Tourism Policy, Planning and Development
The history of land dispossession is one of the issues making tourism complex. Since many people were forcibly removed from land in order to create or expand protected wildlife areas, some of the land claims are enabling rural poor people access to land that has significant commercial potential through nature-based tourism. After 1994 south Africa gain democracy, this open a new programmer for rural people to gain land access through reconstruction and development programmer (3RD).
This created the tourism complexity due of the land claiming for rural people, while those areas we already developed for economy growth and tourism attraction site such as alluding natural parks, wildlife to generate more incomes in the country. However according to Charles and Ritchie (20061 argues that tourism should be a philosophy which Involves local people. In additional tourism philosophy Is a set of principles that consider the belief and values of members of a society concerning how tourism shall serve the population of a country, and acts as a guide for evaluating the utility of tourism-related activities.
In regard it show that tourism in South Africa has not complied with the principle of tourism philosophy this then implicates tourism as an Industry that Is supposed to cater for all Interest group. Private sector involvement is other element complicating tourism industry. In very general terms, the private sector is oriented towards generating revenue and profit from selling tourism products and services.
However, there are indications that the tourism private sector is also playing an increasingly important role in nature conservation and costumers in South Africa. Turner and Mere (2001), argues that the public nature conservation sector Is being Increasingly forced Into commercial The public sector is more concerned about the majority and to cater all people equal, which promote the local control that people should be engaged and empower in planning and decision making about the management and future development of tourism (Guide for policy makers, 2005).
Community well-being based on the maintenance of social structures, access to resources as well as the strength of the quality of life in local communities. In the other hand private sector is more concern about profit generation and free enterprise, which this has created the class division and exploit some of the local people goods and services. This means that there are conflicting interest between states, local’s people and private sector; because businesses overpower the local interest in is industry.
The government needs business sometimes and the government in developing countries find themselves succumbing to private sector at the expense of the public, this dichotomy creates complexity in tourism industry. The community involvement in tourism there become a challenge because tourism supposed to about community or local’s in tourism philosophy. Some people many argue that tourism divides people, instead of uniting them. Tourism is a good industry in economic terms, but had failed to operate in a manner that recognized a value of local people.
For example, culture, heritage, and so forth. The national consultation process that preceded the publication of the 1996 tourism White Paper revealed a number of the concerns and anxieties perceived by community members in relation to their involvement in tourism. These included (Development and promotion of tourism in south Africa, 1996), stated that, ‘Tourism is a white man’s thing and not for us’ – tourism was perceived as catering to the predominantly white per and middle classes, and out of reach of the previously neglected.
The majority of South Africans had never been meaningfully exposed to the tourism industry and had not benefited from the country’s vast resources. Suspicion and mistrust most protected areas were proclaimed without consultation, or the approval, of affected rural communities. This leaded in the creation of tourism complex which only favored for a white man and black communities we excluded. Communities bore the cost of reduced access to natural and cultural resources but did not perceive, or receive, any direct benefits.
A lack of knowledge and understanding of what tourism really is. The wider opportunities offered by tourism were not appreciated: A lack of training opportunities for previously neglected groups in society that effectively limited meaningful participation in the tourism industry; an inability to access finance to take advantage entrepreneurial opportunities provided by the tourism sector. A lack of involvement – the majority of South Africans had not been involved in the planning, decision-making, investment, development or promotion of the tourism industry.
Communities had not been involved or consulted in respect of ajar investment decisions or developments proposed for areas in which they lived. Inequalities – past inequalities and abuse of power have led to the exploitation of local cultures and community groups. Language barriers – the English language was of the population of South Africa which has 11 official language; Negative attitudes – negative attitudes existed within the industry towards community tourism products that were sometimes viewed with skepticism and regarded as inferior. There was often a view that what was white and Western was best.
The value of the previously selected people, their culture and their products often tended to be depreciated. A lack of market access the local communities lacked access to the lucrative tourism markets as visitors were kept within the hotels and resorts and venture out onto’ sanitized’ places of interest. In addition tourism is a well developed industry that generate incomes and huge contribution on the (GAP) Gloss domestic product, but has failed to operate in manner to involves and value the local people will creates serious complexity in a country whose government claims to serve the majority interest.
The natural resources use make tourism complex. The Communal areas in South Africa provide a diversity of wild resources that support land-based livelihoods. These include fuel wood, construction wood and thatch, craft materials, food, and medicines (Shackle, 2000). In situations where the private sector or the state has access to areas of land that neighbor communal areas, and where the prevalence of wild resources may be higher than on depleted communal land, rural communities can obtain considerable livelihood and commercial advantages through accessing them.
But sometimes tourism industry modifies those natural resources in order to enervate profit, on other hand degradation of the environment and affect rural communities’ livelihoods. Although there has been increasing appreciation of the value of land based livelihood activities and common pool resources to the poor among academics, donors and Nags, little of this awareness has reached government policy. The government and tourism industry have begun to address some of these constraints through various economic and educational programmer.
Although the environment regulations covers a wide range of specific regulations or laws such as building codes, labor laws, waste management regulation and environment that may degrade the natural conservation. The policy makers struggle with the complexity of conflicts between profit making and natural conservation which is supposed to be are major concerns in the tourism industry. Based on these arguments, this paper concludes that tourism is indeed very complex.
The land issue in South Africa, public sector versa private sectors creates the complexity for tourism industry development and implementation policies. The industry tourism is very much influenced by politics, private sector ownerships. The extent to which rural communities were involved in the process of policy formation, leaning and enterprise development, and the level to which their interests were represented varies considerably. David L. Cudgel et al. (2008). Tourism policy and planning: yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.