Community participation in decision making process and planning

Arnstein (1969, p. 216) defines citizen participation as:

The redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens…to be deliberately included in the future. It is the means by which they can induce significant social reform, which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society. Timothy (2002, p. 153) defines public participation in decision-making regarding tourism as:

Participation in decision-making entails community members determining their own goals for development and having a meaningful voice in the organisation and administration of tourism.

Therefore, community participation in tourism planning and decision making substantially relates to power relations among tourism stakeholders. It is often assumed by community-based tourism analysts that people have equal access to economic and political resources when undertaking the planning and policy process in communities (Reed, 1997). In fact, power is rarely distributed equally among

stakeholder groups or even among individual actors. Hall and Jenkins (1995) note that some groups and individuals have the ability to exert greater influence over the

tourism planning process than others. Consequently, community participation may occur superficially but decision making remains in the hands of the power holders, which Hall (2003) describes as a form of „tokenism‟. Mowforth and Munt (2009) assert that the relationships of power between local people and other players in tourism activities can produce effects which reflect and promote the unequal development of tourism.

Many models have been developed in order to determine the degree of community participation in public affairs. Arnstein‟s (1969) typology of citizen participation appears to be the earliest model developed to classify a typology of citizen

participation. Arnstein‟s (1969) „ladder‟ or typology of citizen participation has eight levels, from the lowest category, called „manipulative participation‟, to the highest category, called „citizen control‟. These eight levels are then classified in three bands

according to the „degree of participation‟, which includes: non-participation; degrees of citizen tokenism; and degrees of citizen power (Arnstein, 1969). This model classifies the different degrees to which citizens can participate in development projects run by the government. The highest level, „citizen control‟, means have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power in decision-making to make the development responsive to their views, aspirations and needs (Arnstein, 1969).

Another community participation model is Pretty‟s (1995) model which includes the notion of „self-reliance‟ at a community level. This model is then further developed by Pretty, Guijt, Scoones and Thompson (1995). They describe community

participation in seven levels from the lowest to the highest level, as follows: manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation and self-mobilisation. Manipulative participation represents „pseudo‟ participation, which means there are local representatives on official boards who are not elected and who have no power to control the development process. In contrast, self-mobilisation describes full control and power of local people over all aspects of the development process (Pretty, et al. 1995). In the modified model of Pretty et al. (1995), the highest rung of participation- „self-mobilisation‟ means:

People participate by taking initiatives independently of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used (Pretty et al., 1995, p. 1252).

Choguill (1996) argues that Arnstein‟s model of citizen participation may not be suitable for less developed countries. He comments that participation processes in the less developed world appear to be far more constrained than in the developed world. For example, Timothy (1999) has conducted research to understand tourism

participation in Indonesia. His findings show that at the time of his study there was no participation in decision making by residents. The government planners perceived that residents were uneducated and unable to participate in the planning process while many residents felt they should not be involved in the decision making process. He argues that cultural and political traditions of the Javanese traditional hierarchy have heavily influenced community participation in decision making in tourism planning.

Residents in less developed countries mostly have low incomes and lack basic infrastructure in their communities and these circumstances affect their aim for participation to be engaged more on fulfilling their basic needs, which are currently insufficiently provided for by government, rather than focusing on claiming their political power or rights alone. According to Choguill (1996), the need for basic infrastructure appears to be a major driver for low-income communities to be willing to participate by contributing their labour, time and money in order to gain what they need instead of waiting for government support alone. Therefore, he developed a new ladder of community participation for less developed countries in which the concept of „self-management‟ is added. He concluded that community participation can be achieved at very different levels depending on the attitude of the government towards the community. The government can support, manipulate, reject or neglect poor people‟s demands (Choguill, 1996).

Table 2.2 Three models of community participation in decision making

Arnstein 1969 Pretty 1995 Choguill 1996

C itizen em p o wer m en

t Citizen control Self-mobilisation Empowerment

Delegated power Interactive participation Partnership

Partnership T o k en is m

Placation Functional participation Conciliation

Consultation Participation for material

incentives

Dissimulation Diplomacy

Informing Participation by consultation Informing

No n - p ar ticip atio

n Therapy Passive participation Conspiracy

Manipulation Manipulative participation Self-management

Source: From (Arnstein, 1969; Choguill, 1996; Pretty, 1995)

Note: The shaded areas represent differing degrees that locals influence decision-making

Table 2.2 compares and contrasts these three models of community participation in decision making. Pretty (1995) classifies community participation into seven levels in which, at the first five levels, (manipulative, passive, participation by consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation) people have no real power in the decision-making process. Therefore, genuine participation occurs only in the top-two levels, „self-mobilisation‟ and „interactive participation‟. In addition, the

„participation for material incentives‟ and „functional participation‟ levels appear to explain the two different means for people to participate rather than to express the levels of locals influence on decision-making. Therefore, Pretty‟s (1995) model may not demonstrate well the degrees of community participation in decision making. When considering Choguill‟s (1996) model, which extends Arnstein‟s idea, the first seven levels, starting from „empowerment‟ (actual control by community members) to „conspiracy‟ (non-participation), mainly echo the Arnstein‟s (1969) model; only the lowest level „self-management‟ is added, which represents the situations where some developments originate in the community itself without assistance from outside due to lack of government interest. Including „self-management‟ at the lowest rung of the ladder of community participation, seems problematic; it is not clear that communities which do not get support from the government should be seen as not participating. In contrast, the communities which establish their own development projects

independently, could be identified as fully in control over the decision-making process. The lack of outside support may not be an appropriate factor to use to

classify this particular situation at the bottom rung of community participation ladder. In fact, „self-management‟ should represent full participation because local people themselves participate in all processes of development including planning,

implementing and benefits. In comparison with Arnstein‟s and Pretty‟s models, this can be placed at the highest levels of participation „citizen control‟ and „self-

mobilisation‟, which means residents are fully in charge of the policy and managerial aspects.

When considering the main idea of Arnstein‟s model, the emphasis is on the degree of power (or control) over the effect of development on them, not about the concern for where locals get money or support from. Therefore, although, Arnstein does not mention whether locals can initiate their own development programme and fund it themselves, the main focus is still placed on the situations in which locals have full power to control decision-making, whether the money comes from the government or themselves. Therefore, from Table 2.2, it can be seen that the highest rungs on the community participation ladder in these three models can be achieved for the same reason; full local control over decision-making. According to the discussion above, it seems justifiable to use Arnstein‟s ladder of citizen participation as the theoretical

framework to assess community participation in tourism decision making in this research.