**3. Literature review**

#### **3.1 Stakeholders involved in ecotourism**

Development, success and sustainability of ecotourism hinge mainly upon active participation of a variety of stakeholders who play different roles depending on their capacity, type of ecotourism and necessary level of participation [18, 26–28]. In the context of ecotourism, stakeholders can be understood as all those parties or actors representing similar or divergent interests but working collaboratively toward the success of ecotourism project [29, 30]. Based on their unique roles and level of commitment, stakeholders are capable of influencing the success of ecotourism development activities [31]. There is an array of stakeholders involved in ecotourism development, and they range from public sector, private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), tourism operators, tourism sites' management, academic researchers and local communities [26, 32], and they can be categorized into primary and secondary segments [29]. The former refers to those who provide essential support without which ecotourism development could not take place, and they include: local communities, tourists, tourism operators, ecotourism sites' management, public and private sectors [29]. The latter comprises those who influence the operationalization of ecotourism development initiatives but do not qualify to be considered as interest groups, and these include: NGOs, community tourism committees/organizations as well as academic researchers [29]. As the preceding text highlights, each stakeholder plays a unique role in ecotourism development process. Government institutions (referred to here as public sector) are responsible for administering consultative processes through which development and enactment of policies and strategies reflecting aspirations and interests of the public concerning ecotourism development is ensured [33]. However, each state adopts and enact its unique policies and strategies meant to facilitate ecotourism development processes within the boundaries of their countries. This is normally done in accordance with the rules and regulations stipulated by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

Established during 1975, the UNWTO is the international agency entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that responsible, sustainable and universally acceptable tourism activities are promoted [34]. The private sector plays a significant role as it provides financial assistance needed by most developing countries in facilitating ecotourism development projects [26]. NGOs have also been playing a crucial role in ecotourism development through their interventions in addressing institutional and financial constraints that may hinder sustainability of ecotourism development programmes. Subsequently, ecotourism sites where NGOs are actively involved have been better managed compared to those that are solely state-owned [35]. Ecotourism operators play a major role as they ensure that the demands and needs of tourists outside the boundaries of ecotourism sites are met. For example, they provide accommodation and hospitality services to ensure that tourists have access to proper food, beverage, entertainment and comfortable rest [36]. Ecotourism sites bear a responsibility for ensuring that tourists' quest for studying, experiencing, enjoying and admiring natural resources while considering the socio-economic and socio-cultural well-being of the local communities is satisfied [37]. Tourists form an integral component of ecotourism development as they purchase the services and consume the products offered within and outside the boundaries of ecotourism sites [38]. Academic researchers gather useful data in influencing decision-making regarding review of existing and enactment of new policies by which proper management and sustainability of ecotourism can be facilitated [26]. Local communities are considered to be one of the key stakeholders in ecotourism development process. Meng, Jun and Zhengzheng [39] uphold cogently that it could be a mirage to achieve ecotourism overall objectives if community members are excluded from participating in ecotourism development programmes. Accordingly, the concept 'community participation' has emerged and became popular as it has been considered by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) as one of the essential elements and principles of ecotourism development ([40], p. 30; [21], p. 269). Likewise, numerous government policy documents regard community participation as an essential pillar with which Sustainable Development Goals-2030 can be achieved [41].

In the context of ecotourism, community participation refers to a process whereby local residents are voluntarily engaged or involved in ecotourism development initiatives undertaken within the vicinity of their communities [14, 42]. In the process of participation, local communities are expected to take full responsibility during planning and management processes regarding ecotourism development [43]. Garrod [44] describes participation of local communities in planning and management as a process whereby locals are provided with a platform for sharing their views during conceptualization and decision-making phases of ecotourism development project. Participation of local communities in ecotourism development processes may result into accessing opportunities such as self-governance and working collaboratively with other stakeholders in planning and management process, especially on issues affecting their well-being [14, 45]. Local community well-being is defined by Eshun, Adjei and Baah ([46], p. 4) as 'the totality of efforts towards social resilience of local residents inhabiting communities adjacent to ecotourism sites through minimal external control and provisioning of alternative livelihood strategies'. Consideration of local community well-being in ecotourism development has been triggered mainly by possible adversity from socio-economic and socio-cultural impacts of ecotourism activities [40]. Accordingly, Nkemngu [47] argues cogently that issues of community well-being are deeply embedded within the social exchange theory, which maintains that local communities tend to trade their support for projects in exchange for benefits that they stand to gain from ecotourism development activities. As identified by Garrod [44], there are at least

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

five major indicators for successful community participation in ecotourism, and are illustrated in **Figure 1** and discussed in the subsequent writing.

**Figure 1** illustrates that there is a need for a strong leadership during participatory planning process as different stakeholders may have different views, motives, preferences and objectives based on their expectations from ecotourism development project. For example, those who own accommodation and hospitality facilities may wish to host more visitors compared to ecotourism sites' managers who may want to regulate the number of visitors resulting from potential adverse impacts on natural resources due to ecotourism activities. In order to neutralize possible contrasting views and conflict of interest, a strong and assertive leadership is required for making resolute decisions that could amicably settle potential dispute while facilitating empowerment amongst stakeholders. Empowerment can be understood as the effort of ensuring that all stakeholders including local communities participate in planning and decision-making processes. This could assist in ensuring that stakeholders collectively set goals and objectives and take full responsibility for ensuring that they are timeously achievable [24]. This may in turn, strengthens local people's support and responsibility for sustaining ecotourism projects. Garrod [44] concurs that empowering local people could be instrumental in ensuring genuine and long-term support necessary for sustaining ecotourism projects. There are four types of community empowerment [48], and they are: economic empowerment, social empowerment, psychological empowerment and political empowerment. According to Scheyvens, economic empowerment is concerned with ensuring that local people are provided with an opportunity to fully engage in decision-making processes regarding non-ecological benefits of ecotourism. In essence, economic empowerment provides local people with an opportunity to access financial resources involved in ecotourism development activities. Social empowerment enables locals to determine the social impacts resulting from

ecotourism activities. Thus, social cohesion and integrity of the locals form part of social empowerment. Psychological empowerment is concerned with shaping the attitudes that locals may develop over time toward ecotourism development activities. Whereas, political empowerment deals with the ability of the locals to express their concerns toward directing, formatting and accelerating ecotourism development activities.

There is general perception that ecotourism destinations' managers and state agencies responsible for ecotourism development pay minimal attention and allocate limited resources toward monitoring and evaluation of ecotourism development projects [44]. Involving local communities in monitoring and evaluation processes could therefore, increase efficiency while contributing positively toward sustainable ecotourism development. This could assist in enhancing the capacity of local stakeholders and other intended beneficiaries of ecotourism development projects [44]. For the fact that ecotourism development approaches adopted by many tourism destinations prioritize nature conservation over socio-economic and socio-cultural well-being of local communities [18, 21], revenues generated from ecotourism had been solely spent on protection and maintenance of natural resources. This has been done mainly to attract potential tourists and satisfy administrators' ulterior motives [44]. To the contrary, if the local communities are considered for beneficiation, they are more likely to bear a responsibility for custodianship and commit to sustain ecotourism development activity [41]. Butcher [49] echoes that participation of local communities and being considered as beneficiaries foster a sense of pride and ownership amongst them and create opportunities for establishing locally-based small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) to benefit local entrepreneurs, residents and tourists. However, Stronza [28] argues that the relationship between economic incentives and community participation cannot be easily determined.

Despite being considered as a cardinal tenet of ecotourism development, there is paucity of literature focusing on the nexus between ecotourism and local community well-being [32, 46]. As the preceding writing alludes, despite the fact that most ecotourism activities take place within marginalized, distressed and impoverished communities [12], ecotourism sites managers are more concern with conservation and commodification of natural resources for monetary gains than well-being or welfare of local communities [18, 21]. As a consequence, numerous developing countries in most parts of the world have been declared as non-compliant to ensuring local community participation in ecotourism development processes [46]. Local communities' exclusion, apathy and lack of commitment to participate in ecotourism could result in numerous threats that may be detrimental to ecotourism development, and these include: vandalism, marauding and hostility of locals toward ecotourism sites' authorities and tourists [17]. Nevertheless, local communities in many parts of the world are still excluded from participating in decision-making processes concerning ecotourism development [17]. Linked to local communities' socio-cultural well-being, is the aspect of cultural sensitivity (CS). CS can be understood as the extent to which the adverse impacts related to natural and cultural environments are alleviated by the key stakeholders [50]. Donohoe suggests four ways by which CS can be observed:


In line with the above, West and Carrier [51] uphold that ecotourism incorporates socio-cultural element which can be manifested through aspirations to interact with local communities and commitment to observe their diverse customs, values and appearance in a respectful manner. Understanding, respecting and considering socio-cultural features of the local communities can play a crucial role in sustaining both ecotourism development endeavors and rapport amongst stakeholders. Ironically, there has been a paucity of empirical evidence on active participation of local communities in ecotourism activities [17]. Against this backdrop, some authors [17, 24] caution that prevalent exclusion of local communities from participating in ecotourism activities may jeopardize its development and sustainability, and result into considerable threats such as criminal offenses against tourists and fractured state between ecotourism sites' personnel and local communities. Tosun [14]; Nyaupane, Morais and Dowler [52]; Swemmer et al. [1] identify numerous factors that may limit participation of local communities in ecotourism, and these are discussed in the subsequent section.
