Enhancing community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in developing countries: Lessons from Malawi

Abstract

Most studies on community participation in tourism planning only advocate the importance of the concept and/or identify barriers without articulating the required actions or strategies to actually promote community participation. Based on a study in two protected areas in Malawi, this paper identifies and discusses possible strategies that can enhance community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in developing countries. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study participants were from protected area management agencies, government departments, non-governmental organisations, tourism operators and the local population surrounding the two protected areas. The findings suggest the need for a rethink on how local communities around protected areas are involved in tourism planning in developing country contexts. Six strategies emerged as major prerequisites to achieve full and active community participation: public awareness and education; capacity building; creation of linkages; use of appropriate participation methods; involvement of appropriate local community organisations and decentralisation and coordination of relevant management organisations.

Keywords

Community participation tourism planning protected areas national parks developing countries Malawi

Introduction

Public participation entails involving people or interest groups who are outside the formal decision-making processes of government with the view of drawing stakeholders into decision-making processes (Jones, 2007). Public participation has been advanced both as a means and an end in different settings and a range of disciplines have contributed to the understanding and growth of the concept. Within the tourism literature, community participation dates back to the early 1970s when Gunn (1972) advocated public participation in tourism development through the use of forums. Interest in the community approach further increased after Murphy’s (1985) seminal work (Tourism: A Community Approach) argued that tourism relies upon the involvement of local people. The concept has now become a catchword for many stakeholders involved in tourism development.

In the developing world, it is now more difficult to find a development project which does not claim to have used the participatory approach, involving bottom-up planning and claiming empowerment of local people (Henkel and Stirrat, 2001; Lane, 2005). In tourism, community participation receives much attention, both as an element of local economic development and conservation (Ashley and Roe, 1998). Few are opposed to the concept of community participation in planning and development but the debate which still remains is the determination of the appropriate levels of involvement or degrees of citizen empowerment to ensure meaningful participation.

Participation of local people in the tourism planning process is one of the ways through which local communities can get involved in tourism development and improve their share of tourism benefits. Most of the literature, however, look at the local community’s involvement in the sharing of tourism benefits or the impacts of tourism development while overlooking their actual involvement in decision making during the planning process (see Ashley and Jones, 2001; Mahony and Van Zyl, 2002; Mbaiwa, 2003, 2005; Novelli et al., 2006; Sebele, 2010; Snyman, 2012; Spenceley and Goodwin, 2007; Stone and Stone, 2011). Meaningful involvement of local communities in the tourism planning process entails empowerment of local residents to enable them to set their own goals, and to identify their hopes and concerns for tourism, in order that tourism benefits to the community are maximised (Murphy, 1988; Timothy, 1999). But there are a number of operational, structural and cultural limitations to such an approach that are specific to developing countries (see Marzuki et al., 2012; Saufi et al., 2014; Tosun, 2000). Considering the relative scale of the benefits that can accrue to poor communities from tourism development, there is a strong imperative to identify and assess strategies that can be put in place to enhance community participation in tourism planning. Most studies on community participation only advocate the importance of the concept without articulating the required actions or strategies to promote community participation (Okazaki, 2008). Therefore, this paper aims to address this research and implementation gap, focusing upon protected area-based tourism, a significant and often underutilised development option in many developing countries. With Malawi as a case study, this paper identifies and discusses possible strategies which can enhance community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in the developing world.

The benefits of community involvement in tourism planning

Community participation in tourism planning is advanced for a number of reasons, not least its purported contribution to achieving sustainable tourism development (Inskeep, 1994; Joppe, 1996; Ritchie, 1988; Tosun and Jenkins, 1996). Community tourism planning advocates argue that the community approach to tourism development is a prerequisite of sustainability. This argument is based on the premise that the more local residents benefit from tourism, the more likely they are to help preserve natural and cultural heritage and provide support for tourism in their communities (Timothy, 1999). For protected areas, the benefits that local communities obtain from tourism development act as incentives for conservation of the natural resources on which most protected area-based tourism products depend. Furthermore, during the planning process, input from local citizens is critical as they are the major custodians of the natural and cultural resources in a destination. Local people’s involvement can therefore facilitate the development of tourism which is more responsive to the local economic and social needs of a community (Haywood, 1988; Krippendorf, 1982; Murphy, 1983).

When local communities are involved in the tourism planning process, they have a sense of ownership of the development plans and they provide the necessary support to tourism development-related activities thereby increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of the plans (Inskeep, 1991). This sense of ownership can also contribute to the sustainable use of natural resources by local people in a destination (Mbaiwa, 2007). If the needs and desires of local people find their way into a tourism plan, this increases the legitimacy of the final recommendations and policy, and subsequently eases implementation of the plan (Haywood, 1988). In addition to helping the design of better plans, the involvement of local communities facilitates better implementation of tourism plans and strategies (Loukissas, 1983; Tosun and Timothy, 2003). The participation process arouses community support which often leads to acceptance of the proposed tourism development (Haywood, 1988; Marzuki et al., 2012; Prentice, 1993).

During the planning process, local communities’ participation also assists in reducing any possible conflicts as all the stakeholders have the opportunity to understand the viewpoints of others (Hardy et al., 2002; Jones, 2007; Reid et al., 2004). Since public participation needs to be informative, participation further facilitates the finding of appropriate solutions for local communities as the process incorporates knowledge, values, and views of local people thereby providing a better overview of their problems (Jones, 2007; Lea, 1988). Information is a very useful resource in any planning process as it facilitates meaningful participation in decision making (Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990). In this context, community participation during the planning process enables local people to explain to technocrats what will work based on the knowledge they have about local conditions (Darier et al., 1999).

Community tourism planning also makes it possible for a destination to deliver tourism experiences which satisfy both tourists and local residents (Simmons, 1994). The participation of the local residents in the tourism planning process facilitates the desired guest–host relationships where tourists feel welcome in a destination (Haywood, 1988). The consensus arising from community involvement in planning can also contribute to creating a hospitable atmosphere for visitors (Simmons, 1994).

Importantly, involvement of local communities in tourism planning plays a role in strengthening the democratisation process in the destination as the gap between local people and bureaucratic decision makers is narrowed during the planning process (Jones, 2007; Tosun and Timothy, 2003). This can contribute to the fairer distribution of tourism benefits and costs (Pearce, 1992; Tosun and Timothy, 2003) as locals are empowered to realise more opportunities and greater benefits from tourism (Scheyvens, 1999; Wells, 1996). But effective community participation in tourism may only be achieved when the communities are empowered economically, psychologically, socially and politically (Akama, 1996; Scheyvens, 1999). Such empowerment enables the communities to make decisions regarding tourism development and conservation in their communities (Akama, 1996).

Mechanisms for facilitating community participation

We noted above that community involvement in tourism planning in developing countries faces certain challenges. The challenges can further be exacerbated in planning concerning tourism in and around protected areas and include: inadequate financial resources; inadequate information; lack of trained human resource in tourism planning; unfair distribution of tourism benefits; human–wildlife conflicts; low education levels of local people; poverty and apathy; centralised public administration and lack of coordination (Bello, 2015; Marzuki et al., 2012; Saufi et al., 2014; Tosun, 2000). With these challenges in mind, the continued advocacy for community participation in such settings needs to incorporate clear strategies which can facilitate public participation. When tourism is promoted as a tool for local development and conservation, several strategies need to be put in place to enhance community involvement in both tourism planning and the consequent sharing of tourism benefits.

The tourism industry is mainly controlled by a network of global capital and such control brings in structural inequalities between external developers and any local opponents (Blackstock, 2005). As a result, a socially equitable decision-making process in the development of tourism is resisted as it challenges the interests of capital invested in the tourism industry (de Kadt, 1979). To ensure that the voices of local people are heard and taken seriously, it is important to build up local people’s organisations to facilitate better engagement of local communities in tourism development planning (de Araujo and Bramwell, 2002; Wells, 1996). Further to using local organisations in facilitating local community participation, it is necessary to choose the right participation mechanisms during the tourism planning process (Simmons, 1994). Different techniques of community participation should be used for different situations and communities in order to address different objectives at different stages (Burns et al., 2004; Simmons, 1994).

Though public participation can facilitate the acceptance of plans, the plans might not be accepted by communities if the individuals involved are not a true or acceptable representation of the affected community (Loukissas, 1983). This justifies the need, as proposed by Haywood (1988), to let communities select their own representatives in the planning processes without undue external interference. Different groups with conflicting interests exist in communities, and the dominance or dependence relationships in these places need to be understood. Power relations in a community have a great influence on outcomes of local decision making within the community (Blackstock, 2005; Reed, 1997). The dependence or dominance relationships at village level encourage the exploitation of the poor or disadvantaged by giving power to the dominant individuals such as traders, landlords and bureaucrats (Burkey, 1993). Therefore, all groups of people in any community need to be represented in the tourism planning process to ensure that their needs and desires are considered during tourism development planning.

Case study areas

Liwonde National Park and Majete Wildlife Reserve are Malawi’s leading wildlife tourism destinations and are located in the southern region of Malawi. Liwonde National Park is publicly managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) and covers 548 km². The park has two lodges with camping sites under concession to private tourism operators and is surrounded by several tourism establishments such as lodges, camping sites and restaurants, most of which are concentrated at Liwonde town which is only 6 km from the park’s main entrance. Liwonde National Park received 11,729 visitors in 2013 generating MK61, 677,997.95 (approx. US$169,254) in tourism revenue.

Majete Wildlife Reserve is a government owned but privately managed protected area that covers 704 km². The reserve was under DNPW management until 2003 when African Parks, a not for profit organisation, was given a 25-year full management responsibility. The reserve has four tourist facilities; a day visitor’s centre, two lodges and a community camping site. There is only one small lodge outside the reserve, and the other nearest tourism establishments are located at Chikwawa Boma which is 17 km away from the reserve’s main entrance. Majete Wildlife Reserve received 7614 visitors in 2013 generating US$332,000 (approx. MK120, 980,800) in tourism revenue.

A review of contemporary literature shows that only one in-depth study by Novelli and Scarth (2007) has been undertaken to examine the relationship between protected area-based tourism, conservation and local communities in Malawi. This study revealed that there are direct links between tourism and conservation in Liwonde National Park (Novelli and Scarth, 2007). But even though the National Parks and Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2004 acknowledges the need for community involvement, the extent to which that is extended to park management was found to be questionable. Limited finances and centralised administration and planning within the DNPW were identified as the main internal challenges affecting local community participation. The study was being carried out when DNPW was in the process of establishing Village Natural Resources Management Committees as a step towards community involvement. However, Novelli and Scarth (2007: 68) noted that this process reflected coercive participation as the messages carried ‘tones of autocracy rather than empowerment’.

The local communities surrounding the two protected areas interface with the protected area management agencies and other stakeholders through community organisations. Liwonde National Park has 32 Village Natural Resource Committees (VNRCs) while Majete Wildlife Reserve has 19 community-based organisations (CBOs). The VNRC or a CBO is a Group Village Headman level committee responsible for coordinating natural resource management and developmental activities on behalf of the villages under the Group Village Headman.

Currently, the community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas in Malawi still faces challenges (Bello, 2015). Despite the challenges, the two protected areas which are under two different governance models have attained different levels of community participation as per Pretty’s (1995) typology. At Majete Wildlife Reserve, a privately managed protected area, functional community participation in tourism planning has been achieved while Liwonde, a publicly managed national park could only attain participation by consultation (Bello, 2015).

Research methods

The data collection for the study on which this paper is based was carried out from June to September 2013. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The participants for the study were drawn from protected area management agencies, local people surrounding the two protected areas, government departments, tourism businesses, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in planning and management of the areas as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Number of participants per stakeholder group.

Stakeholder group	Male	Female	Total number of participants
Local Communities	30	11	41
Protected Area Management Agencies (DNPW and African Parks)	8	1	9
Department of Tourism (DoT)	4	0	4
Tourism businesses	5	1	6
NGOs	4	0	4
Total	51	13	64

DNPW: Department of National Parks and Wildlife; NGOs: non-governmental organisations.

Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used in selecting the participants for this study. In a qualitative inquiry, the final number of participants can be determined by the quality and richness of the data which emerge from the interviews and sampling stops when data saturation is reached. As noted by Guest et al. (2006), data saturation may be attained even with a small number of interviews (as few as six), as data saturation is about the richness of the data rather than the sample size (Burmeister and Aitken, 2012; Fusch and Ness, 2015). In this study, 40 individual interviews and 4 focus group discussions were carried out with various stakeholders as indicated in Table 1. After undertaking these interviews and focus groups, it was judged unnecessary to continue with the process as no new information or themes emerged from subsequent participants (Dicicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).

Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Thematic analysis is a theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and involves identification, analysis, reporting themes and interpreting various aspects of a research topic (Attride-Sterling, 2001; Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis followed a six-phase guide to performing thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006).

Findings and discussion

From analysis of the data, six strategies emerged as the major prerequisites to achieve full and active community participation in tourism planning associated with protected areas. These strategies are: public awareness and education; capacity building; use of appropriate participation methods; use of appropriate local community organisations and decentralisation of public administration and coordination of local organisations.

Public awareness and education in tourism

The need for all stakeholders involved in tourism planning to have some basic understanding of issues associated with tourism development emerged as a major prerequisite for effective participation. Many local communities in developing countries have difficulties in comprehending complex and technical tourism issues. As indicated by one of the local community members in Liwonde, most local people around protected areas do not know much about tourism development issues. As such there is a need to raise local communities’ awareness on both conservation and tourism issues. The above sentiments were voiced by one of the villagers at Majete who said:

… here we don’t know much on how we can relate the reserve and tourism development; maybe our CBO [Community Based Organisation] leaders know but not us local people. We will appreciate if we are well informed about issues of tourism not only conservation for us to meaningfully participate in issues to do with tourism. Who doesn’t want to benefit from tourism? We need to be told what to do. (Limbani – Local Community)

It was argued by a participant from an NGO, that public awareness and education in tourism are vital in community tourism planning to ensure that local communities know from the beginning of the process the role of tourism, its benefits and costs, a view supported by Marzuki et al. (2012). Well-informed people participate effectively in decision making; therefore, there is a need for public education on tourism issues to ensure meaningful contributions from local people during the tourism planning process (Ife and Tesoriero, 2006; Simmons, 1994). Protected area management agencies in Malawi have units responsible for community extension and education, but their focus has mainly been on environmental education. In this regard, it is necessary for the management agencies to use the units within their system that already have direct links with local communities to raise awareness of tourism. Such efforts need to be complemented by other stakeholders, specifically the Department of Tourism and relevant NGOs. As indicated by Simmons (1994), creating public awareness about tourism should focus on its benefits, costs and the structure of the industry in general. It is only when local people have a fair understanding of tourism that they can correctly identify their roles in tourism development and effectively participate in any processes related to protected area-based tourism development.

Capacity building

Lack of capacity in tourism and tourism planning for both local communities and the protected area management agencies, respectively, was identified by most participants as a problem affecting the participation of local people in tourism planning. Protected area management agencies lack capacity in community tourism planning while local communities surrounding both protected areas lack basic skills and knowledge in tourism for them to participate in the sharing of tourism benefits. It was observed by a participant from DNPW that:

… DNPW needs to strengthen its capacity first for it to be in a position to build the capacity of local communities in tourism. If you need to build capacity of others; you must have your capacity good and running otherwise the first step is to tackle your capacity problems before moving to other people. That’s the issue. It is quite challenging but it has to be addressed to have effective community tourism planning. We should accept that we lack capacity and this problem has to be addressed. (Fombe – DNPW)

The need to build the capacity of technocrats involved in tourism planning was also expressed by an officer from the Department of Tourism who said:

Unfortunately in this country, you learn most of things on the job especially in tourism. The people that we have; have a long way to go for them to have a better understanding of tourism planning associated with protected areas. In fact, they need to be sent for training otherwise they will be saying we are going to plan for this when they don’t know anything. (Mwatha – DoT)

Most participants from the local communities, NGOs, protected area management agencies, Department of Tourism and tour operators stressed the need for all related stakeholders, especially government, protected area management agencies and NGOs, to work together in building capacity for local communities in tourism-related business activities. It was explained by a participant from DNPW that:

… we need to train local communities around Liwonde National Park and advise them on all available opportunities associated with protected area tourism. For us to have an effective partnership in protected area management; local people need to benefit from their participation and that can be achieved if they are trained in different livelihood initiatives which are nature based. Once this is done with the help of NGOs, we hope that local people’s participation in tourism development issues will be greatly improved. (Kondowe – DNPW)

In order to improve the level of local community participation in protected area-based tourism planning, protected area management agencies and responsible government departments need to endeavour to build the technical capacity in tourism planning within the relevant agencies and departments. It has been observed that with the exception of challenges in implementing a decentralisation policy, the country has the legislative and regulative framework which can facilitate the participation of local communities in tourism planning. The National Parks and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2004, the wildlife policy and the tourism policy for Malawi acknowledge the need to involve local people in protected area management and tourism planning (Department of Tourism, 2006; DNPW, 2000; Malawi Government, 2004). Therefore, tourism planning authorities need to have the human resource trained in tourism planning to facilitate the effective participation of local communities. Further to building capacity within protected area management agencies, the local people also need to have some basic understanding of the tourism industry and wildlife conservation (Mahony and Van Zyl, 2002; Novelli and Gebhardt, 2007; Spenceley and Goodwin, 2007).

Creating linkages

Unfair distribution of tourism benefits to local communities around protected areas is one of the limiting factors of community participation in tourism planning (Bello, 2015; Goodwin, 2002). Therefore, in addition to capacity building, to ensure that tourism benefits are spread across and within all the communities that surround a protected area there is a need to create linkages which can provide local people with direct access to the tourists and/or the tourism industry. After capacity building in various income generating activities, it should be realised that tourism benefits to local communities are mainly maximised in the informal sector (Goodwin et al., 1998). In this regard, any form of enclave tourism should be discouraged in protected areas. In order to maximise tourism contribution to the local economy, there is a need to create linkages between tourism and the existing local economy (Ashley and Roe, 1998; Goodwin, 2002).

It was proposed by the majority of participants in the study on which this paper is based that there is a need for tourism operators to provide tourists with opportunities to visit surrounding villages in addition to having wildlife safaris. That can provide local people access to the tourism market. Programmes for local communities with a focus on non-capital intensive enterprises and the promotion of local art, handicrafts and local food can facilitate the participation of local communities in the sharing of tourism benefits (Goodwin, 2002; Mowforth and Munt, 2009). Malawi has a rich cultural heritage and with proper guidance by tourism experts; local people can be asked to revive most of their traditions and cultural festivities which could in turn be packaged as tourist products to complement wildlife tourism.

Creation and use of appropriate local CBOs

In any public participation process in planning, local CBOs play a critical role in facilitating the collaboration between local people and planning authorities (Wells, 1996). These local CBOs work as vehicles for community participation. In both of the protected areas in this study, the management agencies facilitated the creation of the CBOs. All the participant groups were of the view that these are the right local-based organisations to facilitate the participation of local people in tourism planning associated with the protected areas. As explained by one of the villagers from Majete:

… as a community we are happy with the current CBO set up to be used in any activities related to conservation and tourism development associated with the reserve. The CBO has facilitated the interface between the local people here and African Parks on wildlife conservation very well. So the same can work perfectly as a vehicle for community participation in tourism development. (Jeke – Local Community)

One community leader from Liwonde agreed about the need to use the current community organisations in any community tourism planning processes. He commented:

… looking at the community dynamics around this park, the VNRCs [Village Natural Resource Committees] which were formed some time back are the right tools for community involvement on any issues associated with the park, be it tourism developmental or to do with wildlife conservation. The structures recognise the roles of our traditional chiefs by giving them that advisory role. The structures were designed on purpose to exclude the traditional chiefs on the day to day operations and everybody is happy with the set up. It’s a functional system for us and it should be used. (Mofolo – Local Community)

The local CBOs at Majete and Liwonde are similar in their set up as each organisation falls under the jurisdiction of one Group Village Headman. In order to enhance community participation in the tourism planning process, protected area management agencies need to identify stakeholders to engage in conservation and tourism development from the surrounding areas. In both protected areas, all villages under Group Village Heads bordering the protected areas were identified as constituents with whom the agencies work with in any protected area-related activities (African Parks, 2013; Malawi Government, 2005). Therefore, engaging the local communities through CBOs within the villages improves local people’s participation in tourism planning as such organisations provide points of contact within the villages. These structures need to be created in such a way that they are not under any direct influence of the traditional leaders in their daily operations but are accepted by both the local community and the traditional leadership. The CBO leaders are expected to be frequently updating their traditional leaders on the operations of the organisations with regard to conservation and tourism planning activities. The structures were reported by the local community participants to be working well without any conflicts with the traditional leadership.

The findings of this study suggest that for the voices of local communities to be heard and taken seriously, it is important to build up local CBOs around protected areas to facilitate better and effective local community participation in planning. As proposed by Novelli and Gebhardt (2007), there is a need for concerted effort from government and other stakeholders to support the creation of local organisations in the tourism sector to ensure effective participation of local people in tourism. Intermediary and local organisations play a vital role in supporting local communities’ efforts in a structured way in participatory development programmes.

Use of appropriate community participation methods

Various public participation techniques have been used by the protected area management agencies at different times during the tourism planning process. Household Questionnaire surveys have been used by both African Parks and DNPW to obtain data on the socio-economic status of local communities surrounding Majete Wildlife Reserve and Liwonde National Park. According to a participant from one NGO, the other common public participation methods being used by both protected area management agencies are workshops and community meetings. Most participants indicated that questionnaire surveys, workshops and community meetings should continue to be used as public participation methods during the tourism planning process. It was explained by another participant from an NGO that:

… questionnaire surveys or interviews are vital in the early stages of the tourism planning process and should always be used as a participation method. In our villages it is more effective to get people’s ideas on various issues individually. That is when you can learn more. In a meeting, some people will not speak but when you get them as individuals, they are able to tell you a lot of information which can also be cross checked at some bigger gathering. (Msonda – NGO)

In order to enhance the participation of local people during the tourism planning process, mainly during the workshops, seminars and community meetings, most of the participants were of the view that planners need to make use of focus group discussions and Nominal Group Techniques.¹ It was explained by an officer from DNPW that:

… we know our culture and traditions can at times limit the participation of people during the community meetings. You know open community meetings are a preferred way of public participation by local people and we can’t do away with that. What we need to be doing now is to start using focus group discussions during such community meetings. Our culture doesn’t allow us to say something against much older people openly so focus group discussion will help to have local people in groups where they can contribute to issues freely. In our environmental planning meetings, this works quite well and this can also enhance participation during tourism planning. (Dzowera – DNPW)

The use of focus group discussions during the community meetings was also indicated as a better way of enhancing participation; a female member of a traditional dancing group from Majete revealed that:

… during the normal community meetings we have in the village, not everybody feels free to speak but if an opportunity was made available to be splitting us into groups at each gathering, it would better. Let us women discuss issues on our own and the youth on their own, like that you will see more people will be contributing. Otherwise, we will continue to have the very same vocal people dominating during our meetings. (Jeke – Local Community)

It was further indicated by participants from the protected area management agencies and NGOs that the Nominal Group Technique is another useful method of participation during planning workshops or meetings which involve several stakeholders. A participant from African Parks said that:

… above the community meetings, we engage local people through their representatives at MWRA [Majete Wildlife Reserve Association] and JLC [Joint Liaison Committee] meetings. These are formal meetings and I believe that after improving the local people’s representatives understanding of tourism issues through targeted public awareness campaigns, the Nominal Group Technique will be a better way of getting the best out of the local people’s representatives during planning meetings. (Chikwatu – African Parks)

It has been noted that the use of a variety of forms of participation ensures that more people are involved and that their diverse skills, talents and interests are taken into account in the community participation process (Ife and Tesoriero, 2006). Also, there may be a need to use different methods for public participation at different stages during the tourism planning process (Simmons, 1994). In both study sites, surveys and the traditional informal and formal meetings have been the common participation methods during the entire planning process. Though surveys and meetings each have their own advantages and disadvantages, it became evident during the study that neither of the methods can be abandoned for various reasons. Although surveys only offer one way communication, they are better placed to reach more participants from the local communities and provide much needed baseline data for planning. As such, surveys are mainly relevant during the start of the tourism planning process and during the monitoring and evaluation phase to gauge the effectiveness of the planning process.

Traditionally in Malawi, all issues which affect a community within a village are addressed at open community meetings and traditional leaders or chiefs have their designated places where such meetings take place. It was therefore agreed by all participants in the study that the tourism planning process should take advantage of the open community meeting system to enhance local community participation in tourism planning. In order to enhance local community participation in tourism planning, there is a need to use focus group discussions during the community meetings which protected area management agencies and other stakeholders hold with the facilitation of CBOs or VNRCs around the protected areas. With the use of well-trained facilitators, such focus group discussions could allow any disadvantaged groups of people within the community to effectively participate in the process. Bearing in mind that most local communities in Malawi are male dominated and it is traditionally regarded as a taboo for a younger person to speak against the views of an elderly person in public, it was suggested by local community participants that the focus groups could be based on gender and age. Any community has several actors with varied interests; therefore, during the participation process, it is crucial to recognise that society can be sub-divided based on age, gender, ethnicity, physical ability and wealth (Buono et al., 2012).

Decentralisation and coordination of local organisations

The public sector has a role to play in tourism development planning from the national to the local level. The wildlife and tourism legislative and regulative frameworks in Malawi acknowledge the need for both DNPW and the Department of Tourism to be playing a bigger role in tourism planning associated with either National Parks or Wildlife Reserves than other agencies as they are directly responsible for the coordination of tourism development and wildlife management (Department of Tourism, 2006; DNPW, 2000; Malawi Government, 2004). The majority of the participants indicated that decentralisation of both protected area and tourism administration is critical to the success of community participation in protected area-based tourism planning as the plans are site specific. It was explained by one officer from the Department of Tourism that:

… the issue of decentralisation is very important in community tourism planning. You know decentralisation allows local people to be put in a certain framework whereby they get involved in various issues by interested stakeholders at local level. As a department, we mainly operate from headquarters making our involvement or presence at district level very minimal thereby making it very difficult for us to execute our responsibilities in engaging with local people during protected area tourism planning processes together with our colleagues from parks. Our work needs to be decentralised for us to be more effective. (Mwatha – DoT)

As noted by Tosun (2006), decentralisation of political, administrative and financial powers of central governments to local government organisations is essential to implement community participation in tourism planning and any participatory development approach. The Department of Tourism and DNPW are not yet decentralised; hence, planning at any specific protected area under DNPW is centrally controlled and managed. Though Majete Wildlife Reserve is privately managed, the centralised public administration affects the coordination of various stakeholders’ programmes during the tourism planning process. Local District Councils are mandated to coordinate development-related works of various stakeholders at district level (Malawi Government, 1998). The absence of the Department of Tourism and DNPW at district council level has therefore affected the coordination of many protected area and tourism-related activities carried out by interested stakeholders around protected areas in a district. It was explained by a participant from DNPW that:

… there is a very big coordination problem at district level which has to be sorted to ensure that communities are involved in protected area management related activities in an orderly manner. We are not represented in District Executive Committee meetings and our issues are not taken on board at district level. Several NGOs operate around the park doing related work which has an impact on the park. If we were there at such district meetings, we could have been providing advice on how best to coordinate such activities to ensure that wider areas are covered with the available resources. (Fombe – DNPW)

Various NGOs and government departments working around the protected areas have formed their CBOs to collaborate with various rural livelihood programmes. The presence of the local CBOs needs better coordination to ensure that community organisations’ or NGO’s activities complement one another. It was also noted by one participant from an NGO that ‘… at times NGOs communicate conflicting messages to local communities on issues concerning protected area management and end up confusing local people’ (Chidothi – NGO). Community participation is time consuming and to avoid involving local people in very similar activities, coordination of activities by various organisations within a district is essential. Though there are systems in place at the local district council level to coordinate such activities, the absence of DNPW and the Department of Tourism at local district council level makes coordination of activities with a direct link to protected area-based tourism development planning difficult. Therefore, decentralisation of public administration for protected areas and tourism could facilitate better coordination of interested stakeholders in protected area-based tourism planning thereby enhancing local community participation. There are administrative structures at regional and park level for DNPW and regional level for the Department of Tourism which need to be adequately funded and staffed, and empowered with decision-making powers to start facilitating effective community participation in protected area-based tourism planning.

Conclusion

The foregoing analysis suggests the need for a rethink on how local communities around protected areas are involved in tourism planning in developing countries. As noted above, there are a number of limiting factors to community participation (e.g. Bello, 2015; Marzuki et al., 2012; Saufi et al., 2014; Tosun, 2000) that suggest the need for the identification of operationalisable strategies for local involvement in tourism planning. This paper identifies six such strategies for how the participation processes can be improved, especially in a protected area and developing world context. These six strategies emerged as major prerequisites to achieve full and active community participation: public awareness and education; capacity building; creation of linkages; use of appropriate participation methods; use of appropriate local community organisations and decentralisation and coordination of local organisations.

Public awareness and education in tourism was identified as a major prerequisite to effective participation of local communities in tourism planning. The analysis revealed that local communities need to have some basic understanding of tourism issues for them to be effectively involved in tourism planning. The findings also reveal the need to develop the capacity of protected area management planners in community tourism planning for them to have a thorough understanding of the tourism planning processes such that they can effectively engage local communities. Local people living within and around protected areas desire to have more access to the tourism industry to enhance their benefits from tourism development which in turn act as an incentive for local support of conservation of natural resources and local communities’ continued participation in tourism planning. Therefore, our findings illustrated the need to create linkages between tourism and the local economy (Goodwin, 2002) in order to enhance the participation of local communities in both the decision-making processes and the sharing of tourism benefits.

Planning authorities need to be encouraged to use appropriate local CBOs in facilitating local community participation in tourism planning. As argued by Wells (1996), local organisations which have been accepted by the local people play a critical role in facilitating any collaboration between the local communities and planning authorities. Furthermore, protected area-based tourism planners need to employ appropriate community participation methods during the tourism planning process. This paper recognises the need to use different methods to enhance public participation at different stages during the tourism planning process (Simmons, 1994). The use of different forms of participation facilitates effective participation for more people and takes into account their diverse skills, talents, status in society and interests (Ife and Tesoriero, 2006). In addition to the use of surveys, meetings, seminars or workshops; local community respondents emphasised the need for continued use of open village or community meetings where it is recommended that focus groups be used to facilitate the effective and free participation of all groups of people including traditionally disempowered groups, such as the youth and women within a particular community.

This paper has shown that protected area management administration and tourism planning need to be decentralised to the local level to ensure that the system within which tourism is planned effectively responds to local community needs during the planning processes. The decentralisation of political, administrative and financial powers of central government to local governments facilitates active community participation and enhances better coordination of local organisations involved in protected area management activities. Better coordination of all national and local organisations with interest in protected area management improves the synergies on various activities being implemented in communities that surround protected areas as it pools knowledge, expertise and capital (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; de Araujo and Bramwell, 2002; Jamal and Getz, 1995).

In addition to providing lessons on how to improve community participation in protected area tourism planning in the developing world, this paper advances the need for planners to realise that different destinations have different local conditions. It is therefore appropriate to conduct a situational diagnosis at any protected area-based tourism destination to identify and understand any possible factors that can influence the participation of local communities in the tourism planning process. Such an analysis determines the preferred participation methods and local community structures to be used in the protected area tourism planning process. Furthermore, the analysis facilitates the determination of the levels of intensity in applying some participatory planning elements such as public awareness and capacity building as the focus of most protected area management agencies in developing countries tend to be on environmental education and conservation awareness. While this paper has focused on the developing world context the notion that planners need to realise that different destinations have different local conditions is clearly one that also applies to the developed world context.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author Biographies

Felix G Bello is a lecturer in the Department of Tourism at Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi. His research interests are in tourism planning, community participation, protected area-based tourism, sustainable tourism and tourism impacts.

Brent Lovelock is an Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism, University of Otago. His research interests fall under the broad theme of sustainable tourism, but with a focus on ethics, development, communities and planning.

Neil Carr is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Tourism at the University of Otago as well as the Editor of Annals of Leisure Research. His research focuses on understanding behaviour within tourism and leisure experiences; with a particular emphasis on animals, children and families and sex. His recent publications include Dogs in the Leisure Experience. Wallingford, UK: CABI (2014).

References

African Parks (2013) African Parks: Annual Report 2012. Available at: http://www.african-parks.org/xMedia/PDF/AnnualReport/APN_AnnualReport_2012.pdf (accessed 10 December 2014).

Akama

(1996) Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. Tourism Management 17(8): 567–574.

Ashley

Jones

(2001) Joint ventures between communities and tourism investors: Experience in Southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research 3(5): 407–423.

Ashley

Roe

(1998) Enhancing community involvement in wildlife tourism: Issues and challenges. Wildlife and Development Series No. 11, London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Attride-Stirling

(2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1(3): 385–405.

Bello FG (2015) Local communities and tourism development in protected areas in Malawi: Investigating community involvement. PhD Thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand.

Blackstock

(2005) A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal 40(1): 39–49.

Bramwell

Sharman

(1999) Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 392–415.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

10.

Buono

Pediaditi

Carsjens

(2012) Local community participation in Italian National Parks Management: Theory versus practice. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 14(2): 189–208.

11.

Burkey

(1993) People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant Participatory Rural Development, London: Zed Books Ltd.

12.

Burmeister

Aitken

(2012) Sample size: How many is enough? Australian Critical Care 25: 271–274.

13.

Burns

Phillips

Wagner

et al. (2004) Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: A national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 43(8): 960–970.

14.

Darier

Gough

De Marchi

et al. (1999) Between democracy and expertise? Citizens’ participation and environmental integrated assessment in Venice (Italy) and St. Helens (UK). Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 1(2, 103–120.

15.

de Araujo

Bramwell

(2002) Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 1138–1164.

16.

de Kadt

(1979) Social planning for tourism in the developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 6(1): 36–48.

17.

Department of Tourism (2006) National Tourism Policy, Lilongwe, Malawi: Author.

18.

Dicicco-Bloom

Crabtree

(2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40(4): 314–321.

19.

DNPW (2000) Wildlife Policy, Lilongwe, Malawi: Author.

20.

Fusch

Ness

(2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20(9): 1408.

21.

Goodwin

(2002) Local community involvement in tourism around national parks: Opportunities and constraints. Current Issues in Tourism 5(3–4): 338–360.

22.

Goodwin

Kent

Parker

et al. (1998) Tourism, conservation and sustainable development; case studies from Asia and Africa. Wildlife and Development Series No. 12, London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

23.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.

24.

Gunn

CAV

(1972) Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions, New York, NY: Von Nostrand Reinhold.

25.

Hardy

Beeton

Pearson

(2002) Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(6): 475–496.

26.

Haywood

(1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management 9(2): 105–118.

27.

Henkel

Stirrat

(2001) Participation as spiritual duty: Empowerment as secular subjection. In: Cooke

Kothari

(eds) Participation: The New Tyranny?, London: Zed Books, pp. 168–184.

28.

Horton

(1980) Nominal group technique. Anaesthesia 35(8): 811–814.

29.

Ife

Tesoriero

(2006) Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation, Sydney, NSW: Pearson Australia.

30.

Inskeep

(1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Ssustainable Development Approach, New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

31.

Inskeep

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

32.

Jamal

Getz

(1995) Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22(1): 186–204.

33.

Jones

(2007) The European Landscape Convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research 32(5): 613–633.

34.

Joppe

(1996) Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 17(7): 475–479.

35.

Keogh

(1990) Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 17(3): 449–465.

36.

Krippendorf

(1982) Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental and sociocultural factors. Tourism Management 3(3): 135–148.

37.

Lane

(2005) Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer 36(3): 283–299.

38.

Lea

(1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World, New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Loukissas

(1983) Public participation in community tourism planning: A gaming simulation approach. Journal of Travel Research 22(1): 18–23.

40.

Mahony

Van Zyl

(2002) The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three case studies in South Africa. Development Southern Africa 19(1): 83–103.

41.

Malawi Government (1998) Local Government Act, Lilongwe, Malawi: Malawi Government Printer.

42.

Malawi Government (2004) National Parks and Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2004, Lilongwe, Malawi: Malawi Government Printer.

43.

Malawi Government (2005) Liwonde – Mangochi Protected Area Complex General Management Plan 2005 – 2015, Lilongwe, Malawi: Malawi Government Printer.

44.

Marzuki

Hay

James

(2012) Public participation shortcomings in tourism planning: The case of the Langkawi Islands, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(4): 585–602.

45.

Mbaiwa

(2003) The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 54(2): 447–467.

46.

Mbaiwa

(2005) Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Environmental Management 77(2): 144–156.

47.

Mbaiwa

(2007) Local community attitudes towards wildlife conservation and community based natural resources management in Ngamiland District, Botswana. In: Schuster

Thakadu

(eds) Natural Resources Management and People, Gaborone, Botswana: IUCN CBNRM Support Programme, pp. 19–26.

48.

Mowforth

Munt

(2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism in the Third World, London: Routledge.

49.

Murphy

(1983) Tourism as a community industry—An ecological model of tourism development. Tourism Management 4(3): 180–193.

50.

Murphy

(1985) Tourism: A Community Approach, New York, NY: Methuen.

51.

Murphy

(1988) Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9(2): 96–104.

52.

Novelli

Gebhardt

(2007) Community based tourism in Namibia: ‘Reality show’or ‘window dressing’? Current Issues in Tourism 10(5): 443–479.

53.

Novelli

Scarth

(2007) Tourism in protected areas: Integrating conservation and community development in Liwonde National Park (Malawi). Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 4(1): 47–73.

54.

Novelli

Barnes

Humavindu

(2006) The other side of the ecotourism coin: Consumptive tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1–2): 62–79.

55.

Okazaki

(2008) A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(5): 511–529.

56.

Pearce

(1992) Alternative tourism: Concepts, classifications, and questions. In: Smith

Eadington

(eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism, Chichester: J. Wiley, pp. 15–30.

57.

Prentice

(1993) Community-driven tourism planning and residents’ preferences. Tourism Management 14(3): 218–227.

58.

Pretty

(1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23(8): 1247–1263.

59.

Reed

(1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 24(3): 566–591.

60.

Reid

Mair

George

(2004) Community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 623–639.

61.

Ritchie

(1988) Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident views via survey research. Tourism Management 9(3): 199–212.

62.

Saufi

O’Brien

Wilkins

(2014) Inhibitors to host community participation in sustainable tourism development in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(5): 801–820.

63.

Scheyvens

(1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management 20(2): 245–249.

64.

Sebele

(2010) Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama rhino sanctuary trust, central district, Botswana. Tourism Management 31(1): 136–146.

65.

Simmons

(1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15(2): 98–108.

66.

Snyman

(2012) The role of tourism employment in poverty reduction and community perceptions of conservation and tourism in southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3): 395–416.

67.

Spenceley

Goodwin

(2007) Nature-based tourism and poverty alleviation: Impacts of private sector and parastatal enterprises in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa. Current Issues in Tourism 10(2–3): 255–277.

68.

Stone

(2011) Community-based tourism enterprises: Challenges and prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(1): 97–114.

69.

Timothy

(1999) Participatory planning a view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 371–391.

70.

Tosun

(2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21(6): 613–633.

71.

Tosun

(2006) Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management 27(3): 493–504.

72.

Tosun

Jenkins

(1996) Regional planning approaches to tourism development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 17(7): 519–531.

73.

Tosun

Timothy

(2003) Arguments for community participation in the tourism development process. Journal of Tourism Studies 14(2): 2–15.

74.

Wells

(1996) The social role of protected areas in the new South Africa. Environmental Conservation 23(04): 322–331.