Primeras referencias de la educación en la legislación más allá del

The previous chapter established the context that paved the way for the inception of CBT, specifically the sustainable tourism movement and the advent of small-scale and ecotourism products as an alternative to unsustainable mass tourism. The importance of community and community tourism has appeared in the literature since predominantly the 1970s; for example, Telfer (2009) argues that an alternative perspective toward tourism development grew in the 1970s, suggesting that:

development also began to focus on community-based initiatives, stressing local participation and self-reliance […] tourism development has followed many of the concepts associated with the alternative development paradigm with respect to empowerment and sustainability. One of the pillars of the alternative development paradigm is local empowerment and this has been the focus of indigenous tourism, community-based tourism, ecotourism and the empowerment of women through tourism (p. 156).

Further literature addressing the importance of utilizing and involving the community in tourism planning and related activities continued to grow throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (see Cooke, 1982; Heenan, 1978; Loukissas, 1983; Murphy, 1983; Rifkind, 1981). From the mid-1980s onwards several publications began embracing the term ‘community-based tourism’ (see Anderson, 1991; Ashley & Garland, 1994; Dernoi, 1988; Haywood, 1988; Jafari, 1989; Long & Glendinning, 1992; Pearce, 1992). It may be argued the first application of the term was a result of Murphy’s (1985) seminal publication Tourism: A Community Approach. Murphy’s publication specifically examined the importance of community involvement in the planning and management of tourism. It is in Chapter 3, page 36 where he first introduces the notion of a community approach toward tourism management, applying the term and subsequent model entitled ‘a community-orientated tourism strategy’ (p. 37). In 1986, The Annals of Tourism published a book review of Tourism: A Community Approach written by Getz (1986). In the review Getz writes:

Section one concludes with a discussion of ‘Issues in Tourism’ (Chap. 3), leading to a model which gives shape to the rest of the book. It is entitled ‘Components for a Community-Oriented Tourism Strategy,’ and at its center is the ‘Community’s Tourism Product.’ This encapsulates Murphy’s central philosophical argument that the whole of tourism rests on its local resources and hospitality. The ‘product’ must, therefore, be based on the ecology of the host community and be self-sustaining, rather than exploitive. Surrounding the product are four prime considerations which must be included in the community-based tourism strategy (p. 667).

This is a good example of the actual term ‘community-based tourism’ becoming more prominent in the academic journal literature. Getz, however, applied the term as early as 1983 in connection to Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research Association in Banff, Alberta. Kontogeorgopoulos et al.(2014) provide a similar analogy, explaining ‘most assessments of CBT trace scholarly interest in the concept back to the 1985 publication of Peter Murphy’s Tourism: A Community Approach. Although several authors explored the community dimensions of tourism prior to this time…’ (p. 108). A further example of early explorations concerning CBT is provided by Anderson (1991) through his examination of tourism development in Canada’s eastern Arctic region. Anderson pays attention to the Arctic Islands of Baffin and associated tourist experience the locality provides. He provides an overview in some

detail of the Baffin CBT strategies and consequential impacts, specifically the role the government plays in financial support for the developmental stages of CBT. Of note is that perhaps Baffin is one of the earliest examples of formalized and identified CBT. Corless (1999) provides a detailed analysis of the development and associated planning processes of Baffin CBT. She details how CBT in the Baffin region resulted from an initial 1981 study investigating if the recent growth of tourism could better contribute to local economies.

Another early and perhaps more comprehensive study relating to CBT can be found in the work of Ashley and Garland (1994) entitled Promoting Community-Based Tourism Development: Why, What and How? This investigation, relying upon Namibia as a case study, examined the stakeholder perspectives of CBT, and how these perspectives or approaches assisted toward community involvement in tourism meeting the various local, regional and national objectives. The report concluded in a multitude of recommendations, chiefly policies for effective CBT. Apart from the scholarly narrative, the authors also provide an insight into the operation of early CBT in Namibia. Hobson and Mak (1995) also offer an exploration into early CBT that examined home visits and CBT in the context of Hong Kong’s Family Insight Tours. During the early 1990s we also see scholars identifying and exploring CBT in their Masters and Doctor of Philosophy dissertations. Examples include Woodley’s (1994) dissertation that investigated culture, perceptions and community-based tourism in Baker Lake, Northwest Territories, while Reimer (1994) investigated community development and participation in Pangnirtung, Northwest Territories, using the location to collect ethnographic data concerning CBT for her applied analysis of community participation.

To better appreciate the evolution of CBT and CBT research, Stewart and Draper (2009) draw our focus to the importance of CBT projects and resulting studies arising from Northern Canada since the 1970s. While their article focuses on the role of the researcher, the reader can easily deduce from the narrative that CBT has been operating and studied in numerous Northern Canadian communities for the past four decades. It is reasonable to argue that from 1996 to the present day, CBT enterprises have become more commonplace in many destinations, especially in the developing world. This is chiefly attributed to greater knowledge concerning the benefits of CBT as an alternative to mass tourism and as a tool to address poverty in rural and regional communities (Harrison & Schipani, 2007). Also since the 1990s, a far greater focus in academic literature has been paid to CBT, evidenced by the increase in publications and variance in investigations and case studies specifically concerning CBT and its various components (for earlier publications see Godde et al., 1999; Harrison & Schipani, 2007; Hiwasaki, 2006; Jones, 2005; Ndlovu & Rogerson, 2003; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007; Russell, 2000; Sproule, 1996; Wearing & McDonald, 2002).

Essential to this chapter and the overall thesis is to identify definitions of CBT in academic and technical literature. As with the majority of definitions concerning tourism and

hospitality, there has yet to be a universally accepted definition of CBT. I make reference here to a method I teach students concerning definitions related to tourism and hospitality. Rather than accepting and utilizing one definition, I suggest they consult numerous interpretations of the definition then identify themes common to all the definitions. It is these themes that should be utilized and applied to the relevant study. There are enough definitions to apply the same process toward an accurate understanding of CBT. This can be achieved through identifying definitional commonalities, and in turn provide a base on which to determine the essential fundamental concepts of CBT.

A logical commencement point for this particular discussion lies in the work of Tasci et al. (2014). The authors explain ‘community-based tourism is a tourism resource development and management paradigm distilled from half a century’s evolution of conceptual and philosophical approaches to resource management. Its ontology is embedded in the sustainability paradigm that encourages community participation for a more equitable and holistic development’ (p. 263). Early CBT investigations such as Anderson’s (1991) study choose to use a specific case study rather than a purely theoretical discussion concerning CBT. Anderson focuses on the Baffin Regional Tourism Strategy and the Community-based Tourism Strategy and further identifies that the aim for the CBT strategy was ‘to assist communities and their residents across the NWT in achieving their tourism revenue and employment objectives in a manner compatible with their lifestyles and aspirations’ (p. 216). Here we may have one of the earliest actual attempts to define the concept of CBT. A later study of CBT in Namibia by Ashley and Garland (1994) does not go as far as offering a precise definition of CBT, but they do offer a more developed explanation of CBT than Anderson’s (1991) article, identifying:

Tourism development in communal areas, where the poorer majority live, has potential to not only increase local incomes and jobs, but also to develop skills, institutions, and bring about empowerment of local people. Tourism is therefore a key industry for facilitating greater growth, equity, and poverty alleviation in communal areas. In addition, benefits from tourism in communal areas are seen by many as a key tool for building local support for conservation and sustainable natural resource use (and a sustainable tourism product) in the communal areas (p. 3).

Ashley and Garland (1994) also identify and discuss Namibia’s White Paper on Tourism, and its national objectives for promoting CBT development, chiefly 1) the importance that CBT provides benefits to communities through better welfare, economic growth and empowerment, 2) CBT provides benefits to conservation through encouraging communities to commit further to the protection of natural resources including wildlife, and 3) CBT provides benefits to Namibian tourism specifically as it diversifies the country’s tourism product and promotes long-term sustainability of resources. Their study also examines the feasibility and the

socio-economic impact of CBT enterprises in Namibia and in turn their findings have contributed to proposing a framework for CBT analysis.

From the mid-1990s onwards, as the study of CBT increased and CBT enterprises became more abundant, definitions and conceptual narratives expanded and became ‘scientific’. Blackstock (2005) examined a number of other authors’ definitions, concluding ‘CBT shows obvious parallels with broader community development and participatory planning philosophies, which also advocate greater community control of processes at the local level’ (p. 40). Rather than a specific definition, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) choose a conceptual approach and identified the goals of what they term sustainable community tourism. They note sustainable development for community tourism should be focused on the improvement of resident quality of life through the optimization of economic benefits, the protection of tangible and intangible community resources and providing an education experience of high quality to visitors. Reference is also made to the importance of connections with the broader tourism industry and a holistic understanding and practice of ethical implications, responsibilities and associated policies. The importance of transparent stakeholder involvement at all levels of planning and policymaking and good educational programs for stakeholders, specifically concerning tourism development, is also recognized as a goal. Jamal and Getz (1995) make reference to how CBT, if developed well, has the ability to overcome resentment between stakeholders concerning resource management. Moreover, it has the ability to empower the residents because of its ability to provide employment opportunities, and therefore improve incomes, broaden skill sets and make improvements to institutions. They do predict if the community is not involved with all stages of CBT they will be unable to share the benefits and contribute toward better management of the costs.

Hiwasaki (2006) also takes a conceptual approach toward defining CBT. Rather than offering a specific definition, the author explains the two contexts that CBT has emerged from being: one, the global activities promoting sustainable and responsible tourism: and two, the approach to link local communities with biodiversity conservation for the purposes of better stewardship toward protected areas. The approach toward defining CBT is also noteworthy, as the definition was driven by outcomes of CBT investigations across three countries. The author defines CBT through four key objectives: empowerment and ownership, conservation of resources, social and economic development, and quality visitor experiences. The footnote then explains ‘this definition has been adopted from the one developed in the collaborative research project on community-based tourism conducted in protected areas of Indonesia, Japan and Thailand’ (p. 689). Spenceley (2008) provided another similar example of this approach confirming the current lack of an ‘internationally recognized and standard definition of CBT enterprises in the academic or institutional literature’ (p. 287).

For the purposes of the Spenceley’s (2008) study of CBT in Southern Africa, three criteria were established to determine if an enterprise qualified as CBT. These criteria are useful toward the initial identification of what may constitute CBT. The criteria were taken from existing CBT enterprises and identified as:

1. located in a community (e.g. on communal land, or with community benefits such as lease fees); or

2. owned by one or more community members (i.e. for the benefit of one or more community members); or

3. managed by community (i.e. community members could influence the decision-making process of the enterprise).

It was acknowledged that in general, communities involved in CBT are:

• relatively remote from national centers of learning, economy and industry;

• constrained by poor infrastructure, in terms of roads, electricity and water;

• economically poor, with little or no capital for investment in the tourism industry;

• inexperienced and under-skilled at developing and managing tourism enterprises, working with tourists;

• rich in distinctive cultures and histories firmly rooted in the local area; and

• largely dependent on local natural resources (such as trees, medicinal plants and wildlife) (p. 288).

Giampiccoli and Kalis (2012) provide the CBT field of inquiry with a rich analysis of CBT, community development and local culture, critiquing in some detail conceptual and definitional explorations. They also confirm ‘definitions are always difficult to elaborate and are only partial. CBT has not been immune to these problems, and has been defined in many ways. In fact, some of the meanings attributed to CBT vary quite considerably from one another’ (p. 175). Reference is made to the importance of considering CBT as a mechanism for the development of poor communities and essentially can only be successful if the enterprise is initiated, planned and managed by the community chiefly for the purposes of achieving their needs and wants. The authors, similarly to others, also identify criteria to be considered when attempting to define CBT, specifically the importance of respecting local culture and lifeways in the community, the need to utilize external expertise as facilitators to assist develop human capital, the recognition that CBT is an informal activity and that CBT is to contribute foremost to community development and not be used as a major source of revenue for the national economy. The disbursement of benefits derived from CBT is also salient. Their narrative argues members of the community not directly involved in the management or operation of CBT should in some way receive indirect benefits, and benefits should be distributed to the greatest possible number of community members. For the purposes of their study, they conclude ‘CBT can be identified as a strategy for community development by means of self-reliance,

empowerment, sustainability and the conservation and enhancement of culture for improved livelihoods within the community’ (p. 175). Their definition does come with words of caution concerning the fact that the word ‘development’ is somewhat more problematic than the word ‘community’.

Other authors have approached the definition by exploring not what CBT is, but what is does. For example, Ellis and Sheridan (2015) write ‘community-based tourism (CBT) which, when well implemented, has emerged as an effective model to promote the development of sustainable tourism which benefits for all sectors of the community while protecting the longevity of the tourist product, and encouraging environmental and cultural conservation’ (p. 244). Their work also explains that CBT’s role in gaining the involvement and participation of the community with clear objectives toward ownership is a fundamental aspect of sustainable tourism management resulting in benefits for visitors and the host community. The authors also identify obstacles toward community participation in LDCs, specifically power imbalances, lack of experience, reliance on external aid, and comment that CBT projects are usually initiated and supported by external organizations, specifically NGOs. This theme is also explored in the work of Zapata et al.(2011), who argue ‘the development of CBT is strongly correlated with support from the NGO community’ (p. 727). They demonstrate their point, identifying that more than 60% of CBT projects in Nicaragua, where their research was based, were initiated by external organizations. Of particular importance in their work is the cautionary note regarding NGO support. They explain CBT projects initiated by NGOs usually result in a top-down development model, resulting in little contribution toward poverty alleviation, a short-term life span for the project, and corruption, specifically of the elites taking control of the benefits and excluding the poor from participation. Reference is also made to the location of CBT projects, usually located in poor rural areas often removed from main tourism routes and supply chains and lacking in the business and tourism management skills necessary for the long-term success of the project.

Both Goodwin and Santilli (2009) and Lapeyre (2010) utilize The Mountain Institute’s (Jain, Lama & Lepcha, 1999) definition of CBT, ‘an activity which through increased intensities of participation, can provide widespread economic and other benefits and decision-making to communities’ (p. 5). Goodwin and Santilli (2009) suggested this definition is very broad, preferring what they deem a more rigorous definition offered by the Thailand Community Based Tourism Institute: ‘tourism that takes environmental, social and cultural sustainability into account. It is managed and owned by the community, for the community, with the purpose of enabling visitors to increase their awareness and learn about the community and local ways of life’ (p. 11). I argue, however, that the work completed by The Mountain Institute cannot be dismissed as too broad. Their paper entitled ‘Community Based Tourism For Conservation And Development: A Resource Kit’ provides a rationale for the premise of CBT followed by four

key objectives identified as (1) the importance of CBT contributing toward the improvement of natural and cultural resources in the community, (2) the contribution of CBT to the community’s economic development through increased tourism revenues and the number or participants involved in CBT, (3) CBT must have a suitable and growing level of participation with the objective of achieving self-mobilization, and (4) the CBT product must provide a socially and environmentally responsible experience to the visitor. Goodwin and Santilli’s (2009) investigation also provides an important narrative toward a better understanding of CBT. The authors focus on exploring if CBT has been a success. They are quick to identify ‘there is evidence that the large majority of CBT initiatives enjoy very little success’ chiefly due to ‘poor market access and poor governance’ (p. 4). Their work concludes there is still much misunderstanding among experts and practitioners of CBT as to what constitutes a ‘successful’ project.

For a more contemporary exploration of CBT, specifically the key concepts, Tolkach and King (2015) provide a meticulous narrative of definitions and associated commentary. They commence by identifying ‘the term Community-Based Tourism (CBT) describes alternative forms of tourism development which maximize local benefits and advocate capacity building and empowerment as a means of achieving community development objectives’ (p. 388). Similar to literature previously identified in this thesis, they discuss the debates surrounding the concepts of participation and specifically community, noting that it is ‘frequently idealized’ (p.