See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223109664

Ecotourism and the Empowerment of Local

Communities

Article in Tourism Management · April 1999

DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00069-7

CITATIONS READS

353 2,546

1 author:

Regina Scheyvens
Massey University
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,488 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Regina Scheyvens on 23 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245 — 249

Case study
Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities
Regina Scheyvens*
School of Global Studies, Massey University, PO Box 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Abstract

This research note considers ways in which we may better understand how ecotourism ventures impact on the lives of people living
in, and around, the environments which ecotourists frequent. From a development perspective, ecotourism ventures should only be
considered ‘successful’ if local communities have some measure of control over them and if they share equitably in the benefits
emerging from ecotourism activities. An empowerment framework is proposed as a suitable mechanism for aiding analysis of the
social, economic, psychological and political impacts of ecotourism on local communities.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Ecotourism; Community; Empowerment

1. Ecotourism concern is the fact that it is precisely these more remote,

less developed tourism areas that ecotourists seek which
Ecotourism is the fastest growing sector, with an esti- are most vulnerable to cultural disruption and environ-
mated growth rate of 10—15%, of one of the largest mental degradation (Cater, 1993).
industries in the world: tourism (Panos, 1997). Ecotour- While some writers emphasise the potential for
ism has been defined as ecotourism to promote the well being of both local
peoples and their environments, (Hoenegaard, 1994)
environmentally responsible, enlightening travel others caution us from uncritically accepting ecotourism
and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural as a common good (Boo, 1990; Ziffer, 1989; Cater
areas in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and & Lowman, 1994). As Cater (p. 85) notes, ‘. . . there is
any accompanying cultural features both past and a very real danger of viewing ecotourism as the universal
present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor panacea, and the ecotourist as some magic breed,
impact, and provides for beneficially active socio- mitigating all tourism’s ills’ (Cater, 1993). Yet romantic
economic involvement of local populations (Cebal- notions about the virtues of ecotourism do still seem to
los-Lascurain, 1996). guide much of the interest in this sector:
According to this definition, ecotourism can involve . . . many governmental agencies and tourism aca-
both cultural and environmental tourism and, in addi- demics have been caught up in the ‘sexy’, supposedly
tion, benefits to the local population should be an inte- ‘new’, forms of tourism such as ecotourism and cul-
gral part of the activity. tural tourism. There is...a somewhat mistaken belief
The demands of increasingly affluent consumers for that these forms of tourism are somehow ethically
‘remote’, ‘natural’ and ‘exotic’ environments have created superior (Hall & Butler, 1995, p. 105).
an upsurge in ecotourism ventures, particularly in devel-
oping countries. Concurrently, within western countries In practice, with the terms ecotourism and cultural
wilderness areas and lands occupied by indigenous tourism often being used merely as marketing tools,
peoples have been opened up to the tourism industry. Of (Thomlinson & Getz, 1996) such forms of tourism are
sometimes ethically inferior. When business is the main
driving force behind ecotourism it is not surprising that
*Tel.: #64 6 350 5910; fax: #64 6 350 5644; e-mail: r.a.scheyvens@ the ventures which emerge may serve to alienate, rather
massey.ac.nz. than benefit, local communities. In the South Pacific, for

0261-5177/99/$ — see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 7
246 R. Scheyvens / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245—249

example, lightened South African ecotourism operators involved

local communities primarily in terms of their public rela-
. . . the concept of ecotourism . . . has been promoted
tions value (Woodwood, 1997). There was little commit-
within a particularly narrow band of conservation
ment to supporting the rights of indigenous peoples to
and business thought which has often failed to ap-
benefit from their traditional lands and wildlife.
preciate the role of social and political values within
A useful way to discern responsible community-based
sustainable tourism development (Rudkin & Hall,
ecotourism is to approach it from a development per-
1996, p. 223).
spective, which considers social, environmental and eco-
Apparently, therefore, there is a need for an approach nomic goals, and questions how ecotourism can ‘. . . meet
to ecotourism which starts from the needs, concerns and the needs of the host population in terms of improved
welfare of local host communities. living standards both in the short and long term’ (Cater,
1993, pp. 85—6). This perspective differs somewhat from
those approaching ecotourism predominantly from an
2. Community-based ecotourism environmental perspective. Buckley, for example, devised
a framework which proposes that ecotourism is based on
Some writers have suggested that the term ‘commun- nature tourism which is sustainably managed, includes
ity-based ecotourism ventures’ should be used to dis- environmental education and supports conservation
tinguish those initiatives which are environmentally (Buckley, 1994). While Buckley’s framework helps us to
sensitive, but which also aim to ensure that members of understand that ecotourism is much more than just
local communities have a high degree of control over the a product, nature, he fails to consider whether the quality
activities taking place, and a significant proportion of the of life of local communities will be enhanced by ecotour-
benefits accrue to them (Liu, 1994; Ceballos-Lascurain, ism activities. Meanwhile, Lindberg et al., take an eco-
1996). This is in contrast to ecotourism ventures which nomic perspective when they examine ecotourism case
are controlled wholly by outside operators, and it is also studies from Belize (Lindberg et al., 1996). While they
distinct from contexts in which most of the economic consider the extent to which ecotourism generates eco-
benefits of tourism accrue to the government (Akama, nomic benefits for local communities, they do not ac-
1996). For example, while the slogan for East Africa of count for how the greater amount of money entering
‘wildlife pays so wildlife stays’ is apt (Ziffer, 1989, p. 2), to communities might be distributed, or how communities
date it has mainly ‘paid’ for governments, foreign tourism are being affected socially and culturally by the ecotour-
companies and local entrepreneurs, rather than returning ism ventures. Even where ecotourism results in economic
benefits to local communities. benefits for a local community, it may result in damage to
A community-based approach to ecotourism recognises social and cultural systems thus undermining people’s
the need to promote both the quality of life of people and overall quality of life (Wilkinson & Pratiwi, 1995). Com-
the conservation of resources. It is now recognised in munity-based approaches to ecotourism therefore need
parts of Africa, for example, that local people should be to acknowledge the importance of social dimensions of
compensated for the loss of access to resources they suffer the tourism experience, rather than primarily focusing on
when wildlife parks are created. For example, the Narok environmental or economic impacts.
Country Council which has jurisdiction over the Masai
Mara park puts money into a trust fund which is used to
fund schools, cattle dips and health services which benefit 3. Empowerment framework
the entire community (Sindiga, 1995). In New Zealand,
meanwhile, Maori communities are using ecotourism as The above discussion has demonstrated that the way
a means of sustainably utilising physical resources at in which ecotourism is approached is critical to its suc-
their disposal in a way which can provide employment cess in terms of promoting the well being of both local
options. Ngai Tahu, for example, are training local tribes peoples and their environments. In order that local
people to deliver information to compliment tourist ac- peoples maximise their benefits, and have some control
tivities such as a highly successful Whale Watch venture. over ecotourism occurring in their regions, Akama has
They aim to ensure that Ngai Tahu people are well suggested that alternative ecotourism initiatives are
trained so that ecotourism can be both socially and needed which aim to empower local people:
economically sustainable, reviving respect for traditions
and enhancing local livelihoods by providing an income . . . the local community need to be empowered to
for many previously unemployed people (Anon., 1993). decide what forms of tourism facilities and wildlife
While ecotourism rhetoric suggests that there is much conservation programmes they want to be de-
support for community-based ecotourism ventures, it is veloped in their respective communities, and how
difficult to find successful cases of this in practice. For the tourism costs and benefits are to be shared
example, Woodwood discovered that even the most en- among different stakeholders (Akama, 1996, p. 573).
 R. Scheyvens / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245—249 247

An empowerment framework has been devised to pro- traps of many past ventures which disempowered local
vide a mechanism with which the effectiveness of communities.
ecotourism initiatives, in terms of their impacts on local Four levels of empowerment are utilised in the frame-
communities, can be determined (Table 1). It should be of work: psychological, social and political, as based on
assistance to researchers or development practitioners Friedmann’s writing (Friedmann, 1992) and economic
who wish to distinguish responsible forms of ecotourism empowerment.
from those operated by ‘eco-pirates’, whom Lew de-
scribes as ‘. . . people who copy existing responsible 3.1. Economic empowerment
tourism products, but in a non-responsible manner —
typically offering lower prices, inferior experiences, and When considering whether or not a community have
detrimental environmental and social impacts’ (Lew, been economically empowered by an ecotourism venture,
1996, p. 723). While not as elaborate as Sofield and it is necessary to consider opportunities which have
Birtles ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Opportunity Spec- arisen in terms of both formal and informal sector em-
trum for Tourism’ (Sofield & Birtles, 1996), the empower- ployment and business opportunities. While some eco-
ment framework could also be used by communities and nomic gains are usually experienced by a community,
development agencies attempting to plan for appropriate problems may develop if these are periodic and cannot
community involvement in ecotourism ventures. This is provide a regular, reliable income. In addition, concerns
because it highlights areas to which particular attention may arise over inequity in the spread of economic bene-
needs to be paid if ecotourism initiatives are to avoid the fits. It is problematic to assume that a ‘community’

Table 1
Framework for determining the impacts of ecotourism initiatives on local communities

Signs of empowerment Signs of disempowerment

Economic empowerment Ecotourism brings lasting economic gains to a local Ecotourism merely results in small, spasmodic cash
community. Cash earned is shared between many gains for a local community. Most profits go to local
households in the community. There are visible signs of elites, outside operators, government agencies, etc.
improvements from the cash that is earned (e.g. im- Only a few individuals or families gain direct financial
proved water systems, houses made of more permanent benefits from ecotourism, while others cannot find
materials). a way to share in these economic benefits because they
lack capital and/or appropriate skills.
Psychological empowerment Self-esteem of many community members is enhanced Many people have not shared in the benefits of
because of outside recognition of the uniqueness and ecotourism, yet they may face hardships because of
value of their culture, their natural resources and their reduced access to the resources of a protected area.
traditional knowledge. Increasing confidence of com- They are thus confused, frustrated, disinterested or
munity members leads them to seek out further educa- disillusioned with the initiative.
tion and training opportunities. Access to employment
and cash leads to an increase in status for traditionally
low-status sectors of society e.g. women, youths.
Social empowerment Ecotourism maintains or enhances the local commu- Disharmony and social decay. Many in the community
nity’s equilibrium. Community cohesion is improved as take on outside values and lose respect for traditional
individuals and families work together to build a suc- culture and for elders. Disadvantaged groups (e.g.
cessful ecotourism venture. Some funds raised are used women) bear the brunt of problems associated with the
for community development purposes, e.g. to build ecotourism initiative and fail to share equitably in its
schools or improve roads. benefits. Rather than cooperating, individuals, families,
ethnic or socio-economic groups compete with each
other for the perceived benefits of ecotourism. Resent-
ment and jealousy are commonplace.
Political empowerment The community’s political structure, which fairly rep- The community has an autocratic and/or self-interested
resents the needs and interests of all community groups, leadership. Agencies initiating or implementing the
provides a forum through which people can raise ques- ecotourism venture treat communities as passive bene-
tions relating to the ecotourism venture and have their ficiaries, failing to involve them in decision-making.
concerns dealt with. Agencies initiating or implemen- Thus the majority of community members feel they
ting the ecotourism venture seek out the opinions of have little or no say over whether the ecotourism initi-
community groups (including special interest groups of ative operates or the way in which it operates.
women, youths and other socially disadvantaged
groups) and provide opportunities for them to be repre-
sented on decision-making bodies e.g. the Wildlife Park
Board.
248 R. Scheyvens / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245—249

consists of a homogeneous, egalitarian group with shared lusionment and confusion, often indicate psychological
goals. The power brokers in any society will have con- disempowerment of a community.
siderable influence over who shares in the benefits of It is in order to avoid such negative effects that some
tourism projects (Smith, 1996). Recent studies suggest Aboriginal communities in Australia have chosen to
that local elites, particularly men, often co-opt and come shun direct involvement with tourists, instead preferring
to dominate community-based development efforts, there- to earn an income from tourists indirectly by making
by monopolising the economic benefits of tourism (Liu, craft goods or sharing the entry fees to environmentally
1994; Akama, 1996; Mansperger, 1995). In determining distinctive areas (Altman & Finlayson, 1993).
the success and sustainability of an ecotourism venture,
the distribution of economic benefits from ecotourism is 3.3. Social empowerment
just as important as the actual amount of benefits a com-
munity may receive (Wilkinson & Pratiwi, 1995). Social empowerment refers to a situation in which
Economic empowerment or disempowerment can also a community’s sense of cohesion and integrity has been
refer to the local community’s access to productive re- confirmed or strengthened by an activity such as ecotour-
sources in an area now targeted by ecotourism. For ism. Strong community groups, including youth groups,
example, the establishment of protected areas typically church groups and women’s groups, may be signs of an
reduces access to hunting and agricultural lands. In addi- empowered community. Social empowerment is perhaps
tion, protection of wildlife species such as elephants may most clearly a result of ecotourism when profits from the
result in destruction of crops and injuries to livestock and tourism activity are used to fund social development
people. Lindberg et al., when studying several ecotourism projects, such as water supply systems or health clinics, in
initiatives in Belize, found that of those households which the local area.
reported direct damage to fish, livestock or crops by On the other hand, social disempowerment may occur
protected area wildlife, less than one-third received direct if tourist activity results in crime, begging, perceptions of
economic benefits from ecotourism (Lindberg et al., crowding, displacement from traditional lands, loss of
1996). In terms of the equitable distribution of benefits, authenticity or prostitution (Mansperger, 1993). Eco-
this is of concern. It should also be of concern to conser- tourism is not, by nature, immune from these problems.
vationists given that local people will only continue to Inequities in distribution of the benefits of ecotourism,
support conservation of protected areas if this assists described under ‘economic empowerment’ above, can
with their own development (Sindiga, 1995). also lead to social disempowerment through feelings of
ill-will and jealousy which they may foster. For example,
3.2. Psychological empowerment one village chief in Yap, Federated States of Micronesia,
kept all of the entrance fees to his village for himself. This
A local community which is optimistic about the fu- led some community members to feel that ‘Money is
ture, has faith in the abilities of its residents, is relatively making people stingy and therefore harming community
self-reliant and demonstrates pride in traditions and cul- spirit’ (Sofield & Birtles, 1996, p. 90). In a proposed
ture can be said to be psychologically powerful. In many ecotourism development in Lauvi Lagoon, Solomon Is-
small-scale, unindustrialised societies, preservation of lands, a local ‘big man’ tried to initiate the ecotourism
tradition is extremely important in terms of maintaining development with minimal consultation with others in
a group’s sense of self-esteem and well being (Mansper- the community, thus resulting in considerable dissension
ger, 1995). Ecotourism which is sensitive to cultural (Rudkin & Hall, 1996). To assume that communities will
norms and builds respect for local traditions can, there- share unproblematically in the production and benefits
fore, be empowering for local people. On the other hand, of the ecotourism product may be excessively romantic
ecotourism which interferes with customs by, for (Taylor, 1995). Clearly in all communities there are in-
example, interfering with the integral relationship be- equalities which may be exacerbated by the introduction
tween a group of people and their land, may have devas- of a somewhat lucrative industry to which all will not
tating effects. Mansperger describes how groups of have access.
Yagua Indians of the Peruvian and Colombian Amazon
have been relocated by tour operators into regions more 3.4. Political empowerment
accessible to tourists. The Yagua have consequently be-
come dependent on money raised from cultural perfor- If a community is to be politically empowered by
mances and their obligations to the tour operators mean ecotourism, their voices and their concerns should guide
they have insufficient time to raise crops, hunt and fish, the development of any ecotourism project from the
and no land on which to engage in slash-and-burn agri- feasibility stage through to its implementation. Diverse
culture. The Yagua are now plagued by various forms of interest groups within a community, including women
ill-health, and apathy and depression are common place and youths, should also have representation on com-
(Mansperger, 1995). These feelings, along with disil- munity and broader decision-making bodies. Akama
 R. Scheyvens / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245—249 249

argues that for local communities to be able to exert Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). ¹ourism, ecotourism and protected areas.
some control over ecotourism activities, however, power IUCN (World Conservation Union). Switzerland: Gland.
will need to be decentralised from the national level to Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: ¹he politics of alternative develop-
ment. Cambridge: Blackwell.
the community level (Akama, 1996). This could include Hall, C. M., & Butler, R. W. (1995). In search of common ground:
involving grassroots organisations, local church groups, Reflection on sustainability, complexity and process in the tourism
and indigenous institutions in decision-making processes system. Sustainable ¹ourism, 3(2), 99—105.
and on representative bodies such as national parks Hvenegaard, G. (1994). Ecotourism: A status report and conceptual
boards or regional tourism associations. framework. Journal of ¹ourism Studies, 5(2), 24—35.
Lew, A. (1996). Adventure travel and ecotourism in Asia. Annals of
¹ourism Research, 23(3), 723—724.
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism ques-
4. Conclusion tioned: Case studies from Belize. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 23(3),
543—562.
The empowerment framework, designed for analysis of Liu, J. (1994). Pacific islands ecotourism: A public policy and planning
the impacts of ecotourism ventures on local communi- guide. Pacific Business Center Program, University of Hawaii.
Mansperger, M. C. (1995). Tourism and cultural change in small-scale
ties, attempts to emphasise the importance of local com-
societies. Human Organization, 54(1), 87—94.
munities having some control over, and sharing in the Panos (1997). Ecotourism: Paradise gained, or paradise lost?
benefits of, ecotourism initiatives in their area. The http://www.oneworld.org/panos/panos—eco2.html.
rationale behind the framework is that ecotourism Rudkin, B., & Hall, C. M. (1996). Unable to see the forest for the trees:
should promote both conservation and development at Ecotourism development in the Solomon Islands. In R. Butler, & T.
Hinch, (Eds.), ¹ourism and indigenous peoples, London: International
the local level. The framework could be applied in both
Thomson Business Press.
western and developing country contexts but, because it Sindiga, I. (1995). Wildlife-based tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts
takes as its central concern the concept of empowerment, and government compensation policies over protected areas. Journal
it is perhaps particularly pertinent when examining the of ¹ourism Studies, 6(2), 45—55.
extent to which indigenous people, or other disadvan- Smith, V. (1996). Indigenous tourism: the four Hs. In R. Butler, &
T. Hinch (Eds.), ¹ourism and indigenous peoples. London: Interna-
taged groups, are benefiting from ecotourism.
tional Thomson Business Press.
Sofield, H. B., & Birtles, R. A. (1996). Indigenous peoples’ cultural
opportunity spectrum for tourism. In R. Butler, & T. Hinch (Eds.),
References ¹ourism and indigenous peoples, London: International Thomson
Business Press.
Akama, J. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: Does it really work?.
tourism in Kenya. ¹ourism Management, 17(8), 567—574. ¹ourism Management, 16(7), 487—489.
Altman, J., & Finlayson, J. (1993). Aborigines, tourism and sustainable Thomlinson, E., & Getz, D. (1996). The question of scale in ecotourism:
development. Journal of ¹ourism Studies, 4(1), 38—50. Case study of two small ecotour operators in the Mundo Maya
Anon. (1993). Ngai Tahu Boom. Mana, 1, 18. region of Central America. Journal of Sustainable ¹ourism, 4(4),
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: ¹he potentials and pitfalls. Washington DC: 183—200.
World Wildlife Fund. Wilkinson, P., & Pratiwi, W. (1995). Gender and tourism in an In-
Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of ¹ourism donesian village. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 22(2), 283—299.
Research, 2(3), 661—669. Woodwood, S. (1997). Report — ‘cashing in on the Kruger’: The poten-
Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustain- tial of ecotourism to stimulate real economic growth in South Africa.
able tourism development. ¹ourism Management, 14(2), 85—90. Journal of Sustainable ¹ourism, 5(2), 166.
Cater, E., & Lowman, G. (Eds.) (1994). Ecotourism: A sustainable option? Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: ¹he uneasy alliance. Washington DC:
Chichester: Wiley. Conservation International.

View publication stats