Sie sind auf Seite 1von 52

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

1
An analysis of the conditions for success of
community based tourism enterprises

Rebecca Armstrong


Executive summary

This study examines the conditions for success of community based tourism enterprises (CBTEs).
Community based tourism (CBT), tourism owned and/or managed by communities and intended
to deliver wider community benefit, can and should offer opportunities for local economic
development and poverty reduction. However, the ideals do not always match the reality, and in
circumstances where vulnerable communities particularly stand to lose should such initiatives fail,
it is therefore crucial to identify and apply those conditions in which CBTEs stand the best possible
prospects of success.

A thorough literature review was carried out and interviews conducted with key informants in
relation to eight successful CBTEs. The study found that the principal conditions for success
include engagement with the private sector; a strong and cohesive host community; genuine
community participation, ownership and control; planning for commercial viability; sound market
research and demand-driven product development; attractive, quality products based on
community assets; transparent financial management; appropriate stakeholder support and
effective monitoring and evaluation.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

2
Introduction

What is community-based tourism?

Community based tourism (CBT) is defined for this research as tourism owned and/or managed
by communities and intended to deliver wider community benefit
1
. CBT has numerous models
2
, all
of which are capable in principle of success
3
: it encompasses commercial partnerships and joint
ventures to small-scale community-run operations
4
. However, it particularly stresses the
participation by the whole community in the opportunities tourism offers
5
- as well as benefiting
communities, it gives them a stake in tourism, gives them some responsibility and management
of the tourism itself
6
.

This research focuses on CBT but does not seek to suggest that it is the only, or best, way of
delivering significant individual and community benefits. Many other ownership and management
models also do so.

Rationale for CBT

CBT has for some time been seen as offering an opportunity to empower local communities,
particularly in developing countries, to develop a more appropriate grass-roots form of sustainable
tourism than mass tourism
7
and to contribute to local economic development and poverty
reduction
8
. It is argued that through developing CBT enterprises, communities can be empowered
by raising pride, self esteem and status, improving cohesion and community development and
creating an equitable community political and democratic structure
9
. Through developing tourism, it
is believed that communities can share its benefits
10
- rather than simply enduring its
consequences
11
- and offer tourists an enhanced experience and an opportunity to experience
community life
12
.

Why this study?

However, although the concept of CBT remains attractive, it is not a panacea
13
and regrettably the
reality in practice has not often matched the ideals in principle
14
. It is argued that there is little
tangible evidence of the benefits produced
15
or of poverty reduction
16
.

Previous research has found that unfortunately many community based tourism enterprises
(CBTEs) do not succeed
17
; fail to produce significant benefits
18
or do not last beyond initial external
funding
19
. Specific examples include Responsibletravel.com & Conservation Internationals
research
20
, where the majority of projects they were able to survey had occupancy rates of around
5%; a Rainforest Alliance/CI study of 200 CBTEs produced similar results
21
. Goodwin & Santilli
22

surveyed 116 initiatives identified by experts as successful: of 28 responses secured, 15 qualified
as CBTEs, and only six were economically sustainable. Dixeys research
23
in Zambia found that
only three of 25 CBTEs surveyed were generating enough net income per year for tangible
development and social welfare in the wider community, all of which had private sector backing.

This apparently poor success rate is critical. If expectations have been raised, investments made
by the community, traditional activities displaced and then no benefits produced, failure of an
enterprise is very likely to make an already vulnerable community worse off
24
.

However, success stories do exist
25
. Goodwin & Santillis research
26
pinpointed six sustainable
initiatives, and some enterprises surveyed by responsibletravel.com and Conservation
International
27
had high occupancy rates (up to 95%). Other studies, particularly those at a local
level, have identified successful CBTEs. However, there is little concrete data on their impact
28
,
success criteria
29
or on common characteristics which could be used to inform decision makers in
establishing future projects
30
.

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

3
Although exact replication is not possible since this will depend on the local context
31
, this research
therefore sought to pinpoint CBT success stories and to identify the conditions under which they
have been successful, to guide future good practice. The research did not therefore seek to focus
explicitly on outcomes but on what enables successful initiatives to deliver those outcomes.

Aims of the research

The aims of the research were therefore twofold:

1. to identify the necessary conditions required for community based tourism enterprises to be
successful; and
2. to produce data to encourage evidence-based decision-making and contribute to the long-
term sustainability of CBTEs.

A thorough literature review was therefore carried out to identify the key conditions for success
reported by practitioners and commentators in the field of CBT. Interviews were then conducted with
selected successful CBT enterprises and the content of those interviews analysed qualitatively, to
identify the key conditions for success reported by the key informants themselves and evaluate
these by reference to the literature review.

The study was subject to particular limitations, in particular:

Language barriers: it was usually not possible to speak directly with individual community
members since interviews could only be conducted with a key individual who spoke English;
Communication methods: only enterprises with email and telephone access could be
interviewed, which is likely to have excluded some small/remote but successful enterprises.
Information provided by enterprises: it was not possible to independently measure or verify
responses, since the purpose of the research was to focus specifically on conditions for
success rather than outcomes.
Study population: it is possible that some (successful but, for example, unpublicised)
enterprises were not identified in the sampling process.
Obstacles included the fact that some enterprises were only contactable through an agent such
as a local CBT network, and in some instances such networks themselves did not respond to
enquiries. Other limitations included being required to pay or obtain a research permit.

How was success defined?

Success for the purposes of the research was defined through a literature review and consultation
with 17 CBT experts. The definition adopted was as follows, the rationale for which is explained
below:

For the purposes of this research, a successful CBTE is one which:
is economically viable, the central part of its operations having been at least break-even for
at least two years in the last four;
does not depend on grants or subsidies; and
delivers collective and individual benefits to the community.

A number of studies report low financial performance and widespread absence of financial viability
among CBTEs
32
. Accordingly, many writers stress that economic success is paramount, pointing
out that tourism is a commercial sector driven by business opportunities, not an engine for
providing social services to the poor
33
. Regardless of their scale, therefore, CBTEs must operate,
as any business
34
in a highly competitive service industry
35
, particularly if they are to contribute to
reducing poverty
36
. Epler Wood International
37
considers seeking to prioritise other factors over
business success a cart before the horse approach that does not acknowledge market and
business realities, leading to marketplace failure and a lack of community benefits.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

4
For smaller ventures (or where tourism is not the main livelihood) this may mean producing a
nominally small profit but which for that particular enterprise is significant
38
. Dixey
39
comments that
commercial success can be assessed by indicators such as cash profitability and investment return
as well as wider socio-economic benefits such as job creation and wider community income.

Some writers therefore consider that success should be assessed not only on financial results but
also on social criteria
40
. Harrison & Schipani
41
cite the example of the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project
in Laos where one key objective was to reduce opium consumption in the community. Harris
42

reports community residents stating that while the additional income is useful, they mostly
value the interactions that they enjoy with their visitors, especially those from overseas. However,
economically poor communities could surely not afford to have those interactions if they were
operating at a loss: this would defeat the objective of empowerment.

So, whilst CBTEs are likely to be, and ought in the long term to be, established with wider
environmental and socio-cultural objectives, they seek to achieve them by entering into an
economic activity
43
. Their success as an enterprise (even if not as a wider development project)
must therefore be judged primarily on economic criteria and whether they are genuinely viable in
operational and financial terms ... [distinguishing] development from relief
44
. Thus a successful
enterprise must at least break even.

The development of a viable enterprise can take many years, particularly in a community context
where tourism is a new activity
45
. The 2-year period used in the definition might well therefore
follow many years of establishing the enterprise, during which it may receive external funding and
assistance. However, it must in the long term be capable of self-sufficiency
46
. Donor dependency is
common and it is feared that the availability of grants and subsidies encourages the development
of projects which would not otherwise be viable in the long-term
47
. This research therefore required
the core business operation to be self-sufficient, and not dependent on external support / funding.
An enterprise may receive such assistance or funding, for example either directly or as external
training or advice, grants for further development or long-term loans, but its central part should be
economically viable without it.

CBTEs must generate individual and collective benefits for community members
48
, which must
exceed costs to all involved
49
and compensate the community for tourism impacts
50
. Benefits
generated must accrue both to individuals and the whole community, and exceed costs to those
involved. Benefits may be financial and/or non-financial, e.g. to include for example social, cultural,
environmental and educational opportunities.

Defining community and enterprise

A community can mean many different things, according to the local context. This research is
concerned with enterprises owned / managed by a group with a common interest (rather than by
individual / corporate entrepreneurs), with the intention of benefiting that wider group as well as
individuals within it. Similarly the term enterprise is used relatively broadly here, in a wider sense
than a traditional business. The research focused only on enterprises in emerging and developing
economies
51
.

Research results

The first stage: Literature review: conditions for success

The literature provides many viewpoints on the conditions for CBT success (as well as failure) from
academics, practitioners, advisors and others. A number of key themes emerge, which this study
then sought to test through primary research.

1. Enterprise attributes

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

5
1.1 Origins of the enterprise

Success can be related to how the enterprise was initiated
52
. Vargas
53
considers that the most
successful micro-enterprises are community-based and "fuse economic sustainability, community
well-being and environmental preservation. Ideally the impetus for tourism development should
originate within the community
54
and respond to its needs and capacities
55
.

Those enterprises which achieve success have commonly clearly identified achievable aims and
objectives
56
from the outset, and found ways in which to balance different and/or competing
objectives
57
. Good intentions to produce community benefits and encourage social development
and ownership and management at a community level will only be realised if economic viability is
ensured
58
by incorporating "basic sustainable business management principles"
59
.

1.2 Tourism assets

Success or failure can also depend on the availability and type of tourism assets
60
, perhaps natural
or cultural
61
, which are attractive to tourists
62
. The tourism offering must be marketable
63
, of
sufficiently high quality and inherent attractiveness to tourists
64
, as well as close to good local
amenities, services, infrastructure, and facilities
65
. Good levels of tourist safety and health
66
are
also important, as are human and physical capital
67
.

To develop a sustainable industry, communities need to appreciate the value of such resources
68
,
have incentives to protect and manage them well
69
. It is also vital that the community has
sufficiently clear and strong community ownership, access, responsibility and management rights
over them
70
to do so equitably
71
. Such rights may need to be legally enforced and strengthened
72
.

1.3 Location

A communitys geographical location is relevant to success
73
. Key factors include accessibility and
communications
74
; proximity to local and national markets
75
; urban areas
76
, existing tourist routes
77

and markets (as opposed to marginal or remote locations), where the surrounding destination is
flourishing
78
.

2. Local context

The local context can help or hinder the development of CBT. Relevant factors include the local
economic/business climate
79
, demographic features such as migration, employment patterns,
seasonality, traditional livelihoods
80
and community health and education levels
81
. While replicating
success is desirable, CBT models must be carefully adapted to specific local conditions
82
.

2.1 Characteristics of the community

United, cohesive communities with a strong identity
83
, which are focused on the common good,
84

have the best potential for success in tourism. Before the enterprise begins, the community must
already be mutually supportive, motivated, mobilised and committed for the long-term
85
. The
community must be well-organised
86
, able to work together, avoid / overcome power inequality
87

and manage any conflicts/disputes
88
to avoid vulnerability and the possibility of exploitation
89
.

Community size and carrying capacity are also key factors
90
: it must have sufficient resources to
cope with the impacts of tourism development, the demands of enterprise operation and a regular
flow of visitors without being overwhelmed or marginalised.

A community with an entrepreneurial spirit
91
, a good understanding of the tourism industry, the
business environment and the wider world will have greater prospects of success
92
. The
community should be under no illusions as to the competitive, sophisticated industry in which it is
seeking to engage as a commercial tourism venture
93
. The community as a whole must be ready
and enthusiastic for tourism development
94
and 'buy in' to all that this entails
95
- its opportunities
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

6
and costs
96
- with plans in place on how it will avoid negative environmental, social or cultural
impacts
97
. The community must have realistic (and if necessary, tempered) expectations as to
what benefits tourism can offer
98
, in order to avoid disillusionment and low motivation if
investments are not rewarded
99
.

True community ownership means being free to choose whether to develop tourism
100
and if so,
the type of development
101
, which it can manage itself
102
and which is appropriate to its way of
life
103
. The community must not depend excessively on tourism
104
and should scale back or stop
the enterprise altogether if it is not generating real community benefit
105
or proves inappropriate
106
.

2.2 Institutional context

A robust community institutional structure
107
, which is supportive of and integrated with the
enterprise
108
, will best equip the community to cope with the impacts of tourism
109
. Prospects of
success are boosted by committed, supportive, educated and responsible
110
community
governors and leaders
111
, local champions and entrepreneurs
112
as well as efficient and effective
decision-making processes
113
. As far as possible, a CBTE should be set up by working with and
involving existing social and community structures
114
. These may already exist in relation to other
activities such as agriculture or crafts
115
or need to be developed.

The enterprise must be an "operational, truly representative and transparent community based
organisation that is broadly accepted by all stakeholders and institutionally embedded"
116
,
developed at a careful pace
117
. Transparency and accountability
118
giving confidence that
decisions made will be executed
119
- particularly in the financial context, are key
120
. Enterprise
development must involve and accommodate all types of community leaders, whether official or
hidden, as well as the views of those who might not otherwise be heard
121
. Such structures, once
developed and established, improve community-wide decision-making, capacity and management
in areas beyond tourism
122
.

2.3 Policy and regulatory framework

Success (or failure) can depend upon the local and national tribal, political, business, legal,
economic and regulatory framework
123
in which the enterprise operates and conducts its business,
and the extent to which this is stable, supportive and enabling, providing conditions for business
and private sector cooperation to thrive
124
.

CBT should not be viewed in isolation from other sectors
125
but must be woven into supportive
mainstream policy at the highest government and business levels
126
, with assistance and grant
funding provided where necessary
127
. CBT is most likely to be successful where it is actively
supported and facilitated by beneficial tourism policies and laws to encourage CBTE development
including employment, tax, finance and property legislation
128
, and embedded in wider social
development policy
129
.

Specifically, CBT can be assisted by policy-makers and public bodies recognising and
strengthening communities legal status and tenure over resources
130
, as well as their ability to
utilise tourism income for community benefit
131
. Unnecessary bureaucracy must be avoided
132
.
Engagement and partnerships with the private sector on an equal footing can be encouraged by
investment incentives
133
, infrastructure developments
134
, facilitating and enforcing fair agreements
with industry
135
, assistance with market research and marketing
136
for example through the national
tourist body
137
and transparent and straightforward licensing and certification schemes
138
. At a
more local level, dialogue can be fostered between CBTEs and stakeholders
139
.

3. Development of the enterprise

The conceptual and planning stage of any new enterprise is key to success or failure, and
particularly so in the context of CBT where business experience may be limited
140
.

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

7
3.1 Participation and consultation

Most practitioners stress that practical involvement and prior, informed consent of the whole
community
141
is key
142
. There should be a broad, genuine process of community consultation,
agreement and participation
143
prior to beginning development to gauge community attitudes to
tourism development. The results must then be acted on
144
, on an ongoing basis
145
, at all stages of
the development
146
. Problems arise when this is precluded by political structures and processes, or
by domination of the process by external bodies such as NGOs, public bodies or consultants
147
.

Such community involvement must encompass management and decision-making
148
as well as
genuine community control
149
. This should enable a broad and representative spectrum of
[community] members
150
to share in every aspect of enterprise development from planning
through implementation to benefit sharing
151
. True participation and community involvement
152

means being a critical partner in the development team
153
and goes far beyond mere
consultation
154
. It must be active rather than passive
155
.

Participation enables the enterprise to benefit from information gathered by and from the
community from the outset
156
. This will assist communities to take meaningful decisions
157
,
particularly on the type of tourism they wish to develop and the extent to and manner in which they
wish to share their culture
158
. They can also meaningfully identify the advantages and
disadvantages of tourism development and to utilise local expertise and knowledge
159
. Cole
160

points out that [a]s a service industry tourism is highly dependent on the good will and cooperation
of host communities and visitor satisfaction is likely to be greater where hosts support and take
pride in their tourism
161
.

Methods of consulting and involving the community must be tailored to the particular local
context
162
, be culturally appropriate
163
and considerate of local sensibilities
164
for example by
conducting meetings in local languages and in whatever setting (formal or informal) the community
is accustomed to. This may require a more lengthy process than some public or private sector
partners would like
165
, but is vital in gaining community buy in
166
and is a prerequisite for making
the [enterprise] manageable, 'transferable' and ultimately sustainable
167
.

3.2 Planning for viability

Tourism is a commercial industry
168
. Sound, for-profit business models are therefore key to
success
169
. CBTEs must, like any other enterprise, incorporate market principles and sound
business strategy
170
. Operational, commercial and financial viability is therefore imperative
171
- the
foremost of critical factors for success according to research on CBTEs conducted for the
Caribbean Tourism Organisation
172
- and must be comprehensively addressed before any
development starts
173
. Epler Wood International
174
stresses that funded enterprises must be
specifically designed to survive beyond the life of the donor initiative and that financial monitoring
must be carried out during and after funding, to take account of the false flush of donor cash.

An understanding of sustainable livelihoods is central to the success of CBT
175
so that over-
dependence on tourism is avoided
176
. The CBTE should either produce sufficient benefits to offset
channelling resources into tourism
177
, or, preferably, generate income based on activities that are
part of the communitys everyday life
178
, by diversifying and complementing rather than replacing or
disrupting local economic activities and lifestyles
179
. Products based on existing activities which
can be adapted to appeal to tourists (such as fishing, handicrafts, dance) are low-cost and less
risky to develop, at least at the beginning of enterprise development. Once these are established,
further products can be developed
180
.

Whilst long-term economic viability is paramount (see above), communities must be made aware
of the risks of seeking short-term economic revenue while compromising long-term social and
environmental sustainability
181
, and should be encouraged not to rely on tourism as their main
source of income
182
. This should reduce risks and increase benefits, maximise local linkages and
minimise leakages
183
and improve community resilience
184
.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

8

3.3 Business planning and development

Early, thorough pre-development and operational planning is therefore essential
185
, from the ideas
phase
186
. The CBTE must develop a business plan from the beginning
187
which must have clearly
defined goals and objectives
188
and incorporate wide consultation, viability assessment, location
evaluation, a transparent financial and accounting framework, skills investment, management
structures, demand-driven product development, marketing strategy, linkages with the wider
industry and how benefits will be distributed
189
.

The speed at which the enterprise develops is also important
190
an appropriate period of time
must be allowed for learning
191
, development including "collective participation, consultation and
capacity-building"
192
. Particularly in communities with little or no prior tourism experience, "planning
for a slow start"
193
is advocated, to include thorough preparatory visits and activities, awareness-
raising and capacity-building
194
. This may conflict with short-term timetables of donor initiatives
195

but should in fact take longer than the usual time-frame for business development, to allow
"sensitive community issues" to be resolved
196
, and determine the extent to which the community
truly buys in to the enterprise
197
. Schipani
198
reports that those communities given sufficient time
and technical advice in the early stages of enterprise development later reported very few
problems with tourism and retained a high degree of control over tourism development locally.
Townsend
199
comments that it can take around 5 years to develop a good organisational and
management structure and capacity.

Commentators advocate keeping enterprise development simple
200
and low-cost, focusing on
medium- and long- rather than short-term solutions. Long-term commitment by the community and
its partners is also essential
201
. Activities should be on a scale and to a standard manageable by
the community
202
according to its resources and strengths
203
, to avoid disempowerment
204
and
boost local control by ensuring that the community is able to meet many visitor needs itself
205
. This
can then be developed gradually as appropriate
206
(see above).

Roles in CBT must be clear
207
, appropriate and attainable"
208
and where possible, tailored to
minority groups and those not already engaged in other economic activities, e.g. women
209
as well
as to key leaders
210
.

3.4 Skills and training

Success or failure can depend on the pre-enterprise existence of business and tourism experience,
knowledge, literacy, hospitality and other skills within the community
211
, and the availability of
education and appropriate training
212
. A successful enterprise will have a real appreciation of
tourists' expectations
213
.

For many communities, however, setting up a CBTE will be their first experience of tourism,
establishing an enterprise, or both. Often those communities considered to stand to benefit most
from tourism development are those with the least knowledge or experience of the business or
tourism world
214
. Here external expert time and technical advice, activities such as capacity-
building for managers and the wider community, awareness raising, skills development, education,
training and mentoring will be essential
215
, giving communities the "knowledge and skills to
determine and pursue their own enterprise development opportunities"
216
and compete with
mainstream industry
217
.

The type of support provided is relevant to success; it should be tailored to the enterprise and
encompass practical skills training and experience in administration, business, financial
management, communication, marketing, hospitality and service industry skills such as languages,
guiding and hospitality and an awareness of customer expectations
218
. This should take place in
'real-life' settings; e.g. by running mock tourism days or tours
219
. Community members should also
be made aware of the potential impacts of tourism, both positive and negative, through
sensitisation
220
.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

9

Over-dependence on a single advisor should be avoided
221
; ultimately the enterprise must be able
to exist and thrive independently of external support. It is also important to ensure that expert
advice is not imposed / followed against the express wishes or experience of the community
222
.

3.5 Enterprise ownership and control

There must be clarity at community level regarding ownership of the enterprise, authorities and
roles for its management, and who benefits from it
223
. The strength of the communitys sense (and
reality) of engagement, ownership, management and control can be a strong contributor to
success
224
. Models should promote entrepreneurship
225
and be transparent
226
.

Community legal ownership, access and management of land and resources for tourism must be
clear, established and strengthened
227
. GoNomad.com cites the example of the Embera
community in Panama which controls river access to its village
228
. Tenure is central to success
229

by giving communities control
230
, a genuine role in decision-making
231
, the ability to generate
community benefit
232
, power in the market through partnerships with the private sector
233
and the
will to invest in a long-term enterprise
234
.

The most appropriate enterprise ownership structure will depend on the local context
235
and the
communitys priorities such as profit, empowerment or generating local economic benefits
236
. It
may take various forms
237
, from joint venture to land leases to strategic alliances with an eventual
transfer to the community.

Halstead
238
advocates community ownership and management from the outset with only a light
external touch. However, although empowerment is a worthy objective, others caution that
community participation should not become a dogma but is simply one way of generating local
benefit from tourism
239
. Other models of ownership and control even in the CBT context
240
may
encourage public and private sector partners which might otherwise be reluctant to partner with a
community, and thus offer additional marketing opportunities and higher visitor numbers
241
.

Many commentators therefore consider that a community is more likely to succeed in partnership
with a private entrepreneur rather than seeking to run the enterprise entirely itself or with a donor /
NGO
242
, and that this may be the only way of assuring sustainability
243
provided that the
community retains final control
244
. Such private-sector partnerships offer the community the
transfer of capacity and skills, economic benefits
245
and marketing expertise
246
.

Most stress that formal joint ventures between a community and private sector operator are likely
to be the best model
247
in terms of fostering viable enterprises
248
, creating strong market
linkages
249
, generating revenue
250
and benefits from sustainable employment and income for the
community and wider area
251
. J oint ventures make use of the respective resources and skills of
each partner
252
, bringing private sector business acumen to the venture
253
whilst ensuring the
community maintains a management role
254
. Depending on community capacity and institutional
arrangements, full control may pass to the community
255
, although in other circumstances longer-
term strategic alliances may be preferable
256
.

Establishment of a joint venture will be more complex than a solely private enterprise
257
. The
company philosophy of the joint venture partner will also be central to success
258
. It should be
committed to the community and to CBT, have previous tourism experience, be used to or
prepared to be advised on working with communities, and have a client base, product type and
ethos that is compatible with the enterprise
259
. It must respect local leaders, knowledge sources
and decision-making processes
260
.

However, success is not guaranteed simply by partnering with the private sector
261
. For joint
ventures to succeed both from a commercial and community benefit point of view, a number of
factors are critical: adequate community preparation; formal agreement at the outset of enterprise
development; a sufficiently long and detailed negotiation process; equality of bargaining positions
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

10
and power; external facilitation and assistance; an agreement with fair terms on financial, non-
financial and employment issues; community autonomy over income and how it is used; strong and
accountable local leadership; community awareness and assertiveness, particularly regarding
clarity over land rights and use; external assistance to enable communities to be organised, to
understand their legal rights and obligations and negotiate from a position of strength; mechanisms
for handling any community conflict; and discussions regarding distribution of benefits
262
.

4. Market access and product development

4.1 Market research

There must be a market for the CBTEs product
263
. Detailed research is therefore vital to
realistically assess market potential and means of access to possible markets and sectors
264
, both
national and international
265
. Ideas and their market potential
266
should be tested and developed
together with the private sector, especially tour operators, from the earliest possible stages of
planning
267
- well before development - and innovative market linkages developed. Enterprise
development must be "grounded in market opportunity"
268
and developed in response to market
demand
269
, not supply-led
270
or donor-driven
271
. Market research should be conducted on an
ongoing basis to adapt according to changing global market trends and consumer awareness as
well as to resist political pressure to adopt inappropriate forms of tourism development
272
.

4.2 Engagement with the private sector

CBT is likely to remain on the fringes of the industry
273
unless it truly becomes an integral part of
it
274
. Since the mainstream tourism market has the necessary economic muscle
275
, engagement
with the private sector is absolutely crucial to success and to gaining market access
276
. CBTEs
should capitalise on the commercial opportunities presented where significant tourist numbers
already exist, by engaging with the private sector in those destinations
277
. They should not try to
compete directly with private sector expertise
278
but should instead provide complementary
products and activities based on what is unique to the community
279
, to suit tour operators'
priorities and tourist schedules and contrast well with other activities on offer to tourists in the
destination
280
. In this way CBTEs can partner or be associated with larger compatible businesses
and be supported and promoted by them
281
. These linkages are likely to require "skilled
facilitation"
282
as well as strong supply chains to connect CBTEs with their markets
283
.

4.3 Product development

Product development should therefore follow on from effective market research
284
. Again, close
engagement with industry from the very beginning is crucial
285
; products should be developed with,
not simply for, the market so that the mainstream tourism industry will be more confident in offering
CBT products to its clients
286
.

To succeed the product must therefore be suited to tourists
287
; attractive
288
; of good quality
289
;
appropriately priced and commercially viable
290
and meet market standards and expectations
291
.
Successful products tend to have a USP / competitive advantage and offer a unique, authentic
experience
292
. Whilst product development is crucial, therefore, it must always be accompanied by
willingness of the community to host tourists, demand from tourists, effective marketing and good
business management
293
.

5. External relationships

5.1 Stakeholders

Stakeholder engagement and collaboration in the enterprise is also key to success
294
. Even
enterprises which are entirely community-owned and managed will require strategy input from
others with appropriate experience
295
. Many different stakeholders
296
have a part to play, including
mainstream tour operators, tourists, government, NGOs, external investors, tourism organisations
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

11
and other public bodies
297
. Townsend
298
points out that [e]ach sector should focus on using its
own skills and experience to promote CBT, rather than trying to do everything; coordination is key
to avoid overlap and ensure the most efficient use of different resources
299
.

There must be early, clear, transparent communication and accountable cooperation between
stakeholders from the outset and at all stages of enterprise development
300
. This should
encompass plans for the enterprise, seeking commitment from them
301
and clearly setting out
anticipated roles and responsibilities
302
as well as effective means of conflict resolution
303
. This is
all critical to success in generating trust
304
and confidence that decisions arrived at will be
implemented, as well as support and an informed understanding of what CBT can contribute to
economic and social development and cultural conservation
305
. Clear, written agreements can
assist this process
306
.

5.2 Donors, NGOs and funders

Where the enterprise is set up or operated by an NGO and/or with donor funds, this relationship is
crucial
307
. Such agencies have a valuable role to play in the success of CBTEs through capacity-
building
308
and empowerment
309
, providing advice on livelihood choices, training, benefit
distribution and the creation of networks
310
, advocacy and monitoring of outcomes
311
and sharing
good practice
312
. However, they must also recognise the areas in which they may not have
expertise (perhaps tourism business development) and advise communities to seek advice in such
areas from other bodies
313
.

Donor strategy must be clear
314
, forward-thinking and market savvy; mindful that CBT is not
solely a development project
315
, but must operate as a profitable business
316
. Historical third-sector
reluctance to engage with mainstream industry must be avoided
317
. Enterprises must be structured
on an unequivocally commercial basis rather than adopting a NGO structure, to avoid confusion
over (particularly financial) priorities
318
. Donors must also communicate effectively with each other,
to prevent overlap and to identify gaps in funding
319
.

Whilst the long-term commitment of communities and their support agencies is vital
320
, it is
essential to avoid donor-dependency, an all too common feature of CBT
321
. [M]oney falling from
the air reduces community ownership, commitment and motivation and thus the prospects of long-
term success for an enterprise
322
. It is thus essential that enterprise operation and the decision-
making process are not simply driven by donor funding availability and priorities
323
. External
development agencies must take account of local and national sensibilities and needs
324
, take care
to avoid manipulating the decision-making process
325
in any way, and allow sufficient time for true
community participation
326
.

5.3 Commercial relationships

As set out above, strong links to the mainstream market are essential to success for a CBTE as a
business. These can be established by creating strong and collaborative commercial relationships,
partnerships and strategic alliances
327
with outside partners who are prepared to make a long-term
commitment and investment
328
in particular incoming tour operators
329
. In many instances
communities would be unable to generate benefits from tourism without the connections and
expertise of the private sector
330
, and such contractual and commercial relationships are therefore
pivotal to success.

For communities with little/no prior tourism or business experience, private sector partners
understanding of the market, business operation of tourism, destinations, product development and
strategy will be invaluable
331
. Success will also depend heavily on the characteristics of private
sector partners; they must be stable
332
, responsible
333
, have a style and ethos compatible with
CBT
334
, value the community and its culture as an asset and have appropriate experience of
CBT
335
and be cohesive and well-organised, with strong governance and financially sustainable
operations
336
.

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

12
A community may engage with the private sector in a variety of formal and informal ways, from
seeking the advice of local guides, operators and tourism businesses, to agreeing a discounted
price with operators to formal joint ventures (see above). Communities and those working with
them should appreciate that the private sector has a vested interest in communities developing
good quality, authentic products which it can offer its clientele and in ensuring good relationships
with the communities they visit, to avoid problems or conflict arising between tourists and local
people
337
.

5.4 Brokers

Intermediaries, brokers, mediators and change agents
338
contribute to success by bridging the
gap between small-scale CBTEs and mainstream industry through light touch facilitation
339
.
These may be from within or outside the community, and include NGOs
340
, local development
associations, cooperatives and interest associations
341
and larger operators
342
. They can offer
support in setting up business and developing joint marketing strategy
343
, assessing business
viability, accessing capital, training and market and by providing guidance rather than
management, avoid dependency
344
.

5.5 Networks and facilitation

Horizontal and vertical integration with other sustainable development initiatives
345
through, for
example, membership organisations
346
, local and national networks, partnerships, joint promotion,
training programmes and visiting other enterprises can also assist success
347
, for example by
helping with product development and marketing, advice on business operations and viability,
integration into mainstream industry, enhancing visitor experience, advocacy, training and
providing services such as information and booking facilities
348
, as well as being prepared for
potential impacts
349
.

A successful enterprise is also likely to have links with government, tourism and training bodies,
mainstream industry and international and national groups actively promoting CBT
350
.

5.6 Governments

Townsend
351
considers government support to be essential to incentivising the successful
development of CBT, and stresses that central government should particularly encourage local
government to do so through sensitisation, training and strengthening community land tenure, and
to recognise its contribution to local development.

5.7 Tourists

Segmentation should also be used to identify and attract types of tourists most suited to the
community and the enterprise
352
, diversify the client base
353
and establish a stable market
354
.
Once tourists are visiting, codes of conduct for both them and the community can promote
understanding and successful visits
355
.

6. Operations

Efficient enterprise operations are key to success
356
. For example, a CBTE should have effective
systems for maintenance
357
, communication, marketing and bookings, dealing with unexpected
arrivals and so on, good communication between communities, partners, and tourists
358
, as well as
an effective business model which takes account of factors such as seasonality and which
recognises that it needs to operate within a service economy.

6.1 Management and finance

The strength of management, governance, leadership and decision-making structures, and
whether they are accountable and transparent is frequently determinative of success or failure
359
.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

13
Revenue received must be fairly distributed
360
and salaries equitable. It is also important to have
technically competent individuals with book-keeping, accounting and banking skills
361
and the
necessary financial infrastructure, business support services, networking, human resources
362
.

Success is likely to depend on accessible and suitable forms of finance, support, incentives, credit
and funds
363
for an appropriate period
364
for example for establishing, operating and marketing the
enterprise
365
and at key times such as construction, development and maintenance
366
. Long-term
investment may be necessary
367
, but excessive dependence on external support must be avoided
in the long-term
368
.

6.2 Benefit distribution

Simpson
369
points out that success depends on the community seeing an increase in net benefits
from the CBTE, on a long-term and sustainable basis. A CBTEs business plan must therefore
factor in the flow of benefits and their responsible and equitable distribution throughout the
community
370
from the beginning
371
. Such benefits should be collective and individual
372
, economic,
environmental and social
373
cash and non-cash
374
and generate employment as well as direct
income
375
.

All these benefits must be spread as widely as possible throughout the community
376
, delivered as
immediately as practicable, and thereafter on a regular basis and in appropriate amounts
377
.
Benefits must be tangible
378
and clearly demonstrated to the community as being fairly
distributed
379
, through, for example, contributions to a community development fund / activities or
by community earnings and employment
380
. The community must experience as universal as
possible an improved quality of life
381
. Failure in this respect can generate hostility and resistance
from those who feel excluded
382
. The community is likely to need to establish a system to ensure
those individuals who contribute particular time or resources are rewarded accordingly, whilst still
ensuring wider benefits are shared by the community
383
.

6.3 Marketing and promotion

Effective marketing and sales are key determinants of success
384
. A marketing strategy should be
worked out from the very beginning of the enterprise development process
385
. Effective,
responsible promotion of the CBTE product, its wider destination and any partners is also
crucial
386
. Enterprises can benefit from coordinated "joint development and promotion"
387
of CBT
through supportive, robust marketing associations
388
and by private sector partners
389
, local
operators and other ventures
390
, market understanding and marketing skills within the community
itself and proactive promotion including a locally-operated and up-to-date website, ideally with
online-booking
391
.

6.4 Managing social and environmental impacts of tourism

Commentators disagree as to the extent to which CBT should overtly focus on host-guest
interaction and cultural exchange
392
. However, it is common ground that social impacts will need to
be carefully controlled
393
to avoid threats to local cultural traditions
394
, and that at the very least,
tourism should make a positive contribution to the cultural environment
395
, the development of
community pride and conservation of its culture
396
. Tourism and enterprise development must
respect the communitys cultural norms, way of life and values
397
, making use of its inherent
strengths, skills, time and knowledge. This can be achieved through identifying the type of tourism
most culturally appropriate to the community
398
, sensitisation and careful visitor management
according to carrying capacity, advising tourists on appropriate behaviour and helping communities
prepare for the social impacts of receiving visitors
399
.

CBT must be environmentally responsible
400
and effects mitigated
401
through careful
management
402
and conservation of resources, ensuring environmental quality, controlling site
boundaries, water supplies, addressing opportunity costs and ensuring that the local habitat can
withstand managed visitor numbers without suffering adverse effects
403
. In this way the benefits
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

14
from tourism seen by communities should provide incentives for environmental protection and
conservation
404
.

6.5 Enterprise outcomes - record keeping and monitoring and evaluation

Many commentators
405
emphasise the importance to long-term success of CBTEs of monitoring
and evaluating outcomes and net benefits generated through record-keeping from the outset,
using pre-enterprise baseline data
406
.

Internal and external business performance should be measured, including specifics such as
revenue reporting, book-keeping, visitor feedback and business results: whether the enterprise is
self-sufficient/still reliant upon funding/other income sources; occupancy/user rates; whether
seasonality is an issue; whether a profit/loss is generated and funds being directed to the
community.

Outcomes must be evaluated on their "contribution to local economic development and poverty
reduction"
407
. Systems should be simple and focused enough to be used effectively by the
community
408
. Finally, lessons learnt should be shared
409
, success publicised
410
and data used by
donors to critically review the projects they fund
411
.

The second stage: primary research investigating and reporting on conditions for
success in the experience of successful enterprises

Having carried out the literature review above, primary research was then conducted to seek to
test the factors which had emerged from the literature against the day to day, on the ground
experience of those involved in running successful CBTEs.

187 enterprises were contacted by email. Any substantive responses received were analysed to
establish whether the enterprise met the research definition of CBT and, if so, whether it was
successful as defined
412
.

50 substantive responses were received
413
. 16 did not meet the definition of CBT used for this
research and a further 3 provided written information that did not fully respond to the questions
posed so that it was not possible to confirm their status. Of the remaining 31 responses which were
CBT, 13 did not at that stage meet the definition of success (most commonly because although
they were now breaking even, they had not yet done so for a sufficient length of time).

18 responses were therefore received from enterprises which were both CBT and successful, 8 of
which were interviewed for this research.

Description of the 8 enterprises interviewed

These are based on information provided by the key informants by email and in interview, as well
as on websites or other material provided.

Bulungula Lodge, South Africa [www.bulungula.com] opened in 2004. It provides
accommodation, food and a bar, in rondawels on the beach amidst a traditional Xhosa (Bomvana)
community. The aims and objectives of the enterprise include using tourism as a tool for rural
development and poverty reduction and to offer tourists an authentic experience of traditional
local culture. The enterprise is a partnership between a private investor (60%) and the community
of Nqileni village (through a democratically elected community trust) (40%). After 40 years full
ownership will pass to the community. Management is carried out by the owners as well as
employed managers, 2/3 of whom are from the local community.

A number of benefits are generated by the enterprise. Profits and lease fees are used for
community projects including the purchase of a tractor, creation of a community garden to sell
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

15
produce to the lodge and building of a school classroom. 20 permanent jobs have been created at
the lodge and the community also operates 13 (100% community-owned) supplementary tourism
businesses from the lodge, which have created an additional 25 jobs in the community. The
community has experienced a massive boost in self-esteem and confidence through operating the
lodge and community development (health, education, water, nutrition) projects have been
implemented through an NGO established alongside the lodge (Bulungula Incubator:
www.bulungulaincubator.org).

The enterprise has been profitable since 2007 (its third year of operation) and has never
depended on grants or subsidies.

Key informant interviewed: Dave Martin, joint owner.


Ecosphere, Spiti, India [http://www.spitiecosphere.com/index.htm] is a social enterprise, jointly
owned and managed by the local community and a number of individual professionals with a
variety of experience and skills. Its eco-travel objective is to develop unique, authentic and reliable
tourism products and activities and link them to community livelihoods. This not only provides the
community with a sustainable source of income but also serves as an incentive to conserve their
unique natural & cultural heritage and environment.

The enterprise offers a variety of tourist activities including homestays and trails based on local
culture, medicines and nature, including showcasing endangered wildlife in order to provide a
conservation incentive, mountain biking trips, yak safaris, excursions and treks, as well as
volunteer travel. Environmental impacts are offset through local investments in renewable energy.

The enterprise began in 2004. It receives some support funding but its core operation is
independently breaking even. The tourism product generates benefits for the community as a
whole as well as individuals in the form of income. All revenues are ploughed back into the
enterprise for development and conservation activities.

Key informant interviewed: Ishita Khanna, co-founder


La Bendicion de Dios Restaurant, Chachaguate, Honduras is a tourist restaurant next to the
port on the small island of Chachaguate, offering traditional garifuna cooking. 33 women from the
community own the restaurant on a cooperative basis and it is managed by an individual from the
community with some accounting oversight from Grupo de Apoyo al Desarrollo, an NGO involved
in its set-up.

Its aims and objectives are to provide sustainable and organised food services for tourists; enable
families to support themselves and their childrens education. 5% of profits are contributed to the
community education fund. Whereas previously only a few community members benefited from
tourism, the enterprise ensures that the economic benefit is now shared through most of the
community. The women have learned how to manage a business in a cost effective manner, and
how to work in groups. This business has grown and is entirely self-sufficient.

The restaurant was initially funded by WWF and opened in 2007. It has been break-even
since inception and does not require grants and subsidies. It is usually profitable
exceptions being events such as a recent coup detat and the economic downturn.

Key informant interviewed: Tony Ives, Grupo de Apoyo al Desarrollo.


Meket Community Tourism enterprise (TESFA), Ethiopia [http://www.community-tourism-
ethiopia.com/] offers trekking routes in the northern highlands. Tourists trek through the
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

16
landscape as guests of the local communities who provide accommodation, food, drink and local
guides/donkey drivers (to carry luggage). Central guides from Lalibela lead the group, which is
taken from one community to the next - handing over at the half way point on each trek.

The aims and objectives of the enterprise are to generate income for poor rural communities, as
well as to build community skills and confidence in entering into business and interaction with the
outside world, whilst reinforcing their own culture. The enterprise also seeks to give tourists an
authentic insight to rural highland Ethiopia, as well as promoting environmental conservation.

Communities own the sites and their business, based on age-old indigenous community
structures. The enterprise is managed by each community through a committee and camp
manager, with occasional assistance from TESFA. The first tourists visited in 2003.

The community keep the profit which they use for their own purposes (paying members local land
tax, providing micro loans, purchasing grain, setting up a grain bank etc). Individuals earn a wage
for the work (guards, housekeepers/cooks, guide/donkey drivers, camp managers) and others for
sale of produce or renting donkeys or horses.

Marketing and booking is carried out by TESFA, a local NGO set up to coordinate CBT. The
community enterprise is profit-making and is capable of breaking even without grants or
subsidies.

Key informant interviewed: Mark Chapman, TESFA


Ban Nong Khao Village, Kanchanaburi, Thailand
[http://www.jumboriverkwai.com/packagetour/thaiways/jb113/index.html] is a community-owned
initiative run in partnership with a local tour operator, J umbo Tours. It offers village tours involving
a variety of cultural and traditional activities, in a community setting. The enterprise is making a
profit, from which individuals who provide services such as home tours, craftspeople, farmers etc
are paid individually. Other funds from tourism are contributed to the temple fund which has
developed a local museum and amenities for the village such as toilet facilities, as well as an
education fund for students from the village; a fund for village members who are sick; and a
general community development fund.

Key informants interviewed: J umbo Chatupornpaisan, J umbo Tours; the local abbot and a
member of the tourism committee.


The Prainha do Canto Verde CBT Council, Brazil [http://prainhadocantoverde.org/] is part of a
wider village sustainable development project in a fishing village in north-east Brazil, which seeks
to develop local tourism in a sustainable and self-sufficient way. Tourism provides complementary
income to the main activity of fishing. The CBT Council (cooperative) is funded by locally owned
individual tourism businesses and in turn provides tourism services to those businesses as well
as wider community benefit funded by 20% of the profit of the tourism council. The CBT council
has generated positive income since 1999 and does not rely on grants or subsidies. The
individual enterprises also receive returns on their investment.

Key informant interviewed: Rene Scharer, Instituto Terramar (local NGO)

Santa Lucia Ecolodge, Ecuador [http://www.santaluciaecuador.com/] is a lodge owned on a
cooperative basis by 12 families whose communal land was declared protected cloud forest and
who therefore needed to find an alternative source of income to traditional farming methods which
were now impossible. The aims and objectives of the enterprise are to[c]reate jobs and other
benefits by means of a well run ecotourism business which allows us to conserve the forest and
which respects the values of cooperative members and those of the community.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

17

The Cooperative appoints a Gerente (Managing Director) for the day to running of the enterprise.
Staff are cooperative members/members of their families and other local people. Only one person
is from outside the area.

The lodge began by receiving volunteers in 2000 and tourists from 2001. Benefits generated
include environmental education programmes and work in the local school and nursery. Family
members and local people receive direct employment opportunities as well as secondary income
businesses such as the supply of produce. The cooperative members receive a monthly payment
from the revenues earned and a share of profits at the end of the year if possible.

The lodge has been break-even since around 2008 and is capable of being so without grants or
subsidies.

Key informant interviewed: Carolyn Halcrow, cooperative family member and staff member.

Shewula Mountain Camp, Swaziland [http://www.shewulacamp.com/] is a community tourism
venture which started operating in August 2000 and is fully run and managed by a community
Board of Trustees. Tourists are able to visit the village and community projects, to learn about the
Swazi lifestyle and take walks in part of the community land set aside for conservation.
Accommodation is offered in traditional rondavels and Swazi food is provided, as well as an
insight into the community lifestyle with traditional music and dance.

The enterprise seeks to promote tourism in the area and thus encourage local economic
development. Farmers supply produce and 12 people from the community are employed in the
project itself. The camp provides community-wide benefits through initiatives such as a
counselling centre, child education sponsorship scheme and orphan care programme, as well as
income generating activities such as a craft centre which benefits 52 local families.

Shewula was originally built using DFID funds in 1999 and has since sourced other external
funding to extend its activities. The camp started to break-even after 5 years of operation and is
now making profit without reliance on grants or subsidies.

Key informant interviewed: Nomsa Mabila, Camp Manager

Interviews with selected sample of enterprises

The principal areas identified from the literature review above were adopted as the broad basis for
semi-structured interviews with key informants from the 8 enterprises. The first interview was
conducted in person and the remainder by Skype / telephone. The content of the interviews was
then analysed using qualitative methods, to establish the conditions for success identified by the
key informants themselves. Triangulation was carried out by also referencing the written
information already provided by the key informants in response to the email survey, together with
information available on the enterprises websites and/or supplementary documentation they
supplied.

The conditions mentioned were then grouped together to identify the success factors commonly
reported by the different enterprises, and compared against the themes which had emerged from
the literature review described above.

Key findings: discussion and analysis of results

The interviews commonly identified a number of reasons why the respective enterprises had been
able to achieve success, which are reported below.

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

18
1. Local context and origins of the enterprise

This had some relevance to success. In some instances the enterprises were born out of difficult
circumstances: Prainha do Canto Verde was threatened with speculators seeking to gain land and
in response, the community organised itself into a Village Association. Similarly in Santa Lucia, a
government declaration of communal land as protected cloud forest meant traditional activities
were restricted and an alternative had to be found. The idea for Shewula originated in the
community against a background of problems relating to the war in neighbouring Mozambique and
issues surrounding land rights relating to two adjacent game parks. Rather than generate further
conflict, the community decided to focus on environmental conservation. As a result the community
owned the enterprise in every sense and were determined to see it work.

Although La Bendicion de Dios restaurant grew out of a WWF-funded sustainable development
project, it was the community itself which came up with the idea of a cooperative tourism enterprise
to stop cut-throat competition between private individuals every time a tourist boat arrived.

Ecosphere grew out of livelihoods work being carried out within the community and in response to
new but haphazard tourism development, which was offering little benefit to the local community.
The community worked to create ways in which it could participate in and gain links to the tourism
industry.

In contrast, Nong Khao was initiated by a local tour operator who recognised the tourism assets
available locally and approached the community to suggest developing a tourism initiative.

2. Tourism assets

In all cases the enterprises have been built on the natural and / or cultural assets already available.
For example, Meket offers birds and wildlife, a fascinating and unique local cultural mix and the
opportunity to see age-old traditional farming methods. Santa Lucia (based in cloud forest),
Shewula and Ecosphere (in mountains) have made use of traditional knowledge of plants and
medicine to create attractions for tourists whilst also creating a local incentive to conserve those
resources. Similarly Ecospheres trails are based around local culture and nature; trails
showcasing the endangered Himalayan Wolf and the Snow Leopard being designed to re-shape
local attitudes to predators, and link their conservation with economic benefits. Prainha do Canto
Verde capitalises on being by the beach and local fishing villages, and the product offering at Nong
Khao is based on the local culture, landscape, traditional farming and way of life which the
community decided it would like to share with visitors.

3. Location

The success of the enterprises is also linked to their location. For example, Meket benefits from
being at a good altitude (which is cool for trekking and malaria free). It is close to Lalibela which
already had already started to receive good tourist numbers, and accessible by air from Addis
Ababa. 75% of visitors to Prainha do Canto Verde come from within 200km of the enterprise, from
the city of Fortaleza. The success of La Bendicion de Dios owes much to being the first place
tourists see when they get off their boat; no other promotion has been necessary as a result. Santa
Lucia benefited form the fact that tourists were already visiting another enterprise in the area, and
its relative proximity to Quito. Nong Khao is situated only 12 km from Kanchanaburi, which large
numbers of tourists already visit to see the Bridge over River Kwai and the local museum, and
which is itself a 2-hour bus trip from Bangkok. In contrast, Bulungula has succeeded despite its
remote location; this may be because its target market is backpackers, for whom this is likely to be
part of the attraction.

4. Characteristics of the community and its institutional structure

The results of the literature review were certainly borne out here, as a number of enterprises
described strong, cohesive communities which were enthusiastic for and supportive of tourism
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

19
development, such as Bulungula. In Meket, the community structures date back to over a thousand
years, untouched by influences such as colonialism. A community based organisation known
locally as kire
414
ranges in size from 100 300 households and has provided an excellent
structure for the community enterprise to piggyback onto. It provides a democratic structure with
a committee, voting system and by-laws which the community members are already confident in as
representing them, ensuring cohesion for managing a tourism business.

Ecosphere is similarly based in a tribal community which already had its own system of
governance. Here local buy-in was identified as a particular reason for the enterprises success:
the community recognised the potential for income generation offered by tourism and was
receptive to it.

CBT in Prainha do Canto Verde was similarly supported by a good proportion of the community
which was motivated to succeed. The community was already organised through the Village
Association and was able to deal effectively with conflicts as they arose. Similarly in La Bendicion
de Dios, the strength of the community and its ability to deal with its own problems was reported as
a key factor.

Self-belief by the community even when others believed the enterprise would not work was
identified as a reason for the success of Shewula. Similar persistence was reported in Santa Lucia,
which put in hard physical work (in some cases for no pay at the outset) to make the enterprise a
success.

Nong Khao was also described as a strong, cohesive community with respect between the
generations and pride in its culture and way of life which it was keen to demonstrate to visitors. The
new community tourism committee was able to build on existing decision-making structures
centred on the local temple.

5. Support of leaders and key individuals

The support of local leaders has also proved key. In Prainha do Canto Verde training was first
offered to local leaders to ensure support. Traditional leaders have also been supportive in
Bulungula (the village headman); Nong Khao (the temple abbot); Shewula (the community chief)
and Ecosphere (the king). Key individuals have also been central to success. In some instances
they have been community members; more commonly someone from outside the community who
has been able to offer particular expertise, either in community development and / or livelihoods,
business or tourism.

6. Ownership, management and control

The interviews illustrated that different ownership structures for CBTEs can succeed, but
community control to one extent or another was common to each enterprise. Bulungula Lodge is a
partnership between a private investor (60%) and the community of Nqileni village (through a
democratically elected community trust) (40%). After 40 years full ownership will pass to the
community. Management is carried out by the owners as well as employed managers, 2/3 of whom
are from the local community. La Bendicion de Dios restaurant is owned on a cooperative basis by
33 women from the community and managed by an individual from the community with some
oversight from an NGO involved in its set-up. Ecosphere is a social enterprise jointly owned (50%
each) by the local community and individual professionals, with local teams run by a coordinator.
Santa Lucia Ecolodge is owned and managed on a cooperative basis by 12 families. Shewula
Mountain Camp is fully owned and managed by the community. It was able to confirm title to the
land, increasing its security in ownership.

Nong Khao is essentially a community-owned venture, although revenue is shared with its private
sector partner J umbo Tours when tour groups visit. It is managed jointly by a tourism committee
and J umbo Tours. Prainha do Canto Verde CBT Council is owned and managed on a cooperative
basis by a number the tourism ventures from within the local community. Meket community tourism
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

20
is owned by the community and managed by it with assistance from Tesfa. It is run locally as a
business, with the community committee acting as a board of directors together with a camp
manager and other staff: 10-12 full time local employees.



7. Participation and consultation

This emerged as a key condition for success in the interviews conducted: in particular Bulungula
and Prainha do Canto Verde emphasised the need to take as much time as necessary to truly
involve the community. Prainha do Canto Verde stressed the importance of genuine community
participation in all stages of discussion, rather than imposing a proposal on the community.
Shewula recognised the importance of community buy-in. Santa Lucia commented that
development must be community-led.

Nong Khao observed that if the community does not understand or feel positive about tourism, it
will be unsustainable; thus the community was consulted on and involved in deciding on the
tourism programme and is still consulted every time a new group is due to visit. Similarly all
decisions relating to La Bendicion de Dios are taken by the restaurant committee.

Bulungula recognised the importance of the community participating in ways it is accustomed to
for example providing explanations by using cows as the local measure of wealth rather than
money. Community-wide decision making here has been key, since decisions originally taken by a
small committee created resentment among the wider community. Principal decisions are therefore
taken by the community as a whole.

8. Type, scale and pace of tourism development

The successful enterprises had generally been developed at a pace and on a scale that was
appropriate to the specific communitys resources, at an organic rate. Prainha do Canto Verde
emphasised the importance of choosing the most appropriate type of tourism (individual
enterprises funding a central CBT Council) rather than the government preference of a community
guesthouse. La Bendicion de Dios, Shewula and Bulungula identified the backpacker market or
those interested in a family-style development as being most appropriate in their location, whereas
the same process for Nong Khao meant products were developed for the middle to high end
market.

Both Ecosphere and Prainha do Canto Verde commented that development of the enterprise when
tourism was relatively new to the area meant that the community was able to choose and mould
the type of tourism it wished to develop locally. Tesfa felt that having small groups visiting Meket
meant that tourism did not adversely impact on the community. In Prainha do Canto Verde care
was taken to ensure that tourism development remained appropriate and did not exceed local
carrying capacity (a point also made by Shewula). Shewula worked to educate tourists and the
community on appropriate ways to behave and developed respect for the local way of life by
involving tourists in visiting homes, the local shebeen and so on. Bulungula consciously sought to
develop a low-impact style of tourism.

9. Viability

It is also clear that commercial viability has been central to the success of the enterprises
interviewed. In Meket, tourism was seen as comparing well to other economic options and hence
was profitable. Ecosphere decided on a social enterprise structure so that the enterprise could
generate its own revenue to be ploughed back into community development, rather than being
dependent on donor funds. It also stressed that tourism is a service industry and so it is vital to
meet the standards demanded by the market. Bulungula emphasised that it would not be
sustainable as an enterprise unless it made a profit. Santa Lucia observed that triple bottom line
sustainability is key and that dependence had to be avoided.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

21

The informants for Meket, Prainha do Canto Verde, Ecosphere, Shewula and Nong Khao all
highlighted the fact that in their communities, tourism is a complementary activity, providing
additional income alongside traditional livelihoods.

10. Skills, training and capacity building

Very few of the communities had prior experience of tourism. Capacity building and training was
therefore key in a number of the enterprises (Santa Lucia, Shewula, Bulungula, Ecosphere) to gain
buy-in from the community who were initially sceptical or unsure as to what tourists would expect,
and to counter negative perceptions gained from seeing irresponsible tourism development
elsewhere.

The community of Santa Lucia benefited greatly from a number of its members having worked at a
neighbouring tourism business where they had gained skills and an understanding of tourist
expectations and standards. All the other enterprises offered skills training in, for example,
hospitality, hygiene, languages and tourism skills.

11. Engagement with the private sector

The importance of engagement with the private sector was also evident from the interviews
conducted. Santa Lucia benefited from links with a neighbouring privately operated reserve and
had learned from its experience. Bulungula and Ecosphere are joint initiatives with private
individuals and Nong Khao partners with a local tour operator who has shared expertise and
knowledge of the market, as well as links through trade fairs, familiarisation trips and website
promotion. Shewula has also linked with a local tour agency, offering marketing assistance; La
Bendicion de Dios is used by private tour groups.

12. Market linkages

6 of the 8 enterprises interviewed have a tourist-facing website. Many find that word of mouth
remains a powerful form of marketing, although a number are also featured in guidebooks such as
the Rough Guide and Lonely Planet. Many tourists are those who are specifically interested in
community life or conservation. Others such as Tesfa, Prainha do Canto Verde and Ecosphere
have also been featured in the travel and other media.

Tesfa links with tour operators and gains market access through featuring on websites such as
responsibletravel.com. Bulungula links to its target backpacker market through associations such
as the South African Youth Travel Foundation and other networks. Shewula links with travel agents
for inclusion in packaged trips for example through Swaziland Discovery. Prainha do Canto Verde
receives many of its visitors through referral from TUCUM, a local community tourism network.
Ecosphere stressed that market linkages are key; it is linked to UK agencies particularly for
volunteer travel. Santa Lucia recognised the importance of organisation eg having an office from
the start, with good communications.

13. Product development

The successful enterprises have generally based their product on what the communities could
already offer tourists: typically community life and culture and the natural environment: Ecosphere,
for example, offers cultural and wildlife trails. In the case of Meket and Nong Khao, a key factor
was being able to offer a different, complementary product to tourists already visiting the cultural
and historical sites of Lalibela and Kanchanaburi. The enterprises have also focused on improving
product quality to meet the expectations of the market, sometimes with the assistance of their
private sector partners: in Nong Khao the product was developed in collaboration with that partner.

14. External relationships and networks

International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

22
A number of the enterprises benefited from external assistance, to varying degrees. Tesfa had
some initial external assistance but felt that a key factor was the establishment of Tesfa itself as a
local NGO. It has more recently networked with other similar enterprises elsewhere to share
experience. Others such as Shewula, Santa Lucia and La Bendicion de Dios benefited from donor
funding in the early stages of development, for construction, equipment and so on.

Networks and associations have also benefited some of the enterprises, such as the local
conservancy in the case of Shewula and other communities for Prainha do Canto Verde. Bulungula
is a member of associations such as Fair Trade Tourism South Africa and the Youth Travel
Association which provides useful advice and feedback, as well as networking with other similar
businesses in South Africa and further afield. Ecosphere has similarly collaborated and exchanged
learning through associations such as Himalayan Homestays and the Green Circuit Network.
Community members also visited other areas to see and learn from the positive and negative
effects of tourism; Prainha do Canto Verde did the same.

Outside contacts were identified as a key reason for success of Santa Lucia, in particular a
network of past volunteers who have helped promote the enterprise by word of mouth. The early
volunteers acted as guinea pigs for tourism, helping the community understand what tourists were
likely to want and expect.

Nong Khao benefited from the experience and contacts of J umbo Tours in terms of the type of
tourism to develop, pricing, access to international contacts, travel fairs and so on, and also
benefited from early input from the director of the Tourism Authority of Thailand.

15. Government and policy environment

Government or policy support was important to certain of the enterprises. Meket, in particular,
found it vital to have a government partner and the support of regional government, to fit with its
priorities. The government cash for work programme provided some labour for the construction of
sites.

In Bulungula a key success factor was gaining government agreement that the beneficiary
community would be the immediate village rather than a wider area, so that the benefits generated
could have a more meaningful impact.

In Santa Lucia, although the conservation law initially meant that the community could not carry out
traditional farming, once the ecolodge was started it meant that its activities were promoted and
supported.

16. Financial systems and benefit distribution

Each enterprise also had clear systems for financial management and benefit distribution. For
example, in Nong Khao, J umbo Tours provided assistance to the community to manage its money
sustainably. Tesfa and Ecosphere pay individuals for the services they provide and profit is then
banked by Tesfa for the community to decide how it wishes to use it; Ecosphere uses the
remaining profit for agreed development and conservation projects.

Shewula has appointed an individual responsible for finances who produces a yearly plan and
reports to every board meeting. Bulungula stressed that the fact that it was privately funded and
did not receive donor funding meant that robust financial management was essential to ensure the
enterprise would succeed; hard work was vital.

Financial management was also key to success of the Prainha do Cato Verde cooperative since it
received money from a number of entities, which it was then responsible for using to provide
tourism services and wider community benefit. La Bendicion de Dios provided cooperative
members with some basic business training and created a transparent system on public display to
show visitor numbers. Monies for community benefit were taken out first. The restaurant operates a
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

23
rota system of teams of three women each to run the restaurant, meaning that the work and
benefits are shared equally. After the community benefits, profit is shared equally among the 30+
families who participate.

17. Monitoring and evaluation

Although most enterprises kept records, few carried out detailed monitoring, but generally
recognised that this was something that would be beneficial; it appeared that it was most
commonly not conducted simply due to a lack of time / resources.

Other successful CBTEs not interviewed for this research

It was not possible to interview all the successful CBTEs identified for this research
415
. However,
the written responses received offer some insight into how they have achieved success.

Posada Amazonas, Peru [http://www.perunature.com/tambopata-lodges/posada-amazonas] is a
lodge owned by the Native Community of Infierno and co-managed as a joint venture with a private
operator, Rainforest Expeditions. The community is represented by a committee. The enterprise
has a number of principles including training community members to occupy all lodge positions,
the purchase of products from the Community if they are of equal quality and price to those
available else where in the market and the gradual integration of cultural resources into the tour
programmes. Direct and indirect income opportunities are provided. The enterprise has been
profitable for almost ten years, without relying on grants or subsidies. The community will take on
full management in 2016.

Damaraland Camp and Doro Nawas, Namibia [www.wilderness-safaris.com] are joint ventures
between the relevant local conservancy and a private operator, Wilderness Safaris. Wilderness
Safaris report that this arrangement allows communities to gain a regular source of income,
develop infrastructure that they would otherwise find it difficult to finance, and gain information,
skills and marketing. As well as direct employment and indirect income opportunities from services
such as laundry and maintenance, the conservancy receives a bed-night levy per guest and a
share of revenues. The enterprises are not reliant on grants or subsidies.

Capirona, Ecuador [http://ricancie.nativeweb.org/en/comunidades.html] is a community-owned
and managed venture which has been self-sufficient for some 18 years. Most notably, it is part of a
tourism network of 10 communities of the Amazon Kichwa, known as RICANCIE, which means the
enterprise gains coordination and promotion.

Pavacachi Lodge, Ecuador [http://earthsessions.com/remote_amazon_expedition] is a
community-owned lodge. It has established itself as a legally recognised company and has a solid
management structure. In particular, one person is employed to work on marketing. The enterprise
has been running for some 8 years, has no loans and does not rely on grants or subsidies.

Bigodi, Uganda (part of KAFRED - Kibale Association for Rural and Environmental Development
Association) [www.bigodi-tourism.org] is a community-owned and run enterprise which has been
running since 1992. A community committee is elected every two years to oversee the business.
The enterprise provides community-wide benefits and is making profit without the need for grants
or subsidies, through providing e.g. guided walks to view primates, birds and the wetlands
(attractions which are low-cost and risk, and based on the tourism assets already available in the
community).

Nakapalayo, Zambia [http://www.kasanka.com/nakapalayo/index.htm] is a community-owned
tourism organisation providing village and bush walks, accommodation, traditional entertainment
and food and cultural activities. It is managed by a committee elected by community members.
Benefits are provided in the form of employment and donations to community development
projects, as well as training and experience for individual community members. The enterprise has
been breaking even since 2004 without the need for grants or subsidies.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

24

Pha Mon Karen Community, Chiang Mai, Thailand [www.cbt-i.org /
[http://www.cbtnetwork.org/commu03baan_phamon.html / www.thailandeautrement.com] is a
community-owned enterprise offering forest walks, cycling trips, village visits, local food, cultural
and traditional activities. It has entered into partnership with a French responsible travel company,
Thailande Autrement (TA), although the community retains decision-making powers. The
community and TA have built a community lodge as a joint investment: funded by a loan to the
community from TA, which must only be repaid if TA is able to successfully market the enterprise.
This creates security for the enterprise, an innovative way of funding the enterprise, means that TA
has made a commitment in financial terms to the success of the initiative, and demonstrates the
advantages to the community of private sector engagement. The enterprise generates
approximately 10,000 euros per year for the community fund.

Koh Yao Noi CBT Group, Phang Nga, Thailand [www.cbt-i.org] offers homestays with local
fisher families and the opportunity to go fishing and visit the island as well as craft groups. The
enterprise is wholly owned by the local community which has benefited from assistance from CBT-
I, which provides support, promotion and training to CBTEs in Thailand to enable them to
sustainably manage tourism: see http://www.cbt-i.org/about_vission.php. Tourism is an additional
activity to traditional livelihoods; participating families have seen an average 10% increase in their
income. Community-wide benefits include development activities and conservation work. The
enterprise has no loans and does not rely on external funding.

Leeled CBT Group, Surrathani, Thailand
[http://www.cbt-i.org/community_travel.php?id=9&lang=en] has similarly received valuable
assistance from CBT-I. This is a community-owned enterprise offering homestays and guided boat
trips through the mangroves where extensive conservation work has been carried out (which has
improved fishing possibilities and thus local income), as well as the opportunity to participate in
cultural activities, some of which has been revitalised through tourism. This enterprise is also
successful without reliance on grants or subsidies.

Other findings

A number of the substantive responses received were from enterprises that did not fit the CBT
model, or which were not (or not yet) successful. In both scenarios, however, useful lessons can
be drawn from these responses as to different ownership and management models as well as
encouraging signs of enterprises doing the right thing it was simply that in some cases they had
not yet been economically sustainable for long enough to qualify as successful for the purposes of
this research.

Good practice being adopted by other CBTEs

Responses were received from some CBTEs which, whilst they did not (yet) meet the definition of
successful used for this research (most commonly because although they were breaking even /
profit making, they had not yet done so for a sufficient length of time), showed encouraging signs
of implementing a number of the principles identified by this research, as well as providing insight
into innovative ways of achieving success.

Village Ways, India [www.villageways.com] is a social enterprise which has developed two CBT
enterprises in the Himalayan foothills. It is a private limited company owned and funded by the
communities (with equity held in trust) together with private individuals. The communities own the
local infrastructure such as the guest houses through village level committees and cooperatives.
Tourism is developed as a source of additional income and specifically in response to identified
market demand and with a well thought-out route to [the] market. Village Ways recognises that
the enterprise has to be profitable from the bottom up to be sustainable. A means of achieving
this has been through innovative equity funding from the original investors and interest free loans
from the directors to be repaid as profit is produced.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

25

Heliconias Lodge, Costa Rica [www.heliconiaslodge.com] is entirely owned and managed by a
group of ten local families. A community association was formed in 1985 in order to protect the
land from deforestation. The lodge has received assistance from development and conservation
bodies as well as a UK tour operator, TUI thus engaging with mainstream industry.

Mognori Eco Village, Ghana [http://www.savannatourism.com/] is one of a number of local
villages partnering with an initiative across the Savannaland Tourism Destination. Tourists are
offered a variety of activities including cultural tours and homestays. Proceeds will go to the
villages to assist development and capacity building projects. The Mognori Village project is
managed by the community itself and is now breaking even.

Kahawa Shamba, Tanzania [http://www.kirurumu.net/kahawa/index.htm] is a joint initiative
between a cooperative of coffee farmers and Contour Projects Limited, a tourism development
body. It has set up an effective system for the distribution of income and is not reliant on grants or
subsidies.

Ruboni Community Camp (Rwenzori) [http://rwenzoritrust.org/page10.html] is engaging with the
private sector by partnering with a private operator offering reservation services. It recognises that
in order to be profitable it must increase its marketing capacity.

Nam Dong Community Based Tourism, Vietnam
[http://www.huetouristvietnam.com/index.php/247/75/Experiencing_Community_Based_Ecotouris
m_and_Indigenous_Culture_of_the_KTu_Ethnic_Minority_Group_in_the_Mountainous_District_of
_Nam_Dong]
similarly partners with a local tour operator, Hue Tourist, to seek to increase visitor numbers and
recognises that marketing is key to its future success.

Huaorani Ecolodge, Ecuador [www.huaorani.com] is owned by the local community and
managed in partnership with a private operator, Tropic J ourneys in Nature. One of its key
objectives has been to provide incentives for conservation through tourism. Community
participation has been high and pride in its local culture and ability to operate a tourism business
has been boosted. The project reports a significant impact on the local economy, having created
32 part time jobs, involving 25 out of 37 families. Funding has been provided by its private sector
partner and after 4 years of operation the lodge is now breaking even without any requirement for
grants or subsidies.

Treesleeper Camp, Namibia [www.treesleeper.org] provides activities based on the assets
already existing in the community, on an appropriate scale: bushwalks, village tours, camping and
traditional dancing. It has also recognised potential problems regarding ownership and has sought
to make this secure by establishing a Trust to manage the enterprise, run by a board of trustees
directly accountable to the community owners.

Other ownership and management structures

As stated in the introduction, CBT is by no means the only way of generating individual and
community benefits. Substantive responses received from a number of other initiatives in answer
to the initial email sent illustrated this point, as well as recognising pitfalls such as reliance on
donor funding.

Estrela Community Tours Project, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil [http://www.estrela-brasil.com/] has
developed a range of cultural half day and one day tours, in partnership with grass roots
community projects in three local neighbourhoods. Associao Estrela Brasil (Estrela), a Brazilian
British NGO promotes the tours to tourists, hotels and agents, provides transport and translation
services, and collects visitor feedback. Estrela manages the initiative together with a small group of
local stakeholders and volunteer team. The initiative was funded from 2007-2009 by the Travel
Foundation. Estrela recognises that its challenge now is to continue to make the project
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

26
sustainable in the long term without relying on volunteers and to find a way to effectively market
and promote the tours.

Ger to Ger, Mongolia [http://www.gertoger.org/] is a market-driven social enterprise with the aim
of providing an alternative source of income to farmers and to support rural development. It
provides tours and homestays through various parts of Mongolia, linking with local communities. It
works through a Foundation (a registered NGO) and Agency (business). It reports generating
substantial incomes for communities, nomadic herder family groups, rural drivers and single
service suppliers. It receives some funding but the core parts of the initiative are principally self-
sufficient.

Mondo Challenge, Nepal [http://mondochallenge.co.uk/] offers short treks between villages in
Kalimpong, West Bengal. It is privately owned and managed but generates benefits for the
individuals who provide meals and accommodation as well as a shared community fund.

Kanaama, Uganda [www.kiafrica.org] is a private enterprise offering visitors the opportunity to
experience rural life and participate in community activities. It has also formed a local charity.
Supporters and volunteers have funded amenities such as a water tank for the school, renovating
the church, schoolbooks, child sponsorship and beehives, as well as a microcredit scheme.

Mara Conservancy, Kenya [www.maratriangle.org] is a not for profit organisation which seeks to
protect wildlife in its conservancy, working together with local communities and partners. It
provides benefits in the form of employment (95% of staff being from the local communities), 55%
revenue being paid to the local council and a cattle compensation scheme.

Mdumbi Backpackers, South Africa [www.mdumbi.co.za] is a lodge owned by two private
individuals. It is intended to pass a percentage of ownership to permanent employees and the local
community trust. In addition to employing local people, the lodge supports secondary income
generating activities owned by local individuals, as well as a local HIV/AIDS programme,
microfinance, malnutrition centre and further tourism development services. The enterprise has
been at least breaking even for a number of years.

Nanga Sumpa Longhouse, Ulu Ai, Borneo
[http://www.borneoadventure.com/pac_detail.php?code=UAION3]: a private operator, Borneo
Adventure, sought the local communitys permission to bring visitors to it and built a guesthouse
using local labour and materials. The community receives a nightly rental fee per person and
contributions to a scholarship fund as well as employment opportunities and handicraft sales. The
project aims to provide an economic incentive for wildlife conservation, as well as an additional
income stream alongside traditional farming and fishing.

Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/196] was offered
assistance by a number of specialists and funders to develop education and advice to a variety of
people who then created a variety of individual businesses based on local traditional and cultural
activities, as well as a guide cooperative, scholarship fund, conservation work and community
projects funded through a small visitor tax. The project reports having helped establish several
dozen enterprises and generated income for several hundred families through direct and indirect
employment. Communities were given relevant education and skills training and assisted to meet
tourism standards, which also benefited the communities themselves. It is reported from analysis
carried out in one village that its gross economic income doubled over a three-year period entirely
from the income from tourism activity. Communities were however encouraged to continue their
traditional livelihoods alongside tourism, to reduce risk.

Pafuri Camp, South Africa
[http://www.wilderness-safaris.com/south_africa_kruger_national_park/pafuri_camp/introduction/]
is a three-way partnership between the Makuleke Community (the landowner), Kruger National
Park (responsible for conservation) and Wilderness Safaris (responsible for tourism development).
The community has a revenue share agreement and benefits from community-centric
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

27
employment (90%+ in camp), training, skills transfer, hospitality experience and community
development projects. An annual lease fee is also paid to the community. Projects are also run by
Wilderness Safaris through its Wilderness Wildlife Trust and Children in the Wilderness operations.
The enterprise currently breaks even.

Simonga Village, Zambia
[http://www.wildernesstrust.com/trust/project_intro.jsp?project_id=142241] has an association with
a nearby private camp, The River Club, operated by Wilderness Safaris. The camp offers
community members direct employment opportunities as well as income generation through, for
example, handicraft sales. A range of health, sanitation, education and income generating projects
are also funded by the camp, guest donations and the Wilderness Safaris Wildlife Trust.

Coffee Shack Backpackers, South Africa [www.coffeeshack.co.za] was a solely private
enterprise until 2004 when 30% of the business was sold to the local Tshezi community with the
assistance of an EU loan. It is only recently, however, that the community has become more
actively involved in the lodge, having appointed directors to participate in its management. The
community is finalising issues over land tenure, following which an accumulated lease account will
be paid to it together with ongoing rental payments. The enterprise is profit-making without the
need for grants or subsidies. The community benefits from donations to specific projects as well as
direct and indirect employment and income opportunities. These include handicraft sales, guiding,
produce supply, cultural excursions, homestays, performances by local artists and small
businesses offering supplementary services such as laundry. Education and training is also
provided to employees.

North Rupununi Community based Tourism Programme, Guyana
[http://rupununi.freeservers.com/NRTP.htm] seeks to develop sustainable CBT projects within 16
local communities. It is owned by a local district development board and managed by The North
Rupununi Tourism Programme which acts as a coordinating body, assisting the communities to
market their tourism products.

Pacha Trek, Bolivia [http://www.trekapolobamba.com/pacha-trek-2] is a private tour operator
which partners with four local communities to receive tourists for trekking and cultural tours. The
company has built a hostel in three of the local villages. Its principal objective is conservation and
the sustainable management of natural and cultural resources. The communities gain an additional
source of income through direct employment: each works in teams on a rotational basis to provide
tourism services. Revenues are then also divided once a year between the communities as a
whole. The enterprise has been operating for at least three years without grants or subsidies.

Finca Sonador, Costa Rica [www.sonador.info] is based in a community of small farmers. The
land was originally purchased in 1979 by the Longo Mai movement on a cooperative basis for
Nicaraguan refugees coming into Costa Rica. Tourism began in the 1990s and its concept is to
enable young people to spend time (on average 2-6 months) in a local family, often studying, and
learning about local life. Guests pay directly to host families. A "Comit de Turismo" is elected by
the community and works on a voluntary basis to administer a tourism tax which is used to fund
communal projects. Tourism income is estimated to yield about 20%-40% of total community
income more than traditional agricultural work.

Canto de Ballenas, Costa Rica [http://www.hotelcantoballenas.com/] is a small hotel run on a
cooperative basis. It is independently managed and offers the local community direct employment
as well as supplementary income opportunities such as the manufacture of bedlinen and other
items by local women.

Conclusions and recommendations

A number of key individuals from CBTEs, and others, generously participated in this research by
sharing extremely useful expertise and insights. The day to day experience of those working at the
coalface of CBT strongly bears out the themes identified in the literature; thus this study has
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

28
identified and confirmed a number of conditions for the success of CBTEs. It is hoped that all
stakeholders communities seeking to develop successful tourism enterprises as well as those
advising and working alongside them will find these conclusions useful and implement them. This
should go some way to ensuring that the often-costly investments made by such communities reap
the rewards from tourism that they deserve and which are truly sustainable.

1. A cohesive and resilient community is most likely to make an enterprise work. Prior
motivation and commitment is key; the community should have realistic expectations and a
good understanding of tourism and its potential, be able to cope with its impacts, and must
enter the market entirely on its own terms. A community with well-established and strong
institutional structures and decision-making processes has good prospects of success.

2. Genuine community participation, ownership and control beyond simple
consultation - are key to success by ensuring local buy-in and long-term commitment. A
broad, genuine process of community consultation, agreement and practical involvement
should begin well before enterprise development and be embedded into all stages of it.
External pressures and agendas must not be allowed to threaten this process: communities
must be empowered to decide in a meaningful way whether, and how, they wish to develop
tourism and the extent to which they wish to share their way of life with visitors. The
process of participation must be tailored to the particular local way of life and cultural
context, and take as long as necessary to make sure the enterprise can be managed by the
community so that it is sustainable in the long term and attracts tourists who feel welcomed
by a community which is supportive and proud of its tourism product.

3. CBTEs are entering a sophisticated, competitive industry in engaging in tourism and
must therefore adopt a commercial mindset, planning for financial viability from the
outset. A sound, for-profit business model is pivotal to success, so that the enterprise is
sustainable in the long term after any external support is completed. An understanding of
sustainable livelihoods is essential; communities should not over-depend on tourism. It
should provide additional rather than alternative income, by diversifying and complementing
rather than replacing or disrupting local economic activities and lifestyles.

4. Engagement with the private sector on a formal or informal basis, is vital from
beginning to end. Tourism is a competitive, commercial industry. Strong and collaborative
relationships, partnerships and strategic alliances with the private sector will offer access to
its knowledge of the market and its ability to find the best route to it. Collaboration with the
mainstream tourism sector from the earliest possible stage well before enterprise
development will help ensure that products are developed in response to actual market
demand. Whether a joint venture or more informal collaboration, the choice of private sector
partner is important it must have a good understanding of CBT as well as community
development issues so that it values and respects local culture and way of life. Its company
ethos must be compatible with CBT and it must be financially stable, ethically responsible,
well-run and managed, and prepared to make a long-term commitment to the community.

5. Market research and demand-driven product development with, not simply for, the
market is key to success. Tourism products that are simply supply-led or donor-driven will
fail communities must avoid a build it and they will come mentality at all costs. Instead,
good quality, well-priced and attractive products must be tailored to tourist demand in the
local context. Tourism activities offering a unique, authentic experience which is
complementary to what is already available in the destination (and which, for example, fit in
with tourist schedules) have the best prospects of success, since mainstream operators will
be more confident to offer them to their clients.

6. Successful enterprises are accessible to tourists and provide attractive, quality
products based on the natural and cultural assets that a community already has to
offer. Its products will be easily marketable to tourists and operators, of the right quality for
its target market, and close to local amenities and other tourist infrastructure. Products
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

29
should be based on the communitys natural and cultural assets, and provide an incentive
to protect and manage those resources and share them with integrity and pride. The
community must have clear and strong ownership of its land and resources in order to do
so. It is best to start by developing products based on existing livelihood or cultural activities
such as agriculture, fishing, handicrafts or dance, which can be adapted to appeal to
tourists, and develop further once these are well-established.

7. Success takes time: enterprise development of any type can take many years and in this
context it is vital that it is done at a pace and on a scale that is appropriate to the
communitys resources and skills. It is crucial to avoid internal or external pressure to
develop an enterprise too quickly (for example to coincide with funding timetables).
Enterprise development must allow enough time for each stage particularly preparatory
visits and activities including consultation, awareness raising and capacity building to allow
issues to be resolved, establish effective organisational and management structures and to
ensure true community-wide buy in. Development should be initially low-cost and simple,
on a scale and to a standard that the community can manage, and with clear and
appropriate roles given to its various members. The focus must be on medium- and long-
term benefits based on firm foundations, not on short-term solutions.

8. The engagement, support and collaboration in the enterprise by stakeholders with
key areas of expertise is key to success; in particular, stakeholders should each play to
their own strengths and adopt a market-savvy approach. Clear, transparent
communication and cooperation is essential from the start. Donors and NGOs have an
important role in providing training, livelihoods advice and capacity-building, setting up
supportive networks, monitoring outcomes and sharing good practice. They must ensure
that CBTEs are set up to operate as a profitable business which will be sustainable long
after funding has ceased, and not simply as a development project. Commercial
relationships with the private sector are also vital, since it has a vested interest in
communities developing authentic, good quality products that it can be confident in offering
its clients. Brokers and intermediaries also have a key role to play in bridging the gap
between small-scale CBTEs and mainstream industry. A successful enterprise is likely to
be well integrated horizontally and vertically through membership organisations, networks,
and links with government, tourism and training bodies. Government support is also crucial,
particularly when it provides an enabling policy environment in which CBT can thrive, as
well as strengthening community rights and land tenure.

9. Transparent and accountable governance, leadership, decision-making structures as
well as sound, skilled financial management are essential. Community benefits must
be wide-ranging and delivered as soon as possible. The whole community must be able to
see an increase in net benefits and in its quality of life from as early a stage as possible and
that such benefits are delivered regularly thereafter. Benefits should be individual and
communal, economic, environmental and social, monetary and non-monetary and generate
employment opportunities as well as direct income. They must be tangible and seen to be
equitably shared through, for example, contributions to a community development fund /
activities or by community earnings and employment.

10. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and benefits should be conducted, as simply but
effectively as possible. Progress from pre-enterprise data should be plotted to measure
local economic impact from tourism, so that communities and others can share and learn
from experience and ensure continued success. In particular, donors should demand robust
data to critically assess the success of initiatives they fund.



International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

30


1
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:4
2
SNV, 2007:9
3
see Townsend, 2006:2
4
see Murphy & Halstead, 2003:3; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:1; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:9
5
Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:7; Townsend, 2006:4
6
Chapman, 2009
7
see France, 1997:10; Mann, 2000, cited in Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:26; Burns, 2004:24-43, cited in Rocharungsat, 2008:61
8
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:7; UNWTO, 2004:9.24; Marris, 2001:5
9
see Urquico, 1998:2-3; Rozemeijer, 2001:61; WTO, 2006:227; Doorne, 2004:10,27; Scheyvens, 1997:5-8; Scheyvens, 2003:234ff
10
Duffy, 2006:128144
11
Timothy & Tosun, 2003:200
12
see Suansri, 2003:16
13
see Suansri, 2003:12
14
Moscardo, 2008:175
15
Goodwin, 2008:55
16
Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1
17
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:4; Rocharungsat, 2008:65
18
Kiss, 2004:234; Goodwin, 2006a; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:450; Mitchell & Ashley, 2009:1
19
see ODI & SNV, 2006:23; Zorn & Farthing, 2007:674; Mader, undated; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:14; Mitchell &
Muckosy, 2008:1
20
2006
21
Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1
22
2009:5-6
23
2005:48
24
see Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:2; Townsend, 2006:7
25
see Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1
26
2009:6
27
2006
28
Ashley & Mitchell, 2008:1
29
Kiss, 2004:233
30
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:9
31
WTO, 2006:54
32
see Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:2; Epler Wood International, 2008:6; Dixey, 2008:12; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:33
33
DFID, 1999:2 cited in Chok, Macbeth, J im & Warren, 2007:156
34
Planeta & Epler Wood, 2005:8
35
Dixey, 2008:15
36
see Dixey, 2009:15; Townsend, 2006:2; Spenceley, 2008d:300; Rozemeijer, 2001:15; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006:3; Halstead, 2003:20;
SNV, 2007:13,26; Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:2,21,31; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:17; Mountain Institute, 2000:6; SNV, 2007:12
37
2004:8
38
see for example Francis, J . cited in Greenhouse, 2009
39
2005:50
40
see Brennan & Allen, 2001:209
41
2007:212
42
2009
43
see Paredo & Chrisman, 2006:320, cited by Galaski, 2008:23
44
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:2
45
see Ashley & J ones, 2001:21; Notzke, 2004:38; IFC, 2004:21; Spenceley, 2002:31; Epler Wood in Ecotourism Emerging Industry
Forum, 2005:67
46
Harrison, 2001:260; Brennan & Allen, 2001:218
47
Swarbrooke, 1999; Mycoo, 2004:2; Inamdar, 2009
48
Goodwin, 2006a; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:17; Simpson; 2007:2
49
Steiner & Rihoy, 1995:15, cited in Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007:452
50
Mowforth & Munt, 2009:105
51
as defined by IMF, 2010
52
Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6
53
2000:11
54
Mowforth & Munt, 2009:267
55
Townsend, 2006:6
56
Kibicho, 2008:211-231
57
see Dixey, 2009:9; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:13 citing Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:18; Dixey, 2005:1; ODI & SNV, 2006:23; Dixey,
2008:14; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:8
58
Dixey, 2009:15
59
Epler Wood, 2008:9; see also Dixey, 2008:4
60
Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
61
Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; Dixey, 2009:1
62
Kiss, 2004:234; GoNomad.com, undated
63
Pantin & Francis, 2005:3
64
see Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:8; Dixey, 2005:55; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25; Townsend, 2006:36
65
Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; IFC, 2004:14; Dixey, 2005:50,55,56; WTO, 2006:259,260
66
WWF, 2001:6; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25
67
Zorn & Farthing, 2007:682; IFC, 2004:14; UNWTO, 2004:25; Spenceley, 2008b:372-3; Dixey 2005:46,50,55; Dixey, 2008:7; Murphy,
2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6
68
Murphy, 1985:157
69
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff; Halstead, 2003:3,18
70
ID21, 2005; WWF, 2001:6,98; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:454
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

31

71
Dixey, 2009:9,10; CANARI, 2004:19,21
72
see UNWTO, 2004:26; Epler Wood International, 2003:1
73
Collins & Snel, 2008:102; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25
74
WWF, 2001:6
75
WTO, 2006:260; Pantin & Francis, 2005:3
76
WTO, 2006:187
77
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:11,14,17,29; Halstead, 2003:20; Harrison & Schipani, 2007:224; Dixey, 2005:50; Dixey, 2008:15
78
see Goodwin, 2006a; Dixey, 2009:2; IFC, 2004:14,22,27; Spenceley, 2008d:293-4; Dixey 2005:2,46,50,55,65; Murphy & Halstead,
2003:16,24; Dixey, 2008:4,12; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:vii ix
79
Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:12
80
McGehee & Kline, 2008:131ff
81
Dixey, 2005:55
82
WTO, 2006:133
83
WTO, 2006:259
84
Suansri, 2003:26
85
McGehee & Kline, 2008:133; Rozemeijer, 2001:58; Dixey, 2005:50; Dixey, 2008:15; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33; Bartholo,
Delamaro & Bursztyn, 2008:111
86
Townsend, 2006:43
87
Hall, 2007:308-9
88
Rozemeijer, 2001:58; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; Stonich, 2000:14, quoting Horwich & Lyon, 1998; Dixey
2005:46 & 55; Dixey, 2008:7,12,14; WTO, 2006:232; Halstead, 2003:22; CANARI, 2004:21; Moscardo, 2008:5
89
see Southgate, 2006:80-96
90
see Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33; Moscardo, 2008:9
91
Townsend, 2006:43
92
Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33; Halstead, 2003:5,12; GoNomad.com, nd; Cole, 2006:99; Townsend, 2006:43
93
see SNV, 2007:7; Dixey, 2005:1; Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:7
94
see Rozemeijer, 2003:8; Moscardo, 2008:x; WTO, 2006:98,259,260; Dixey, 2005:50
95
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:13; Smith & Duffy, 2003:104
96
see WWF, 2001:6; Townsend, 2006:10; Butler & Hinch, 2007:323-4; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:3; Simpson, 2008b:259-261;
Dixey, 2009:15; Dixey, 2005:55
97
IFC, 2004:25 / UNWTO, 2004:25
98
Townsend, 2006:9; Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:14; Dixey, 2005:55; Robinson, 1997:184; Butler & Hinch, 2007:323; Rocharungsat,
2008:66; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
99
Townsend, 2006:9
100
Townsend, 2006:53
101
Bartholo, Delamaro & Bursztyn, 2008:116
102
Butler & Hinch, 2007:327; Scheyvens, 2003:248
103
Fennel & Przeclawski, 2003:145
104
Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
105
Mason & Mowforth, 1995:51; Tourism Concern, undated
106
Townsend, 2006:53
107
Ashley & J ones, 2001:27; Dixey, 2008:4; Rozemeijer, 2001:6; ID21, 2005; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
108
see CANARI, 2004:21
109
Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:462
110
Dixey, 2005:55
111
Collins & Snel, 2008:99-100; WTO, 2006:98
112
Blackman, 2008:142; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:9
113
WWF, 2001:6
114
WWF, 2001:10
115
Townsend, 2006:51
116
Dixey, 2009:15
117
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
118
WTO, 2006:227
119
Kibicho, 2008:211-231
120
Dixey, 2005:44,55; Dixey, 2008:15
121
Rozemeijer, 2001:58; Kibicho, 2008:211-231; Brandon, 1993:136ff; Finn, 2005:92
122
Townsend, 2006:7,51
123
see Epler Wood International, 2004:3; WTO, 2006:196; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb,
2003:5-6; WWF, 2001:6; Ashley & J ones, 2001:27
124
see Dixey, 2005:2,55; IFC, 2004:14,25; Swarbrooke, 1999:134; Urquico, 1998:38; UNWTO, 2004:25; Dixey, 2009:15,24; Halstead,
2003:4; CANARI, 2004:19; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:9,15-25;
Spenceley, 2008a:180; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:vii; Ashley, nd:5
125
Mountain Institute, 2000:5
126
see Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:vii ix; Dixey, 2005:2
127
UNWTO, 2004:37; Blackman, 2008:142; CANARI, 2004:21; Halstead, 2003:4; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:16
128
UNWTO, 2004:37
129
Steck, 1999:17; Harrison, 2001:254; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:17; Palmer, 2006; Bartholo, Delamaro & Bursztyn, 2008:107
130
Dixey, 2005:2,12,14,15,44; Epler Wood International, 2004:3; Brennan & Allen, 2001:216; WTO, 2006:232; Stonich, 2000:176;
Charnley, 2005:82-83; Smith & Duffy, 2003:143; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:8; Mountain Institute, 2000:9
131
WWF, 2001:6
132
Dixey, 2008:7
133
Dixey, 2008:15
134
Collins & Snel, 2008:104
135
Goodwin, 2007:94
136
UNWTO, 2004:37
137
see GoNomad.com, undated
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

32

138
see Scheyvens, 2003:229,245-246; Goodwin, 2007:94
139
Urquico, 1998:35
140
see WTO, 2002:41; Dixey, 2008:15
141
Rocharungsat, 2008:65
142
Tourism Concern, undated
143
Dixey, 2005:44
144
Lepp, 2008:5-22; Zorn & Farthing, 2007:678; Bartholo, Delamaro & Bursztyn, 2008:110; Brandon, 1993:136ff; Murphy & Halstead,
2003:3,13,24; Halstead, 2003:21; Dixey, 2005:55; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6
145
Van der Duim & Caalders; 2008:35; Rocharungsat, 2008:69
146
Stonich, 2000:15; CANARI, 2004:21; UNWTO, 2004:26; Smith & Duffy, 2003:104,140; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:viii
147
Moscardo, 2008:5; Smith & Duffy, 2003:139
148
Reid, Mair & George, 2004:630; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1; Moscardo, 2008:5; Smith & Duffy, 2003:139; Stern et al, 2003 cited by
Stronza, 2008:102; Brennan & Allen, 2001:215-6; Garrod, 2003:34; WTO, 2006:196,232; Swarbrooke, 1999:134; Robinson, 1997:184
149
MacLeod & Farley, 2005:93; ID21, 2005
150
Hipwell, 2007:876
151
Mountain Institute, 2000:28
152
see Spenceley, 2008d:286
153
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008:48
154
Mowforth & Munt, 2009:225, 231
155
Rocharungsat, 2008:61; Scheyvens, 2003:249
156
Brandon, 1993:136ff
157
CANARI, 2004:21
158
WWF, 2001:14; Wright, Suchet-Pearson, Lloyd, Burarrwanga and Burarrwanga, 2009:507ff
159
Mountain Institute, 2000:19
160
2006:94
161
Cole, 1996 cited in Hall, 2000:49
162
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008:48
163
WTO, 2002:82
164
Schipani, 2008:80
165
see Halstead, 2003:14; Stronza, 2008:114
166
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:13
167
Stronza, 2008:114
168
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:21
169
see Roberts & Tribe, 2008:584; WTO, 2006:190; WWF, 2001:10
170
Parker & Khare, 2005:1,32-46
171
Goodwin, 2006a; Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:21; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:viiix; Dixey, 2008:4,7,12; Murphy & Halstead,
2003:17; ODI & SNV, 2006:23; Epler Wood International, 2004:3; WTO, 2006:196,232; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1-2; Dixey
2005:46,55; Collins & Snel, 2008:102; Townsend, 2006:7
172
2006:63
173
Halstead, 2003:3,20,21; Rozemeijer, 2001:43-45
174
2004:8
175
see IFC, 2004:31; Goodwin, 2007:91
176
UNWTO, 2004:31
177
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
178
Rozemeijer, 2001:28,32-33; Nelson, 2008:309
179
Townsend, 2006:10; Ashley, 2000:18; WTO, 2006:85,100; Halstead, 2003:22; Wall & Mathieson, 2006:311; WTO, 2002:16; Van der
Cammen, 1997:163; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33; Sunalai, 2006:69
180
see Townsend, 2006:8
181
ID21, 2005
182
Keiser, 2009
183
Goodwin, 2007:92; Dixey, 2009:11,15
184
Nelson, 2008:309
185
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:16; Spenceley, 2008d:301
186
Dixey 2009:15; Halstead, 2003:3
187
Townsend, 2006:13,55
188
Rocharungsat, 2008:66
189
Spenceley, 2008d:301; Halstead, 2003:3,21; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff; Dixey, 2009:9; Caribbean Tourism Organisation,
2006:63; Urquico, 1998:22-28,62
190
Dixey, 2005:44; Brandon, 1993:136ff
191
Rozemeijer, 2001:30
192
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff
193
Bricker, 2001:146
194
WTO, 2002:15; Schipani, 2008:80
195
Townsend, 2006:7
196
Epler Wood, 2005a:67
197
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:13
198
2008:80
199
2006:8
200
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
201
Rozemeijer, 2001:43-45
202
Hipwell, 2007:876; Scheyvens, 2003:233
203
Colton & Harris, 2007:226; Rozemeijer, 2001:59; Goodwin, 2007:94
204
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
205
Scheyvens, 2003:237
206
Dixey, 2009:15; Townsend, 2006:8,55
207
Halstead, 2003:11,12
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

33

208
Dixey, 2005:1
209
CANARI, 2004:21; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:143
210
Rocharungsat, 2008:66
211
Rozga & Spenceley, 2006:2; WWF, 2001:21; Mountain Institute, 2000:44; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007:456; Roe, Grieg-Gran &
Schalken, 2001:33
212
Butler & Hinch, 2007:324
213
see Dixey, 2005:46, 55; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008; Dixey, 2008:2-3,7,12,14; Makela, 2009; Swarbrooke, 1999:134; Spenceley,
2008b:372-3; Forstner, 2004:501; UNWTO, 2004:25; Epler Wood, 2008:9; Smith & Duffy, 2003:139,153; Sammy, 2008:75; Simpson,
2008b:259-261; Moscardo, 2008:5; Spenceley, 2008d:286; Keith, 2009; Goodwin, 2006a; Spenceley, 2009; Delgado, 2009; Keiser,
2009; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:6; Rozga & Spenceley, 2006:2 Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:35
214
Doorne, 2004:8
215
see Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1; Dixey, 2005:1,41,44,55,56; Dixey, 2008:4,15; Moscardo, 2008:x; ODI & SNV, 2006:23; Murphy &
Halstead, 2003:15; Keiser, 2009; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:454; Halstead, 2003:4; Butler & Hinch, 2007:324; Trench, Murphy &
Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; WTO, 2006:98; Rocharungsat, 2008:66; WWF, 2001:21; Rozemeijer, 2003:8; CANARI, 2004:19; UNWTO, 2004:39
216
UNWTO, 2004:26
217
Dixey, 2008:4
218
see Collins & Snel, 2008:95; WWF, 2001:21; Schipani, 2008:85; Dixey, 2009:15; Spenceley, 2002:35; Butler & Hinch, 2007:323;
Scheyvens, 2003:244
219
see Sunalai, 2006:67; Schipani, 2008:81
220
see Moscardo, 2008:5; Swarbrooke, 1999:134; Dixey, 2005:55
221
Dixey, 2005:46
222
Mowforth & Munt, 2009:248
223
Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6
224
Murphy, 2002:2; Halstead, 2003:12; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:462; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:9; Dixey, 2005:44,55; Rocharungsat,
2008:66; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:18
225
Dixey, 2009:15
226
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:9
227
Collins & Snel, 2008:102; WTO, 2002:78; WWF, 2001:10
228
undated
229
see Hall, 2007:310; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25,63
230
Zorn & Farthing, 2007:677-678
231
Ashley, nd:2
232
Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:63
233
Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007:471; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:5
234
Townsend, 2006:24
235
see Simpson, 2008a: 1ff; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
236
Spenceley, 2008a:176
237
Bartholo, Delamaro & Bursztyn, 2008:111
238
2003:12ff
239
see Li, 2006:133; Rozemeijer, 2001:32-33
240
see Simpson, 2008a:2ff
241
see Telfer, 2000:251
242
Parker & Khare, 2005:1,32-46
243
Harrison & Schipani, 2007:199
244
Mowforth & Munt, 2009:247
245
Collins & Snel, 2008:105
246
Forstner, 2004:503
247
WTO, 2002:85; Spenceley, 2008a:176; Townsend, 2006:35
248
Planeta & Epler Wood, 2005:8
249
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:6
250
Spenceley, 2008d:287; Kiss, 2004:234
251
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:14
252
Townsend, 2006:35
253
Spenceley, 2008a:179
254
Scheyvens, 2003:238
255
see Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24
256
see Stronza, 2008:114
257
Spenceley, 2008a:176
258
Ashley & J ones, 2001:1,27
259
Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33
260
Stronza, 2008:114
261
see Simpson, 2008b:241ff
262
see Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24; Halstead, 2003:21; Roe, Grieg-Gran & Schalken, 2001:33; ODI, 2006:4; Ashley & J ones,
2001:9,11; Nelson, 2008:311-2; Spenceley, 2008d:287; Kiss, 2004:234; UNWTO, 2004:26; Southgate, 2006:80-96; Hitchins &
Highstead, 2005:14ff; Schipani, 2007:2; Stronza, 2008:114
263
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
264
WWF, 2001:6; Dixey, 2008:2-4; Dixey, 2005:1,2; IFC, 2004:25; Rozga & Spenceley, 2006:2; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1-2; CANARI,
2004:21
265
Goodwin, 2007:92; Butler & Hinch, 2007:325; Townsend, 2006:54
266
WTO, 2006:259
267
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:14
268
Dixey, 2005:1
269
Townsend, 2006:13,54; WTO, 2002:41; Ashley & J ones, 2001:27; Dixey, 2009:11; WWF, 2001:7
270
SNV, 2007:7
271
Dixey, 2008:4
272
Schipani, 2008:78
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

34

273
Dixey, 2008:1
274
Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:24
275
ODI, 2006:1
276
see Goodwin, 2006a; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:2; Hitchins & Highstead, 2005:21,27; Mowforth & Munt, 2009:244; WTO, 2006:118;
Goodwin, 2008:56-57; Dixey, 2005:1,50,55; ODI & SNV, 2006:23; UNWTO, 2004:25; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008; WTO,
2002:41,96; Spenceley, 2008d:293-4; Dixey, 2008:4,15; CANARI, 2004:19; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:36; Ashley, Roe & Goodwin,
2001:vii-ix; Schipani, 2008:95; Townsend, 2006:2
277
Dixey, 2008:4; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008:133
278
Townsend, 2006:8,55
279
Dixey, 2005:1; Townsend, 2006:54
280
Dixey, 2005:55; Townsend, 2006:54
281
Dixey, 2005:48
282
ODI, 2006:4
283
see Epler Wood International, 2005:9
284
WWF, 2001:21; Dixey, 2005:1,44,55,56; Blackman, 2008:142
285
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008; WTO, 2002:41; Dixey 2005:1,55; WWF, 2001:3; Mader undated; Dixey, 2008:4,14-15; Spenceley,
2008b:372-3; Epler Wood International, 2004:3; ODI & SNV, 2006:23
286
see Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008
287
Dixey, 2008:4
288
UNWTO, 2004:25
289
Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25; WWF, 2001:7; WTO, 2002:41
290
Townsend, 2006:56; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:63
291
Dixey, 2009:11, Dixey, 2005:50,55; Mycoo, 2004:1-2; UNWTO, 2004:31
292
Dixey, 2005:50; Dixey, 2008:15; WWF, 2001:18; Butler & Hinch, 2007:330; Dixey, 2009:11
293
Townsend, 2006:13
294
Kibicho, 2008:211-231; WTO, 2006:133; Scheyvens, 2003:229
295
WWF, 2001:12
296
Okazaki, 2008:511-529; Simpson, 2008a:2
297
Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:63; Dixey, 2005:44 Schipani, 2007:1,2
298
2006:14
299
Townsend, 2006:29
300
Dixey, 2005:25,55; Spenceley, 2002:35
301
Simpson, 2008a:13
302
Stronza, 2008:109ff
303
Scheyvens, 2003:249
304
Spenceley, 2002:35; Halstead, 2003:12
305
Schipani, 2008:74
306
Stronza, 2008:114
307
see Harrison, 2001:260
308
Townsend, 2006:36
309
Scheyvens, 2003:229
310
UNWTO, 2004:39
311
Scheyvens, 2003:244245; Urquico, 1998:35
312
Townsend, 2006:36
313
see Townsend, 2006:14,37
314
UNWTO, 2004:34
315
Townsend, 2006:37
316
Epler Wood International, 2004:9
317
Richards & Hall, 2000:303; see Townsend, 2006:36
318
Epler Wood, 2005a:86
319
Townsend, 2006:36
320
Halstead, 2003:21
321
Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:6; Dixey, 2008:4; Harrison & Schipani, 2007:223; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1-2
322
Rozemeijer, 2001:34-45
323
see Mader, 2005:78; MacLeod Farley, 2005:98
324
see Palmer, 2006:55ff
325
see Hausler, 2005:69
326
MacLeod Farley, 2005:98
327
Moscardo, 2008:65; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25; Scheyvens, 2003:229; Mountain Institute, 2000:11
328
Halstead, 2003:21; see also Rozemeijer, 2001:32-33
329
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008
330
see UNWTO, 2004:25; Brazier, 2008
331
see Simpson, 2008b:263; Collins & Snel, 2008:104
332
Collins & Snel, 2008:101
333
Steck, 1999:16; Richards, 2009:5
334
see Dixey, 2009:15
335
Collins & Snel, 2008:102-103
336
Dixey, 2008:12-14; Simpson, 2008b:263
337
Townsend, 2006:12,34-35
338
Zorn & Farthing, 2007:678; Brandon, 1993:136ff
339
see Rozemeijer, 2001:59; Dixey, 2009:15; Wearing & McDonald, 2002:203; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008
340
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008
341
Brandon, 1993:136ff
342
Mountain Institute, 2000:10
343
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008
344
Dixey, 2009:15
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

35

345
WWF, 2001:8
346
Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:6
347
Townsend, 2006:49; Doorne, 2004:5,22,23; UNWTO, 2004:39; Ashley & J ones, 2001:27; Nepal, 2007:242; WWF, 2001:21;
Scheyvens, 2003:244; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:454
348
Forstner, 2004:505; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007:462
349
Townsend, 2006:55
350
Urquico, 1998:87
351
Townsend, 2006:20,29,30
352
see Stoeckl, 2008:19; Mountain Institute, 2005:37; Moscardo, 2008:19; Pantin & Francis, 2005:3; Townsend, 2006:54
353
Epler Wood International, 2004:8
354
CANARI, 2004:13ff citing Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001
355
see Townsend, 2006:55
356
Dixey, 2009:13
357
Dixey, 2009:14
358
Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008; Dixey 2005:46; Dixey, 2008:12; Simpson, 2008b:259-261; Caribbean Tourism Organisation,
2006:15-25; Rozemeijer, 2001:29
359
Dixey 2005:2,44,46,50 55; Mitchell & Muckosy, 2008:1; Dixey, 2008:4,7,12,14; Spenceley, 2008a:180; Collins & Snel, 2008:95; ID21,
2005; Townsend, 2006:50; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; Halstead, 2003:21; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff;
Spenceley, 2008b:37
360
UNWTO, 2004:25
361
Dixey, 2008:2-3; Smith & Duffy, 2003:140; Simpson, 2008a:15
362
McGehee & Kline, 2008:132
363
Townsend, 2006:43; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25; Dixey, 2005:55-56
364
CANARI, 2004:21
365
Simpson, 2008a:15
366
Murphy & Halstead, 2003:24ff; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6; Halstead, 2003:14
367
Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:viiix
368
see Dixey, 2009:9; WTO, 2006:118; Inamdar, 2009; ODI & SNV, 2006:23; Spenceley, 2008d:286; Hitchins & Highstead,
2005:13,14,27; Spenceley, 2008b:372-3; Dixey 2005:46,50
369
2008:13
370
Rocharungsat, 2008:65
371
Dixey, 2009:9; UNWTO, 2004:25; Simpson, 2008b:259-261; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008:454
372
Goodwin, 2006a; Kibicho, 2008:211-231; Brandon, 1993:136ff
373
Rocharungsat, 2008:65; Townsend, 2006:4
374
Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:vii ix; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:17; Halstead, 2003:4
375
Rozemeijer, 2001:59
376
Halstead, 2003:15; Zorn & Farthing, 2007:674; Townsend, 2006:4
377
Child, 1996:9; Murphy & Halstead, 2003:17
378
Hipwell, 2007:876
379
Dixey, 2008:12; Brandon, 1993:136ff; WWF, 2001:11
380
Schipani, 2008:90; Tourism Concern, undated; Murphy, 2002:2; Trench, Murphy & Thaniseb, 2003:5-6
381
Hipwell, 2007:876
382
see e.g. Belsky, 1999:641-666; Li, 2004:177-178,184,188
383
see Stronza, 2008:114; Townsend, 2006:52-53
384
Swarbrooke, 1999:42; Francis, J . cited in Greenhouse, 2009; Dixey, 2008:4; Dixey, 2005:1,46
385
Townsend, 2006:55
386
see Dixey, 2009:9; Spenceley, 2008b:372-3; WWF, 2001:3; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008; Dixey 2005:46,55; Dixey 2008:7,12;
Mader, undated; Urquico, 1998:52; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:9; WTO, 2002:41; WTO, 2006:99-100
387
Dixey, 2005:55
388
CANARI, 2004:19; Forstner, 2004:505
389
Dixey, 2005:48
390
Townsend, 2006:55
391
Galaski, 2008:132
392
Rocharungsat, 2008:66
393
Dixey, 2005:55
394
WWF, 2001:6-7
395
Hipwell, 2007:876
396
Rocharungsat, 2008:66
397
WWF, 2001:6,7; Tourism Concern, undated
398
Charnley, 2005:81ff
399
Tourism Concern, undated
400
Tourism Concern, undated; Rocharungsat, 2008:65; Mountain Institute, 2000:44; Rozemeijer, 2001:59
401
CANARI, 2004:19; Moscardo, 2008:66; Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2006:15-25
402
WWF, 2001:21
403
WWF, 2001:6
404
Townsend, 2006:24; Brandon, 1993:136ff; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008:35; Hipwell, 2007:876; Spenceley, 2008a:180; Tamang,
2007:12
405
see Choi & Sirakaya, 2006:4; SNV, 2007:15; Schipani, 2008:97; Marris, 2001:6-43; Simpson, 2008a:10; Bricker, 2001:246; Stronza
& Gordillo, 2008:454; Richards, 2009:5; Brandon, 1993:136ff; Stonich, 2000:147-148; WTO, 2006:227; Caribbean Tourism
Organisation, 2006:15-25
406
see Urquico, 1998:82; Schipani & Marris, undated:1-6
407
Dixey, 2009:15
408
Schipani, 2008:99; Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008:35; Mountain Institute, 2000:69-70
409
Dixey, 2008:14
410
Schipani, 2008:74
411
Goodwin & Santilli, 2009:36
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

36

412
30 (16%) returned a failed delivery message. A further 85 received no response (despite in 76 of those cases a chasing email
having been sent). 19 replied indicating some interest in participating (e.g. requesting a Spanish or French version), stated that they
would respond in due course, but did not do so, or provided some responses but did not provide further detail when asked. One request
for research authority was overlooked and 2 indicated that either they were not willing to assist or would charge for doing so.
413
In one instance, the questions were asked in person.
414
Known more widely in Ethiopia as idir.
415
For example because of lack of resources, language barriers or remoteness of the enterprise meaning telephone or Skype
conversations were not feasible.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

37
Bibliography and references

Ackerman, K. (2009) Community-Based Tourism A Failure? [internet] Available from:
< http://www.afrika-t.com/2009/03/community-based-tourism-failure.html> [Accessed 26
J anuary 2011]
Ashley, C. & Goodwin, H. (2007) Pro poor tourism: Whats gone right and whats
gone wrong? London, Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C. & J ones (2001) Joint Ventures between communities and tourism
investors: experience in southern Africa. International J ournal of Tourism Research,
Vol 3, pp 407 423.
Ashley, C. & Mitchell, J . (2007) Assessing how tourism revenues reach the poor.
London, Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C. & Mitchell, J . (2008) Doing the right thing approximately not the wrong
thing precisely: challenges of monitoring impacts of pro-poor interventions in
tourism value chains. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C. (2000) The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibias
Experience. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C. (2006) How can governments boost the local economic impacts of
tourism? ODI & SNV East and Southern Africa.
Ashley, C. (undated) What Governments Can Do For Community Tourism. Community
Tourism in Southern Africa Guidelines for Practitioners No. 2.
Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., McNab, D., Scott, M., Chaves, L. (2006) Making Tourism Count
for the Local Economy in the Caribbean Guidelines for Good Practice. Pro-Poor
Tourism Partnership & Caribbean Tourism Organisation.
Ashley, C., Roe, D. & Goodwin, H. (2000) Pro-Poor Tourism: putting poverty at the
heart of the tourism agenda. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C., Roe, D. & Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making
Tourism work for the Poor. A review of experience. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership.
Barkin, D. & Bouchez, C.P. (2002) NGO-Community Collaboration for Ecotourism: A
Strategy for Sustainable Regional Development. Current Issues in Tourism Volume 5
(3&4) pp 245-253.
Barnes, J .I. (2008) Community-based Tourism and Natural Resource Management in
Namibia: Local and National Economic Impacts. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008)
Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and Development. London,
Earthscan.
Bartholo, R., Delamarco, M. & Bursztyn, I. (2008) Tourism for Whom: Different Paths to
Development and Alternative Experiments in Brazil. Latin American Perspectives,
Issue 160, Volume 35, No. 3, May 2008 103-119.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

38
Belsky, J .M. (1999) Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community- Based
Rural Ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 54(4) 1999, pp 641-
666
Bennett, O., Roe, D. & Ashley, C. (1999) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination
Study. IIED, Deloitte & Touche, Overseas Development Institute
Berno, T. (2007) Doing it the Pacific Way: indigenous education and training in the
South Pacific. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples:
Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Bilz, R. (2005) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online discussion:
Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry Forum, 1-18
November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
Bird, C. (1997) Communal Lands, Communal Problems. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The
Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Blackman, A. (2008) Perspectives on Leadership Coaching for Regional Tourism
Managers and Entrepreneurs. In Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community
Capacity for Tourism Development. 1
st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
Blackstock, K. (2005) A critical look at community based tourism. Community
Boo, E. (1991) Making Ecotourism Sustainable: Recommendations for Planning,
Development and Management. In Whelan, T. (ed). (1991) Nature tourism: managing
for the environment. Washington DC, Island Press.
Boyd, S.W. & Singh, S. (2003) Destination Communities: Structures, Resources and
Types. In Singh, S, Timothy, D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination
Communities. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. (2000) Approaches to sustainable tourism planning and
community participation The case of the Hope Valley. In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds).
(2000) Tourism and sustainable community development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Brandon, K. (1993) Basic Steps Toward Encouraging Local Participation in Nature
Tourism Projects. In Lindberg, K. & Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism A Guide for Planners
and Managers. 1
st
ed. North Bennington, VT, The Ecotourism Society.
Braun, J . (2008) Community-based Tourism in Northern Honduras: Opportunities
and Barriers. Thesis, University of Manitoba.
Brazier, C. (2008) What is Ethical Travel? New Internationalist, Issue 409
Brennan, F. & Allen, G. (2001) Community-based Ecotourism, Social Exclusion and
the Changing Political Economy of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. In Harrison, D. (ed)
(2001) Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case studies. 1
st
ed.
Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Bricker, K.S. (2001) Ecotourism Development in the Rural Highlands of Fiji. In
Harrison, D. (ed) (2001) Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case
studies. 1
st
ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

39
Burns, P.M. & Holden, A. (1997) Alternative and Sustainable Tourism Development
The Way Forward. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable
Tourism. London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (2007) Conclusions: Key themes and issues in indigenous
tourism. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples:
Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and
Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
CANARI (2004) CBT initiatives in the Windward Islands: a review of their impacts.
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute.
Caribbean Tourism Organisation (2006) Competing with the Best: Good Practices in
Community-Based Tourism in the Caribbean. Caribbean Regional Sustainable Tourism
Development Programme, Caribbean Tourism Organisation, St Michael, Barbados.
Cater, E. (1997) Ecotourism in the Third World Problems and Prospects for
Sustainability. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable
Tourism. London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Chapman, M. (2009) in Experience the Real Ethiopia. TESFA Ethiopia video [internet].
Available at
<http://youtuberepeater.com/watch?v=gbcULCy6sZs&name=Experience+the+Real+Ethiop
ia>[Accessed March 2010].
Charnley, S. (2005) From Nature Tourism to Ecotourism? The Case of the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Human Organization, Vol. 64, No 1.
Child, B. (1996) The practice and principles of community-based wildlife
management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity & Conservation,
Vol 5, pp 369-398.
Choi, H.C. & Sirakaya, E. (2006) Sustainability Indicators for Managing Community
Tourism.
Chok, S., Macbeth, J . & Warren, C. (2007) Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A
Critical Analysis of 'Pro-Poor Tourism' and Implications for Sustainability. Current
Issues in Tourism Vol 10(2) pp 144 165.
Cole, S. (1996) Cultural tourism: the villagers perspective. Cited in Hall, D. (2000)
Identity, community and sustainability Prospects for rural tourism in Albania. In Hall,
D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and sustainable community development. 1
st

ed. London, Routledge.
Cole, S. (2006) Cultural tourism, community participation and empowerment. In
Smith, M. and Robinson, M. (ed) Cultural tourism in a changing world pp 89-103.
Cleveland: Channel View Publications
Collins, S. & Snel, H. (2008) A Perspective on Community Based Tourism from South
Africa: The TRANSFORM Programme, 1996-2007. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008)
Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and Development. London,
Earthscan.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

40
Colton, J . & Harris, S. (2007) Indigenous tourisms role in community development:
the case of the Lennox Island First Nation. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007)
Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth
Heinemann.
Colvin, J .G. (1996) Indigenous ecotourism: The Capirona programme in Napo
Province, Ecuador. UN Food & Agriculture Organisation
Delgado, M.O. (2009) Contribution to discussion, Seminar, Tourism and Social
Responsibility: Increasing your Profit by Doing Good. World Travel Market, London
2009.
DFID (1999) Tourism and poverty elimination: untapped potential. London,
Department for International Development.
Dixey, L. (2005) Inventory and Analysis of Community Based Tourism In Zambia.
USAID Production, Finance and Technology Programme (PROFIT), Lusaka, Zambia.
Dixey, L. (2007) The African Safari Lodge Programme: Maximizing the Rural
Development Potential of Ecotourism in Mozambique. Summary Report of Socio-
Economic Baseline Studies Of Three Pilot Ecotourism Lodges. TechnoServe,
Maputo, Mozambique.
Dixey, L. (2008) The Unsustainability of Community Tourism Donor Projects:
Lessons from Zambia. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues
for Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Dixey, L. (2009) Evaluation of Community-Based Tourism through the Community
Resilience Programme: Situational Analysis. Government of Botswana, UNDP and
UNWTO. Ministry of Local Government, Gabarone, Botswana.
Doorne, S. (2004) Community integrated tourism development in the South Pacific
study. Suva, Fiji: ICT Capacity Building at USP Project, The University of the South
Pacific, 2004.
Drake, S.P. (1991) Local Participation in Ecotourism Projects. In Whelan, T. (ed)
(1991) Nature tourism: managing for the environment. Washington DC, Island Press.
Duffy, R. (2006) Global Environmental Governance and the Politics of Ecotourism in
Madagascar. J ournal of Ecotourism,5:1,128 144
Epler Wood International (2003) Community Conservation and Commerce.
Epler Wood International (2004) Evaluating Ecotourism as a Community and
Economic Development Strategy.
Epler Wood International (2005) Stepping Up: Creating a Sustainable Tourism
Enterprise Strategy that Delivers in the Developing World. Epler Wood International.
Epler Wood, M. (2005a) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online
discussion: Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry
Forum, 1-18 November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

41
Epler Wood International (2008) Community-Based Tourism Enterprise in Latin
America: Triple Bottom Line Outcomes of 27 Projects. Epler Wood International.
Fagence, M. (2003) Tourism and Local Society and Culture. In Singh, S, Timothy, D.J .
& Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination Communities. Wallingford, CABI
Publishing.
Farrington J ., Carney D., Ashley C. & Turton, C. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods in
Practice: Early applications of SL concepts in rural areas. ODI, London
Fennell, D.A. & Przeclawski, K. (2003) Generating Goodwill in Tourism through Ethical
Stakeholder Interactions. In Singh, S, Timothy, D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003)
Tourism in Destination Communities. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Finn, M. (2005) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online discussion:
Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry Forum, 1-18
November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
Forstner, K. (2004) Community Ventures and Access to Markets: The Role of
Intermediaries in Marketing Rural Tourism Products. Development Policy Review,
2004, 22 (5): 497-514
Foucat, V.S.A. (2002) Community-based ecotourism management moving towards
sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002)
511529
France, L. (ed) (1997) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London,
Earthscan Publications Limited.
Galaski, K. (2008) Community-Based Tourism for Sustainable Development in the
Alexander Skutch Biological Corridor, Southern Costa Rica. Unpublished Major Paper
for degree of Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Garrod, B. (2003) Local Participation in the Planning and Management of
Ecotourism: A Revised Model Approach. J ournal of Ecotourism Vol 2 (1) pp 33-53.
GoNomad.com (undated) Up the River: A Lesson in Community-Based Ecotourism in
Panama
Goodwin, H. & Santilli, R. (2009) Community-Based Tourism: a success? ICRT & GTZ.
Available from <http://www.haroldgoodwin.info/uploads/CBTaSuccessPubpdf.pdf>
[Accessed April 2009].
Goodwin, H. (1998) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination. DFID/DETR
Workshop Discussion Paper.
Goodwin, H. (2005) Pro-Poor Tourism: Principles, Methodologies and Mainstreaming
Key Note Address to International Conference on Pro-Poor Tourism Mechanisms
and Mainstreaming, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 4-6 May 2005. Available from
<http://propoortourism.org.uk/Publications%20by%20partnership/HG_Melaka_presentatio
n.pdf>[Accessed 2 February 2009]
Goodwin, H. (2006a) Community based tourism failing to deliver? ID21.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

42
Goodwin, H. (2006b) Measuring and reporting the impact of tourism on poverty.
Paper for Cutting Edge Research in Tourism New Directions, Challenges and
Applications School of Management, University of Surrey, UK
Goodwin, H. (2007) Indigenous tourism and poverty reduction. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T.
(eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford,
Butterworth Heinemann.
Goodwin, H. (2008) Tourism, local economic development, and poverty reduction.
Applied Research in Economic Development, vol.5, issue 3, December 2008 pp 55-64.
Goodwin, H. (2009) Reflections on 10 years of pro-poor tourism. J ournal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1 (1) March 2009: 90-94.
Greenhouse, C. (2009) Community-based tourism: Going native. [Internet] Ode
Magazine. Available from: < http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/62/community-based-
tourism/>[Accessed April 2009].
Gurung, D.B. & Seeland, K. (2008) Ecotourism in Bhutan: Extending its Benefits to
Rural Communities. Annals of Tourism Research Vol 35 (2) pp 489-508.
Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and sustainable community
development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Hall, D. (2000) Identity, community and sustainability Prospects for rural tourism in
Albania. In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and sustainable community
development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Hall, M. (2007) Politics, power and indigenous tourism. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds)
(2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth
Heinemann.
Halstead, L. (2003) Making community-based tourism work: An assessment of
factors contributing to successful community-owned tourism development in
Caprivi, Namibia. Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Namibia.
Harrison, D. & Schipani, S. (2007) Lao Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Community-
Based Tourism and the Private Sector. Current Issues in Tourism, Vol 10 (2) pp 194-
230.
Harrison, D. (2001) Afterword. In Harrison, D. (ed) (2001) Tourism and the less
developed world: issues and case studies. 1
st
ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Harrison, D. (2008) Pro-Poor Tourism: A Critique. Third World Quarterly 29:(5), pp. 851-
868.
Harrison, D. (ed) (2001) Tourism and the less developed world: issues and case
studies. 1st ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Hausler, N. (2005) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online discussion:
Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry Forum, 1-18
November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

43
Hawkins, D. E. & Mann, S. (2007) The World Banks Role in Tourism Development.
Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 348363, 2007
Hipwell, W.T. (2007) Taiwan aboriginal tourism: Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park.
Annals of Tourism Research Vol 34(4) pp 876-897.
Hitchcock, M. & Wesner, S. (2008) The SHIP Approach and its Value as a
Community-Based Research Method in Bali, Indonesia. Current Issues in Tourism Vol
Hitchins, R. & Highstead, J . (2005) Community-based Tourism in Namibia. The
ComMark Trust, South Africa.
Hitchner, S. L., Apu, F. L., Tarawe, L., Galih, S. N. A., Supang & Yesaya, E. (2009)
Community-based transboundary ecotourism in the Heart of Borneo: a case study
of the Kelabit Highlands of Malaysia and the Kerayan Highlands of Indonesia.
J ournal of Ecotourism, 8:2,193 213
Hollinshead, K. (2007) Indigenous Australia in the bittersweet world: the power of
tourism in the projection of the old and fresh visions of Aboriginality. In Butler, R.
& Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications.
Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
ICIMOD & SNV (2004) Developing Sustainable Communities A Toolkit for
Development Practitioners. Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV).
ID21 (2005) Does community-based tourism really benefit rural people in Tanzania?
Internet. Available from www.id21.org/rural/r1fn1g1.html
Inamdar, N. (2009) The Results are In CBT. Internet. Available from
<http://www.neelinamdar.com/the-results-are-incbt>
International Finance Corporation (2004) Ecolodges: Exploring Opportunities for
Sustainable Business. Washington, International Finance Corporation.
International Monetary Fund (2010) Emerging and Developing Economies List. World
Economic Outlook Database, April 2010. Internet. Available from
<http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/groups.htm#oem>

J ackson, G. & Morpeth, N. (2000) Local Agenda 21 Reclaiming community ownership
in tourism or stalled process? In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and
sustainable community development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
J ohnston, A.M. (2003) Self-determination: Exercising Indigenous Rights in Tourism.
In Singh, S, Timothy, D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination
Communities. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
J ones (2005) Community-Based Ecotourism. The Significance of Social Capital.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 32(2) pp 303-324.
Kamsma, T. & Bras, K. (2000) Gili Trawangan from desert island to marginal
paradise. In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and sustainable community
development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

44
Kantamaturapoj, K. (2008) Impacts of Community Based Tourism in Thailand: A case
study of Plai Pong Pang Village, Samutsongkram Province.
Katz, L. (ed) (2009) The Guardian Green Travel Guide How to plan your ideal break.
London, Guardian Books.
Keiser, H (2009) Contribution to discussion, Seminar, Making better places for people to
live in. World Travel Market, London 2009.
Keith, H. (2009) Contribution to discussion, Seminar, Tourism and Social
Responsibility: Increasing your Profit by Doing Good. World Travel Market, London
2009.

Kibicho, Wanjohi (2008) Community-based Tourism: A Factor-Cluster Segmentation
Approach. J ournal of Sustainable Tourism,16:2,211 231
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity
conservation funds?
Lepp, A. (2008) Attitudes Towards Initial Tourism Development in a Community With
No Prior Tourism Experience: The Case of Bigodi, Uganda. J ournal of Sustainable
Tourism,16:1,5 22
Li, W. (2006) Community Decision Making Participation in Development. Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol 33(1) pp 132-143.
Li, Y. (2004) Exploring Community Tourism in China: The Case of Nanshan Cultural
Tourism Zone. J ournal of Sustainable Tourism,12:3,175 193
Limbu, P. (ed) (2004) Developing Sustainable Communities a Toolkit for
Development Practitioners. ICIMOD & SNV/Nepal.
Lorimer, K. (2006) Code Green Experiences of a Lifetime. Victoria, Australia, Lonely
Planet Publications Pty Limited.
Macan-Markar, M. (2008) Another Way. New Internationalist, Issue 409
MacLeod Farley, R. (2005) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online
discussion: Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry
Forum, 1-18 November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
Mader, R. (undated) Exploring Ecotourism [Internet], Planeta. Available from:
http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/etour.html [Accessed 26 J anuary 2011].
Mader, R. (2005) in Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online discussion:
Communities and SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry Forum, 1-18
November 2005, pp 67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
Makela, A-M. (2009) Contribution to discussion, Seminar, Tourism and Social
Responsibility: Increasing your Profit by Doing Good. World Travel Market, London
2009.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

45

Marris, G. (2001) Monitoring the Success and Impacts of Community-Based
Ecotourism. A Manual for Ecotourism Guides and Managers. UNESCO Nam Ha Eco-
tourism Project Luang Namtha Lao PDR.
Mbaiwa, J .E. (2008) The Realities of Ecotourism Development in Botswana. In
Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and
Development. London, Earthscan.
McGehee & Kline, (2008) Entrepreneurship and the Rural Tourism Industry: a Primer.
In Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development.
1
st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
McIntosh, A.J . & Ryan, C. (2007) The market perspective of indigenous tourism:
opportunities for business development. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism
and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Milne, S. & Ewing, G. (2004) Community participation in Caribbean tourism Problems
and prospects. In Duval, D.T. (ed) (2004) Tourism in the Caribbean: trends, development,
prospects.
Mitchell, J . & Ashley, C. (2007) Can tourism offer pro-poor pathways to prosperity?
London, Overseas Development Institute.
Mitchell, J . & Ashley, C. (2009) Value chain analysis and poverty reduction at scale.
London, Overseas Development Institute.
Mitchell, J . & Faal, J . (2007) Holiday package tourism and the poor in the Gambia.
London, Overseas Development Institute.
Mitchell, J . & Muckosy, P. (2008) A misguided quest: Community-based tourism in
Latin America. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Moscardo, G. (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development:
Conclusions. In Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism
Development. 1
st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. 1
st

ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: development, globalisation
and new tourism in the third world. 3
rd
ed. Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
Murphy, C. & Halstead, L. (2003). The person with the idea for the campsite is a
hero . Institutional arrangements and livelihood change regarding community-
owned tourism enterprises in Namibia (Case studies from Caprivi and Kavango
Regions). DEA Research discussion paper number 61. Directorate of Environmental
Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia.
Murphy, C. (2002) Proceedings of Workshops to evaluate five community-based
tourism enterprises in Caprivi. WILD Working Paper Series No 10.
Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. London, Routledge.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

46
Mycoo, M. (2004) Achieving Community-Based Tourism that Benefits the Poor in the
LWI. SEDU, University of the West Indies.
Nelson, F. (2008) Livelihoods, Conservation and Community Based Tourism in
Tanzania: Potential and Performance. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible
Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Nepal, S.K. (2007) Local level institutions in tourism management in Nepals
Annapurna region. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous
Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Notzke, C. (2004) Indigenous Tourism Development in Southern Alberta, Canada:
Tentative Engagement. J ournal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol 12 (1) pp29-54.
Novelli, M. & Gebhardt, K. (2007) Community Based Tourism in Namibia: Reality
Show or Window Dressing? Current Issues in Tourism, Vol 10 (5) pp 443-479.
OGorman, K., McLellan, L.R. & Baum, T. (2007) Tourism in Iran: central control and
indigeneity. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples:
Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
ODI & SNV (2006) How can governments boost the local economic impacts of
tourism?
ODI (2006) Briefing Paper: Can Tourism Help Reduce Poverty in Africa? Overseas
Development Institute, London.
Okazaki, E. (2008) A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use.
J ournal of Sustainable Tourism,16:5, pp 511 529
Palmer, Nicola J .(2006) Economic Transition and the Struggle for Local Control in
Ecotourism Development: The Case of Kyrgyzstan. J ournal of Ecotourism,5:1,40 61
Pantin, D.A. & Francis, J . (2005) Community-Based Sustainable Tourism. Annex A,
Appendix 3, of the Final Technical Report of project R8325. Sustainable Economic
Development Unit, University of the West Indies.
Paredo, M., Chrisman, J . (2006) Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise.
Academy of Management Review, 2, (31), 309-328. Cited by Galaski, K. (2008)
Community-Based Tourism for Sustainable Development in the Alexander Skutch
Biological Corridor, Southern Costa Rica. Unpublished Major Paper for degree of
Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Parker, S. & Khare, A. (2005) Understanding Success Factors for Ensuring
Sustainability in Ecotourism Development in Southern Africa. J ournal of Ecotourism
Vol 4(1) pp 32-46.
Pawliczek, M. & Mehta, H. (2008) Ecotourism in Madagascar: How a Sleeping Beauty
is Finally Awakening. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical
Issues for Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (undated) PCCI pushes Community-
Based Tourism to Help LGUs [Internet], Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Available from:
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

47
<http://www.philippinechamber.com/index.php?view=article&id=564%3Apcci-pushes-
community-based-tourism-to-help-lgus&option=com_content&Itemid=42> [Accessed 26
J anuary 2011].
Planeta.com & Epler Wood International (2005), Online discussion: Communities and
SMEs in Report of Ecotourism Emerging Industry Forum, 1-18 November 2005, pp 8,
67-107. Available from:
<http://www.eplerwood.com/pdf/Emerging_Industry_Full_Report.pdf>[Accessed 2009]
Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership (2005) Annual Register. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership,
London
Reid, D.G., Mair, H. & George, W. (2004) Community Tourism Planning a Self-
Assessment Instrument. Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 31 No 3, pp 623-639.
Relly, P. (2008) Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa Investment and Employment.
In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation
and Development. London, Earthscan.
Responsibletravel.com & Conservation International (2006) Community Based Tourism
Progress Report September 2006. [internet] Available from <
http://www.responsiblevacation.com/copy/community-based-tourism-progress-report-
september-2006>(Accessed May 2009)
Richards, G. & Hall, D. (2000) Conclusions. In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000)
Tourism and sustainable community development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Richards, G. & Hall, D. (2000) The community: a sustainable concept in tourism
development? In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and sustainable
community development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Richards, P. (2009) 10 Steps Towards Successful Community-Based Tourism (CBT)
Supply Chain Partnerships. Presentation to the Asia Pacific Ecotourism Regional
Conference, Sri Lanka, 7-9 May 2009. The Thailand Community-Based Tourism Institute
(CBT-I).
Richter, L.K. (2001) Tourism Challenges in Developing Nations: Continuity and
Change at the Millennium. In Harrison, D. (ed) (2001) Tourism and the less developed
world: issues and case studies. 1
st
ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Roberts, S. & Tribe, J . (2008) Sustainability Indicators for Small Tourism Enterprises
An Exploratory Perspective. J ournal of Sustainable Tourism Vol. 16, No. 5, 2008.
Robinson, D.W. (1997) Strategies for Alternative Tourism: the Case of Tourism in
Sagarmatha (Everest) National Park, Nepal. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The Earthscan
Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Rocharungsat, P. (2008) Community-based Tourism in Asia. In Moscardo, G. (ed).
(2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. 1
st
ed. 2006).
Wallingford, CABI.
Roe, D., Grieg-Gran, M. & Schalken, W. (2001) Getting the Lions Share from Tourism:
Private sector community partnerships in Namibia. Volume 1 Background report
and review of experience and Volume 2 Practical Action: Guidelines for the
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

48
Development of Private Sector Community Partnerships. IIED in association with
NACOBTA.
Rouson, B. (2005) Business Planning for Nonprofits: Why, When and How it
Compares to Strategic Planning. Enhance, the Newsletter of the Alliance for Non Profit
Management. Volume 2, Issue 1, J anuary 2005.
Rozemeijer, N. (2001) Community-Based Tourism in Botswana. The SNV experience
in three community-tourism projects. SNV / IUCN CBNRM Support Programme,
Botswana.
Rozemeijer, N. (2003) CBNRM in Botswana. IUCN/SNV CBNRM Support Programme in
Botswana, 18 February 2003. Available from
<http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/rozemeijer_n_005_cbnrminbotswana.pdf>
Rozga, Z. & Spenceley, A. (2006) Welcome to the Community-Based Tourism Market
Access Program. UNWTO, OMT and IOHBTO.
Salole, M. (2007) Merging two disparate worlds in rural Namibia: joint venture
tourism in Torra Conservancy. In Butler, R. & Hinch, T. (eds) (2007) Tourism and
Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.
Sammy, J . (2008) Examples of Effective Techniques for Enhancing Community
Understanding of Tourism. In Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community
Capacity for Tourism Development. 1
st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
Scheyvens, R. (1997) A Framework for Analysing the Impacts of Ecotourism on Local
Communities. Paper presented at the First National Tourism Students Conference,
Dunedin, New Zealand, September 26-27 1997. Tourism Club, Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand. November 1997.
Scheyvens, R. (2003) Local Involvement in Managing Tourism. In Singh, S, Timothy,
D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination Communities. Wallingford,
CABI Publishing.
Schipani, S. & Marris, G. (undated) Monitoring Community Based Ecotourism in the
Lao PDR: The UNESCO NTA Lao Nam Ha Ecotourism Project Monitoring Protocol.
UNESCO-National Tourism Authority of Lao PDR Nam Ha Ecotourism Project.
Schipani, S. (2007) The Use of Cooperative Agreements as a Tool to Underpin
Community-Based Ecotourism Development and Conservation in the Lao PDR.
Presentation to Ecotourism Global Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2007.

Schipani, S. (2008) IMPACT: The Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment
in Asia and the Pacific: Alleviating Poverty and Protecting Cultural and Natural
Heritage through Community-Based Ecotourism in Luang Namtha, Lao PDR.
Bangkok, UNESCO Bangkok.

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2002) 5
th
ed, 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Simpson, M. C. (2008a) Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives a conceptual
oxymoron? Tourism Management Volume 29, pp 1-18.
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

49
Simpson, M.C. (2007) An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on
community development and sustainable livelihoods. Community Development
J ournal Advance Access published 17.10.2007.
Simpson, M.C. (2008b) The Impacts of Tourism Initiatives on Rural Livelihoods and
Poverty Reduction in South Africa: Mathenjwa and Mqobela. In Spenceley, A. (ed)
(2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and Development.
London, Earthscan.
Singh, S, Timothy, D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination
Communities. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Smith, M. & Duffy, R. (2003) The Ethics of Tourism Development. 1
st
ed. London,
Routledge.
SNV (2007) A Toolkit for Monitoring and Managing Community-Based Tourism
University of Hawaii School of Travel Industry Management.
Southgate, C. R. J . (2006) Ecotourism in Kenya: The Vulnerability of Communities.
J ournal of Ecotourism Volume 5:1, pp 80-96.
Spenceley, A. (2002) Tourism, Local Livelihoods and the Private Sector in South
Africa: Case studies on the growing role of the private sector in natural resources
management. Sustainable Livelihoods in South Africa Research Paper 3, Report to the
Overseas Development Institute for the Sustainable Livelihoods Southern Africa project,
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton UK, April 2002

Spenceley, A. (2008a) Impacts of Wildlife Tourism on Rural Livelihoods in Southern
Africa. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for
Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Spenceley, A. (2008b) Implications of Responsible Tourism for Conservation and
Development in Southern Africa. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism
Critical Issues for Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Spenceley, A. (2008c) Introduction Responsible Tourism in Southern Africa. In
Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and
Development. London, Earthscan.
Spenceley, A. (2008d) Local Impacts of Community-based Tourism in Southern
Africa. In Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for
Conservation and Development. London, Earthscan.
Spenceley, A. (ed) (2008) Responsible Tourism Critical Issues for Conservation and
Development. London, Earthscan.
Spenceley, A. (2009) Contribution to discussion, Seminar, Tourism and Social
Responsibility: Increasing your Profit by Doing Good. World Travel Market, London
2009.

Steck, B. (1999) Sustainable Tourism as a Development Option. Practical Guide for
Local Planners, Developers and Decision Makers. GTZ and Federal Ministry for
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

50
Economic Co-operation and Development

Stoeckl, N. (2008) Enhancing the Economic Benefits of Tourism at the Local Level. In
Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. 1st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.

Stonich, S.C. (2000) The Other Side of Paradise: Tourism, Conservation and
Development in the Bay Islands. New York, Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Stronza, A. & Gordillo, J . (2008) Community Views of Ecotourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol 35 (2) pp 448-468.
Stronza, A. (2008) Partnerships. In Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community
Capacity for Tourism Development. 1
st
ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.
Suansri, P (2003) Community Based Tourism Handbook. REST, Thailand.
Sunalai, P. (2006) Community Planning for Tourism Development: Klong Khwang
Case Study, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. In J amieson, W. (ed). (2006)
Community Destination Management in Developing Economies. 1st ed. Binghampton,
USA, The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Swarbrooke, J . (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. 1
st
ed. Wallingford, CABI
Publishing.
Tamang, Y. (2007) Community Based Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal. In
Commonwealth Forestry Association Newsletter No. 36, March 2007 pp. 11-12. Available
from <http://www.cfa-international.org/cfanews/CFA%20Newsletter%20March%2007.pdf>
Telfer, D. & Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Developing World.
Abingdon, Oxon. Routledge.
Telfer, D.J . (2000) Agritourism a path to community development? The case of
Bangunkerto, Indonesia. In Hall, D. & Richards, G. (eds). (2000) Tourism and
sustainable community development. 1
st
ed. London, Routledge.
Harris, R. (2009) Community-Based Tourism. The Good Tourism Wiki (2009) [internet]
Available from <http://www.goodtravelwiki.com/thread/3309427/TRUE+Community-
Based+Tourism>[Accessed September 2011]
The Mountain Institute (2000) Community-Based Tourism for Conservation and
Development: A Resource Kit. The Mountain Institute.
Timothy, D.J . & Tosun, C. (2003) Appropriate Planning for Tourism in Destination
Communities: Participation, Incremental Growth and Collaboration. In Singh, S,
Timothy, D.J . & Dowling, R.K. (eds) (2003) Tourism in Destination Communities.
Wallingford, CABI Publishing.
Tourism Concern (undated) What is community tourism? [Internet] Available at
<http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.php?page=community-tourism> [Accessed
September 2009].
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

51
Townsend, C. (2006) Guidelines for Community-based Tourism in Rwanda. ORTPN
and WTO ST-EP, October 2006.
Trench, T, Murphy, C. & Thaniseb, E. (2003) Proceedings of Workshops to Evaluate
five community-based ecotourism enterprises in Kunene / Erongo. WILD Working
Paper No 26, J uly 2003.
UNEP & WTO (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable A Guide for Policy Makers.
UNEP and WTO.
UNWTO (2004) Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Recommendations for Action.
Urquico, C. T. (ed) (1998) Community Based Sustainable Tourism A Handbook.
Quezon City, Philippines, Accessing Support Services and Entrepreneurial Technology,
Inc. (ASSET, Inc).
Van der Cammen, S. (1997) Involving Maasai Women. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The
Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London, Earthscan Publications Limited.
Van der Duim, V.R. & Caalders, J . (2008) Tourism Chains and Pro-Poor Tourism
Development: An Actor-Network Analysis of a Pilot Project in Costa Rica. Current
Issues in Tourism Vol 11 (2) pp 109-125 [accessed online].
Vargas, C.M. (2000) Community Development and Micro-Enterprises: Fostering
Sustainable Development. Sust. Dev. 8, 1126
Walker, E. & Brown, A. (2004) What Success Factors are Important to Small Business
Owners? International Small Business J ournal Vol 22 (6) pp 577-594.
Wall, G. & Mathieson, A. (2006) Tourism: change, impacts and opportunities. 1
st
ed.
Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.
Wearing, S. & McDonald, M. (2002) The Development of Community-based Tourism:
Re-thinking the Relationship Between Tour Operators and Development Agents as
Intermediaries in Rural and Isolated Area Communities. J ournal of Sustainable
Tourism Vol. 10, No. 3, 2002
Weinberg, A., Bellows, S. & Ekster, D. (2002) Sustaining Ecotourism: Insights and
Implications from Two Successful Case Studies. Society and Natural Resources, 15 pp
371-380.
West, P. & Carrier, J .G. (2004) Ecotourism & Authenticity. Current Anthropology Vol 45
(4).
Wheeller, B. (1997) Tourisms Troubled Times Responsible Tourism is Not the
Answer. In France, L. (ed) (1997) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism.
London, Earthscan Publications Limited.

Wright, S., Suchet-Pearson, S., Lloyd, K., Burarrwanga, L. L. & Burarrwanga, D. (2009)
That means the fish are fat': sharing experiences of animals through Indigenous-
owned tourism. Current Issues in Tourism,12:5, pp 505 527
International Centre for Responsible Tourism Ocasional Paper OP 21 (2012)

52
WTO (1996) What Tourism Managers Need to Know A Practical Guide to the
Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. Madrid, WTO.
WTO (2002) World Ecotourism Summit Final Report. Madrid, WTO & UNEP.
WTO (2006) Tourism and Community Development Asian Practices. Madrid, WTO.
WWF International (2001) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development.
WWF.
Yunis, E. (2004) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. In: Goodwin, H. (2006)
Measuring and reporting the impact of tourism on poverty. Paper for Cutting Edge
Research in Tourism New Directions, Challenges and Applications School of
Management, University of Surrey, UK
Zorn, E. & Farthing, L.C. (2007) Communitarian Tourism Hosts and Mediators in Peru.
Annals of Tourism Research Vol 34 (3) pp 673-689.