Community-Participation-ceptual-Frameworkehavioral-Sciences

aperitif是什么意思ritif在线翻译读音例-贾盛强微博

2023年10月10日发(作者：奥克拉荷马)

Available online at

ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

5 Asia Euro Conference 2014

Community participation in rural tourism: Towards a conceptual

framework

Sudesh Prabhakaran, Vikneswaran Nair*, Sridar Ramachandran

aa,b,c

a,b

School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts, Taylor’s University, No.1, Jalan Taylor’s, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Institute of Tropical Forestry and Forest Product, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

This study presents a discussion of the community participation construct, within a rural tourism perspective. The study also

reviews the methodological characteristics of community participation’s theory and measurement and its association to rural

tourism environment. The extant literature is revisited to establish taxonomy of the methodological procedures for measuring

community participation from the context of rural tourism. Hence, proposing a comprehensive conceptual framework featuring

its multifaceted, intertwined and progressive nature for community participation in a rural tourism environment.

(/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of Asia Euro Conference 2014.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of 5AEC2014.

Keywords: Community Participation; Rural Tourism; Conceptual Framework

1. Introduction

Studies conducted by scholars have explained that many rural communities have diversified their local economy

to tourism to improve their livelihood (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Mair, 2006). In developing or launching a

tourism industry, communities rummage to change themselves from an economy of product manufacturing to a site

of services (Gill, 1997). Tourism has the prospective to mark a positive economic influence, yet the achievement of

this industry is not a given and the results are not constantly optimistic. Tourism can be manipulative and in cultural

terms, socially, and environmentally detrimental and can be unsuccessful to deliver an anticipated economic lift

(Sharpley, 2002).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-035-629-5509; fax: +6-035-629-5522.

E-mail address: @

(/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of 5AEC2014.

doi: 10.1016/.2014.07.298

Sudesh Prabhakaran et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

291

Communities can play a part in the decision-making practice (Zhao and Ritchie, 2007; Li, 2005; Li, 2004; Tosun,

2000; Chok and Macbeth, 2007). One of the main fundamental ideologies of pro-poor tourism evidently states that

local communities “must c

ontribute in tourism decisions if their livelihood significances are to be mirrored in the

way tourism is developed” (Chok and Macbeth, 2007). Tosun (2006) in his study believed that by having

participatory approach would enable employment of principles of sustainable tourism by producing enhanced

opportunities for local residents to gain larger and more balanced benefits from tourism which is taking place in

their areas, which will subsequently lead to a positive attitudes to in conserving the local resources and nature

(Inskeep, 1994). Participation is a concept that differs through its application and explanation. The method

participation is defined similarly depends on the situation in which it happens. For certain, it is a substance of

principle; for others, practice (World Bank, 1995).

The essential characteristic of this research line is its multidisciplinary (Lasker and Weiss, 2003) there are many

possible approaches to studying community participation rural tourism. This study investigates the degree to which a

multifaceted approach to community participation in rural tourism including waste management, economy, social

and community-based service-learning can enhance the participation and how it influences community’s attitudes

and perceptions about their role in a rural tourism context.

2. Literature Review

The community participation is viewed as a discussion or consultancy between the local people and the local

government based on the Skeffington Report (1969). In addition the report explains the involvement of the both

party’s action of policies and proposal development. Nevertheless, it is only a comprehensive participation when

there is complete participation by the local in the planning procedure (Litchfield, 1996).. Kayat (2002) also discuss

that public involvement is not solitary about the affiliation between the local government and the local community

but it is an authorization process given to the local community for decision making.

The necessity for community to take part during decision making process are for their own interest in addition to

the society’s broad involvement, since preparation undertakings effects the community lives was enlightened in

detail by Slocum and Thomas-Slayter (1995). There are also numerous debates as to why the community

participation process is vital from the perspective of professional and citizens working with local government which

have been developed by the WHO (2002).

The view of the locals must be taken into consideration so that it will aid attain worthy decision making process

and manage resource competently and effectively (WHO, 2002). The professionals in the other pointer has approved

that involving the community might contribute to an enhanced decision making, in fact, community participation

also has the probability to teach and escalate their responsiveness by being more receptive.

Based on a study conducted by Glass (1979) community participation in development will produce greater

information exchange between the community and the planners, which can be a significant component to upkeep the

government and the proposed development. To confirm the projected plan will mirror their aims encouraging

community to give their say and recognising their opinions on a concern is essential to be completed.

A study conducted by Fagence (1977) has explained that community participation is a portion of the democratic

system which will permit the locals to express their views on development matters which will affect their lives in the

future. Based on another study by Chekki (1979, cited in James and Blamey, 1999) has elucidated that the

292 Sudesh Prabhakaran et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

participation in planning and decision making is a human right since the processes and decision are made based on

public interest.

Timothy and Tosun (2003) in their study added that the participation in the decision making process means that

residents have the opportunities to voice their hopes, desires and fears for the development and contribute to

planning process form their own experiences.

3. Conceptual Framework of Community Participation

Table 1. Literature on areas of community participation

Topic covered Authors

Tourism 1,4,12,21,23,25,26,27

Environment 2,3,7,10,12,13,16, 21,25.26

Policy and governance 6,9,13,17,23, 24, 27, 31

Attitudes 1,2,3,5,7,11,15,17,19,22,23,25,27,30,31

Empowerment and Power 1,7,8.10,12,15,17,19,22,28,31

Stakeholders 1,2,3,5,6,8,11,15,18,21,22,23,27,28,29,30

Society involvement level 1,2,6,7,9,11,12,14,15,17,19,21,27,29,30,31

1. Agrawal and Gibson (1999); 2. Banyan (2002); 3. Brooke and Barbara (2004 ;) 4. Halimi and Ingle (2005); 5. UNDP. (2006); 6. Craig (2007);

7. Adamson and Bromiley (2008); 8. Banks and Orton (2005); 9. Barnes, Newman and Sullivan, (2007); 10. Gilchrist (2004); 11. Williams

(2005); 12. Andharia, J. (2002); 13. Pardasani (2005); 14. Bayley (1991); 15. Alpertand Dunham, (1989); 16. Cordner (1998); 17. Marzuki

(2009); 18. Briffett, Obbard and Mackee (2004); 19. Campbell and Marshall (2000); 20. Dalton (2005); 21. McGlashan and Williams (2003); 22.

Rowe and Frewer (2000); 23. Choi and Sirakaya (2006).; 24. Tribe (2004); 25. Homan (2005); 26. Gary. and Litz(2005);27. OECD (1995); 28.

Argyriades, (2010); 29. Blume, Ford, Baldwin and Huang (2010); 30. Brown and McCracken (2009) 31. Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency (2007);

Community participation in the tourism sector has been growing rapidly. Agrawal and Gibson (1999); in their

findings state that there is close relationship between tourism and environment. The study also has shown that the

significance of conservational planning for tourism which is becoming gradually accepted around the world.

Throughout recent years, substantial knowledge has been attained about environmental implication of tourism and

analyzing the consequences of various mistakes made in developing tourism (Andharia, J., 2002) (Halimi and Ingle,

2005) (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). McGlashan and Williams (2003) has further suggested that community

participation in tourism is a process to involve and empower the associated stakeholders the privileges in making

decision that affects their lives (Homan ,2005)( Gary and Litz , 2005); (OECD ,1995).

In terms of environment the degradation of the physical environment, this condition impacts the natural

environment aesthetically and health wise (Brooke and Barbara 2004).) the impact of not properly planning the rural

tourism development and the loss of sustainability causes the local community in terms of economic value and

environmental value of the site (Adamson and Bromiley, 2008) (McGlashan and Williams, 2003) (Gilchrist, 2004);

The continuous occurrence of unplanned rural tourism activities may be psychologically disheartening to a user and

the local community and clearly stands in way of tourism development.

Numerous models have categorised the effect of tourism development on local communities (Williams, 2005)

Campbell and Marshall, 2000). The relational interactions between the locals and the visitors whether actual or

unreal develops a matter of dispute in the minds of the local community (Campbell and Marshall, 2000) (Rowe and

Sudesh Prabhakaran et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

293

basic wants of the locals so as to evade possible socio-political dangers for visitors and tourism expansion” (Tosun,

2006,) (Adamson and Bromiley ,2008). While this kind of participation is viewed by many people as a substitute for

genuine participation and an method to enable power holders to substitute tourism development primarily to meet

the desire of decision makers, tourism operators and tourists, it is similar to influence and therapy in Arnstein’s

model and passive and manipulative in Pretty’s typology (Tosun, 2006).

The word “community” in the policy or governance will refer to the locals and workers as they will be close by to

the development which will be taking place (Marzuki, 2009) . The community involvement process simply turns out

to be obligatory in the thorough valuation, not in the initial valuation. Based on a study done by Briffett (2004),

community involvement method in policy and governance can be divided into two different stages; first is done

using surveys or having meetings during the scheduling stage of the study. The second stage is when a written

comment from the community is obtained after the complete report is ready. Leong (1991, cited in Briffett et al.,

2004) in the other hand has exposed that community involvement is not vital for most of the reports submitted.

4. Review and Analysis of Measurement Methodologies

The approaches of experiential community participation studies have been reviewed. This assessment has formed

Figures 1, with taxonomy of all the empirical studies of community participation measurement. Figure 1 presents a

review and classification of mixed method techniques divided into two blocks: qualitative techniques and

quantitative techniques.

Methodology Procedures Authors

Semi Structured Interviews

Framework

Ritchie & Spencer, 1994

Analysis

Mack et al, 2005

Boyce and Neale, 2006

Smith and Albaum, 2005

Direct Observation

Lasker and Guidry (2009)

Regression analysis

Content from Interviews

Walle, 1997).

Descriptive analysis

Salant and Dillman (1994

Factor analysis

Holton & Burnett, 1997

Correlation

Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins, 2001).

Analysis

Questionnaire Survey

T-Test

294 Sudesh Prabhakaran et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

A regression analysis is also undertaken. It is to describe and evaluates the connections between a given

dependent variable (dv) and one or more independent variables (iv). Previous studies focusing on similar issues have

established significant results using regression analysis ( Peng & Luo, 2000; Musteen et al, 2010). The researcher

can therefore adopt that regression is a suitable statistical method in order to confirm or disconfirm the chosen

hypotheses.

Illustrations are studies inside which usually questionnaires are employed that will incorporate a large amount of

questions (variables). As a result of these big numbers of variables that are into play, the study could become rather

complicated. Besides, it could possibly well be that many of the variables measure different elements of a same

underlying variable.

Factor analysis tries to create intercorrelated variables collectively under more general, underlying variables.

Particularly, the objective of factor analysis is to reduce “the dimensionality of the initial space and to give an

interpretation for the new space, spanned by way of a reduced number of new dimensions which work to underlie

the old ones” (Rietveld & Van Hout 1993), or even explain the variance inside the observed variables in relation to

underlying latent factors”(Habing 2003) Thus, factor analysis offers not only the chance of gaining a clear viewof

the data, but also the possibility of while using output in subsequent analyses (Field 2000; Rietveld & Van Hout

1993).

5. Conclusion

Community participation has been a commendable area of scholars’ investigation for nearly 43 years. Even

though their importance and interest, community participation studies have been assessed in terms of theory and has

been lacking in conceptual framework in terms of rural tourism (Tosun ,2006; Abelson, 2006),

While involvement and participation of communities in the tourism industry can be viewed in the decision-

making process and in the sharing of tourism benefits, community participation through employment brings more

economic benefits directly to the household level On the other hand, participation is also open to a variety of

interpretations arising from the fact that a ladder encompassing different levels of participation exists which often

range from ‘only being told of’ to being able to influence or determine every aspect of the tourism development

(Cole, 2006)

The very large number of previous studies on community participation, both theoretical and empirical, gives the

scholar interest in this subject. Among the multidimensionality of all tourism studies, these visualizations of

community participation are never general enough to offer a global perspective; as with the participation of rural

tourism, commonly it is hard to assume collective truths.

For the concentration and multiplicity of journals reviewed, many have covered some relevant contributions.

However, the proposed model is a valuable guideline for both public and private tourism sector: the features provide

a framework for examining and governing the valuable tool of community participation. Focusing on one or other

feature will provide decision makers with a more efficient management of community participation in the rural

tourism setting.

Acknowledgements

Sudesh Prabhakaran et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144 ( 2014 ) 290 – 295

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. (1999 ) Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation Elsevier

Science Ltd Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 629±649,

Argyriades, D. (2010), “From bureaucracy to debureaucratization?”, Public Organization Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 275

-97

Banks, S., & Orton, A. (2007). ‘The grit in the oyster’: Community development workers in a modernizing local authority. Community

Development Journal, 42(1), 97-113.

Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. C. (2007). Power, participation and political renewal: case studies in public participation. The Policy

Press.

Banyan, M.E (2004) Wiring Organizations For Community Governance: Characteristics of High Organizational Citizenship, Administrative

Theory & Praxis, Vol.26 No. 3, pp. 325-344

Brooke Ann Zanetell, Barbara A Knuth (2004) Participation Rhetoric or Community-Based Management Reality? Influences on Willingness to

Participate in a Venezuelan Freshwater Fishery World Development, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp. 793-807

Blume, B.D., Ford, J.K., Baldwin, T.T. and Huang, J.L. (2010), “Transfer of training: a meta analytic review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36

No. 4, pp. 1065-105.

Briedenhann, J. and Wickens, E (2004) Rural tourism — meeting the challenges of the new South Africa, International Journal of Tourism

Research, Vol 6 (3) pages 189

–203, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.484

Briffett, C., Obbard, J., & Mackee, J. (2004). Environmental assessment in Malaysia: a means to an end or a new beginning?. Impact Assessment

and Project Appraisal, 22(3), 221-233.

Brown, T.C. and McCracken, M. (2009), “A bridge of understanding: how barriers to training participation become barriers to training

transfer”,

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 492-512

Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2000). Public involvement and planning: looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies, 5(3),

321-344.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2007), Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, available at: (accessed 4

May 2007).

Craig, G. (2007) Community capacity-building: Something old, something new . . .? Critical Social Policy, vol. 27 no. 3 pp. 335-359

Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism management, 27(6), 1274-1289.

Chok, S. and Macbeth, J. (2007). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: a critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’ and implications for

sustainability, Current Issues in Tourism, 10 (2&3) 144-164

Gill, A. (1997). Enhancing social interactions in new resource towns: Planning perspectives. Tijdschrift voor Economische en

Sociale Geografie,

81(5), 348–363

Halimi, S and Ingle, M (2005). The community based environmental management toolkit for

Vietnam. Portland State University.

Inskeep, E. (1994). National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

Lasker R.D., Weiss E.S (2003) Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative

practice and research. Mar;80(1):14-47 J Urban Health

Li, W. (2005). Community decision-making: participation in development, Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1) 132-143

Li, Y. (2004). Exploring community tourism in China: the case of Nanshan tourism zone, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (3) 175-193

Marzuki, A. (2009). A Review On Public Participation In Environmental Impact Assessment In Malaysia. Theoretical & Empirical Researches in

Urban Management, 3(12).

Mcglashan, D. J., & Williams, E. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in coastal decision-making processes. Local Environment, 8(1), 85-94.

Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: A study

of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business, 45(3), 197-205.

Peng, M., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: The Nature of a Micro-Macro Link. The Academy

of Management Journal, 486-501

Rietveld, T. and Van Hout, R. (1993) Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

着迷的英文译语怎么说-2016年10月29日