*3.2.3 Cultural limitations*

Culturally predisposed factors such as incapacity, apathy as well as limited awareness of local communities had been considered as limitations to the emergence and implementation of participatory ecotourism development processes [14, 52]. A vast majority of the inhabitants of developing countries encounter challenges with meeting their basic or felt needs as they perceive meeting these as a sole responsibility of the state. Apparently, meeting the needs of tourists take precedence over community development-related issues in many ecotourism destinations. Thus, for the fact that basic survival remains a challenge, participation in ecotourism development processes (as it may consume lots of time and energy) becomes a luxury that vast majority of local communities cannot afford. As a result of socio-cultural, economic as well as political constraints, the majority of the inhabitants of the communities adjacent to ecotourism sites had demonstrated apathy about participating in ecotourism development activities. Another issue of great concern is the fact that vast majority of local communities lack knowledge of ecotourism both as a concept and practical phenomenon. This suggests a great need for enhancing public dialogs and awareness about ecotourism as lack of awareness has been considered as a main barrier to effective local community participation in ecotourism development activities in many parts of the world. Fortress approach to conservation has also prompted numerous socio-economic challenges to local communities [24]. By definition, fortress conservation can be understood as creation and intensive management of protected areas (PAs) characterized by the exclusion of local residents from nature-based areas ([1], p. 5). The phenomenon agitates for eradication of human impact on natural environments as it lends itself well to the notion that nature-based areas should be protected against local communities either by force, coercion or any means necessary [1, 53].

The challenges engendered by fortress conservation include, but not confined to: land dispossession; extensive restrictions; barrier between humans and nature; increased poaching, vandalism and marauding incidents within PAs. Subsequently, there had been ongoing acrimonious relationship and extensive tension between conservation officials and local residents [24]. Historically, many PAs located in developing countries had been built on land from which local residents were forcefully and unlawfully removed. In this sense, fortress conservation denies local residents access to a land that had been expropriated from them through unlawful methods. It is for this reason that Hutton et al. [53] content cogently that local people should benefit from PAs by, amongst other things, participating in nature conservation activities and operating local enterprises that can either directly or indirectly benefit from ecotourism activities. This could strengthen relationships between locals and PAs' personnel, which may subsequently promote conservation of natural resources while sustaining livelihoods of the local residents. As Thondhlana and Cundill [24] echoed "promotion of local communities' inclination and participation in nature conservation activities could impact on transforming the manner in which local communities perceive nature-based areas". However, there are particular instances whereby fortress conservation had been perceived as an expedient intervention to overcome certain challenges that posed serious threat to conservation of particular prestigious animal species. For example, some prominent PAs such as Kruger National Park (KNP) in South Africa and Weza National Park (WNP) in Cameroon in collaboration with local communities had to reinstate

and reinforce fortress conservation that had been dismissed resulting from rampant rhino poaching and frequent marauding incidents occurred in these nature-based areas [54].

Linked to the preceding background, Masberg and Morales [55] suggested five factors that need to be taken into consideration during ecotourism development endeavor, and these are: integrated approach to ecotourism development, proper planning and slow start, enforcing education and training, maximizing local benefits, as well as evaluation and feedback. First, the authors argue that all role players in ecotourism development including local communities should work collaboratively toward achieving a common goal. Second, the development of a business plan for the management of natural resources should be informed by the availability of adequate capacity for achieving anticipated outcomes. Third, all stakeholders including local communities should be trained on ecotourism-related skills. As in Garrod [44], facilitating capacity building amongst target groups serves as one of the advantages of participatory approach to ensure that ecotourism contributes to sustainable development of local communities. Fourth, economic gains from ecotourism activities should be equitably shared amongst all stakeholders including local communities. Finally, comparison between actual and anticipated results from ecotourism activities should be done in order to address and manage identified backlogs, issues and concerns. This could be achieved by ensuring that both formative and summative evaluations are undertaken timeously.

#### **3.3 Approaches for enhancing community participation in ecotourism**

In the context of ecotourism, there are various types of participatory approaches, some are internally initiated and driven, while others are driven externally [56]. These include: expert-assisted and expert-initiated approaches to ecotourism development. The former involves the participants that are most likely to reap the benefits derived from ecotourism activities that take place within their communities. The approach enables participants to make decisions and take actions that may influence or determine the sustainability of ecotourism activity. During this process, the participants play an essential role as they define problems, identify sustainability indicators, provide necessary information and generate final set of indicators. In effect, the participants collectively provide necessary information by which inadequate awareness regarding certain issues could be addressed and make appropriate judgments upon which the sustainability indicators are entirely dependent [57]. There are two types of stakeholder groups that are involved in the approach, and these are: [58] community-based stakeholders, and [15] system-based stakeholders. The former consists of local community members also referred to as end-beneficiaries alongside academic researchers who often provide assistance with facilitating discussions and allowing participants to define problems and suggest possible solutions [56]. Whereas, the latter comprises a variety of representatives from the governing, private and public sectors that are capable of influencing the operationalization of ecotourism activities. This stakeholder group engages in a joint information-sharing-system-dynamics modeling often characterized by collective undertakings and intensive level of commitment to time and resources. The participants take full responsibility for identifying indicators on the basis of established and modeled utility for monitoring ecotourism activity so as to fast-track the criteria as well as indicators analysis and consensus-building process [59]. The expert-initiated approach allows participants including external actors and non-local specialists to contribute toward developing conceptual framework, identifying a cluster of indicators that can be instrumental

*Approaches toward Community Participation Enhancement in Ecotourism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100295*

during execution of the ecotourism project and collectively participate in a risk assessment process [56].

The approach makes provision for both local-based and system-based participants as their role(s) in the ecotourism activity is determined mainly by an initially set list of objectives and goals, as well as the available resources. Local-based participants include members of the local communities and community representatives, whereas system-based participants involve external experts (i.e. tourism specialists, agents and academic researchers). External experts are responsible for defining problems and studying the activities to be undertaken as stipulated in the work-breakdownstructure (WBS) of the ecotourism development project. More so, they ensure that a mutual decision is made regarding indicators and management strategies that are adopted to sustain ecotourism development project [56]. It is therefore, important that external experts develop indicators that are informed by rigorous assessment of basic characteristics of ecotourism development project. Otherwise, the participants would not succeed in addressing the identified unique key issues and often fail to incorporate concerns and recommendations raised or made during participatory sessions or workshops [60]. Nonetheless, expert-initiated approach has been considered in many parts of the world as a vehicle through which sustainable, efficient and resource conservation-oriented ecotourism development could be achieved [56].

#### **3.4 The need for the local community participation improvement model**

Review of literature [14, 32, 39, 44, 45] reveals that local communities in collaboration with other stakeholders could play a significant role in ensuring development and sustainability of ecotourism development process. However, in many parts of world especially in developing countries, local communities have not been considered as important stakeholders who can make a significant contribution toward the development and sustainability of ecotourism endeavors. Consequently, they have not been considered for playing a role in planning and decision-making processes regarding ecotourism development [14, 39, 44, 46]. Moreover, local communities' socio-economic and socio-cultural well-being have not been considered as an important elements of ecotourism development by numerous state agencies and conservation authorities in many ecotourism destinations [12, 18, 21]. Although some authors [56, 57, 59] presented participatory approaches (i.e. expert-assisted and expert-initiated approaches) that may have been used in ecotourism development projects, there have been quite a number of limitations that are considered to have been impeding local community participation in such projects [1, 14, 52]. These impediments are: limitations at the operational level, structural limitations, cultural limitations and fortress conservation. In addition, Botes and van Rensburg [61] argue cogently that Westerncentric oriented participation frameworks adopted by the vast majority of state administrators in many parts of the world neither suit the context within which they are implemented nor serve the intended purpose (i.e. enhancing local community participation in ecotourism development process). Against this backdrop, Gumede and Nzama [62] developed a model that sought to form conceptual basis for planning, formulation, implementation and management of policies related to participation of local communities in ecotourism-related initiatives. The model takes into account the main challenges that are reported to have been inhibiting a vast majority of local communities, especially in developing countries to actively participate in development initiatives undertaken within the boundaries of their residential setting. The model entitled: "Local community participation improvement model (LCPIM)" is presented (see **Figure 2**) and unpacked below.

#### **Figure 2.**

*A model for enhancing community participation in ecotourism activities. Source: Authors.*

#### *3.4.1 Components of the model*

The model is comprised of five interconnected elements that are demarcated into different levels that have been considered as critical in enhancing participation of local communities in ecotourism development process. The levels (operational, structural, local, core and outcome levels) have been considered as fundamental for facilitating community participation in ecotourism activities based on two reasons: [58] flexibility to fit in a variety of contexts, and [15] capability for enhancing local community participation in ecotourism development processes resulting from their interconnectedness. The first three levels (i.e. operational, structural and local levels) relate to different institutional levels and their roles in ecotourism development process. Whereas, the other two levels (i.e. core and outcome levels) relate to the expected outcome resulting from the interconnectedness of the preceding levels.

#### *3.4.1.1 The first level (operational level)*

There are three elements that constitute the operational level. The first element focuses on the importance of decentralizing authority to administer ecotourism development process. The second element focuses on the importance of appropriate co-ordination of ecotourism resources, and the third element focuses on the importance of disseminating information across all governance spectrum.
