Successful Community Based Tourism (1)

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.


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 models2, all of which are capable in principle of success3: it encompasses commercial partnerships and joint ventures to small-scale community-run operations4. However, it particularly stresses the participation by the whole community in the opportunities tourism offers5 - 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 tourism7 and to contribute to local economic development and poverty reduction8. 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 structure9. Through developing tourism, it is believed that communities can share its benefits10 - rather than simply enduring its consequences11 - and offer tourists an enhanced experience and an opportunity to experience community life12.

Why this study? However, although the concept of CBT remains attractive, it is not a panacea13 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 produced15 or of poverty reduction16. Previous research has found that unfortunately many community based tourism enterprises (CBTEs) do not succeed17; fail to produce significant benefits18 or do not last beyond initial external funding19. Specific examples include Responsibletravel.com & Conservation International’s research20, 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 results21. Goodwin & Santilli22 surveyed 116 initiatives identified by experts as successful: of 28 responses secured, 15 qualified as CBTEs, and only six were economically sustainable. Dixey’s research23 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 off24. However, success stories do exist25. Goodwin & Santilli’s research26 pinpointed six sustainable initiatives, and some enterprises surveyed by responsibletravel.com and Conservation International27 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 impact28, success criteria29 or on common characteristics “which could be used to inform decision makers in establishing future projects”30.


3

Although exact replication is not possible since this will depend on the local context31, 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 CBTEs32. 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 business34 in “a highly competitive service industry”35, particularly if they are to contribute to reducing poverty36. Epler Wood International37 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.


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 significant38. Dixey39 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 criteria40. Harrison & Schipani41 cite the example of the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project in Laos where one key objective was to reduce opium consumption in the community. Harris42 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 activity43. 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 activity45. 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-sufficiency46. 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-term47. 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 members48, which must exceed costs to all involved49 and ‘compensate’ the community for tourism impacts50. 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 economies51. 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


5

1.1 Origins of the enterprise Success can be related to how the enterprise was initiated52. Vargas53 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 community54 and “respond to its needs and capacities”55. Those enterprises which achieve success have commonly clearly identified achievable aims and objectives56 from the outset, and found ways in which to balance different and/or competing objectives57. 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 ensured58 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 assets60, perhaps natural or cultural61, which are attractive to tourists62. The tourism offering must be marketable63, of sufficiently high quality and inherent attractiveness to tourists64, as well as close to good local amenities, services, infrastructure, and facilities65. Good levels of tourist safety and health66 are also important, as are human and physical capital67. To develop a sustainable industry, communities need to appreciate the value of such resources68, have incentives to protect and manage them well69. It is also vital that the community has sufficiently clear and strong community ownership, access, responsibility and management rights over them70 to do so equitably71. Such rights may need to be legally enforced and strengthened72. 1.3 Location A community’s geographical location is relevant to success73. Key factors include accessibility and communications74; proximity to local and national markets75; urban areas76, existing tourist routes77 and markets (as opposed to marginal or remote locations), where the surrounding destination is flourishing78. 2. Local context The local context can help or hinder the development of CBT. Relevant factors include the local economic/business climate79, demographic features such as migration, employment patterns, seasonality, traditional livelihoods80 and community health and education levels81. While replicating success is desirable, CBT models must be carefully adapted to specific local conditions82. 2.1 Characteristics of the community United, cohesive communities with a strong identity83, 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-term85. The community must be well-organised86, able to work together, avoid / overcome power inequality87 and manage any conflicts/disputes88 to avoid vulnerability and the possibility of exploitation89. Community size and carrying capacity are also key factors90: 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 success92. The community should be under no illusions as to the competitive, sophisticated industry in which it is seeking to engage as a commercial tourism venture93. The community as a whole must be ready and enthusiastic for tourism development94 and 'buy in' to all that this entails95 - its opportunities


6

and costs96 - with plans in place on how it will avoid negative environmental, social or cultural impacts97. The community must have realistic (and if necessary, tempered) expectations as to what benefits tourism can offer98, in order to avoid disillusionment and low motivation if investments are not rewarded99. True community ownership means being free to choose whether to develop tourism100 and if so, the type of development 101, which it can manage itself102 and which is appropriate to its way of life103. The community must not depend excessively on tourism104 and should scale back or stop the enterprise altogether if it is not generating real community benefit105 or proves inappropriate106. 2.2 Institutional context A robust community institutional structure107, which is supportive of and integrated with the enterprise108, will best equip the community to cope with the impacts of tourism109. Prospects of success are boosted by committed, supportive, “educated and responsible”110 community governors and leaders111, local champions and entrepreneurs112 as well as efficient and effective decision-making processes113. 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 crafts115 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 pace117. Transparency and accountability118 – giving confidence that decisions made will be executed119 - particularly in the financial context, are key120. 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 heard121. Such structures, once developed and established, improve community-wide decision-making, capacity and management in areas beyond tourism122. 2.3 Policy and regulatory framework Success (or failure) can depend upon the local and national tribal, political, business, legal, economic and regulatory framework123 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 thrive124. CBT should not be viewed in isolation from other sectors125 but must be woven into supportive mainstream policy at the highest government and business levels126, with assistance and grant funding provided where necessary127. 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 legislation128, and embedded in wider social development policy129. Specifically, CBT can be assisted by policy-makers and public bodies recognising and strengthening communities’ legal status and tenure over resources130, as well as their ability to utilise tourism income for community benefit131. Unnecessary bureaucracy must be avoided132. Engagement and partnerships with the private sector on an equal footing can be encouraged by investment incentives133, infrastructure developments134, facilitating and enforcing fair agreements with industry135, assistance with market research and marketing136 for example through the national tourist body137 and transparent and straightforward licensing and certification schemes138. At a more local level, dialogue can be fostered between CBTEs and stakeholders139. 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 limited140.


7

3.1 Participation and consultation Most practitioners stress that practical involvement and prior, informed consent of the whole community141 is key142. There should be a broad, genuine process of community consultation, agreement and participation143 prior to beginning development to gauge community attitudes to tourism development. The results must then be acted on144, on an ongoing basis145, at all stages of the development146. 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 consultants147. Such community involvement must encompass management and decision-making148 as well as genuine community control149. 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 sharing151. True participation and community involvement152 means being a “critical partner” in the development team153 and goes far beyond mere consultation154. It must be active rather than passive155. Participation enables the enterprise to benefit from information gathered by and from the community from the outset156. This will assist communities to take meaningful decisions157, particularly on the type of tourism they wish to develop and the extent to and manner in which they wish to share their culture158. They can also meaningfully identify the advantages and disadvantages of tourism development and to utilise local expertise and knowledge159. Cole160 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 tourism161. Methods of consulting and involving the community must be tailored to the particular local context162, 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 like165, 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 industry168. Sound, for-profit business models are therefore key to success169. CBTEs must, like any other enterprise, incorporate “market principles and sound business strategy”170. Operational, commercial and financial viability is therefore imperative171 - the foremost of critical factors for success according to research on CBTEs conducted for the Caribbean Tourism Organisation172 - and must be comprehensively addressed before any development starts173. Epler Wood International174 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 CBT175 so that over-dependence on tourism is avoided176. The CBTE should either produce sufficient benefits to offset channelling resources into tourism177, or, preferably, generate income based on activities that are part of the community’s everyday life178, by diversifying and complementing rather than replacing or disrupting local economic activities and lifestyles179. 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 developed180. 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 sustainability181, and should be encouraged not to rely on tourism as their main source of income182. This should reduce risks and increase benefits, maximise local linkages and minimise leakages183 and improve community resilience184.


8

3.3 Business planning and development Early, thorough pre-development and operational planning is therefore essential185, from the “ideas phase”186. The CBTE must develop a business plan from the beginning187 which must have clearly defined goals and objectives188 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 distributed189. The speed at which the enterprise develops is also important190 – an appropriate period of time must be allowed for learning191, 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-building194. 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 resolved196, and determine the extent to which the community truly “buys in” to the enterprise197. Schipani198 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. Townsend199 comments that it can take around 5 years to develop a good organisational and management structure and capacity. Commentators advocate keeping enterprise development simple200 and low-cost, focusing on medium- and long- rather than short-term solutions. Long-term commitment by the community and its partners is also essential201. Activities should be on a scale and to a standard manageable by the community202 according to its resources and strengths203, to avoid disempowerment204 and boost local control by ensuring that the community is able to meet many visitor needs itself205. This can then be developed gradually as appropriate206 (see above). Roles in CBT must be clear207, “appropriate and attainable"208 and where possible, tailored to minority groups and those not already engaged in other economic activities, e.g. women209 as well as to key leaders210. 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 community211, and the availability of education and appropriate training212. A successful enterprise will have a real appreciation of tourists' expectations213. 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 world214. 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 essential215, giving communities the "knowledge and skills to determine and pursue their own enterprise development opportunities"216 and compete with mainstream industry217. 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 expectations218. This should take place in 'real-life' settings; e.g. by running mock tourism days or tours219. Community members should also be made aware of the potential impacts of tourism, both positive and negative, through sensitisation220.


9

Over-dependence on a single advisor should be avoided221; 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 community222. 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 it223. The strength of the community’s sense (and reality) of engagement, ownership, management and control can be a strong contributor to success224. Models should promote entrepreneurship225 and be transparent226. Community legal ownership, access and management of land and resources for tourism must be clear, established and strengthened227. GoNomad.com cites the example of the Embera community in Panama which controls river access to its village228. Tenure is central to success229 by giving communities control230, a genuine role in decision-making231, the ability to generate community benefit232, power in the market through partnerships with the private sector233 and the will to invest in a long-term enterprise234. The most appropriate enterprise ownership structure will depend on the local context235 and the community’s priorities – such as profit, empowerment or generating local economic benefits236. It may take various forms237, from joint venture to land leases to strategic alliances with an eventual transfer to the community. Halstead238 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 tourism239. Other models of ownership and control even in the CBT context240 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 numbers241. 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 / NGO242, and that this may be the only way of assuring sustainability243 provided that the community retains final control244. Such private-sector partnerships offer the community the transfer of capacity and skills, economic benefits 245and marketing expertise246. Most stress that formal joint ventures between a community and private sector operator are likely to be the best model247 in terms of “fostering viable enterprises”248, creating strong market linkages249, generating revenue250 and benefits from sustainable employment and income for the community and wider area251. Joint ventures make use of the respective resources and skills of each partner252, bringing private sector business acumen to the venture253 whilst ensuring the community maintains a management role254. Depending on community capacity and institutional arrangements, full control may pass to the community255, although in other circumstances longer-term strategic alliances may be preferable256. Establishment of a joint venture will be more complex than a solely private enterprise257. The “company philosophy” of the joint venture partner will also be central to success258. 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 enterprise259. It must respect local leaders, knowledge sources and decision-making processes260. However, success is not guaranteed simply by partnering with the private sector261. 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


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 benefits262. 4. Market access and product development 4.1 Market research There must be a market for the CBTE’s product263. Detailed research is therefore vital to realistically assess market potential and means of access to possible markets and sectors264, both national and international265. Ideas and their market potential266 should be tested and developed together with the private sector, especially tour operators, from the earliest possible stages of planning267 - well before development - and innovative market linkages developed. Enterprise development must be "grounded in market opportunity"268 and developed in response to market demand269, not supply-led270 or donor-driven271. 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 development272. 4.2 Engagement with the private sector CBT is likely to remain on the fringes of the industry273 unless it truly becomes an integral part of it274. 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 access276. CBTEs should capitalise on the commercial opportunities presented where significant tourist numbers already exist, by engaging with the private sector in those destinations277. They should not try to compete directly with private sector expertise278 but should instead provide complementary products and activities based on what is unique to the community279, to suit tour operators' priorities and tourist schedules and contrast well with other activities on offer to tourists in the destination280. In this way CBTEs can partner or be associated with larger compatible businesses and be supported and promoted by them281. These linkages are likely to require "skilled facilitation"282 as well as strong supply chains to connect CBTEs with their markets283. 4.3 Product development Product development should therefore follow on from effective market research284. Again, close engagement with industry from the very beginning is crucial285; 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 clients286. To succeed the product must therefore be suited to tourists287; attractive288; of good quality289; appropriately priced and commercially viable290 and meet market standards and expectations291. Successful products tend to have a USP / competitive advantage and offer a unique, authentic experience292. 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 success294. Even enterprises which are entirely community-owned and managed will require strategy input from others with appropriate experience295. Many different stakeholders296 have a part to play, including mainstream tour operators, tourists, government, NGOs, external investors, tourism organisations


11

and other public bodies297. Townsend298 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 resources299. There must be early, clear, transparent communication and accountable cooperation between stakeholders from the outset and at all stages of enterprise development300. This should encompass plans for the enterprise, seeking commitment from them301 and clearly setting out anticipated roles and responsibilities302 as well as effective means of conflict resolution303. This is all critical to success in generating trust304 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 conservation305. Clear, written agreements can assist this process306. 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 crucial307. Such agencies have a valuable role to play in the success of CBTEs through capacity-building308 and empowerment309, providing advice on livelihood choices, training, benefit distribution and the creation of networks310, advocacy and monitoring of outcomes311 and sharing good practice312. 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 bodies313. Donor strategy must be clear314, forward-thinking and “market savvy”; mindful that CBT is not solely a development project315, but must operate as a profitable business316. Historical third-sector reluctance to engage with mainstream industry must be avoided317. Enterprises must be structured on an unequivocally commercial basis rather than adopting a NGO structure, to avoid confusion over (particularly financial) priorities318. Donors must also communicate effectively with each other, to prevent overlap and to identify gaps in funding319. Whilst the long-term commitment of communities and their support agencies is vital320, it is essential to avoid donor-dependency, an all too common feature of CBT321. “[M]oney falling from the air” reduces community ownership, commitment and motivation and thus the prospects of long-term success for an enterprise322. It is thus essential that enterprise operation and the decision-making process are not simply driven by donor funding availability and priorities323. External development agencies must take account of local and national sensibilities and needs324, take care to avoid manipulating the decision-making process325 in any way, and allow sufficient time for true community participation326. 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 alliances327 with outside partners who are prepared to make a long-term commitment and investment328 – in particular incoming tour operators329. In many instances communities would be unable to generate benefits from tourism without the connections and expertise of the private sector330, 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 invaluable331. Success will also depend heavily on the characteristics of private sector partners; they must be stable332, responsible333, have a style and ethos compatible with CBT334, value the community and its culture as an asset and have appropriate experience of CBT335 and be cohesive and well-organised, with strong governance and financially sustainable operations336.


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 people337. 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 NGOs340, “local development associations, cooperatives and interest associations”341 and larger operators342. 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 dependency344. 5.5 Networks and facilitation Horizontal and vertical integration with other sustainable development initiatives345 through, for example, membership organisations346, local and national networks, partnerships, joint promotion, training programmes and visiting other enterprises can also assist success347, 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 facilities348, as well as being prepared for potential impacts349. A successful enterprise is also likely to have links with government, tourism and training bodies, mainstream industry and international and national groups actively promoting CBT350. 5.6 Governments Townsend351 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 enterprise352, “diversify the client base”353 and establish a stable market354. Once tourists are visiting, codes of conduct for both them and the community can promote understanding and successful visits355. 6. Operations Efficient enterprise operations are key to success356. For example, a CBTE should have effective systems for maintenance357, communication, marketing and bookings, dealing with unexpected arrivals and so on, good communication between communities, partners, and tourists358, 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 failure359.


13

Revenue received must be fairly distributed360 and salaries equitable. It is also important to have technically competent individuals with book-keeping, accounting and banking skills361 and the necessary financial infrastructure, business support services, networking, human resources362. Success is likely to depend on accessible and suitable forms of finance, support, incentives, credit and funds363 for an appropriate period364 for example for establishing, operating and marketing the enterprise365 and at key times such as construction, development and maintenance366. Long-term investment may be necessary367, but excessive dependence on external support must be avoided in the long-term368. 6.2 Benefit distribution Simpson369 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 CBTE’s business plan must therefore factor in the flow of benefits and their responsible and equitable distribution throughout the community370 from the beginning371. Such benefits should be collective and individual372, economic, environmental and social373 cash and non-cash374 and generate employment as well as direct income375. All these benefits must be spread as widely as possible throughout the community376, delivered as immediately as practicable, and thereafter on a regular basis and in appropriate amounts377. Benefits must be tangible378 and clearly demonstrated to the community as being fairly distributed379, through, for example, contributions to a community development fund / activities or by community earnings and employment380. The community must experience as universal as possible an improved quality of life381. Failure in this respect can generate hostility and resistance from those who feel excluded382. 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 community383. 6.3 Marketing and promotion Effective marketing and sales are key determinants of success384. A marketing strategy should be worked out from the very beginning of the enterprise development process385. Effective, responsible promotion of the CBTE product, its wider destination and any partners is also crucial386. Enterprises can benefit from coordinated "joint development and promotion"387 of CBT through supportive, robust marketing associations388 and by private sector partners389, local operators and other ventures390, market understanding and marketing skills within the community itself and proactive promotion including a locally-operated and up-to-date website, ideally with online-booking391. 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 exchange392. However, it is common ground that social impacts will need to be carefully controlled393 to avoid threats to local cultural traditions394, 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 culture396. Tourism and enterprise development must respect the community’s cultural norms, way of life and values397, 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 community398, sensitisation and careful visitor management according to carrying capacity, advising tourists on appropriate behaviour and helping communities prepare for the social impacts of receiving visitors399. CBT must be environmentally responsible400 and effects mitigated401 through careful management402 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 effects403. In this way the benefits


14

from tourism seen by communities should provide incentives for environmental protection and conservation404. 6.5 Enterprise outcomes - record keeping and monitoring and evaluation Many commentators405 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 data406. 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 community408. Finally, lessons learnt should be shared409, success publicised410 and data used by donors to critically review the projects they fund411. 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 defined412. 50 substantive responses were received413. 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


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 children’s 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 d’etat 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


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, Jumbo 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: Jumbo Chatupornpaisan, Jumbo 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.”


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.


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 Ecosphere’s 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


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 “k’ire”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 enterprise’s 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 Jumbo Tours when tour groups visit. It is managed jointly by a tourism committee and Jumbo 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


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 community’s 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.


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


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 Jumbo 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, Jumbo 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


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 research415. 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.


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.


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_Ecotourism_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 Journeys 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. Associação 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


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 community’s 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’


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 "Comité 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


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


29

should be based on the community’s 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 community’s 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.


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, 2006:128—144 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, Jim & 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 & Jones, 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


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 & Jones, 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 & Jones, 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


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:vii–ix; 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


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 & Jones, 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 & Jones, 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 & Jones, 2001:27; Dixey, 2009:11; WWF, 2001:7 270 SNV, 2007:7 271 Dixey, 2008:4 272 Schipani, 2008:78


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, 2003:244–245; 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


35

345 WWF, 2001:8 346 Ashley, Roe & Goodwin, 2001:6 347 Townsend, 2006:49; Doorne, 2004:5,22,23; UNWTO, 2004:39; Ashley & Jones, 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:vii–ix 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


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.


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 January 2011]

Ashley, C. & Goodwin, H. (2007) ‘Pro poor tourism’: What’s gone right and what’s gone wrong? London, Overseas Development Institute.

Ashley, C. & Jones (2001) Joint Ventures between communities and tourism investors: experience in southern Africa. International Journal 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: Namibia’s 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.


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. 1st 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. 1st 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. 1st 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. 1st 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. 1st ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.


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+Ethiopia> [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. 1st 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.


40

Colton, J. & Harris, S. (2007) Indigenous tourism’s 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. Journal 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]


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) 511–529

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. Journal 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_presentation.pdf> [Accessed 2 February 2009]

Goodwin, H. (2006a) Community based tourism failing to deliver? ID21.


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. Journal 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. 1st 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. 1st 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. 1st 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]


43

Hawkins, D. E. & Mann, S. (2007) The World Bank’s Role in Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 348–363, 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. Journal 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> Jackson, 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. 1st ed. London, Routledge.

Johnston, 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.

Jones (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. 1st ed. London, Routledge.


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. Journal 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. Journal 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. Journal 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 January 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.


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. 1st 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. 1st ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.

Moscardo, G. (ed). (2008) Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. 1st ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: development, globalisation and new tourism in the third world. 3rd 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.


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 Nepal’s 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. Journal 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.

O’Gorman, 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. Journal 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. Journal 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. Journal 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:


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 January 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. 1st 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. 1st 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. 1st ed. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.

Roberts, S. & Tribe, J. (2008) Sustainability Indicators for Small Tourism Enterprises – An Exploratory Perspective. Journal 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. 1st ed. 2006). Wallingford, CABI.

Roe, D., Grieg-Gran, M. & Schalken, W. (2001) Getting the Lion’s 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


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, January 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. 1st 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) 5th ed, 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Simpson, M. C. (2008a) Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives – a conceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management Volume 29, pp 1-18.


49

Simpson, M.C. (2007) An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on community development and sustainable livelihoods. Community Development Journal 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. 1st 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. Journal 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


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. 1st 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 Jamieson, W. (ed). (2006) Community Destination Management in Developing Economies. 1st ed. Binghampton, USA, The Haworth Hospitality Press.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. 1st 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. 1st 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].


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, July 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, 11–26

Walker, E. & Brown, A. (2004) What Success Factors are Important to Small Business Owners? International Small Business Journal Vol 22 (6) pp 577-594.

Wall, G. & Mathieson, A. (2006) Tourism: change, impacts and opportunities. 1st 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. Journal 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) Tourism’s 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


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.

Date post:	29-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	iliana-sanmartin
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times

Successful Community Based Tourism (1)

Documents