Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development in Remote Rural ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1: Community participation Item Lindoso/Soajo Yes No Svaneke Yes No Did you attend any of the last three meetings of the local council? 24% 76% 20% 80% Do you serve on any committee working to improve the quality of life? 48% 52% 32% 68% Do you persuade others to take a particular position? 66% 34% 24% 76% Do you speak to the town council about community problems? 71% 29% 52% 48% When it comes to persuading others to take a particular position the distribution in Soajo/Lindoso and Svaneke is significant different. The reason for this could be that in Svaneke, as in Denmark in general, you do not want to interfere with your neighbours – they are allowed to think and believe what they wish and you should not discuss disagreements. The situation in Soajo/Lindoso is different, mostly as a result of the need for contact with neighbours due to the daily agricultural tasks. Table 2, below shows the average scores for 27 different statement regarding the community profile. In general the citizens in Svaneke seem to be much more satisfied than the citizens in Soajo/Lindoso. The answer that differs most significantly is caring of the community’s look. Svaneke has a reputation for being one of the most beautiful towns in Denmark. The inhabitants are very proud of their town and wish to maintain it. In Soajo/Lindoso the cultural architecture has suffered some damage as local people are pushing for what has been termed “rural urbanisation”. Another statement worth mentioning is statement 4. The answers to this question again reflect the cultural differences between the communities. In Denmark the public sector is almost obliged to take care of the eldest people and you would never expect it to be a family-matter. Until a few years ago, in Soajo/Lindoso kinship ties were still strong and it was still seen as the responsibility of each family to care for their own. According to statement 3 in table 2, one may conclude that it is now a generally accepted fact that the public sector has to care for the elderly. The exodus of the young in the last 40-50 years probably has been the most influential factor this change. Today, these people live in other countries; their parents or those who chose not to emigrate are now older and with few relatives to look after them. The attitudes towards some of the statements are very much alike in the two different areas observed. Statement 27 stand out, because of the assertion made by the respondents that, apparently, “what is good for the community is good for me”. It is also generally agreed by the residents of the two study areas that few people should be involved in community planning and improvement and that only those with the most time should have the responsibility for civic activities. Here, most time implies “free time”, or time in which people are not actively working. So, for example in Soajo/Lindoso, a farmer who has much land and spends all day working that land should benefit from recreational activities organised by those who have less land, thus more disposable time. The researchers observed that the people most seen at local cafés were precisely the people who had less land and no other source of employment.
Tabel 2: Average scores for the 27 community profile items Statement Lindoso/ Svaneke Numerical Soajo difference 1 None seems to care much how the community looks. 3.73 1.96 1.77 2 Everyone here tries to take advantage of you. 3.21 1.52 1.69 3 Living conditions in the community should be improved 4.63 3.00 1.63 4 The responsibility for older people should be confined to themselves and their families instead of the community. 3.10 1.60 1.50 5 Our schools do a poor job of preparing young people for life. 3.76 2.28 1.48 6 A community would get along better if each one would mind his own business and others take care of theirs. 2.83 1.83 1.00 7 People are generally critical of others. 4.23 3.24 0.99 8 A good citizen should be willing to assume leadership in a civic improvement organisation. 3.98 3.00 0.98 9 The town council gets very little done. 3.91 3.04 0.87 10 The community tries hard to help its young people along. 2.09 2.93 0.84 11 If their children keep out of their way, parents are satisfied to let them do 2.77 2.00 0.77 what they want to do 12 Everyone is out for himself at the expense of everyone else 2.98 2.28 0.70 13 People do not work together to get things done for the community. 3.62 2.93 0.69 14 The church is a constructive factor for better community life. 3.27 2.69 0.58 15 This community lacks real leaders. 4.02 3.41 0.51 16 The local council runs the town to suit themselves. 3.27 2.78 0.49 17 Progress can best be accomplished by having only a few people involved. 2.92 2.45 0.47 18 People give you a bad name if you insist on being different. 3.63 3.29 0.34 19 A citizen should join only those organisations that will promote his own interests. 1.97 2.27 0.30 20 Busy people should not have the responsibility for civic programmes. 3.52 3.32 0.20 21 Most of the churchgoers do not practice what they preach. 4.02 3.82 0.20 22 Only those who have the most time should assume the responsibility for civic programmes. 3.05 3.24 0.19 23 Too much time is usually spent on the planning phases of community projects. 3.78 3.60 0.18 24 Community improvement should be the concern of only a few leaders in the community. 1.93 1.89 0.04 25 What is good for the community is good for me. 3.83 3.80 0.03 26 In order to grow, a community must provide additional recreation facilities. 4.08 4.11 0.03 27 The social needs of the citizens are the responsibility of themselves and their families and not of the community. 2.20 2.19 0.01 (strongly agree=5; strongly disagree=1) The residents of both Lindoso/Soajo and Svaneke are found to have a positive attitude to tourism, mainly because of the employment opportunities it offers, even if they themselves do not gain any direct benefit from this sector (see tables 3 and 4). In the case of Soajo, most residents of the community are aware of the concentration of tourists around one single village that is felt to have unfairly captured the local tourism market by having most investment concentrated on that one village. The other villages of Soajo, having little or no tourism benefits, feel that they have attractions that could draw people. But because of a lack of interest on the part of the local leadership, it has not been local policy to distribute infrastructure investment in the other villages. The researchers feel that the main reason is a lack of leadership and entrepreneurship among the smaller villages. Also, having to do with the traditional patriarchal system all major activities are conducted around the village where the main church is located. Because the local elite is traditionally from this village, and because these elite carry a high influence in the community, the residents of the main village tend to be more dynamic and entrepreneurial. Thus, local investment, be it public or private, tends to be concentrated. Svaneke is a tourist-town from May – September. The town is well-known by the visitors to Bornholm and almost everyone wishes to go there once during their holiday.
Page 1 and 2: Measuring Sustainable Tourism Devel
Page 3 and 4: Report. This commission, establishe
Page 5: Methodology The main purpose of att
Page 9 and 10: Residents in Lindoso/Soajo are very
Page 11 and 12: In Lindoso/Soajo some 57% have been
Page 13 and 14: Scott, R. W., Brower, D. J. and Min
Page 15: Lundtorp, S.; Rassing, C.R.; Wanhil

Measuring Sustainable Tourism Development in Remote Rural ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?