assessment in which findings accomplished by one
method correlate with findings accomplished by another method (Krippendorff, 1980;
Riffe et al., 1998). Correlational validity is called concurrent validity in Riffe et al.
(1998)

Finally, process oriented validity is used to predict the degree to which an
analytical procedure represents relationships in the context of data (Krippendorfi‘, 1980).
To assess process-oriented validity, construct validity design may be used. It refers to a
validity test in which a measurement was taken from the theoretical context of the
concept being studied (Riffe et al., 1998).

Riffe et al. (1998) state that face validity is the minimum required and the most
fi'equently used validity test in content analysis. Face validity refers to the particular
measurement of a concept being studied that may or may not make sense “on its face” or
“with our common agreements and our individual mental images” (Babbie, 1998; Riffe et
al., 1998). To establish face validity, intersubjective agreement on a measure should be
high among relevant researchers or raters (Riffe et al., 1998).

Data analysis is used to interpret the characteristics of a sample (Riffe et al.,
1998). In content analysis studies, quantitative (i.e., as simple classification or tabulation,
frequencies, means and proportions), qualitative or combination of the quantitative and
qualitative data analysis have been used (Babbie, 1998; Borg et al., 1989; Fraenkel et al.,

1996; Good et al., 1954; Holsti, 1969;Riffe et al., 1998). In addition, the combination of

 

2 “Content validity refers to how much a measure covers the range of meanings included within
the concept.” (Babbie, 1998: 134)

40

qualitative and quantitative data analysis in the content analysis technique is called
hermeneutic content analysis (Roller et al., 1995 cited in Kelle, 1995).

A variety of computer software is available to analyze content analysis data, to
locate and access the content and to code the content. At least seven forms of
computerized content analysis have been identified (Riffe et al., 1998): word counts, key-
word-in-context and concordances, dictionaries, language structure, readability, artificial

intelligence and dynamic content analysis.

Examples of Studies using Content Analysis Method

Two different studies verify the use of these content analysis techniques. One
study was conducted by Sebo (1996). The objective of this study was “to examine
tourism textbooks, and analyze the ideology being conveyed to the tourism student.”
Another study was conducted by Kiah (1976). The purpose of this study was to determine
if and how selected notable shared experiences of Black people are illustrated in modern
realistic fiction written about Black people in the United States for a particular age group
of children.

From these studies, it can be concluded that a sample population could be selected
appropriately through the creation of criteria such as the content of the sample and the
date of sample publication (Kiah, 1976; Sebo, 1996). Using hermeneutic content analysis,
the data could be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively (Sebo, 1996). To test the
reliability of data, test and test design could be used by creating predetermined
terminology of the variables identified (Kiah, 1976; Sebo, 1996) and by employing other

raters (Kiah, 1976). The result of the reliability test also might be used to evaluate face

4]

validity of a study (Kiah, 1976). The study by Kiah (197) indicated that if the result of the
interrater reliability rate is above the standard for a minimum level of agreement, it can
be assumed that intersubj ective agreement on a measurement is high among relevant
raters. This level of intersubjective agreement is then used to establish the face validity of

the study.

Research Design
The objective of this study is to investigate the application of different types and
levels of local community participation in international ecotourism projects through a
review of ecotourism case studies. The nature of data collected, the sampling fi’ame,
procedures used, reliability and validity design, and data analysis used in this study are

presented in the following sections.

Nature of data collected
The nature of the data collected in this study is written material. Data were

gathered through an analysis of case study reports.

Sampling frame
The researcher was unable to determine an adequate sampling frame of
international ecotourism case studies. Therefore, non-probability sampling, combining

purposive and convenience sampling, was used (Riffe et al., 1998).

42

For this study, purposive sampling was used to select case studies along the
following criteria:

- found in published literature such as theses, dissertations, refereed journals, books,
internal reports, seminar papers and magazines;

- published between 1988, the year in which the definition of ecotourism was first
introduced, and 1999, the year in which this study began;

- contained one or more particular ecotourism projects and discussed the involvement '
of local communities in such projects;

- written in English.

Convenience sampling was used because it was diflicult to obtain some materials
being studied and there was limitations in time and budget. Accordingly, ecotourism case
study reports were collected whenever and wherever they were available.

Case studies were collected in two different ways. The first was through library
research; the second was through correspondence via e-mail with three international
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which are assumed to be the major sponsors for
ecotourism development around the world (Appendix A).

In doing library research, computer search engines such as “ProQuest Direct” and
“F irstSearch” were used to locate theses, dissertations, books and journal articles related
to the case studies. The examples of key words to locate this literature are “ecotourism,”
“ecotourism development” and “community participation.”

Seven related journals were searched manually to find related articles: W
W. W, W and

43

l l 'v 1 r1 . These journals were located through the bibliographies of

ecotourism and community participation literature and by consulting with tourism
academics.

Three international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were contacted via e-
mail: World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), Conservation International (CI) and The
Nature Conservancy (TNC). About forty-nine e-mails were sent. Forty-seven e-mails
were sent to WWF national organizations and WWF program offices. Two e-mails were
sent, one each to the CI and TNC. The list of e-mail addresses is presented in Appendix
B.

Seventeen responses were received from forty-nine e-mail messages sent. Eleven
could not be delivered and twenty-one did not responded. From the seventeen e-mail
responses, six did not have the types of document requested, six suggested contacting
other organizations or consulting particular books. Five of the seventeen sent some
related materials, including internal reports from WWF-Zimbabwe and internal
magazines which had related articles such as WWF- Hungary, Norway, Netherlands and
Canada.

From these efforts, eighty-one (81) ecotourism case studies were collected. There
were various sources of these case studies: ten (10) cases from published proceedings,
nine (9) cases from theses, two (2) cases from dissertations, twelve (12) cases from
refereed journals, two (2) cases fiom internal reports, six (6) cases fi’om papers presented
in seminars, two (2) cases from internal magazines and thirty-eight (3 8) cases from
books. Where more than one study was written by the same authors the studies were

combined into one case in analysis. Examples include case study numbers 11, 39, 41, 45

44

and 52 (Appendix C). Case studies complementing other cases were also collapsed in the
analysis. Examples include case study numbers 12, 18 and 22 (Appendix C). From
eighty-one case studies eight studies were collapsed and a total of seventy-three case

studies were analyzed (Appendix C).

Procedures

The main purpose of content analysis was to obtain case study information about
the kinds of community participation used in ecotourism development projects, the levels
of participation, the various ways in which authority and responsibility are shared and the
characteristics of the communities involved in the projects. This information was then
compared to the literature to assess whether or not the application of the kinds and levels
of community participation in the case studies corresponded to the conceptual of
participation called for in the literature. In general, the procedures of this study are
presented in Figure 5 (p.34).

The case study was the unit of analysis for this study and its content was the unit
of observation. To observe the content of each case study, coding categories (Table 3)
and a guide for raters (Appendix D) were developed based on the literature reviewed in
chapter two. The coding categories were developed based on the following questions:
Who was the source of the project goal? What was the project goal? In what levels of
participation were communities involved? How were authority and responsibility shared?
What were the characteristics of the community members who were involved?

The literature reviewed indicated that the source of the project goal could be

either outside the community or within the community (Brandon, 1993). As such, source

45

 

 

5:328 he 32 =ox ABC

 

been. 6:

$23036
35:59.5 =80:

 

 

5:80— aoomoa 2: 80¢ .3 oz»- ? S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:80— Sowzm 05 H8: o>§ Av; $5202:

5:32 80.83 of £55 35 Am 3 3:83 33 9:5
333.: mm bis—=58 .83 G: 5:22.: =o_8<

3202: m_ 3:25:00 .30..— A _ S wfixafi 56609 N. 33%

$8508 :oZHSBmcoo: 650 8: 3:56:88.

immmohm mace”— Aav ES 3:053

masses 23.: Q 8:3328 2: as» so;

 

83825 033.5 @232. 0303 .83 AC

 

80.85 2: .3 USE 038m .83 m3

35:8: 3.305

 

58:29 0303 :83 A3

 

cacao—.8 8%
$55.05 E 88658 oaoon .83 at

mccssm coca—.8:—

uca .3302:
E0962:
3:55:50 of
83, cosafietma
.«o m_o>o_ 3:3 5

 

28w

 

£8.65 2: we :8 oh $58an .82 2: Snow 80qu
he 9:259 5638 v5 EoEBBcaEm A0 - 05 83 8:3
bis—=88 2: 5.23 S «Row Hooqoa of

 

35883 2: mo 023:0 CV

me 858 m_ 055

 

 

.mm

 

338va
“oz

- +

 

 

 

33:85

 

QBEHZm—e mmqm<a<>

 

>MOOE<U

 

mZOEmmSO

 

 

”2.8 5.5

35.52 3 9 “055% a: .n as:

46

88: $308: 0E8 8:? A;

u:o:.o>_0>:_ 0: m_ 085 83205 :0 20:: «:8:— -

3:080:95 880:2: :0 =8»: «:02: +

0:00 8% A. 2v
”8.02

 

5:53 :5 :02 :0 5:23:50 63

 

5:53 as

 

5: 0&0

3:50

 

2:85 33 :8

 

2:85 0:022 as

 

2:85 E: as

9.56% OMEOGOON

 

€833: 550 as

 

EoEEo>0w :80»: a:

 

 

 

 

 

 

205252: £800.80 :0 82% G 5

 

 

5829,:
83 0:3

 

 

@2280 8:28: B 2 832.2, :o a: .m 2%.:

47

of the project goal was operationalized as a dichotomous variable: inside or outside the
community.

The literature reviewed also indicated that empowerment of community could be
one of the project goals (Cohen & Uphoff, 1977 ; McDonough &Wheeler, 1998).
Whether or not empowerment of community was a goal became the variable that
addressed the question: What was the project goal?

Level of participation was defined as the presence or absence of information
sharing, process nominal, consultation, decision making and action initiation activities
(Paul, 1987 cited in Drake, 1991; Perez, 1997).

To address the question of who was involved, the following characteristics of the
local community were identified: localities (Chambers, 1995; Marsden, 1994 cited in
Furze et al., 1997; Setty, 1994; Uphofl‘, 1993), local institutional structures (Beavers,
1995 cited in Norris, 1998; Furze et al., 1997; Peters, 1997; Uphoff, 1993 ), economic
conditions (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994) and gender (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994).

Localities were used to identify if participation in the case studies reflects “by the
road bias” (Chamber, 1995). Categories used to identify the localities in which the
community members reside were: “lived within,” “near” or “far” fi'om the project
location.

Mobilization theory proposes that community members may participate in the
development project through community associations or groups such as neighborhood
associations, ethnic groups, educational groups, and business or professional

organizations (Howell et al., 1987). Besides participating through formal organizations,

48

the community may also participate through informal local organizational structures such
as family and religious organizations (Furze et al., 1997; Peters, 1994).

The heterogeneous entities, economic status and gender of community members
involved, were used to identify whether or not participation reflects male and/or elite
biases (Chambers, 1995). The economic status of local communities tends to be treated as
homogeneous (Peters, 1994), but the socio-economic characteristics of local people are
actually very diverse (Oakley & Marsden, 1984; Green and Isely, 1988 cited in Robinson,
1996; Peters, 1994). It is inferred that local communities may range from the richest to
the poorest people. Chambers (1995) mentions that usually the poorest group lacks the
power to participate, even though they are usually the most affected group, and more
importantly, the largest in the community. To identify whether or not participation in the
case studies reflected an elite bias, the economic status of community members was
categorized into high, middle and low income groups.

Male bias refers to the tendency of greater numbers of men than women to
participate in development projects (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994). This condition
ignores the potential of women to support the projects in many different ways and.
represents a bias in the participation process itself (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994;
Sproule & Suhandi, 1998). In addition, calls for human rights and equality in the
development process point out that women should have equal rights and responsibilities
in deciding which development projects are best for their firture (Johnston, 1994). To
determine if the participation reflects male bias, participation was classified as either

involving men, women, or both men and women.

49

Guidelines for raters (Appendix D) were developed to assist the researcher and

other raters in coding the variables from the case studies.

Reliability

To establish the reliability of the study, a “test-test” procedure was employed. In

addition to the principal investigator, two other raters were used. All raters have

knowledge about tourism development, ecotourism and community participation in

tourism. The two other raters were a faculty member and a graduate student.

Using the same instrument designed for this study, the raters independently

interpreted and analyzed three different case studies chosen randomly from the sample

and assumed by the principal investigator to be representative of the entire sample. The

titles of the case studies were:

1.

“Guidelines for Community-based Ecotourism Programs: Lessons From Indonesia

(Mount Halimun National Park’s case study) “ by Keith W. Sproule and Ary S.

Suhandi. in Eceteerism: A Guide for Planners end Managers. Kreg Lindberg, Megan
Epler Wood, and David Engeldrum. (eds). 1998. Volume 2. Vermont: The

Ecotourism Society.

 

n from E dor (Kapawi’s ecotourism project) by Megan Epler

Wood. 1998. Arlington: The Nature Conservancy.

Mfiing the Globe] Challenge of Community Participatien in Ecetoerism: Case

I n L 35 us from Ecuador (Zabalo ecotourism project) by Megan Epler

Wood. 1998. Arlington: The Nature Conservancy.

50

The instrument consisted of thirty variables to be identified by the raters (Table
3). Guidelines for raters were provided (Appendix D). The raters were instructed to mark
if the variables were present in the case studies, not present or not discussed (Table 3).

Results from the three raters were then compared. The purpose of this comparison
was to identify how much agreement and disagreement existed between raters (Kiah,
1976; Riffe et al., 1998). These agreements and disagreements were translated into

numerical values (Tables 4, 5 and 6).

Table 4. Agreements and disagreements between raters for case study 1.

 

Coder Pairs ' Total
1-2 22 4 26
2-3 21 5 26
3-1 24 2 26
Total 67 ll 78
Notes :
l= principal investigator 2= faculty member 3= graduate student

Table 5. Agreements and disagreements between raters for case study 2. .

Coder Pairs ' Total
1-2 22 26

2-3 23 26
3-1 21 26
Total 66 78

 

Notes :
1= principal investigator 2= faculty member 3= graduate student

5]

Table 6. Agreements and disagreements between raters for case study 3.

Coder Pairs ' Total
1-2 22 26

2-3 17 26
3-1 23 26
Total ' 62 6 78
Notes :
l= principal investigator 2= faculty member 3= graduate student

 

The Holsti formula (Kiah, 1976) was used to determine the reliability rate

between raters as follows:

R = 2(9 1, 2)
Cl+C2
where,
R = the reliability rate (% of items that the all raters agreed were either present or not )
2 = 2 raters (could be extended for n raters)

C l, 2 = number of items all raters agreed upon
Cl+C2= number of items all raters rated

The reliability rates between raters in this study were 85.8% for case study one,
84.6% for case study two and 79.5% for case study three. The average reliability rate was

83.3% (Table 7).

Table 7. Interrater reliability rate.

Case study # Percentage

1 85.8
2 84.6
3 79.5

 

83.3

52

A study by Kiah (1976) used 80% as a minimum level of agreement between
raters. It is also stated that “the acceptable level of agreement necessary will depend on
the type of research conducted, but a minimum level of 80% is usually the standard”
(Riffe et al., 1998). Since this study found an overall 83.3% level of agreement, it can be

concluded that the instrument used is reliable.

Validity

Riffe et al. (1998) state that face validity is the minimum criterion required to
established validity. To establish face validity, intersubjective agreement on a measure
should be high among relevant researchers or raters (Riffe et al., 1998).

The results of the “test-test” reliability design were used to evaluate face validity
in this study. The result of this test was an interrater reliability rate of 81.4%. This rate is
above the standard for a minimum level of agreement, which is 80% (Riffe et al., 1998).
Therefore, it is assumed that face validity of this study has been established.

Content (semantic) validity is also assessed in this study. Babbie (1998) defined
content validity as, “ how much a measure covers the range of meanings included within
the concept.” For some concepts, such as characteristics of community involved and
levels of participation, a wide range of meanings identified from case studies suggests a
high content validity. In creating operational definitions, some variables (i.e. gender,
academic institutions, religious organizations) were relatively easy to define. Several
definitions from the literature review also helped define these variables. However, some
other variables (i.e. locality in which the community resides, decision making,

consultation) were difficult to define. To help define these variables, examples from

53

previous studies were used. In conclusion, although some variables of the concept being
studied indicated a high content validity, several other variables indicated a low content
validity.

Sampling validity was assessed by evaluating the process of data gathering. Data
in this study were collected from case studies of ecotourism projects. Though the study
population, defined as ecotourism development projects from all over the world, could
not be identified, there are indications that case studies were obtained from a reasonable
sample of case studies from the universe. For example, criteria were created to specify
the case study needed (p. 43).

Case studies were collected in two different ways: library research and
correspondence via e-mail with three international nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs). In doing library research, computer search engines such as “ProQuest Direct”
and “FirstSearch” were used to find published literature. Located through the
bibliographies of ecotourism and community participation literature and by consulting
with tourism academics, seven related journals were searched manually to find the related
articles. Three international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), assumed to be the
major sponsor for ecotourism development around the world, were contacted via e-mail:
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), Conservation International (CI) and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). About forty-nine e-mails were sent. From these efforts, eighty-one
(81) ecotourism case studies were collected from various sources. From eighty-one case
studies eight studies were collapsed, leaving a total of seventy-three case studies to be

analyzed (Appendix C).

54

Construct validity is difficult to establish. It refers to the extent to which a
measurement is taken from the theoretical context of the concept being studied (Riffe et
al., 1998). Adequately measuring this type of validity typically requires employment of
multiple methods and a long period of time. This study used only one method and the
data were limited to the information presented in the text. Therefore, construct validity

cannot be assessed.

Data analysis

The data analysis process of this study is presented in Figure 7. Each case study
was qualitatively coded by trying to identify the existence of the variables (Table 3). If
the variable was not discussed, this finding was indicated in the appropriate column.

To examine manifest content, each existence of each variable was directly
identified fiom the text of the case study, direct quotes and examples. For example, if the
case study indicated that women were involved in the project, then variable number 25
(Table 3) was checked as positive (+) in the appropriate column to indicate that women
were involved in the participation process and no inferences had to be drawn.

Latent content had to be inferred from the coding scheme, the context of the
study, examples and direct quotes. For example, In Taquile Island, Peru (Mitchell, 1998)
women may have been involved public meeting, but they do not express their opinion
and ideas publicly. Their comments are expressed in their houses. This information
inferred that women are involved indirectly in decision making. I

Since one of the study objectives was to determine the kind of participation most

commonly used in ecotourism projects, the frequencies and percentages of data were

55

Each case I The literature review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

study * i
was used to identify key provided the kind of
variables and participation for
was reviewed and operationally define ecotourism
content analyzed them. development.
based on its manifest 1
content. 6 1
Quantitative data . - -
analysis: data were ‘ Results. Qualitative data
transformed into 1
numerical values Case study indicates that for some or all

 

 

 

Data were recorded as 1

<—--———-—r were involved.

 

I

 

Data were recorded as 2

 

r

 

 

Data were recorded as 3

 

l

 

 

All case studies

 

 

l

SPSS

 

 

 

 

 
  

  

Results: counts
and percentages

 
 

 

 

Interpretation of latent
content by using
examples, quotes and
context.

 

 

.l

variables, the local community members

 

 

1

Case study indicates that for some or all
variables, the local community members
were not involved.

1
Case study indicates that the variable/s
identified was/ were not discussed.

Results:

- source of the project goal

- goal of the project

- levels of participation used

- characteristics of the community
involved

-‘

Figure 7. Data analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

needed. To reach this objective, all qualitative data in all case studies were transformed
into numerical values (Appendix E). For example, a value of one (1) was used if the
variable was both discussed in the case study and there was an indication of involvement
by the local community members. A value of two (2) was used if the variable was
discussed in the case study but there was no indication involvement. A value of three (3)
was used if the variable was not discussed at all.

The variables under categories “Source of the project goal” were collapsed. Data
were recorded as follows: one (1) if the source of the project goal was outside the
community, two (2) if the source of the project goal was within the community, three (3)
if there was no information on who was the source of the project goal.

These numerical data were then quantitatively analyzed by using the computer
statistical program, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (Kelle, 1995;
Weitzman & Miles, 1995). The results fi'om this analysis were frequencies and percents
of each variable from all case studies. In conjunction with further interpretation of the
contextual meaning, these results were then compared to the participation for ecotourism
development called for in the literature. The results of the data analysis are presented in

the following chapter.

57

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, results are presented and discussed. Comparisons between the
study results and the kind of participation for ecotourism development called for in the
literature reviewed are also discussed. The sections are arranged as follows:
characteristics of the case studies, the source of the project goals, levels of participation
and the characteristics of the community involved. Cross tabulation analysis was
performed on selected pairs of variables. There were five pairs of variables: source of the
project goal by empowerment of community, source of the project goal by involvement
of community in decision making, empowerment of community by involvement of
community in decision making, source of the project goal by involvement of community
in action initiation and involvement of community in action initiation by involvement of
community in decision making. A discussion of the results is presented at the end of this

chapter.

Characteristics of the Case Studies
The characteristics of the case studies include the geographic location and level of
development referred to in each case study. As mentioned in the sampling frame section,
seventy-three case studies were used in data analysis. The distribution of geographic
locations referred to in the case studies is as follows: ten (13.7%) case studies from Asia,
seven (9.6%) fi'om Africa, two (2.7%) from Australia and New Zealand, one (1.4%) from

Canada, thirty-one (42.5%) from Central America, thirteen (17.8%) from South America,

58

two (2.7%) fi'om Europe, four (5.5%) from the United States, and three (4.1%) from

Micronesia and South Pacific islands (Table 8).

Table 8. Geographic location of case studies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geographic Locations Frequency Percent
Asia 10 13.7
Afiica 7 9.6
Australia and New Zealand 2 2.7
Canada 1 1.4
Central America 31 42.5
South America 13 17.8
Europe 2 2.7
United States 4 5.5
Micronesia and South Pacific Islands 3 4.1
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The case studies vary not only by these broad categories of geographic locations,
but also by country and site within each category. For example, the Xishuangbana
Prefecture ecotourism project in China, the Mount Halimun National Park ecotourism
project in Indonesia and the Khao Yai National Park ecotourism project in Thailand are
included in the case studies of Asia. The Ranomafana National Park ecotourism project in
Madagascar, the Amboseli National Park and Cobra project in Kenya and the Communal
Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) project in
Zimbabwe are examples of ecotourism case studies in Africa. Ecotourism in Amazonas,
Brazil, ecotourism in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico and the Community Baboon
Sanctuary in Belize are examples of ecotourism case studies in South America. The

complete list of the case studies is presented in Appendix C.

59

In terms of the country’s level of development, the case studies were divided into
two categories: developed and developing countries. Sixty-four of the seventy-three case
studies were from developing countries; the other nine were from developed countries.
For example, Thailand, Nepal, Indonesia, Belize, Kenya, Madagascar and Guyana are

developing countries. The United States, Australia and Canada are developed countries

(Table 9).

Table 9. Level of development growth of case study countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of development Frequency Percent
Developing country 64 87.7
Developed country 9 12.3
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

Source of the Project Goal

Of the 73 case studies, fifty—four (74%) indicated that the goals of the ecotourism
project were externally determined. Sixteen (21.9%) ofthe case studies indicated that the
source of the project goal came from within the community. In three (4.1%) ofthe case
studies, the source of the project’s goals was not discussed (Table 10).

Government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private
businesses are examples of entities outside of the community that determined project
goals. Of these entities, a combination of government, foreign NGOs (e. g., TNC, CI,
WWF) and funding agencies (e. g., USAID, World Bank) were most oflen identified as

the source of the project goal (31/54). In sixteen of the fifiy-four case studies

60

government was the source of the project goal. In four of fifty-four case studies, the
source of the project goal was a combination of government and local NGOs. In two of
the case studies, the source of the project goal was private enterprises and in one of the

case studies the source of the project goal was a local NGO.

Table 10. Source of the project goal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of the Project Goal Frequency Percent
Outside of the community 54 74.0
Within the community 16 21.9
Not discussed 3 4.1
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

For example, in the case study of the Bialowieza forest in Poland, a local NGO,
the Flaxfield Nature Consultancy (FNC), Netherlands, in conjunction with the Mammal
Research Institute, was source of the project goals (van de Vlasakker, 1999). The main
goal of this project was to support the continuity of wolf research. Guided by a
professional, ecotourists directly assisted wolf research.

Zabalo’s ecotourism project is an example of a project goal that was internally
determined (Wood, 1998). Though the project was led by Randall Borman, an American
missionary’s son who grew up with the Cofan and married a Cofan woman, the other
Cofan community members at Zabalo were actively involved in developing ecotourism.
For example, the community members created their own limits and rules for hunting
zones. They also trained community associates to work for the ecotourism project and

opened a small cooperative craft store.

61

Goal of the Project
In thirty-nine (53%) of the case studies, empowerment and capacity building of
the community was one of the project goals. In twenty (27%) of the case studies,
empowerment and capacity building of the community were not the project goals. In

fourteen (19%) of the case studies, empowerment as a project goal was not discussed

(Table 11).

Table 11. Empowerment and capacity building of the community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 39 53.4
No 20 27.4
Not discussed 14 19.2
Total 73 100.0

 

From the case studies that indicated that empowerment of the community was one
of the project goals, two patterns were identified. First, about 85% of the case studies
(33/39) defined empowerment as providing training for related ecotourism jobs (e.g., a
nature guide, tour operator, or traditional crafier), providing opportunities for community
members to express their opinions and ideas through public meetings or monthly
meetings, and involving community members in the decision-making process. Second,
about 15% of the case studies (6/39) defined empowerment as simply providing training
for ecotourism related jobs (i.e. to become a nature guide, tour operator, or traditional
crafier).

As an illustration, in the Kapawi ecotourism project in Ecuador (Wood, 1998),

empowerment and capacity building of community members included 3 actions:

62

- establishing joint initiatives with the community to develop the ecotourism project;
- employing a majority of Anchuar people in the project;
- training the Anchuar people to manage and market the ecotourism lodge.

Of the thirty-three case studies that describe empowerment of community, only
ten case studies go to the same length as the Kapawi project in term of empowering local
residents. Examples of these ten include the case studies in Mount Halimun National
Park, Indonesia (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998), Annapurna Conservation Area Project,
Nepal (Gurung & De Coursey, 1994; Lama, 1995), Ranomafana National Park,
Madagascar (Peters, 1994), Zimbabwe Campfire Project, Zimbabwe (Robinson, 1996;
Taylor & 1. Bond, 1999), Bialowieza forest, (Van de Vlasakker, 1999) and Community

Baboon Sanctuary (Horwich et al., 1998; Horwich & Lyon, 1998; Norris et al., 1998).

Levels of Participation

Information sharing, process nominal, consultation, decision making and action
initiation were considered as levels of participation in this study. For information sharing,
the variables identified were participation of community members in collecting
preliminary data and volunteering their time and effort for the project. In nineteen (26%)
of the case studies, community members were involved in preliminary data collection. In
eight (11%) ofthe case studies, the community members were not involved. In forty-six
(63%) of the case studies, the involvement of community members in preliminary data
collection was not discussed (Table 12). For example, in the case study of Ranomafana
National Park, Madagascar, the involvement of community members in preliminary data

collection is described as follows:

63

In some cases, as with the village associations in Vohiparara, this low level of
participation characterized only the earliest stages of the public’s relationship with
the project. Between 1989 and 1991, the village was visited by six different RNPP
survey teams gathering socio-economic data and information about agriculture
and forest use. (Peters, 19972116)

Table 12. Community members participating in preliminary data collection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
The community is involved 19 26
The community is not involved 8 11
Not discussed 46 63
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

In eleven (15.1%) ofthe case studies, community members volunteered their time
and effort for the project. In eleven (15.1%) ofthe case studies, the community members
did not volunteer. In fifty-one (69.9%) of the case studies, community volunteered their

time and effort was not discussed (Table 13).

Table 13. Community members volunteering their time and effort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 1 1 15. 1
No 1 1 15. 1
Not discussed 51 69.9
Total 73 100.0

 

The case studies in Huatulco, Mexico (Ishida, 1999), Mount Halimun National
Park, Indonesia (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998) and the Cofan community at Zabalo, Ecuador
(Wood, 1998) described volunteer efforts by community members. Attending public
meetings, collecting preliminary data and providing and building initial access to

designated ecotourism areas are examples of activities in which the community members

64

volunteered their time and effort. All of these activities usually took place in the initial
development of the project. For example, in the case study in Mount Halimun National
Parlg Indonesia, the involvement of community members in volunteering their time and
efforts is decribed as follows:

Each of the villages has constructed trails to nearby natural destinations, such as

waterfalls or mountaintops. In many cases, this involved upgrading existing trails

traditionally used by village residents for hunting, forest product gathering or

cutting bamboo. (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998:228)

Variables identified for the process nominal level were the hiring of community
members by the project and the development of private enterprises as opposed to
employment by the project. In thirty-four (46.6%) of the case studies, community
members were hired by the project. In eight (11%) of the case studies, community

members were not hired by the project. In thirty-one (42.5%) of the case studies, the

hiring of community members was not discussed (Table 14).

Table 14. Community members hired by the project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 34 46.6
No 8 1 1.0
Not discussed 31 42.5
Total 73 1 00.0

 

 

 

 

The skill levels of community members hired by the ecotourism project ranged
from unskilled labor (e. g., porter, construction worker) to skilled labor (e. g., tour guide,
tour operator, crafier, food provider) to management (e. g., project planner, policy maker,
regulator). The Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal (Gurung & De Coursey,

1994), Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar (Peters, 1994) and Mount Halimun

65

National Park, Indonesia (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998) are examples of case studies in
which the skill levels of community members hired ranged from unskilled labor to
management.

Of the thirty-four case studies that discussed the employment of community
members by the project, in two case studies (5.9%), community members were hired as
unskilled labor. In six case studies (17.6%), community members were hired as skilled
labor. In nine case studies (26.5%), community members were hired as both skilled and
unskilled laborers. In seventeen case studies (50%), community members were hired at
all three skill levels (i.e., skilled, unskilled, and management).

In fifty-nine (80.8%) of the case studies, the community developed private
enterprises to support the ecotourism project. In nine (12.3%) of the case studies, private
enterprises were not developed. In five (6.8%) of the case studies, the development of

private enterprises was not discussed (Table 15).

Table 15. Private enterprises developed by community members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 59 80.8
No 9 l 2.3
Not discussed 5 6.8
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Private enterprises that were developed by the local community usually provided
tourism services such as lodging, food, souvenirs, tour operators and tour guides. For
example, the local communities in the Mount Halimun ecotourism project, Indonesia

developed these types of services.

66

Each of the three participating villages has built a guest house complex,
constructed trails with appropriate signage, developed marketable handicrafts,
trained local naturalist guides, and undergone intensive food and beverage
preparation training. (Sproule &Suhandi, 1998: 228)

Consultation is the third level of participation. The variables identified for this
category were the types of consultation activities used in the project such as public
meetings, focus groups or other consultative methods. In eighteen (24.7%) of the case
studies, the projects invited community members to public meetings. In thirteen ( 17.8%)
of the case studies, community members were not invited to public meetings or the
project did not hold public meetings at all. In forty-two (57.5%) of the case studies,
public meetings were not discussed (Table 16). Example of the involvement of
community members in the public meeting is described as follows:

The people of PAN Parks project organized meetings and lectures where they

explained the PAN Parks project and the importance of local people.
(Niewiadomska et al., 1999: 20)

Table 16. Consultation mode: public meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 1 8 24.7
No 1 3 1 7. 8
Not discussed 42 57 .5
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The case studies indicated that public meetings were used not only as a
consultation mode, but also as a way to create some rules and to make some decisions.
For example, in the case study of the Community Baboon Sanctuary in Belize, public
meetings were used to inform the community about the idea and the purpose of the

ecotourism project (Horwich et al., 1998). In the case study of the Ranomafana National

67

Park in Madagascar, the public meetings were used to make some decisions. For
example, the use of public meeting to make decision is described as follows:

In Vohiparara, local participation in decision making was generally an organized
and collective activity of the associations. Thus, in early January 1993, a village
meeting was attended by 83 of the 120 voting-aged residents. . . ..In a vote by show
of hands, 64 voted to unify, 12 voted to stay separate, and 7 abstain. After several
names were proposed, they unanimously decided to name the new organization
Tantsaha Miavotena Vohiparara (TMV), the association for the Progress of
Vohiparara. (Peters, 1997: 1 18)

In two ( 2.7%) of the case studies, the project used focus groups as a consultation
method. In sixteen (21.9%) of the case studies, the project did not use focus groups. In
fifty-five (75.3%) of the case studies, focus groups were not discussed (Table 17). The
involvement of community members in focus group is described as follows:

Such focus group discussions, which are another supported PRA technique. . . .,

complemented the larger community meetings in that they created an environment

which encouraged people to speak more freely, especially those who are typically
less vocal at larger meetings. (Robinson, 1996:87)

Table 17. Consultation mode: focus groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 2 2.7
No 16 2 1 .9
Not discussed 55 75.3
Total 73 100.0

 

Regarding other consultation methods, in seventeen (23.3%) of the case studies,
the project used other methods such as workshops, group discussions and distributing
questionnaires as in the case study of Community Baboon Sanctuary, Central America
(Horwich & Lyon, 1998), Zimbabwe Campfire Project, Zimbabwe (Robinson, 1996) and

the case study in Annapurna Conservation Project, Nepal (Gurung & De Corsey, 1994).

68

In fifteen (20.5%) of the case studies, the project did not use other consultative methods.
In forty-one (56.2%) of the case studies, other methods of consultation were not

discussed (Table 18).

Table 18. Consultation mode: other methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frecmency Percent
Yes 1 7 23 .3
No 1 5 20.5
Not discussed 41 56.2
Total 73 100.0

 

 

For the decision-making level, community members were involved in thirty-five
(47.9%) of the case studies. In twenty (27.4%) of the case studies, the project did not
involve community members in the decision-making process. In eighteen (56.2%) of the
case studies, the involvement of community members in decision making was not

discussed (Table 19).

Table 19. Community involvement in decision making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 35 47.9
No 20 27.4
Not discussed 18 24.7
Total 73 100.0

 

 

Of the thirty-five case studies that discussed involvement in decision making,

54.3% (n=19) did not explain the decision-making process, while 45.7% (n=16)

69

discussed the process in detail. Of the sixteen case studies that provided details, the
decision-making process was characterized by the involvement of community members
in determining project design, creating rules and regulations, and implementing activities
through public meetings. However, in several particular case studies, the public meetings
usually were not well attended (Robinson, 1996), community members were only
involved passively (Wood, 1998, Ishida, 1999), and decisions were “outsider driven”
(Meadows, 1993).

For example, in the case of Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico (Ishida, 1999), community
members were involved in determining which part of their village would be designated as
an ecotourism center, how facilities and services would be provided and who would be
responsible for various tasks (Ishida, 1999). However, not all community members were
involved actively in the decision-making process. Women, in particular, were not
involved. Another example is the decision-making process in the Bio-Itza Reserve,
Guatemala (Huex et al., 1998) and Costa Rica (Meadows, 1993). Entities outside the
community had made decisions before community members contributed their ideas. This
type of decision-making process might be called “outsider driven” (Meadows, 1993) or
“tokenism” (Furze et al., 1997).

At the fifth level of participation, action initiation, forty-seven (64.4%) of the case
studies indicated that the community members were involved. Fifleen (20.5%) of the case
studies indicated that the project did not involve the community members in action
initiation. In eleven (15.1%) of the case studies the involvement of community members

in action initiation was not discussed (Table 20).

7O

Table 20. Community involvement in action initiation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Yes 47 64.4
No 1 5 20.5
Not discussed 1 1 15.1
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 47 case studies that discussed the involvement of community members in
action initiation, in twenty-five percent of the case studies (n=12), community members
were not involved in the decision-making process. In seventy-five percent of the case
studies (n=3 5), communities members were involved in both action initiation and the
decision making process. The most common example of action initiation that can be
identified from the case studies is involvement at the management level of the project,
such as taking part in supervising and controlling project implementation. However, it
was difiicult to tell fi'om the written materials whether or not people were proactive and

initiated their own management after being trained.

Characteristics of the Communities Involved
The characteristics of the communities were assessed in terms of localities, local
institutional structures, economic conditions and gender. Locality was defined as the
distance from the community to the project location, specifically as living within, near, or
far from the project location. In fifty (68.5%) of the case studies, community members of
who lived within the project location were involved. In sixteen (2 1 .9%) of the case

studies, community members who lived within the project location were not involved. In

71

seven (9.6%) of the case studies, the involvement of those living within the project was

not discussed (Table 21).

Table 21. Involvement of community members living within the project boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 50 68.5
Not involved 16 2 1 .9
Not discussed 7 9.6
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

In forty-eight (65.8%) of the case studies, community members who lived near
the project location were involved in the project. In twenty-one (28.8%) of the case
studies, they were not involved. In four (5.5%) of the case studies, the involvement of

those living near the project location was not discussed (Table 22).

Table 22. Involvement of community members living near the project boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 48 65.8
Not involved 21 28.8
Not discussed 4 5.5
Total 73 1 00.0

 

In eight (11%) ofthe case studies, community who lived far from the project
location were involved. In fifty-two (71.2%) of the case studies, they were not involved.
In thirteen (17.8%) of the case studies, the involvement of those living far from the

project was not discussed (Table 23).

72

Table 23. InvolVement of community members living far from the project boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 8 1 1.0
Not involved 52 71.2
Not discussed 13 17.8
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The case studies did not discuss the differences in levels of involvement between
community members who lived within, near or far from the project. However, the pattern
of involvement of these communities, in general, is suggested by the levels of
participation in which they were involved. These levels are discussed in the previous
section.

The involvement of local institutions in the project was analyzed. These
institutions included families, religious organizations, academic institutions, local
government agencies, and other local groups. In eleven (15.1%) ofthe case studies,
families were involved in the ecotourism project. In three (4.1%) ofthe case studies,
families were not involved in the project. In fifiy-nine (80.8%) of the case studies, the
involvement of families was not discussed (Table 24).

The family in ecotourism projects acts as a support system in providing
ecotourism facilities and services. For example, in the Community Baboon Sanctuary
ecotourism project in Belize, some families contributed their land to the ecotourism area
(Horwich et al., 1998). In the case study of ecotourism in the American West, some

families provided lodging and food (Bryan, 1991).

73

Table 24. Involvement of family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved l 1 15. 1
Not involved 3 4.1
Not discussed 59 80.8
Total 73 100. 0

 

 

 

 

 

In two (2.7%) of the case studies, religious organizations were involved in the
project. In five (6.8%) of the case studies, religious organizations were not involved. In
sixty-six (90.4%) of the case studies, the involvement of religious organizations was not

discussed (Table 25).

Table 25. Involvement of religious organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 2 2.7
Not involved 5 6.8
Not discussed 66 90.4
Total 73 1 00.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico, local community members were involved in an
ecotourism project through a religious organization (Ishida, 1999), the Organization for
the Defense of Rights and Community ’Development (ODDDECO). This is a grassroots
organization with its foundation in liberation theology. It has been a base for Christian
community activities since the late 19705. ODDDECO organized the network of
community groups that initiated the development of ecotourism in the area.

In eighteen (24.7%) of the case studies, local academic institutions were involved

in the project. In three (4.1%) ofthe case studies, academic institutions were not

74

involved. In fifty-two (71.2%) of the case studies, the involvement of local academic

institutions was not discussed (Table 26).

Table 26. Involvement of local academic institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 18 24. 7
Not involved 3 4.1
Not discussed 52 71.2
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The role of academic institutions in projects varied from providing data about the
proposed project areas to initiating the project evidenced by the case studies of the Mount
Halimun National Park, Indonesia (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998), the Xishuangbana
Prefecture, China (Tisdell, 1996), and the Bialowieza forest, Poland (van de Vlasakker,
1999).

In forty-one (56.2%) of the case studies, local government agencies were
involved. In nine (12.3%) of the case studies, local government agencies were not
involved. In twenty (31.5%) of total case studies, the involvement of local government
agencies was not discussed (Table 27). The types of government agencies involved in the
projects included tourism development agencies, environmental protection agencies,

planning and development agencies and public works agencies.

75

Table 27. Involvement of local government agencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 41 56.2
Not involved 9 12.3
Not discussed 23 31.5
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

In forty-one (56.2%) of the case studies, other local institutions were involved. in
six (8.2%) of the case studies, other local institutions were not involved. In twenty-six
(35.6%) of the case studies, the involvement of other local institutions was not discussed
(Table 28). This category includes conservation groups, indigenous associations and local

businesses associations.

Table 28. Involvement of other local institutional groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 4 1 56.2
Not involved 6 8 A
Not discussed 26 35.6
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

OINAE, Indigenous Organization of Ecuadorian Achuar Nationalities, is an
example of a local indigenous association that was involved in an ecotourism project
(Wood, 1998). In developing the ecotourism project in their area, this indigenous group
worked with Canodros, a tour operator from outside the community. The case study of
ecotourism in Wyoming in the American West is another example of the involvement of

other local institutions. In this case, local farmers and ranchers created farm and ranch

76

recreation enterprises. They also established their own trade and marketing association
called the Wyoming Homestay and Outdoor Adventure Association (Bryan, 1991).

Economic condition was defined in terms of the income levels of community
members involved in the project. Levels were categorized as high, middle and low. These
levels were identified based on what was stated or inferred in the case study. Thus, the
low income category in one case study may differ from that of another case study. “Poor
community” and “peasant family” were examples of key words describing the low-
income category. “Wealthy family” and “elite groups” were examples of key words
describing the high income category. The middle income category was identified based
on occupation such as teachers, private business owners and farmers with a particular
amount of land.

None of the case studies indicated that high-income community members were
not involved in the project. In twelve (16.4%) of the case studies, community members
whose income level was categorized as high were involved. In sixty-one (83.6%) of the
case studies, the involvement by high income members of the community was not

discussed (Table 29).

Table 29. Involvement of high-income members of the local community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 12 16.4
Not involved 0 0.0
Not discussed 61 83.6
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

77

In seven (9.6%) of the case studies, middle income members of the community
were involved. In one (1.4%) of the case studies, no middle income members of the
community were involved. In sixty-five (89%) of the case studies, the involvement of

middle income members of the community was not discussed (Table 30).

Table 30. Involvement of middle-income members of the local community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 7 9.6
Not involved 1 1.4
Not discussed 65 89.0
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

In eighteen (24.7%) of the case studies, low income members of the community
were involved. In five (6.8%) of the case studies, low income members of the community
were not involved. In fifty (68.5%) of the case studies, the involvement of low income

members of the community was not discussed (Table 31).

Table 31. Involvement of low-income members of the local community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 1 8 24. 7
Not involved 5 6.8
Not discussed 50 68.5
Total 73 I 00.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender is another characteristic of the community that was analyzed in this study.
The involvement of men, women or both men and women in the project was identified.

None of the case studies indicated that men were not involved. In fifteen (20.5%) of the

78

case studies, men were involved. In fifiy-eight (79%) of the case studies, the involvement
of men was not discussed (Table 32). In most of the case studies, the involvement of men

ranged from unskilled labor to management of the project.

Table 32. Involvement of men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 15 20.5
Not involved 0 0.0
Not discussed 58 79. 5
Total 73 l 00. 0

 

 

 

 

 

In seventeen (23.3%) of the case studies, women were involved. In one (1.4%) of
the case studies, women were not involved. In fifty-five (75.3%) of the case studies the

involvement of women was not discussed (Table 33).

Table 33. Involvement of women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 1 7 23 .3
Not involved 1 1.4
Not discussed 5 5 75 .3
Total 73 100.0

 

The case studies indicated that the involvement of women generally consisted of
low levels of employment such as cleaning and food services. The case study in
Bialowieza forest in Poland (Niewiadomska et al., 1999; van de Vlasakker, 1999)
indicated that some private enterprises such as homestays, crafi stores and restaurants

were run or owned by women. Some of the case studies indicated that women were not in

79

decision-making positions such as the case study in Huatulco, Mexico (Ishida, 1999) and
Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar (Peters, 1997). In Taquile Island, Peru (Mitchell,
1998) the women may have been involved indirectly in decision making. It was
illustrated as follows:
When we (men) have a position of authority, our wives work with us as well...
They go to Sunday meetings where they listen, then go to their houses and make
comments. They don’t say a word publicly but they know. They also have a say in
the Women’s Club and the Maternity Center. (Mitchell, 1998, p. 167)
Of the case studies that discussed the involvement of men and women, in eleven

(15.1%) of the case studies, both men and women were involved. In one (1.4%) of the

case studies, both women and men were not involved (Table 34).

Table 34. Involvement of both men and women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Involved 1 l 15. 1
Not involved 1 1.4
Not discussed 61 83 .6
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Tabulation Analysis of Selected Variables
As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, five selected pairs of variables
were analyzed using cross tabulations to identify associations. These pairs of variables
were: source of the project goal by empowerment of community, source of the project
goal by involvement of community in decision making, empowerment of community by

involvement of community in decision making, source of the project goal by involvement

80

of community in action initiation and involvement of community in action initiation by
involvement of community in decision making.

The results of the cross tabulation analysis of the first pair of variables is
presented in Table 35. In forty-eight percent of the case studies where the source of the
project goal came from the outside community (n=54), empowerment of community was
the project goal. In eighty-one percent of the case studies where the source of the project
goal came fi'om within the community (n=16), empowerment was the project goal.

Table 35. Crosstabulation: source of the project goal by
empowerment of community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Empowerment of community
the project goal Total
Yes No Not
discussed
(0 (0 (0
Outside of the 26 19 9 54
community
Within the 13 1 2 16
community
Not discussed 0 0 3 3
Total 39 20 14 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

The results of cross tabulation analysis of the second pair of variables is presented
in Table 36. Of the case studies where the source of the project goal came from outside
the community (n=54), 38.8% (n=21) involved community members in decision making.
Of the case studies where the source of the project goal came from within the community

(n=16), 81.3% (n=13) involved community members in decision making.

81

Table 36. Crosstabulation: source of the project goal by involvement of community
in decision making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Involvement of community
Source of the project in decision making Total
goal
Yes No Not
discussed
(0 (f) (0
Outside of the 21 18 15 54
community
Within the 13 2 1 16
community
Not discussed 1 0 2 3
Total 35 20 18 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

The result of crosstabulation analysis of the third pair of variables is presented in
Table 37 . Of the case studies where the project goal was to empower the community
(n=39), 74.4% (n=29) involved community members in decision making. In three of the
case studies (7.7%), community members were not involved in decision making. In seven
of the case studies (17.9%), the involvement of community in decision making was not

discussed in the text.

Table 37. Crosstabulation: empowerment of community by
involvement of community in decision making

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empowerment of Involvement of community
community in decision making Total
Yes No Not
discussed

(0 (f) (D
Yes 29 3 7 39
No 2 l3 5 20
Not discussed 4 4 6 14
Total 35 20 18 73

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

The results of cross tabulation analysis of the fourth pair of variables is presented
in Table 38. Of the case studies where the source of the project goal came from outside
the community (n=54), 57.4% (n=31) involved community members in action initiation.
Of the case studies where the source of the project goal came from within the community

(n=16), 93.7% (n=15) involved community members in action initiation.

Table 38. Crosstabulation: source of the project goal by involvement of community
in action initiation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Involvement of community
Source of in action initiation Total
the project goal
Yes No Not
discussed

(0 (f) (0
Outside of the 31 14 9 54
community
Within the 15 1 0 16
community
Not discussed 1 O 2 3

Total 47 15 1 1 73

 

 

 

 

 

The results of cross tabulation analysis of the fifth pair of variables is presented in
Table 39. Of the case studies where the community members were involved in action
initiation (n=47), 74.5% (n=35) involved community members in decision making. In
five of the case studies (10.6%), community members were not involved in decision
making. In seven of the case studies (14.9%), involvement of community in decision

making was not discussed in the text.

83

Table 39. Crosstabulation: involvement of community in action initiation by involvement
of community in decision making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Involvement of community
Involvement of in decision making Total
community Yes No Not
in action initiation discussed

(0 (O (0
Yes 35 S 7 47
No 15 0 15
Not discussed 0 0 1 1 1 1
Total 35 20 18 73

Discussion

This section describes how the results met the objectives of this study. There were
three main objectives of this study: to identify the kind of community participation that is
used most commonly in international ecotourism development projects, to determine if
the kind of participation applied in the case studies corresponds to the kind of
participation called for in the literature, and to make policy, planning and research
recommendations. The first objective had two sub-objectives: to identify the levels of
participation in which the communities are usually involved and to identify the
characteristics of the communities that are involved. This section is concluded by
comparisons of the study results from the case studies with the kind of participation

called for in the literature. Recommendations are presented in the final chapter.

What [and of community participation?
The first objective of this study was to identify the kind of community

participation that is most often used in ecotourism development projects. As mentioned in

84

the literature reviewed, the kind of participation was identified based on whether or not
empowerment of the community was a project goal and if the community members were
involved in decision making.

The results of data analysis indicated that in thirty-nine of the case studies (53%),
empowerment of the community was the project goal. In thirty-five of the case studies
(48%), community members were involved in decision making. The crosstabulation of
these two variables (Table 37) showed that in twenty-nine of the case studies, the projects
with the goal to empower the community were also the projects that involved community
members in decision making. However, to determine whether or not this result
corresponds to the kind of participation called for in the literature review, two other
categories must be evaluated: level of participation in which community members were
most often involved and the characteristics of community members that most often
participated. For example, the percentage of community involvement in decision making
must be compared with the percentage of the other levels of participation. In addition, in
the case studies of Taquile Island, Peru (Mitchell, 1998) and Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico
(Ishida, 1999), only certain community members were involved in the decision making
process. Women were usually excluded. Therefore, to understand clearly the kind of
participation most ofien used in the case studies, the Table 37 results must be compared
with the levels of participation and the characteristics of the community involved.

In about 85% of the case studies where the goal was to empower the community
(33/39), empowerment was defined as providing training for related ecotourism jobs
(e.g., a nature guide, tour operator, or traditional crafter), giving opportunities for

community members to express their opinions and ideas through public meetings or

85

monthly meetings, and involving community members in the decision-making process.
Also, in twenty-nine (74.4%), of the case studies (Table 37), the projects with the goal to
empower the community were also the projects that involved community members in
decision making. Thus, it can be inferred that empowerment, as described in most of the
case studies, is similar in meaning to empowerment as defined in the literature reviewed.

From the results of crosstabulation analysis presented in Table 35, it is apparent
that empowerment of community most often occurred in the project where the source of
its goal came from the outside (26/39). Table 36 shows that the involvement of
community members in decision making also most often occurred in projects whose
goals were determined by the outside (21/35). From these results, it is clear that most of
these projects were “outsider driven.”

There are many reasons why empowerment as a goal and involvement in decision
making occurred most often in projects whose goals were determined by the outside.
One reason may be the role of international conservation groups and funding agencies,
such as the Audubon Society, World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), Wildlife
Preservation Trust International (WPTI) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). For
instance, for more that half (57%) of the case studies where the source of the project goal
came fi'om outside, the source was a combined effort of government and international
NGOs and finding agencies. From these case studies, it is apparent that these
organizations used ecotourism as a vehicle for promoting the conservation of natural
resources, while attempting to reduce dependency of local communities on those natural
resources and giving them life sustaining alternatives. Not only did they promote the

development of ecotourism, especially in developing countries, but they also financially

86

supported its development (Furze et al., 1997; Lama, 1995). This commitment to
empower and increase the capacity building of local communities may have influenced
the way participation was practiced in the ecotourism projects they funded. The case
studies of the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal (Lama, 1995), Mount
Halimun National Park, Indonesia (Sproule & Suhandi, 1998) and Bialowieza forest,
Poland (van de Vlasakker, 1999) are examples of ecotourism projects in which
international NGOs took part in promoting and funding the project.

Another reason stems from the literature review on ecotourism where it is noted
that the concepts of ecotourism are relatively new and that most of these definitions were
created by those from developed countries. Thus, since about 88% of the case studies
were located in developing countries (Table 8), most of the local communities in these
countries might have no working knowledge of the term and thus must rely on outside
sources for project initiation and assistance.

In conclusion, empowerment of community members occurred as the project goal
in a little over half of in the case studies (top part of Figure 8). However, whether or not
this result is consistent with the type of participation called for in the literature needs to
be examined with the results from two other categories: level of participation and the
characteristics of community members who most often participated in the ecotourism

project.
Levels of participation

The second objective of this study was to identify the levels of participation in

which the community was usually involved. The levels of participation include

87

 

Participation called
for in the literature

 

 

 

Source of project goal:

 

Case studies

 

 

Source of project goal:

 

 

 

Community members ‘ m, Outside the community
1 I
Goal ofparticipation: Goal ofparticipation:
Empowerment of the 4——§ Empowerment of the
community community

 

 

I

 

Levels of participation:

- used all levels of
participation

- involve the community in
all levels of participation

- involve the community in
decision making level.

 

l

 

 

The characteristics of the
community involved (locality,
local institutional structures,

economic conditions, gender):

Community members with fisll
range of the characteristics.

 

 

 

 

Levels of participation:
Community members were
mostly involved in process
nominal and action initiation
levels of participation.

 

 

 

 

The characteristics of the
community involved:
Community members with a
limited range of the
characteristics.

 

 

 

Notes:
H Closely matched

H Not matched

Figure 8. Comparison between the kind of participation in case studies and
the kind of participation called for in the literature.

88

 

 

 

information sharing, process nominal, consultation, decision making and action initiation.
In terms of information sharing, only a few case studies mentioned that the community
members were involved in preliminary data collection (26.0%) and in volunteering their
time and effort (15.1%). Most of the case studies did not discuss involvement of
community members in preliminary data collection (63.0%) and in volunteering their
time and effort (69.9%). These results might be affected by the failure of the authors of
the case studies to fully describe the participation process. The results also might be
influenced by the data sources that pertain to the use of published materials. Whatever the
case, published materials are considered to be secondary data (Ritchie & Goeldner, 1994)
and as secondary data, they may not be perfectly suitable for the research problem. In
addition, the researcher was limited to the information presented in the text.

In terms of process nominal, private enterprises were developed in 81% of the
case studies in response to the development of ecotourism. Nearly half of the case studies
indicated that community members were also hired by the project (47%). The skill levels
of community members hired by ecotourism projects ranged from unskilled labor (e. g.,
porter, construction worker) to management (e. g., project planner, policy maker,
regulator). Jobs requiring semi-skilled labor included tour guide, tour operator and food
provider.

In terms of consultation, only a few of the case studies indicated that the
community members were invited to or were involved in public meetings (24.7%), focus
groups (2.7%) and other methods such as workshops and questionnaire surveys (23.3%).
Most of the case studies (about 63.0% in average) did not discuss community members’

involvement in the consultation process. These results may be influenced by the

89

inherently limited information provided by the case studies.

Nearly half of the case studies (47.9%) indicated that community members were
involved in the decision-making process. Of the case studies that discussed decision
making, 46% described a process that included community members in determining
project design, creating rules and regulations and implementing activities through public
meetings. However, several particular case studies indicated that the decision-making
process in real-life cases might reflect some bias. For example, a small number of
community members attended public meetings (Robinson, 1996). In this case, the
representation of community members in the decision-making process was questionable.
Community members also might involved passively (Ishida, 1999; Wood, 1998) meaning
that instead of voicing their ideas or opinions during the decision-making process,
community members stayed silent. Decisions already made prior public meetings is
another example of limited involvement (Meadows, 1993). In this type of case, the
decision-making process might only be used to manipulate local people into accepting
outside programs.

In 47 of the case studies (64.4%) community members were involved in action
initiation. In 35 of these 47 case studies, community members involved in action
initiation were involved in decision making (Table 39). There was a close but not perfect
association between action initiation and decision making. They go hand-in-hand, so
perhaps the distinction between action initiation and decision making (p.25) is more
artificial than real.

A comparison of the results of all levels of participation might help in arriving at

preliminary conclusions (Table 40). From this comparison, community members were

90

usually involved in process nominal and action initiation levels of participation. In terms
of process nominal, the involvement of community members was mostly through the
development of private enterprises. In developing private enterprises, the community
members might or might not get help from the outside. In addition to the “nominal”
benefits received by the community, the development of private enterprises might also

indicate the ability of community members to empower and develop themselves.

Table 40. Levels of participation in which community members were involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels of Variables Frequency Percentage
participation

Information Community members 19 26.0

sharing participated in preliminary data
collection
Community members were 1 1 15.1
volunteer their time and efforts

Process nominal Community members were hired 34 46.6
by the project
Community members developed 59 80.8
private enterprises

Consultation Community members were 18 24.7
involved in public meetings
Community members were 2 2.7
involved in focus groups
Community members were 17 23.3
involved in other consultation
methods

Decision making Community members were 35 47.7
involved in decision making

Action initiation Community members were 47 64.4
involved in action initiation

 

In terms of action initiation, there might be a question as to why the number of
case studies that indicate community involvement in action initiation is higher than the

number of case studies which indicate community involvement in decision making. Of

91

the case studies that discussed the involvement of community members in action
initiation, 10.6% (5/47) noted that community members were not involved in the decision
making process. One of the reasons for this finding may be the increasing awareness of
local communities about their rights to be involved in development projects. For
example, some ecotourism development projects in Africa, such as the Amboseli Reserve
(Gakahu, 1992) and the Masai Mara (Olindo, 1991) projects, originally excluded the
local community when ecotourism was first developed. This exclusion created conflict
between the project and the local community which did not benefit either party. The
project later changed the approach to include local communities. However, most of these
communities became involved alter the projects were already developed, meaning that
some of the project decisions had been made without them.

From the discussion of the results, it can be inferred that the levels of participation
in the case studies do not correspond to the levels of participation called for in the
literature. As discussed earlier, the literature reviewed suggests that community members
should be involved at all levels of participation, especially in decision making (middle
part of Figure 8). On a positive note, however, there were a number of activities (jobs,
private enterprises, etc.) that might lead to more proactive involvement by community

members in all levels in the filture.

Characteristics of the communities involved
The third objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of the
community members who were involved in the project. As mentioned in the literature

reviewed, the characteristics of the identified community were: localities in which the

92

local community members reside, local institutional structures, economic status, and
gender.

In terms of localities, community members who lived within (69%) and near
(66%) the project location usually participated. According to Chambers (1995), these
results still reflect “by the road bias” because the project involved only those living
within and near the project location not those living fithher away. However, these results
might also be influenced by the limitation of measurement within that study. The terms
“within”, “near” and “far” could not be measured accurately. Also, the case studies

1, ‘6

provided only qualitative information in which the meanings of “within, near” and
“far” might differ from one case study to another.

In terms of local institutional structures, the results show that local government
agencies (56.2%) and other local groups (56.2%) were most often involved in ecotourism
projects. Other local groups include conservation groups, indigenous community
associations and business enterprise associations. This local involvement is the key to
mobilization theory (Olsen, 1982 cited in Howell et al., 1987) which states that a new
program or development project will receive more support if it is linked closely to the
activities of existing groups or organizations in the community. In this case, the local
government agencies and the other local institutions such as conservation groups,
indigenous community associations and business enterprise associations may be the types
of groups within local communities that are closely linked to ecotourism projects.

However, the result might also reflect the “elite bias” in which community groups that

have power (e.g., local government) benefit from the project while others do not.

93

The results also indicated low percentage involvement of families, religious
organizations and academic institutions. As these institutions typically try to increase
representation by the powerless, their lack of involvement might be a concern.

In terms of ecdnomic conditions, most of the case studies did not discuss which
income group was usually involved (80%). Of the case studies that discussed
involvement based on income level, low income community members were involved
most often (24.7%). However, because most case studies did not discuss the involvement
of community members in terms of their economic condition, a conclusion for this
variable could not be made.

Most of the case studies (79%) also did not discuss the involvement of
community members in terms of their gender. Women only were clearly involved in
””3 cases, men only in 15/73 cases, and both men and women were both involved in
11/73 cases. However, because most case studies did not discuss the involvement of
community members in terms of gender, a conclusion for this variable could not be made.

A summary of the results of all the characteristics of community members might
help in arriving at preliminary conclusions. Community members who were most often
involved in the ecotourism project were those who lived within or near the project area
and were part of local government agencies or other local groups (Table 41).

These results do not closely match community characteristics called for in the
literature (bottom part of Figure 8). The literature suggested that participation should be
broad-based and representative of diverse community characteristics. It can also be
inferred that participation in the case studies reflects “by the road bias” and “elite bias.”

Overall, the results in Table 40 and 41 suggest that, while some types of participation

94

 

Table 41. Characteristics of communities participating in ecotourism projects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics of Variables Frequency Percentage
the community (f) 6%)
Locality Lived within the project 50 68.5
location '
Lived near the project 48 65.8
location
Lived far from project the 8 11.0
location
Local institutional Family 11 15.1
structures Religious organization 2 2.7
Schools or academic 18 24.7
institutions
Local governments 41 56.2
Other local ogganizations 41 56.2
Economic High income 12 16.4
condition Middle income 7 9.6
Low income 18 24.7
Gender Men 15 20.5
Women 17 23.3
Both men and women 11 15.1

 

 

 

 

(e. g., private enterprises, action initiation) may be high, examination of who participates

reveals numerous inequities.

These results might be influenced by the authors’ failure to present the complete

characteristics of the community members who were participating in the project. The

authors may also be biased toward optimism in presenting their case studies. However,

the results also might indicate the difficulties of having complete representation of

community members in the participation process.

95

 

Comparison of case findings to the literature re viewed

This section summarizes and compares the findings of this study to the

participation called for in the literature reviewed (Figure 8). It is summarized as follows:

The goal of the ecotourism case studies was most often outsider-driven (n=54).

In thirty-nine case studies, empowerment and capacity building of the community
was indicated as the project goal.

Where the goal was to empower the community (n=3 9), community members were
involved in decision making in twenty-nine of the case studies.

Empowerment defined in the case studies closely corresponds to the meaning of
empowerment presented in the literature reviewed.

The goal to empower the community most often occurred in projects where the
source of goal came fi'om the outside (n=29).

Community members were most often involved in process nominal and action
initiation levels of participation.

The case studies frequently did not discuss representation of community members
based on income or gender.

In terms of locality, community members who participated most often lived within or
near the project location.

Local government and other local organization were more frequently involved than
other local institutions (e.g., families, religious organization, educational institutions).

In conclusion, the most frequent ecotourism project goal in the case studies was to

empower the community. However, in terms of source of the project goal and levels of

participation, participation in the case studies was not consistent with the kind of

96

participation that is called for in the literature. The results show that the project goal was
outsider driven in most of the case studies, while the literature reviewed indicated that the
ultimate aim of ecotourism is for community members to be more actively involved than
the outside in decision making and control of actions and outcomes (Figure 1). In
addition, the results show that community members were most often involved in process
nominal and action initiation levels, while the literature indicated that participation
should occur at all levels, particularly the decision making level. In terms of the
representation of community members, participation in the case studies often reflected

“by the road ” and “elite” biases.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study may influence the interpretation of the results.
These limitations are related to data and measurement, author bias and researcher bias.

Data limitations occurred in the use of published materials. In this study, this type
of limitation occurred for some variables. For example, most case studies did not discuss
economic conditions and gender. As a result, conclusions for these variables cannot be
made because information was limited to that presented in the text.

Measurement limitations were discovered when assessing the involvement of
community members based on where they resided and other variables. For example, it
was found that the meanings of “within,” “near” and “far” from the project location may
have differed from one case study to another. The measurement criteria used in this study

could not accurately define the terms nor detect the differences.

97

There are two limitations of the authors that can be identified. First, the authors
may or may not have presented a complete description of the participation process of the
ecotourism project. Incomplete descriptions resulted in high frequencies in the “not
discussed” categories for several variables. Second, the authors may be biased toward
optimism in presenting their case studies (e. g., economic status and gender). These
limitations influenced the researcher in interpreting information from such case studies
and in reaching conclusions.

There are two limitations of the researcher. First, lack of familiarity of the
researcher toward the case studies influenced the interpretation and the results of this
study. For example, in the case studies of the Annapurna Conservation programs, it was
difficult to determine if an organization belonged to an outside government agency or the
local community. This lack of familiarity with the study area could result in a miscode of
the data, which could influence the results of this study.

Second, English as a second language might be another limitation of the
researcher because it may lead to misinterpretation or misjudgment in reading and coding

the case studies. Again, this limitation could influence the results of this study.

98

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As stated in Chapter 11, there were three main objectives and two sub-objectives
of this study. The first main objective was to identify the kind of community participation
most commonly used in international ecotourism development projects. There were two
sub-objectives of the first main objective: to identify the levels of participation at which
communities are usually involved and to identify the characteristics of the communities
that are involved. The second main objective was to determine if the type of participation
applied in the case studies corresponds to participation called for in the literature. The
third main objective was to make policy, planning and research recommendations. The
conclusions stem from a summary and synthesis of the research findings presented in

Chapter IV. The recommendations are based on the results and discussion of this study.

Conclusions
From the results and discussion, several conclusions can be drawn about the kind
of participation most frequently used in ecotourism development. They are based on the
goals of the project, the levels of participation, characteristics of local community
members involved and the comparison of participation used in the case studies to the

participation called for in the literature.

99

Goal of participation

The ecotourism literature suggests that ecotourism development should actively
involve community members (Figure 1). Active involvement means empowerment of the
community and local control.

Two variables (source of project goal and presence or absence of community
empowerment as a goal) were used to examine the nature of participation in most
ecotourism projects. Of the seventy-three case studies, the source of the project goal
mostly came from outside of the community (n=54). Thus most of the ecotourism
projects were outsider-driven.

A fairly high percentage (53.4%) of the case studies indicated empowerment as a
goal but there was some variation in how empowerment was defined in the case studies.
Empowerment was defined as providing training for related ecotourism jobs (e.g., a
nature guide, tour operator, or traditional crafter), giving opportunities for community
members to express their opinions and ideas through public meetings or monthly
meetings, and involving community members in the decision-making process.

Where the goal of the project was to empower the community, community
members were involved in decision-making process in most of the case studies (74.4%).
Since the definition of empowerment in the literature includes decision making,
empowerment in the case studies closely corresponds with the literature on that one

dimension of empowerment.

100

Levels of participation

To arrive at a conclusion as to where on the spectrum of participation (Figure 4)
most case studies fall, the results in Table 40 are most useful. Community members were
most often involved in process nominal and action initiation levels. These findings do not
agree with the levels of participation called for in the literature which highlights the
involvement of community members at the decision making level and recommends
community involvement in all levels. Three patterns of results shed further light on this
conclusion.

The first pattern emerged from an analysis of case studies in which community
members were involved at the process nominal level. In most of the case studies (81%),
community members developed private enterprises. This finding emphasizes that
community members might use this level of participation to gain economic benefits fi'om
ecotourism development. In addition, private enterprises provide the potential to enhance
the capability of community members to empower and develop themselves.

The second pattern concerns the involvement of community members in action
initiation. In 65% of the case studies, community members were involved in action
initiation and this exceeded the rate of participation in decision making (48% of case
studies). Action initiation might exceed decision making because of an increasing
awareness of community members about the right to be involved in projects that could
affect them. In addition, decision making varied a great deal in quality, being frequently
characterized as outsider-driven, passive, or token. Thus, the third pattern was that local

residents appeared to initiate action frequently but only after many decisions had already

lOl

been made by outside entities.

In short, the levels of involvement of community members in the case studies
deviated from the level of involvement called for in the literature. While community
members often take it upon themselves to participate or find ways to participate, there
were few efforts from the outside to empower and involve the community in all levels of
participation. However, through their ability to empower themselves, several
communities had indicated that they could still receive “nominal” benefits from their
involvement in ecotourism development no matter what the level of participation in

which they were involved.

Characteristics of the communities involved

In terms of locality, community members who participated most often lived
within or near the project location. Local government agencies and other local
organizations were more frequently involved than other local institutions. The fact that
these characteristics do not match the community characteristics of community called for
in the literature emphasizes that the case studies reflected some biases including “by the
road bias” and “elite bias.” In addition, while some types of participation may be high,

examination of who participates reveals numerous inequities.

. Comparison of case findings to the literature re viewed
Consistent with the literature, empowerment and capacity building was a
frequently stated goal. However, in terms of the source of the project goal and levels of

participation, participation in the case studies did not reflect the participation called for in

102

the literature. Three patterns of data support this conclusion. First, the project was most
often outsider-driven. In fifty-four (73.9%) of the case studies, the source of the project
goal came from outside of the community. Thus, in most of the case studies community
members were excluded from project goal determination. Secondly, community members
were most often involved in process nominal and action initiation levels instead of the
decision making level. Thirdly, in several case studies, although community members
were involved in decision making, the case studies reflected “by the road” and “elite”
biases. It is inferred that although these projects involved community members, the

project might benefit particular groups in the community while excluding others.

Recommendations
This section includes recommendations for policy, planning and future research in

ecotourism development.

Policy recommendations

Although participation in the case studies still reflected some biases, this study
found that the kind of participation with empowerment as a goal and development of
private enterprises provided opportunities for capacity building among local community
members. It is suggested that the authorities or local government create and establish a
general policy to ensure that ecotourism developers attempt to empower and build
capacity by a) having empowerment as a clear goal, b) involving people in decision
making from beginning to end and c) providing resources for training in management and

development of private enterprises.

103

The results also indicated that parties other than local communities (e. g. private
enterprises, local and international nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions)
are involved with ecotourism development. Each party usually represented a particular
interest related to ecotourism development. With this in mind, policies that determine the
roles of the parties involved, based on their expertise, should be created. Policies also

need to be made that facilitate communication among the parties involved.

Planning recommendations

As suggested in policy recommendations, participation with empowerment as a
goal has and should continue to be employed in ecotourism development. However, the
results of this study indicated that there were several problems which occurred when
practicing this kind of participation. Problems include passive involvement and/or
tokenism in the decision making process and low representation of community members.

Passive involvement in the decision-making process might be caused by a lack of
information about the project, a lack of power, or cultural differences between the
community and outside entities. Informing the community about the project concept
through various information media might help reduce the lack of information. Involving
community members at all levels of participation might also help them gain a clearer
understanding about the project.

To reduce feelings of powerlessness, fostering a common decision-making
process within the local community is recommended by asking for the assistance of

community leaders or representatives of various community groups. In addition, creating

104

and employing different types of decision-making processes may make community .
members more comfortable with the decision-making process utilized.

To avoid tokenism in the decision-making process, representation in decision
making among the parties involved needs to be more equal. The results of the decision-
making process also need to be published through various communication media that
exist within the affected community.

In terms of appropriate representation of the community, it is recommended that
the project planner or manager conduct an informal or formal study of the characteristics
of the local community. From this study, the planners could have a clear picture about

those in the community who need to be involved.

Research recommendations

Though some findings have been produced, there remain some limitations of this
study that need to be addressed in firrther research. It is recommended that different
research methods be used for the same study objectives including field research, surveys
or case studies. These types of research may produce more accurate and in—depth data. An
examination of the nature and extent of levels of participation also is needed to gain a
better understanding about the different roles of community involvement in each level of
participation. Exploration of a strategy to maximize the involvement of community

members is also needed to obtain better representation in the participation process.

105

APPENDIX A

E-mail Messages to NGOs

106

APPENDIX A

E-mail Messages to NGOs

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is Sudhiani Pratiwi. I am a graduate student in the Park, Recreation and
Tourism Resources Department at Michigan State University. Dr. Dennis B. Propst is
my study advisor. Currently, I am working on my master’s thesis. The topic of my thesis
is local community participation in international ecotourism development projects.
Through a review of case studies, I will address research questions such as what kind of
participation is usually used in ecotourism development, who is involved in such projects,
in what stages of development are communities involved, and how are the authorities and
responsibilities shared.

Your organization has been recognized as the primary sponsor of ecotourism projects. I
would like to ask your assistance in obtaining project reports and other documents to be
included in my research. If you have such documents, would you please to let me know
how can I obtain them?

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Sudhiani Pratiwi
Graduate Research Assistant

107

APPENDIX B

List of E-mail Address

108

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

APPENDIX B

List of E-mail Address

’5 name e-mail address
WWF-Australia '
WWF-Austria
WWF-J
WWF-Mala
WWF-Netherlands
WWF-Bel '
WWF-New Zealand
WWF-Brazil
WWF-Canada
WWF-Denmark
WWF-Finland
WWF-Norwa
WWF-Pakistan
WWF-Phili
WWF-Zimbabwe
WWF-S '

WWF

WWF-Greece
WWF-India

WWF-
WWF-Sweden
WWF-Switzerland
WWF-United ' m
WWF-United States
WWF-Bhutan
WWF-Bolivia
WWF-Cameroon
WWF-
WWF-Mediterranean
WWF-Mexico
WWF-Columbia
WWF-Costa Rica
WWF-N

WWF-Peru
WWF-Russia
WWF-Central Africa
WWF-Eastem Africa
WWF- Poli
WWF-West Africa

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40 WWF-South Pacific Wwfsmiscomfi N
41 WWF-Tanzania Wwftperahacom R/s
42 WWF-Thailand Wwfthai@ait.ac.th N
43 WWF-Hungary Zkun XMLZ ..Q..k....b.l.l R/+
44 WWF-Zambia Wwfzem zamnetgm RH-
45 WWF-Indonesia K an'i wwfnetor MR
46 WWF-Indochina— Wwfvn@netnam.org.vn N
Vietnam
47 WWF-Scotland S e er wwfnet.or N
48 Conservation J.SWEETING@CONSERVATION.ORG R/-
International
49 The Nature Conservancy djensengrgtncorg N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: http://wwwpandaorg, www.conservationorg, www.consci.tnc.org.

Notes:

R = response

N = no response

MR = e-mail returned

(-) = did not have article or report requested

(+) = sent the report

s = suggested book or others agency for follow up

110

 

APPENDIX C

List of Ecotourism Case Studies Based on the Types of Literature

111

 

.eocatomeoo 8:82 cow 33,—. 8.50%} wiv— Hiqoz .32 53. E r 32 32.
#2 £82 «8&8; .352 .3 Ammo—a 9.9.2 £83

«<3

 

..aeosefioE— 95
”283.33 .am 22 as .233 see as. e e Ea .mo :28? 5 A865
8.2 552850 «533:2 2.5 332 E 833.com no 6320 Ammo: .mQ .3303

 
 

m<mm

 

 

.24 Sam £335 5:: anemone—.0 Ava—.2.— .a5 a: _ 03 E a a < .E c 8m
Ana .6 .5833 98 .m .880 5 «8322 032.825 .3 .2955 wczooeoa < .8085
82 session—50 «53352 2:. .: $320 Avg: .2 $8.30 on use .m .0 $5.56

m<mv

 

528.9. 5528”,. 2: ”ease; AN .33 $8-2“ a3 8%

a e as. e a o _ . .55 8m .98: .38 d .easomem e5 ..m.2 .825 J.
.9333 5 .936 3.8 «.33.— ?aBEZ 5:53: ...9 38:35 88m 888‘— 3:3an
£59.38 8:952:58 é 85326 .38: .m.< €555 use .23. .233

 

m<mm

 

2-: AA; 3 £039.; _o> F Co 3830 .35...” 3.8 238805 «canmcaanflxv
«:20 Eat 2.232030 ”Eu—583:0 05 use .2588“. .Emtaouoom Acme: .0 £033.

«<3

 

5.33:5 2d< .8on 3:23 Haemom 28 53.5 £23526 .8225 g
as e m 33: m escapes

 

 

m<Q _

 

_

 

<~m<

 

 

magi. .mmnn—Dhm mm<0

_ mace <55 _

.OZ

 

 

23825 mo 89¢. 05 co 33m 33m. 080 Emczouoom mo 83

U van—2972

112

 

£8.03 a. .008... 2.20 o. €0.08 E53 0.. ...03..2.8.N 8. 80808808 0.3.2....
08.... 5.5.8800 .0. 808.205.. 30.08.00. b08828... .33.. ...com. d an... .830...

002.00 $2803.... 2.02.80 £2.55 00.080...
...8 .0...08..o..>..m. .0. .00..0m .28... .0802 ..00.0. 9:230 0302.8.N 0 ..o .. . 00
. .69.: .0 .. 58:59..

  

 

..<.\...N

N.

 

62.2.. 1n .808 0 2
2.0.. .28....7. «80.08083. 0.. ... ..o 82.8.8800 8. 80.80.28... .80.. 330.. .23 .830.

 

5.803.... 0.0% 08.0.00 5.02 $80.0...
..0 80882.09 82.2.08... .8208. . 2 x. n. . 00.2.2 080.0808... 2.. ..0 m .
...08 0.0.6.. .2... 8... >. ..00 0. . 0.... 0 8 80 < .Aavoo: .25 80.0..

 
 

 

 

.250.

..

 

 

05...).

 

.30. ..m
.8 >02 0583.00.8822 ..0 3.8.03.5 80802802 00.080... .80 2.0.08 80.8.8.3
380.880.... is .0 00880... 2.3 .09... 02.0.0.5 ..0 5.8030: 6...... .8082 8.0wa...
. .. .8. 8030.5 5.02.0 0 00 ..... H8...... .000 ...........>m. Ago: .m .83. .08. ..O ...03

 

“Emo—

o.

 

.30. .. EN .82 0380.00.50.22 ..0 2.8.02.5 80802802 00.280... 2... 2.0.08
82.22.83 380.850.... 55 .0 00880... 2.3 .00.... 62.0.03 ..0 2.8.02.5 daemon.
s 3...... .33: .m .23. ..s ..0 .83

 

m<ma

 

.3... .. m-..~ >02 0380.00.8822 ..o 2.8.03.5 8080852 00.080... 0.... .A.0.0om
82.2.8.3 880.880.... 5.. .0 00880... 83 .00.... 02.0.03 ..0 2.8.02.5 .Acoxacam.
2... He... 9 0 2.3.2... .33: .m ...3. ..s. ..0 .83

 

2mm

 

 

..acomfifioau
.20 0.0.8.8... $2-8. ...5 . 2.. a c . m .00 0383
5 .05.. .22.... E. 2...: 23...... s 5.5280 H. 2.20 .38: .8. 028?

 

 

«<3.

 

 

 

113

 

3:23:08—
:23>._0::00 0,223.32 5-2 .0980E0m ”:83— .23A 3:232 2832 0:3..—
dofifoa 8:25:03— :>:0v_ 05 mo $230005 0.2. .A_ 2:2 :3 .: :0! 2 808 20>0:
0_ 23:2: ::: 82.88 m .A::mv.m.m .0:oo0 ::: .00 .2330 E .:02::888

302 :0 8083.05: 288000 8 80.38 9500 05 mo 20.. 05. Ago: ._. .0 .2225

 

 

.35:

N.—

 

.3:23E08_ 82320800 0.5::3Nmm—

5-2 :0n8080m ”:80! .23: 3:232 2832 0034 dons—:03 88:98.": 9802 05

no $230005 0.2. ARTS. d3 . :02 2 :08 20>0: 0:32:33: :: 828209,:— .A::mv
.m.m 6:80 0: .00 .8330 :_ .A80::.A:8m :0m:0:0m332 38:6 3:05: 280500-200:
::: :22 .352 ”8:92:00 2 328.888 302 .8 8232283 Ana: 0.0 .2330

 

.33:

:—

 

.::0:.— :::_:2 :99 8:38:83
Ann :8 .30 : 88880 0.. :8 8 : 2 .8 :39 08 :2 .32 .A:mv 03:09 82055 :—
.A80.:>:00m 5090:3332 3:25 :83. .8:.::2 0.3:: ..o ::8 :_o 2:. .93: .m 6:85

.333

m—

 

.3:23E08_ :23>._0::00 0.52:5.«3—
.242 :0n80a0m ”:83— 13.22232 2332 0034 dose—.53 82.5800m 930%

05 :0 32:00:05 0.2. $2.52 :5 .: :02 2 808 20>0: 0:32:33: :5 8282 m
.336 .m.m 6:80 0.: .00 .2330 :— .A80::.A:oom 3:383 3:055 288000-200:
:5 :28 .352 ”8:50:80 2 825.8800 302 :0 8232203.: .Ammm: .00 .2330

 

2m:

3

 

3:23:082 m<0 U2.0.32.3? Ann—-2: d3 .2: 3 :0 2 > : :0. 2 82: .mQ
.._0>:0>» :_ 33.2 3:232 =0:o:8<v 3:02 2 83:80.5 ”m .0320 .930 .mn .:0>:0>>

 

2mm

2

 

 

.:23:m 2:30:32
2:832 .933— .00_>:0m 308.2 .0..3_:0=w< mo 808::Q0D .m.D FD .:0:mo .oco-m-mg

 

 

 

 

 

114

 

.8 .flsfilzfi Scions s 5:89
Area? 53: .0d $8835 a. ..m .8m_=o&o=om .d acne—.mhom ..< ameogmaomZ

.2 - a .5“ 5 .228 33335
E 8&2.— Emtaeooo 5. use £288“ :03 at: .aoo: .32 goings on 5;

3min

«N

 

.3 25m a. 5:3 .22 5222.6 .32-. : ...e 363%
61% .vav .0 .5533 E; ..m cacao :— Aotomox 22.305 «son
3280 25 .895 Eomum E EmtsoSom ”a .8930 $3: .> ..EEEM d ..9 4:5

 

3mm—

 

_N

 

mmOy—Dm

 

 
 
 

.3792 A9 ..vu .83on 2 «E a u _ E: .5350 £3252
E 82.80% 83:20.8 Suzi .33: ..m .353. 23 ..U .520 ..Q .3503

«on _

on

 

<Q<Z<U

 

.2: 25m on >013 .32. g28§£0
Ann—-2: .15 one: o 93283.3 < .Emcaouoom .323 .0 .5833 on .m 350
E Aves—8N 302V bee—scone. Heme—con mo .88 Bo: a 8 83:3 03.58%? .0905

58m 2: Ea 23.3 52 £223. 5 5328.". a 3.20 $8: 2 o ..3:

Gan—8N 307C
BEN

2

 

.94 Sam d >023 5.3. ”632320

Ann—-2”— .q& 25: 0 035.33% < ”Emtzouoom .335 .w dun—>64 23 ..m .850
E €=§u=<v «afiitoaé _8_mo_ooo mo .58 32. a E 8358 Bath—89? 6E3.”
53m 05 v.8 BEEN 262 d=~=ma< E Emtzeoom ”a .0820 Avg—v .2 .0 ...am

97?. 31% .5. 5.33.. «58...
HAW—wad .3352 E Even—23% Emtzouoom “88: £288.“— Ahaos .O .580:

 

=<m>. _

 

«—

 

 

DZ<A<mN 3mZ QZ< S§m3<

 

 

115

 

.zocmtomcoo 9532 BE.
“SEE—2 .92-: 9: 293855 .howmzom E9» 283— v5 863m 030 ”E25880

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

ammw cm
$052850 8:32 of.
”SEE—5. 5.72 .95 .873an ..ovasom Eat 288.. can 3:53 080 ”Emtnouooo
gens—Eco «o o 5:23 :32 of E802 .335 .m .2 6003 uwmh on
50533.50 9532 2C.
Macaw—£2 .372 E: 238an 5 ...5. 33m Eat 253.2 may. m.o._u3m omao ”Emltsoaglo
E5658? 0 5:20 :30. 2: E802 .335 .m .2 £003 ammo mm
«5-3 a .E N gagialom agate 22$. .35
.3:§E< E E33908? aoznago :4. .635 .2.m .85E 9; ..Z .O 68:25 am? hm
.2550 £225 go 3653:: SF acacia—030 mEccmE
123:0 Begum £85 2282 .955ch 2.5 .23 E moESEEoo 95 no
88 35¢; 88 < H 83.588 E coup. 8E E56800 .335 ..m .Om 520:2 “mew cm
.3250 .5325 he 3333:: of. aces—@2050 wEEEE
123:0 Begum £85 .882 A 233 233,—. 2.5 .33 E 32:38:50 95 mo v8»
033.3 E8 < ” 533880 E :0: 2E Ecafifioo .335 d .Om .=o;2_2 amen mm
$0523.50 0532 2:. ”..SwEE‘ .822 .9: A8E>Em
8:950 I 80.85 36805 luovuaom Eat m=0m.m.o._:v..=.llla 863m 86. IO HIElmczoaonvo
E :23 Eta E5588 go o 5:20 :32 05 E802 .635 .m .2 683 ammm cm
.563ch 232.15 .mEEocoom mo 2058339 .385 .282 was. .o.|uoamua
v5 83. H ”23 :0 E Emu—.280 mo 22: 23% 05. .635 .< .2 .5§o§-E=cm «me: an

 

 

 

 

<02m2< EDOm

 

 

116

 

25> 302 ..0 30.03:: 0.2m 5.005.:
2.0 00:20m .0...0E:o._>..m .5 03:00 .0302: 5.002 03000.: 00:20:? 00.... 3 EM
0:. E 0.03.005 80:00.03: ”0.00.3.5.— ..0. 0 > 2:. .5 80:00.00m .235 .< .m .0002

095

um

 

2.0.03.5 0.8m 52:22 2.0.0.2205: 00.00002 ..0 2.0.5.000:
.200... .2002 .00... 203.. 032.5000 5.. E0500 0.00:. 0.000 2... 0.2.0052
0.2.0.5. Es.— E 00030.... ...0... 2053.00.05.32 2:. .235 .2 .0 0300002

 

 

00.:

cm

 

<02: szmo

 

50.5.5 02.030250 00.00002 0.... 0.2.0053: H >2 .0...0m Am—méfi .35 .2 0E0_0>5
0.0 0 ..0 00:00:00 < 52.030250 E05000. 2.0 0.03.00.00m A035 .<._. ..203— 5
2.0.0.3.... .0 380% ”02.20— 0030200 0.: E E0_.00.00m .235 d ..50.00

0m...”—

mm

 

.0055 02.030250 00.0000: 2... 82.00.08: ” >2 .050»: .2313. .08 .2 080_0>5
0.0 0 .5 00:00:00 < ”0033300000 E05000. 0.... 8030050..“ .2008 .<.n 00.03— ..—
.Aawcuaao 2:5 .505 E 0005003000 80302000 03. ..0 0200.0 0000 .235 d .._.0:.

093—

X”

 

.505...— .5_.0>.00.50 00.00002 2.0 0.2.0050”: H >2 .053: .2313. .005 .2 0:.0_0>5
0.0 0 .5 00:00:00 < ”02.020250 5.0000. 2.... 0.2.0053: A035 .<._. .203:
E daggm 0:5 :005 E 002.2500: 82.00500 03. .5 0050.0 0000 .235 d 2.0:.

0mm:

mm

 

5000200000 0.0.02 2:. 25.333. .SN-3_ .35
A05 0.. 0.33 1.02.05 3.0000 5 . 2.00m :5... 0.5000. 2... 0200.0 00

 

 

ammo—

Nm

 

 

2000300000 0.0.02 2:. ..5.mE_.<
2.-.: .005 .A000.3.00._00OV .5: 00m E ... 0.5000— ..0 0200.0 00 U u... 3.00.000

 

 

 

0mm3

 

 

 

117

 

.82 ”58 232 aBfio 55:0

.vcoxom v5 Havana—059 32869.5 :0 accouomcoo < “a 8282a .095 53803.5
23m ENE—.32 Jens—ao—goo 8583— .3 EoEtnaoO .03on 505: E c _ 6 h

a no :38 2: 23 .5: 852.8 .8535: .Aaaa: d £3353 can ..A dvEmA

 

 

$38323 88m 5w£22 .Eoan_o>oD 3583— uo 825339 .385

oUmEb

3.

 

 

 

$.59 ..BEF .Amcmv ._ 988:9. can .. ..< E .2236 ..D 5am .m
1: Jay—cm 5 .Abaaofim cocoam 5538803 £52.82. 98 25305 38.5 932

2: a 55280 83.52258 .98: 2 o ; .532 as . 2m H .35» a ”:52

00mm

ov

 

 

.8.. E . 5 was a .38.... Amwmv .A 238:?—
.93 ..< I 5230 ...Q .35 .m d x0555 S Abuse—8m coonam 3828808
82.05 3852 “Eon 330 2:. 93 Esau—3m :oonam 3:55:00 2:. .39
cow‘s—8:8 a ma 8083.92. 339-3628800 .Amam: .A do: 93 e: 4— £23.03

.5058 Emcsoaoom 2:. Muco§o>

.AonN2 .3 _ oE:_o> .30 SEE a:
.EEEowcm 98 m. 2 68>) .v— .5335 5 ..AbaBoSwm .5095 3638508 onsom
Boa 32> < 4583—33 5:58:80 can Emtaouoom Ago: .3 8 .1 2m 5323*

 

009m?

on

 

 

:86“:

 

 

00.:

 

mm

 

 

118

 

 

.Eesfiag m5 ”Begs“? .8_ -3
.m8 .283 co 232. 82 E Emtzogoom .mQ .6233 S .A:o_§oomm< cotatomcoo
Ea Emtsogonvm 505.535 82 280 E Emtssoom ” v 5320 .33 .mn .5233

00mm—

hv

 

 
 

.91? 3| 3 . E a _ 25m _ .33
E «ESE.— mo 2365 «can 2: wcoEa Emczoaoom 63535.5 2F .83: .2 .5920

00:—

9.

 

48.85

:osatacoo 3508M can Emtsoaoom “ >2 .oEom .ABNéom d8 ._ 08:75 .3
< .cozatomcoo 5382 van Emcao m dare—m3— .< :2 E .mo£=:EEoU
932 3 83228 on 9 205833.... 058% mo 3: < .23: dd Jason

 

..uoqoi :232850 858; can

Emt388m H >2 .oEom ._ 25:5 .98-»: d3 .30 a ho 538:8 < ”cassava—.8
no 2 was 8338 m Adm—Yofizx .< :2 E 48.65 5.32028 3589. 23
533880 icosafioufi 05 E 5:86:22“ 932 E; 23.3 282 .23: .md .33.;

 

 

00.8—

3.

 

.wam. .ZKN

~32 sneaooézaflz no b_m._o>_=D .EoEowSaE ooSOmom v5 bfloom Eamoafixm
3:052:25 i. “a 68:82; 83 53m .aEE:_oo-c:8m_2 .«o $202.5 .Aotomox
036:3 Secs—i=9 EB: 29% Emtzogooo 5525: E :23 _o_ _ _ u

“coho of. gave 23% E338 osafifimam .33: .21 $362 93 ..v— .EmkoaoOSI

 
 

coma

3V

 

.32 .5- R >22 SnEEooésomEE mo 3532—5 .EoEowucaE 8583—

ES becom Eamon—5m EcosaEBE an an “.8585 83 home; .aBanoézgavz .«o
5.83:5 .Aocsam > 20:8 EB: 23% Emtzou 5:65: E coma SE“ .80. .8
“come 2E. .22: 23% 83:2 oBaESmam .63: .Z. M $3.52 95 .M 53393803

 

comm

mv

 

 

25> 302 mo bahozcb 88m 5620.,” E; 8:28 _3=oE:E_>:m mo owe—.00

 

 

00,:

 

Nv

 

 

119

 

.8998
A9 .mwl .: 0 .m 8 0 ,5 a. ::< E A003. 80800—0>0O 02802 05.5 0n=0m 800..
03030 0000 ”00:08.80: 8000900.".— .3003 .0— .0523 0:0 ..m .0038m .2 .9085

003—

mm

 

.92.. :35 H.00 50833 .33 a: .5

 

00.00 0:: 000?:— 08802 0800 00.00 2:. 0:0 303086 .5085 3808800 00,—. ”.00.
5:028:00 0 00 80800—050 000093808800 .33: A 893 0:0 :3 1: £00500:

.3068 88030.5 05. ”808:5

.807Nm— .03 .N 0820> .30 0:02 0:0. 80:82.— 00» 02 < ”88.52000 A008

.9 820.080 0:0 :02 .0003 Ex $000005 5 .Aotomom 3808800 0058006 on__0m
80.0 303 < 80800—050 3058800 0:0 808.205 .800: ..0 00 ..I .0. £00.30:

 

00m\mh _

Nm

 

.893 .5 AN. .83
540% s 803050 008:3 530 88380 25 3:00 :80
0.2030 0000 ”00:008.... 80000000m .300: .M .0583 0:0 J. .0zcm8m ..v— $0008..—

003.

_m

 

.3068 Emtaouoom 0.; 80::0> .3073—

.08 ._ 08=_0> . : 8 0:0 800:0. .0.“ 02 < ”80050.03 A008 .9 880.08”;
05 0.2 .083 ..x .332: s .8235 85;» 580 880.800 850

800 32> < ”80800—050 3858800 0:0 80.00808.— .800C ..0 8 ..I .M £0030:

 
 

00mm—

cm

 

.3 28. 0 5:3
5.2 023520 $2.02 .80 0.: 0 use: 3.. < .e E m .030 .5833
.0 2a ..m .050 5 0258.8 530 50380 2.. a 808.80 0.8: .0 .0283

  
 

00m:

00

 

 

.0005 0:03 20.9 80880003 A35.“ .03 .m 008000 .3
._ u 8 ”80003 0:302 .03 06:09 82055 E A0289: 000.8 0020
000058006 002 3000 8 80003000 0:0 £0.80 602000.. 0.0>.:m .9003 .> .3853—

 

 

00mm—

 

av

 

 

120

 

lam A008 ..0 00 .m ..0 N0.008.00 00. 50000.0 0.0.8300 0:0 080.00...— ”00000 0.002
00.0 :. 80.800000 00000.3.808800 Aug: 2.0... .8002 0:0 ..mA .000..3 ...0 .0.:002

00mmm

 

 

.0

.A00mW ..0 00 .m .x 4.0.08.0.— :. .A0.0:000-00mc 0.0.8000... 0:0 ”080.0000 000100. 0:02
000 :. 80.009000 00000-3.::8800 .300: ..2 O. 0 .8002 0:0 ...m 0. .000..3 .10 .0502

00va

0m

 

0.0 .:2m:.0003 Amvmghm .000 .3

 

0008.... A.00mv ..0 00 .m ..0 £008.00. :. .A:300x03 0.0.8800 0:0 .08.0.0000 ”000.000 0.002
00.0 :. 80.850000 00000-3.808800 A000: ..2 O. 0 .8002 0:0 ...mA .000..3 ..M 0.502

 

00mmm

mm

 

..0 0 0905.083 $0-000 0.003003010840003

 

0008.0. ”A008 ..0 00 .m .0. £008.00 :. 00000005 0.0.8200 0:0 .08.0.0000 ”000000 0002
00.0 :. 80.800000 0000043808800 .900: ..2 O. A .8002 0:0 ...m 0. .000..3. ..0. 0.0002

 

00MNN

hm

 

0.0 50.203 .0202 ..0 .3

00..0m .00 000000 0 02 00.0 :. 808 0.0>00 0:0 :0.00>000:00 H 00. 80 0:0 00.0000
0008. ... .A00mv ..0 00 .m .00 £008.00 :. .305 0.0.8200 0:0 080.0000 “000000 0002

00.0 :. 80.800000 0000043808800 Ago—v 2.0... .8002 0:0 ..m... .000..3 .10 0.0002

 

 

00m_N

0m

 

.8000. .0.. 0. Quay 00.020. 000 00
003.04” :. .00.00:0< .00800 .00 :0.w0.m 0002 00:02 00.0 :. 00000000 0000000 ..080 030
..0 >030 0000 ”80.00.8000 :. 0.000 .00 5.00000 00.: .6003 d .500 0:0 ..m 8008.800...

003m

mm

 

.mon
-03. ..0 .MIN. ..0 30 50.550. 0o 0.8:... ..0 .3800 20:0: :20 .200 30.00 :80
00.030 0000 “00:0.00000 80.000080 .300: .v. 6.08% 0:0 ..A 6.0.0.000 ..M 0000:...

 

 

 

000.0.

 

0m

 

 

121

 

madam. .Aumv..o_m:M .< :2. E .86..— .33 .mEM ..m ..0 88 of. ...—3553
3-538 05 Mo ...oEQBoBv 05 .8 3883. 83:28... :< .93: .0 £833

00% m

co

 

.od acacia...

AmNm-2m .an .02on can ...—«E330 3:093 .88": a2 2. E 2.0:. 205 can
cosatomcoo H m2 E8 can E59 .onEF .Amvmv ..u .o .m .M £8.55 5 ...—«EouaaO
deem E .82. cam Mo EE=EES an: «.32 2: 028:8 o. toao msocoMEE

5.0 boa... ”$.55 2: .33: ....m ..omcfieo ..oo .38 .e m ....8 ..o ... .53.

 

come.

no

 

 

..0 Q ..oEEfiaB .ANvM- 5N». a3 8..on 2:. 22.9330

 

 

88...... ..Amvmv ._m .o .m M xan..M 5 AS: 23 28.5.8 9:. mac—poi ..mwSM «5.2
o... E Eat—.280 woman-b_=:EEoU Ago: 2.01. 532 v.8 .ma ....oets M 3.52

oomaN

we

 

 

.Amva _a 8 m .M xoLECM E ASEQU «>35 miscflom E... .mEoBoE ...mwSm 83.2
a... E Emczouooo 339?.58800 .833 .2 0.4 :52 v.8 .m... 55:3 .M MEOZ

com—”N

mo

 

 

._~ .0 .m .M JomECM 5 As: 5 on .mow.E<v 2....328 Ea .mEmsoE Haws”— £32
2: E E33980 3395238800 Aug—v .2. O. A 52.2 v.8 ..m A .2.—.3 .M «E02

ooth

No

 

..UQ :ofiEfiaB ANS”- bNm Q8 .8.on can 22:82.0 3:350 8.0M

 

 

MianlM E .A:0.§08m< 898.com ova—ob 29.58... E... ....EoEEM ”$0.0M $32
a... E 833980 u8~a-§==EEoU Ana: .2. O. A 532 E... .m A a..nér...» .M £82

oomoN

 

 

 

0d £89.33}, £3.-th n3 8.52 9... 29:22.0

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

.mMM
-2: :NM .I- 730E : 2 Eu: .M. :M .AMonMcgonMv 388.32 :M 388533. .88.

0E8 5M3 MaoMMMcMMoM. < .58388 2.8: v8 Emt=33m .Awg: .m ..M ocM.:oMa>

53 NM.

 

.m M 72:
:NV ..| M.j8E = 2 Em... ...M.M .Amv8MmM M88820 388.32 ..M 388M233. .88.

0E8 5M3 SEE-Mow < ...283088 2.8.. v8 E8323 .AwmaMV .m ..M 258:5

 

 

52 MM.

 

mMmMMHO

 

...: 25m ... .2.... 5.2 5.8.26 .8 .-.: ...... .8...
= M388. :25 8.8 208—. E M... .M. A88 .m 2:583 8 ..0 .8950
... ......m 3.8 2.2... a -252 8.52 .33.... ... so. 2.... ME... .. .> .28

 

:2va 0M.

 

...... 2cm 8 .0...» 2o. ..28..2..o .G:

... .. ....va m :55...
8 .0 .380. ..MM 8on .0.. >888 E3298 8 .3 889.2080 ASE ..M. ...>

 

5:: mo

 

.835 582880
3580M :2... 833.com. >2 28m .ANvo-vmo ..an .N 08.25 80.8%..ng
. . 8 E .....o. m .Aumv 8.8M .< :2. ..M 88395 2.0.8882
.3800 88m M835 ESM 8:58 080 .EmtsoSoo 8.82 .AMaan .M 86.50

 

chMN we

 

.85 282 ..0d £29.28?
Ana. 3. ...M3 = E: ..M>..o 2:. .M :M a: 2 .E M.. Z Ava ..M. 8MB?
5 .83 8085 05 ..M 8:08 8.. mE8.M 38$ .8 E83995 .233 .m .8me

 

 

 

.59 he

 

madam AME—75

 

 

.885 838.380 3.88M v8 Earneoom
. >2 .25.. ... 3.x... ...... .. 2.2.5 . .

 

 

 

 

 

123

..Moon 0 mM 00.58 88M. ..0 0%. M: 08 8.8m 002.5 :5: A03. 080 5:6,. 0 2 .M ....M. ESE AI .59. .038me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ms ‘M<.M.O.M. :M 1M<._.O.M.
m A88_mM ..oEoMom a. 28:0.0M2M 0.050 5
0 8.8m 002.5 .5 N 0E8mm2 2
Mm 8M.0E< MEE00 00 mm .Moom m
MM 8:0E< 5.5m mm c .....MEom ... 08:08..M .0.M0.M m
N $93M ..m N .58: M982: M
M .0880 ..0 NM M955. 80.0M0M .
N u8=~0N 302 E... 0:883. ..< N 88885 O
M. 8E... .2 o 08;... .M.
A: ..Mm< 9.. M: 9.600005 00.7.5.5 .M
86:...
008 M88. .8803 028.800 mQO0 MSoM. 0.38.0220 09AM. mn00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<.M.<D “Mo mZOMF<0MnMMmm<uMU

 

2.8.0.: ..0 0.5M.

.8802 0803000 30.... 080 ..0 .0.ME..Z

 

 

 

.03 80m Q 8:3 EM... H.0.8.M0M.M0

ARMENM .03 .....oM. o 0388...... < ”Emcso.00m .Amumv .0 .8853 E... ..m ..080

..M A0..MM0...M 5.58 NEmMMatoqEM M00MwoM000 ..0 .50.. 30.. 0 .0 E858 08820.? .0503
£30m 0.: ...... M.8_00N B02 0:083. ..M Emczo.00m ”a .0320 .Avmms .2 .0 .MMamM 5mm 2.

 

 

 

124

 

 

APPENDIX D

Guidelines for Raters

125

APPENDIX D

Guidelines for Raters

 

Variable
#

Explanations/Definitions/Examples

 

1

Outside of the community includes government, private enterprise, or
international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project goal was determined by influences outside of the
community.

If you mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable, you have to
mark (-) in the “discussed” column for variable 2.

If there is no information regarding who determined the goals of the
project, mark the “not discussed” column for variables 1& 2.

 

Local community is defined as a group of people likely to receive a direct
impact from the ecotourism project. They may live within, near, or far from
the project (Chambers, 1995).

A local organization is defined as an organization that is comprised of all
or several members of the local community such as local NGO's, ethnic
groups/associations, local conservation groups, or local private enterprise
(Furze et al., 1997; Peters, 1994).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project goal was determined by the community such as members of
the community or local organizations.

Ifyou mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable, you have to
mark (—) in the “discussed” column for variable 1.

Ifthere is no information regarding who determined the goals of the
project, mark the “not discussed” column for variables 1 & 2.

 

 

 

The empowerment and capacity building of a local community are
characterized by the presence of any of the following activities: any type of
training to improve the quality of human resources related to the purpose
of ecotourism, environmental education for any target audience within the
local community, or the employment of members of the local community
(Furze et al., 1997; Wall & Ross, 1998).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the goal of the project is to empower and to increase the capacity
building of the local community or if the reading indicates activities that
characterized the empowerment and capacity building of the community.
Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the goal of the project is not to empower and to increase the capacity
building of the local community or if the reading does not indicate activities
that characterized the empowerment and capacity building of the
community.

 

126

 

 

Ifthere is no information regarding empowerment and capacity building in
the reading, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

“Lived within the project location” refers to persons residing within the
boundaries of areas designated as conserved or protected such as national
parks or nature reserves or in a village that is an ecotourism destination,
itself (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived within the project location
were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived within the project location
were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the local community
members who lived within the project location, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

“Lived near the project location” refers to persons residing outside of
the boundaries of areas designated as conserved or protected but within a
bufl‘er zone (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994; Primack et al., 1998).

A Buffer zone is an area between conservation and residential areas. It is
designated to give additional protection to the protected area (Primack, et
al., 1998).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived near the project location were
involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived near the project location were
not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the local community
members who lived near the project location, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

“Lived far from the project location” refers to persons residing outside
of the boundaries of areas designated as conserved or protected, and
outside buffer zones (Chambers, 1995; Peters, 1994).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived far the project location were
involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members who lived far the project location were
not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the local community
members who lived far from the project location, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

 

 

Familial relationship is defined as the basis for the group’s organization
' in the community (Furze et al., 1997).
Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates

 

127

 

 

that whole families of community members were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that whole families of community members were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of whole families,
mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that a religious organization was involved (e.g., local Moslem or Christian
organizations or any organization based on religion).

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that a religious organization was not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the local religious
organization, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that schools or academic institutions were involved (e. g. elementary, high
schools, universities or university extension).

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that schools or academic institutions were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the school or
academic institutions, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

10

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local government was involved including departments of tourism,
departments of transportation, or any organization that represent the
government in which the ecotourism project is located (Jenkins & Henry,
1982)

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local government was not involved.

If there is no information regarding the involvement of the local
government, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

11

A local organization is defined as an organization that is comprised of all
or several members of the local community such as local NGO’s, tribal
organizations, local conservation groups, or local private enterprise
(Beavers, 1995 cited in Norris, 1998).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local organizations were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local organizations were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of local organizations,
mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

 

12

 

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that high-income members of the community were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that high-income members of the community were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of high-income
members of the community, mark the “not discussed” column for this
variable.

 

128

 

 

13

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that middle-income members of the community were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that middle-income members of the community were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the middle-income
members of the community, mark the “not discussed” column for this
variable.

 

14

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that low-income members of the community were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that low-income members of the community were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of the low-income
members of the community, mark the “not discussed” column for this
variable.

 

15

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that members of the community who are men were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates

that men were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of men, mark the “not

discussed” column for this variable.

 

16

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that members of the community who are women were involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that women were not involved.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of women, mark the
“not discussed” column for this variable.

 

17

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that both men and women who are members of the community were
involved.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that both men and women were not involved.

If there is no information regarding the involvement of both men and
women, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

18

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members participated in preliminary data
collection of the ecotourism project.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the local community members did not participate in preliminary data
collection of the ecotourism project.

Ifthere is no information regarding the participation of community
members in preliminary data collection of the ecotourism project, mark the
“not discussed” column for this variable.

 

 

19

 

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that community members were employed by the project.
Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates

 

129

 

 

that community members were not employed by the project.
Ifthere is no information regarding the employment of local communities
by the project, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

20

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that members of the local community volunteered their time and efi‘orts to
develop the ecotourism project without payment.

Mark (~) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that members of the local community did not volunteer their time and
efforts to develop the ecotourism project.

Ifthere is no information regarding the voluntary involvement members of
the local community, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

21

Private enterprises include tour operators, souvenir shops, motel, etc
(Primack et al., 1998; Wall & Ross, 1998).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local communities developed and/or owned private enterprises afier
the ecotourism began.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local communities did not develop and/or own private enterprises after
the ecotourism began.

Ifthere is no information regarding the development or ownership of
private enterprises by the local communities, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

22

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project held public meetings with the local community before the
project began.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project did hold public meetings with the local community before
the project began.

If there is no information regarding public meetings, mark the “not
discussed” column for this variable.

 

23

A focus group is a small group discussion used to explore various aspects
of a specific topic, problem or issue (Ritchie & Goeldner, 1994).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project had utilized a series of focus groups before the project
began.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that the project had not utilized focus groups before the project began.
Ifthere is no information regarding focus groups, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

 

24

 

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that there were other consultative methods used before the project began.
Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that there were not other consultative methods used before the project
began.

If there is no information regarding the use of other consultative methods

 

130

 

 

in the project, mark the “not discussed” column for this variable.

 

25

Decision making includes the involvement of community leaders or the
community members in project management or the activities such as
creating rules.

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local community members were involved in the decision making
process of the project. '

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local community members were not involved in the decision making
process of the project.

If there is no information regarding the involvement of local community in
the decision-making process of the project, mark the “not discussed”
column for this variable.

 

 

26

 

Action initiation includes taking part in the development process and
monitoring process (Paul, 1987 cited in Drake, 1991; Perez, 1997).

Mark (+) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local community members were involved in the action initiation
process of the project.

Mark (-) in the “discussed” column for this variable if the reading indicates
that local community were not involved in the action initiation process of
the project.

Ifthere is no information regarding the involvement of local community
members in the action initiation process of the project, mark the “not
discussed” column for this variable.

 

131

 

APPENDIX E

Codebook

132

APPENDIX E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Codebook
Types of Literature (LTR):
Type of literature Data Value
Code

Published Proceedfl P l
Thesis T 2
Dissertation D 3
Refereed Journal J 4
Internal Report I 5
Seminar Paper S 6
Magazine M 7
Book B 8

 

 

 

 

Geographic Location of the Case Studies (GL):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geographic location Data Value
code
Asia As 1
Afiica Af 2
Australia and New Zealand Au 3
Canada Ca 4
Central America Ce 5
Europe Eu 6
South America Sa 7
United States Un 8
Others 0t 9

 

 

 

 

Level of Development Growth of Case Study Countries (GC):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Value
Developing country 1
Developed country 2

 

133

Participation:

 

 

 

 

 

Category Variables # Value
Who is l= outside of the community 1 = discussed +/ yes/involved
source of the 2= within the community 2 = discussed -/no/ not involved
project goal ? 3 = not discussed
What is the 3= empowerment and capacity
project goal? building of the community

 

 

 

Data were collapsed for variables 1, 2 , and 3 and recorded as :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Variables Value
Outside of the community 1

Source of the project Within the community 2
goal Not discussed 3
Levels of participation and Sharing Responsibility and Authority:

Category Sub-caterpry Variables # Value
Levels of Information sharing 4= local people 1 = discussed +/
participation participated in yes/involved

preliminary data
collection of the project

 

5= volunteered

 

Process nominal

6= hired by the profict

 

7= developed and/ or
owned private
enterprises

 

Consultation

8= public meetings

 

9= focus groups

 

10 = other methods

 

Decision making

11= involved

 

 

Action initiation

 

12= involved

 

2 = discussed —/no/
not involved

3 = not discussed

 

134

 

 

 

The Characteristics of the Community Involved in Participation:

 

 

 

Question Sub-category Variables # Value
Who was Locality 13 = live within the project 1 = discussed +/
involved? location yes/involved

 

14 = live near the project/
buffer zone

 

15 =live far from the project

 

Local institutional

l6 =family

 

17 =religious organization

 

18 =school or academic
institution

 

19 = local government

 

20 =other local organization

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic condition 21 =high
22 =middle
23 =low

Gender 24 =men
25 =women

 

 

26 =both men and women

 

2 = discussed -
/no/ not involved

3 = not discussed

 

135

 

LITERATURE CITED

136

LITERATURE CITED

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Blank, U. (1989). The mmmunity tegrism industm imperative: The necessity, the
W. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Blalock, AB. (1990). Evaluating social programs at the state and local level. Michigan:
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. (Vols. 1 - 2). Washington, DC:
World Wildlife Fund for Nature.

Borg, W.R., & Gall, MD. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New York:
Longman.

Brandon, K. (1993). Basic steps toward encouraging local participation in nature tourism
projects. In Lindberg, K. & D. Hawkins (Eds). (1993). Ecoteurism: A guide fer
plenners and managers. (pp. 134-151). (Vol.1). Vermont: The Ecotourism
Society.

Burdge, R. J. (1994). A conceptual approach to sociel impact assessment. Middleton, WI:
Social Ecology Press.

Butler, R.W. (1980).The Concept of the Tourist Cycle of Evolution: Implications for
Management of Resources. Cenadian Geographer, 21., 5-12.

Butler, R. W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse?”. Journal of
Travel Research a (3) , 40-45.

 

Bryan, B. (1991). Ecotourism on family farms and ranches in the American West. In T.
Whelan (Ed). (1991). &ture tourism: Managing for the environment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism ecotourism ancL protected aLea. Switzerland:
IUCN.

Cernea, M. (1985). Putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development.
Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.

 

Chambers, R. (1995). Rural development: Puttinfirghe last first. England: Longman
Group Limited.

137

Chambers, N. M., & Ham, S. H. (1995). Strengthening regional planning through
community education. In R. E. Saunier & R.A. Megank (Eds). Conservation of

biediversity and the new regional planning. ). [Washington, D.C.?] : Dept. of

Regional Development and Environment, Executive Secretariat for Economic and
Social Affairs, General Secretariat, Organization of American States.

Cohen, J.M., &Nonnan T. Uphoff. (1977). R r ldevel ment arti i ion: once t

and measures fer project design. implemerLationand evaluation. Ithaca, NY:
Center for International Studies, Cornell University.

 

 

Craig, G., & Mayo, M. (1995). Community empowerment: A reader in participation and
development. London: Zed Books.

Davis, 8. H., & Ebbe, K. (1993). Traditional knowledgeand sustainable development.
Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the World Bank Environment
Department and the World Bank Task Force on the lntemational Year of the
World's Indigenous People held at the World Bank, Washington, DC, September
27-28, 1993 / Shelton H. Davis, Katrinka Ebbe, editors ; Alicia Hetzner, editorial
consultant. Washington DC: World Bank.

Denzin, N.K., & Yvonna S. L. (Eds). (1994). &mdbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Drake, SP. (1991). Local participation in eco-tourism projects. In T.Whelan. (Ed).
Nature tourism: Managing for the environment. (pp. 133 — 163). Washington
DC: Island Press.

Fraenkel, J.R., & Norman E.W. (1996). Hew to design and evaluate reseapch in
education. New York: McGraw-I-Iill.

Furze, B., De Lacy, T., & Birckhead, J. (1997). Culture. consmtion and biodiversity.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Gartner, WC. (1996). Tourism development: Principles, process, and policies. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Good, C.V., & Scates, DE. (1954). Methods of research: Educational, psychological and
speiplpgjeal, New York: Appleton — Century - Crofts.

Gunn, C. A. (1994). Environmental design and land use. In J.R.B. Ritchie & C.R.
Goeldner. (Eds). Travel tourism and hospitalig research: A handbook for
managers; and reseapchers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Gunn, C. A. (1994b). Tourism planningp Basics. conceptspcases. Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis.

138

Gurung, GP. (1995). People and their participation: New approaches to resolving
conflicts and promoting cooperation. in J .A. McNeely. (Ed). Expanding

pagnership in conservation. IUCN. (pp. 223 - 233). Washington DC: Island

Press.

Gurung, C. P., and De Coursey, M. (1994). Chapter 11: The Annapurna Conservation
Area Project: A pioneering example of sustainable tourism? In Carter, E., and

Lowman, G. (Eds). Ecotourism: A sustainable Option? (pp. 176-194).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hall, D., & Kinnaird, V. (1994).Chapter 8: Ecotourism in Eastern Europe. In Carter, E.,
and Lowman, G. (Eds). Ecotourism: A sustainable Option? Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.

Hayes, E.R., & Smith, L. (1994). Women in adult education: An analysis of perspectives
in major journals. Adult Education Quarterly, 45(4), 201-220.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to recreation.
parks, and leisure research. PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Henderson, K.A., & Bialeschki, D. (1995). Evaluating leisure services: making
enlightened decisions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Holsti, OR. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Horwich, R. H., & Lyon, J. (1998). Community-based development as a conservation
tool: The community baboon sanctuary and the gales point manatee project. In
Primack, R.B., Bray, D., Galleti, I-I.A., & Ponciano, I. (Eds). Timber tourist and
temples : Conservation apd development in the Maya Forest of Belize,
fiatemala, and Mexico. Washington, DC. : Island Press.

 

Howell, R. E., Olsen, ME. and Olsen, D. (1987). Designing a citizen involvement
pregtam: A geideeoek fer involving citizens in the resolution of environmental

tssttes. Corvallis: the Western Rural Development Center, Oregon State
University.

Ishida, L. (1999). A ease stedy ef participateg action research te enhance eemmunity
develepment; A eemmunity - based ecotourismproject in Huatulco. Oaxaca.

Master thesis, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University.

 

 

Jenkins, C.L., & Henry, B.M. (1982).Govemment involvement in tourism in developing
countries. Annals ef Tourism Research . 2(4), 499-521.

139

Johnston, B.R., & Byrne, MA. (1994). Defining the crisis, shaping the response: An
overview of environmental issues in China. In Johnston, B.R. (Ed). Who Pays the
Priee: The Socio-cultural ConteXt of Environmental Crisis. Washington DC:
Island Press.

Jones, LG. (1997). A participatory design process to prepa_re_a conceptual eco-tourism
plan for the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve. state of CamphecLMexico. Master
thesis, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, State University
of New York.

Kiah, RB. (1976). A mntent analysis of children’s contemporag realistie fretien aeeet

black people in the United States to determine if and how a sampling of these
geries portray selected salient shacred experiences of black people. Doctoral

dissertation, Dept. of Elementary and Special Education College of Education,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

 

Keeves, J.P. (Ed). (1997). Educational research . methodology and measurement: An
international handbook. New York: Pergamon.

Kelle, U. (1995). Qomppter-aided qualitative data analysis: Theet'y, methods and
ptaettce. London: Sage Publication.

Kraus, R. & Allen, LR. (1997). R se rch n evaluation in resear h rks n l i re
studies. Arizona: Gorsuch Scarisbick.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis : An introduction to its methodology. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.

Lama, M.T.T. (1995). Annapurna Conservation Area Project. Annual progress report,
15th July 1994 — 14th July, 1995. Nepal: King Mahendra Trust for Nature
Conservation.

Linberg, K., Furze, B., Staff, M., & Black, R. (1998). Ecotourism in the Asia Pacific
Regien : Issues and eutlook. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific.

 

Meadows, DR. (1993). The environment/development interface in Latin Amerig

Eeetedrism and Costa Rica’s search for sustainable development. Master thesis,

Department of Resource and Development, Michigan State University.

 

 

McCracken, G. (I988).The long interview . Qualitative Research Methods Series 13.
Newbury Park : Sage Publications.

140

McDonough, M.H., & Wheeler, CW. (1998). Toward school and community

eellaeeration in secial forestty: Lesson from the Thai experience. Washington,

DC: ABEL Clearinghouse for Basic Education Academy for Educational
Development.

McIntosh, R., Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, B. (1994). Tourism: principles, practice and
philosophies. (7th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: guide for local planners. Madrid:
World Tourism Organization.

Metcalfe, SC. (1995). Communities, parks, and regional planning: A co-management
strategy based on the Zimbabwean experience. In Saunier, R.E., & Meganck,
R.A. (Eds). Conservation of biodiversity and the new regional planning. (pp. 127
- 136). [Washington, D.C.?] : Dept. of Regional Development and Environment,
Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs, General Secretariat,
Organization of American States.

Miloon, K. (1991). Community participation as a strategy for human settlements

developments. In Habitat. Human settlements through community participants.
Nairobi: The United Nations Center for Human Settlements (Habitat).

Mitchell, E.G. R (1998). Community integration in ecotourism : A comparative case
study of twe communities in Peru. Master thesis, School of Rural Planning
Development, The University of Guelph, Canada.

Neuman, W. L. (1997). Socizd research methods : Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Niewiadomska, A., Berghmans, D., Scherpenisse, F., & Beverborg, DC. (1999, April).
Tourism in Bialowieza. PAN Times. 20.

Nisbet, R (1966). The seciological tradition. New York: Basic Books.

Norris, R., Wilber, J.S., & Marin, L.O.M. (1998). Community-based ecotourism in the
Maya Forest: problems and potentials. in Primack, R.B., Bray, D., Galleti, H.A.,
& Ponciano, I. (Eds). (1998). Timber. tourist. and temples : Conservation amd
v 10 ment in the Ma a Forest of Belize. Guatemala. and Mexico. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Oakley, Peter and David Marsden. (1984). Approaches to participatien in rural
develepment. Geneva: International Labor Office.

Olindo, Perez. (1991). The Old Man of Nature Tourism: Kenya. In Whelan, T. (Ed).
Nature tourism: Managing for the Environment. (pp. 23 — 38). Washington DC:
Island Press.

141

Orams, MB. (1995). Toward a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism
Management, L60), 3-8.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: The Werld Bank
experience. World Bank Discussion Papers. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

 

Perez, C. A. (1997). Negotiating beneficiary involvement in agricultural development
projects: Experiences from care. Practicing Anthropology. l_9 (3), 31-35.

Peters, W.J. (l994a). Attempting to integtate conservation and development among

resident peoples of the Ranomafana National Park. Madagascar. Doctoral
dissertation, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University.

 

Peters, W.J. (1997b). Local participation in conservation of The Ranomafana National
Park, Madagascar. Journal of World Forest Resource Management. 8, 109-135.

Primack, R.B., Bray, D., Galleti, H.A., & Ponciano, I. (Eds). (1998). Timber. tourist. and
temples : Conservation and development in the Maya Forest of Belize
(jaatemala, and Mexico. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. In Sachs, W. (Ed). The development dictionag: A
i knowled e as ower. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Reimer, G. D. (1994). Community participation in research and development: A case
study from Pangnirtung. Northwest Territories. Master thesis , McMaster

University, Canada.

 

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F .G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative
eentent analysis in research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ritchie, J.R.B., & Goeldner, C.R. (Eds). (1994). TraveLtourism. and hospitality research:
A handbook for managers and researchers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Robinson, J. G. (1996). Searching for the ‘community’ in community-based

conservation: A case study of a Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE project. Master thesis,
School for Environmental and Resource Studies, Dalhousie University, Canada.

Saunier, R. E., & Meganck, R. A. (Eds). (1995). Conservation of biodiversity and the
new regional planning. [Washington, D.C.?] : Dept. of Regional Development
and Environment, Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs, General
Secretariat, Organization of American States.

Sebo, R. E. (1996). Introduction to tourism textbooks: A descriptive content analysis.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

142

 

Scheyvens, R. (1999).Ecotourism & the empowerment of local communities. Tourism
Management. 29, 245-249.

Sekartjakrarini, S. (1996). Emtourism development: A case study of Siberut Island,
Ipdenesia. Doctoral dissertation, Urban and Regional Science, Texas A&M

University.

Setty, E. D. (1994). Participatory rural development in Asia: A critical analysis. New
Delhi: Inter-India Publications.

Sewell, W.R.D., & Phillips, SD. (1979). Models for the evaluation of public
participation programs. &ural Resources Journal. l_9(2), 337-358.

Simmons, DO (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism
Management. 1;(2), 98-108.

 

Singleton, Jr., Royce A., Straits, B.C., & Straits, MM. (1993). Approaches to Social
Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sproule, K. W., & Suhandi, AS. (1998). Guidelines for community-based ecotourism
programs: Lessons from Indonesia (Gn. Halimun National Park’s case study). In
Lindberg, K., Wood, M.E., & Engeldrum, D. (Eds). Ecotourism: A geide for
planners and managers. (Vols. 1- 2). Vermont: The Ecotourism Society.

Tasosa, M. S. (1993). Ev 1 tin mmunit artici i n in touri m lannin ' he c e
ef Aserofi and Lytton, RC. Master thesis, Dept. of Geography, Simon Fraser
University, Canada.

Taylor, R.D., & 1. Bond. (1999). Participatory Technology Development for Community
Based Wildlife Management in ZimbabwezThe WWF Support to CAMPFIRE
Project. In Watson, A.E., & Aplet, G. (1999). Personal- societal, and ecological
valees of wilderness: Sixth world wilderness congress proceedings on resezfllt,
management, and allecation, Vol. II, Proc. RMRS-P-OOO. Ogden, UT: US.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

 

Tisdell, C. (1996). Ecotourism, economic, and the environment: Observations from
China. In Joumfl of Trml Research, _15 (4), l 1- 19.

Uphoffi N. (1993). Grassroots organization and NGO’s in rural development:
Opportunities with diminishing states and expanding markets. World
Development, 21 (4), 607-622.

van de Vlasakker, Joep. (1999, April). Wolf research tours: An ecotourism project in
Bialowieza Forest. In PAN Times, 18 - 19.

143

Wall, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Ecotourism towards congruence between theory and
praetice. University of Waterloo: Faculty of Environmental Studies, Waterloo,
Canada. . Paper was presented at 7‘” International Symposium Society and
Resource Management, University of Missouri-Columbia May 27-31, 1998.

Wandersman, A. (1979). User participation in planning environments: A conceptual
framework. Environmenta1_and Behavior , 11(4), 465-482.

Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework for participation in community organizations. Ih_e

Jeernal of Applied Behavioral Science, l_7(l), 27-58.

Weitzeman, E. A., & Miles, MB. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data
Qalysis: A software sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

 

Whelan, T. (1991). Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development. In Whelan, T.
(Ed). Nature tourism: managing for the Environment. Washington DC: Island
Press.

Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research, 11(3), 3-9.

Wood, M. E. (1998). Meeting the global challenge of community participatien in
eeetoerism: case studies and lessons from Ecuador. Arlington: The Nature

Conservancy.

 

Wood, M. E., Gatz, F.,& Lindberg, K. (1991). The ecotourism society: an action agenda.
in Kusler, J. (Ed). Eeotourism and resource conservation. Selected papers from
the 2'“1 International Symposium: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation,
Madison: Omnipress.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common
firture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study researeh: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Zube, EH. (1995). No park is an island. In McNeely, J. A. (Ed). (1995). Expanding
partnership in censervation. (pp. 169 — 187). Washington DC: Island Press.

 

144

"I17111111111111111'11111“