One of the 13 underlying themes of ecotourism identified by Sirakaya et al. (1999) [3] in their study is community involvement. Based on this theme, ecotourism is a new form of tourism that encourages the active involvement of the local population.

According to Garrod (n.d.) [4] “at best, ecotourism projects tend to aim for the ‘involvement’ of local people, and even then the basis of such involvement is often tenuous. At worst, ecotourism projects can ignore the issue of local participation completely, excluding local people from the planning and management processes involved in developing ecotourism.”

Carballo-Sandoval (1999) [5] noted that “participation of local communities in the development of sustainable ecotourism is viewed as a necessity.” Boo (1991) and Simmons (1994) as cited by Carballo-Sandoval (1999) [5] both suggests that native communities are key components of a successful ecotourism project. Similarly, Rebuya (2020) [6] argued that community participation is one of the key approaches towards sustainable ecotourism and promotion of conservation of natural resources in a given area of ecotourism development. This may be true but unless these communities participate in ecotourism activities, they may be viewed otherwise.

To validate these assumptions, Carballo-Sandoval (1999) [5] conducted an ethnographic study to examine community participation as an essential element in sustainable ecotourism in three Mayan communities in the Mexican Caribbean area. He concluded that community participation in ecotourism projects in the areas is still young and underdeveloped and cannot be considered real and active. However, the community under study expressed high interest in the development of ecotourism. Furthermore, small and community-owned ecotourism activities generate three economic benefits such as 1) simpler and less expensive facilities; 2) increased input of local products, materials and labor; 3) and profits are directed to the local people.

To further understand the role of participation in ecotourism, it is important to know how the idea of participation emerged and how it is used and treated in other development initiatives.

Participation is a different approach that came to be when the modernization paradigm failed to realize its promise of achieving economic growth for underdeveloped countries and when the dependency paradigm failed to provide a successful alternative model for development. “This participatory model is less oriented to the political-economic dimension and more rooted in the cultural realities of development” (Mefalopulos, 2008) [2].

The participation model, moreover, represented a shift from economic growth as indicator of development to the inclusion of other social dimensions as a key to obtaining favorable results in the long run according to Mefalopulos (2008) [2]. The World Bank (1994) as mentioned by Mefalopulos, stated that the challenge of sustainable development has been given international emphasis and that participation is an important element of sustainable development strategies. Participation of members of the community is vital in development initiatives undertaken within an area. Participation allows for capacity-building, and ultimately empowers the community to be meaningfully involved in sustainable development of their area (Setokoe et al., 2019) [7].

In relation to that, Reid (2000) [8] noted some studies that show communities with high rates of participation apply for and receive more funding from agencies and organizations than communities with less participation. According to Reid, participation of the community is a requirement in USDAs programs specifically those which are geared towards people empowerment and that participation is critical in achieving success of the community. In addition, he stated that participation “is the heart that pumps the community’s life blood―its citizens―into the community’s business.” Community participation, therefore, aids in mobilizing the people and empowering them to make decisions and actions necessary in attaining human and/or community development.

To participate means to take part or to become involved said Richardson (1983) [9]. On the other hand, Stoker (1997) [10] assumes public or community participation as “taking part in any of the processes of formulation, passage and implementation of public policies.” According to Cecchini (2009) [11], the essence of participation is to make people exercise their voice and choice.

Participation or involvement in projects or activities varies from people to people and may be viewed in different ways (Mefalopulos, 2008) [2]. There are frameworks already made to classify community participation, the more prominent one includes Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (1969) which indicates the level by which people participates, Burn’s Ladder of Citizen Empowerment (1994) which seeks to understand participation through empowerment of people and communities, and Wilcox’ Ladder of Participation (1999), a modified version of Arnstein’s which identifies the five interconnected levels of participation. In addition, Mefalopulos (2008) [2] also conceptualized a typology of participation that is compatible with others including the one used by the World Bank.

The role of community participation in development program projects has been explored by many researchers. Literature written by certain organizations such as the World Bank, USDA, and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, describes participation as the key to the program or project’s success. Reid (2000) [8] argues that community participation is far more than a requirement rather it is a condition for success. But still, some researchers are quite skeptical about it.

In 2008, Dzinavatonga conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of community participation in project sustainability in rural Zimbabwe. Results of the study indicated that the concept of community participation has been “undervalued” in the sense that development agents and governments chose not to practice it and “oversold” in such a way that they overemphasize it just to make it more enticing for international funding agencies to fund their respective projects.

Moreover, it was concluded that the process of community participation in the area was “redundant” in terms of project sustainability. This is because organizations impose their own kind of community participation to the people whose idea and understanding of community participation are different from them (Dzinavatonga, 2008) [12].

On the other hand, Sharma (2007) [13] attempted to qualitatively analyze the extent of evaluation of community participation in 22 community-based rehabilitation (CBR) studies evaluated over the last 30 years. Results of Sharma’s study showed that of the 22 studies that evaluated CBR, only six evaluated community participation through assessing the participants’ reaction to the project.

The effects of community participation vary among the six evaluations. Although, four out of six documented positive effects of participation while the other two showed that community participation has no effect or was inadequate in the CBR project.

Sharma, however, noted that more studies indicate that community participation is indeed desirable in projects. But still, “the number of studies done is very small to conclude for sure, that community participation always works. Morenumber of studies that measure community participation should be conducted beforefinal judgment can be passed on the utility of community participation,” he furthered. He added that there is a need to develop more reliable and valid methods or measures to evaluate community participation. Moreover, other dimensions of community participation must be studied such as the measurement of the number of people with disabilities reached and quantity and quality of resources generated as a result of community participation.

Enhanced community participation catalyzes the process of achieving optimum benefits for both the locals and tourism industry (Mubanga & Umar, 2016) [14]. Recognizing the importance of community involvement, a number of researchers have tried to establish the factors that can stimulate the locals’ participation in tourism-related activities. Salleh et al. (2016) [15] found out that the involvement of local communities in tourism-related business is influenced their income and encouragement from family as well as self-confidence, interest, and opportunity available in their area. Morever, Cheng et al. (2019) [16] determined that the “residents’ attitudes towards sustainable tourism development positively and significantly affect both community participation and environmentally responsible behaviour.”

The barriers to active community participation in tourism development have been reported in a plethora of researches in the field. There are four main obstacles to community participation in tourism development: practical, socio-cultural, apprehension, and institutional (Kala & Bagri, 2018) [17]. Mustapha (2013) [18] further classified these barriers into two types: internal (cultural), and external (operational and structural). An example of external barrier is the weather. Particularly, the rain limits the movement of the people thereby constricting their participation in tourism activities.

Towner (2016) [19] noted that foreign ownership and the lack of government support inhibits participation. Likewise, the study of Chili & Ngxongo (2017) [20] also revealed the government’s corruption, monopoly of resources and lack of dynamic leadership as factors that prohibit the community from participating in tourism development. Other challenges to community participation include lack of information and awareness among members of the community.

Bello et al. (2017) [21], identified apathy, inadequate financial resources, inadequate information, low education levels, unfair distribution of benefits, lack of trained human resources, a centralized public administration, lack of coordination, and human-wildlife conflicts as limiting factors to community involvement. According to Wondirad & Ewnetu (2019) [22], communities’ engagement in tourism development mainly depends on gatekeepers’ nature and communities’ economic background. They argued that it is hard to ensure community participation in areas that have manipulative gatekeepers and are economically poor.

Furthermore, Saufi & Wilkins (2014) [23] reported that the three main institutional factors that hinder host community from participating in tourism development. These are state tourism agencies, the private sector providers and tourism infrastructure, and their perceptions on the negative impacts of tourism to their respective communities. They argued that poor tourism infrastructure as a result of the underperformance of state and private tourism agencies/providers limits the opportunities for involvement of local community.

To improve community participation in tourism development, Towner (2016) [19] suggested that education and capacity building is the most effective way to achieve full and active community participation. This is supported by Bello et al. (2018) [24] who identified four more strategies to enhance community involvement. These are creation of linkages; use of appropriate participation methods; involvement of appropriate local community organisations and decentralisation and coordination of relevant management organisations.

Guttierez (2019) [25] investigated the level of community participation in three community-based tourism (CBT) initiatives in the Philippines, the El Nido Resorts, the Bojo Aloguinsan Ecotourism Association, and the Kawit Community-Based Heritage Tourism using Arnstein (1969)’s Ladder of Citizen Participation. Findings revealed that the level of community participation in tourism activities and development in the three cases differs and continuously evolves. The local community in El Nido is consulted prior to policy formation or implementation. They are considered as partners in tourism iniatives. In the case of Kawit Community-Based Heritage Tourism (CBHT), Guttierez observed that participation falls in between partnership and delegated power. According to Arnstein’s participation ladder, this level of participation can be classified as local community having citizen power. The local community negotiates with authorities when it comes to planning and decision making. Residents are also able to facilitate their own tours without government support. Finally, in Bojo Aloguinsan Ecotourism Association (BAETAS), community participation can be categorized into eight stages with “citizen control” as the highest stage.

On the other hand, Moyo and Tichaawa (2017) [26] conducted a study on the extent of community involvement and participation in the tourism development trajectory within the urban community of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Through face-to-face survey with 384 households, they found out that communities do not adequately participate in tourism development in terms of planning, decision making and other activities.

Morevoer, Mak et al. (2017) [27], in their study on the level of community participation in the context of urban tourism, deduced that there is a difference between the residents’ expected and actual involvement in tourism development. They noted that local residents are not well aware of public consultation activities and the schedules are not convenient for them.

This study aims to find out the extent of community participation in the ecotourism project of the local government unit of Caramoan.

The extent or level of participation is measured based on Pretty’s Typology of Participation (1995) [28]. The levels of participation as indicated by Pretty are Self-Mobilization, Interactive Participation, Functional Participation, Participation for Material Incentives, Participation by Consultation, Participation in Information-giving, and Passive Participation. Table 1 provides these levels of participation and its descriptions.

Furthermore, the relationship of the independent variables (socio-demographic characteristics, level of awareness of the ecotourism project, and communication methods applied by the project proponents to approach and mobilize the respondents) with the dependent variables (perceived roles, nature of participation, and level of participation of the communities) was determined for this study. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study.

Caramoan is a 2nd class municipality located at the tip of the Caramoan Peninsula in the province of Camarines Sur. It is about 95 kilometers away from the provincial capital and is subdivided into 49 barangays. It covers approximately 27,741 square kilometers of land with approximately 71 kilometers of irregular coastline surrounded by vast ocean, bay, seas, and swamps. According to the Philippine Statistics Office (PSA), it has a population of 47, 605 as of 2015 which is about 2.44% of the total population of Camarines Sur.

Source: Pretty, J.N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance. Earthscan, London; National Academy Press, Washington adapted from Adnan et al. 1992.

The present study focused on Barangay Paniman, one of Caramoan’s 49 barangays, since it serves as the main gateway to the town’s many ecotourism activities, mainly the island hopping tours. Barangay Paniman is a fishing village but due to the emerging ecotourism industry in the place, some of the residents there chose to convert their houses to accommodation facilities for tourists.

A sample of 97 households from Barangay Paniman, Caramoan, Camarines Sur was randomly chosen to give each household an equal chance of being included in the study. A household refers to people belonging to a family who are living in one house, sharing the same food, and are registered under one name in the barangay’s list (Obua et al., 1998) [29].

Due to the large number of community members to be surveyed, only the household heads were chosen to be the respondents of the study.

A formulated self-administered questionnaire was used to gather the necessary data from the chosen respondents. The questionnaire was composed of five parts. The first part dealt on the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Parts two, three, four, and five provided information on the perceived level of awareness; communication methods used to approach and mobilize the respondents; perceived role/s; and the nature and level of participation, respectively. These items were derived from the Pretty’s typology of participation and related review of studies and literatures. This survey instrument has undergone a reliability and consitency test using Cronbach’s Alpha and was tested through dry-run to a sample respondents prior to the actual data gathering.

The research questionnaire was distributed personally by the researcher and an assistant. The purpose of the study and contents of the questionnaire were explained to the respondents prior to answering it.

Furthermore, a semi-structured interview with the head of the project was done to gather relevant data from the key informant. Questions about the project itself and how the respondents were approached and mobilized were asked by the researcher to the project head.

This study was carried out using the three methods of data collection such as the following: 1) the mothers/fathers belonging in the sample were asked to answer a self-administered questionnaire; 2) key informants such as the project head and barangay captain were interviewed; 3) and existing documents about the community and the ecotourism project from the barangay, municipal, and provincial government were analysed.

Both descriptive and quantitative statistics were used in the data analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, and means were used in analysing the socio-demographic characteristics, perceived level of awareness; communication channels, methods, and messages used to approach and mobilize the respondents; perceived role/s; and the nature and level of participation, respectively. Data on the nature and level of participation were obtained using the Likert-type scale and were measured using weighted mean (Table 2).

On the other hand, the Chi-square test of independence was used to determine the relationship between the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, level of awareness, perceived roles, and level of participation in the ecotourism project.

Table 3 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the household heads of barangay Paniman in Caramoan, Camarines Sur.

Roles help define the kind of participation one can have in a certain project. In this study, the perceived roles of the respondents were determined and presented in this part. The perceived role simply pertains to the assumed social behavior or function associated with the position and status of the community members.

To assess the level of participation of the respondents, Pretty’s Typology of Participation was used as reference for constructing the statements that served as indicators for each of the seven types of participation.

Respondents agreed, in general, with the first to third statements in the Likert scale type that was used to analyze their level of participation as identified by Pretty. The first three statements which gained weighted means of 3.69, 3.66 and 3.65 respectively in Table 10 are related to the first three levels of community participation which are passive participation, participation in information-giving and participation by consultation.

Meanwhile, respondents gave neutral responses on all of the succeeding statements which reflected Pretty’s fourth to seventh levels of participation except for one. They only agreed on the statement that said they regularly attend discussions and/or meetings regarding the project set by the project proponents which was basic for all those who were involved in the project.