Taking Responsibility for Responsible Tourism in ... · Taking Responsibility for Responsible...

Taking Responsibility for Responsible Tourism in Communities – A Local Perspective

1

Taking Responsibility for Responsible Tourism

in Communities – A Local Perspective

Anke Winchenbach 2013

This dissertation is submitted as part of a MA degree in Tourism,

Environment and Development at King’s College London

Image source: Author


2

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

MA/MSc DISSERTATION

I, Anke Winchenbach

hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original work and

that all source material used is acknowledged therein; (b) that it has

been specially prepared for a degree of the University of London; and

(c) that it does not contain any material that has been or will be

submitted to the Examiners of this or any other university, or any

material that has been or will be submitted for any other

examination.

This Dissertation is 11,936 words.

Signed:

Date: 29 August 2013


3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for the support and guidance from Professor Michael Redclift throughout the

research. I would also like to express my warmest thanks to all the Gambian participants in

this study, particularly Lamin Bojang, whose openness, sense of humour and passion made

this study not only fruitful, but also a precious experience. I am also entirely thankful to my

husband Mig, who gave me the space and support I needed to get this dissertation finished.


4

ABSTRACT

The academic literature recognises human capacity building as the key for rural

development and Responsible Tourism in the global South. However, little attention has

been paid to personal and community level factors that affect post-training knowledge

transfer and action. Using a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, this study examined what

role tourism training and knowledge play in Responsible Tourism practices in four

communities in rural Gambia. This research found that a trainees’ personal motives, attitude

and the ability to share knowledge can influence accountability within their communities

and can create an environment that allows host communities to actively influence for

tourism to be exercised more responsibly. It was also found that positive action and co-

operation at community level enabled local people to overcome some external barriers to

Responsible Tourism development and increased positive tourism impacts.


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 3

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 8

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Responsible Tourism as a Social Movement .................................................................. 10

1.2 What is meant by Sustainability? ................................................................................... 10

1.3 Rural Tourism Development for Poverty Alleviation ..................................................... 10

1.4 This Dissertation ............................................................................................................. 11

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 13

2.1 A Critical Interpretative Approach to Responsible Tourism ........................................... 13

2.2 Responsible Tourism ....................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 A New Agenda for Tourism and Development ........................................................ 13

2.2.2 Why Responsible Tourism? ...................................................................................... 14

2.3 Community Tourism for Rural Development ................................................................. 16

2.3.1 Access to Markets .................................................................................................... 16

2.3.2 The ‘alternative’ Tourist and the Host ..................................................................... 16

2.3.3 Community Tourism and Communities ................................................................... 17

2.4 Empowerment and Power .............................................................................................. 19

2.4.1 Empowerment ......................................................................................................... 19

2.4.2 Power ....................................................................................................................... 20

2.4.3 The Role of NGOs ..................................................................................................... 21

2.5 Building Human Capacity ................................................................................................ 21

2.5.1 Training and Skills for Meeting the Industry’s Needs .............................................. 21

2.5.2 Education for Taking Responsibility ......................................................................... 22

2.5.3 Sharing Knowledge and Responsibility .................................................................... 23

3. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 24

3.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 25


6

3.3 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1 Participant Observation (PO) ................................................................................... 27

3.3.2 Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups ........................................................ 28

3.3.3 Questionnaires ......................................................................................................... 30

3.3.4 Ethical Issues ............................................................................................................ 30

3.3.5 Analysis .................................................................................................................... 31

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 32

4.1 Situation in each Research Site ...................................................................................... 32

4.1.1 Juffureh/Albreda ...................................................................................................... 32

4.1.2 Janjanbureh .............................................................................................................. 33

4.1.3 Tumani Tenda .......................................................................................................... 33

4.1.4 Kartong ..................................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 34

4.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Access to Training .................................................................................................... 35

4.3.2 Community Benefits or Training for Personal Gain? ............................................... 36

4.3.3 From Theory to Practice – Action for Change .......................................................... 37

4.3.4 Empowerment and Power ....................................................................................... 41

4.3.5 Monitoring Progress ................................................................................................ 43

4.3.6 More Training ........................................................................................................... 43

4.3.7 The Role of the Government ................................................................................... 44

5. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...................................................... 45

5.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 45

5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 46

5.3 Limitations of this Study ................................................................................................. 47

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 48

APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................. 50

Appendix A - Geography Research Ethics Screening Form ................................................ 50

Appendix B - Ethics Approval Notification ......................................................................... 51

Appendix C - Geography Risk Assessment Form ............................................................... 52

Appendix D - Perceived Success Factors and Barriers for RT by Research Location ......... 53

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 56


7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Interviewees and their connection to tourism 28

Table 2 Perceived success factors and barriers for Responsible Tourism

development in all locations

34

Table 3 Perceived success factors and barriers for Responsible Tourism

development location specific

53

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of The Gambia 27

Figure 2 Kartong, Code of Conduct for Visitors 38

Figure 3 Kartong, Code of Conduct for Hosts

39


8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASSET Association of Small Scale Enterprises in Tourism

CBT Community-Based Tourism

FE Foreign Exchange

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GTA Gambia Tourism Authority

HDI Human Development Index

ITTOG Institute of Travel and Tourism in The Gambia

KART Kartong Association of Responsible Tourism

LDC Least Developed Country

MDG Millennium Development Goals

NEA National Environmental Agency

NGO Non-governmental Organisations

PO Participant Observation

PPT Pro-Poor Tourism

RT Responsible Tourism

RTP Responsible Tourism Partnership

SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach


9

1. INTRODUCTION

Tourism is one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries. In 2012, a record

number of 1 billion tourists travelled internationally, and numbers are expected to reach 1.6

billion by 2020 (UNWTO, 2001; 2012). Tourism currently accounts for 9.3% of the global GDP

with a 4% annual GDP growth forecast until 2022 (WTTC, 2012). It involves multiple actors

from local communities to governments and 9% of the world’s workers are connected to

tourism (WTTC, 2012).

Even though comparatively small in global market terms, tourism to Least Developed

Countries (LDCs) can have significant economic impact on local livelihoods, reflected in 80%

of the 56 nations with a poverty reduction strategy having tourism included (Hawkins and

Mann, 2007). Traditionally, tourism was expected to facilitate economic growth and

development through employment opportunities, foreign exchange (FE) earnings, foreign

investment and tax income (Mowforth and Munt, 2008). However, despite GDP growth and

increased tourism arrivals, severe poverty persists in most developing countries (Sharpley

and Telfer, 2008), and thus a more holistic approach seems required.

Since the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in 2000,

tourism has been recognised as one of the key factors towards poverty alleviation, gender

equality, environmental sustainability and the empowerment of marginalised communities

with a particular emphasis on building and strengthening human capital through tourism

education and training (Moscardo, 2008; Novelli and Hellwig, 2011; Saarinen et al., 2011;

Spenceley, 2008; Sofield, 2003; UNWTO, 2006). Many development practitioners, scholars

and organisations emphasise the potential of tourism to contribute towards the MDG’s,

which is most strongly reflected in studies on Responsible Tourism (RT) (Goodwin, 2011;

Harrison and Husbands, 1996; Krippendorf, 1987; Reid, 2003; Spenceley, 2008) and Pro-Poor

Tourism (PPT) (Ashley et al., 2000; Ashley et al., 2001; Hall, 2007a, 2007b; Mitchell and

Ashley, 2010).


10

1.1 Responsible Tourism as a Social Movement

Defined as a social movement, RT envisages that individual and collective decisions about

how we understand and execute tourism has the potential to facilitate changes in the whole

industry (Goodwin, 2011). Two core aspirations were agreed by international key tourism

industry stakeholders in the Cape Town Declaration in 2002: “making all forms of tourism

sustainable through all stakeholders taking responsibility for creating better forms of

tourism [and] to create better places for people to live in and for people to visit” (Cape

Town, 2002:2). RT is an inclusive and holistic movement that recognises the ongoing

discussions and achievements of academia and experts in the tourism and development

industry, amongst these are the UN and Rio+ agendas. RT’s overall concern includes, but is

not limited to, sustainability, social equity, poverty alleviation and environmental protection

(Goodwin, 2011), which mirrors the aspirations of the MDGs. However, most academics also

acknowledge the challenges in implementing the theory into practice. Amongst other

factors, a lack of human capacity to meet the industry’s needs (Goodwin, 2011), internal and

external power structures (Scheyvens, 2007; Sofield, 2003) and insufficient government

policies (Sharpley, 2009; Tosun, 2005) might prevent viability and hinder success.

1.2 What is meant by Sustainability?

Sustainability and sustainable development are contested terms, as sustainability can refer

to pure economic objectives, ignoring aspects of power, equity, participation, protection and

consumption. Font and Goodwin understand sustainability in RT as an overall aspiration,

based on economic, social and environmental sustainability, referred to as the ‘three pillars’

or the ‘triple bottom line’ (2012:9). This definition still recognises economic growth as one

key component for being sustainable, but anticipates that trade-offs will have to be made

and that combining the three is not a straight forward task (Goodwin, 2011; Font and

Goodwin, 2012).

1.3 Rural Tourism Development for Poverty Alleviation

Until recently, the academic literature, development practitioners and governments have

mainly focused on economic aspects of tourism development (i.e. modernisation, neo-


11

liberalisation) (Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). However, mass-tourism has generally failed to

alleviate poverty, but instead produced high economic leakages and socio-cultural and

environmental costs for host communities (ibid). Recently, the focus shifted towards more

holistic concepts and includes previously marginalised communities into development

strategies by supporting and promoting alternative forms of tourism and encouraging local

entrepreneurship, with the intention for tourism to become the driving force for rural

development and improved local livelihoods (Saarinen et al., 2011). The aim is to produce

net-benefits for the poor (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010), empower host communities (Sofield,

2003), help towards gender equality (Ferguson, 2011) and contribute towards the country’s

overall development. However, a growing number of scholars are cautious about the

promises being made from these bottom-up and grass-root tourism endeavours, as success

rates are low (Goodwin, 2011; Hall, 2007b), and tourism development in remote areas might

even harm communities (Duffy, 2002; Urry and Larsen, 2011).

1.4 This Dissertation

The number of alternative tourism enterprises and projects keep expanding and are based

on two main assumptions: 1) that it can bring the much needed rural development and

spread tourism earnings into remote areas and 2) that more tourists eschew mass-tourism

destinations and are increasingly looking for more meaningful and responsible forms of

holidays (Goodwin, 2011; Hall et al., 2005). However, local communities in developing

countries often lack the education and skills required to work in the tourism industry

(Brower, 2011; Brown and Hall, 2008; Goodwin, 2011; Moscardo, 2008; Sharpley and Telfer,

2008; Sofield, 2003). The Gambia, as one of the poorest and smallest countries in the world,

is no exception. Building human capacity in the form of skills training and formal and

informal education has been identified as the key to responsible and sustainable tourism

development in The Gambia (Bah and Goodwin, 2003; Carlisle et al., 2012; Ezeuduji and Rid,

2011; Mitchell and Faal, 2007; Novelli and Burns, 2010; Sharpley, 2009; Wilcox et al., 2011).

Brower (2011) stressed that the aim of educational interventions is to enable local people to

identify issues and create solutions to their problems, thus owning the solutions. However,

there seems to be an assumption that increased awareness and training automatically lead

to positive outcomes towards responsible and sustainable tourism and empower local


12

people. Despite an increased interest in rural tourism development and a consensus on the

importance of education and knowledge for RT development, no research has been

conducted on the impact of tourism training in rural Gambia from a local perspective. This

research aims to answer the following questions for the Gambia:

• What role does training and knowledge play for RT practices?

• Why do some communities find it easier than others to transfer the training from

theory into practice?

• Who is responsible for RT practices?

The research was framed in an interpretative critical approach and applied a constructivist

grounded theory methodology. It addresses what impact tourism training had on RT

practices in four rural communities, thus aiming to add another dimension to the growing

academic work on sustainable and responsible tourism development.


13

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 A Critical Interpretative Approach to Responsible Tourism

Since the 1990’s, tourism research experienced a ‘cultural turn’ (Cloke, 1997), with the

acknowledgement of the social world and human actions as fluid. The focus shifted from the

dominating positivist approach, which aimed for finding general explanations and assumed

an objective truth, towards critical modes of enquiry with an emphasis on meaning,

interpretation, exploration and finding causality (Cloke et al., 2004; Valentine et al., 2010).

A critical interpretative approach emphasises that realities are socially constructed, must be

seen in a local context, depend on feelings, attitudes and actions and are centred on themes

of power (Mowforth and Munt, 2008; Tribe, 2008). Most tourism stakeholders such as

tourists, planners, policy makers and private businesses are situated in the global North

(Mowforth and Munt, 2008). However, the consumption often takes place in the less

developed global South, which can lead to the exploitation of natural and human resources

if not managed appropriately, thus re-enforcing global inequality and neo-colonialism (Hall,

2007b; Sharpley and Telfer, 2008; Sofield, 2003). Therefore, questions of the distribution of,

access to and scope for exercising power will be considered throughout the paper.

Over the last two decades, there has been growing attention towards the negative impact of

tourism. In the light of growing calls from all sectors of the industry for more responsible

and ethical practices, this literature review attempts to give an overview about current

academic discussions on the topic, with a particular focus on community and rural tourism in

developing countries. Academic literature about human capacity building and internal and

external factors influencing community participation will be discussed.

2.2 Responsible Tourism

2.2.1 A New Agenda for Tourism and Development

The academic literature about tourism development and management mirrors post WW II

development literature and strategies (Jamal and Robinson, 2009; Sharpley and Telfer,

2002). In the past, academics assumed that economic growth and larger tourist arrivals


14

automatically reduce poverty (Hawkins and Mann, 2007; Torres and Momsen, 2004),

whereas contemporary writings since the late 1980s shifted towards more alternative and

holistic approaches (Pieterse, 2002; Sharpley and Telfer, 2002). Concern and focus has

increased in areas such as local people’s knowledge, participatory development,

empowerment and community capacity building, also referred to as ‘grassroots’ or ‘bottom-

up’ development. In her research on community participation in tourism development,

Blackstock (2005) found that most academic literature neglects three vital aspects. Thus, the

following sections will consider intra-community power relations, structural constraints to

local control of the tourism industry (i.e. global market forces) and factors influencing local

empowerment and participation by maintaining tourism as a grand vision, rather than

focusing on social justice (ibid).

2.2.2 Why Responsible Tourism?

In his seminal work, Krippendorf (1987) discussed the impacts of tourism on host

communities and called for a change in the industry, including all stakeholders. He

acknowledged that economic gain and tourist demand are the key drivers in the industry

which usually exploits the hosts’ environment, culture and workforce and leaves the host

community to pay the price. Many contemporary writers share these concerns about

environmental (Duffy, 2002) and cultural overconsumption (Urry and Larsen, 2011).

Krippendorf’s vision was for tourism to become a fairer playing field, which could produce

benefits for, including, but not limited to, poor and rural host communities, while meeting

tourist demand. He demanded to take responsibility and becoming “rebellious tourists and

rebellious natives” (1982:147) to make positive changes happen in destinations. Since then,

the RT movement gained momentum, defined “by the willingness to take responsibility to

make tourism better” (Font and Goodwin, 2012:5). This definition adds the importance of

taking responsibility for action to the definition of PPT: “tourism that generates net benefits

for the poor” (Ashley et al., 2001:2), which are reflected in the following 4 points of the Cape

Town Declaration (2002:2). Responsible Tourism:

• Minimises negative economic, environmental, and social impacts

• Generates greater economic benefits for local people and enhances the well-being of

host communities, improves working conditions and access to the industry


15

• Involves local people in decisions that affect their lives and life chances

• Is culturally sensitive, engenders respect between tourists and hosts, and builds local

pride and confidence

For the purpose of this paper, RT encompasses PPT and will be considered as the

overarching approach. RT aims for “creating better places to live in and better places to

visit” (Cape Town, 2002:2), thus partly accepting existing neo-liberal market structures,

namely the demand driven nature of tourism (Goodwin, 2011). Similarly, Wilkinson (1992)

suggested that the question is not if tourism is beneficial or not, but how it can be carried

out more environmentally, socially and culturally sensitive. Identified potential success

factors for tourism for poverty alleviation are 1) participation of the informal sector, 2) the

customer comes to the product (unusual for an export good), 3) multiplier effect on other

businesses, 4) the poor have assets tourists want, i.e. wildlife and culture, and 5) tourism is

labour intensive and employs a greater proportion of women (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010;

Rogerson, 2006; Sharpley and Telfer, 2008).

Moscardo (2005, 2008), on the other hand, argues that tourism must be considered as one

of many possible development options and that communities should be enabled to decide if

and what sort of tourism they want. Others criticise the RT movement for not challenging

the neo-liberal status quo of the tourism industry (Duffy, 2002; Hall, 2007a; Wheeller, 1997).

Wheeller (1997), for example, argues that RT is dangerously agreeable but an inappropriate

concept that accepts unlimited tourism growth. Hall (2007b) and Schilcher (2007) state, that,

despite small successes and even government commitments to RT policies, the industry

carries on with business as usual, instead of shifting from growth to equity. Goldstein (2002)

and Urry and Larsen (2011) are most concerned about reinforcing unequal power structures

and promoting neo-colonialism through the way local communities are marketed and

consumed. Finally, Liu (2003) warns that alternative forms of tourism could be used by

governments and tour operators as a ‘marketing ploy’ (2003:471) to attract more visitors;

thus the focus should be on making mass-tourism more sustainable instead of promoting

rural and small scale tourism.


16

2.3 Community Tourism for Rural Development

2.3.1 Access to Markets

The tourism market is dominated and controlled by international companies, whose overall

aim is to generate revenue (Mowforth and Munt, 2008; Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). Local

communities in developing countries lack the funds, networks and knowledge for marketing

and for competing against large scale enterprises, thus can only exercise limited control and

participation in tourism planning and development and depend on external tourism supply

(Cleverdon and Kalisch, 2000; Goodwin, 2011; Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). Cleverdon and

Kalisch (2000) highlight the challenge for policy makers and the industry is to find a way to

create collaborations, so that integrated local economic development can occur.

However, small enterprises could benefit from existing aviation infrastructures and mass

tourism areas by improved service delivery and identifying a clear brand identity, which

could diversify the tourism product away from beach-enclaves (Carlisle and Jones, 2012). For

example, Rid et al. (2014) found that there is latent potential for event tourism in rural

Gambia, which could attract new visitor groups. Recently, there is an increased interest in

facilitating linkages for developing and supporting more local development and

empowerment from international tour operators (Mitchell and Faal, 2007).

2.3.2 The ‘alternative’ Tourist and the Host

Some authors are concerned about the socio-cultural impact of tourism on host-

communities, particularly in alternative forms of tourism, which are supposedly more

‘ethical’ and less exploitive. Mowforth and Munt (2008) question the good intentions of

‘alternative tourists’ and suggest they might be most interested in increasing their social

capital by travelling to more remote and exotic places. Thus, the emerging trend of the ‘new

moral tourist’ (Butcher, 2003:5) or Egotourist (Wheeller, 1993), who eschews a mainstream

holiday for a more meaningful tourism experience by engaging with local people, their

culture and their environment (Goodwin, 2011), might do more harm than good. Urry and

Larsen (2011) found that tourists might ‘gaze’ upon the hosts and their environment, thus

often consuming local people rather than interacting with them, which might reinforce

prejudices and stereotypes.


17

These tourists also expect a high level of service quality while searching for the ‘real’

experience, which rural tourism enterprises often cannot provide due to a lack of training

and knowledge (Ezeuduji and Rid, 2011; Moscardo, 2008), thus leading to dissatisfaction for

both parties. Many are also looking for close encounters with nature and wildlife which

might threaten the sustainability of the area and animals (Duffy, 2002). A loss of culture and

identity might also arise through the commodification of art and lifestyles, leading to local

people adapting to a ‘Western’ lifestyle (Richards and Hall, 2000). Some recommend codes

of conduct and ethical guidelines as useful tools for creating more responsible host-guest

relations (Bah and Goodwin, 2003), whereas Butcher (2003) classes codes of conduct as

‘paternalistic’ and only stressing the cultural differences instead of bridging them, and calls

for guilt free holiday experiences using common sense as a guideline.

However, tourism can also lead to an improved cross cultural understanding and the

preservation or re-vitalisation of local culture, arts and craft and provide a sense of place

and identity for local people (Sharpley and Telfer, 2008), which will be discussed in the

following section.

2.3.3 Community Tourism and Communities

There have been a growing number of academic researchers looking into the sustainability

of small-scale and rural enterprises, such as community-based tourism (CBT) and

ecotourism, and their ability to contribute towards poverty alleviation over the last 20 years.

Rural businesses are usually small, privately, or community owned and are intended to

benefit a wider group than those directly employed in the industry, for example, through

improved education, health care and infrastructure for a whole community (Brohman, 1996,

Hall et al., 2003). After the initial enthusiasm regarding the contribution of small and locally

owned businesses to improve local livelihoods in rural areas and the claim of them being

more sustainable than other forms of tourism (Haywood, 1988), recent research showed

that there is little evidence that confirm these assumptions (Goodwin, 2011; Sharpley and

Telfer, 2008). For example, in her extensive study on challenges and success factors of

tourism development in peripheral areas, Moscardo (2005) found that 80% of the 329 case

studies experienced negative tourism impacts, including environmental and cultural impacts

and conflicts within the community.


18

Goodwin (2011) wonders why there is still such a strong belief in setting up ecotourism and

community tourism given the poor success rates. Scheyvens (2007) recognises RT is

misunderstood by development practitioners, who continue business as usual and set up

community-based enterprises and eco-lodges and promote local entrepreneurship, without

considering factors such as time and money (in net terms for communities) for accessing

appropriate training (and the provision of it) and empowering communities to participate in

the implementation and management. Similarly, Moscado (2008) demands that community

awareness building about negative and positive tourism impacts should happen before

tourism development starts, so local people can make an informed decision. Goodwin

(2011) and Moscardo (2008) further argue that after the implementation, measuring

progress and project outcomes is essential, so that appropriate support can be provided if

needed and lessons can be learned for the future. However, few case studies exist, as

practitioners do not monitor projects because donors do not require it (Goodwin, 2008).

On the positive side, there is small but growing academic evidence that rural livelihoods can

be improved through, for example, creating linkages with existing (mass-) tourism structures

(Bah and Goodwin, 2003) and/or creating new markets (Rid et al., 2014). For example,

communities could gain cultural benefits, social capital building opportunities and

psychological empowerment through heritage excursion, as this would increase pride in

their own culture and traditions (Macbeth et al., 2004; Scheyvens, 1999). Further, Bah and

Goodwin (2003) found that excursions into rural areas can have a significant economic pro-

poor impact, as up to 25% are conducted by the informal sector.

For example, Outback Safaris created heritage excursions in rural areas in the Dominican

Republic, which facilitated economic, cultural and ecological sustainability for poor

communities (Ashley et al., 2006). The tours encouraged local people to preserve local

traditions and natural habitat for tourism purposes, but also spread economic tourism

benefits into rural areas through employment and tourist spending on local crafts and

services. The community invested profits and donations in infrastructure and education,

thus contributing to the overall community development (ibid). However, progress is slow

and small scale (Goodwin, 2011).


19

As outlined by Ashley et al. (2006), communities have to be included for achieving

sustainable and responsible tourism development. However, there seems to be an

assumption that communities are homogenous groups and benefits from tourism

development will be shared equally (Blackstock, 2005). Instead, communities consist of

individuals and groups who are likely to have different values and expectations from

tourism, leading to internal power-struggles and conflicts (Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). The

idea of grass-root community participation might be hindered by local elites controlling

tourism development (Scheyvens, 2002). Sharpley and Telfer (2008) state that how

individuals and communities negotiate their internal power struggles affects how tourists

perceive the area, as absent tourism benefits might lead to an adverse behaviour of some

community members, threatening the sustainability of tourism in that area.

Goodwin (2011) and Moscardo (2008) point out that local communities and national and

multinational actors need to be included in the policy framework for achieving RT and

poverty alleviation. However, this remains difficult, as the various stakeholders might have

different priorities (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). The following sections will discuss how and

by whom a way forward could be achieved.

2.4 Empowerment and Power

2.4.1 Empowerment

Enabling social inclusion, interactive decision-making and empowerment are the key factors

for sustainable development (Pieterse, 2009; Sofield, 2003). In his often quoted work, Tosun

(2000) outlined the limits of community participation. He identified operational (lack of co-

ordination between stakeholders, lack of knowledge in host communities), structural

(institutional barriers, power structures, lack of skilled human resources, high cost of

community participation and lack of finance) and cultural (restricted capacity of poor people

and low level of awareness) limits to community participation.

Scheyvens (2002) has a different approach and explains that social empowerment exists

when the community’s sense of cohesion and integrity is confirmed or strengthened in the

tourism activity, for example, through tangible community benefits like health care and


20

water. Social disempowerment, on the other hand, occurs through negative tourism impact

such as prostitution and begging. Psychological empowerment is reflected in increased

confidence, equal participation in tourism planning, development and management. For

example, tourists’ respect of cultural norms is empowering, undermining it has the opposite

effect. Finally, political empowerment occurs when local voices are heard, and they guide

the tourism development and management. However, this requires that communities find a

democratic process of action and have a common goal (Scheyvens, 2002).

2.4.2 Power

Political structures partly influence to what degree democratic processes are possible. Many

governments in developing countries have top-down approach in tourism planning and

might have a different development agenda to the community, which often is more aimed

towards economic benefits rather than social justice (Sharpley, 2009; Sharpley and Telfer,

2008). For example, in their studies on community participation in Cuba, Milne and Ewing

(2004) found limited community participation was possible due to hierarchical structures,

which are often replicated at community level. Similarly, in his case study on participatory

planning in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Timothy (1999) found that strong hierarchical structures

hinder community participation, as local people are unlikely to break traditions and bypass

people of authority. Coles and Church conclude “equitable, fair and locally empowering

forms of tourism production, governance and consumption remain the aspiration, inevitably

they require interaction among human beings; in other words they are political processes

and they are subjects of power relations amongst constituencies” (2007:7).

However, Goodwin (2008) and Richards and Hall (2000) argue that communities can take

action and that they are not victims of a globalised tourism industry. Goodwin suggests “[a]

sustainability objective is the outcome, responsibility is the process” (2011:245). Tosun

(2000, 2005) argues that a shift from government power towards local governance should

be the aim, which depends on an active civil society and the attitude of governments in

terms of citizen-orientation. Similarly, Goodwin (2008), Moscardo (2008) and Ashley et al.

(2001) recognise that poverty alleviation and development require individuals and groups to

take responsibility, however, they also state that governments play a vital role in creating an


21

enabling policy environment, providing public social services and infrastructure, thus must

be included.

2.4.3 The Role of NGOs

There is little doubt that NGOs play a vital role, for example, in raising awareness over

specific tourism concerns, lobbying government and for community capacity building

(Kennedy and Dornan, 2009; Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). They vary from small, informal

groups, to large international organisations. However, they often lack monitoring schemes

for financial flows or intervention outcomes; thus their contribution to poverty alleviation

and RT is often unclear (Kennedy and Dornan, 2009). Further, it needs to be ensured that

projects are sustainable beyond external aid. The measurement of sustainability is if local

communities would gain the knowledge and ownership of projects after external financial

and theoretical support ceased (Timothy, 1999). For example in The Gambia, two recent

studies found that the Association of Small Scale Enterprises in Tourism (ASSET) has a

positive impact on knowledge transfer and pro-poor distribution of products and services

(Carlisle 2012; Mitchell and Faal, 2007). Burns (1999) confirmed that NGOs can act as a

bridge between community and government, which can lead to active and positive

partnerships.

2.5 Building Human Capacity

2.5.1 Training and Skills for Meeting the Industry’s Needs

There is consensus in the literature that a lack of education is one of the biggest constraints

in developing countries for meaningful participation in the industry (Mowforth and Munt,

2008). Local people need skills and knowledge in order to improve the service quality and

delivery and to communicate effectively with tourists, as human resources are a quality

asset of the destination and contribute to the sustainability of the business (Goodwin, 2011).

This literature review revealed that training and capacity building are needed for:

Sustainable tourism development (Roberts and Tribe, 2008), rural tourism management and

marketing (Ezeuduji and Rid, 2011), socio-cultural (Pearce, 2008) and environmental

sustainable development (Duffy and Moore, 2010), cross-cultural exchange (Novelli and


22

Burns, 2010), entrepreneurship and innovation (Carlisle et al., 2012), improving market

access (Bah and Goodwin, 2003) and understanding tourism markets and tourist behaviour

for policy implementation (Mayaka and Akama, 2007; Sharpley, 2009).

Thus, the focus should be on providing formal and informal training and raising community

awareness of positive and negative aspects of tourism so that men and women in

communities are empowered and can participate in decision making (Jamieson et al., 2004;

Moscardo, 2008; Scheyvens, 2002; Sofield, 2003; Tosun, 2000, 2005; Ferguson, 2011).

Otherwise, tourism might maintain or create new unequal power structures at local,

national and international level as outlined before, and thus adversely affecting the chances

of achieving the MDGs (Saarinen et al., 2011).

2.5.2 Education for Taking Responsibility

Goodwin (2011:33) envisages that capacity creates capability to act responsibly. However,

Huggett and Pownall (2010) and Liu and Wall (2006) argue that technical knowledge alone is

not enough, but personal attitude play a role too. Huggett and Pownall (2010) highlight the

value of wider and functional key skills in tourism learning, such as teamwork and managing

and improving own learning through target setting and progress reviews. The purpose of

tourism education should be to enable people to take action in their environment (Liu and

Wall, 2006; Verbole, 2003) and to “provide learners with the skills and abilities they need to

take an active and responsible role in their communities, everyday life [and] the workplace”

(Huggett and Pownall, 2010:52). Thus, in addition to professional skills, training should touch

on personal effectiveness, problem analysis, team building, decision making and conflict

handling (Huggett and Pownall, 2010; Verbole, 2003).

Two of the biggest challenges facing small businesses and communities in accessing training

in developing countries are limited institutionalised possibilities and money (Carlisle et al.,

2012; Liu and Wall, 2006; Novelli and Burns, 2010; Sharpley, 2009). Moscardo (2008)

suggests delivering knowledge in situ through informal education, which would also reach

the wider community. For example, in her study on women farmers and housewives,

Okunade (2007) found the most efficient tools for spreading knowledge and encouraging

entrepreneurial spirit and a customer-orientated attitude into rural areas were

consultations in the form of mentoring, workshops and mass media like radio.


23

2.5.3 Sharing Knowledge and Responsibility

Many authors stress the importance of cooperation and networking and partnerships for

sustainable community development, particularly in developing countries, as funds are

limited (Ashley et al., 2001; Blackman et al., 2004; Goodwin, 2008; Sharpley and Telfer,

2008). These links are important for product development, marketing and operation of

enterprises. Sharpley and Telfer (2008) stress that without networking, the chances of

conflict and the emergence of inequalities increase. Thus for the success of a business, it is

not only knowledge and skills that count, but also the ability to teamwork (Pender and

Sharpley, 2004). However, Milne and Ewing (2004) found that regardless of policies and

networking, sustainable development and management of community projects will only

occur if local people are interested in taking responsibility.

The foregoing literature review underscores that tourism for development is a complex task.

All published studies considered human capacity building as the pre-condition for

sustainable and responsible tourism. However, studies about the outcomes of training in

relation to RT practices seem to be absent. Thus, the fieldwork for this dissertation aimed to

discover the relationship between training interventions and RT practices from a local

perspective and gaining an insight into why some communities find it easier than others to

transfer the theory into practice.


24

3. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Background

The Gambia is an ideal destination for investigating the interplay between training and RT

practices in rural areas, as it relates to development issues in LDCs. It has been a popular

winter-sun destination since the mid 1960s due to its proximity to Europe offering sun, sand

and sea holidays to a relatively low-end package tourism market (Mitchell and Faal, 2007).

The Gambia is heavily indebted and one of the smallest and least developed countries in the

world, with a HDI ranking of 165 out of 187 and a lower growth performance than the West

African average (UNDP, 2013). 42% of the population live in rural areas (World Bank, 2013)

and almost 48.4% of the population fall under the national poverty line.

A former British Colony, it gained independence in 1964. It has a population of 1.8 million,

and the official language remains English; however, English is less prevalent in rural areas,

where 4 main local languages are dominant (World Bank, 2013). The Gambia is surrounded

by Senegal apart from the Atlantic Ocean to the West, and the shape of the country mirrors

the Gambia River, which divides the country into North and South Bank.

Traditionally income generation focused on agriculture and fishing. In recent years, tourism

has become the economic force, being the biggest FE earner, contributing 20.3% towards

the county’s GDP and providing direct and indirect employment for 17.7% of the total

employment (WTTC, 2013). Growth expectations are positive with a forecast of 4.2% annual

GDP growth and a total of 146,000 jobs by 2023 (ibid). In contrast to other West African

countries, services account for more than 50% of the country’s GDP due to a lack of natural

resources. Thus, the country’s dependence on tourism is high compared to other LDCs

(Mitchell and Faal, 2007). Since mass-tourism started 30 years ago, international tourist

arrivals have reached 168,000 in 2012, and are forecasted to increase to 257,000 by 2023

(WTTC, 2013).

The Gambian government currently promotes tourism product diversification with a focus

on coastal luxury tourism and the expansion of rural tourism to attract new tourists

(Emerging Markets Group, 2005). The Tourism Master Plan envisages a stronger position in

an internationally competitive market, thus projecting growth, reducing leakages and


25

providing rural economic and social development. In 2009, key industry stakeholders

agreed to the Responsible Tourism Policy (RTP, 2009), which would guide the overall tourism

development in the country.

Both the Gambian Tourism Master Plan and Responsible Tourism Policy acknowledge the

need for building human capacity and raising public awareness to increase positive and

reduce negative tourism impacts, and to improve quality and service in the industry. In

terms of visitor satisfaction, exit survey results showed that Gambian friendliness and

contact with local people ranked highest and were the most important reason for visiting

the country while harassment and begging were the biggest negative aspects reported by

two-thirds (Mitchell and Faal, 2007).

The Gambian government’s financial and institutional capacities for providing training are

limited (Sharpley, 2009), thus the state heavily relies on external funding and the private

sector for capacity building. The two main drivers for increasing knowledge amongst small

tourism stakeholders in the country are ASSET and the Institute of Travel and Tourism in the

Gambia (ITTOG). ASSET’s main contribution is to secure funding for short courses and skills

trainings, and then source appropriate training providers. Funding is increasingly difficult to

access, which means training opportunities for Gambians are scarce and highly regarded. In

a recent World Bank consultation on the Gambia Hotel School, ITTOG has been found to be

the only private tourism education institute in the country which offers a structured learning

(Novelli and Burns, 2011). Consequently, the majority of ASSET training is conducted by

ITTOG on a consultancy basis. They conducted trainings for ASSET members in areas such as

RT, Sustainable Tourism, Community Based Tourism, Eco-Tourism Management and Tour

Guiding. After the training, each participant receives an official ITTOG and ASSET certificate.

3.2 Methodology

Over five weeks between May and July 2013 the fieldwork for this study included 1)

participant observation, 2) semi-structured, in-depth interviews and 3) focus groups and 4)

questionnaires. Additionally, statistical and planning documents and reports relevant to

education and tourism development and management were obtained from the Gambia


26

Tourism Authority (GTA) and ITTOG while in The Gambia. An extensive web and literature

search was conducted before, during and after the fieldwork. By applying three qualitative

and one quantitative research methods and talking to a variety of people, I was able to

triangulate my findings and create more credible information, even though I had to abandon

the questionnaires as explained below. Triangulation can help maximise the understanding

of the study subject, as each method has particular strengths and limits (Valentine et al.,

2010), as became apparent during my research.

I applied The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) as a methodological framework

because it emphasises local people’s voices and focuses on their empowerment for social

change (DFID, 1999). This participatory approach is particularly useful for analysing the

correlation between human capital and tourism development and the impact on local

livelihoods (Goodwin, 2006). Unlike other participatory development methodologies, SLA

considers the impact of outside factors that influence sustainable human development, such

as government policies and the economic context of livelihoods and the role of global

market forces. The aim of using SLA was to create reliable data from assessing tourism

performances (Goodwin, 2006). In an effort to uncover the impact of training on individuals

and host communities for RT practices, a critical interpretative approach was applied that

accepts multiple truths emerging through the conversation between researcher and

researched, rather than assuming the data analysis will create one objective truth (Cloke et

al., 2004).

3.3 Methods

The fieldwork was part of a volunteer project which engages in human capacity building for

RT practices in The Gambia. The project was looking for skilled volunteers who could

conduct research and were tourism professionals, as time and financial constraints limit

their ability to monitor training outcomes, particularly in peripheral areas of the country. My

academic and professional background matched those needs. Thus, this study was

conducted in collaboration with ASSET and ITTOG, who helped identify the four appropriate

research sites of Juffureh/Albreda, Janjanbureh, Tumani Tenda and Kartong (see Figure 1)

and individuals within them who received training recently.


27

Figure 1 Research sites

Image source: Adapted from google.maps

They also connected me to tourism trainers and government officials and often helped me

to fix interviews in advance, which in most cases guaranteed that people were available for

taking part in the research.

By being a participant and observer, I gained a deeper understanding of the issues of

interest and could make fruitful connections for further research as participation builds trust

and enables the researcher to comment on people or places (Laurier, 2003). However, even

though I was given complete freedom regarding my research topic and methodology, being

a volunteer and researcher proved to be sometimes challenging; and the dual positions had

to be constantly re-negotiated in order to remain critical. My Western origin also identified

me as a tourist, which might have shaped people’s empathy and behaviour (Valentine et al.,

2010). I remained reflexive throughout my research, as additional possible biases such as my

age and gender had to be considered while in the field and during the analysis (ibid). Also,

most interviewees were recruited by ASSET and ITTOG, which means there is a possible bias

in the selection. However, it would have been extremely time consuming to find the trainees

independently.

3.3.1 Participant Observation (PO)

The unique strength of PO is the chance to experience “what people say they do and why,

and what they are seen to do” (Cloke et al., 2004:167). I kept a detailed field diary in which


28

observations were recorded and analysed throughout the process by grouping them into

themes. To facilitate a deeper understanding of the sites and people under research, I

participated in 4 guided tours (3 private and 1 group excursion) and did ‘normal’ tourist

activities such as eating in restaurants, visiting heritage sites and taking part in cultural

activities.

PO should ideally have a longitudinal dimension in order to generalise findings (Cloke et al.,

2004); however, my fieldwork timetable was limited. Being a participant and observer

provides a first-hand in-situ experience but raises ethical questions too. This is particularly

true when spending an extended time with people, where the individual might forget about

my research. Thus, I kept explaining the purpose of my volunteer placement. However, I feel

that I gained valuable insights for answering the research questions.

3.3.2 Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 trainees (including 1 focus

group of 3), 3 trainers, the head of ITTOG, the director of ASSET and 1 representative of the

GTA.

Table 1 Interviewees and Their Connection to Tourism

Interviewee

(In chronological

interview order)

Community/Organisation Connection to tourism

I1 Juffureh/Albreda Tour guide





I6 Juffureh/Albreda

(not permanently)

Tour guide

I7 Juffureh/Albreda Chief tour guide



29


I10 Janjanbureh Justact volunteer

I11 Janjanbureh Justact volunteer and restaurant owner

I12 Tumani Tenda Lodge accountant and receptionist

I13 Tumani Tenda Lodge manager

I14 Juffureh/Albreda

(not permanently)

Tour guide


(not permanently)

Tour guide

FG Kartong FG1) KART volunteer

FG2) KART volunteer and cook

FG3) KART volunteer and restaurant

manager

I16 Kartong KART volunteer and cook

I17 ITTOG Head of School

I18 GTA Director of Development

I19 ITTOG Chairman of ITTOG and consultant

I20 ASSET Director

I21 ITTOG Teacher and consultant

I22 ITTOG Teacher and consultant


(not permanently)

Tour guide

More people were interviewed in Juffureh/Albreda than in the other research locations

based on the significance as a heritage site, which will be explained in section 4.1.1. All 26

interviewees were Gambian; however, only 2 were female, reflecting issues regarding

gender inequality in the tourism sector in The Gambia. Additionally, information was

gathered through informal conversations. To enlarge my understanding of issues regarding

RT practices, I had the unique chance to gather public opinions as a panel member during a

1h national radio call-in show on RT. Interview questions and conversation topics were

drawn based on the research objectives, and literature review and all conversations were


30

held in English. Information acquired was written down during and straight after the

conversations and was later analysed.

Cloke et al. (2004) suggest that interpretative methods, such as semi-structured interviews

and focus groups, are ideal for finding the reason behind people’s actions and behaviour,

with the added inter-group dynamics in focus groups, the so-called ‘double hermeneutics’.

They further anticipate the chance of ‘deciphering’ the meaning of ethnographic data, which

helps uncover the shared perception or worldview of particular people, what Geertz (1973)

called finding the ‘thick stuff’.

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups are purposeful and flexible conversations

(Valentine et al., 2010); thus I was able to make changes to interview questions as new

topics emerged during the interview. Also, having a conversation creates a more personal

atmosphere in which the interviewer and the respondents can build trust and feel more

comfortable, thus producing deeper knowledge. This was confirmed by one interviewee

who stressed that he appreciates me taking the time listening to his concerns instead of

asking him to fill in a questionnaire. A semi-structured, in-depth focus group with 3

participants took place in Kartong. Even though the sample size was small, it produced a

wealth of information and created useful data and helped to answer the research questions.

3.3.3 Questionnaires

Initially, I introduced questionnaires as a quantitative method to cross-check and validate

the findings from the qualitative methods, with the aim to get a more holistic understanding

of the trainee’s attitudes and opinions (Cloke et al., 2004). However, the questionnaire

appeared to be far too complex for the respondents’ limited English reading and writing

skills and thus the questions had to be incorporated in the interviews instead.

3.3.4 Ethical Issues

Researching human beings always has ethical, social and practical issues, and they are

interlinked (Kitchin and Tate, 2000). I ensured that the research participants were not over-

researched by considering previous work that has been done in The Gambia. Cloke et al.

(2004) stress the importance of being reflexive during the process of researching, analysing

and interpreting to mitigate subjectivity and remain ethical. I obtained informed consent by


31

using a prepared form and further assured anonymity and confidentiality to all people

involved in the research as per the King's College London (KCL) Guidelines on Good Practice

in Academic Research.

3.3.5 Analysis

Transcripts of the field diary and interviews were coded and then categorised as an ongoing

process of ‘sifting and sorting’ (Cloke et al., 2004). Within these categories, various site

specific sub-categories were identified and analysed, focusing on aspects regarding power,

consumption and responsibility.


32

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The data for this study was guided by the main research questions and generated from the

interviews and participant observation in Juffureh/Albreda, Janjanbureh, Tumani Tenda and

Kartong (see Figure 1), as well as from informal conversations and analysis of secondary

data. This chapter provides an overview of the situation at each of the research sites and a

summary of the shared success factors and barriers to RT. The results will then be discussed

in section 4.3 with a focus on how increased knowledge through training had an impact on

the trainees’ ability to implement RT practices and which obstacles were encountered.

4.1 Situation in each Research Site

4.1.1 Juffureh/Albreda

The communities of Juffureh and Albreda are located 30km upstream on the North Bank

with poor road access and direct river access in Albreda. Together, they are the most visited

heritage site since the late 1970’s after Alex Haley’s “Roots” book and TV series (Haley,

1976), which lead to an “uncontrolled invasion of tourists” (I19, 2013). The area is the

strongest draw for the growing international Diaspora tourist market, making the “Roots”

excursion one of the most important and money generating in The Gambia (I18, 2013). In

the past, extreme hassling and begging from adults and children put the sustainability of the

site at risk, as tour operators threatened to withdraw the tour from their portfolio,

exemplifying the power tour operators hold over tourism in destinations (Sharpley and

Telfer, 2008). The central objective since a NGO intervention in 2008 is, to improve visitor

experience and provide community benefits from tourist entry fees, which are collected in a

development fund. However, internal and external power struggles and a lack of decision

making means the community fund failed to produce wider community benefits (Scheyvens,

2002:9). The trained and certified tour guides take over the guiding of tourists from ground

tour operators upon arrival and receive a fixed salary from the development fund. Villagers

blame the guides for taking personal advantage of the project; however, they feel unable to

respond. Thus, most of them expressed a desire to leave the site or have left already. The


33

NGO handed the project over to the GTA in 2012 and police are guiding all tours since 2012

due to increased hassle and begging.

4.1.2 Janjanbureh

Janjanbureh is located 280km upriver on the South Bank with improving road access. It was

a flourishing tourist destination until the early 1990s based on their cultural and natural

heritage. Since then, visitor numbers and length of stay decreased by two-thirds as less tour

operators are selling Janjanbureh. In an effort to revive the destination and to “ensure RT

and create a better future” (I11, 2013), a philanthropic tourist and local people founded

JustAct Gambia in 2009. Their main focus is on environmental awareness raising and to set

up a local tour guide scheme, similar to the one in Juffureh/Albreda. Parallel to this, they are

running a banana orchard to secure income in low season. One interviewee felt “the future

is bright for us” (I10, 2013).

4.1.3 Tumani Tenda

Tumani Tenda is located on the South Bank with tributary river access, 25km East of

Brikama. The villagers implemented an eco-tourism camp in 1999 after winning a

competition from the Gambian National Environmental Agency (NEA). The objective of the

camp is to improve local livelihoods through additional income from nature based tourism.

The project experienced a major set-back in 2007 through mismanagement, when the

community money raised from the project between 1999 and 2007 disappeared. However,

it is now a good example of how community tourism can contribute to rural development.

All members of the community own the lodge, and it is run voluntarily by some villagers.

4.1.4 Kartong

Kartong is a bigger village on the South coast close to the Senegalese border. The area is

mostly frequented by individual tourists who either stay in one of the eco-lodges or are

camping. The main tourist draws are the long beaches and cultural and natural heritage,

such as a sacred crocodile pool and bird watching. A group of local people set up the

Kartong Association of Responsible Tourism (KART), with initial support from UNDP

(allAfrica, 2013), who are aiming to promote socially and environmentally sustainable


34

tourism in the area. The group works voluntarily and supports the local community from

income generated from guided walking and bicycle tours. All interviewees are employed in

local lodges and do subsistence farming.

4.2 Results

Table 2 gives an overview of the perceived success factors and barriers for RT practices in all

four communities. For community specific success factors and barriers see Table 3

(Appendix D).

Table 2 Perceived success factors and barriers for RT development in all locations

Success factors Barriers

• Access to tourist-philanthropy, NGO

support and national and supra-national

aid programmes (personal and

community)

• ASSET membership

• Increased individual knowledge

- according to training topic

- of costs and benefits of tourism

- through direct interaction with tourists

• Measuring performance

• Reduced personal poverty (financial

and/or social)

• Training methods and level appropriate

• Dependence on others (tour operators,

GTA) for tourist supply and marketing

• Irresponsible host attitude and behaviour

due to a lack of RT awareness from

community members

• Irresponsible tourist attitude and

behaviour

• Lack of finance

• Limited community benefits from

tourism

• Limited employment opportunities

(leading to rural flight)

• Limited expertise and access to tourism

training

4.3 Analysis

As outlined in the literature review, building community capacity through formal and

informal training is the pre-condition for responsible and sustainable tourism development

(Moscardo, 2008). Tourism training opportunities in The Gambia are limited as outlined in


35

section 3.1; thus ASSET asks for sending a “resource person” (I20, 2013), who can learn and

pass on the knowledge. This way, trainings would be multiplied, and responsibility would be

shared (Milne and Ewing, 2004; Pender and Sharpley, 2004), so that communities could be

empowered to meaningfully participate in tourism as envisaged by Sofield (2003) and

Moscardo (2008).

Table 2 shows that all respondents felt that they gained knowledge of the training topic and

that training levels and methods were appropriate. For example, some respondents

appreciated that the training included role plays and hands-on practical experience.

Additionally, they all felt that their individual knowledge on costs and benefits of tourism in

their location increased. However, most of them highlighted a lack of RT awareness in their

communities, which decreased the chances of gaining positive impacts from tourism,

leading to economic, socio-cultural and environmental exploitation through tourism as

discussed in the literature review (see Sharpley and Telfer, 2008; Mowforth and Munt,

2008). Even though all respondents felt that their personal poverty had decreased either

through financial gain and/or improved social standing, the impact of training on poverty

alleviation and RT development for the wider communities as envisaged in the MDGs

differed between research sites.

Education was considered to be “the key of life” (I14, 2013). The following paragraphs will

investigate how and to what extent trainees shared their knowledge with their communities

and transferred theory into practice, and how this had an impact on local livelihoods. Most

notably, the motivations for increasing tourism knowledge differed, so did the strategies for

overcoming obstacles in implementing RT measures.

4.3.1 Access to Training

Ashley et al. (2001) and Goodwin (2011) argued that access to education and training is vital

for developing a skilled workforce, and Moscardo (2008) adds that, for communities to be

able to respond to tourism development, knowledge needs to be spread into the community

as envisaged by ASSET. In Kartong, Tumani Tenda and Janjanbureh the individual groups

make participatory decisions on who attends training based on the person’s ability to share

the new knowledge, whilst some interviewees in Juffureh/Albreda felt that the distribution

of trainings was unfair or unreasonable. Here, the group leader distributes the trainings with


36

little consultation. He personally attended the same training twice without implementing

significant activities afterwards, even though he considers doing so in future (I8, 2013). On

another occasion, he asked one tour guide not to tell anyone that she will attend a gender

training, and her attempts post training to disseminate training were not well received. This

highlights that unequal power structures at community level play a role for participation of

women in tourism (Scheyvens, 2002:9). The group had strong internal hierarchical

structures, which was apparent when one tour guide rated being the 4th in rank tour guide

(I9, 2013) as the most relevant training outcome. Another interviewee perceived the

payment structure as unfair as it is based on the guides’ rank, not on their performance (I4,

2013). These findings mirror Scheyvens’ (2002) and Timothy’s (1999) findings on intra-

community factions and individuals claiming prerogatives based on their status. Thus, it

should be considered that elitism and hierarchical structures within communities can have

adverse effects on people’s opportunity to access training, to participate in the industry and

can undermine successful training distribution.

4.3.2 Community Benefits or Training for Personal Gain?

Sharpley (2009) and Goodwin (2011) found that aid, but also tourist-philanthropy plays an

important role in the Gambia’s poverty reduction progress. Goodwin et al. (2009) highlight

how organised giving, from tourists and organisations, can benefit local communities.

However, some respondents’ main motivation for attending training was to increase their

cross-cultural understanding for the purpose of meeting a personal ‘tourist-friend’ (I3,6,

2013), who would support their family or sponsor education. Typical comments were “a

sponsor is your future” (I23, 2013). Even though the literature acknowledges that

communities are not homogenous groups, the finding that the reason for attending training

is to increase the chances of external support is absent from the literature and was a

surprise.

In line with their hierarchical structure, some respondents in Juffureh/Albreda expressed

feeling superior to colleagues and villagers. Possessing more knowledge than others was

often regarded as an individual advantage, as this guarantees access to tourists. While

participating in a guided walk, I witnessed how one tour guide singled out a possible sponsor

for himself. Despite their training, some tour guides have not changed their own behaviour


37

or taken responsibility for discouraging begging in their community. Tosun (2000) explains

that this might be expected in a poor and rural area in a developing country, as according to

Maslow’s need hierarchy basic personal needs (i.e. money for food) will prevail over wider

community benefits. According to one guide, some children earned up to 300GMD (USD8)

per giving tourist (I6, 2013), which is a good ‘income’ compared to the statistics of a third of

the population living below the poverty line (USD1.25 a day)(World Bank, 2013).

According to Scheyvens (2002) and Goodwin et al. (2009), begging is social disempowerment

and keeps people in dependency. Similarly, Brower (2011) argues that self-sustainability

should be the aim of any development project, as relying on tourist-philanthropy and

donations is not sustainable. There are also many authors who warn that tourism for

development in the global South may be a form of neo-colonialism (Tucker and Akama,

2009), which can re-enforce unequal power relations between the wealthy North and the

poor South. The Gambia’s colonial past and previous and current tourist behaviour may

influence some local’s expectation that philanthropy and aid are permanent determiners of

development. These findings may even support those who oppose international

intervention as some post-development academics do (see Pieterse, 2009:1).

4.3.3 From Theory to Practice – Action for Change

i. Educating tourists and hosts

One of the aims in Kartong is to mitigate risks of socio-cultural conflicts (Milne and Ewing,

2004) and cross-cultural misunderstandings in tourism (Urry and Larsen, 2011). For example,

KART developed codes of conduct as suggested by Bah and Goodwin (2003) for hosts and

guests, which are easily accessible and visible for tourists and villagers in their office on the

main road:


38

Figure 2 Code of Conduct for Visitors. Author’s Photograph


39

Figure 3 Code of Conduct for Hosts, Author’s Photograph

The code for visitors (Figure 2) addresses issues regarding treating local people as objects of

the tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen, 2011) and explains that giving money to individual

children encourages begging and is irresponsible, whereas organised donations can have a


40

wider impact on the community. Respondents in other villages felt that tour operators are

responsible for educating tourists on the topic (I6, I13, 2013). Interestingly, most callers

during the radio show shared this opinion, when asked how tourists’ awareness on RT

practices could be raised. Callers suggested that tour operators should provide codes of

conduct upon booking, at welcome meetings or in the plane through short films, similar to

the suggestions outlined by Goodwin et al. (2009)

The code of conduct for hosts (Figure 3) encourages local people to take responsibility for

their actions, for example, educating children about tourism. It also helps to develop a more

realistic community perception of tourism benefits, by stating that not all tourists are rich,

which Moscardo (2008:8) argued is vital in the attempt to equal power imbalances and allow

host communities to play an active role in tourism development. All respondents in Kartong

felt that they contributed to the villager’s pride in their culture (Ashley et al., 2006) and

decreased dependency from tourist-philanthropy (Goodwin, 2011) by their action. However,

while spending time in Kartong and participating in various cultural activities (e.g. naming

ceremony), local people expected a significant financial compensation for my participation,

which made me leave after a short while. FG1 felt uncomfortable in the situation and

admitted that more needs to be done.

ii. Increasing environmental awareness

Duffy (2002) questions if nature tourism could have a positive conservation impact as some

academics proposed (Haywood, 1988). She (Duffy, 2002) highlights that the current way by

which nature tourism is performed remains within capitalist ideologies, and is unlikely to

contribute to environmental and animal conservation. Therefore, similar to KART’s

environmental activities, I11 stated “we realise we have to give information” (2013). Their

groups raised awareness about environmental and animal protection, for example, in

Janjanbureh, by explaining to local boat drivers the importance of keeping a distance to

mangroves and animals during tourist excursions, as otherwise they might disappear. The

area’s main tourist draw is nature based tourism; thus conservation efforts directly link to

tourist arrivals, which local traders are hoping to increase. They shared their responsibility

with people who can influence tourist movements, so their area remains environmentally

intact. The success was confirmed during an excursion.


41

4.3.4 Empowerment and Power

Sofield states that empowerment as a social process is “designed to facilitate people

controlling their own lives [and is achieved by] recognising, promoting, and enhancing

people’s abilities to meet their own needs, solve their own problems and mobilise the

necessary resource“ (2003:80). Thus, the community in Tumani Tenda can be regarded as

empowered, as they reviewed their environmental efforts and transparency processes after

mismanagement in the past and implemented necessary changes, such as installation of

solar panels and regular village meetings. This way, they avoided Jones’s (2005) prediction

that the project might fail. Despite low occupancy rates, the income from the community

owned ecotourism camp pays for the villagers’ school fees, tax and a village car for

emergencies. Additionally, the camp created supplementary employment, such as a

women’s garden for the camp’s food supply, which also helped balancing gender

inequalities in the community (FIIAPP, 2011).

Blackman et al. (2004) highlight the importance of creating local links for business and

destination sustainability. In Janjanbureh, Just Act members facilitated local networking

between businesses, such as lodges and crafts people, by formally asking for an

appointment for educating them about positive and negative tourism impacts and finding

solutions how to strengthen the destination. Thus, they initiated a platform for economic

benefits to be shared within the community. By respecting local traditions (asking for

appointments and bringing a gift), they were able to spread their message. Thus, it is not

always the case that local hierarchies suppress development as experienced in other studies

(Timothy, 1999). Similarly to Kartong, JustAct members realised that changing local people’s

behaviour will be an ongoing long term process. However, despite an identified lack of

community benefits and below standard service and hospitality facilities in

Juffureh/Albreda, no local networking exists.

As mentioned above, the community fund in Juffureh/Albreda has failed to produce

community benefits so far. Some said this is due to inability of the two village alkalis to

agree on the use of the funds, as each has different preferences, which paralyses a

democratic decision (Tosun 2000, 2005; Goodwin, 2011:118). This, in turn, hinders the very

attempts to implement strategies that could lead to sustainable and responsible tourism


42

development (Timothy, 1999). Others suspected that the village money had been used by

the government, who took the project over after the NGO departed. When asked about the

village fund, the GTA did not appear to be interested in finding a local solution but

considered implementing an external project manager, as “it’s no longer a community based

project” (I19, 2013), based on the inability of the alkalis to come to an agreement. Thus, the

government is applying a top-down approach, which is often the case in developing

countries (Tosun, 2000). Sharpley (2009) found that the Gambian government’s main

objective might be to increase tourism revenue, which has undermined pro-poor tourism

efforts in the past. Int 6 also suspected that the GTA is using the community development

fund to pay the police to accompany all the tours, whereas tourist police in the main tourist

area are paid from government funds. Instead of “making noise” (I22, 2013) and challenging

existing power structures and unfair treatment, new social tensions emerged, and mistrust

within the community and between the tour guides and the GTA increased. Tosun (2005)

found “an overwhelming fatalism among the poor” (2005:338), based on centuries of

suppression and injustice. Also, many authors say that communities are more likely to play

an active part in the development process if they initiated the process (Moscardo, 2008),

which was not the case in Juffureh/Albreda, but is at all other sites. The overall feeling from

the tour guides was of being powerless to challenge the multitude of problems that

occurred at the site (see Table 3 for site specific barriers).

The opposite is true for people in Kartong. Members of KART are currently urging all local

tourism businesses to join the organisation for creating a stronger voice to lobby for their

rights, as recent demolishing of beach bars close to Kartong (oral history) by the government

raised concerns about the government’s tourism development strategy (Sharpley, 2009).

KART enquired in writing with the GTA about tourism development plans for Kartong, and

was re-assured that there are no current plans to remove properties. However, as tourism is

only expected to expand in The Gambia, KART tries to mobilise all tourism stakeholders,

which might help exercising local control over tourism development in the area in future

(Milne and Ewing, 2004).

The above examples reflect how networking and shared responsibility (or the lack of it)

might affect local livelihoods. All experienced obstacles through power issues, however, the


43

means by which local people tried to overcome those differed from fatalism to mobilisation

of resources.

4.3.5 Monitoring Progress

ASSET and ITTOG are unable to monitor progress after the training due to a lack of money

and resources to do so (I20, I22, 2013). Moscardo (2008) found this to be the case for most

local capacity building projects in developing countries. However, I21 and I22 encouraged

trainees to set their own targets and evaluate each others’ progress and also encouraged

networking within and between groups.

In both Kartong and Janjanbureh, the interviewees set up their own action plan and are now

regularly reporting on progress and adjust if necessary. The way of monitoring progress in

Juffureh/Albreda is through client feedback forms provided by an international tour

operator, which a few guides regarded as helpful for improving their performance. However,

the tourists who participated in the same tour as I, found begging twins “adorable” and

“beautiful”, not being aware that giving money to them directly is irresponsible, nor

questioning why those children are not at school at that time of the day. The commercial

success for heritage tours to rural Gambia might depend on tourists’ opportunity for ‘gazing

upon’ poverty, which is what most tourists expect (Urry and Larsen, 2011). Thus, the tourist

feedback form might not fully address issues regarding RT in Juffureh/Albreda and seems

inappropriate to use for monitoring progress.

4.3.6 More Training

All trainees felt that they needed more training and knowledge to be able to participate in

the highly competitive industry, which was expected. Marketing was one of the most

desired training to balance the unequal power structures between them as small enterprises

and the financial and knowledge power of national and international tour operators, who

dominate the local market (Mitchell and Faal, 2007). However, despite the lack of

international marketing power, all interviewees were determined to improve their tourism

product based on the government’s commitment to grow the alternative tourism market

and hope for more individual tourists visiting The Gambia in future.


44

4.3.7 The Role of the Government

It is encouraging that the Gambian government has committed to RT practices in their

Tourism Development Master Plan (Emerging Markets Group, 2005) and later re-iterated

this in the Responsible Tourism Policy (RTP, 2009). The government’s vision is to harness

tourism for development as envisaged in the MDGs. One of the four pillars of The Gambian

Tourism Master Plan is to develop the human resource base through formal and informal

training. The plan highlighted the need for a new Tourism Training Policy Department, which

would inter alia co-ordinate tourism awareness campaigns and community tourism training.

However, the department has not been implemented, and there seemed to have been no

progress in terms of awareness raising activities since 2005, further it was impossible to

access any progress reports from the Master Plan or the RTP.

The GTA’s website includes a mission statement on RT and calls for investors in eco-tourism

and up-country tourism (GTA, 2013). However, information about existing projects is

fragmented, and this research raises questions about their commitment to RT practices.

Sharpley (2007) and I22 even questioned if the GTA’s marketing strategies are sufficient at

all, as their marketing seems unfocussed and targets mainstream (i.e. at the World Travel

Market), instead of niche tour operators. Sharpley (2009) also highlighted the contradictions

and inconsistencies in the governments’ tourism development attempts and institutional

weaknesses. Finally, he raises concerns about the viability of a rural tourism market in The

Gambia due to a lack of cultural and natural heritage, which contradicts findings of Rid et al.

(2014). The GTA acknowledged that there is no information about visitor movements while

staying in the country, nor did the GTA conduct sufficient airport exit surveys on tourist

demand (I18, 2013). Some respondents had the impression that government policies were

‘lip-service’ rather than actual commitments to make tourism more responsible: “what’s the

point of having a GTA if they do nothing” (I22, 2013) “They only dictate, [but] have no

particular direction” (I22, personal conversation, 2013). Those perceptions might also

influence some local people’s attitude, behaviour and commitment to taking responsibility.

Sofield (2003) argues that it is less likely that host communities adhere to policies in regards

to sustainable and responsible tourism if the government fails to lead by example. This leads

to the question: who is responsible for Responsible Tourism?


45

5. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

5.1 Discussion

As mentioned before, Goodwin (2011) argues that increased knowledge (capacity) creates

the ability to facilitate change and to respond to situations. However, even though

‘response-ability’ (2011:33) might exist after awareness increased, “they also have to be

willing and feel themselves able to react, to take the initiative and to act” (2011:33) in order

to make tourism better. With reference to taking responsibility for multiplying knowledge, a

number of factors support the argument that the trainees in Kartong, Janjanbureh and

Tumani Tenda were more inclined to do so than in Juffureh/Albreda. They appeared not

only ‘response-able’, but also expressed a strong willingness to overcome obstacles and to

improve their community’s well-being. Most importantly, they transferred theory into

practice and became active and responsible members of their society, which Huggett and

Pownall (2010) envisaged being the goal of education.

Even though all interviewees in Juffureh/Albreda saw themselves as ambassadors for the

community and expressed feeling responsible for the community well-being, they were

unable to respond, to analyse and to take control of their community problems. They did

not feel empowered or having the potential to overcome obstacles that prevent community

benefits. This is not to suggest that they generally lack power, but their efforts were mainly

focused on personal gain rather than on community benefits. Surprisingly, some wanted to

participate in tourism training just to improve their access to potential philanthropic ‘tourist

friends’. This may affect the chances of facilitating shared responsibility and action and

hinder community empowerment, as it might reinforce existing and create new power

inequalities as discussed before.

It is interesting to note that, despite the awareness of possible negative tourism impacts, all

interviewees were willing to expand tourism in their area. Their focus was clearly demand-

driven, confirming literature about the intrinsically neo-liberal nature of tourism (Mowforth

and Munt, 2008). Thus, it might be no surprise that in Juffureh/Albreda, where tourism has

been the main source of income for almost 40 years, personal gain was the overarching

objective. However, Sofield (2003) and Scheyvens (2002) argued that communities can be


46

considered as empowered, and sustainability is possible, when they take responsibility for

local tourism activities and take ownership of problems and solutions, which seemed to be

the case in the other three research sites. However, it is also important to note that those

three experienced considerably less tourism and might have experienced less negative

tourism impacts than Juffureh/Albreda.

This dissertation was interested in what role tourism training and knowledge play for RT

practices and how and by whom this can be achieved. The research confirmed findings in

the academic literature that those individuals and groups who had a culture of taking

responsibility, sharing knowledge and working collaboratively were the ones with the

highest chances of positively influencing sustainable and responsible tourism practices now

and in the future in their communities (Moscardo, 2008; Milne and Ewing, 2004). They also

perceived fewer obstacles than others in implementing changes and put appropriate

progress measurement tools in place, thus they could be considered as empowered

(Scheyvens, 2002, Sofield, 2003).

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the research findings and secondary data

presented above. The proposals are general in nature and not community specific, and thus

might not apply to all researched locations. The following recommendations could help to

close the gap between assuming responsibility and the ability to react to it through

education, and could help to fulfil the vision of producing and promoting positive changes

for creating better places to live in:

• Ensure people are able to multiply knowledge and take positive action – consider a

stronger emphasis in training on personal effectiveness, problem analysis, team

building, decision making and conflict handling (Huggett and Pownall, 2010)

• Ensure trainees are willing to multiply knowledge rather than using it only for

personal gain – Implement feedback loops post-training, for example, by handing out

training certificates only after proof of multiplied training and/or implementation of

an action plan


47

• Consider holding training in, or implementing field visits to, communities that are

committed to good practice of RT so others experience what good practice looks like

• Ensure understanding of RT in terms of community benefits and sustainability

• Increase educational community outreach programmes in rural tourism areas, for

example, through practical training in situ or use of media such as radio or mobile

phone texts

5.3 Limitations of this Study

This study had a number of strength and limitations. The findings in this dissertation are

subjective and based on my interpretative approach. The findings are also location specific,

thus cannot be generalised. Tables 2 and 3 give an overview about the perceived success

factors and obstacles for Responsible Tourism practices in each community; however, they

reflect the perception of individuals interviewed and are not representative for the

perception of the whole community. Also, the number of interviewees and time spent in

each location varied, so did the tourism development stage in each destination, thus, the

results might not be comparable. It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to make a direct

link between one specific training topic and the impact this had on local livelihoods, because

all the sample individuals and communities received various training by various training

providers over the last decade. Also, their relation to tourism varies from formal to informal

participation in, for example, tour guiding, hotel employment or self-employment. However,

most of the findings reflect issues discussed in academic literature and this research may

help to further the understanding of how RT awareness and practices in The Gambia can be

improved and which factors influence the implementation of positive changes.


48

6. CONCLUSION

This research adds to the existing knowledge on Responsible Tourism and the role tourism

training plays in four different locations in rural Gambia. It provides some insight into why

some communities find it easier than others to implement positive changes. Increased

consciousness and collaboration and the willingness to benefit the wider community

through tourism were found to be the key factors to enable local people to work actively

towards increasing benefits and mitigating costs of tourism in their location (Goodwin,

2011).

However, it also became clear from this research that training alone cannot facilitate

community benefits. Factors such as the trainees’ personal motives and attitude, and a

community’s awareness about positive and negative tourism impacts need to be considered

(Moscardo, 2008). Further, as outlined in the literature review, internal and external power

relations, dependency structures, issues of globalisation and the role of tourism consumers,

producers and marketers all affect RT in destinations (Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). Thus,

human capacity building interventions should put a stronger emphasis on confidence

building, teamwork and problem analysis (Huggett and Pownall, 2010) and ensure that

trainees and communities are aware of the fundamental ideas of responsible and

sustainable tourism.

The RT movement, though growing, is still in its infancy and a long-term process which is

evolving through experience (Goodwin, 2011; Mitchell and Ashley, 2010). Mowforth and

Munt (2008), Goodwin (2011) and Moscardo (2008) conclude that the opportunities that lie

in tourism for development and poverty alleviation will vary between locations and social

groups, which this research confirmed. Further research on the impact of tourism training

on RT practices should include all stages of capacity building and be placed in a local context,

by analysing poverty regarding political, economic and socio-cultural aspects (Ashley et al.,

2001), with a particular emphasis on power structures at micro-level (Scheyvens, 2002).

Even though individuals have to take responsibility (Goodwin, 2011:245), development

action has to be dialogical (Pieterse, 2009:190) and co-operative and should involve all

tourism stakeholders in different settings and at many levels (Mitchell and Ashley, 2010).

Mowforth and Munt (2008) are sceptical that the tourism industry will change its emphasis


49

on capital growth, yet see the possibility that the tourism sector can become a carrier for

poverty reduction as envisaged in the MDGs. Only if tourism promoters are willing to put RT

on their agenda, can the travel industry experience a ‘tilt’ (Schilcher, 2007:174) towards

equity instead of unlimited growth. However, with tourism only expected to increase in The

Gambia and worldwide, it will become necessary to manage growth in a responsible way

(Liu, 2003), with each tourism stakeholder being willing and able to take their share of a

joint responsibility for making a difference (Goodwin, 2011).


50

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Geography Research Ethics Screening Form


51

Appendix B - Ethics Approval Notification

TO: Anke Winchenbach SUBJECT: Approval of ethics application

Dear Anke,

KCL/12/13-507 – ‘The impact of tourism teaching on RT development in The Gambia.’

I am pleased to inform you that full approval for your project has been granted by the GSSHM Research Ethics Panel. Any specific conditions of approval are laid out at the end of this email which should be followed in addition to the standard terms and conditions of approval, to be overseen by your Supervisor:

• Ethical approval is granted for a period of one year from 07/05/2013. You will not receive a reminder that your approval is about to lapse so it is your responsibility to apply for an extension prior to the project lapsing if you need one (see below for instructions).

• You should report any untoward events or unforeseen ethical problems arising from the project to the panel Chairman within a week of the occurrence. Information about the panel may be accessed at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx

• If you wish to change your project or request an extension of approval you will need to submit a new application with an attachment indicating the changes you want to make (a proforma document to help you with this is available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx

• All research should be conducted in accordance with the King’s College London Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf

If you require signed confirmation of your approval please forward this email to [email protected] indicating why it is required and the address you would like it to be sent to. Please also note that we may, for the purposes of audit, contact you from time to time to ascertain the status of your research. With best wishes, Rosie Pearson – Research Support Assistant On behalf of GSSHM REP Reviewer

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


52

Appendix C - Geography Risk Assessment Form


53

Appendix D - Perceived Success Factors and Barriers for RT by Research Location

Table 3 Perceived success factors and barriers for RT development and practices location

specific

Community Success factors Barriers

Juffureh/Albreda • Codes of conduct for tour

guides

• Employment for 16 people

• Reduced hassling compared to

2007 and sustained

participation in tourism

industry

• Social and economic

community benefits (school

donation box, craft vendors)

• Access to training not

transparent

• Empty promises (NGO)

• Internal and external power

imbalances (incl. gender,

hierarchies, tour operators,

GTA)

• Lack of ability or willingness

regarding decision making and

leadership (internal and

external)

• Lack of financial transparency

and communication (internal,

community and GTA)

• Lack of power to influence

tourism product

• Meeting villagers expectations

from tourism

• Mistrust and envy

• Tourism product and quality not

competitive/up to standard

• Unfair payment structure

Janjanbureh • Defined tourist group targeted

• Feeling part of a movement

for RT

• Increased environmental

• Lack of government support for

environmental protection

• Lack of official tour guide

certification from GTA


54

community awareness and

participation

• Increased networking

amongst tourism stakeholders

• Increased resilience through

job diversification (farming)

• Increased self-confidence and

feeling of empowerment

• Respect tradition and

hierarchies

• Work towards manageable

goals

• Limited local environmental

awareness

• Tourism product and quality not

competitive/up to standard

Tumani Tenda • Aim to be self-sustainable

• Brief tourists about project

aims and philosophy

• Equal and fair income

distribution



• Lodge created additional local

employment


hierarchies

• Social and environmental

community benefits

• Teamwork

• Transparency


goals

• Dependency on tourist-

philanthropy

Kartong • Aim to be self-sustainable

• Codes of conduct as reference

• External power imbalances

(Government)


55

for progress

• Feeling part of a movement

for RT




hierarchies

• Social and environmental

community benefits


goals

• Loss of culture through tourism

• Limited local environmental

awareness


56

REFERENCES

allAfrica (2013) Gambia: Coast Project Calls for Responsible Tourism, Protection of Coastal

Environment [Online] Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201303121036.html

[Accessed 10 August 2013].

Ashley, C., Boyd, C. and Goodwin, H. (2000) Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of

the tourism agenda. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., McNab, D., Scott, M. and Chaves, L. (2006) Making tourism count

for the local economy in the Caribbean: guidelines for good practice [Online]

Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-

opinion-files/3013.pdf [Accessed 12 August 2013].

Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-poor tourism report no. 1. Pro-poor tourism

strategies: Making tourism work for the poor. A review of experience. London:

Overseas Development Institute.

Bah, A. and Goodwin, H. (2003) Pro-Poor tourism Working Paper No. 15: Improving access

for the informal sector to tourism in The Gambia. London: Overseas Development

Institute.

Blackman, A., Foster, F., Hyvonen, T., Bronwyn, J., Kuilboer, A. and Moscardo, G. (2004)

Factors contributing to successful tourism development in peripheral regions. Journal

of Tourism Studies, 15(1), 59-70.

Blackstock, K. (2005) A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development

Journal, 40(1), 39-49.

Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of

tourism research, 23(1), 48-70.

Brower, H. H. (2011) Sustainable Development Through Service Learning: A Pedagogical

Framework and Case Example in a Third World Context. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 10(1), 58-76.

Brown, F. and Hall, D. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Global South: the issues. Third

World Quarterly, 29(5), 839-849.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201303121036.html

http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3013.pdf

http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3013.pdf


57

Burns, P. (1999) Tourism NGOs. Tourism Recreational Research, 24(2), 3-6.

Butcher, J. (2003) The moralisation of tourism: sun, sand... and saving the world? London:

Routledge.

Cape Town (2002) The Cape Town Declaration of Responsible Tourism in Destinations,

August 2002.

Carlisle, S. and Jones, E. (2012) The beach enclave: A landscape of power. Tourism

Management Perspectives, 1, 9-16.

Carlisle, S., Kunc, M., Jones, E. and Tiffin, S. (2012) Supporting innovation for tourism

development through multi-stakeholder approaches: Experiences from Africa.

Tourism Management, 35(2013), 59–69.

Cleverdon, R. and Kalisch, A. (2000) Fair trade in tourism. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 2(3), 171-187.

Cloke, P. (1997) Country backwater to virtual village? Rural studies and ‘the cultural turn’.

Journal of Rural Studies, 13(4), 367-375.

Cloke, P., Cook, I., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., Crang, P. and Philo, C. (2004) Practising human

geography. London: Sage Publications Limited.

Coles, T. and Church, A. (2007) Tourism, politics and the forgotten entanglements of power.

In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, power and space (pp. 1-42). London:

Routledge.

DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.

Duffy, R. (2002) A trip too far: ecotourism, politics, and exploitation. London: Earthscan.

Duffy, R. and Moore, L. (2010) Neoliberalising Nature? Elephant-Back Tourism in Thailand

and Botswana. Antipode, 42(3), 742-766.

Emerging Markets Group (2005). The Gambia Tourism Development Master Plan: The

challenges for 2005 to 2010 and the 2020 vision. Banjul.

Ezeuduji, I. O. and Rid, W. (2011) Rural tourism offer and local community participation in

The Gambia. Tourismos: an International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 6(2),

187-211.


58

Ferguson, L. (2011) Promoting gender equality and empowering women? Tourism and the

third Millennium Development Goal. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 235-249.

Font, X. and Goodwin, H. (2012) Progress in Responsible Tourism 2(1) [Online], Oxford:

Goodfellow Publishers, Available at:

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/academic-

publishing.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=276 [Accessed 4

17 July 2013].

Gambia Tourism Authority (GTA) (2013) Mission Statement [Online] Available at:

http://www.visitthegambia.gm/about-gta.html [Accessed 10 August 2013].

Geertz, C. (1973) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. Culture: critical

concepts in sociology, 1, 173-196.

Goldstein, P. (2002) Ethical tourism: who benefits? In T. Jenkins (Ed.), Ethical Tourism: Who

Benefits (pp. 35-57). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Goodwin, H. (2006) Measuring and reporting the impact of tourism on poverty. Cutting Edge

Research in Tourism–New Directions, Challenges and Applications, 6(9).

Goodwin, H. (2008) Tourism, local economic development, and poverty reduction. Applied

Research in Economic Development, 5(3), 55-64.

Goodwin, H. (2011) Taking responsibility for tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.

Goodwin, H., McCombes, L., and Eckardt, C. (2009) Advances in travel philanthropy:

Raising money through the travel and tourism industry for charitable purposes.

Online document. Available from:

http://www.wtmwrtd.com/files/2_nov_wtm_tp_final_report.pdf [Accessed 20

August 2013].

Haley, A. (1976) Roots: The saga of an American family. New York, NY: Doubleday and

Company.

Hall, C. M. (2007a) Pro-poor tourism: Do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries

of the South’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2-3), 111-118.

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/academic-publishing.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=276

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/academic-publishing.php?promoCode=&partnerID=&content=story&storyID=276

http://www.visitthegambia.gm/about-gta.html

http://www.wtmwrtd.com/files/2_nov_wtm_tp_final_report.pdf


59

Hall, C. M. (2007b) Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty

Reduction (Vol. 3). Clevedon: Channel View Books.

Hall, D. R., Kirkpatrick, I. and Mitchell, M. (2005) Rural tourism and sustainable business (Vol.

26): Channel View Books.

Hall, D. R., Roberts, L. and Mitchell, M. (2003) New directions in rural tourism. Aldershot:

Ashgate Publishing.

Harrison, L. C. and Husbands, W. (1996) Practicing responsible tourism: international case

studies in tourism planning, policy and development. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and

Sons.

Hawkins, D. E. and Mann, S. (2007) The world bank’s role in tourism development. Annals of

Tourism Research, 34(2), 348-363.

Haywood, K. M. (1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community.

Tourism management, 9(2), 105-118.

Huggett, C. and Pownall, D. (2010) Teaching Travel and Tourism 14+. Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

International and Ibero American Foundation for Administration and Public Policies (FIIAPP)

(2011) Tourism as an Opportunity – Good Practices in Sustainable Tourism from a

Gender Perspective. Spain: Author.

Jamal, T. and Robinson, M. (2009) The SAGE handbook of tourism studies: Sage Publications

Limited.

Jamieson, W., Goodwin, H., & Edmunds, C. (2004) Contribution of tourism to poverty

alleviation: Pro-poor tourism and the challenge of measuring impacts [Online] For

Transport Policy and Tourism Section, Transport and Tourism Division, UN ESCAP,

Bangkok, Available at:

http://www.haroldgoodwin.info/resources/povertyalleviation.pdf [Accessed 1

August 2013].

Jones, S. (2005) Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social capital. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(2), 303-324.

http://www.haroldgoodwin.info/resources/povertyalleviation.pdf


60

Kennedy, K. and Dornan, D. A. (2009) An overview: Tourism non-governmental organizations

and poverty reduction in developing countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research, 14(2), 183-200.

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. J. (2000) Conducting Research in Human Geography: theory,

methodology and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Krippendorf, J. (1982) Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental and

sociocultural factors. Tourism management, 3(3), 135-148.

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday-makers: Understanding the Impact of Travel and Tourism.

Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Laurier, E. (2003) Participant Observation, In N. J. Clifford & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key methods

in geography. London: Sage Publications.

Liu, A. and Wall, G. (2006) Planning tourism employment: a developing country perspective.

Tourism Management, 27(1), 159-170.

Liu, Z. (2003) Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of sustainable tourism,

11(6), 459-475.

Macbeth, J., Carson, D. and Northcote, J. (2004) Social capital, tourism and regional

development: SPCC as a basis for innovation and sustainability. Current Issues in

Tourism, 7(6), 502-522.

Mayaka, M. and Akama, J. S. (2007) Systems approach to tourism training and education:

The Kenyan case study. Tourism Management, 28(1), 298-306.

Milne, S., and Ewing, G. (2004) Community participation in Caribbean tourism: Problems and

prospects. In D. T. Duval (Eds.), Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, Development,

Prospects. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. (2010) Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity.

London: Earthscan.

Mitchell, J. and Faal, J. (2007) Holiday package tourism and the poor in The Gambia.

Development Southern Africa, 24(3), 445-464.


61

Moscardo, G. (2005) Peripheral tourism development: challenges, issues and success

factors. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(1), 27-43.

Moscardo, G. (2008) Building community capacity for tourism development. Wallingford:

CABI.

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2008) Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalization

and new tourism in the third world. London: Routledge.

Novelli, M. and Burns, P. (2010) Peer-to-peer capacity-building in tourism: Values and

experiences of field-based education. Development Southern Africa, 27(5).

Novelli, M. and Burns, P.M. (2011) Restructuring the Gambia Hotel School into a National

Training Institute Project Report – Business Plan Gambia Ministry of Tourism and

Culture/World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA .

Novelli, M. and Hellwig, A. (2011) The UN Millennium Development Goals, tourism and

development: the tour operators' perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 205-

220.

Okunade, E. (2007) Effectiveness of extension teaching methods in acquiring knowledge,

skill and attitude by women farmers in Osun State. Journal of Applied Sciences

Research, 3(4), 282-286.

Pearce, P. L. (2008) Understanding How Tourism Can Bring Sociocultural Benefits to

Destination Communities. In G. Moscardo (Eds.), Building community capacity for

tourism development. Wallingford: CABI International.

Pender, L. and Sharpley, R. (2004) The management of tourism. London: Sage Publications

Limited.

Pieterse, J. N. (2002) My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post-development,

reflexive development. Development and Change, 29(2), 343-373.

Pieterse, J. N. (2009) Development theory (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications Limited.

Reid, D. G. (2003) Tourism, globalization and development: Responsible tourism planning.

London: Pluto Press


62

Responsible Tourism Partnership (RTP) (2009) Responsible Tourism Policy in The Gambia.

Banjul: Responsible Tourism Partnership.

Richards, G. and Hall, D. (2000) Tourism and sustainable community development. London:

Routledge.

Rid, W., Ezeuduji, I. O. and Pröbstl-Haider, U. (2014) Segmentation by motivation for rural

tourism activities in The Gambia. Tourism Management, 40, 102-116.

Roberts, S. and Tribe, J. (2008) Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises–An

exploratory perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 575-594.

Rogerson, C. M. (2006) Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: The role of

pro-poor tourism. Local Environment, 11(1), 37-60.

Saarinen, J., Rogerson, C. and Manwa, H. (2011) Tourism and Millennium Development

Goals: tourism for global development? Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 201-203.

Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism

management, 20(2), 245-249.

Scheyvens, R. (2002) Tourism for development: Empowering communities. Harlow: Pearson

Education.

Scheyvens, R. (2007) Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2-

3), 231-254.

Schilcher, D. (2007) Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and

neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2-3), 166-193.

Sharpley, R. (2009) Tourism and development challenges in the least developed countries:

the case of The Gambia. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(4), 337-358.

Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D. J. (2002) Tourism and development: Concepts and issues (Vol. 5).

Clevedon: Channel View Books.

Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D. J. (2008) Tourism and development in the developing world. Oxon:

Routledge Perspectives on Development.

Sofield, T. H. B. (2003) Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford: Elsevier

Science Ltd.


63

Spenceley, A. (2008) Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development.

London: Earthscan.

Timothy, D. J. (1999) Participatory planning: A view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of

tourism research, 26(2), 371-391.

Torres, R. and Momsen, J. H. (2004) Challenges and potential for linking tourism and

agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives. Progress in Development Studies,

4(4), 294-318.

Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in

developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613-633.

Tosun, C. (2005) Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism development approach

in the Developing World. Geoforum, 36(3), 333-352.

Tribe, J. (2008) Tourism: A critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 245-255.

Tucker, H. and Akama, J. S. (2009) Tourism as postcolonialism. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson

(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. London: Sage Publications.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013) International Human Development

Indicators [Online] Available at:

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GMB.html [Accessed 25 July 2013].

United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2001) Tourism 2020 Vision, Madrid:

World Tourism Organisation.

United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2006) UNWTO’s declaration on

tourism and the millennium goals: Harnessing tourism for the Millennium

Development Goals. Madrid: Author.

United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) (2012) Turning one billion tourists into

one billion opportunities [Online] Available at:

http://media.unwto.org/en/news/2012-12-12/infographics-turning-one-billion-

tourists-one-billion-opportunities [Accessed 27 July 2013].

Urry, J. and Larsen, J. (2011) The tourist gaze 3.0. London: Sage Publications Limited.

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GMB.html

http://media.unwto.org/en/news/2012-12-12/infographics-turning-one-billion-tourists-one-billion-opportunities

http://media.unwto.org/en/news/2012-12-12/infographics-turning-one-billion-tourists-one-billion-opportunities


64

Valentine, G., French, S. and Clifford, N. (2010) Key methods in geography. London: Sage

Publications Limited.

Verbole, P. (2003). The role of education in the management of rural tourism and leisure. In

D. Hall, L. Roberts & M. Mitchell (Eds.), New directions in rural tourism. Aldershot:

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2), 121-129.

Wheeller, B. (1997) Tourism's troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer. In L.

France (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism (pp. 61-75). London: Earthscan.

Wilcox, R. T., Johanson, R. and Lahire, N. (2011) Youth employment and skills development

in the Gambia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Wilkinson, P. (1992) Tourism-the curse of the nineties? Belize-an experiment to integrate

tourism and the environment. Community Development Journal, 27(4), 386-395.

World Bank (2013) The Gambia [Online] Available at:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/GAMBIAEXTN

/0,,menuPK:351648~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:351626,00.html

[Accessed 25 July 2013]

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2012) Economic Impact Research [Online] Available

at: http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-impact-research/ [Accessed 21 August

2013].

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2013) Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2013

Gambia [Online] Available at:

http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/gambia2013_1.pdf [Accessed

26 July 2013].

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/GAMBIAEXTN/0,,menuPK:351648~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:351626,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/GAMBIAEXTN/0,,menuPK:351648~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:351626,00.html

http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-impact-research/

http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/gambia2013_1.pdf

Taking Responsibility for Responsible Tourism in ... · Taking Responsibility for Responsible...

Documents

Transcript of Taking Responsibility for Responsible Tourism in ... · Taking Responsibility for Responsible...