Mobilising Knowledge: Determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing Community Based Tourism

Community based tourism (CBT) has often been cited as an alternative to mass tourism and an approach for tourism to become more sustainable. If developed well, CBT can become a poverty alleviation mechanism and a way to access improvements in quality of life, providing empowerment and greater economic benefit to individuals in local communities. Despite the plethora of literature on CBT and evaluation of models, there is little analysis of the facilitators and barriers to achieving it. Through the use of case studies in both academic and grey literature, this paper serves as an instructive review of the CBT literature to synthesise the key elements of success and the challenges. Introduction Community participation in development has gained traction in the literature since the 1970s due to its recognition by leading international bodies such as the United Nations, US Agency for International Development and the World Bank (Cater, 1993; Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012). Development practitioners have learned that community involvement can enact the principles of sustainable development and bring forth transformations to the lives of locals (Tosun, 2000). In the tourism literature, there has been a focus on local communities and their needs and capabilities (Murphy, 1985; Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011; Kontogeorgopoulos, Churyen, & Duangsaeng, 2014) as tourism is promoted as a conservation and community development tool. This has also been emphasised by major conservation and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as seen in Agenda 21 (Vaughan, 2000), the World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility (Markandya, Taylor, & Pedroso, 2005) and Conservation International (2008). Tourism is seen as an effective tool in creating supplemental income in areas where conservation affects local populations’ traditional livelihoods (Campbell, 2002; Forstner, 2004; Markandya et al. 2005; Vaughan 2000). Supplemental is emphasised because it is important to note, ‘tourism only has limited potential for securing rural livelihoods’ (Forstner, 2004, p. 512) and these communities should not have an over-dependence on tourism for their sustenance (Roe, Grieg-Gran, & Schalken, 2001). The term that explains this form of tourism is communitybased tourism (CBT). CBT is tourism that is community-managed, comprising of several locally owned businesses with the goal of providing benefits to the community often with the objective of contributing to conservation (when taking place in or near protected areas) (Tolkach & King, 2015). It is promoted as a mechanism to improve livelihoods and create community development opportunities (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013) and is characterised by being located in, owned and managed by the community, which consequently receives a significant portion of the benefits (Trejos & Chiang, 2009; Sebele, 2010; Tolkach & King, 2015). CBT is rooted in community development and participation in the creation and planning of tourist products (Lopez-Guzman, Sanchez-Canizares, & Pavon, 2011; Salazar, 2012). It is important in poverty alleviation (Tasci et al., 2014), empowering local communities, diversifying livelihoods (Shikida, Yoda, Kino, & Morishige, 2010; Zapato, Hall, Lindo & Vanderschaeghe, 2011), improving stakeholder cooperation, protecting the natural environment, and helping struggling economies (Su, 2011; Lopez-Guzman et al., 201l). According to Lapeyre (2010), CBT minimises leakages, maximises linkages, empowers locals and instills a sense of ownership. It is theorised that CBT is a worthwhile choice for stimulating the development of rural economies due to the perceived economic benefits to locals (Mehmetoglu, 2001), greater promotion of the destination (Boo & Busser, 2006) and a higher quality tourist experience with a focus on heightened environmental awareness (e.g., Lee, 2011; Lepp, 2007). Despite these highlighted benefits of successful CBT, many CBT enterprises and initiatives do not see these results and cannot claim success. To date, little attention has been focused on assessing the existing literature of CBT to determine key success criteria or barriers in order to mobilise global knowledge for increasing the development of successful CBT. Academics and practitioners have been criticised for failing to demonstrate the real contributions of the sustainable development of tourism (McKercher & Prideaux, 2014). This paper seeks to address this critique by arguing that CBT can be successful through developing a shared understanding of the critical facilitating factors as well as understanding the key barriers to success. The objective of this research therefore is to review and evaluate both academic and grey literature to a) identify key elements necessary for community based tourism, b) identify success criteria for the development of CBT, c) outline key barriers that inhibit successful CBT and d) put forth a framework to better understand CBT. This research is not a repetition of the review of CBT already compiled by researchers such as Armstrong (2012) and Tasci, Croes and Villanueva (2014). The value of this paper is to highlight critical success factors of CBT by connecting academia with industry practice through evaluation of grey literature and case studies. Grey literature is understood as literature from industry or other realms of real practice. Using this form of literature broadens the scope to more relevant studies, thereby providing a more complete view of available evidence (Mahood, Eerd and Irvin (2012). It is hoped that knowledge of these critical barriers and facilitators will be beneficial for developing policy and practice when designing and implementing CBT initiatives. Defining and Assessing Community Based Tourism CBT is based on the concept of sustainable development as it promotes local community participation for more just and holistic development (Stone & Stone, 2011). CBT shares the goals of sustainable development in that it strives to be socially equitable, ecologically sound and economically viable for the long-term. CBT differs from many other forms of tourism in that it does not solely aim to maximise profits for absent investors, but to maximise benefits for community shareholders. It is an alternative form of tourism with sustainable community development as its goal. With a basis on celebrating local (rural, indigenous, etc.) cultures, CBT ensures that communities do not decline and disappear and that communities themselves can be viewed strategically as an approach in augmenting the resilience of social and ecological systems, hence making a contribution to sustainable development (RuizBallesteros, 2011). Moreover, CBT alludes to a more mutually beneficial relationship between the community and the tourists where the tourists are not afforded priority but rather are part of the system (Wearing & McDonald, 2002; Matarrita-Cascante, Brennan, & Luloff, 2010; Kontogeorgopoulos et al., 2014). This form of tourism is more concerned with the impact of tourism on the community and its environmental resources and is focused on “managing tourism resources with the participation of local people” (REST, 2003:11). Both the academic and practice-based grey CBT literature agrees with the principle of ‘community-owned/managed’, but there are many different scenarios in reality (Blackstock, 2005; Goodwin & Santalli, 2009; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Manyara & Jones, 2007). There are private sector businesses providing community benefits, individually owned community-based businesses, cooperatives, community associations, and concessions provided to private sector on community owned reserves, among others. Overall, there are three main types of CBT: 1. A project in which community members are employed using a rotation system and profits are allocated for community projects or dividends to residents 2. A project that involves family or group initiatives within the communities, based on community assets 3. A joint venture between a community or family and an outside business partner (Ping ND, p. 6). CBT “must also embrace individual initiatives within the community” (World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2001). It is important to note that in defining CBT, emphasis should be placed more on measurable benefits gained by community members from a triple bottom line perspective (economic, social and environmental), rather than a stronger focus on the ownership structure. This paper will first discuss key elements for facilitating successful CBT and then outline barriers. Then a model will be presented to outline how these key elements are interdependent within CBT before concluding with lessons learned that may help to mobilise knowledge for future CBT development. Success Criteria and Key Elements for Community Based Tourism Development From a review of the literature, six key elements are found to facilitate CBT success. Table 1 outlines key factors that measure what should be considered a successful CBT initiative. Table 1. Key elements for CBT success Elements for CBT success 1 Participatory planning and capacity building to strengthen community’s tourism management skills 2 Collaboration and partnerships facilitating links to market to ensure financial