Keywords

1 Introduction

Small tropical and subtropical islands disproportionately accommodate global tourism, accounting for 5% of international stayover arrivals but 0.3% of global population (Weaver and Lawton 2014). Such locations possess weak primary and secondary sectors but rich endowments of sea, sand, and sun, thereby compelling many governments since the 1960s to stimulate economic development through resort tourism. Indeed, many island destinations have embraced international tourism as a perceived panacea (Ioannides 2000; Nowak et al. 2007) assumed to create ample employment and foreign exchange earnings (Shakeela and Cooper 2009). From a sustainability perspective, such benefits are offset variably by revenue leakages (associated with high imported inputs), excessive economic dependency on the sector, seasonal demand fluctuations, and high expatriate employment, factors all associated with restricted economies of scale. Improved quality of life, moreover, may be offset by sociocultural costs including cultural commodification, demonstration effects, and increased crime (Jones et al. 2012).

Most governments embrace the rhetoric of public participation as a critical component of policy frameworks that claim adherence to principles of sustainable development. However, because such ‘participation’ mostly involves a one-way flow of decisions from authorities to communities and very limited actual consultation (Garrod et al. 2012; Tosun 1999), it cannot adequately inform planning that reflects sustainable tourism outcomes by incorporating the knowledge and preferences of local residents. A paradox therefore exists wherein government claims of economic success and local empowerment through tourism are often not matched by similar sentiments among alienated local residents disaffected by low wages, employment uncertainty, erosion of traditional culture, and environmental degradation (Shakeela and Weaver 2016).

Because governments ‘have a pivotal role and possess the potential power to control, plan and direct the growth and development of tourism’ (Mowforth and Munt 2003, p. 293), it behoves them to provide sustainable benefits to those they purport to represent. Local residents, additionally, deserve involvement in decisions that affect their quality of life for ethical reasons (Easterling 2005; Ritchie 1993) and because they possess high stakeholder status (Garrod et al. 2012). Community empowerment or participatory planning, whereby local residents are involved in every stage of tourism decision-making process, can offset many of the negative impacts associated with tourism development (Jamal and Getz 1995; Reid et al. 2004), especially if this occurs within the context of ‘community-based’ or ‘community-responsive’ tourism that complements the existing local culture and economy (Reed 1999). In any context, giving residents a platform and voice is a meaningful way in which local residents can be involved in tourism development processes (Gunn and Var 2002), provided this is facilitated beyond the level of mere tokenism. According to Elliot (1997, p. 101) ‘good policy formulation requires considerable research and inputs from those who are implementing policy at the grass roots or impact level’.

Such inputs imply the conferral and exercise of power, but Church and Coles (2007) argue that there is insufficient theoretical and conceptual engagement with power discourses in sustainable tourism development that attend interactions between the governing and the governed. Hall (2008) has identified public policy-making foremost as a political activity, while Hollinshead (1999) posits the ubiquity of power projection and resistance in contemporary tourism. Often, power projections are manifested as a top-down approach to tourism development wherein those with power resist attempts to concede or share control (Telfer and Sharpley 2008). Accordingly, residents are seldom empowered to take meaningful control of the development process (Liu 2003), even in so-called community-based initiatives (Farrelly 2011). It is also possible that ‘local power’, where apparently attained, is concentrated in the hands of the local élite rather than the community as a whole (Weaver 2006).

Low empowerment and the experience of substantial negative impacts can together instigate negative resident reactions towards tourism development and tourists, thereby undermining the sector. Doxey’s (1976) classic ‘irridex’ proposes sequential change in resident attitude towards tourism as the latter escalates, with initial euphoria giving way to increasing irritation and antagonism. Similar patterns are apparent in the destination life cycle concept of Butler’s (1980). More recent research, however, argues that resident attitudes are neither linear nor uniform. Huimin and Ryan (2012) suggest that time creates greater tolerance of tourism, while Ap (1992) contends that cost-benefit assessments – or social exchange, associated with level of contact – influence attitudes. Significant elements of support and opposition, as well as ambivalence, will therefore occur among residents at all stages of tourism development.

In tourism policy formulation, relationships between the public and private sector, and the extent to which residents are represented, therefore have significant implications for tourism sustainability; those more actively involved are more likely to be supportive and positive (Huh and Vogt 2008). This enables more balanced power relationships, empowering residents to participate more fully in decision-making. Residents will then have vested interests in the performance of tourism activities. Notably, this does not necessarily have to involve direct participation in planning and policy as per the ideal of community-based tourism (Scheyvens 1999) but could involve indirect control through designated intermediaries such as advisory committees, community organisations, or specialised government agencies.

It is within this context that we explore local representation and participation in tourism development in the Maldives, a classic ‘pleasure periphery’ destination country that nonetheless displays important countervailing tendencies through the encouragement of localised small-scale tourism development (see case study). We empirically investigate the extent to which local residents perceive themselves as having a voice and are represented in tourism planning and policy decisions that pertain especially to their own local island communities. As in other tourism-intensive island states, government is actively engaged in tourism policy and planning and is guided by a series of increasingly enlightened master plans. However, policy and planning decisions are typically informed by industry involvement, and political leadership and power control therefore can deter successful policy development and implementation (Dodds and Butler 2008), inducing uneven and unequal tourism development (Mowforth and Munt 2009).

Case Study: Tourism Development in the Maldives

Since 1970, tourism in the Maldives has grown exponentially and embodies classic features of 3S tourism, including 124 enclave resorts, 142 safari boats (dhoni), 381 guesthouses, and 16 hotels that accounted in 2015 for most of the available 36,483 beds (MOT 2016). Another 106 enclave island resorts are being developed (MOT 2015). In 2015 tourism contributed 24% to GDP and 41% to government revenue (National Bureau of Statistics 2016), representing the largest foreign exchange earner and employer. Due to size constraints, enclave resorts must be developed as self-contained operations on a one-island-one-resort basis through leasing arrangements that overwhelmingly favour the Maldivian élite. These entrepreneurs hold disproportionate power in parliament and advocate for favourable legislation, having blocked for many years an increase in the minimum wage and increasing the length of the leasing period. Moreover, new minimum wage laws are not widely enforced, leading to widespread employee unrest and strikes (Merrett 2013; Moosa 2008; Nazeer 2011).

Although a Government Tourist Board (now Ministry of Tourism) was established in 1974, there was initially no active government engagement in tourism policy, planning, and development (MTCA 2008; Niyaz 2002), with the industry being largely self-governed and abetted by the élites. Nevertheless, government has acted as a tourism facilitator by upgrading, at the time, the only existing airport in 1981 to international standard. With increasing international arrivals, signs of unsustainable mass tourism emerged, including tourists visiting inhabited islands displaying behaviour incompatible with local culture and religion. Initial Tourism Master Plans (First Tourism Master Plan, 1983–1995; Second Tourism Master Plan, 1996–2005) were focused on tourism expansion, product development, and training rather than remediation of these negative impacts.

However, the Maldives Tourism Act (Department of Tourism and Foreign Investment 1979) tried to address perceived incompatibilities by prohibiting nudity, gambling, and tourists staying in locally inhabited islands other than Malé (the capital). Safari boat movements were also restricted to designated tourism zones. Under a permit system, resorts were permitted to sell alcohol, an allowance extended to safari operations in 1990. Initial policies were focused on ensuring minimal interaction between locals and tourists. For example, until 2007 Ministry of Education rules prohibited Maldivian students from visiting resorts unless accompanied by a parent or a guardian (Shakeela et al. 2010). Even as of 2017, locals could not visit a resort unless employed there or arriving as a tourist. While a local employee can serve alcohol, bartending remains restricted to expatriate employees.

Despite the dominance of enclave resorts, limited community-focused tourism was permitted in the 1970s and early 1980s on inhabited islands within the central tourism hub of Malé Atoll and near the international airport (MTCA 2008; Niyaz 2002). However, enclave resort developers argued that low-price tourism threatened their high investments. Subsequently, the permit system for community-based tourism was revoked in 1984. The issue of local community empowerment through community-responsive local tourism re-emerged in the Third Tourism Master Plan (2007–2011), which advocated a parallel strategy of guesthouse-based tourism “to bring in greater economic opportunities to inhabited islands” (MTCA 2007, p. 58) while avoiding the perceived negative social and cultural impacts associated with élite-controlled enclave tourism. The Fourth Tourism Master Plan (2013–2017) further mobilised support for community-level tourism, based on the premise that ‘decisions about what is best for tourism development at atoll and island level cannot be made by a blanket policy from Malé. Tourism planning must be site specific, involve communities and the industry and aim to establish “island roles” in tourism’ (MTAC 2013, p. 53). Community consultations in tourism development processes, however, have yet to materialise despite a rapid growth of guesthouses on inhabited islands.

2 Methods

Two island communities, exhibiting contrasting levels of openness to community-based tourism, were selected for the empirical investigation. The first, Kaafu Atoll Huraa (local population 1017, land area 25.1 ha) is located within the main tourism hub of North Malé Atoll. Huraa accommodates seven guesthouses (58 beds) (see Fig. 5.1). Tourism is heavily concentrated in this atoll, with 25 resorts (5844 beds) operating in North Malé Atoll; three of which share the same lagoon as Huraa. Further 17 resorts (3132 beds) are located in South Malé Atoll. From the 1970s Huraa has maintained a very close relationship with the resorts in Kaafu Atoll, which sell day-trip excursions to tourists to demonstrate local life. Local island community members capitalise on these economic opportunities, with a large number of souvenir shops catering to visiting tourists. As such, this is a highly tourism-dependent community, with 31 out of 50 respondents solicited in this research directly employed in tourism.

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

(a) A guesthouse at Huraa (L); (b) Tourists visiting a souvenir shop on the island (R)

Full size image

The second island, remote Gnaviyani Atoll Fuvahmulah (local population 12,012, land area 491.7 ha), is the third largest Maldivian island and an independent atoll accommodating one guesthouse (8 beds). The opening of a domestic airport in 2011 and the changes brought to the Tourism Act have opened potential for tourism development. However, acceptance of tourism as a local economic activity is very limited. For instance, a hotel development has been proposed but has faced protests from local residents (Hamdhoon 2005) on the basis that tourism will introduce alcohol to the island community. To overcome this challenge, the government demarcated two zones of Fuvahmulah as ‘uninhabited islands’ (Jameel 2011), one which was contested by local community members. Due to local resistance, construction of the proposed hotel had not yet proceeded as of early 2017 (Fig. 5.2). The closest atoll, Seenu Atoll, approximately 43.3 kms away, operates two resorts (830 beds). A far more incipient stage of tourism development and engagement, in comparison with Huraa, is thereby indicated.

Fig. 5.2
figure 2

Part of Fuvahmulah demarcated as ‘uninhabited island’ for hotel development

Full size image

Applying random sampling techniques, the first author, who is Maldivian and fluent in local Divehi language, visited households on both islands to recruit participants (one survey per household and only from those 18 years of age or older). Based on the aforementioned populations, 50 and 150 valid surveys were completed during December 2013 and January 2014 by local residents in Huraa and Fuvahmulah, respectively. These numbers were sufficiently large to allow the authors to administer tests of statistical significance to the results. The self-administered survey examined tourism impacts, attitudes towards tourism, and tourism planning and development. We present findings of the latter section. All statements accommodated responses on a five-point Likert scale with ‘strongly agree’ (=1) and ‘strongly disagree’ (=5) polarities. For analytical purposes (i.e. minimising the number of cells with less than five responses), the ‘strongly agree/agree’ and ‘strongly disagree/disagree’ options were combined into respective ‘agreement’ and ‘disagreement’ variables.

Informed by the relevant literature (Andriotis 2004; Dodds and Butler 2008; Mowforth and Munt 2009; Telfer and Sharpley 2008; Weaver and Lawton 2001), the first subtheme explored local control over island tourism planning and development. Specific questions focused on (a) whether locals should have control over how tourism is developed within their island communities and (b) whether locals actually have adequate control over tourism development within their island community.

The second subtheme (Garrod et al. 2012; Jamal and Getz 1995; Reid et al. 2004; Tosun 1999) considered participatory planning in tourism development. Specific questions explored respondent views on (a) how tourism is developed on their island, (b) whether locals should have a voice in how tourism is developed there, (c) whether government have consulted local residents about tourism development there, (d) whether government authorities have paid attention to residents’ views in tourism planning decisions, and (e) whether tourism decisions should be made with community participation.

The final subtheme explored resident satisfaction with government planning and management of tourism (Bramwell 2010; Hall 2007, 2008). Respondents were asked what are their views on (a) any dissatisfaction with how tourism is planned, (b) their beliefs as to whether tourism is growing too fast for the island community to cope with, and (c) whether government effectively manages the industry.

3 Results

Substantial differences pertained in age, gender, education, and employment structure between the two samples, with Huraa respondents tending to be younger, male, primary education qualified, employed, and being employed previously in tourism (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Respondent demographics
Full size table

4 Local Community Control over Tourism Planning and Development

No statistically significant relationship was identified between island of residence and views on whether residents should have control over tourism development within their community; respondents from both communities expressed strong sentiments that they should have such control. In contrast, the two samples are markedly dissimilar with respect to actually having such control, with those from the tourism-dependent island of Huraa strongly in agreement and those from Fuvahmulah in strong disagreement (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Local community control over tourism planning and development
Full size table

5 Participatory Planning in Tourism Development

No significant relationship was identified between respondent’s island and perceptions that they have a voice in how tourism is developed there, with informants in both locations disagreeing with the statement. The follow-up question, however, revealed an extremely strong desire among both samples to have their voice represented in tourism policy and planning. The majority of respondents from both islands state that government have not consulted local residents about tourism development, actual or prospective, on their island community (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3 Participatory planning in tourism development
Full size table

The islands did differ on the issue of whether government paid little attention to local residents’ views in tourism planning decisions, with three of four Fuvahmulah respondents agreeing, compared with just one-third of those in Huraa. There is strong concurrence among both sets of respondents that tourism decisions must be made with local community participation.

6 Resident Satisfaction with Tourism Planning

Sampled residents of the two islands displayed comparable ambivalence as to whether tourism is growing too fast for the island community to cope effectively. A significant relationship between respondent’s island and dissatisfaction with government’s approach to tourism planning and development was identified, with Fuvahmulah residents being far more likely to express dissatisfaction than respondents of Huraa (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4 Resident satisfaction with government planning of tourism
Full size table

7 Discussions and Conclusions

This study identifies the extent to which residents of two structurally different Maldivian islands have a voice and exercise control in local tourism planning and policy decisions. In both contexts, there is strong agreement that residents should have a voice but do not actually have one. There is also strong agreement that residents should exercise control, but only Huraa residents agree that they have control. Huraa residents also reveal positive perceptions about attention paid by government, tourism growing at an acceptable rate, government managing industry well, and overall satisfaction with government planning. Fuvahmulah residents, in contrast, display negative perceptions for all these statements. A first observation is corroboration from the residents themselves, as per core sustainability tenets, that they should be involved in local tourism-related planning. However, secondly, residents generally do not perceive themselves as having a voice. This critical area of non-alignment needs to be rectified through increased capacity-building and meaningful community consultation, but need not necessarily extend to higher levels of involvement that require specialised technical skills or large investments of time.

A third observation then is the need to consider the marked difference in perception between the two sampled islands. Both reveal a dominant social representation of tourism planning in which residents are typically excluded from tourism policy and planning processes, but the alienation is much less expressed in the location where development of and dependency on tourism are far more advanced. Huraa residents may still not be actively engaged in local tourism policy and planning processes but have some control over how tourism is developed and thus tend to be more positive about the government approach to the latter; they also have over 40 years of exposure to the sector. While the disparate results from Huraa and Fuvahmulah corroborate the contention of Huimin and Ryan (2012) that attitudes towards tourism become more tolerant with the passage of time, they somewhat contradict other models, and notably Butler’s (1980) tourism area life cycle, which argue for a progression from favourable attitudes during early tourism stages to less favourable attitudes during the more advanced stages when the breaching of local carrying capacities, may be imminent or already evident. Another observation, however, is that significant minorities on both islands disagree with the dominant attitudes, indicating the need for further investigation to see whether these dissenters are distinctive in any significant way.

Social exchange theory may help to resolve these contradictory assertions, wherein attitudes are mediated by the realisation – or not, in the case of underexposed Fuvahmulah – of tourism-related benefits. It may be that despite not having a ‘voice’, most Huraa residents are satisfied because of the not insubstantial direct and indirect benefits they obtain from tourism in nearby enclave resorts as well as from their long experience of local community-based tourism. This speculation is supported by Shakeela and Weaver (2016), who found that Maldivian residents were overwhelmingly supportive of two European tourists who were revealed in a YouTube video as being surreptitiously abused by resort employees pretending to officiate at a supposed wedding ceremony. The apparent dynamic is fear of bad publicity causing damage to the all-important tourism industry and hence strongly held sentiments for censure or punishment of the perpetrators who threaten the sector by their actions. It seems probable, in contrast, that the widespread dissatisfaction among Fuvahmulah residents is related to frustration over the lack of similar benefits from their own less well-articulated local tourism sector yet concurrent reluctance to develop the latter due to fears of cultural contamination. Tourism intensity, and implied receipt of economic and other benefits, therefore, appears to substantively influence satisfaction with government tourism planning regardless of whether they believe they have a voice in that process or not. Further empirical research in the Maldives is merited to further investigate these complex and diverse attitudes among the people who have the most to lose or gain from local tourism development.