Tourism that benefits natural and socio cultural environments
Another important feature of community-based tourism is its respect for local culture, heritage
and traditions. Often, community-based tourism actually reinforces and sometimes rescues these.
Similarly, community-based tourism implies respect and concern for the natural heritage,
particularly where the environment is one of the attractions. (Hatton 2007)
Community tourism promoters need to evaluate natural resources in an area and find what is
special locally, and market those resources. A community must have a plan to protect their
resources before they use them, or risk destruction of the resources which attract tourists. (OSES,
2007)Sustainability is a concept that is frequently used in relation with tourism development.
While there does not exist a universal definition of sustainability, many scholars agree that
sustainable development includes long term positive economic, social and environmental
outcomes (Goodwin, 2011). In relation to tourism development, sustainability often enters the
discussion regarding different forms of tourism and their impacts. Conventional mass tourism,
for instance, is known to have many negative environmental and socio-cultural impacts, while at
the same time the economic benefits are also frequently not enjoyed by the local population
(Telfer & Sharpley, 2008), for instance when large resort chains are owned by foreign investors.
Several alternative types of tourism, such as cultural tourism and ecotourism, have been
introduced as being more sustainable, and beneficial for the local population (Scheyvens, 2002;
Brohman, 1996).
Community-based tourism (hereafter referred to as CBT), is often recognized as a perfect
example of sustainable tourism development. The reason for this is mainly that local community
participation in the development and practice of these proposals is supposed to be high, and that
the whole community benefits from the proposals (Brohman, 1996; Hatton, 1999). Community
development is at the heart of CBT. Most CBT proposals are small scale and they often include
community owned and operated lodges and other facilities. This would provide positive
economic benefits, such as income, for large parts of the community. Besides that, CBT is
regarded as being less harmful to the socio-cultural environment. Because the local population is
in control, they decide which cultural traits they share with their guests. Finally, CBT proposals
would also have less negative impacts on the natural environment. Community members are
often the best to judge what is best for their natural surroundings.
The small-scale character of CBT also means that small amounts of tourists are visiting and
therefore do not cause overcrowding of the socio-cultural and natural environment. Community-
based tourism (hereafter referred to as CBT), is often recognized as a perfect example of
sustainable tourism development. The reason for this is mainly that local community
participation in the development and practice of these proposals is supposed to be high, and that
the whole community benefits from the proposals (Brohman, 1996; Hatton, 1999). Community
development is at the heart of CBT. Most CBT proposals are small scale and they often include
community owned and operated lodges and other facilities. This would provide positive
economic benefits, such as income, for large parts of the community. Besides that, CBT is
regarded as being less harmful to the socio-cultural environment. Because the local population is
in control, they decide which cultural traits they share with their guests. Finally, CBT proposals
would also have less negative impacts on the natural environment. Community members are
often the best to judge what is best for their natural surroundings. The small-scale character of
CBT also means that small amounts of tourists are visiting and therefore do not cause
overcrowding of the socio-cultural and natural environment.
While CBT is very popular for sustainable tourism development, it has rarely been critically
reviewed (Goodwin, 2011). CBT proposals come with risks. Some studies for instance find that
the revenues gained from CBT are relatively small (Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008; Goodwin, 2006)
and sometimes do not even outweigh the costs. CBT proposals can also fail because of a lack of
access to markets and poor governance. Other researchers have also found limitations to
participation of the local community, such as lack of knowledge and resources, and the fact that
the local community does not always operate as one group (Koch, 1997; Tosun, 2000;
Scheyvens, 2002; Timothy, 1999). While there is little discussion about if the local community
should participate in tourism planning and development, the question is how community
members should participate.
2.4 Strategies of developing community based tourism
In the 1970s some critique on tourism development was brought forward mainly due to the
negative impacts that it can bring to a destination (Scheyvens, 2002). At the same time
neopopulist approaches to development emerged, which held that bottom-up, rather than top-
down, development is preferred. Development became more about empowerment of
communities through knowledge, skills and resources. Neopopulist approaches stressed the
importance of an increased role of civil society in tourism development, rather than it being
market led, or state controlled (Scheyvens, 2002). This thought brought forward the idea of
sustainable tourism.
The private business rationale: Capitalizing local community’s tourism assets when reviewing
the above mentioned conditions for facilitating so-called community-based tourism development,
we can conclude that these are not present in least developed countries. It is a strange paradox,
considering the fact that these countries might possess the richest cultural and natural sites for
developing potential destinations. Is community based tourism an option at all then, if in addition
to this we take into account that tourism cannot be seen as a substitute for direct attention to
basic needs of a society's poorest communities. In addition to the above mentioned political
planning constraints, from a global market perspective demand for tourism is too unstable and it
offers limited employment opportunities to poorer communities. Experience suggests that
tourism should only be seen as a diversification of traditional community activities (Christie,
2002).
Some of the failures of community based proposals can be attributed to not associating the
private sector with such initiatives at an early stage. Tourism development is ultimately the
responsibility of private actors and (mostly small and medium scale) private businesses. Most
references and plans related to community based tourism development mistakenly take the
principles of community based development as a starting point. These principles are base upon
theoretical concepts of development of societies, and not on the development of private sectors
within those societies. Much attention is paid to supply-side issues related to social development
like community participation, empowerment, community capacities (Telfer, 2001).Though these
principles (as well as those used by Tourism Concern) are of extreme importance in creating
democratic and open societies with a more equal income distribution and opportunities for
citizens, they cannot and should=not be applied when the objective is to support the development
of a competitive tourism industry or venture that should be managed and controlled by local
people.
This locally –driven tourism development should not so much be based on (community) supply-
side considerations, but should focus on demand for destinations, consumers’ needs and existing
competition in the relevant market segments of the tourism industry. An example of this can be
seen in the Cyprus Agrotourism Programme (Russel, 2000). The Cyprus Tourism Organisation
(CTO) was the main mover behind the launch of the Agrotourism Programme, in which
government co-operated with private enterprises. All of them could see great economic benefits
from the revitalization of the countryside through carefully managed tourism. The involvement
of the local community was key to the whole process. One of the main benefits has been that
rural communities that receiving sun and sea tourists have been able to capitalize themselves
through specializing on a higher-spending type of visitor. Other spin-offs have been the
preservation of the historical buildings and local customs such as silverware and icon-making.
Looking again at opportunities for people in developing countries, we would like to focus now
on some business components defining a successful (profitable) tourism venture. Any tourism
company will only be able to grow and create competitive advantages through a specific
combination of the three main factors of=production: land, labour and capital (as stated before).
In our vision, it is the ownership (or the right of use) of=these assets that will define possibilities
to increase income levels. These are the structural causes of poverty in Locally-driven (Community-
based) Tourism Development an option for poverty alleviation=developing economies. Ownership of
two major factors of production related to tourism development (land and financial capital) is in
hand of few, mostly international operating companies and most community based tourism
ventures are developed on sites for which ownership is not properly legally arranged. With
weak=governments in developing countries, incapable of redistributing income and wealth
effectively, these happy few will accumulate more wealth, whereas many are unable to access
markets in the growing tourism sector. In addition, we again stress that the success of a tourism
service venture depends (more than the production and export of commodities) on having access
to relevant market/consumer needs’ information and understanding customer’s preferences,
(Russel, 2000).
Precisely here locally-driven tourism businesses in least developing economies have a structural
disadvantage: they lack access to market information and trends, have no experience and track
record in building a good service economy and are unable to compete in the international
markets. Unfortunately, support offered to locally- driven tourism is mostly based upon
development objectives and seldom takes a business or investor’s perspective as a starting point.
This is strange, as communities probably own (or use) some of the most wonderful and amazing
scenery in the world. When properly valued and protected from a market perspective, investors
would undoubtedly be interested in supporting their future exploitation. Proposals supporting
tourism in communities should not take the need for empowerment, political participation and
organizational strengthening as a starting point, but should be focused more on this business and
investment rationality, (Telfer, 2001).
This should start with an understanding of business assets and potential market value and
capacities to negotiate establish arrangements like management contracts, concession rights
enabling them to capture this market value. Communities would be investing this asset base,
their land, natural scenery and culture, as well as wildlife and biodiversity and should receive a
return on this investment. This approach would enable them to continue living their lives,
receiving the benefits without necessarily having to develop themselves into tourism
entrepreneurs. In Peru the venture capital fund “Verde Ventures” is taking a stake in lodges built
by “Rainforest Expeditions”. Through a management contract with local communities of 20
years, the communities will receive 40% of the returns, (Russel, 2000).
Support to Community-based tourism development has a greater chance of taking root in small-
scale proposals. It would seem that the most appropriate method of ensuring stable and
integrated economic growth and sustainable development is by making a reality of the “global
village” concept where ownership and management of tourism is firmly located within these
communities. However, most probably more impact can be achieved in the short term when
these two concepts are treated separately and applied tailor-made to each specific situation. In a
more broad perspective, it seems that the structural causes of international uneven and unequal
development are impeding locally based tourism to prosper and generate real impacts in terms of
income generation, (Christie, 2002).
Especially we refer to communities’ unequal access to/recognition of ownership of factors
of=production (for tourism especially land and financial capital) and market intelligence, in our
pinion ultimately the main drivers of increased income in developing countries. Thus, more
attention should be paid to strengthening the capacities of communities in analysing the real
market value of assets/ factors of production they are using or which they possess, as well as
their capacities to negotiate about them. Only then will they be able to participate as business
partners on an equal basis in the globalised tourism industry. It is our conviction that locally-
based tourism development will have more success if perceived as a business model and not as a
community development model, (Scheyvens, 2002).
A community approach is only providing the general contextual framework. Tourism
development should also accommodate the economic dimensions to ensure the viability of the
proposed businesses. The discussion is many times concentrating on the community in
developing tourism proposals, but this should be only a starting point. It should be backed with a
government facilitating the business environment in terms of empowerment, market access and
information, legal structures and community participation. On the other hand, the local private
sector is needed for their ability to innovate, their entrepreneurial role and technical skills. Only
the presence of all three these components will produce successful tourism proposals supporting
local development, (Scheyvens, 2002).
=Community Tourism was created and developed to assist communities in realizing the direct
benefits of tourism in their own environment. It is an integrated approach which embraces all
aspects of a community and should not be seen as an alternative type of tourism as it also works
closely with the traditional resort products. Therefore, Community Tourism can lead the way for
the future development of any country ensuring that communities are educated in all aspects of
managing the business of tourism to ensure complete visitor satisfaction. Community tourism is
not a simple product or single business, but has aspects including transport, accommodation,
catering, attractions, information and hospitality, (Russel, 2000).
To be successful, destination communities needs to establish leadership and co-ordination of
those entire active and interested in tourism. The Sustainable Communities Foundation (SCF)
was formed specifically to assist communities to be geared to take charge of their future through
education and training in entrepreneurial skills, etiquette, being a good ambassador for their
community and country and knowledge of how to manage their business, (Russel, 2000).
REFERENCES
Akunaay, Mustapha, Fred Nelson and Elizabeth Singleton (2003) “Community Basted Tourism
in Tanzania: Potantial and Perils in Practice”, 2nd IITP African
Conference on Pease Thourough Tourism, 2003
Ap, J. (1992). Residents perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 665-
690.
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. (1993). Residents’ strategies for responding to tourism impacts. Journal
of Travel Research 31(3), 47-50.
Ashley, C., H. Goodwin, D. McNab, M. Scott and L. Chaves (2006):
Becken, S., D. Simmons and C. Frampton (2003): Segmenting Tourists by their Travel Pattern
for Insights into Achieving Energy Efficiency. Journal of Travel
Research, 42(1), 48-56.
Bien, A. et al. (2008): “Sustainable Tourism Baseline Criteria Report (2007): Global Sustainable
Tourism Criteria.
Bishop, J., S. Kapila, F. Hicks, P. Mitchell, and F. Vorhies (2008): Building Biodiversity
Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland.
Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development
Journal 40(1), 39-49.
Brohman, J. (1996). New directions for tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research
23(1), 48-70.
Bujra, J. (2006). Lost in translation? The use of interpreters in fieldwork. In V. Desai & R.B.
Potter, (eds), Doing development research (pp. 172-179). London: SAGE
publications Ltd.
Bull, A. (1995). The economics of travel and tourism. Longman. Business Register March 2006,
Statistics Canada, Total Tourism Sector and Labour Force Survey 2006,
Statistics Canada Travel Alberta Business Strategy 2010-2013.
By, R. and C. Dale. (2008): “The successful management of organisational change in tourism
SMEs: initial findings in UK visitor attractions.” The International Journal
of Tourism Research,
Chang, W. (2001): Variations in multipliers and related economic ratios for recreation and
tourism impact analysis.
Choi, H. S. C., & Sirikaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism:
Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel
Research 43, 380-394. community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary
Trust, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(1), 97-114.
Cooper, C., J. Fletcher, A. Fyall, D. Gilbert and S. Wanhill (2008): Tourism: Principles and
Practice. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application.
Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1), 98-104.
Dalem, A.A.G.R. (2002): “Ecotourism in Indonesia.” Asian Productivity Organization.
Dogan, H. (1989). Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 16(2), 216-236.
Doxy, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research
inferences. In Proceedings of the Travel Research Association (pp. 195-
198). San Diego.
Driml, S., J. Robinson, A. Tkaczynski and L. Dwyer (2010): Tourism Investment in Australia: A
Scoping Study. Queensland: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research
Centre
Ecotourism Society (TIES) (2005): “Consumer Demand and Operator Support for Socially and
Environmentally Responsible Tourism.” CESD/TIES Working Paper No.
104. April 2005.
Fortuny, M., Soler, R., Cánovas, C., and Sánchez, A. (2008): “Technical approach for a
sustainable tourism development.
France, L. (1998). Local participation in tourism in the West Indian Islands. In E. Laws, B.
Faulkner & G. Moscardo (eds), Embracing and managing change in
tourism: International case studies (pp. 222-234). London: Routledge.
Goodwin, H. (2006) Community-based tourism failing to deliver?. ID 21 Insight 62. London:
Department for International Development.
Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism: responsible tourism management.
Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Gössling, S. (2005): In Tourism Recreation and Climate Change.
Gössling, S. (2010): Background Report (Water) prepared for the tourism chapter of the UNEP
Green Economy Report.
Gössling, S. and Hall, C M (eds.) (2006): Tourism and Global Environmental Change:
Ecological, Social and Political Interrelationships. Routeledge, London.
Hagler Bailly, Inc. (1998): “Assessment of Voluntary International Environmental Certification
Programs. Report prepared for Jamaican Hotel and Tourist Association,
Arlingon, VA: Halger Bailly.
Hall, C.M. and Coles, T. (2008): “Introduction: Tourism and international business.” In T. Coles
and C.M. Hall (Ed.), International Business and Tourism:
Hall, M. C., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated
approach. New York: Routledge.
Hamele, H. and S. Eckhartd (2006): Environmental Initiatives by European Tourism Businesses.
A contribution to the development of sustainable tourism in Europe.
Hatton, M. J. (1999). Community-based tourism in the Asia Pacific. Ontario/CTC/APEC: School
of Media Studies, Humber College.
