**3.2. Types of community participation**

Several researchers have identified various types of community participation, from manipu‐ lative participation to citizen power [13–16]. Arnstein [13], a pioneer in this area, suggested an eight-tier hierarchy of resident participation categorised according to three groups: manipu‐ lative participation, citizen tokenism, and citizen power [18]. Pretty [14] developed a somewhat similar typology of community participation inclusive of three categories: manipulative participation, passive participation, and self-mobilisation [15,17]. Tosun [16,18] applied the typologies of Arnstein [13] and Pretty [14] to tourism to identify the three forms of community participation already explained: coercive participation, induced participation, and spontane‐ ous participation [17]. Note, however, that, in coercive community participation, residents' involvement is limited to predefined activities in accordance with decisions made by powerholders who also determine how residents will act to promote the destination and to what economic benefits they will be entitled. The residents themselves, however, have no actual power or opportunities to make their voices heard [16]. The second form of community participation, based on Tosun's typology, is induced community participation, which is similar to citizen tokenism in Arnstein's model and consultation in Petty's typology [16]. In induced community participation, although residents' have a voice in the tourism development process, they lack the power with which to control the decision-making processes [16,18]. In short, power-holders determine whether the opinions of residents will be accepted or rejected and how they will impact the planning and development process [17]. This type of participa‐ tion often takes the form of public hearings and usually occurs late in the development planning process, once most issues have already been resolved and decisions have been made [40]. The highest level of community participation is spontaneous participation in Tosun's model, citizen power in Arnstein's typology, and self-mobilisation and interactive participa‐ tion in Petty's study. As observed previously, spontaneous participation refers to the power of residents to make decisions and control the process of development [16]. Spontaneous participation can generate trust, ownership, and social capital among the residents [23,41].

However, several studies have found that destination communities in the developing world, or in less developed areas, such as rural destinations, prefer minimal levels of community participation and economic involvement [19,20,33]. Residents in these locations tend to be less interested in participating in decision-making or controlling the process of tourism develop‐ ment and heritage conservation [19,20,33]. In some less developed destinations, residents indicated a preference for involvement of economic activities and benefit sharing over involvement in the decision-making processes [19]. We speculate that such findings are the product of the economic importance of tourism to rural communities. Tourism in rural WHS destinations has historically been an important mechanism for development. Consequently, rural destination communities aspire to become involved in tourism activities, if only so that they might receive a significant share of the economic benefits in the form of direct revenue, employment, infrastructure, and housing ownership [42]. Of course, the involvement of local communities benefits tourists as well, as the local community is ideally poised to provide tourists with a range of accommodation, information, transport, and other facilities and services [43]. Secondary to these economic benefits, tourism helps to improve the local community's quality of life [44]. A study of tourism in a mountainous area reported that local community involvement played an important role in the development and conservation of the environment and other resources and in marketing the destination [45].
