Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504

Expected nature of community participation in tourism development

Cevat Tosun
School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mustafa Kemal University, 31200 Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
Received 6 April 2004; accepted 12 December 2004
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to examine nature of community participation expected by various interest groups with special
references to a local destination in Turkey. A conceptual framework was developed by examining typologies of community
participation. Under the guidance of this conceptual framework, a eld research was designed and applied in a case study approach.
It was found that different interest groups expected different types of community participation to achieve their own aims that may
conict with each other. This study also showed that expected nature of community participation by interest groups varies from
non-participation to one forms of the spontaneous participation.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Community participation; Typology; Interest groups; Attitudes; Turkey
1. Introduction
Tourism planning has followed a signicant evolution
in development and planning paradigms that moved
from myopic and rigid concerns to more comprehensive,
exible, responsive, systematic and participatory ap-
proaches (Inskeep, 1994; Murphy, 1985; Ritchie, 1988;
Simmons, 1994; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998, etc.). This
evolution seeks to sustain tourism as an agent for socio-
cultural and economic development. It is believed that
participatory development approach would facilitate
implementation of principles of sustainable tourism
development by creating better opportunities for local
people to gain larger and more balanced benets from
tourism development taking place in their localities
(Tosun, 2000), resulting in more positive attitudes to
tourism development and conservation of local re-
sources (Inskeep, 1994), and by increasing the limits of
local tolerance to tourism. These may ensure both
visitor satisfaction and ongoing benets for the residents
of destinations areas (Simmons, 1994). Research con-
ducted in Peru supports this argument; 90% of
respondents from local people felt they would increase
their earnings if they had greater participation in
tourism activities (Mitchell & Reid, 2001). Moreover,
it has also been seen as an instrument to improve the
professional basis of tourism development planning
(Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross, 1996), and to reect and
satisfy needs of local people in a better way (Tosun,
1998) as well as developing a more democratic local
community (Simmons, 1994; Syme, Macpherson, &
Seligman, 1991).
However, all of the arguments favor participatory
tourism development strategy may not be found equally
valid, while some may be thought to apply in some
localities and others in different ones. Obviously, not
every form of community participation can contribute
to the realization of the expected benets tourism. This
is not surprising since community participation can take
many forms ranging from manipulative participation to
citizen power (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995; Tosun,
1999a). Although arguments for community participa-
tion in the tourism development process (TDP) have
been raised, the forms of community participation
desired by interest groups in a tourist destination have
not been much considered in the literature. Therefore,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.004
E-mail address: cevattosun@hotmail.com.
this paper will focus on the nature of community
participation expected by interest groups including local
community, local agencies, local tourism operators and
central bodies with special references to a specic tourist
destination; U

rgu p, Cappadocia in Turkey. In this

regard, the main aim of this study is to explore the
forms of community participation desired by these
interest groups.
2. Forms of community participation in the tourism
development process
Forms (typologies) of participation are guratively
illustrated in Fig. 1, which contextualizes community
participation as a categorical term that allows participa-
tion of people, citizens or a host community in their
affairs at different levels (local, regional or national) and
various forms (manipulative, coercive, induced, passive,
spontaneous, etc.) under site specic conditions. It may
be useful to explain models or typologies of community
participation developed by Arnstein (1969), Pretty
(1995) and Tosun (1999a) (see Fig. 1). According to
Arnstein, citizen participation is
the redistribution of power that enables the have-not
citizens yto be deliberately included in the future. It
is the means by which they can induce signicant
social reform, which enables them to share in the
benets of the afuent society (1969:216).
In this denition of participation, the most important
point may be the degree of power distribution. Arnstein
has approached this in terms of a ladder or typology of
citizen participation including eight levels, which are
classied in turn among three categories relative to
authentic citizen participation. While the lowest cate-
gory represents manipulative participation, the highest
category refers to degrees of citizen power. The middle
category indicates degrees of citizen tokenism. Prettys
model describes community participation at seven levels
that run from manipulative participation to self-
mobilization. Each level allows for differing degrees of
external involvement and local control, and reects the
power relationships between them. After reviewing
studies on participatory development approaches in
development studies, Tosun (1999a) has attempted to
develop a typology of community participation in
tourism. He classies types of community participation
under three main headings that have some subheadings.
These are: spontaneous community participation, coer-
cive community participation and induced community
participation (see Fig. 1). Arnsteins and Prettys
typologies are developed in the context of develop-
mental studies in general. They are not related
particularly to a sector of an economy, but Tosuns
typology is designed specically for tourism. It elabo-
rates each type of community participation with special
references to the tourism industry. Thus, it may be
helpful to explain Tosuns model for community
participation in greater detail to establish a sound
conceptual framework for the empirical part of this
research.
Spontaneous participation in Tosuns model corre-
sponds to degrees of citizen power in Arnsteins
typology, and to self-mobilization and interactive
participation in Prettys model. It represents an ideal
mode of community participation. This ideal type
provides full managerial responsibility and authority
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Citizen control
Degrees
of
Citizen
Power
Degrees
of
Citizen
Tokenism
N
o
n
-
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
Spontaneous Participation
Bottom-up; active par.;
direct participation;
par. in decision making,
authentic participation;
self planning;
Induced Participation
Top-down; passive; formal;
mostly indirect; degree of tokenism,
manipulation; pseudo-participation;
participation in implementation
and sharing benefits; choice between
proposed alternatives and feedback.
Coercive Participation
Top-down, passive; mostly indirect,
formal; participation in implementation,
but not necessarily sharing benefits;
choice between proposed limited
alternatives or no choice; paternalism,
non-participation, high degree
of tokenism and manipulation.
7. Self-mobilization
6. Interactive participation
5. Functional participation
4. Participation for
material incentives
3. Participation
by consultation
2. Passive participation
Prettys (1995) typology of
community participation
Arnsteins (1971) typology of
community participation
Tosuns (1999a) typology of
community participation
1. Manipulative participation
Manipulation
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
2.
3.
1.
Therapy
Informing
Consultation
Placation
Partnership
Delegated power
Keys: Corresponding categories in each typology
Fig. 1. Normative typologies of community participation.
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 494
to host community. Induced community participation in
tourism development tallies with degrees of citizen
tokenism in Arnsteins typology, and functional parti-
cipation with participation by consultation or participa-
tion for material incentives as described in Prettys
model. In this best type, the host community is allowed
to hear and be heard. They have a voice in the tourism
development process, but they do not have power to
insure that their views will be taken into account by
other powerful interest groups such as government
bodies, multinational companies, international tour
operators, etc. Therefore, it seems to denote level of
tokenism. This type is the most common mode to be
found in developing countries where a host community
only endorses decisions regarding tourism development
issues made for them rather than by them (Tosun,
1999a). It is top-down, passive and indirect. Host
communities may participate in implementation and
sharing benets of tourism, but not in the decision
making process.
Coercive participation is manipulated and contrived
as a substitute for genuine participation. It represents
the lowest rungs of the ladder, manipulation and
therapy, in Arnsteins typology, and passive and
manipulative participation in Prettys typology. The
real objective is not to enable people to participate in the
tourism development process, but to enable power
holders to educate or cure host communities to turn
away potential and actual threats to future of tourism
development. Some decisions may be taken to meet
basic needs of host-communities by consulting local
leaders so as to reduce socio-political risks for tourists
and tourism development. Although it seems that
tourism development is to take place based upon host
communities priorities, it is heavily skewed towards the
fostering and development of tourism, and would
primarily be concerned with meeting the needs and
desires of decision makers, tourisms operators and
tourists.
These typologies may be a useful tool to identify the
spectrum of community participation from the more
common passive, manipulative or token forms towards
those which are more authentic and interactive. This
accords well with the superimposed nature of tourism
activity that is frequently grafted on to an economy and
society in a top-down manner (France, 1998:224).
However, it should be recognized that these models of
community participation have some limitations. For
example, they do not consider the number of citizens to
be included; no analysis of signicant roadblocks
(paternalism, racism, gender discrimination, cultural
remoteness of local people to tourism, etc.) is made; in
reality, there is no overt reference to ownership of
services while the process or the type of community
participation is apparently considered. Another short-
coming of these practices may be that intensity and
longevity of community participation is not adequately
addressed. In terms of participation, local people may be
placed fairly high up the ladder or rung, but enthusiasm
may wane over time, be lower than expected, or be
preempted by other concerns beyond the communitys
control, such as political and economic stability.
3. Research methodology
This study is based upon research conducted with
central government ofcials, local government agencies
and authorities, private sector representatives and local
communities. Local household surveys, local agency
surveys, and key-informant interviews were used to
collect data. While the household and local government
surveys were conducted at the local level in U

rgu p, key-
informant interviews were done at both local and central
levels in U

rgu p and Ankara.

3.1. Local household surveys
There are various arguments on what creates a
representative sample size. It is reported that samples
of less than 30 or 40, from relatively large populations
such as those covered in social surveys, are usually not
adequate for statistical analysis (Gardner, 1978, p. 111).
Ehrenberg (1982, p. 117) argues that ywhen sampling
from highly skewed population the sample size has to be
greater than about n 100 to get an approximately
normal distribution of the sample means. Moser and
Kalton (1993, p. 146) argue that Only if the sample
represents a relatively high proportion of the population
(say, 5 percent or more) need the population size enter
into the estimate of the standard error. Based on the
overall arguments and using a rule of thumb, it may be
stated that the minimum sample size for this research
may be between 30 and 100 cases. Since the population
of the research seems to be relatively homogenous, the
minimum sample size suggested by the scholars may
provide enough accurate data to achieve the purposes of
the research. However, the sample size of this research is
calculated as 248 by employing the following formula
borrowed from Ryan (1995, p. 178). Apparently, the
formula requires some decision about what population
proportion to use. If there is no a priori inclination, as
in the case of this research, then the value of P 0:5 is
often used (Ryan, 1995, p. 178). This assumes a 50/50
split on the variable for a more skew population, which
would require a larger sample than one that has a 20/80
split on the variable for a more homogenous research
population (de Vaus, 1991, p. 71). Sampling error or
allowable error is conventionally accepted between 1%
and 10% (de Vaus, 1991, p. 72). But, it is suggested
that sampling error should be carefully assessed in light
of the nature of the derivation of the population
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 495
proportion and other aspects of the initial data (Ryan,
1995). This research accepts a 6% allowable error. At
the 95% condence level, z-score is, again, convention-
ally accepted as 1.96. This is also known as standard
deviation (s.d.). This means that we can be 95%
condent that the results in the population will be the
same as in the sample plus or minus the sampling error
(de Vaus, 1991).
In this study, population size was the number of
households in U

rgu p, which were 3500. In the light of

the above calculation and discussion, 256 households
out of 3500 were randomly chosen as the sample size for
this study. This represents approximately seven percent
of the local population. In brief, based upon the
arguments on appropriateness of a sample size in social
science literature, it may be said that the calculated
sample size would be a well representative of the
research population. In Turkey each municipality
publishes a directory containing full postal addresses
including house numbers of households living in their
constituencies. House numbers in the resident directory
of U

rgu p were written on a piece of paper and mixed in

a box and 256 pieces of paper, each containing a house
number, were randomly taken from the box. This
sample of 256 household surveys was carried out in
person, at residences on weekends and after 6 p.m. on
weekdays in U

rgu p. Interviews were conducted by the

investigator himself to minimize any language and
translation problems. The survey was carried out with
adult family members who were community residents
(dened as any household member 18 years or older
who had lived in the community for more than 6
months), and who were able to answer relevant
questions effectively. When more than one adult family
member was present at the time of the interview,
the family was free to choose a volunteer among
themselves to respond to the questionnaire. Of the 256
questionnaires obtained, 240 were usable. Despite every
effort to eliminate biases, several remained. For
example, owing to socio-cultural traditions, male
respondents dominated the sample, and the relatively
small numbers of female respondents were not very
informative, which may have created problems of
representation. There was no control over who partici-
pated in the study, so the results might be biased by
either favorable or unfavorable responses.
3.2. Local government agency surveys
There was no need to select a sample population for
the local agency survey since the size of the population
was manageable, and thus, the survey was carried out
with all members of the local agencies. In total, 25
government representatives were surveyedall elected
and appointed members of the local government
including the mayor, governor, local tourism director,
members of the municipal assembly, and members of the
municipal council. Respondents were met in their
ofces. Out of 25 interview-based surveys, 22 were
useable.
The objective of both local community and local
government surveys was to nd out and examine
desired forms of community participation by these
interest groups by using a combination of multiple
choice questions and Likert scale questions, from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. In general, the
questions were classied into categories pertaining to
forms of community participation, and the prole of
respondents.
3.3. Key-informant interviews
Key-informant interviews were undertaken with
representatives of local government bodies, central
government agencies and local private-sector businesses.
The key-informants were selected based on convenience
sampling because of time and nancial limitations.
Interview data were recorded on audio tapes and notes
were taken. The interviews were useful in gaining a more
detailed perspective of desired forms of public participa-
tion by interest groups, power relationships, and the
structure of the public administration system, local
political cultural and traditional values, and other
pertinent factors. Seventeen people from the local
government, some of which were also included in the
government surveys, ve people from the private sector
and ve people from the central government were
selected for their extensive knowledge or involvement
with the tourism sector in U

rgu p. To access private

sector representatives, the Cappadocia Association of
Tourism Operators (KAPTIB) was visited. KAPTIB is
the only tourism industry association in U

rgu p. First,
the president of the association was interviewed, and
then based upon the direction given by the president;
four additional key-informants from the association
were interviewed. In addition, in-depth interviews were
conducted with ve ofcers of relevant central autho-
rities, namely the Ministry of Tourism (MT) and the
State Planning Organization (SPO).
In brief, data about tourism development and desired
forms of community participation by various interest
groups in the eld study area were drawn and
interpreted from a range of local and national sources
alongside references to secondary material. While they
are, inevitably, selective and interpretive in nature,
every attempt has been made to reveal a balanced
assessment of diverse qualitative and quantitative data.
However, the reader should remember that there was a
male bias in household surveys, local agencies surveys,
and key-informant interviews.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 496
4. The tourism development case in Turkey
U

rgu p is one of the most important counties in terms

of tourism development in the Cappadocia region
located in Central Anatolia, Turkey. About 485,826
tourists visited the region in 2001. About half of them
(224,531) arrived at U

rgu p and spent 327,416 nights.

While 343,308 international tourists visited the region
and 48 percent of them (166,242) visited U

rgu p, an
additional 142,518 domestic tourists also visited the
region and around 40 percent of them (58,289) visited
U

rgu p. Moreover, relevant statistical gures suggest

that the region has a high level of market dependency on
a few tourist generating countries. Only six countries
generated 76 percent of total international tourists
visited the region. These countries were France (18%),
Japan (16%), Germany (13%), Spain (12%), Italy
(10%) and USA (9%) (Ministry of Tourism, 2002). It
should be noted that 70 percent of total tourist arrivals
in the region was international and 30 percent was
domestic. This also indicates the dependency of the
region on the international tourist market.
The traditional living rural culture of a weird,
wonderful, moonlike landscape of fairy chimneys
formed by wind erosion bizarre formations, rock
houses, historical monuments such as caved Byzantine
churches, and underground cities are the main tourist
attractions. The independent tourists who visited U

rgu p
and Cappadocia in general were well-educated and had
great respect for the local people and their values
between the 1950s and the 1970s. In this period the local
people accepted the tourists as their guests rather than
exclusively their customers. However, the implementa-
tion of the Encouragement of Tourism Law No. 2634
enacted by the military led-government in 1983 created
unfavorable market conditions for locally owned small
scale tourism businesses (Tosun, 1998). The generous
incentives given to the tourism industry ushered in the
emergence of rapid mass tourism in U

rgu p for which the

local people were not ready. This has not only limited
local peoples participation in the benets and decision
making process of tourism development, it has also re-
determined the power relation at the expense of
indigenous local people. However, it should be noted
that this socio-cultural change caused by development of
mass tourism appears to be common all over the world
and it is due to many factors besides the governments
neglect.
When the tourism development process in U

rgu p is
elaborated within the destination life cycle model, it may
be argued that without creating opportunities for
indigenous local people to take part actively in tourism
development at the right time and stage of tourism
development, it would be very difcult for local people
to obtain adequate benets or sustain their current share
from tourism development in their locality. For
example, although local people at the initial stage of
tourism development (Butlers (1980) exploration stage)
owned and operated small scale guest-houses, economy
class hotels or souvenir shops after Noronbas (1976)
discovery and local response and initiative stages, it has
become gradually more difcult for these indigenous
people to operate a tourism related business. Work in
the sector since tourism development has become
institutionalized (Butlers development stage), which
attracted capital to open large scale businesses with
the encouragement of the Tourism Incentive Law. In a
gradual manner local control over tourism development
has been lost while the local tourist destination has
attracted more of Plogs (1973) allocentrics and Cohens
(1972) institutionalized tourists. In the emergence of a
strong competition under the imperfect market condi-
tions, these locally owned small businesses in the
tourism industry could not survive and were closed.
However, this is not the case only in U

rgu p, Turkey but

in many developing countries such as Indonesia
(Timothy, 1999), Mexico (Clancy, 1999; Long, 1991),
etc.
5. Study results
In the light of the above theoretical framework, the
eld research aimed at nding which types of commu-
nity participation in the TDP are expected/desired by
various interest groups such as local community, local
agencies, central bodies, and private sectors representa-
tives in U

rgu p, Turkey. Most quantitative data were

obtained from the local households and local agencies
surveys whereas much of the qualitative data came from
key-informants from local private sector representatives,
central bodies (the Ministry of Tourism and State
Planning Organization).
5.1. Prole of community member respondents
Most respondents (65%) were between 19 and 40
years old, and no respondents were over 56 years.
Interestingly, only 4% of the respondents had no
children under 18 living with them in U

rgu p. Approxi-
mately 83% of respondents were male and 17% were
female. The gender distribution of the respondents
reects the socio-cultural structure in which there is a
tendency for male domination in the socio-economic
and political life of the community. A very small
percentage of the respondents (0.4%) were illiterate.
Some 53.4% had a primary education, and only 9.9%
had a university education. Clearly, most respondents
were not well educated in a formal sense, which could
limit community participation in tourism development.
While 74% of the respondents had a very low level of
income, 24% had a moderate level of income and 2%
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 497
had a relatively high income level. Moreover, 55% of
the respondents stated that their family incomes were
just enough to survive while 41% of the respondents
considered their family incomes to be enough for a fair
standard of living. Only 4% of them stated that their
monthly family incomes were enough for a good
standard of living. A large majority of respondents
(79%) had been living in U

rgu p longer than 10 years.

This may indicate that respondents were generally long-
time members of the local community. The strong sense
of belonging to U

rgu p among respondents and the

answers given to place of birth seem to support the
above statement. Of the respondents 78% had a strong
sense of belonging to U

rgu p, and 77% of respondents

were born in U

rgu p.
5.2. Nature of community participation expected by the
local community
The local people were asked how strongly they agree
or disagree with six statements regarding varying types
of community participation. The local peoples answers
were examined by assigning ranks based on the mean
(M) scores of each variable from the lowest mean (rank
equals to 6) to the highest mean (rank equals to 1)
(Table 1). The higher the M score, the stronger is the
agreement. The idea of elected and appointed local
government agencies deciding on tourism development
issues by consulting the local people gained the highest
scores. It should be noted that while appointed local
government agencies such as town-governor, local
museum director, local tourist ofce manager, etc. are
representatives of central government, the mayor,
councillors and neighborhood headmen are elected by
local people. The second highest scores belonged to the
idea of a committee elected by the local people specially
for developing, managing and controlling tourism
development should decide on all aspects of tourism
development in U

rgu p. The idea, market forces should

decide on tourism development issues, had the third
highest scores. The item that appointed local govern-
ment should decide on tourism development issues had
the fourth highest ranking. Finally, the MT should
decide on the tourism development issues had the
lowest score, which was followed by the idea that
elected local government should decide on the tourism
development issues.
Respondents from among the local people were asked
to state their ideas about what appropriate role in the
tourism development process they (the local people)
should take. A majority of the respondents (80.6%)
stated that they should take the leading role as
entrepreneurs and workers at all levels. Local people
were also asked to state their views on suitable means of
involving members of local community like them in the
tourism development process. About 63% of the
respondents stated that the holding of a referendum
is a suitable means for them to participate in tourism
development while 88.6% of the respondents chose the
statement encouraging local people to invest in and
work for the tourism industry as suitable means for
community participation. Only a small portion of the
respondents regarded attending seminar and confer-
ence (45.3%), and responding to a survey (22.9%) as
an appropriate means by which to be involved in
tourism development (Table 2).
According to Table 1, respondents had a tendency to
support the idea that local people should be consulted
about local tourism development issues. This was the
most popularly accepted option. The second most
popular option was the idea that a committee elected
by the public especially for developing, managing and
controlling tourism development should decide on all
aspects of local tourism development. In fact, the other
options were not at all supported. When Table 1 is
carefully examined, it is obvious that the mean scores of
the other variables are under 3. This means that
respondents strongly disagree and/or disagree with these
statements. The ranking of mean scores of the related
variables indicates that the most desired form of
community participation by the respondents from the
local community is one of the forms of induced
participation, community consultation. The second
most wanted form of community participation is a form
of spontaneous participation. In fact, when carefully
examined, it may be said that the form of spontaneous
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Local peoples views about who should make decisions on tourism development
Decision makers n Mean
a
Ranking SD
Ministry of tourism 236 1.839 6 1.159
Elected local government 234 1.936 5 1.023
Appointed local government 235 2.021 4 1.111
Appointed and elected local government by consulting local people 236 4.305 1 0.981
A committee elected by public for specially developing and managing tourism 233 4.107 2 1.168
Market forces 235 2.055 3 0.979
The criteria were based on a ve-point scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
a
The higher the Mean (M) score, the stronger is the agreement.
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 498
community participation is almost as popular as the
most desired form of induced community participation
(see Table 1 and Fig. 1). On the other hand, while 63%
of the respondents reported that a referendum at the
local level is a suitable means to participate in tourism
development, a vast majority of them (88.6%) wanted
the local people to be encouraged to invest in and work
for the tourism industry (Table 2).
Based on the overall results, it may be said that
respondents wanted to take part in the tourism
development process. A closer analysis of the quantita-
tive data suggests that respondents supported commu-
nity consultation in the form of induced participation as
described in Tosuns typology.
5.3. Prole of local government agency respondents
Of the respondents from the local authorities, 86%
were born in U

rgu p, and 70% had been living there

longer than 10 years. Not surprisingly, 91% of the
respondents had a very strong sense of belonging to
U

rgu p. The levels of education attained were: 40%

primary school, 15% high school, and 45% had
undergraduate education. Of the respondents 95% were
male and 5% were female. While 60% of the respon-
dents were between 4156 years old, 25% of them were
over 57 and 15% were between 25 and 40. Only 12% of
the respondents had no children under 18 living with
them in U

rgu p.
5.4. Nature of community participation expected by local
agencies
The local agencies were asked to indicate how
strongly they agree or disagree with the given six
different statements regarding forms of community
participation in tourism development. The local agen-
cies answers were again examined by assigning ranks
based on the mean (M) scores of each variable (Table 3).
The statement that elected and appointed local govern-
ment agencies should decide on tourism development
issues by consulting the local people gained the
highest mean score. The second was a committee
elected by the local people should decide upon tourism
development issues. The statement that the elected
local government should decide on tourism development
issues had the third highest mean score. The statement
that market forces should decide on the tourism
development issues had the lowest mean score, and
the idea that the MT should decide on the tourism
development issues had the second lowest mean score
among the given statements.
The ranking of the mean scores of these variables may
indicate that there was a central tendency among local
agencies to support the statement that the elected and
appointed local agencies should decide on tourism
development issues by consulting the local people.
Although the statement that a committee elected by the
public especially for developing, managing and control-
ling tourism development should decide on all aspects of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Local peoples views on means of involving local community in tourism
Value label n Yes % No % Mean Mode SD v
a
Attending seminar, conference 236 45.3 54.7 1.547 2 0.499 0.453
Responding survey 236 22.9 77.1 1.771 2 0.421 0.229
Holding referendum 235 62.6 37.4 1.374 1 0.485 0.374
Encouraging LP to invest in and work for tourism industry 236 88.6 11.4 1.114 1 0.319 0.114
Value: 1 yes; 2 no; LP local people;
a
The higher the variation ratio (v) the more poorly the mode reects overall distribution.
Table 3
Who should make decisions on tourism development in U

rgu p
Decision makers n Mean
a
Ranking SD
Ministry of tourism 20 2.3 5 1.4
Elected local government 20 2.65 3 1.3
Appointed local government 20 2.5 4 1.2
Appointed and elected government by consulting local people 20 3.75 1 1.4
A committee elected by public for specially developing and managing tourism 20 3 2 1.5
Market forces 20 1.55 6 0.759
The criteria were based on a ve-point scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
a
The higher the mean (M) score, the stronger is the agreement.
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 499
tourism development in the locality had the second
highest rank, the actual mean score of this item is 3. This
means that there was no tendency among the local
agencies to support or not to support community
participation in terms of Tosuns (1999a) spontaneous
participation and Prettys self-mobilization or interac-
tive participation (see Fig. 1). It is therefore obvious that
the statement that the Ministry Tourism and/or market
forces should decide upon all aspects of tourism
development issues were not supported by the respon-
dents (see Table 3).
The respondents from the local agencies were asked to
state their views about what should be an appropriate
role of the local community. A majority (68.4%) stated
that local people should take the leading role as
entrepreneurs and workers at all levels while a larger
majority (73.7%) was of the view that local people
should not have a voice at the level of decision making.
About 53% of respondents stated that local people
should be consulted and accordingly tourism policies
should be re-considered. Moreover, a vast majority of
the respondents (94.7%) rejected the statement that the
local people should not participate in tourism develop-
ment by any means (Table 4). On the other hand, about
73% of respondents believed that local people should be
consulted, but the nal decision on the tourism
development should be made by formal bodies. A
majority of the respondents (95.4%) also argued that the
local people should be nancially supported to invest in
tourism development, rather than outsiders.
The results of the personal interviews with members
of the local government agencies support the above
quantitative research results. For example, the local
governor (appointed by the Interior Minister) argued
that community participation should be at a consulta-
tive level. But the mayor (elected by local people for 5
years), director of local museum and director of local
tourist information bureau did not support community
participation at all. The mayor contended that as a
representative of the local people the municipality
makes decisions on behalf of public. Thus, there is no
need for community participation in tourism develop-
ment. The directors of the local museum (appointed by
the Minister of Culture) and tourist bureau agreed with
the mayor. They argued that local government agencies
can implement their own decisions, and this will increase
the role of the local people in local affairs. On the other
hand, they claimed that there is no point in getting the
local people involved in the decision making process of
tourism development since the local people economic-
ally and socially are not ready for this. To them,
Having an impact on the decisions requires economic
power. When you recommend a policy or strategy to
follow, you must have the ability to implement it. If
you do not have nancial power, you cannot
implement any recommendation which you offer.
Thus, it is not important how benecial or logical
your suggestion is. If you do not have enough money,
it is not a logical thing to demand participating in
tourism development or decisions regarding local
administration.
While local agencies survey results suggest that there
is a tendency among the respondents from local agencies
to support community participation in one of the forms
of Tosuns induced participation, they did not support
local people having a voice in the decision making
process. Moreover, qualitative data also indicated that
some in the local agencies opposed the idea of
community participation.
5.5. Nature of community participation expected by the
private sector representatives
Representatives of the private sector were very
sensitive to the questions regarding community partici-
pation. For example, the president of KAPTID stated
that y There is no difference between non-local
entrepreneurs and local entrepreneurs. The non-local
capital is needed to increase level of tourism develop-
ment in U

rgu p y. One of the hoteliers stated that the

central government has encouraged them to invest in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Local agencies views on role for local community in tourism development
Value label n Yes % No % Mean mode SD v
a
LP should take the leading role as entrepreneurs and workers 19 68.4 31.6 1.3 0.478 0.32
1
LP should have a voice in decision-making process of tourism development 19 26.3 73.7 1.7 0.452 0.26
2
LP should be consulted, and accordingly tourism policies should be re-considered 19 52.6 47.4 1.4 0.513 0.47
1
LP should not participate by any means 19 5.3 94.7 1.9 0.229 0.05
2
Value: 1 yes; 2 no; LP local people;
a
The higher the variation ratio (v) the more poorly the mode reects overall distribution.
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 500
tourism industry in U

rgu p by offering a range of

generous incentives. He argued that Turkey needs
tourism, thus the central government needs their
contribution to the tourism industry. To him, the
conditions under which Turkey is developing cannot
afford community participation y. Another hotelier
emphasized that Turkey has experienced an unbelie-
vable rapid tourism development. There is no point in
asking who did it. In this context, one member of
KAPTID said that By asking what percentage of the
employees in the tourism industry are from the local
people, what percentage of the capital in the tourism
industry belongs to non-local entrepreneurs etc., you are
creating confusions in local peoples minds. The origins
of the ownership of the tourism operators and
companies are not important. On the other hand,
several hoteliers stated that governments built the
infrastructure and played a leading role in the establish-
ment of superstructure by giving generous scal and
monetary incentives. To them, after this point, there is
no point in discussing the role of the local people in the
tourism industry. They opened that in the natural
process of tourism development local people would
increase their role based on their abilities and nancial
resources. The above discussion reveals that the private
sector representatives have a tendency to oppose
community participation in tourism development in
any forms in U

rgu p.
It is interesting that the views of private sector
representatives are almost opposed to those of local
people and/or local government. This may be partly
explained by power-distribution and power relationship
among the interest groups and political culture in the
eld study area. Local government agencies tend to
cooperate with local people since they need local
peoples votes so as to keep themselves in power, and
turn away possible threats to tourism development.
However, the private sector representatives do not want
to loose their privileged position gained through their
special relationship (patronclient relationship) with
decision-makers.
5.6. Nature of community participation expected by the
central bodies
Key-informants from the MT and SPO have claimed
that the decision-makers at central level do not have any
tendency to encourage community participation in any
forms since they do not want to distribute their power to
lower level governmental bodies and local people. They
stated that
y the current constitution does not permit local
people to participate in tourism development. The
local communities do not have any democratic inputs
to tourism development at local or central levels.
Only some well organized and economically powerful
groups have impact on the decisions. This is not
specic for the tourism sector; it is also valid for all
the sectors of the economy.
It is claimed that the political drama was limited to
elite actors, elite institutions, and elite urban settings in
Turkey. Mass elements were excluded by the nature of
the culture, the distribution of resources, and the design
of the rulers (O

zbudun, 1993, p. 247). Moreover, it is

argued that historically, Turkey has a strong central
government that has practiced administrative tutelage
on local government, which practice has precluded the
emergence of responsive, effective and autonomous
institutions at the local level. Ultimately, this has
ushered in non-participation or pseudo-participation
of local people in their own affairs. Not surprisingly, the
public administration system in Turkey seems to be too
bureaucratic to respond to public needs effectively and
efciently (Ko ker, 1995; Tosun, 2000). The former
undersecretary of the MT contended that the non-
existence of a strong political culture and lack of
developed mechanisms of local participation lead an
elite minority to dominate tourism development. Such
domination results in a clientelistic relationship between
decision-makers, entrepreneurs and their clients, which
is contrary to overall national and local interests.
6. Conclusion
This paper presented a normative model of forms of
community participation in tourism development. The
model argues that community participation is consid-
ered as a categorical term whereby various interest
groups participate in tourism development in various
ways relative to their power in a given community. Some
key characteristics that emerged from this research
support the argument raised by the normative model.
Participation in tourism by different interest groups
varies with differing groups power, objectives, and
expectations from community participation and these
shape their attitudes towards forms of community
participation. The results suggest that while representa-
tives of private sector and respondents from central
bodies are opposed to community participation in any
form, local agencies support community participation at
general consultative level but oppose community parti-
cipation at a decisive level. The desired form of
community participation by the members of local
agencies appears to represent induced participation
in Tosuns typology (Fig. 1). The local agencies wish to
share benets of tourism development, but they also
wish to retain the power to decide on how to share, and
how much to share, with the local community. This may
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 501
reect a wide-spread political culture of an elite in
Turkish politics.
The results also show that while the local people do
not want the Ministry of Tourism, appointed local
government, elected local government and market forces
to decide, direct and manage local tourism development,
they themselves wish to be involved in tourism devel-
opment (Table 1). This may reveal a reaction of local
people against the prevailing mass tourism development
in their locality that has been induced, shaped and
managed as for Brittons (1982) three tiered-hierarchy of
international tourism. Moreover, it may also reect a
longer term movement toward the need for a new public
administration of tourism because of the mistrust of
local people in their elected and appointed representa-
tives who appear to have failed to satisfy local people,
and an over-centralization of governance in general in
the country (Ko ker, 1995; Tosun, 2001). While the
attitudes of respondents from local people toward
participation might be explained partly by their im-
mediate felt-needs, the attitudes of the representatives of
private sector (clients) and central bodies (politicians,
decision-makers or patrons) may reect wide spread
clientelism that tends to prevent the emergence of
alternative development approaches including commu-
nity participation.
The overall result of this study may also reect
attitudes of central government (patron), local agencies
(agents of the patron) and private sector (clients)
towards development, which is over-centralized, shaped
by patronclient relationship, and non-participative. In
this regard, the expected nature of community partici-
pation by the respondents from the local people can be
seen as a reaction against this over-centralized, cliente-
listic and undemocratic national and local development
approach. As Seckelmann (2002) and Tosun, Timothy,
and O

ztu rk (2003) recognize, the over-centralization of

tourism administration and lack of local participation in
tourism are causing low acceptance of centrally pre-
pared plans and programs among local residents.
However, it is not claimed that there was no practice
of participation by any interest groups. The analysis of
tourism policy making process suggests that at central
government, there is a stable routinized practice of
collaboration between central government, major busi-
ness organizations and the trades unions in determining
and managing economic, social, environmental and
scal policies for the tourism sector in Turkey. In
Healeys (1997, p. 227) words, this corporatist govern-
ance model assumes a shared-power world, but the
power is shared among a few, powerful interest groups,
articulated within national level organizations. In this
stable routinized narrow consultative practice, certain
interests receive a privileged attention.
Such a narrow and clientelistic consensus is unrepre-
sentative and unable to learn, innovate, and adapt to the
new conditions rapidly emerging due to the globaliza-
tion of tourism supply and demand, changing socio-
cultural, political, environmental and technological
domains including factors inuencing customer proles
and preferences, tourist health and security, etc. These
forms of governance are inimical to the participatory
tourism development process, as they depend on a
personal patronclient relation, rather than achieving
general policy objectives based on destination commu-
nities priorities. To Healey, such practices are looked
on as corrupt in many countries (1997, p. 231). These
practices of governance are witnessed in societies with
relatively weak economies and highly centralized gov-
ernment such as Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, etc. or a top-
heavy machinery of post-colonial government, as in
much of Africa (Tosun, 2000).
6.1. Policy recommendations for community participation
By taking into account the inadequate capacity of the
public administration system for community participa-
tion, the clientelistic relationship between political/
bureaucratic patrons and entrepreneur/developer cli-
ents, and lack of democratic culture, it may be possible
to suggest two main policy recommendations for
achieving efcient and effective community participa-
tion in tourism development. First, the strong centralist
tradition and omnipotent bureaucracy should be chal-
lenged. The central authority should delegate signicant
parts of its authority and responsibility to lower level of
governmental bodies. The reluctance of different levels
of bureaucracy to relinquish part of their authority,
coupled with the relative weakness of civil society
institution is a major obstacle to local community
participation. The structure of local government in
Turkey has been shaped by the state, reecting bureau-
cratic and scal concerns of the central governments,
and has not been a source of democratic citizen
participation in local public spaces. Therefore, without
a meaningful devolution in public administration, it may
not be possible to achieve community participation as a
citizen power. In this context, local governments should
be re-organized to defend, protect and reect concerns
and interests of local people in their administrative
territories. Second, local Non-Governmental Organiza-
tions (NGOs) should be established to lead local people
to take part in tourism development. As agents of
development for the poor, NGOs y are closer to the
people and therefore understand them better (Mathur,
1995, p. 158). Given the socio-cultural, political,
bureaucratic and economic conditions in the eld study
area, NGOs seem to be a good institutional tool to
empower indigenous host communities via various
educational, organizational, nancial, socio-cultural,
psychological and political means to move towards a
more participatory tourism development approach.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 502
It is sincerely believed that while the above two main
policy recommendations will facilitate involvement of
local people in tourism development by changing over-
centralized public administration structure, breaking
patronclient relationship, forcing the ruler elite minor-
ity to change their historical negative attitudes towards
community participation, they may also empower local
people and establish a local civic capacity for sustaining
participatory activities for the long-term.
6.2. Internal and external factors as barriers to
participation
However, some internal and external factors may
bring about difculties for implementation of the above
recommended policies. First, those internal factors such
as lack of nancial resources at local level, the cultural
remoteness of host communities to tourism related
businesses, negligible local experience of tourism, lack of
expertise and competence of tourism matters at local
level may largely inuence the effectiveness and ef-
ciency of local indigenous people participation in
tourism development. For example, it is argued that
y the extent of local entrepreneurial involvement is
usually very limited, owing to the fact that the local
indigenous groups are rarely adequately pre-adapted to
the business culture in tourism (Din, 1988, p. 563).
Obviously, nancial and entrepreneurial commitment
by local people is necessary for effective community
participation. Removing these cultural, administrative,
political and social barriers and provision of cultural
familiarities of local people with tourism related
businesses is not an easy job. It takes a long educational
process and exibility since participatory capacity
cannot be built like a road or dam; it must be developed.
Second, the Turkish tourism industry has a high market
and international tour operators dependency that acts as
an external barrier to local participation in tourism.
Community participation aims to distribute costs and
benets of tourism equitably among the actors of
tourism in Britons (1982) three-tiered hierarchy by
putting neglected local peoples needs rst. This may
not be acceptable for multinational tour companies
and large rms from tourist generating countries at the
rst level of Britton hierarchy, and large domestic
rms owned by domestic elites at the middle level of
the hierarchy. These dominant actors may not support
implementation of participatory tourism development
policies. Turkey as a developing country cannot
force these actors because of the real possibility of
losing large amounts of tourist receipts and numbers of
tourists. As Tosun asserted, In the present climate,
developing countries are not in a position to defend
themselves against the tour operators bargaining
power (1999b, p. 243).
In a nutshell, the practical implication of this study may
be that there is a strong demand of local people for
emergence of a different or alternative approach to
tourism development. However, the over-centralized pub-
lic administration structure, wide-spread patronclient
relationship, elitist approach to democracy and develop-
ment, unequal income distribution, etc. seem to predeter-
mine the expected nature of community participation in
tourism development in the case study area. This may
conrm de Kadts assertion that y to the extent
problems in any sector, such as tourism, reect the existing
socio-economic situation in a given country (1979, p. 45).
Further ignorance of this demand and isolation of local
people from the development process may lead to develop
negative socio-cultural conditions for sustainable tourism
development. Clearly, the theoretical and empirical parts
of this paper put more emphasis on the neglected issue of
incorporating community views in tourism planning and
development. Although this study addresses a weakness in
the tourism literature, more studies are needed to develop
a model to better understand how to involve local
communities effectively in tourism. Only then will the
results of these studies provide a better set of policy
recommendations for developing a participatory tourism
development approach.
References
Arnstein, R. S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 35, 216224.
Britton, S. G. (1982). The Political Economy of Tourism in the Third
World. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 331358.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution:
implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer,
XXIV(1), 512.
Clancy, M. J. (1999). Tourism and development: evidence from
Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 120.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social
Research, 39, 164182.
de Kadt, E. (1979). Social planning for tourism in the developing
countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 3648.
de Vaus, D. A. (1991). Surveys in social research (3rd ed.). London:
Allen and Unwin.
Din, K. H. (1988). Reports: social cultural impacts of tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 15(4), 563566.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1982). A primary in data reduction: an
introductionary statistics textbook. New York: Wiley.
France, L. (1998). Local participation in tourism in the West Indian
islands. In E. Laws, B. Faulkner, & G. Moscardo (Eds.),
Embracing and managing change in tourism (pp. 222234). London:
Routledge.
Gardner, G. (1978). Social surveys for social planners. Open University
Press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. In Shaping places in
fragmented societies. London: Macmillan Press.
Inskeep, E. (1994). National and regional tourism planning. In
A World Tourism Organization (WTO) Publication. London:
Routledge.
Ko ker, L. (1995). Local politics and democracy in Turkey: an
appraisal. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 540, 5162.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 503
Long, V. H. (1991). Government-industry-community interaction in
tourism development in Mexico. In M. T. Sinclair, & M. J. Stabler
(Eds.), The tourism industry: an international analysis (pp. 205222).
Wallingford: CAB International.
Mathur, H. M. (1995). The role of social actors in promoting
participatory development at local level: a view from India. In H.
Schneider, & M. H. Libercier (Eds.), Participatory development
from advocacy to action (pp. 153169). Paris: OECD Publication.
Ministry of Tourism (2002). Bulletin of tourism statistics 2001. Ankara:
Ministry of Tourism.
Mitchell, R. E., & Reid, D. G. (2001). Community integration: island
tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 113139.
Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1993). Survey methods in social
investigation (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism a community approach. New York:
Methuen.
Noronba, R. (1976). Review of the sociological literature on tourism.
New York: World Bank.
O

zbudun, E. (1993). State elites and democratic political culture in

Turkey. In L. Diamond (Ed.), Political culture and democracy in
developing countries (pp. 247269). London: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G. F. (1996). Tourism community
relationships. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Plog, S.C. (1973). Why destination areas rise and fall in
popularity. Cornell hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, November, 1316.
Pretty, J. (1995). The many interpretations of participation. Focus, 16,
45.
Ryan, C. (1995). Researching tourist satisfaction: issues, concepts and
problems. London: Routledge.
Seckelmann, A. (2002). Domestic tourism: a chance for regional
development in Turkey? Tourism Management, 23, 8592.
Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning.
Tourism Management, 15, 98108.
Syme, G. J., Macpherson, D. K., & Seligman, C. (1991). Factors
motivating community participation in regional water allocation
planninga test of an expectancy value model. Environment and
Planning A, 23, 17791795.
Timothy, J. D. (1999). Participatory planning: a view of tourism in
Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 371391.
Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the
local level: the case of U

rgu p in Turkey. Tourism Management, 19,

595610.
Tosun, C. (1999a). Towards a typology of community participation in
the tourism development process. International Journal of Tourism
and Hospitality, 10, 113134.
Tosun, C. (1999b). An analysis of contributions of international
inbound tourism to the Turkish economy. Tourism Economics,
5(3), 217250.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to Community participation in the tourism
development process in developing countries. Tourism Manage-
ment, 21(6), 613633.
Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in
the developing world: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management,
22, 289303.
Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1998). The evolution of tourism planning
in Third World countries: a critique. Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 4(2), 101114.
Tosun, C., Timothy, D. J., & O

ztu rk, Y. (2003). Tourism growth,

national development and regional inequality in Turkey. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 11(2&3), 133161.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Tosun / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 493504 504