‘Community participation’ and ‘community involvement in the benefits’ among ecotourism operators: Comparing theory with practice by means of an in-depth case study in the Daintree Coast, Australia

Abstract

Tourism can spark social, cultural, ecological and economic change that negatively affects local environments and their communities. To combat these issues ‘ecotourism’ emerged to overcome the negative issues and providing positive contributions to both. In order to reach that objective it is claimed in the (scientific) literature that host communities should receive benefits and be engaged in the decisions that affect their living area.

The majority of the scientific literature surrounding this topic discusses the government as the main actor able to achieve these goals. However, there is an increasing expectation by policy makers that the private sector should contribute in delivering policy objectives and private businesses are expected to take more responsibility concerning their social and environmental impacts. Regarding community participation, this topic is treated as a panacea in the literature while hardly any information exists how community participation actually occurs in practice in relation to ecotourism operators. This in-depth study tries to fill part of this knowledge gap by yielding descriptive knowledge on how community participation is shaped in practice by ecotourism operators and how they involve a community in the benefits. In addition, a comparison is made between theory and practice. The following research question lies at the heart of this study:

In what ways and to what extent do ecotourism operators in the Daintree Coast allow the community to (1) participate in their decision-making and (2) get involved in benefit sharing, and what is the concurrence and discrepancy between theory and practice?

Answers to this question are provided by conducting a literature research and a qualitative case study in the Daintree Coast community in Queensland, Australia. This area is chosen because of the favorable context one would expect to find community participation. Nine ecotourism operators are investigated by means of qualitative interviews to illuminate how they engage their local community in participation and provide benefits.

The findings show that no operator truly engages the ‘community’ in participation (involvement in decision-making). Only the tourism sector is involved to a minor extent (consulting or informing) although no examples are found that involve changes in the environmental or social sphere. The remaining five non-tourism stakeholder groups are not engaged in community participation (ignoring) and do not see it as the responsibility of ecotourism operators to do so.

Concerning the benefits, every operator contributes, although varying in type and size. Creating employment, indirect revenue distribution and providing room for increased tourism spending is performed by every operator. Other benefits involve contributions to the school and health center (six operators), supporting conservation initiatives (five operators) and providing education (three operators). These benefits primarily arise by a reactive approach of operators which is deemed appropriate by community stakeholders. Operators that do not reside in the host community provide fewer benefits compared to local operators.

The level of concurrence between theory and practice is quite large regarding the provision of benefits to a community and non-existent concerning community participation. In order to satisfy a community it is necessary to provide benefits to some extent. The claims about community participation in the scientific literature do not apply to this research area. This study shows that participation in ecotourism is not a given and is not always deemed necessary by ecotourism operators and a local community.