From aspirations of citizen power to the persistence of tokenism: a systematic review of citizen participation in destination governance – Frontiers

Systematic Review on Citizen Participation in Destination Governance and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Contextualizing Governance within the SDG Framework

In an era of increasing democratic vulnerability and declining trust in public institutions, meaningful citizen participation is critical for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report examines citizen participation as a foundational element of future-oriented destination governance, a practice essential for advancing SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by ensuring responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making. The study posits that despite its theoretical importance, citizen participation remains marginalized in tourism governance, which has historically prioritized short-term economic objectives over the long-term societal and environmental interests central to the 2030 Agenda. This review assesses the rationale for integrating citizen participation into destination governance and evaluates the effectiveness of current practices in fostering genuine community engagement, directly addressing the targets of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) concerning participatory and sustainable human settlement planning.

2.0 Methodology

A dual-method approach was employed to provide a comprehensive analysis:

1. Narrative Review: To explore the theoretical underpinnings and rationale for integrating citizen participation into destination governance.
2. Systematic Review: An analysis of 59 academic studies was conducted to assess the extent to which existing participatory processes enable meaningful citizen engagement. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation was utilized as the analytical framework to measure the level of power distribution.

3.0 Key Findings

3.1 Rationale for Integrating Citizen Participation in Support of SDGs

The review identified two complementary rationales for embedding citizen participation in destination governance, both of which are integral to achieving sustainable development outcomes.

• Socio-Spatial Rationale: This perspective aligns with SDG 11 by viewing destinations as dynamic living spaces for local communities. It emphasizes that sustainable development requires the active involvement of residents in shaping the future of their environment, ensuring that tourism development does not compromise their quality of life.
• Economic Rationale: Supporting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), this view positions citizens as essential co-creators of tourism value. Meaningful participation is identified as a mechanism to enhance the long-term effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of destination governance, leading to more resilient local economies and equitable benefit-sharing.

3.2 State of Citizen Participation in Practice

The systematic review reveals a significant gap between the ideal of participatory governance and its implementation, indicating a failure to meet the ambitions of SDG 16.

• Predominance of Tokenism: The primary finding is that citizen participation in destination governance remains largely tokenistic. Most initiatives do not involve a genuine redistribution of decision-making power to local communities.
• Lack of Genuine Empowerment: Engagement processes often serve to inform or consult citizens rather than empower them as equal partners in governance, falling short of the higher rungs of Arnstein’s ladder and the principles of inclusive institutions.
• Inconsistent Process Design: Participatory mechanisms vary significantly in their design and duration, ranging from ad-hoc, one-time initiatives to more institutionalized structures. This inconsistency hinders the development of sustained and effective community engagement.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations for Advancing the SDGs

The study concludes that while citizen participation is rhetorically supported, its practical application in destination governance is insufficient to foster the inclusive and sustainable development envisioned by the SDGs. To bridge this implementation gap, a fundamental shift from tokenistic engagement to genuine power-sharing is required.

4.1 Strategic Recommendations

To align destination governance with the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals, the following actions are recommended:

1. Commit to Power-Sharing: Move beyond rhetorical commitments by implementing targeted power-sharing mechanisms that grant local communities a substantive role in decision-making, directly contributing to SDG 16.7.
2. Ensure Transparency and Information Flow: Establish clear and transparent communication channels to provide citizens with the information necessary for meaningful participation, fostering accountability and trust in institutions.
3. Cultivate Political Goodwill: Political leadership is essential to create an enabling environment where local communities are empowered to co-determine the future development of their destinations.
4. Integrate Living Space and Tourism Planning: Governance models must recognize that destinations are primarily community living spaces, ensuring that tourism development supports local well-being and protects cultural and natural heritage, in line with SDG 11 and SDG 8.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article connects to SDG 11 by framing tourism destinations as “dynamic living spaces” for local communities. It emphasizes the need for local communities to “co-determine the future development of destinations,” which aligns with the goal of making human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable through participatory planning and governance.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The text directly addresses issues of “eroding trust in public institutions” and “democratic vulnerabilities.” Its core focus on citizen participation as a “foundational element of future-oriented destination governance” and the critique of current processes as “largely tokenistic” without a “genuine redistribution of decision-making power” directly relate to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article touches upon SDG 8 through its discussion of the “economic perspective” of tourism. It mentions positioning “citizens as co-creators of tourism value,” which relates to the promotion of sustainable tourism that benefits local communities and supports local economies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.

  The article’s call for local communities to “responsibly co-determine the future development of destinations that simultaneously serve as their living spaces” directly reflects the aim of this target. The study’s entire premise is built on integrating citizen participation into the planning and governance of these settlements (destinations).

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

  This target is explicitly addressed throughout the article. The study’s finding that citizen participation “remains largely tokenistic, without genuine redistribution of decision-making power” is a direct critique of the failure to meet this target in destination governance. The call for “meaningful citizen engagement” and “targeted power-sharing” reinforces its relevance.

• Target 8.9: By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.

  The article’s reference to an “economic perspective, which positions citizens as co-creators of tourism value” aligns with this target. Involving citizens in governance is a mechanism to ensure that tourism policies are sustainable and genuinely benefit the local population, thereby promoting local economic and cultural interests.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Level of Citizen Participation (Qualitative Indicator)

  The article explicitly uses “Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation as an underlying framework” to assess the extent of engagement. This framework itself serves as an indicator, allowing for the measurement of participation on a scale from tokenism to genuine citizen power. The finding that participation is “largely tokenistic” is a direct application of this measurement.

• Nature of Participatory Processes (Structural Indicator)

  The article implies an indicator by observing that participatory processes “vary considerably in duration and design, spanning from one-time initiatives to institutionalized mechanisms embedded within governance structures.” Progress could be measured by the proportion of governance bodies that move from ad-hoc initiatives to permanent, institutionalized mechanisms for citizen engagement.

• Transparency and Information Flow (Process Indicator)

  The recommendation to advance citizen participation through “transparent information flows” implies an indicator related to the accessibility and availability of information for local communities. Measuring the extent to which information on destination planning and governance is made public and understandable would be a way to track progress toward meaningful participation.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: frontiersin.org