Community Education

Tourism

Residents or villagers in less developed parts of the world, often referred to as hosts, interact
with tourists on a daily basis. They are in the front line of tourism and are frequently
part of the product that is sold. Many have received minimal formal education and few
have had the opportunity to experience tourism as a tourist. This thread is about the education
of this stakeholder group, so vital in cultural tourism in less developed countries,
but so often ignored in the tourism education literature.
This thread firstly outlines the rationale for a more thorough discussion of the educational
needs of host communities. This is followed by some examples of actions that have
been taken, and questions the ethics behind some of the educational programmes to date.
The third part of the thread provides a case study that highlights some of the issues raised,
and the thread then goes on to suggest some areas of curriculum and teaching methods
that would be useful in this and many other communities that seek non-formal community
tourism education.

[ by Tourism at 3-13-2009 23:30 edited ]

Tourism

There are two fundamental reasons that we should turn our attention to the education of
host communities:
(a) Service provision; and
(b) Sustainability.

Service Provision
Tourism is a competitive industry. A destination’s attractiveness needs to be maintained,
and the service sector must meet visitor expectations. Increasing numbers of tourists are
drawn to places to experience different cultures, and new tourists increasingly want some
level of social interaction with people in local communities. These cultural tourists want
to feel welcomed and safe and they appreciate quality service. However, this welcome is
not limited to their experiences in their hotels. It extends to a range of encounter situations,
often with villagers in and around their homes. While Robinson and Yee (1996) discuss the
education of “front-line workers: the people who interact with tourists” , they are
discussing the educational needs of front-line workers and are ignoring the educational
needs of the communities with whom tourists interact, but who do not have a formal
tourism job. As Mafati (2002) explains, those people in Caprivi, Namibia who have set up
enterprises have received training but “it needs to extend beyond the people who run the
enterprises to involve the community as a whole, this way there will be full understanding
and cooperation”.
Virtually, all tourist surveys show that “friendliness of local people” rates highly on the
list of positive features about a tourist destination (Sweeney & Wanhill, 1996).
Furthermore, holiday satisfaction and repeat visitation are in part determined by tourists’
interpersonal experiences with their hosts. In less developed countries where cultural differences
are great, the potential for misunderstanding, distrust, confusion, tension and
conflict is greatest. Tourists often report interactional difficulties and suffer culture shock
due to not understanding the rules of engagement (Pearce, Kim, & Lussa 1998) –– while
the hosts feel un-respected, belittled, and exploited. As Reisinger and Turner (2003) discuss,
these problems result from a lack of knowledge of each other’s culture. “The more
cultural knowledge people have, the more they know about other cultural groups, the better
they can predict their behaviour. Consequently the easier it is to enter social relationships”.
As Ross (2004) discusses, trust between hosts and guests can be fostered where both
parties have basic information about each other. The tourists can read about their hosts or
pay a guide to provide the necessary information but how does the resident learn about the
tourists’ tastes, customs and expectations? While tourists can build up knowledge about
tourism through their experiences, how do villagers in remote marginal communities,
without the resources to travel or be tourists themselves, develop an understanding of the
tourism phenomena? As Lipscomb (1998) discusses, “unlike most other economic activities
in which indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) has some relevance to a more commercially
orientated operation there is little ITK in most villages of direct relevance to
tourism operations”.

Sustainability
Local community participation is a widely accepted criterion of sustainable tourism. The
reasons for community participation in tourism development are well rehearsed in the
tourism literature. Not only does community participation need to be seen in development
proposals but it is often essential to secure funding (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Kadir Din,
1997). Involvement in planning is likely to result in more appropriate decisions and greater
motivation on the part of the local people (Hitchcock, King, & Parnwell, 1993); and the
protection of the environment, tourism’s resource, will be supported (Tourism Concern,

Tourism

1992). Community participation is considered necessary to get community support and
acceptance of tourism development projects, and to ensure that benefits relate to the local
community needs. As a service industry, tourism is highly dependent on the goodwill and
co-operation of host communities. Service is the key to the hospitality atmosphere
(Murphy, 1985, p. 120). Villagers’ support and pride in their tourism is especially important
in the case of remote village cultural tourism, where “meeting the people” is often sort
by the tourists. Tosun and Timothy (2003) further argue that the local community is more
likely to know what will work and what will not in local conditions; and that community
participation can add to the democratisation process and often encourages various forms
of equity and empowerment.
As has been identified by Arnstein (1969) and Pretty (1995), a ladder of participation
exists ranging from “being consulted” (often only being informed of a fait accompli) to
being able to determine every aspect of the development process. While it can be argued
that all communities participate to a certain degree –– sharing a despoiled environment,
receiving menial jobs or getting a percentage of gate fees to a national park –– community
participation is about active participation and empowerment. As Warburton (1998) points
out, the need for participation is not doubted but the empowerment end of the ladder has
received little attention in the tourism development literature.
There are a number of reasons why active community participation is hard to achieve
in practise. Frequently a lack of ownership, capital, skills, knowledge and resources all
constrain the ability of communities to fully control their participation in tourism development
(Scheyvens, 2003). In remote areas of less developed countries, a number of further
barriers exist: the concept is new; decisions are taken by bureaucrats in a highly
centralised system; planners believe that local people are uneducated and too ignorant to
be involved, and lack the experience and training to facilitate participation (cf. Timothy,
1999, for example). Importantly, the local people do not have the knowledge to participate
(Cole, 1997; Ashley, Roe, & Goodwin, 2001). As Abram (1998) suggests, “the difficulty
for ordinary people in accessing technical discourse is often identified as a major barrier
to full participation”. Many communities lack any real understanding of what it is
they are supposed to be making decisions about (Sofield, 2003). Kadir Din (1997) considers
ignorance as the greatest barrier to participation but that the ignorance is not restricted
to residents but “also affects the planning machinery and bureaucracy vested with implementation”.
Active participation is then frequently constrained by a community’s lack of information
and knowledge. Knowledge of the decision-making process and the tourism system
are essential if residents are to take an active part in tourism planning and management,
and if participation is to move from the bottom rungs of the participation ladder to empowerment.
Communities need access to a wide range of information about tourism. Information
provision is an essential first step; since meaningful participation cannot take place before
a community understands what they are to make decisions about (Cole, 1999; Sofield,
2003). In addition to the need for information is the need for confidence to take part in the
decision-making process. In many marginal communities, especially where there has been
a long history of colonisation and/or authoritarian rule communities lack the confidence to
take part in the decision-making (Cole, 1997; Timothy, 1999).
In order to bring about the confidence for meaningful participation and empowerment,
many researchers have recognised the need for and value of considerable public education
(for example Simmons, 1994; Connell, 1997; Pearce, 1994). As Ashley et al. (2001) have
examined, the poor have a weak capacity in the general understanding of tourists and how
the industry works. An understanding of tourists and tourism is the first stage of empowering
the local communities to make informed and appropriate decisions about their
tourism development.

Tourism

While the need for public education in tourism is well documented, few studies discuss the
philosophy and practice of such programmes. One programme aimed at generating awareness
and understanding about tourism within the community is the Welcome Host
Programme in Wales. Sweeney and Wanhill (1996) discuss the success of the programme
in changing behaviour through training and altering attitudes by generating awareness in
the host population. The programme aimed at changing local attitudes towards tourists and
improving the quality of the visitors’ experience, not only for those working in tourism but
in any encounter situation, whether a chance meeting, polite enquiry or the service relationship.
Based on Superhost, a similar programme in Canada, Welcome Host was promoted
on the premise that “if we leave a good impression with customers, the chances are
that our business will grow, they will stay longer, spend more money in our communities
and return to visit us again” (Sweeney & Wanhill, 1996, p. 154).
The Indonesian Minister of Tourism launched a similar Tourism Awareness Program
(sadar wisata) in 1989–1990. The public education campaign involved various media
including the television, newspapers and brochures. At the heart of the programme was a
seven-point formula for successful tourism (sapta persona) disseminated through government
departments, community groups and youth organisations (Joop Ave, no date). The
seven-point formula consisted of security, cleanliness, cool comfort, natural beauty, friendly
people and memories. According to the minister, the objectives were “to form a strong,
sturdy identity and to maintain national discipline” (Departemen Parawisata, Pos, &
Telekomunikasi, 1990, p. 36). As Adams (1997) discusses, it promoted even the remotest
villages in outer Indonesia to consider their touristic charms and attracting powers. In some
places where tourism was already established, courses were offered to community members
who were most likely to be involved with tourists (e.g. taxi and pedi-cab drivers, guest
house and restaurant owners and street vendors) (Timothy, 2000).
While such public education schemes may seem laudable, they raise an ethical question.
As Robinson and Yee (1996) ask, is preparing hosts to receive visitors in fact educating
them? Is preparing hosts to provide quality service in fact training them for quality
subservience? Similar questions need to be asked about other training programmes. As
Gurung, Simmons, and Delvin (1996) suggested, many guide-training programmes are
about meeting the needs of the clients while issues of sustainability are neglected. Many
community eco-tourism training programmes have either the implicit or explicit aim of protecting
wildlife resources (e.g. Rainforest Alliance, 2004). While this is an important educational
objective in its own right, it does not necessarily develop the political skills of local
people to actively take part in decisions about tourism development, the primary function
of training for local participation (Goodwin, 1995).

[ by Tourism at 3-13-2009 23:23 edited ]

Tourism

The case study is based on research that took place in two villages, Wogo and Bena, in
Ngadha, an area that approximates to the Southwest third of the Ngada regency, on the island
of Flores, Indonesia. The study was carried between 1989 and 2003, during which time my
position as researcher changed. Between 1989 and 1994, as a tour operator, I took groups of
12 tourists at a time to stay in Ngadha villages. In 1996, a Rapid Rural Appraisal was carried
out. Then, between August 1998 and February 1999, ethnographic fieldwork was undertaken.
I returned to the field in 2001 and 2003.
The Catholic villagers are largely peasants, eking out a hand-to-mouth existence on
poor soils. The rugged mountainous area began to be visited by ‘drifters’ in the 1980s and
has seen increasing numbers of tourists ever since. The most popular village, Bena,
received 9000 tourists in 1997 (Regency Department of Education and Culture, 1998). The
area is one of the poorest in Indonesia, and tourism is considered the area’s best option for
economic development (Umbu Peku Djawang, 1991).
The majority of villagers in Ngadha are passively participating in tourism. Tourists visit
the heart of the villages (nua), consisting of between 20 and 40 traditional wooden houses,
with high-thatched roofs, built around a rectangle, for between 20 minutes and 2 hours.
They wander around the villages, look at the houses and ‘totems to the ancestors’; take
photographs and leave again. In one of the villages, Bena, there is an indigenous weaving
industry, which provides additional interest for tourists and an opportunity for the villagers
to gain financial benefit from tourism. However, in the majority of villages the local people
have the inconvenience of tourism without economic advantage. They are passive participants,
unpaid actors on a stage, gazed at by an affluent audience. However, tourism has
brought non-economic benefits to the villages: convenient water supplies, pride in their
cultural heritage, “friends” all over the world, and the villagers are happy to be visited.
Alongside the villagers positive view of tourism is a feeling of bemusement. Frequently,
I was asked by villagers in Wogo, “Why do they come?” “What do they want?” “They
don’t ask anything; they don’t learn anything; that one didn’t even take any photographs”.
“They just look and take photographs; they do not understand the meanings”. Villagers
thought I should know why tourists came, looked, took photographs and departed.
Similarly, villagers in Bena expressed their lack of understanding of tourists. They are
unclear why tourists visit and what they want. Villagers in both Bena and Wogo bemoaned
their lack of understanding of what tourists really want.
The villagers’ knowledge of tourism comes from experience, guides and the government’s
Tourism Awareness Program (sadar wisata). Contact with tourists has enabled the
villagers to distinguish between “young, low spending, dirty tourists”; “older, fatter, high
spenders”; and “tourists who want to understand”. From the guides villagers have learnt
that tourists are impatient or at least do not like waiting for events; that tourists become
anxious if villagers crowd around them and that tourists require personal space; and that
tourist do not like ‘begging children’.

Tourism

The regency tourist office followed a provincial instruction to “develop the villagers”1
through the Tourism Awareness Campaign. The villagers of Bena were invited to attend a
presentation in 1996. The material presented2 (Dinas Parawisata Ngada, 1995) included an
explanation of what tourism is, how it benefits the area and its potential negative impacts,3
how far tourism had come in the last national Five Year Plan, and the above seven point
formula for successful tourism. The presentation was open to all the villagers, but initially
was so badly attended that people had to be persuaded to attend. The programme provided
an overview of the reasons why tourists visit their village and why preservation of both
material and non-material culture would serve to develop economic rewards. The villagers
considered the presentation too long especially as it was in Indonesian, which is not their
first language. They thought it was boring and unhelpful. They felt patronised to be told,
by townsfolk, to preserve their culture, which they had done for centuries with no thought
of economic benefit. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for the villagers to ask questions
or raise any of their issues about tourists or tourism development.
In 2000, another training programme was organised. Three members from each of the four
villages were invited to attend one and half days training in Bajawa, the regency town. Each
was paid expenses. Three villagers from Bena attended. “The same again, just like what they
said last time, protection of culture, preservation of our material assets, be good hosts. Nothing
new, no help, we did not learn anything” is how one villager described it to me. This programme
was an attempt by the government to gain villagers’ support for tourism development.
It represents the bottom rung of Pretty’s (1995) participation ladder. It was not designed to
empower the villagers to develop indigenous plans. The essence of the programme was that
tourists are the nation’s guests, so the villagers should be good hosts to them.
The Department of Tourism has built three home-stays, a viewing point and toilet facilities
in Bena. The majority of villagers did not know what a home-stay was for. They asked
me, “What are home-stays?” “What are they for?” The terminology is clearly confusing.
These were not anyone’s homes for guests to stay in; they are dwellings built in traditional
style for use by tourists. No individuals or groups were trained or made responsible for the
upkeep and day-to-day management of the home-stays and thus they have become a
“white elephant”, and are not used to accommodate tourists. The provincial Tourism
Department had organised the building of home-stays without educating the people as to
their purpose, or providing any training on how to manage them.
The villages lacked knowledge about issues of carrying capacity. Several villagers suggested
that each of the home-stays could accommodate 30 tourists. This was based on their
own houses accommodating in excess of 30 members at major rituals. However, it is
unlikely any tourist would be prepared to sleep in such cramped conditions. Although each
home-stay could reasonably accommodate eight tourists, only one toilet was provided for
all three houses, seriously restricting potential occupancy levels.
The villagers of Ngadha are unable to participate in the planning and management of
tourism due to their lack of understanding. They are unable to access the “technical discourse”
of tourism, so often in English, as epitomised by the Tourism Department’s “home-stays”. The
villagers’ lack of tourism understanding is linked to the unfilled potential for further tourism
development. The villagers were not short of ideas about potential future developments but
did not have the confidence, knowledge or skills to put them into practice.

Tourism

Ideally, the content of any training programme should be negotiated at the local level and
provide for the specific needs of each community group. However, there are a number of
recurring themes in the literature about tourism development in less developed countries
and capacity building needs: (a) esteem, (b) cross-cultural understanding, (c) what tourists
want and (d) tourism development. These areas, I would argue, are important for the entire
community to appreciate, while a range of further topics would be more relevant to certain
sectors of the community who want specific types of training: (e) product development,
(f) marketing, (g) financial management, (h) food services and hygiene.

Tourism

One of the successes of the Indonesian Tourism Awareness Program was that villages all over
the archipelago began to examine what they had that could attract tourists. However, as the
case study illustrated they did not have the confidence to act on their ideas. As Timothy (2002)
suggests “a sense of inadequacy appears to permeate developing societies” . Many
have negative self-images and downgrade all things local (cf. Lipscomb, 1998 with reference
to the Solomon Islands). As Victurine (2000) discusses, with reference to Uganda, the villagers
look outward “assigning lower value to local products and ways of doing things. They
believe that they had to acquire goods from the outside and adopt practises, designs and styles
from the cities…” . The need for communities to appreciate that what they have
locally is important, and is linked to “what tourists want” and “product development” (see
below). Esteem is probably one of the most important aspects of any community training or
capacity building for many communities. Where knowledge, ideas and entrepreneurial spirit
do exist, it is often a lack of confidence that prevents active participation.

Tourism

As discussed, many of the problems, and lost opportunities, in tourism result from a lack
of cross-cultural understanding between tourists and residents. Work has been conducted
on teaching tourists the habits, rules of behaviour and interaction and customs of hosts.
The “Cultural Assimilator” or cultural sensitizer programmes appear useful to provide
cross-cultural understanding to tourists (Pearce et al., 1998). However, the methods, involving
a lot of readings that were considered too complicated and overly long by Australian
tourists, would clearly be inappropriate for villagers in remote marginal communities.
A dearth of literature exists on the curriculum needed to provide hosts with the social
skills to understand the rules of western cultures to prevent them from feeling inadequate
and embarrassed, and to reduce the chance of misunderstanding and hostility. A curriculum
that included a basic understanding of the differences in patterns of greetings; showing
emotions and expressing dissatisfaction; joking and asking personal questions; body
language and touching and the use of time and space; would go a long way to reduce confusion
and negative interactions.

Tourism

As many villagers in less developed countries have never been tourists themselves, they have
little understanding of why tourists travel or what it is they want. As Lipscomb (1998) discusses,
villagers want to attract tourists but they have trouble understanding why foreigners
want to visit their villages and what activities they would like to do. Many activities that are
everyday life for villagers are a fascination to tourists. In Ngadha, for example, tourists’ visits
are nearly entirely limited to the central residential compound (nua) where tourists can observe
the villagers moving in and out of their homes, the villagers totems4 and megaliths. The tourist
product could be diversified if tourists were taken to see (and try out) a variety of village activities.
For example, seeing local people climb hairy palms, bleed the tree and attach long bamboo
tubes to collect palm toddy is an activity that fascinates tourists. Furthermore, they are
prepared to pay for the privilege of tasting the sweet mildly alcoholic liquid that is collected.
Understanding what tourists want is linked to having confidence in local products. In
Ngadha the only food and drink on sale for tourists are items in the local roadside shop.
They consist of bottled water, Coca Cola, Sprite and biscuits. Sales of the drinks are limited
as there is no way of keeping them cold. On a number of occasions, I observed tourists
order a bottled drink and give it back, as one tourist commented “We can’t stand warm
Sprite, we will wait till we get back to Bajawa”. The idea that tourists would appreciate
locally produced fruit juices or palm toddy did not occur to the villagers.
The villagers in Ngadha considered that electricity was a necessary addition to the
home-stays. They found it hard to believe that for a couple of nights the tourists would
enjoy the experience of being without. In contrast they did not realise the importance that
western tourists place on cleanliness and hygiene.