CHAPTER 7

Visitor Management

Visitor management is a key component in managing an ecotourism site. Visitor

management involves the type of visitors that can be admitted into an ecotourism site., volume
of visitors, density and spread of visitors within the site, frequency of visits, seasonality, and the
behaviour of tourists. These factors have implications on the kind of facilities to be put on the
site, communication and interpretation strategies, signage, staffing, the degree of tourism
impact, the quality of the tourism experience, and economic viability. Visitor number and their
actions an ecotourism site also affect other visitor’s perceived satisfaction levels. This chapter
focuses on the various aspects and tools for visitor management.

Lesson Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. define “visitor management”;
2. explain the principles of visitor management;
3. explain the different frameworks for formulating visitor
management techniques;
4. enumerate the “hard” and “soft” tool for visitor management;
and
5. know how to behave responsibly and ethnically in ecotourism
site.

Definition of Visitor Management and Its Principles

Visitor management is defined as “an administrative action oriented toward maintaining the
quality of park resources and visitor experiences” (Candrea & Ispas, 2009 in Antonio &
Fandirugao, 2016). Visitor management can be described as the techniques and procedures
adopted by the management staff of an ecotourism site to minimize negative impacts of
visitation, protect visitors from natural and man-made dangers, and maximize visitor leisure
satisfaction and education in the site.

There are nine principles that should guide visitor management efforts (Eagles, McCool,
& Haynes, 2002). These are: (1) the appropriateness of management tools with the objectives,
(2) the desirability of diversity in resource and social condition in protected areas, (3) the need
to direct and influence human-induced change, (4) the inevitability of impacts on resource and
social conditions as a result of human use, (5) the temporary and spatially discontinuous nature
of impacts, (6) the multiplicity of variables that influence the use-impact relationship, (7) the
realization that many management problems are not due to the number of users, (8) limiting
use as being just one of many management options, and (9) the need to separate technical
decisions from value judgement in decision-making.

Visitor Management Frameworks

There are a number of frameworks that can be used in formulating visitor management
plans. They are the following:

Carrying Capacity (CC) is probably the most popular framework for establishing limits to
level of visitation in ecotourism sites. Basically, carrying capacity assumes that an area can
accommodate a certain maximum number of people without degrading the place. The simplest
method for calculating carrying capacity is through Boullon’s mathematical model, where the
carrying capacity is determined by dividing the area used by the tourist by the average
individual standard (average space needed per person) od 2 square meters (CC = area used by
tourists in the square meters / 2 square meters). For example, a park measuring 30, 000 square
meters will have a carrying capacity of 15,000. After that, the carrying capacity is multiplied by
the rotation coefficient (RC) or the number of hours the site is open per day divided by the
average number of hours per visit (RC = number of hours open daily / average number of hours
per visit). For example, if the site is open for 8 hours each day, and the average time spent by a
tourist on the site is 4 hours, then RC is 2. Potential carrying capacity (PCC) is the product of CC
and RC. Thus, using the previous example, the PCC is 30,000 (15,000x2).

Carrying capacity is a very simple concept to understand. However, the actual CC of a

place is not a fixed number, it is determined by a host of environment, social and economic
factors. Some of these factors are the fragility of the ecosystem (the presence of endangered
species will limit activities and volume of visitors are allowed in wildness area), cultural
sensitivity and tolerance for outsiders by local residents (some cultural communities are not
ready to allow visitor for fear of their culture being dominated), and labor policies (if projects
require employing local people, then use of automation devices which could enable handling
more guests will be constrained). The kind of activity should also be factored in (Inskeep, 1991)
because the individual standard will vary depending on that. For example, it used for camping,
an area will have less CC compared to if it was used as a theme park. Campers will want to feel
that they are secluded from the rest of visitors in a park so they will require more space around
their tents. Picnickers can share a tighter space.
 Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process requires making decisions on what kind of
conditions in an ecotourism site are acceptable site are acceptable and coming up with actions
to achieve those conditions (adapted from the explanation of Stankey, Cole, Lucas, Petersen,
and Frissell, 1985). According to Stankey et al. (1985), there are nine steps involved in the LAC
process: (1) identify area issues and concerns, (2) define and describe opportunity classes, (3)
select indicators of resource and social conditions, (4) inventory existing resource and social
conditions, (5) specify standards for resource and social conditions for each opportunity class,
(6) identify alternative opportunity class allocations reflecting area issues and concerns and
existing resource and social conditions, (7) identify management actions for each alternative,
(8) evaluate and select a preferred alternative, and (9) implement actions and monitor
conditions. This approach is best applied to wilderness areas but could also be used in historic
and tourism areas (UNEP, n.d.).

Visitor Impact Management (VIM) Framework involves identifying the negative visitor
impacts on an ecotourism site and devising programs to minimize the impacts before expensive
restoration and rehabilitation become necessary (Farell & Marion, 2002). According to Farell
and Marion (2002), the advantages of VIM include simplicity, flexibility, cost effectiveness,
timeless, and inclusion of input from stakeholders and local residents. Disadvantages include
diminished objectivity and cultural sensitivity issues. The VIM process is very similar to LAC. The
steps in the VIM framework are: (1) review and identification of issues, (2) selection of
indicators, (3) resources inventory, (4) specification of standards for indicators, (5)
implementation through an iterative process of monitoring, (6) comparison of impacts with
standards, and (7) identification of alternative management options if standard are not met
(htto://www.utok.cz/sites/default/files/data/USERS/u28/VIM.pdf).

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection is “a planning and management framework

that focuses on visitor use impacts on the visitor experience and the park resources. These
impacts are primarily attributable to visitor behaviour, use levels, types of use, timing of use,
and location of use” (US National Parks Service, 1997). The process involves nine steps: (1)
assembling an interdisciplinary project team; (2) developing a public involvement strategy; (3)
developing statements of (park) purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes and
identification of planning constraints; (4) analysing resources and existing visitor use; (5)
describing the potential range of visitor experiences and resource condition; (6) allocating the
potential zones to specific locations (prescriptive management zoning); (7)selecting indicators
and specifying standards for each zone and developing a monitoring plan; (8) monitoring
resource and social indicators; and (9) taking management actions (US National Park Service,
1997).
 Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP) aims to determine the kinds of activities
that are suitable in a park and the strategies in making the public understand, appreciate, and
enjoys the park’s natural and cultural heritage (Graham, Nielsen, & Payne, 1988). Developed in
Canada, VAMP is problem-and-issue rather than data-driven. VAMP’s primary purpose is for
management to arrive at good decisions by providing data that include experiential and
informal knowledge by the organization and resident populations, and customary users of a
region. It combines social science and ecological data and places strong emphasis on the human
element in park and protected area designation, planning, and management. The VAMP model
consists of six steps; (1) objective(s), (2) terms of reference, (3) database analysis, (4)
concept/options, (5) recommendations, and (6) approval and implementation. VAMP is also
used to profile park visitors and their motivations in order to determine appropriate segments
for a park and its surrounding region. VAMP is concerned with the socioeconomics advantages
and disadvantages of the mix of opportunities, activities, services, and facilities in the park and
the region. For example, a particular activity like Nordic skiing is analysed by type, such as
recreational use, for fitness or sport, competition, and backcountry skiing. Then, the specific
types of Nordic skiing activities are segmented by the demographic characteristic, market share,
the setting or where they occur, the requirements in terms of access, facilities, and services, as
well as other government and private entities involved. Final, a determination of the
appropriateness of the activity is determined (yes, doubtful, or no), by assessing the current
conditions of the site and the cost of providing the additional access, facilities, and services to
meet the requirements of each type of Nordic skiing, taking into consideration its respective
market share.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (Clark & Stanley, 1979) is a framework for
identifying the various opportunities for recreation. It is particularly useful for: (1) allocating
and planning recreational resources, (2) inventorying recreational resources, (3) estimating the
consequences of management decisions on recreational opportunities, and (4) matching
experiences visitor desire with available opportunities.

In allocating and planning recreational resources, the relative availability of different

opportunities (recreational supply), their reproducibility, reversibility, and spatial distribution
must be considered. When recreation opportunity is abundant, it may be a good idea to offer
various types of recreation. Reproducibility and reversibility refer to the extent to which an
opportunity can be technologically reproduced and the ability of management to reverse the
outcome of decisions. Modern (developed) recreational products are generally easier to
reproduce through capital infusion and technology than the primitive variety. A change from
modern to management must be cautious in transforming an area from a primitive condition to
a developed one.
 Managers must consider the spatial distribution of opportunities, with sharply dissimilar
opportunities needing to be segregated to minimize conflicts or else, the negative impacts will
spill over. As an example, sites with high-standard road systems and highly developed
campgrounds should not be constructed adjacent to primitive opportunities as the noise from
vehicles can pollute what should be a pristine wilderness area. However, the ideal spatial
arrangement may be hard to implement because of previous management decisions, other
resources uses, established recreational use, and other factors.

ROS involves the following steps; (1) inventory of recreational opportunities, (2)
determining the kind of experiences that are desired by visitors, and (3) matching the
recreational opportunities with the desired experiences. The inventory of opportunities should
take note of specific situational attributes, such as access, facilities, and services, among others.
The inventory should produce information about the relative availability of different setting in
an area. This information can serve as basis for management decisions on whether to create or
reduce certain types of opportunities or settings and in what specific spots they should be
done. Inventories should cover an entire region and just a particular boundary. A
comprehensive inventory conducted at a regional scale and involving public and private
suppliers would provide information on the profile of existing and potential opportunities, a
catalog of administrative responsibilities or networks, and the spatial relationships among
various opportunities for recreation, which could suggest potential conflicts or complementary
relationships.

Combined with studies of recreation demand and preference, shortage or excess of

opportunities could be determined and appropriate decisions to fill or reduced them could be
made. Complementation among suppliers is deemed necessary because a lone supplier will not
be capable of meeting all types of recreations demanded by visitors. In any decision,
management should anticipate the outcomes (changes and impacts) on other opportunities
and evaluate the desirability of the outcome. As a hypothetical example, the expansion of the
airport capacity in Basco will affect Batanes, which is protected landscape and seascape. It
should be carefully analysed before committing to the project. A bigger airport will open the
province to mass tourism that could destroy the “innocence” of the residents. The final step is
to enable matching visitors’ motivation with the appropriate recreational opportunity setting.
This is best addressed by providing easy access to information to users about the nature and
location of existing opportunity settings in an ecotourism site. This will help them choose the
best locations on access, facilities, services, and seasonal weather conditions can help tourist
determine the locations that best suit their interests.

The spectrum of recreation opportunity settings proposed by Clark and Stanley (1979)
ranges from primitive, semi primitive, semi modern, and modern. This classification is based on
six factors; (1) access, (2) non-recreational resource users, (3) on site management or
modification, (4) social interaction, (5) acceptability of impacts, and (6) acceptable
regimentation. Access elements include the types of access (e.g,. roads, trails, and cross-
country travel), and the means of conveyance allowed (e.g, cars, all terrain vehicles, horses, and
feet). On-site management elements include extent of modifications, apparentness of
modifications, and facilities. Social interaction ranges from zero human contact to excessive
human interaction. Acceptability of impacts considers both the magnitude and importance of
such impacts. Acceptability of regimentation refers to the techniques used to control visitors’
activities ranging from zero to excessive rules and regulations.

Tourism Optimization Management Model is basically a framework for managing a

tourism destination using sustainable tourism indicators. The model identifies strategic
imperatives such as policies and emerging issues, it considers community values, product
characteristics, growth patterns, market trends and opportunities, positioning and branding,
and alternative scenarios for tourism in a region. It also identifies optimum conditions,
indicators, acceptable ranges, monitoring techniques, benchmarks, annual performance, and
predicted performance. In case of poor performance, the cause-and-effect relationship are
analysed to determine the results that require a tourism response. Management options are
then considered to address such poor performance.

Visitor Management Tools

Visitor management tools can be grouped into two general categories: hard and soft.
Hard approaches emphasize physical, regulatory, and economic management. These include
the construction of facilities of infrastructure to control the movement of visitor in a park,
enforcement of laws by fines and imprisonment, and pricing mechanisms. Soft approaches
focus on education and interpretation. Mason criticizes these approaches as assuming that
visitors will not behave properly in a site “until proven innocent” and overlooks the importance
of visitor experience in visitor management (Mason, 2005).

Leung, Spenceley, Hvenegaard, and Buckley (2014) identified three direct visitor
management practices: (1) limitations on visitor use, (2) rules and regulations, and (3) zoning.
Limiting visitor use can be done using reservation systems, lotteries, queuing, pricing, and
merit. A reservation system requires potential visitors to reserve a space or obtain permit
ahead of their visit. A lottery allocates opportunities or permits on a random basis. A queuing
system (first-come, first-served) involves waiting for available spaces or permits. A pricing
system requires visitors to pay a fee for a permit. This practice excludes people who cannot or
are unwilling to pay. Pricing mechanisms may have differential pricing for locals and outside
visitors, seasonal pricing and premium pricing. These mechanisms address different concerns:
equity, enable a damaged or vulnerable site to recover. A merit system requires potential
visitors to “earn” their permit by demonstrating their knowledge or skill. Leung et al. (2014)
also emphasized that fairness is the critical element to these practices. There should be no
palakasan system when it comes to queuing.

Rules and regulation according to Leung et al. (2014) include: group size limits, assigning
campsites and/or travel itineraries, area closures, length of stay limitations, and prohibitions on
activities that create substantive impacts on resource and quality of experience. Some
examples of detrimental activities committed by tourists in an ecotourism site are picking of
flowers, building fires, leaving fires unextinguished, smoking and throwing away cigarette butts
into the woods, not wearing proper outdoor gear (e.g,. slippers instead of hiking boots), and
diving in waters of unknown depth. Limiting group size is also imposed not only to make sure
that everyone in a money. For example, a group of 18 people split into two with maximum of
ten person per group. So instead of just one tour guide being able to earn, two our guides at
the least can make money.

Zoning is assigning certain activities to selected areas, restricting activities from areas,
and separating conflicting uses of an area. Zoning can also be time-determined. It can be used
to create different types of tourism opportunities. The basic concept of zoning is at the heart of
the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a concept and framework that is widely used in
protected area movement.

Establishing ecotourism zones involves ten steps according to Calanog et al. (2014):

1. If within a protected area (PA), refer to the General Management Plan (GMP) for
determining where tourism activities are allowed. If outside a PA, refer to the
municipality’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), tourism master plan, business
district, and transport bays, among others.
2. Obtain a site base map, which will be used for planning and placing specific attractions,
facilities, and infrastructure.
3. Locate sensitive or environmentally fragile sites.
4. Identify the kind 0f experience or situation the visitor would wish to have at the site.
5. Compare the proposed location of tourist attractions and infrastructure with the
location of environmentally sensitive sites and present zoning system.
6. Determine the final location of visitor infrastructure and attractions through site visits
verification and consultations with local communities and other stakeholders.
7. Prepare a preliminary zoning system that incorporates recommendations for visitor use
zones.
8. Compare the proposed zoning system with the pre-existing system to determine if
changes are necessary.
 9. Develop the final zoning system where each zone is described following the prescribed
zoning format.
10. Set the rules and regulations that will be applied in the zones.

The zoning format should contain the following information: name of the zone, general
objectives, zone description, zone boundaries, management rules,regulation, and policies. The
name of the zone describes the type of activity permitted in the zone such intensive use,
religious zone, or wilderness. The general objectives set and expectation list the management
objectives. Zone description summarizes site attributes (biophysical, social, and administrative).
Zone bounderies specify the location and the geographical bearings of the sie. Management
rules, regulations, and policies list the requirements for entering the site and the “do’s and
don’ts” in the site, such as permits, campfires, group size, etc. (Calanog et al., 2014).

Tools for Influencing Visitor Behavior

Influencing visitor behaviour may be done through two types of law enforcement: soft and
hard (Leung et al., 2014). Soft enforcement involves park design, signage, intrepetation, or
mere presence of a security officer. Part of soft enforcement involves informing the public of
the relevant rules and explaining why such rules exist, as well as the penalty for non-
compliance. Hard enforcement involves the issurance of citations, fines, and arrest. The choice
of enforcement techniques used in a park should strike a balance between visitor safety,
compliance to rules, and visitor enjoyment. That choice is independent on the cultural context,
gravity of environmental concerns, and crime situation.

In a place where people are disciplined soft enforcement may be enough and security guards
without guns may be sufficient. However, in areas where there are endangered species of
animals that are being ravaged by poachers, armed guards, or even soldier may have to be
present.

Despite park management’ intention to provide visitor enjoyment and experience, visitors
manners with “depreciative behaviors” are still prevalent. Depreciative behaviors are defined as
deeds that “degrade park resources of experiences of other visitors” (National Park Service,
2016 in Antonio & Fudirugao, 2016). Litering, improper disposal of waste, damaging trees and
rocks, feeding of wildlife, vandalism, and the like are examples of these inappropriate
behaviors. It is important to take these acts seriously as it may result in resource damage and
destruction, alter behaviour of wildlife, or pose public health risks within an area (National Park
Service, 2016).

Measures to Provide Security and Safety

 Security and safety are paramount consideration in planning trips to a destination. Places
where there is insurgency, high crime rate, and are prone to natural calamities will not be able
to attract many visitors. In an ecotourism site, safety can be enhanced by employing security
personnel; orienting visiotors about the potential hazards in the place and emergency
procedures; requiring visitors to present valid IDs; wearing proper attire and equipment for
certain activities like caving and rapelling; prohibiting the bringing of dangerous materials like
guns, drugs, and alcohol inside the ecotourism premises; and having warning signs. It is also
important to have properly trained tour guides and staff who can perform first aid to visitors
when necessary. Secutiry cameras may also be installed all over the site (Calanog et al., 2012).

Various ways of minimizing accidents and emergencies in the park also include releasing
advisories during rainy days, assigning people to handle crowd control during peak season,
providing emergency equipment on stand-by, and assigning trained people in cases of
emergencies (Antonio & Fadirugao, 2016).

Minimizing Visitor Impacts

There are several strategies for minimizing the negative impacts of visitors’ activities on a site.
These strategies could be: (1) restricting the numbers of visitors entering the site, (2) putting a
maximum number of people per group of tourists together, (3) preassigning sites to specific
groups of visitors to distribute their impacts, (4) area closures during bird periods, (5) limiting
the length of stay on the site, (6) putting barriers to rstrict access danger zones, (7) prohibiting
certain activities like hunting or making fire, and (8) restricting vehicle access to the site and
concertrating facilities in a specific part of the site (Calanog et al., 2012). In addition, it is
important to note that enabling conditions must be present to encourage all stakeholders to
cooperate in minimizing the negative impacts of visitation. For example, there should be
adequate and properly placed trash bins in ecotourism site to encourage tourists to observe
proper waste disposal, toilets must be sufficient to prevent tourists from relieving themselves
somewhere else, and there should be ample water supply to clean the facilities. Tourists tend
to show more respect to a facility when it clean. On the other hand, dirty places get dirtier as
tourists are likely to be careless in disposing their garbage or not flushing toilets when the
place is not properly maintained.

Limiting the number of visitors to a vulnerable site like the Puerto Princesa Underground
River (PPUR) is being done through reservation or booking system, registration, charging high
entrance fee, and controlling transportation to the site. At the PPUR, vehicles cannot go directly
to the cave; passengers have to alight at Sabang Port to take the boats that will ferry them to
the cave. Because of the limited carrying capacity of the ferryboats that bring tourist inside the
cave, passengers need to wait to take their turns, effectively controlling the number of tourist
that are inside the cave at a given time. Morover, the landing site, visitor center, photo booth,
toilets, and booth station are located adjacent to each other at the PPUR. To minimize
trampling on vegetation, walking paths can be covered with some hard materials like gravel, or
tiles, or ground tire rubber like in South Korea. Boardwalks, viewing platforms, and hides may
also built in specific areas to preclude encounters between humans and wild animals.

Other methods involves the enforcement of penalties like fines for violation of park rules
such as hunting ban or prohibitation on feeding animals.

The limpact exerted by tourists on an ecotourism site can also be controlled by soft
measures, such as information, education, and communication (IEC) strategies. These can be
provided through seminars in visitor information center at the site entrance and giving away
brochures,maps, kiosks, and signs, among others. Such measures not only educate tourists, but
also influence them to behave in a responsible manner. A very important features of IEC is
interpretation, which is the presentation of data and facts in a manner that makes a connection
with the tourists.

Visitors get to appreciate the site more when a trained tour guiders is able to reveal “secrets”
about the site that one will not able to encounter simply by reading written materials. To
compensate for the negative effect, visitors may also be asked or encouraged to plant
mangrove seedings or donate to environmental conservation funds.

Tourist must also be reminded to behave ethically and respect local culture; they must noy
engaged in sex tourism of any form and must not corrupt the locals by giving excesseive tips
(Calanog et al., 2012).

Some examples pf ethical practices include not leaving bottles, packaging materials, and
leftover food at the site; not plucking flowers; not feeding wild animals; and not being nosiy.
Leaving food behind or feeding wild animals can condition them to depend on human being for
food. This can make them lose their survival skills of hunting food gathering; or even make
them attack people for food. In Oslob, Cebu where 97% of the tourist violate the two-meter
minimum distance from the whale sharks, and feed whale sharks, it was found that the animals
easily learn to associate boats with food rewards, and whale sharks which have been at Oslob
several times were more likely to show “anticipatory behaviour” and arrive at the site on
average five minutes after the arrival of feeder boats (Schleimer., 2015). The same is true of
Maracque monkeys in Subic which have been observed to come near people and snatch
anything that looks like food packaging of food containers. Another bad practice is disturbing
fruit bats by throwing stones at them while hanging upside down on tree branches or banging
the side of the boat with oar to make bats come out of a cave. These disturb the circadian
rhythm of these nocturnal animals.
 Safety-oriented behaviour include not drinking unpurified water, rehydrating regularly and
wearing hats to avoid direct exposure to the sun and prevent heat stroke, avoiding
hypothermia by wearing appropriate clothes , staying with one’s group to avoid getting lost,
using insect repellent and wearing protective clothes in areas where poisonous plants exist ,
and washing clothes when you leave the trail. Visitors must also prepare for their adventure by
knowing the weather, reading about the site, and studying it’s trail conditions (Calanog et al.,
2012).

Responsible and Ethical Behavior in Ecotourism Sites

Schools, government, resorts, tour operators, and other tourism stakeholders have a
responsibility to educate or remind tourists to behave/dress appropriately in places they will be
visiting, to seek out as much information before travelling to a destination, pay fair price for
goods and services in the destination, to travel light to minimize the need for big transport
vehicles, to use rechargeable batteries and reusable water bottles, and use biodegradable soaps
and shampoos, They should also remind visitors that when taking pictures, ask for permission
first; do not use flash with animals who are light sensitive (nocturnal animals); and do not give
money to children as this encourages begging (The Educational Travel Community, 2006).

Moreover, stakeholders themselves have responsibility to conduct business in an ethical

manner (TETC,2006). They should:

1. Obtain the concent of local communities before they establish their business;
2. Give back a fare share of their profits to the local community, in cash and social projects
like community projects in health, education, etc;
3. Contribute to the natural conservation of bipdiversity ;
4. Minimize consumptions of non-renewable such as fussil suels;
5. Respect traditional culture and social structures; and
6. Limit group size to minimize cultural/environmental impacts.

Factors Influencing Environmental Behavior

A person’s behaviour reflects his or her knowledge, attitude, and values. Several studies cited
by Chiu, Lee, and Chen (2014) positively correlated environmentally responsible behaviour to
factors like sense of responsibility, place attachments, travel motivation, tourism satisfaction,
perceived value of the place (money paid vs. benefits), and activity involvement.

IN an ecotourism setting, a person can display his environmental and social concern by not
littering or keeping his trash and disposing of it properly in trash bins.
 CHAPTER 8

Community Participation in Ecotourism

One of the principles of ecotourism is community participation. Community, when broadly

defined, encompasses several stakrholder groups: government agencies, conservation groups,
non-governmental organizations, developsers, workers, local communities, tourists, indigenous
people, and many others. Each group tries to advance its own interest, which could be profit,
political power, security of tenure, environmental protection, cultural preservation, or
satisfaction. Through the process of community participation, planners and developers will be
able to uncover what issues are important to each of the stakeholder groups and use this as a
basis for addressing such issues. Creating an equitable distribution of the outcome of the
participation process.

Lesson Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Explain the importance of community participation;
2. Explain stakeholder theory;
3. Identify the major stakeholder groups in ecotourism;
4. Provide examples of the “stakes” in ecotourism;
5. Cite the benefits of stakeholders participation;
6. Explain why stakeholders do not participate;
7. Enumerate the prerequisites to genuine
participation;
8. Provide examples of participatory planning
techniques; and
9. Explain the steps in participatory planning.

The importance of Community Participation

Community participation is one of the principles of sustainable development. Community
empowerment is one of the key approaches to achieving sustainability (UN Agenda 21, 1992).
According to UN Agenda 21, a community- driven approach to sustainability would
“empowering women through full participation in decision-making, respecting the cultural
integrity and the rights of indigenous people and their communities, promoting or establishing
grass-roots mechanisms to allow for the sharing of experience and knowledge between
communities, giving communities a large measure of participation in the sustainable
management and protection of the local natural resources in order to enhance their productive
capacity, and establishing a network of community-based learning centers for capacity-building
and sustainable development.” The word participation is mentioned 139 times in the
document, underscoring its importance in achieving all aspects of development.

As a “form of sustainable tourism”, community participation is also integral to crafting

ecotourism programs. Recaling Chapter 1 of this book, the term “community participation” is
embedded in the Philippine definition of ecotourism:

“Ecotourism refers to a form of sustainable tourism within a natural and cultural heritage area
where community participation, protection and management of natural rosources, culture, and
indigenous knowledge and practices, environmental education and ethics as well as economic
benefits are fostered and pursued for the enrichment of host communities and satisfaction of
visitors.”

The started principles of ecotourism involve at least two actors or stakeholders; creating
positive experience for both visitors and hosts; financialing benefits for local people and private
industry; recognition of the rights and beliefs of indigenous people; supportfor human rights
and democratic movement; partnership between specialized tour operators and service
providers at the destinations; promotion of well-being and community development;
community participation in management and ethics; inclusion of local community and
indigenous people in development; and gender equality.

Community participation in tourism development is important for several reasons. It is a vital

element in the implementation of tourism plans and strategies; inceases tourist satisfaction;
helps tourism professional design better tourism plans; contributes to the equitable distribution
of costs and benefits among community members; and helps satisfy locally identified need
(Toson & Timothy, 2003 in Bhartiya & Masoud, 2015). International agreements become part of
Philippine laws. As a UN member country, the Philippines is therefore obligated to conduct
public participation passed without public presentations and consultations awith relevant
stakeholders.

According to Pedersen (2002), the process of getting stakeholders involved in planning and
managing ecotourism offers several advantages. It saves time and money in the long-term by
avoiding the project being blocked by groups that were disgruntled or ignored. One of the most
frustrating things that could happen is to finish an ecotourism plan document but fail to get
public approval because some politicians felt bad that they had not been consulted. “Why is my
town not included in that plan?” is something some legislators something some legislators
sometimes ask the planning team. If the team cannot answer that question sufficiently then
they may have to go back to the drawing boards, which will take additional time and expenses.
Local stakeholders, such as residents, politicians, and tourism workers provide rich inputs in
terms of knowledge of local political dynamics, local attractions, potential tourism resources,
local development plans, previous ecotourism development efforts, history of the site, and
potential security issues, among others. Access to such valuable information eliminates the
need for research time and helps build best practices and local knowledge.

The term indigenous knowledge is broadly defined as “the knowledge that an indigenous
(local) community accumulates over generations of living in a particular environment. It
encompasses all forms of knowledge – technologies, know-how, skills, practice, and beliefs –
that enable the community to achieve stability in relating to their environment." Indigenous
knowledge is also called traditional knowledge, indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) local
knowledge (LK), and indigenous knowledge system (IKS) (UNEP, 2012). Indigenous knowledge
covers: (1) information (e.g., trees and plants that grow well together), (2) practices and
technologies (e.g., terracing techniques, ,edical plants, soil, and water conservation practices ),
(3) beliefs (e.g., rituals that regulate the access and pattern of water distribution), (4) tools
(agrultural tools), (5) experimentation (e.g., integration of new local culture into existing
tourism activities), (6) human resources (e.g., kinship groups, and labor sharing groups ), (7)
biological (e.g., local animal breeds), and (8) materials (e.g., stone walls in building houses and
irrigation canals).

Planners or developers need to defer to indigenous knowledge for several reasons.

Indigenous knowledge may be far better than introduced technologies brought by outside
development agents, or consultants. Indigenous knowledge complements new knowledge and
technologies. Indigenous knowledge not only strengthens the indigenous people’s participation
and empowerment process but also ensures viability and sustainability of a projects and helps
identify cost-effective and appropriate approaches. “FAO and IIRR, 1995)

Consulting with stakeholders can reveal potential legal issues, such as land claims and
prohibitions on certain activities as dictated by legal edicts and zoning regulations. Looking into
an LGU’s comprehensive land use plan will provide a regulations. Looking into an LGU’s
comprehensive land use plan will provide a general idea od proposed development plans
several years into the future. During public consultations, ecotourism planners may be able to
observethe dynamics among participants and evaluate the relative positions of the various
stakeholder groups on an issue. In the process, ecotourism planners and developers will be able
to formulate the appropriate activities to best generate maximum participants from the
audience. Stakeholder differ in their levels of commitment, knowledge, power, skills, and
financial capacity. Knowing those differences is a good starting point for devising appropriate
participation strategies for each sector.

Community participation intills a sense of empowerment. Scheyves (in Gallardo, m.d.) cities
four types empowerment that are the outcomes of communityinvolvement in ecotourism
development: (1) economic empowerment, cash earned is shared among households in the
community; (2)psychological empowerment from getting outside recognition of the uniqueness
and value of their culture, their natural resources, and their traditional knowledge lead ti
increased confidence to seek out further educational and training opportunities that ultimately
bring about better status; (3) social empowerment, which is a result of improved community
cohesion due to success ecotourism venture; and (4) political empowerment felt by the
residence when agencies initiating or implementing ecotourism ventures seek out their
opinions in the decision-making bodies.

Stakeholder Theory

According to Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory (2001), it is essential for managementto

consider the interests of all stakeholders and maintain a balance among these interests. If one
stakeholders benefits disproportionately or at the expense of other stakeholder, it puts the
vialibility of a business at risk. Stakehholders are in contractual relationships to create value for
each other. This relationship should be symbiotic – that is, everyone benefit from such a
relationship.

Freeman lists six principles for genuine participation to take place:

1. Principles of entry and exit. Stakeholder must be able to enter,exit, or renegotiate

contract. Stakeholders in ecotourism must have option to be part of it, opt out of
it,and/or to renegotiate if they want to continue becoming part of it.
2. Principles of governance. The procedure for changing the rules of the game must be
agreed upon by unanimous consent.
3. Principle of externalities. If the contract between stakeholders A and B imposes a cost
on C, then C should have the option to become a party to the contract, to have a say in
how ecotourism should be conducted.
4. Principles of contracting costs. All parties must share the cost off contracting.
5. Angency principle. Any agent must serve the interest of all stakeholders and not just one
stakeholder group. For example, the government should address the concerns of all
stakeholders and not just promote the interest of the LGU, property owners, or tourists.
6. Principle of limited immortality. The corporation must be managed as if it can continue
to serve the interests of all stakeholders through time in the assumption that the
continued survival of ecotourism is in the interest of the stakeholders.

Stakeholders
 Stakeholders are “group on individuals who benefit from or are harmed by, and whose
rights are violated by or respectes by ecotourism” (adapted from Freeman, 2001). There are
two definition of stakeholder. The narrow definition includes only groups or individuals who
are vital to the survival and success of (ecotourism development). The wide definition
includes individuals or groups who can affect or is affected by (ecotourism development).

The United Nations (1992) recognizes the developmental roles of these major groups:
(1) women, (2) children and growth, (3) indigenous people and their communities, (4) non-
governmetal organizations, (5) local (government) authorities, (6) workers and their trade
unions, (7) business and industry, and (8) scientific and technological community [which
includes academe].

A more specific listing of stakeholers in ecotourism includes residents living within or

adjacent to the ecotourism site, tourism-realated workers, non-tourism workers in the
destination who indirectly benefit from tourism, service providers, accommodation
establishments, souvenir shop owners, food and beverage outlets, landowners,
entrepreneurs, investors, financial institutions, local police, food suppliers, indigenous
people who have control over ancestral domains, religious groups, non-governmental
organizations, environmental agencies, public utility, companies, tourists, the general
public, and many others. Tourism student like you are also stakeholders in ecotourism.

Some groups or entities may be considered as “excluded stakeholders.” An

anthropocentric view of development would assume that humans are the only
stakeholders. However, a more inclusive view of development would assume that humans
are the only stakeholders. However, a more inclusive view of development would consider
plants and animals as stakeholders these elements could also be affected by development.
However, plant and animals cannot protect themselves from the potential harm from
ecotourism development. As such, (human) conservationists take it upon themselves to
protect the non-human life forms. Other human stakeholders, such as indigenous people,
the poor, youth, and children,also tend to be weak and less assertive. These groups also
needs their rights and interests to be advanced by another party, such as by non-
governmental organizations.

Stakes in Ecotourism

What are the “stakes” (inrests or expectations) of the various stakeholders in ecotourism?
For a town mayor, a successful ecotourism project will be a credit to him. This will boost his
or her popularity, which could translate into winning the next elections. The local
government units is also interested in ecotourism for the taxes it could generate to create
projects that it will make its constituents perceive the LGU as being effective. Positive
perception will mean political support. For tourism enterprices, ecotourism can mean
profits; for conservation groups, it can generate revenue for nature conservation; for
workers; it means jobs and income; for indigenous people, their ancestral rights are
recognized and they get a fair share of the proceeds. Residents will be interested in how
ecotourism will affect the peace and order situation in their area, cause traffic congestion,
and increase of commodities during peak season. Cultural agencies will be concerned on
how local craft, dances, and music can be sustained by ecotourism. Tourists will look
forward to deriving satisfactory experiences, cultural expose, and new learning from visiting
an ecotourism destination.

Stakeholder participation processes such as elections, representations in tourism

councils, and public consultations, enable various stakeholder groups to achieve their own
interests while enabling other groups to satisfy their own.

Challenges in Getting Stakeholder Participation

If stakeholder participation yields several benefits, then why is it sometimes difficult to

get people involved? This difficulty stems from several causes, which include: (1) the
perception that is inferior or superior to others, which infuences their attitudes and
approaches to participation; (2) superficial nature of participation experienced by some
stakeholder; (3) legal provisions; (4) culturally defined roles of men and women that affect
participation levels; (5) fatigue from participating in consultations that do not translate to
actual benefits; (6) incapacity to participate due to lack of skills and financial capital; (7)
apathy from community members; and (8) lack of confidence in their representatives.

There is power differential among stakeholder groups – they are not equal in power and
status. The differences in power may be accounted by wealth, political positions,
educational attainment, race ethnicity, gender, or even religion. There is an positive
correlation among the first thee factors. However, sometimes one’s relative influence in
society is dictated by things over which one has no control over like skin color, sex, or the
religion one has been born into. For example, indigenous people often lack education, skills,
and capital. These factors often limit their social mobility. The cycle of poverty is
perpetuated, resulting in their self-image being damaged, making them timid in expressing
thei thoughts and feelings in public meetings. Community leaders may play a more
dominant role and may sometimes fell that “open discussion threatens their power and
control.” These dominant people may intimidate less assertive groups from voicing their
thoughts. The result is that the outcomes of an ecotourism project will be more beneficial
to the more powerful groups.
 Sometimes the nature of the consultation process may be the reason why democratic
participation is thwarted. Arnstein (1969) distinguished eight types of participation. The
lowest rungs, known as manipulation and theraphy, represent a lack of power on the part of
the local community. The next rungs, informing, consultation, and placation, are categorized
as tokenism. The highest rungs, partnership, delegated, power, and citizen control,
comprise the highest degree of participation known as citizen power. The lower the rung,
the lower the power of the stakeholder in making.

To boost their confidence, vulnerable sectors should be provided opportunities to

acquire skills and education, and access low-interest financial capital for micro or small
business ventures. Members of indigenous people should be regularly encouraged to attend
consultative meetings and their rights over their ancestral lands should be given due
recognition. For women, the means for participation should be tailored to their situations as
housewives and mothers who need to be at home. For example, they could be taught
home-based livehood projects such as fruit preservation or souvenir handicraft making.

People should not be forced to attend meetings whose purpose is unclear to them. As
rutten (2004) observed in Africa, people tend to succeed better in ecotourism projects when
they pursue such projects on their own initiative rather than having it imposed in them by
outside agents and when they finance and build basic facilities and infrastructure by
themselves. Such involvement accords them greater control and also allows them to get the
benefits for themselves.

Each stakeholder group must be headed by capable leaders who truly represent their
interests or those who will not sell out for their personal again. The government or other
facilitating agencies must be capable of gathering the stakeholders and them to productive
discussion and resolution. The government should be a step ahead in terms of tourism
development. Unfortunately, in some cases, the government fails to regulate tourism
development in a way that prevents negative impacts from happening. For example private
developers have built homes, reastaurants, and hotels along the Tagaytay Ridge, which
have deprived the public free view of the natural wonder. Massive condominiums and
second homes in the area vie for limited water supply and contributes to traffic congestion.
In some case, the government itself through its selected officials becomes the primary
violator of development guidelines. Corruption undermines the spirit of participation when
laws or plans are bent to accommodate certain entities at the expenses of other
stakeholders. Many issues in tourism occur not because of poor planning but because of
bad implementation, which are induced by corruption. Moreover, resolutions must be
translated into actual projects within a realistic time frame. Stakeholders may eventually
lose interest in participating if nothing concrete comes out from such meetings, seminars,
and workshops, among others.

Participation alone is not enough. Adopting an inappropriate development framework

will result in a form of tourism that is not sustainable. For example, in Biri, Northern Samar,
which is noted for its spectacular rock formations, if tourism stakeholders want to follow
the Boracay model of mass tourism and develop cafes and karaokes on top of the rocks,
then a sad outcome is not hard to imagine. Thus, stakeholders, especially the one incharge
of planning, must also be equipped with the understanding of sustainable tourism
frameworks.

Other issues in participation involve the question of who among the stakeholders should
have a bigger voice in the decision-making process. Forr example, should not the resident of
any tourism destination have the last say in how their place will be developed? They suffer
the most from negative impacts when tourism is allowed to develop wihout control.
Unfortunately, in most cases there is no reset botton once tourism development takes its
course. Over time, residents will experience a decreasing quality of life as natural attractions
and cultural traditions are overrun by tourists. Many residents have no choice but continue
to live in these places while tourist and business owners may opt to simply find other places
to “love to death.”

Effective Participation Techniques

A number of techniques may be utilized to encourage stakeholders to participate. Among

these are participatory environmental mopping technique, meetings, nominal group
technique, and workshop. Calanog et al. (2012) explained these techniques:

1. Participatory Environmental Mapping Technique. This involves asking local people

to draw a map of their village or barangay. Using materials provided by a project
officer, this technique often prompts comments on the accurancy of the drawing.
Because everyone is asked to participate, all information is visible to the
participants, making it possible fo everyone to contribute to the discussion.
2. Meetings. These facilitate the cultivation of relationships with stakeholder groups.
However, to be productive, meetings must have the following characteristics: (1) a
clearly defined and agreed role and responsibility for each participants, (2) a
common focus on content, (3) a common focus on process, (4) someone to
moderate so that discussion is open and balanced, and (5) someone will be
responsible for protecting individuals from personal attacks.
3. Nominal Group Technique. The involves from discussion groups of eight to ten
people of different backgrounds. Participants are asked to draw up lists of issues
 about a project independent from other group members. Using a round-robin
procedure, participants group the issues and then vote on their priorities. The
format encourages full participation by preventing assertive people from
dominating, as is common with focus groups.
4. Workshop. This is another popular technique for getting people to discuss issues
and present recommendations on how to resolve such issues. This techniques is
similar to the nominal group technique but may have fewer or larger number of
participants per group. The facilitator writes or presents guide questions on an
issue that the groups need to discuss among themselves and come up their group
outputs. The groups take turns presenting their outputs in plenary either on manila
paper or as slide presentation. The facilitator synthesizes the outputs from all
groups.

Steps in Participatory Planning Process

Formal ecotourism planning involves time in preparing the concept or rationable for
the projects, securing funding for the planning project, and assembling the project
team. The project team will normally consist of people with experience, expertise, and
educational on ecotourism. Former tourism officials, private tourism practitioners, and
academics are usually tapped to comprise an ecotourism planning team. Thea
planning team will consist of a team leader, the most senior in terms of experience
and clout, and team memebers with specializations in product development, gender,
human resources development, and marketing. There may also be project manager
who is tasked to handle the logistics, payment of honoraria to the team, and arrange
the transportantion and accommodation for the team. The project manager may be a
specialist in one area as well. In some cases, the project manager will be organic to the
relevant tourism industry or sourced externally just like the rest of the team. A
government agency may enter into a contact directly with the team members or
employ the services of a consulting firm that procures the srvices of the team
members. Each team member will be presented with the Terms of Reference, which
spell out the renumeration, the duration of the project, and the deriverables or
expected output. Remuneration will usually cover the professional fee per diem or
daily allowance. The professional fee may be paid in tranches, depending on the
submissions of periodic reports and final report. Per diem is supposed to take care of
daily meals and accommodating expenses. Project duration may be for days or month
depending on the scope.

The most important steps in the participatory planning process is to obtain the
cooperation of tourism stakeholders. The Department of Tourism performs it lead role
by coordinating with relevant agencies from the national to local levels. This includes
paying courtesy calls to local elected official in order to brief them about the project.
They can facilitate access to comprehensive land use plans, tourism master plans, and
other pertinent documents that can inform the formulation of an ecotourism plan for
their respective area. Local counterpart agencies could sponsor venues for meetings
and seminar-worshops, organize tourism councils if these are non-existent yet, or form
advisory committees. They can arrange accomodations, meals, internal transportation,
familiarization tours, provide local resource people, and invite key stakeholders to the
consultive meetings and workshops. The police and the military can also be requested
to provide security to the project team.

Calanog et al. (2012) described the key steps in participatory planning which
needs to involve all stakeholders:

1. Define the process that will be used for decision-making. This process must be
acceptable to all stakeholders basd on the criteria of transparency,
appropriateness, and consensus.
2. Identify the problems, issues, and needs.
3. Collect information. This could be done through participatory rapid appraisal
(PRA), surveys, impact assessment studies, SWOT analysis, focus group
discussions, interviews, and observation, among others.
4. Analyze and resolve conflicts.
5. Identify alternative courses of action to define priorities and available
opportunities of the project, taking note of the costs and benefits of each
option.
6. Negotiate to identify areas of agreement and build consensus. This could be
facilitated by a leader or community organizer.
7. Formulate decision and agreements on objectives, strategies, conditions, and
responsibilities for implementing the decisions made, institutional arrangement
for executing the agreements, and the monitoring procedure for the process
and its results.

The third step involves collecting primary and secondary data which could be
best done at the site. These bits of data provide insights into available community
resources and capability: community’s demographic characteristics, history and
traditions, community leaders (formal and informal, elected and recognized
leaders), community culture (spoken and unspoken rules and traditions), existing
groups or organizations, physical resources (man-made and natural),
infrastructure, intitutions, local economy, local government and political dynamics,
social structures, and the people’s attitudes and values.
 Community –based ecotourism (CBE) projects will require five phases of
community mobilization. The first phase is preparation, where the community’s
opinion on community-based tourism is assessed. This assessment should involve
tourism professionals, service providers, operators, and stakeholders who can
present various perspective. While the objective of this assessment is to harness
support for the project (Calanog et al., (2012), true consultation might result in a
decision by the stakeholders to NOT support ecotourism project. At any rate, if the
CBE project is supported by the community, Phase 1 will also include identifying
funds and resources needed, and where they could be sourced. Phase 2 involves
“areness raising” through the preparation and dissemination of information,
education,and communication (IEC) materials on CBE with partner organizations
and individuals. Phase 3 involves building a community coalition or partnerships by
focusing on common needs and common vision for the CBE. Phase 4 involves
formulating the action plan which identities the specific steps, timeline, and
responsible members for each step. Phase 5, the final phase, is monitoring and
evaluating the community to regularly measure progress by tracking achievements.
Adjustments must be made on activities that need improvement to meet the
objectives of the CBE project.