The Community Tourism Planning Approach:

Issues and Challenges

3019 words
“Critically review community tourism planning as an approach and discuss the key issues
and challenges. Use sufficient examples and arguments.”

Tourism is today the leading industry of the global economy and an instrument of
development used by a numerous countries (Cooper et al. 2008). Communities are
increasingly becoming more involved with tourism, either willingly or unwillingly, and to
make the best out of the situation the need for planning is evident (Kelly & Becker 2000;
Murphy & Murphy 2004). Planning is targeted at the future as planning limits the time period
over which predictions into the future can be made without loss of practical magnitude for
current decisions (Edgell et al. 2008; Hall 2008). This paper scrutinises community tourism as
an approach to planning and critically examines its key issues and challenges.

There are various approaches that may be adopted in terms of planning for the development
of any industry (Cooper et al. 2008). Planning is here understood as “the purposive process in
which goals are set and policies elaborated to implement them” (Cullingsworth 1997 in Hall
2008, p. 9). In terms of tourism, Hall (2008) distinguishes between five chief approaches of
tourism planning: boosterism, the economic/industry-oriented, the physical/spatial, the
sustainable, and the community-oriented approach. This classification is an appropriate way
to analyse the varying and often overlapping methods of which issues of tourism planning are
discerned (ibid.). Tourism planning takes both a proactive and reactive standpoint. It takes a
reactive stance because there are too many influencing internal and external elements to make
planning controllable and predictable, at least to an adequate level of precision. But, to
entirely be dependent on reactive responses breaks with the notion of optimising tourism
development. Thus, tourism planning takes too a proactive stance that aims at the
development of strategies with proper development directions, requiring a thoroughgoing
comprehension of both local attributes and external influences (Cooper et al. 2008).

Community tourism was brought forth as a response to the need for more legitimate social
principles of tourism growth, and the concept has since been developed in search of
sustainable methods to tourism development (Li 2004; Hall 2008). A community approach to
tourism planning is what can be described as a ‘bottom-up’ planning form that underlines
development in the community instead of development of the community. Furthermore, the
approach aims at development of the industry in harmony with the requirements and desires
of host communities, which is acceptable to the locals, supports their economy, and reflects
the community’s traditions and daily lifestyle (Fitton 1996 in Timothy 2002; Hall 2008).

The concept of community tourism can be defined as “tourism that involves and benefits
local communities” (Mann 2000 in Murphy & Murphy 2004, p. 34). This definition gives
attention to the involvement of locals and how they are influenced by tourism, in contrast to
other definitions that include residents as just another element of the industry (Murphy &
Murphy 2004). Over the years, community tourism has advanced from the simple action of
visiting places and people to the present focus on positive resident tourism experiences,
directed at the unity of all community stakeholders’ interests in its development proposals
(Veal 2002; Boyd & Singh 2003; Murphy & Murphy 2004). Local planning tends to be much
more detailed and explicit than broader planning. However, community plans should ideally
work in agreement with the national vision and objectives as far as the local environment
allows (Cooper et al. 2008).

Communities are composed of many individuals and groups, known as stakeholders, each
with their own priorities and interests (Kelly & Becker 2000; Murphy & Murphy 2004).
Stakeholders can be interpreted as “those groups or individuals who are directly or indirectly
affected by an organization’s pursuit of its goals” (Stoner et al. 1995 in Murphy & Murphy
2004), which indicates that impacts in a tourism context encompass more than merely
economic consequences. Too, because different stakeholders affect each other one must
comprehend these groups’ resources, needs, motivations and positions (Murphy & Murphy
2004).

It is crucial to recognise that tourism development, especially community tourism, is most

favourable when it is undertaken in collaboration, that is, when all of the stakeholders
involved in the tourism industry work together (Cooper et al. 2008; Edgell et al. 2008). As
Gunn (1994 in Timothy 2002, p. 153) points out: tourism development “will bear little fruit
unless those most affected are involved from start”. Despite that, many stakeholders struggle
to be included in the decision-making processes. Also, even though a stakeholder group is
involved does necessarily not indicate that it has an opportunity to engage in the decision-
making, or that its members’ voices will be heard (Murphy & Murphy 2004). This underlines
the fact that not all levels of community tourism are sustainable, as there are different extents
of participation (Richards & Hall 2000; Timothy 2002). For instance, at one end there is
exploitation, an unsustainable level; whilst on the other end there is self-mobilisation, which
is sustainable (France 1998 in Timothy 2002). Sustainability requires participation of all
community members, especially those who often have been left out (Timothy 2002; Veal
2002).

Ritchie (2001 in Murphy & Murphy 2004) divides community tourism stakeholders into four
groups: the residents, the industry, the visitors, and the local government, and this paper
utilises the same classification. In communities with a significant level of tourism activity
some actors have several roles and hence different opinions of the industry. As a consequence
of the interlinked character of the tourism industry and community living no grouping of
stakeholders can be mutually exclusive (Murphy & Murphy 2004). In the tourism industry
throughout the world residents in host communities play an essential role. Notwithstanding,
they often lack the authority to affect the direction of the tourism development that takes
place around them (Pearce et al. 1996; Scheyvens 2003). The locals hold a vital function in
the delivery of successful tourism experiences upon which tourism communities are
dependent in order to be able to compete and survive. They bring life, energy, history and
services to their neighbourhoods, and visitors are drawn to places where residents desire to
live (Murphy & Murphy 2004).

Both residents and the industry benefit from tourism in terms of opportunities to own
businesses, work in industry-related jobs, receive relevant training as well as education about
the role and impacts of tourism (Timothy 2002). To be able to stay alive and do well,
businesses have to target the suitable market segments, segments with interests and desires
which they can meet. Naturally, prudent research and planning are required to ensure that the
community’s image and development agree with the visitors’ expectations (Murphy &
Murphy 2004).

Although the community planning approach considers residents and not tourists as its focal
point of the tourism planning activities, the visitors are certainly one of the key stakeholder
groups (Pearce et al. 1996; Hall 2008). In this competitive industry it is indispensable to
prioritise the tourists, whose needs and wants call for attention. In terms of planning, it is
important for the businesses to identify which segments they feel best able to satisfy (Murphy
& Murphy 2004). Government involvement in tourism is typically an undertaking to limit the
undesired impacts of tourism development (Hall 2008). However, participation of
governments on the lower order is too significant. Municipalities, districts and provinces
possess local knowledge and are thus critical for durable tourism development (Timothy
2002; Mason 2008). The local government has the challenging task of managing the
industry’s interests with the residents’ needs and wants in order to ensure a sustainable
development, as well as retain the economic state of the community. Governments, too,
benefit from tourism activities; for instance, community tourism can equip the area with
economic advantages in terms of creating jobs, attracting investors and various kinds of tax
revenue. Further, tourism may enhance the community’s regional, national or international
reputation that often stimulates community pride (Murphy & Murphy 2004; Richards & Hall
2000).

As this paper now will discuss, implementing a community approach to tourism planning
involves great impediments (Hall 2008). One evident puzzle is how such an approach can be
put into practise. Gill (1996 in Timothy 2002) suggests assemblies of small groups of
community members to discuss the value of an idea, known as ‘living room meetings’. Fitton
(1996 in Timothy 2002) underlines that meetings should take place before the planning
process commences, and proposes that community members hold such meetings. One method
that has been found successful is household questionnaires, which helps the planners to spot
issues and areas that need improvements. This method also furnishes locals with the
opportunity to involve themselves and, furthermore, encourages locals to think about tourism
(Timothy 2002). Regardless of method, the necessity for full participation by the host
community should be emphasised, which is when the community supplies the majority of
goods and services to visitors, manages the common assets cooperatively, and has significant
input into decision-making processes (Ashley and Roe 1998 in Scheyvens 2003; Bramwell &
Sharman 2000).

Empowerment should be a forerunner to community tourism involvement since it is an

instrument to deciding and attaining socio-economic aims. For instance, a joint venture
agreement between a private tourism operator and a group of residents is one type of
empowerment that can be advocated. Such an agreement gives locals the opportunity to own
lodging, be representatives in boards of directors, and participate in the decision-making
process of further development (Bramwell & Sharman 2000; Scheyvens 2003).
Timothy (2002) expresses that governments should permit and foster locals to open their own
enterprises as one way to involve residents in the advantages of tourism. This because it is
especially the small-scale, family-run type of businesses that tend to benefit the host
communities most economically, as the number of employment of locals, the purchase of
local products, and the reduction of economic leakage to the outside is positively affected
(Dahles 2000; Timothy 2002). Furthermore, a study performed in Bath, UK by Haley et al.
(2005) revealed that residents who were either employed in the tourism industry or economic
reliant on it proved to support its development. For that reason, there should be made attempts
to encourage and promote local participation in tourism. Costa Rica is an example of a nation
that has been successful in implementing a community approach, where approximately 70%
of the hotels are locally owned. This has brought about a community where the citizens feel
secure when establishing businesses (Griffin 1998 in Timothy 2002).

One problem related to the implementation of public participation programmes intended for
local engagement is the ease of exploitation (Phillips 1999 in Hall 2008). Hall (2008) states
that organisations or persons who know how to manipulate procedures and decisions in their
favour easily can exploit public meetings. The more formal the process of involvement is the
more disadvantageous it is to poorer resourced stakeholders. A further obstacle related to the
incorporation of public participation in different areas is the growth of cultural diversity of
many communities. This reality calls for addressing the issue of soliciting the views of
various groups of people, but also interacting across language barriers (Bramwell & Sharman
2000; Hall 2008).

In some instances there is an absence of understanding of tourism by residents that acts as a

hindrance, which often limit locals’ interest in the involvement of the decision-making and
the benefits linked to tourism (Pearce et al. 1996; Timothy 2002). Lipscomb (1998 in
Timothy 2002), for example, discovered that village residents in the South Pacific states
desired development but lacked the understanding of why tourists wanted to come and what
kind of activities in which they would like to engage. A study conducted in New Brunswick,
Canada by Keogh (1990) concluded that residents generally were not well informed about the
tourism development process. Further, the need for easily understandable reports and
information accessible was highlighted, and distribution of newsletters with such information
to generate greater awareness and higher interest amongst residents was proposed (ibid.).
A main hurdle in many destinations, especially those at the early phases of development, is
the introduction of a community-wide discourse, a required ingredient in the planning
process. Dialogue can assist in overcoming issues that derive from tourism activities by
involving more residents on-board prior to the development process gets unmanageable and
possibly unsupported (Reid et al. 2004). Nevertheless, Reid et al. (2000 in Reid et al. 2004)
discovered that locals find it difficult to envisage the disadvantages of tourism without
actually having experienced such drawbacks. Moreover, they had a hard time picturing how
an unplanned tourism industry could affect their everyday life.

As briefly mentioned, the local government has the overall responsibility with regard to the
implementation of a community tourism planning approach. The task of satisfying the
different stakeholder groups is vital but rather complex. The external capital the industry
supplies are required to develop a community’s superstructure, but at the same time these
developers complicate the process as the number of actors and perspectives on tourism
development increases (Jamal & Getz 1995). Moreover, a principal factor for the long-term
success of tourism in any community is the perceived validity of the industry by the locals,
which is influenced by its costs and benefits but also if the investments are seen to be in the
best interest of the community. This highlights parts of the complexity local authorities deal
with concerning community tourism planning (Murphy & Murphy 2004). There is also a
challenge of employing a community tourism planning approach due to the structure of
governments. The way government administration is systematised makes tasks focused on
ensuring that tourism plans are satisfactory coordinated at all levels more complicated. For
example, a decision to prohibit tourism development in a certain area made at the local level
may be incompatible with a regional or national strategy (Hall 2008; Mason 2008).

One great difficulty related to the application of a community approach to tourism planning is
the political character of the planning process (Singh et al. 2003). Because public
involvement is central in community planning, the community tourism planning approach
insinuates that the local community controls the decision-making process to a certain extent
(Arnstein 1969 and Haywood 1988 in Hall 2008). Yet, such a community approach has rarely
been adopted by governments due to delays caused by any regulation requirement for
involvement and their conflicts with business interests. That is, governments have often
already decided the course of action and communities have seldom the chance to influence
(Hall 2008). Murphy and Murphy (2004) state that governments commonly find tourism
development to be troublesome in terms of predicting the tourism activities’ likely effects on
the community, partly explained by the relatively newness of the industry. Public funding
available to community tourism has also been found challenging. Often are there financial
constraints at lower levels of governments which increase the reliance on national
governments, resulting in a de-authorisation of lower-level administrations in favour of
central governments (Timothy 2002).

In some traditional communities power structures can be seen as a threat, or instance, seen in
communities with a stronger traditional view of power and control. One example that
illustrates this is the Big Man System in the Solomon Islands, a social order system with a
long tradition and significant implications for business and politics today (Lipscomb 1998 in
Timothy 2002). In such instances it is common that a leader or a group of leaders make
decisions that benefit the society, a non-democratic way to govern, and other people can do
little but accept what is determined (Timothy 2002).

Seen from an administrative point of view, there has been a lack of collaboration attempts
amongst tourism promoters and regulators of tourism, especially in developing countries, and
the dearth of expertise and economic challenges plays a role here. Collaboration for
community-based tourism planning is defined by Jamal and Getz (1995, p. 188) as “a process
of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders of an interorganizational,
community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain and/or to manage
issues related to the planning and development of the domain”. Traditionally, the focus of
service providers and planning agencies has been on attaining its own objectives without
interacting with out stakeholders. The many levels of government hierarchy, the competition
between agencies in terms of public funding, together with vaguely defined roles within
agencies are all influencing factors (Tosun 2000 in Timothy 2002; Timothy 2002). Now,
partnerships are regarded as a necessity if communities intend to keep their product base and
appeal (Gray 1989 in Jamal & Getz 1995). Furthermore, it is vital to include all pertinent
stakeholders at an early stage as not doing so only encourage technical and political problems
during implementation (Selin 1999 in Singh et al. 2003).

To sum up, any kind of economic development necessitates cautious planning if it is to

achieve the development’s objectives successfully, especially in tourism (Cooper et al. 2008).
This paper has concentrated on the community tourism planning approach which promotes a
focus on providing policies that benefit both visitors and inhabitants in the long term, fulfil
local desires to direct the pace of change, and satisfy visitor interests by preserving unique
features of a community (Hall 2008; Mason 2008). Since all communities are unique,
planning at this level must meet the distinct needs and culture of the area where the
development takes place (Reid et al. 2004). A community tourism planning approach is
believed to decrease such frictions as broader community interests are fulfilled.

Such a broad-based approach can be initiated and maintained through the exercise of
collaborative processes (Veal 2002; Murphy & Murphy 2004). To work together generates a
greater pool of assets, expertise, skills, funds and ideas, and as individuals and communities
become more empowered they are in a more suitable position to affect issues influencing
them (Murphy & Murphy 2004; Mason 2008). Finally, despite the many barriers to
implement a community-based tourism planning approach there is clearly potential for local
involvement (Timothy 2002). Nevertheless, as Hall (2008) underlines, a community approach
to tourism planning is only the first step; the planning must also be able to meet the needs of
the economic and physical aspects of tourism. This is required in order to confirm the long-
term viability of the tourism industry and, further, to support the establishment of sustainable
areas.
Bibliography

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. 2000. Approaches to Sustainable Tourism Planning and
Community Participation. In: Richards, G., & Hall, D. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable
Community Development. London: Routledge, 17-35.
Boyd, S.W., & Singh, S. 2003. Destination Communities: Structures, Resources and Types.
In: Singh, S., Timothy, D.J., & Dowling, R.K. (eds.). Tourism in Destination
Communities. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 19-33.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. 2008. Tourism Principles and
Practice. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Dahles, H. 2000. Tourism, Small Enterprises and Community Development. In: Richards, G.,
& Hall, D. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. London:
Routledge, 154-169.
Edgell, D.L., Allen, M.D., Smith, G., & Swanson, J.R. 2008. Tourism Policy and Planning:
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Haley, A.J., Snaith, T., & Miller, G. 2005. The Social Impacts of Tourism: A Case Study of
Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 647-668.
Hall, C.M. 2008. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. 2nd ed. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Jamal, T.B., & Getz, D. 1995. Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204.
Kelly, E.D., & Becker, B. 2000. Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive
Plan. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Keogh, B. 1990. Public Participation in Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism
Research, 17, 449-465.
Li, Y. 2004. Exploring Community Tourism in China: The Case of Nanshan Cultural Tourism
Zone. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3), 175-193.
Mason, P. 2008. Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Murphy, P.E., & Murphy, A.E. 2004. Strategic Management for Tourism Communities:
Bridging the Gaps. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Pearce, P.L., Moscardo, G.M., & Ross, G.F. 1996. Tourism Community Relationships.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Reid, D.G., Mair, H., & George, W. 2004. Community Tourism Planning: A Self-Assessment
Instrument. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 623-639.
Richards, G., & Hall, D. 2000. The Community: A Sustainable Concept in Tourism
Development? In: Richards, G., & Hall, D. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Community
Development. London: Routledge, 1-14.
Scheyvens, R. 2003. Local Involvement in Managing Tourism. In: Singh, S., Timothy, D.J.,
& Dowling, R.K. (eds.). Tourism in Destination Communities. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing, 229-252.
Singh, S., Timothy, D.J., & Dowling, R.K. 2003. Tourism and Destination Communities. In:
Singh, S., Timothy, D.J., & Dowling, R.K. (eds.). Tourism in Destination Communities.
Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 3-17.
Timothy, D.J. 2002. Tourism and Community Development Issues. In: Sharpley, R., &
Telfer, D.J. (eds.). Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. Clevedon: Channel
View Publications, 149-164.
Veal, A.J. 2002. Leisure and Tourism Policy and Planning. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.