ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Progress in Tourism Management

Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives—A conceptual oxymoron?

Murray C. Simpson
Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
Received 20 November 2006; accepted 20 June 2007

Abstract:

Tourism is simultaneously portrayed as a destroyer of culture, undermining social norms and economies, degrading social structures,
stripping communities of individuality; and as a saviour of the poor and disadvantaged, providing opportunities and economic benefits,
promoting social exchange and enhancing livelihoods. The aim of this paper is to introduce, define and examine the concept of
Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives (CBTIs) and identify the range of characteristics that contribute to creating the best possible
scenario for a successful, sustainable and responsible CBTI. The paper considers the roles of key stakeholders in CBTIs: government, the
private sector, non-governmental organizations and communities. It seeks to identify the critical components of CBTI development, the
potential problems associated with CBTIs and some of their possible solutions.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tourism; Community; Benefits; Livelihoods; Stakeholders; Government; Private sector; Non-governmental organizations

1. Introduction sustainability of tourism and of great importance to

Community participation (which can mean a level of
control, ownership or influence) in a tourism initiative
appears to be closely linked to the derivation of livelihood
and other benefits from the initiative to that same
community (Murphy, 1985; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun,
2005; World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2001). Murphy’s
book, Tourism: A Community Approach (1985) was a
catalyst for discussion in this area and provided an
important platform for debate and change at a key stage
in the development of the tourism industry. At a time when
leisure travel was expanding in terms of both visitor
numbers and the amount of more easily accessible
destinations, the emphasis on considerations such as local
initiative, a tourism product being in accord with the
community and local benefits being integrated into the
principles of tourism planning and management was
refreshing and stimulating (Blank, 1989; Haywood, 1988).
A community’s sense of ownership, feeling of responsibility
and practical involvement in tourism has since been
heralded by researchers and practitioners as central to the
Tel.: +44 7815 325 894; fax: +44 1227 831 575.
E-mail address: murray.simpson@ouce.ox.ac.uk
planners, managers and operators (Boyd & Singh, 2003;
Campbell, 1999; Mountain Agenda, 1999; Olsen, 1997;
Page & Dowling, 2002; Ross & Wall, 1999; United Nations
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 2004a, 2004b).
Murphy’s (1985) publication emphasized the necessity
for communities to relate tourism development to local
needs and formed the basis for numerous later studies on
the various relationships between tourism and communities
(Richards & Hall, 2000). Peter and Ann Murphy published
a sequel to the 1985 volume in 2004, Strategic Management
for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gap, which aimed
to build on the success of the first book by advocating a
more business-orientated approach to tourism that would
encourage greater collaboration between stakeholders. The
change in focus of the 2004 book, perhaps reflects Peter
Murphy’s move from the discipline of Geography to a
Faculty of Business and his subsequent work in that the
publication approaches the relationship between tourism
and communities from the point of view that communities
will be better positioned ‘yif they allow their actions to be
guided by key business management principles and adopt a
strategic management focus.’
Murphy and Murphy (2004) suggest four functions of
business management (planning, organizing, leadership

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
and controlling) and present a combined business manage-
ment and collaborative planning model for tourism
development. They argue that by adopting the business
principles outlined in the book communities will be better
placed to develop tourism potential and benefit in the
global marketplace. The publication provoked strong
reactions and stimulated a significant exchange of views
(Murphy, 2007; Prentice, 2007). Prentice (2007) went as far
as suggesting that the book was contradictory and
uncritical in its presentation of the four functions, and
that the model presented for ‘bridging stakeholder gaps’
needed more application and thorough testing before it
could be claimed to be a paradigm. Murphy (2007)
responded by reasserting that the four key business
management functions presented in the book are an
artificial division of what should be regarded as a
continuous management process. Furthermore, he pro-
vided a clarification of the synergies that exist between
regular business and community tourism management and
that there were four case studies examining the model and
its major component parts, ‘bringing depth, reality and
credibility to the text’.
Regardless of the strengths and/or weaknesses of
Murphy and Murphy’s book (2004), clearly the debates
surrounding the relationships between tourism, commu-
nities and development have evolved significantly since
1985 and now incorporate the examination of a range of
topics such as typologies of participation, development and
planning paradigms, tourism management practices, im-
pacts and changes to livelihood assets, the role of
stakeholders, and tourism initiative ownership structures
(Ashley, 2000; Beeton, 2006; Hall, 2003; Hawkins & Mann,
2007; Mbaiwa, 2005; Prentice, 1993; Pretty, 1995; Ryan,
2002; Simmons, 1994; Tosun, 2006). The issues relating to
the strengthening of communities and their livelihoods
through tourism are important and require further
analysis; for example, how essential is community partici-
pation, ownership or control to the delivery of benefits to
the community from a tourism initiative? and what role do
other stakeholders play in enhancing and conveying
benefits to the community? This paper introduces and
examines the concept of Community Benefit Tourism
Initiatives (CBTIs) to explore and address these issues.
There are fundamental differences between a CBTI and
other types of tourism; one of a CBTI’s defining principles
is the transfer of benefits to a community regardless of
location, instigation, size, level of wealth, involvement,
ownership or control. For example the interpretation and
definitions of community ‘based’ tourism centre on the
question of ownership, management and/or control of
tourism projects (Lea, 1988; Scheyvens, 1999; Suansri,
2003; World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2001). This is not the
case for a CBTI; to distribute benefits to a community, the
tourism initiative need not always involve the community
in any rights, tenure or control of the project (Ahmad,
2001; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Li, 2006; Nelson, 2000).
Ideally, community participation, control or a level of
ownership should be aimed for, if only to ensure delivery of
the appropriate proportion and type of benefits to the
relevant community (Midgley, 1986; Scheyvens, 2002;
Tosun & Timothy, 2003; Tosun, 2005). However, involve-
ment of the community may not only prove difficult but
may also cause problems in achieving the goal of benefit
delivery, aggravating and creating internal conflicts and
jealousies, and creating unrealistic expectations (Black-
stock, 2005; Murphy, 2003; Tosun, 2000; Weaver, 1998).
Where CBTIs occur they may or may not draw on
elements and characteristics of other types of tourism such
as Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) (Ashley, Boyd, & Goodwin,
2000) and Ecotourism (Goodwin, 1996; Page & Dowling,
2002), but CBTI’s aims and objectives lie in the end result
for the community. The concept of CBTIs is only similar to
the concepts of PPT and community ‘based’ tourism in that
a CBTI focuses on delivering livelihood and other benefits
as a result of a tourism enterprise. For example, CBTIs are
significantly different from PPT in many ways: a CBTI is
not exclusive and does not have a narrow focus (i.e.
poverty alleviation); CBTIs are concerned with an identi-
fied community not just the poor and make no value
judgments about who the poor are; CBTIs consider the
wider socio-economic context and are designed to convey
benefits to the community as a whole not just to a
predefined section of society. Whereas PPT predominantly
occurs in developing countries or regions such as sub-
saharan Africa, CBTIs are appropriate in any country or
any region in the world whether it is in the northern or the
southern hemisphere.
In addition, the concept of CBTIs and its principles are
highly relevant to the management and operation of all
tourism initiatives as they emphasize the role of tourism
stakeholders (e.g. industry, governments and non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs)) in managing tourism in its
many forms and they take account of, and addresses the
needs of communities in all situations and in all environ-
ments. In many situations, it may not be sufficient or
effective for key tourism stakeholders to consider only
particular segments of society such as the poor: tourism
can be of benefit to communities at large in all settings and
should be considered, where appropriate, in this wider
perspective.
Moreover the concept of a CBTI, by stressing that it is
not essential for a community to be directly involved in
tourism management or ownership, gives governments,
industry and NGOs the latitude and potential to be able to
design and deliver benefits to a community without the
‘baggage’ that can come with community involvement in
the decision-making processes. Due to reasons such as
management expediency, financial control, legal con-
straints and simplicity of operation some tourism investors,
operators and industry stakeholders may be wary,
concerned or even fearful of including a community
and its representatives as shareholders or decision makers
in a tourism initiative. This apprehension may deter a
potentially benevolent tourism stakeholder from directly or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
indirectly contributing to the community. Armed with the
knowledge and principles of CBTIs stakeholders may be
more willing to embrace the activities that can ensure the
delivery of appropriate and proportionate benefits to the
community. In some cases key stakeholders may not have
the skills, the time or the inclination to involve a
community in the initiative. Nevertheless, if the community
has no involvement in the initiative it does not mean that
the community will not benefit.
A primary concern of a CBTI is the action of conveying
net livelihood and economic, social and/or environmental
benefits to communities and their members’ in a respon-
sible and sustainable manner. These benefits can be said to
Table 1
Positive characteristics and the benefits of CBTIs
Economic
 Direct employment opportunities (including, administration, guiding,
tours and transport, construction, hospitality, management,
accommodation shopping, food and beverage outlets)
 Indirect employment opportunities (including, environmental
management, entrepreneurs, other secondary industries)
 Supports the development of multi-sector or mono-sector non-profit
enterprises (benefiting/controlled or strongly influenced by
communities
 Provides invigoration and development to local economies
 Provides alternatives to changing or fading traditional industries
 Increases land values, and thus rates payable to council for community
services
Evironmental
 Improves environment (changes in subsistence leading to less
degradation of natural resources)
 Encourages awareness and appreciation by the community of natural
assets and the environment and other resources on which tourism relies
 Enhances management and stewardship of natural resources
Socio-cultural
 Provides and stimulates infrastructure development (roads,
communications, healthcare, education, public transport, access to
drinking water and food supplies)
 Increases safety and security
 Facilitates workforce development (e.g. rights and conditions)
 Fosters civic pride (in community, culture, heritage, natural resources
and infrastructure)
 Mutually beneficial (to all stakeholders in the community)
 Creates opportunities (broadening of idea horizons)
 Promotes cultural understanding
 Preserves cultural and social heritage and local languages or dialects
 Supports and preserves local and unique crafts and skills
 Creates a sense of well-being
 Promotes greater cross-institutional understanding
 Appreciation of cross-stakeholder goals and agendas
Building of skills and influence
 Influencing and enforcing government policy (national, regional and
local)
 Skills enhancement (training; such as administrative, service industry,
maintenance, guiding)
 Building capacity collectively and individually
 Fosters empowerment: gender and community; social, financial,
political and psychological
3
fall into four broad categories; economic, environmental,
socio-cultural and the building of skills and influence
(Table 1). These categories are not mutually exclusive and
despite the categorizations the benefits and their ‘on-flows’
cross the established boundaries.
The inclusion and involvement of communities in the
ownership or planning of a tourism initiative, whilst
perhaps building greater appreciation and understanding
of the people, their needs and culture, associations with
overall sustainability and making the delivery of benefits
more likely certainly does not guarantee tangible livelihood
and economic gains to the community. Nor is active local
participation in a tourism initiative a precondition for
benefits reaching communities and local employment and
other benefits are at times secured at the expense of local
initiation and control (Ahmad, 2001; Dwyer & Edwards,
2000; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Li, 2006; Nelson, 2000).
In fact, the result of focusing primarily on institutional
structure and community involvement may create compla-
cency on the part of the community and other partners
involved in the governance of the initiative including
government agencies, the private sector and NGOs. This
collective comfort zone created by participation of the
community in the processes of the tourism initiative
detracts from the most important factor of the community
receiving benefits valuable to them collectively and
individually.
Potential problems can occur where communities are
heavily involved in tourism initiatives. Communities may
become subject to external pressures, issues of governance
and structure, conflicting stakeholder agendas, jealousies
and internal power struggles, and the growth of artificial
hierarchies and elites may occur, diminishing or under-
mining potential benefits to the community (Blackstock,
2005; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999; Tay-
lor, 1995; Wyllie, 1998). Despite this, community involve-
ment in the conceptualization, development, start-up,
functioning and day-to-day management of a tourism
enterprise will assist the stakeholders (including the
community), partners and potential benefactors to identify,
understand, appreciate and focus on those areas that are
most likely to deliver net benefits to the community
(Scheyvens, 2002; Tosun, 2005; Tosun & Timothy, 2003).
Participation of a community in the planning and
operational aspects of an initiative or within ownership
structures should not be overlooked and communication
between all stakeholders is important but these objectives
must not be allowed to overshadow or denigrate the goal of
benefit conveyance. It should be recognized that a tourism
initiative that does not have community ownership or
control can also effectively deliver benefits to the commu-
nity (Ahmad, 2001; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Li, 2006;
Murphy, 2003; Nelson, 2000). When the community has
little or no involvement in the planning and operation of a
tourism initiative, the community may still receive mean-
ingful benefits, as Li (2006) has demonstrated in relation to
the Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve of China.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
2. Some examples of community benefit tourism initiatives
The Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve is a UNESCO World
Heritage site and is situated in a valley in the Sichuan
province of China. The reserve is rich in natural assets;
many plant species exist along with a wide variety of
vertebrate species, amphibians, birds and other high levels
of biodiversity. There are a multitude of snow-topped
peaks while the valley contains waterfalls, colourful
primary forests and glaciers. The attractiveness of the
rivers and lakes in the area is enhanced by their unique
sedimentary geomorphology. The area also benefits from a
rich traditional culture that is primarily due to the Tibetans
who account for over 80% of the population. In the study,
the levels of community participation in tourism develop-
ment were assessed using questionnaires and the tourism
development benefits received by the local community were
also assessed using the same household survey. Li (2006)
found that whilst there was minimal community involve-
ment in the planning process almost the entire community
resident within the reserve had received economic benefits
from tourism in a variety of ways; direct employment in the
tourism industry, small business ownership or employment
in related jobs. Additionally, the survey showed that the
community also believed that they had benefited from
tourism through an improvement in their natural environ-
ment. Li concluded that this improvement had come about
as a result of the replacement of traditional means of
subsistence farming (causing soil and water loss) and
hunting (reducing wildlife populations) with tourism.
Kontogeorgopoulos (2005) argues that community-
based ecotourism in South East Thailand is only partially
successful and that it requires a number of quid pro quos,
amongst which the relinquishing of community power and
project instigation is crucial. Kontogeorgopoulos’ study
explores the trade offs that are necessary to provide
benefits to communities and one of the key issues
highlighted is the derivation of local employment and
other benefits at the expense of local initiation and control.
Using Thailand’s oldest eco-tourism company, Sea Canoe,
as a case study Kontogeorgopoulos illustrates that the
company employs between 45 and 60 local people
(depending on the season) and pays them well above the
national average, diluting the seasonality factor common
to tourism-related employment by paying its staff a
guaranteed salary every month regardless of how many
days (beyond a minimum of 10) are worked. In addition,
the company provides health benefits by offering life
insurance, disability allowances and full medical coverage,
and educational benefits through training in several areas
including instruction in non-English languages, guide
training, formal classroom and informal on-the-job in-
struction on the natural history, geology, flora and fauna
of southern Thailand. Not only do individuals and their
families benefit directly from the tourism initiative but Sea
Canoe also contributes to the communities in Phuket and
neighbouring provinces by spending over 98% of its costs
in these regions through payments to owners of escort
boats and transport vans, food purchases and advertising
payments to local outlets.
Kontogeorgopoulos states that due to the cultural, social
and political circumstances of southern Thailand this type
of tourism would not have flourished without ownership
and control being in the hands of foreign expatriates,
known as Farangs, the Thai word for foreigners of
European descent. The Farangs instigated much of the
tourism in the area and in the main were tourists
themselves originally. For Phuket and the surrounding
area these foreigners have been essential to the provision of
opportunities and benefits to individuals and communities.
They are well placed to provide the appropriate experiences
to tourists addressing needs, expectations and tastes.
Kontogeorgopoulos emphasizes that the Farangs are also
better placed to ensure sustainable, responsible tourism
avoiding undermining cultural and national issues to which
local people would have been more susceptible to such as
mafia intimidation, corruption and illegal and unethical
operational practices.
Tourism initiatives in the form of two lodges in the
Brazilian Amazon have delivered benefits to communities
despite the community having no level of ownership or
control nor playing any role in planning or decision
making. Ariau Amazon Towers and Acajatuba Jungle
Lodge are considered to be nature-based lodges they are
located in forested areas, have observation towers and the
activities conducted from the lodges are carried out in
the forest, and on the nearby rivers. They are not
considered to be ecotourism operations; however, as they
are lacking in their contributions towards conservation,
interpretation and community participation (Nelson,
2000). The community of Nossa Senhora de Perpétuo
Socorro, with a population of 167, is the largest of five
communities located on Acajatuba Lake and receiving
tourists twice daily, of groups between 2 and 30 people, is
the most frequently visited. Nelson records that the
community receive direct economic benefits from sales of
handicrafts, food and drinks and also from donations to
the health clinic, an earlier study in the area conducted as
part of a state survey, SUDAM (1999), showed that the
majority of tourists purchased something in the commu-
nity. On occasion the community also provides guides, for
Portuguese speaking tourists only, and the lodges provide
employment all be it in unskilled labour positions which
are generally low paid, seasonal and short term (Nelson,
2000). In addition, Nelson states that Ariau Amazon
Towers sells community handicrafts in the souvenir shop,
that both lodges provide diesel fuel to the community and
provide transportation and assistance in emergencies.
Residents are paid to supply lumber for expansion and
restoration of the lodges, although this particular benefit
may be considered short-term financial gain but long-term
loss in terms of the natural assets of the area.
Some tourism revenue-sharing schemes (TRS) provide
examples of benefits from tourism initiatives being
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
transferred to communities without the community having
ownership or control in the tourism initiative. TRS
schemes predominantly occur around national parks and
protected areas and they centre on development and
conservation objectives (Ormsby & Mannle, 2006). TRS
schemes aim to deliver economic benefits to the community
in terms of a portion of tourism revenue, which is often
designed to assist in the building of infrastructure affecting
livelihoods such as schools, health clinics and roads, and
they aim to engender positive perceptions of conservation
and foster pride in the natural environment (Archabald &
Naughton-Treves, 2001). While dealing with serious
challenges such as the off-set of park creation costs and
compensation to farmers losing crops to wildlife TRS has
successfully delivered benefits to communities around a
number of national parks in different countries including
Uganda (Adams & Infield, 2003; Archabald & Naughton-
Treves, 2001), Madagascar (Ormsby & Mannle, 2006) and
Rwanda (Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks
(ORTPN), 2006).
In the case of the Iban and the Dusun communities in
Brunei, the results of Ahmad’s (2001) research reveal that
ecotourism at two national parks in the Brunei hinterland
has been beneficial to the indigenous communities that live
in the parks without the involvement of either community.
Members of the community have jobs in constructing and
maintaining park facilities, as nature guides and as research
and survey assistants. They have secured businesses in
selling food and souvenirs and providing transport. The
communities have also gained markets for local products
and benefits from improved roads, electricity and water
supplies. The communities have also shared their knowl-
edge with tourists and visiting researchers, stimulating
greater awareness and appreciation of their natural and
cultural heritage. Ahmad states that this has been achieved
without any ownership or control over the tourism
initiatives and without the participation of the commu-
nities in planning and decision-making processes.
Tourism provides challenges for communities all around
the world. When considering a tourism initiative conjoined
with a community often the initial reaction of commenta-
tors is to conjure up a mental image of a rural environment
in a developing country, a small island state or some other
far-flung outpost (Mader, n.d.). However tourism’s rela-
tionship and its interactions with community are equally
relevant and acute in developed countries and urban
environments. Over recent years, post-industrial cities in
the northern hemisphere and rural areas in developed
countries have been experiencing intense economic and
social change. Traditional industries have declined and
more and more regional governments and authorities have
turned to tourism to provide stimulus for regenerative
growth and benefits for their communities. This is clearly
illustrated by a recent initiative in rural Kent, South East
England.
In 2005, the East Kent Partnership commissioned a
feasibility study into the development of an East Kent
5
Natural Park (East Kent Partnership, 2005). The study
brief required the project team to explore ways in which the
natural and built heritage in rural areas of East Kent could
have an increased role in the regeneration of the region by
developing products to grow the rural tourism market in
the area. The consulting project team investigated oppor-
tunities for rural tourism development in East Kent and in
the process embraced the over-arching principles of
ecotourism including that of delivering ‘‘ynet benefits to
local communities, livelihoods and socio-economies suffi-
cient for local residents to value the natural, cultural and
historical resources within which they live.’’ The study
formulated and articulated a vision for the East Kent
Natural Park: ‘‘The enhancement of the rural East Kent
environment and the quality of life of communities’’. This
vision was to be fulfilled by the creation of two
geographical areas: a Regeneration Area to include rural
tourism development and a marketing area, where rural
tourism could deliver significant economic benefits. A
Conservation Gain Area which would consist of a wetland
creation area. The creation of these two areas would realize
the initiative’s vision through: enhanced conservation and
environmental improvement; creation of a stronger rural
economy and community; increased opportunities for
access to the countryside; and promotion of healthy living
and improved quality of life for local communities.
The East Kent initiative is an example of a CBTI in the
conceptualization and planning phases. The delivery of the
project’s vision specifically aims to produce benefits for the
community. It aims to ‘‘yadd value to the local
environment, generate meaningful contributions to the
local economy and enhance the livelihoods, quality of life
and well-being of local communities.’’ Community owner-
ship or control is neither the priority nor a requirement
within this initiative; benefits to the community are of over-
riding importance.
In Campbelltown, an outer suburb of Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia, the local government has sought to
solve the problems of urban growth, the conservation of
natural resources and at the same time deliver benefits to
the local community (Dwyer & Edwards, 2000). The area is
1 h by car or train from Sydney’s Central Business District
and has a wealth of natural resources and sites of historical
significance. According to Dwyer and Edwards the natural
assets of the region; rivers, gorges, bush and landscapes
provide the key reasons for tourism in the area. Activities
there include camping, bush walking, boating, gliding, rock
climbing and horse riding which draw day-trippers and
short breakers. Dwyer and Edwards identify and analyse
five different types of tourists and highlight the appeal of
Campbelltown’s natural assets to different markets. The
existing tourism coupled with potential new products offers
a range of benefits to the local community including the
long-term protection of the natural area. This case study
highlights the benefits to the community of local govern-
ment achieving the correct balance between a tourism
initiative, conservation and urban growth without involving
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
ownership or control by the community. The benefits in this
case include: environmental advocacy; integrated resource
use; employment in the tourism industry; sourcing of
tourism-related goods and services locally and; enhanced
linkages between tourism and other local industries. Dwyer
and Edwards also identify intercultural appreciation as a
benefit to the local community; leading to, among other
benefits, the preservation of the historical identity of the
region, the retention of the rural character of the region,
and the restoration of significant heritage sites and
buildings.
Dwyer and Edwards emphasize the importance of
bringing together the goals of economic growth, conserva-
tion of natural resources and the well-being of the local
community. They stress the need for local governments to
conduct long-term sustainability planning and put in place
effective management strategies that takes account for all
forms of resource use.
3. Key stakeholders and their roles in community benefit
tourism initiatives
In 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environ-
ment and Development in Rio de Janiero, it was recognized
that the tourism industry could contribute towards
development of the community (United Nations, 1992,
1997). Recognition and expansion of this theme has been
taken up by organizations including the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), Tourism Concern, the
Eco-Tourism Society, the Association of Caribbean States,
Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa, and by researchers
and commentators (Ashley, 2000; Ashley & Jones, 2001;
Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Scheyvens, 2002; Shah & Gupta,
2000; Sharpley & Telfer, 2002; Singh, Timothy, & Dowling,
2003).
Whether the tourism initiative is located in a developed
or a developing country it is argued that the involvement of
communities and a significant level of community partici-
pation at all stages in the initiative gives stakeholders a
better chance to have an influence in shaping community
development and to deliver the maximum benefits; it is also
argued that community involvement is crucial to the
sustainable development of tourism (Campbell, 1999,
2002; Jones, 2005; Murphy, 1985, 1988; Olsen, 1997; Ross
& Wall, 1999; Scheyvens, 1999).
Whilst there are various types of community participa-
tion in the tourism development process (Arnstein, 1971;
Pretty, 1995; Tosun, 2000) and the level and types of
resulting benefits may depend on the kinds of participation
that take place, community involvement alone is not
enough (Ahmad, 2001; Blackstock, 2005; Kontogeorgo-
poulos, 2005; Li, 2004, 2006) and does not ensure the
delivery of benefits. Interaction and communication with
the private sector; including investors, developers, planners
and managers from outside the community would also
seem to be critical to the success of any CBTI (Belsky,
1999; Murphy, 2003; Wearing & MacDonald, 2002). Other
key stakeholder groups whose views, opinions and
involvement are required at varying levels depending on
the nature of the initiative include: the public sector; made
up of groups such as national park authorities, national
and regional tourism organizations, national, regional and
local government agencies (including those with a second-
ary interest such as health, planning and transport); NGOs
including charitable bodies, pressure groups, specific
interest groups and conservation groups and; tourists’
representative bodies (UNWTO, 2004a, 2004b). Ideally,
where feasible, all stakeholders need to be involved at all
stages of the development of a CBTI to heighten levels of
understanding and appreciation, to enhance the sustain-
ability of the CBTI and the successful delivery of long-term
benefits to the community (Masberg & Morales, 1999;
Parker, 1999; Yuksel, Bramwell, & Yuksel, 1999).
3.1. The role of governments and their agencies
In developed and developing countries the majority of
government agencies around the world have historically,
for the most part, taken a back seat in tourism develop-
ment, seemingly happy to allow the private sector to drive
forward the industry in their countries and regions. They
have been equally happy to collect taxes from successful
operations, providing little or no assistance to struggling
initiatives. As a result, benefits derived by communities
from tourism have in the past been created and received
more by accident than design or in a few cases have been
engineered by the more philanthropically minded private
tourism businesses or NGOs (Ashley, 1998; Poultney &
Spenceley, 2001).
More recently, a range of factors have contributed to
government agencies taking greater interest, committing
funds and time to collaborative projects and playing a
crucial role in the planning, development and management
of tourism initiatives. The factors that have help to bring
about this step change in governments’ approach include:
the awareness of the importance of tourism as a global,
national and regional socio-economic engine; the potential
for tourism to contribute to environmental management
and enhancement; the profile of tourism as a tool for
international development and regeneration; increased
lobbying by industry, NGOs and tourism organizations;
and major attitude- and behaviour-changing events such as
the ‘‘9/11’’ terrorist attacks (which affected international
tourism around the world); foot and mouth disease in the
UK in 2001; the collapse of Ansett Airlines in Australia in
2001; and the South East Asian tsunami in 2004.
Governments are now more motivated to play an
integral and collaborative role in tourism planning and
management and the private sector requires government
assistance to ensure the sustainability of tourism. Sustain-
ability issues affecting tourism must be high on the agenda
of governments as government agencies have control over a
wide range of features that affect the maximization of
benefits tourism can deliver to communities. Government
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
has the ability to influence profoundly the positive and
negative socio-economic and environmental effects of
tourism. Land-use planning and land management, labour
and environmental regulations, skills training and capacity
building, the provision of essential infrastructure and social
and environmental services including health, safety, waste
disposal, energy supply and water provision are all vital
components in determining the type and level of benefits
derived by communities. The international tourism indus-
try is made up of largely small to medium enterprises
(SMEs) and Governments are also able to support tourism
through marketing, information services, education, advice
(promotional, financial and operational) and through
public–private collaborations (Hall, 1999; UNWTO,
1998, 2005).
To achieve communities’ multiple livelihood objectives
(Table 1) it is essential that tourism issues should be
integrated into all levels of policy (local, regional and
national). Government need to remove constraints, create
opportunities and foster supportive attitudes throughout
all relevant government agencies. Furthermore, policies
and legislation should be developed that enable the local
people to play a major role in determining their own
benefits from tourism. Communities need to be seen as
suitable partners of the private sector and governments in
tourism development initiatives and governments should
also be open to support and collaboration with NGOs
(Kalisch, 2001; Yaman & Mohd, 2004). The Declaration
from the inaugural Responsible Tourism in Destinations
conference in Cape Town (Declaration on Responsible
Tourism, Cape Town, & South Africa, 2002) emphasized
the importance and responsibility of local authorities in
providing benefits for both communities and tourists:
Local authorities have a central role to play in achieving
responsible tourism through commitment to supportive
policy frameworks and adequate funding. We call upon
local authorities and tourism administrations to devel-
op—through multi-stakeholder processes—destination
management strategies and responsible tourism guide-
lines to create better places for host communities and the
tourists who visit.
A good example of a government international devel-
opment agency, a government department and a commu-
nity working together is the small Suba fishing community
(around 100 families) on Olango Island in the Philippines.
Fish stocks had been dwindling and fishermen had resorted
to dynamite fishing (which was destroying the coral reefs)
and cyanide fishing to assure a more adequate catch
(United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), 2000) Alternatives for earning an income were
becoming fewer. The village was without drinking water,
electricity, toilet facilities and health services. Average
family income was a little over US $1 a day. The United
States Agency for International Development (USAID)
funded the Philippine Department of the Environment and
Natural Resources’ Coastal Resource Management Project
7
(CRMP) to conduct a series of workshops for community
members recognizing the communities’ objective to create a
tourism initiative from the region’s migratory bird flyway.
The tourism initiative was launched in 1998 and the
community cooperative took over administration of the
tour operation and formalized collective ownership of
the business in 1999. The Olango Birds and Seascape Tour
is now managed by 55 cooperating community families,
CRMP continued to provide support until 2000; organiz-
ing the community members, installing and implementing
operating and financial systems, providing on the job
training and marketing support (Kalisch, 2001; USAID,
2000).
3.2. The role of non-governmental organizations
NGOs have numerous positive roles to play in the
delivery of benefits to communities through tourism
initiatives; these roles range from investment and equity
holding in projects to capacity building, advocacy,
campaigning and consultancy (Kalisch, 2001). The inclu-
sion of NGOs as one of many stakeholders in the processes
and management of tourism initiatives can bring about
more sustainable and prolonged benefits to communities
(Jamal & Getz, 1995; Murphy, 1998).
NGOs have a vital role to play in building civil
accountability, consultancy, providing full-spectrum alli-
ances (increasing networking, resource sharing and ‘deep
engagement’) (Jepson, 2005). In addition they may take
responsibility for conducting important research, providing
funds for consultants, taking up equity, building capacity
within the community and triggering skills transfer
opportunities. It is often the case that the roles of
NGOs and governments in providing benefits for commu-
nities overlap, for example when considering capacity
building and skills transfer both stakeholders can and
should contribute, working together to ensure the best
outcome for the individuals and community as a whole (see
Fig. 1).
An example of government agencies collaborating with
an NGO and communities and addressing issues of
regulations and policy to facilitate benefits to the commu-
nities through tourism is illustrated in the Trophy Hunting
Project in Bar Valley, Pakistan (Yaman & Mohd, 2004).
Local and federal rulings which banned hunting were
relaxed and permits for ibex hunting were issued to allow
visiting hunt tourists. The three village communities in the
Bar Valley receive revenue collected from natural resource
conservation (provided by government agencies until the
project generates its own income) and the revenue
generated from the trophy hunting is shared between the
communities and the government (75% and 25% respec-
tively). The initiative is managed by a committee consisting
of representatives of the three villages comprising of five
hunters and five non-hunters. The project was technically
and financially supported by the World Wildlife Fund
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18

Land use planning Policy

and land Frameworks Provision of
Labour and and legislation essential
environmental management
infrastructure inc.
regulations roads and
communications

Marketing
GOVERNMENTS
(National, Regional and Local)

Information Provision of social

services and and environmental
professional services inc.
Skills training and advice; health, education,
capacity building promotional safety, waste
financial and disposal, energy
operational and water
Collaborative
Funding, tourism
incentives, initiatives
investment and
equity
Developing ‘bottom-
up’ processes;
assisting access and
communications

NON GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS Advocacy and
(International, National and Local) campaigning
Building civil
accountability

Full spectrum Learning and

Promoting ethical
alliances Research and training from
trade and corporate
consultancy global practice
accountability

Fig. 1. Potential roles of government and non-governmental organizations in determining the type and the levels of benefits derived by communities as a
result of tourism initiatives.

(WWF) Pakistan; NGO, and by the Pakistan government’s
Forest Department and Wildlife Department.
The potential for negative effects and zero benefits,
however, also lies in misguided and ill-judged collaboration
between stakeholders, and conflicts between different
stakeholders and their sometimes contradictory agendas
and are not uncommon (Hall, 1999; Kalisch, 2001; Li,
2004). NGOs have often been criticized when involved in
tourism initiatives for their lack of transparency, lack of
commitment and excessive focus on self-promotion.
(Mader, n.d.) Participants in ‘NGOs in Tourism and
Conservation Conference’ discussed the pros and cons of
the NGOs work in the field. According to Planeta.com
there was a lot of frustration with the NGOs’ lack of
transparency, and, perhaps worse, lack of commitment.
Planeta.com’s online event which took place in October
and November 2002 was co-sponsored by ECOCLUB.-
com, the International Centre for Ecotourism Research,
the Latin America Bureau, Mexicanwave, the Rainforest
Alliance, Sustainable Sources and Travelmole. One com-
ment that seemed to capture the mood was:
Furthering ecotourism development seemed to be a
tangential goal at best. Fund-raising and cultivating
donors were the main objectives (Mader, n.d.)
There has also been concern about the role that NGOs
can play in determining product quality requirements, the
socio-economic realities of the community and a lack of
industry knowledge and marketability (Ashton, 2001). At
times the experience gained by NGOs in this area has been
at the expense of community-focused tourism projects;
Mader (n.d.) cites from the on-line NGO conference in
2002 on planeta.com that at least three such projects failed
in two years. On the other hand in recent years interna-
tional NGOs have been building up knowledge and
experience in the setting up and operation of tourism
initiatives designed to deliver benefits to communities;
WWF, Farm Africa, Oxfam, CAA Australia and IFAT
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
have all not only embarked on capacity-building support
and community development initiatives involving tourism
but have actually taken equity and invested in CBTIs
(Kalisch 2001). Many more NGOs including the Tearfund,
ACTSA, Friends of Conservation, the International
Alliance of Indigenous Peoples, Survival and Voluntary
Service Overseas have also been involved in research,
advocacy and campaigning for tourism-related projects.
3.3. The role of the private sector
In 2002 through the Declaration developed at the
inaugural conference on Responsible Tourism in Cape
Town, South Africa, the delegates stated:
We call upon tourism enterprises and trade associations
in originating markets and in destinations to adopt a
responsible approach, to commit to specific responsible
practices, and to report progress in a transparent and
auditable way, and where appropriate to use this for
market advantage. Corporate businesses can assist by
providing markets, capacity building, mentoring and
micro-financing support for small, medium and micro
enterprises.
This statement illustrates some of the various roles the
private sector can play in providing benefits to commu-
nities as a result of tourism initiatives. The private sector
seems to recognize the issues of sustainability, and to
recognize the importance of the community as a stake-
holder in the paradigm of successful tourism, with the more
aware operators and investors understanding something
about the needs and requirements of the community
(Scheyvens, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999; UNWTO, 2005).
The private sector is more sensitive to the market than any
other stakeholder; this is of course not surprising as private
sector stakeholders are interested in financial stability,
remuneration and economic sustainability. The support
and cooperation of the local community is frequently
integral to those objectives and the path by which to
achieve commercial and economic goals may often involve
the preservation of essential natural assets, fundamental to
the tourism product, and the maintenance of good
relations with communities adjacent to or affected by the
tourism initiative (Beeton, 2006; Hawkins & Mann, 2007;
Roe, Goodwin, & Ashley, 2002; UNWTO, 2005; Wearing
& MacDonald, 2002).
Tour operators, though, generally respond more quickly
and more dynamically to market trends and to perceived
opportunities rather than to local social concerns at a
particular destination. This ‘natural’ prioritization might at
times lead to limited long-term commitment to community
development. It could be that by increasing the participa-
tory role of local communities in the tourism industry this
problem might be partly offset. This may serve to enhance
the long-term commitment of both the private sector and
the community themselves to the development of the
community and also in some cases to the protection and
9
enrichment of the environment, the assets, on which the
CBTI may founded (Ashley & Roe, 1998; Scheyvens,
2002). Appropriate tenure and/or ownership rights may
assist in protecting the community against the behaviour
and attitudes of short-term operators but it is important
that sufficient benefits are channelled back to communities
and that capacities are built within the community in order
that they may deal better with the perennial issues
associated with achieving success in the tourism sector.
Understanding and appreciating factors such as product
positioning, product quality requirements, operations and
scheduling, tourism marketing, and the industry’s distribu-
tion networks is vital if communities are to sustain their
involvement in a tourism initiative.
It has been argued by some commentators that large
multi-national tour operators’ ability to deliver benefits to
communities and their awareness of the impacts that
tourism initiatives have at the local level is limited by their
geographical location (decision makers located far from the
tourism destination), their lack of time and lack of interest
in local communities, and in the communities’ needs and
requirements (Swarbrooke, 1999; Timothy, 2002; Timothy
& Ioannides, 2002). Smaller enterprises may, notionally,
have the ability, interest and spatial positioning to be more
sensitive to community needs and objectives; however,
they also have constraints in terms of their focus on
short-term survival and a lack of resources (time, labour
and finance).
Currently there seems to be a growing interest, under-
standing and appreciation within the industry of the
importance of supporting communities, assisting in their
development and maintaining their individuality; a range
of industry associations, product distributors and private
sector initiatives now exist that include community
priorities amongst their objectives, such as: Association
of Independent Tour Operators (AITO); repsonibletravel.-
com; the Travel Foundation; the Federation of Tour
Operators; TUI’s Environmental Unit, Thomson Holiday
Code). These developments seem in some part to have been
encouraged by the growth in eco-tourism, nature tourism,
adventure tourism, cultural tourism and other related niche
segments around the world (UNWTO, 2004a, 2004b).
Other influences on the private sector’s changing stance
include pressure from NGOs (such as WWF and Tourism
Concern) and industry bodies such as the UNWTO
(Global Code of Ethics). The potential roles available to
the private sector and the tourism industry in the delivery
of benefits to communities are now also better known (see
Fig. 2) and ‘responsible’ tourism has become the vogue. In
essence a combination of conscience, pressure (legislative
and lobbyist), necessity and a desire for capturing a
maturing and growing market seems to have resulted in
more of the private sector’s attention being focused on
communities, their needs and the impacts of tourism on
their livelihoods.
The private sector may be best placed to identify
opportunities, realize the potential of a destination, drive
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18

Strategic Market knowledge

planning Funding, and industry
investment and expertise
equity
Training and skills
enhancement inc. guiding,
management, accounting, Donations to local
hospitality, and operational community bodies
inc. schools, charities,
conservation groups

Sales and
Marketing

Conduit for
The Private communication
Sector / Tourism with other
stakeholders and
Employment Industry networks
of local staff

Developing and
Raising awareness and enhancing secondary
informing travellers of the industries inc. food
importance and potential of production, arts and
CBTIs crafts and cleaning

Promotion of responsible Dealing

tourism practices to effectively with
stakeholders inc. community, the media
governments and NGOs

Lobbying and bringing Instigation and use of

pressure to bear on relevant relevant certification
local, national and schemes inc. green
international authorities when tourism accreditation
needed/appropriate

Fig. 2. Potential roles of the private sector and the tourism industry in community benefit tourism initiatives.

forward the development of product and adopt a range of
highly effective responsibilities to communities. The facil-
itation of the transfer of benefits, though, also lies with
government. Governments have a responsibility to foster
and establish an enabling environment for the delivery of
benefits to communities in order to minimize risk to
communities and encourage investment. In addition, where
appropriate, a milieu may be created by government
agencies that will allow the development of fair and
equitable partnerships between local communities and
private operators.
Consultation, coordination, partnership and collabora-
tion between the public sector, the private sector and
communities may lead to cosy feelings of inclusiveness, but
what is actually happening in the process? Who is involved
and who is left out of decision making? (Hall, 1999) Is the
community really benefiting from the end result of the
tourism initiative and if not why not? Are benefits being
measured and monitored? These questions are relevant to
all stakeholders and ought not to be asked only by
communities but by all collaborators in the tourism
initiative. Checks and balances should be established in
order to ensure transparency, inclusiveness and enable a
meaningful and robust monitoring system. After monitor-
ing, thorough evaluation must take place followed by a
decision-making procedure to refine and enhance the
processes by which benefits are to be derived by the
community.
4. Problems and solutions for CBTIs
Change generated by tourism is multifaceted. Tourism
initiatives do possess the potential to bring benefits to
communities (Ashley, Roe, & Goodwin, 2001; Mowforth &
Munt, 1998; Murphy, 1985). The same enterprises can also
present problems within a community, threaten its stability
and harmony, and trigger a range of other factors which
menace the economic, environmental and socio-cultural
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
sustainability of the community (Butler & Hinch, 1996;
Fagence, 2003; Krippendorf, 1987; Swarbrooke, 1999;
Young, 1973).
Negative impacts and adverse change as a result of
community benefit tourism can take many forms and
manifest themselves through social, economic, environ-
mental and/or political factors (MacLeod, 2004). Attitudes
and actions of controlling stakeholders can be interpreted
as neo-colonialism; other negative impacts include envir-
onmental degradation, destruction of traditional social
structures, alteration of local identity, beliefs, values and
politics, adverse shifts in power, the growth of unwanted
secondary industries and other sectors, the instigation of
negative attitudes to the environment, the world, foreigners
and women, and the commencement of unknown and
potentially detrimental business and employment struc-
tures (MacLeod, 2004). A selection of these and other
problems associated with CBTIs are illustrated in Table 3
along with possible solutions to the problems.
Should a tourism initiative start to deliver benefits to a
community, these very benefits may generate problems;
jealousies can be created concerning wealth and assets and
conflicts of territory both within a community and between
communities. A community rarely acts as a single unified
entity and seldom speaks with one voice, and when a
community becomes involved in a tourism initiative
internal division may occur as a result (Belsky, 1999;
Swarbrooke, 1999). These divisions foster potentially
destructive individual viewpoints and specific interest
groups, and lead professionals to over-value their own
abilities and importance and under-value those of the
community, sometimes leading to the creation of possessive
hierarchies or elites. These factors may serve to create a
silent majority undermining the initiative’s ability to deliver
effective benefits to the community at large. These conflicts
inevitably tend to draw in other stakeholders and partners
and disrupt the operation of an initiative, particularly when
employees are drawn from the warring community (ies)
(Taylor, 1995; Wyllie, 1998). To address these problems,
processes such as structured and regular communication
channels and participatory approaches could be put into
place to ensure that the views and opinions of the
community are elicited and taken into account. These
processes can also contribute to the cultivation of greater
understanding and appreciation of the community by other
stakeholders.
Power, both relative and absolute, is an enormous issue
for communities involved in and affected by tourism
initiatives (Hall, 2003; Scheyvens, 2002). Considering the
number of actors potentially involved and collaborating in
a CBTI, this comes as no surprise but understanding the
issues does not make overcoming the problems associated
with politics and power struggles and the exercising of
power any easier (Belsky, 1999; Hall, 1999). Day-to-day
struggles exist within the community itself concerned with
establishing and re-establishing hierarchies, decision ma-
kers and the recipients of benefits. The power wielded by
11
national, regional and local government can be exercised
deliberately or unknowingly to over-rule community
decisions and priorities. Governments may also make
decisions and decide policy that can adversely affect
potential benefits that the community might receive from
the tourism initiative. The balancing of power between
stakeholders’ will be difficult to achieve, however, using
communication mechanisms, implementing awareness rais-
ing campaigns and attempting to involve all stakeholders at
all stages of the development and operation of the tourism
initiative are possible ways to nullify some of the potential
problems (Beeton, 2006; Li, 2004; Scheyvens, 2002;
Swarbrooke, 1999). The various powers and influences of
stakeholders, collaborators, partners, competitors and
external organizations such as NGOs, tourism associa-
tions, along with other sectors and industries affects the
tourism initiative and hence the community (Shah &
Gupta, 2000). In addition to these quite tangible effects,
there is also the more nebulous power of the market and
the tourism industry to take into account (Li, 2004;
Scheyvens, 2002; Swarbrooke, 1999). Another set of
stakeholders who hold power and influence are key
property owners and decision makers on land use who
may live outside the local area. As a result, they may not
fully understand or care about local needs or concerns and
the decisions they make from their position of power could
therefore be at odds with the needs and desires of the
community (Dwyer & Edwards, 2000).
Fagence (2003) identified a range of potentially negative
socio-cultural changes associated with tourism initiatives
affecting communities, specifically singling out changes to
economic, social and cultural factors at family and
community level. Fagence describes the ‘demonstration
effect’ which results in members of the host community/
family units adopting tourists’ traits and behaviour
including desire for foreign and imported goods, ‘cultural
prostitution’ and the gradual homogenization of the host
culture. Along with these broad cultural and community
effects, Fagence (2003) summarizes influences on families
including changes in roles and responsibilities within the
family unit (Shah & Gupta, 2000). The wider-ranging
effects of these and other socio-cultural changes in the
community as a result of a tourism initiative may be
increased or changed levels and types of criminality,
standards of behaviour and increased hostility to tourists.
As with most tourism initiatives and the industry at
large, CBTIs tend to be SMEs (UNWTO, 2004a, 2004b).
In situations where the CBTI, being an SME, is coupled
with some of the stakeholders of the initiative being new to
the industry two key issues are liable to arise: lack of
market knowledge and lack of operational and marketing
budget. If the project stakeholders driving the initiative are
development agencies or NGOs, this may not assist in
resolving these issues. These types of organizations are also
notoriously ill-equipped to deal with product quality
requirements, and the promotion of tourism initiatives
(Ashton, 2001; Mader, n.d.).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
The marketing of destinations and initiatives that focus
on the importance of community benefits as a means to
increase visitation is an area for possible further develop-
ment, thereby increasing economic sustainability of the
initiative and the benefits derived by the community (Roe
et al., 2002). Whilst the internet may represent one
opportunity for marketing and selling the product (e.g.
responsibletravel.com), the more traditional travel agent
route should continue to play an integral part in the
initiatives’ marketing strategy and distribution network.
Great effort and a considerable amount of time must
usually be allowed (often a minimum of 18 months to 2
years) to secure inclusion and exposure in international
‘wholesale’ tour operators/travel agents’ brochures. The
stakeholders must be focused not only on the initiative, the
community benefits and the product; information becomes
outdated quickly and it is important that the new sales and
product information is communicated to agents and
promoters in good time for it to be of use. Prices need to
be provided to agents/tour operators at least a season (or 1
year) in advance in order for sales agents to be able to load
them onto their sales systems, disseminate the information
to other agents and promote them to travellers planning
their vacation up to a year before they intend to travel.
Packages and prices must make allowance for commission
levels and the nuances of protecting agents’ position in the
marketplace, such as established distribution networks,
should be allowed for along with raising of awareness in
these ‘sellers’ (Ashley & Jones, 2001; Roe et al., 2002).
In order to attract the attention of agents and tour
operators, who are key avenues for sales, it is essential to
have the capacity to deal with forward bookings and have a
stable regularity of guaranteed departures; it is often the
case that a departure once or twice a week or a lack of
guaranteed departures will lead to the agent not ‘brochur-
ing’ the product. An agent ‘brochuring’, promoting and
selling a product provided by a CBTI cannot countenance
last minute cancellation of departures due to lack of
numbers or tour guides not turning up.
To overcome barriers and provide truly sustainable
benefits to a community through a tourism initiative,
appropriate management structures must be implemented
and safeguards need to be put in place. No single
ownership structure or partnership will fit all scenarios or
destinations; in some cases a rigid financial and legal
structure may be required, in others more flexibility may be
needed (Poultney & Spenceley, 2001). To ensure that
people’s rights and responsibilities are not infringed upon
and to allow those members of the community who wish to
do so to continue to pursue their traditional links with land
and resources traditional skills should be enhanced not
eroded and a tourism initiative needs to complement rather
than conflict with the livelihood strategies of individual
residents (Ashley & Roe, 1998). Communication is a vital
element at all stages of development and operation of a
CBTI. During the establishment and negotiation phase,
open communication is necessary to create trust and to
ensure that agreements match the expectations of all parties.
This communication and facility for the community and its
individual members to express their views, needs and desires
should be maintained throughout the life of the initiative by
using structured channels of communication and encoura-
ging regular participatory events. Much is made of benefits
of gender empowerment and all other aspects of community
empowerment (social, financial, political and psychological)
(Li, 2004; Scheyvens, 1999). Empowerment has a role to
play not only as an outcome of a CBTI but also as a
component to be embraced prior to and during the set-up
phase of an initiative.
Whilst the community and its successful receipt of
benefits presents itself as being of paramount importance,
the priorities and objectives of other collaborators and
stakeholders in the initiative should not be forgotten. In the
development and also in the ultimate and ongoing
operation of CBTIs, the differing cultural and philosophi-
cal perspectives of the variety of stakeholders and
community actors may at times seem overwhelming. These
differences are not insurmountable and the importance of a
collective understanding and appreciation of commercial
issues, political influences, cultural mores, social structures
and community priorities is critical to fostering an
environment for a successful CBTI (Scheyvens, 2002).
Coupled with this is the significance of an appreciation and
tolerance of the agenda and priorities of other stakeholders
including those outcomes particular to NGOs and those
characterized by governments and the private sector.
Improving data collection and analyses of CBTIs and
their socio-economic impact on the regions, communities
and the private sector involved will assist greatly in
initiatives’ propensity to deliver the most appropriate
benefits. Improved accessibility to such data will then be
important to spread understanding and knowledge of
critical factors in delivering benefits to communities. An
enhanced knowledge of issues of policy and governance
and how to influence relevant policies will also contribute
to the ability of a CBTI to provide benefits. In addition,
where government provides structural incentives and these
incentives are supported by pragmatic and audited industry
accreditation systems, which assist in defining quality
operators and initiatives, the chances of successful and
sustainable CBTIs will be increased.
5. Conclusion and implications
This paper has introduced, defined and examined the
concept of CBTIs in the context of a range of characteristics
and considered the roles of government, the private sector,
community and NGOs. It has sought to establish the critical
components of CBTI development, the potential problems
associated with CBTIs and some of their possible solutions.
The discussion has rested upon the importance of delivering
benefits to communities and how this can be achieved
through creating the best possible scenario for a successful,
sustainable and responsible CBTI.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
CBTIs are equally relevant in developed and developing
countries. The critical factors for successful CBTIs are not
the location of the initiatives, the instigators, the types of
ownership structure, size, nor the level of wealth, involve-
ment, ownership or control of the community, nor is it the
type of tourism. For a tourism enterprise to be classed as a
CBTI, it must conform to the following; that one of the
primary objectives of the initiative must be the derivation
of livelihood and other economic, social and/or environ-
mental benefits to the community and its members. These
net community benefits must be attempted and achieved in
a responsible and sustainable manner and should outweigh
any potential costs to that same community (the ‘commu-
nity’ is so defined by the stakeholders involved in the
tourism initiative). Success depends on an increase in net
benefits delivered to the associated community and its
members as a result of the tourism initiative. The longevity
and sustainability of these benefits is paramount. It is not
enough for key stakeholders to consider exclusive segments
of society such as the poor, tourism can be of benefit to
communities at large in all settings and it is the
responsibility of researchers, practitioners, policy makers
and stakeholders to continually strive to raise the level of
awareness of tourism’s potential for communities and
thereby to contribute to raising the standards of tourism
practice.
Case studies such as the communities of Nossa Senhora
de Perpétuo Socorro in Brazil (Nelson, 2000), the Iban and
the Dusun communities in Brunei (Ahmad, 2001), Sea
Canoe, Thailand (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005), Campbell-
town, Australia (Dwyer & Edwards, 2000) and Jiuzhaigou
Biosphere Reserve, China (Li, 2006) highlight that com-
munity participation, ownership or control does not need
to play a significant role in the decision-making processes
of a tourism initiative for benefits to flow to the
community. Benefits occur for communities not only in
the form of employment as workers or as small business
operators; these enterprises resulted in more than just
economic benefits and included livelihood enhancements,
social and environmental benefits. However, whilst estab-
lishing that benefits can be derived by communities from
tourism initiatives in which they have no involvement, it is
not clear whether the appropriate, correct or most effective
benefits are derived by the relevant community. Mechan-
isms seem to be required to try to ensure that the right
proportion of benefits will be given to communities and
local people. When attempting to ensure that the most
appropriate benefits in relevant proportions are delivered
to the community it is desirable and valuable to include the
community in decision-making processes that link the
development and operation of the tourism initiative to the
distribution of benefits (Midgley, 1986; Mowforth & Munt,
1998; Scheyvens, 2002; Tosun & Timothy, 2003; Tosun,
2005).
Through the examination of CBTIs positive character-
istics and benefits (Table 1), the evaluation of possible
problems and their potential solutions (Table 2) and the
13
analyses of selected case studies, a portfolio of fundamental
components of a CBTI can be derived (Table 3). Certainly,
an integrated approach is vital and as the community is in
the best position to know its own needs and desires, its
involvement is required at some level. Despite this, it is
important to note that while viewed as potentially
constructive, conducive to providing benefits and useful
in ensuring the appropriate distribution of proportionate
benefits community ownership or control does not feature
in the fundamental group of components. Perhaps
perversely, it is feasible that potential benefits to commu-
nities can be diminished or undermined where communities
are heavily involved in tourism initiatives (Kontogeorgo-
poulos, 2005; Wyllie, 1998). Communities may become
subject to external pressures, issues of governance and
structure, conflicting stakeholder agendas, jealousies and
internal power struggles can be exacerbated or created, and
the growth of artificial hierarchies and elites may occur
(Blackstock, 2005; Swarbrooke, 1999; Taylor, 1995).
Whereas a vital key to a successful CBTI is interaction,
including regular communication, engagement, linkages
and commitment within and between stakeholders (includ-
ing the community), community ownership or control is
not.
5.1. Management implications and the future of CBTIs
The concept of CBTIs, and the use of the term and its
principles are highly relevant to the management and
operation of all tourism initiatives as they assist in
clarifying the necessity to take account of and address
the needs of communities in all situations and in all
environments around the world, regardless of the level of
community ownership, control or formal involvement in
the initiative. Management implications of CBTIs also lie
in the potential roles to be played by key stakeholders in
tourism initiatives (Figs. 1 and 2) and the consideration
that these stakeholders give to those roles and to the
community when applying the principles of a CBTI.
All stakeholders should be aware of each other’s goals
and objectives and their potential roles and responsibilities
(Figs. 1 and 2). When considering the role of stakeholders,
regular liaison and communication between and within the
stakeholder groups seems essential. When all stakeholders,
including Government, communities, private sector and
NGOs, contribute in a conversant, supportive, ethical and
accountable manner, it is possible to create a dynamic
nurturing environment which will foster and cultivate the
crucial components of ‘best practice’ (Hall, 1999; Jamal &
Getz, 1995; Scheyvens, 1999; Tosun, 2000). This situation
is vital in contributing to the achievement of a range of
benefits for communities associated with tourism including
economic development, enhanced livelihoods and well-
being, environmental enrichment and sustainable commu-
nity development.
For the private sector, governments and NGOs when
developing and managing tourism in its many forms
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18

Table 2
10 possible problems associated with community benefit tourism initiatives and some possible solutions

WHO MAY BE PART OF THE PROBLEM
PROBLEMS
Community
1. Attitudes,
actions and
accusations of
neo-colonialism
2. Lack of
understanding of
community needs
3. Lack of
awareness about
the industry and
knowledge of
market
4. Lack of funds
5. Disparate
opinions within
stakeholder group
6. Silent majority
exists within the
stakeholder group
STAKEHOLDERS
Govt.
Private Depts. & POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
NGOs
Sector Development
Agencies.
Reassess governance and institutional
structures. Implement awareness raising
X X campaigns and increase communication
and engagement between all
stakeholders
Commence a process of participatory
consultation with the community and its
X X X stakeholders; ensure this process is on-
going. Draw on experience from other
initiatives globally
Involve the private sector in set-up,
X X X operation, marketing and sales. Engage
private consultants
Seek financial assistance such as
investment, loans or grants from
Governments, NGOs, development
X X agencies and banks. Foster an
environment conducive to private
investment through regulations and
incentives
Establish structured channels of regular
X X communication based on open and
transparent methodologies
Install mechanisms to ensure views of all
members are taken into account e.g.
X participatory approaches. Increase /
adapt communication and liaison
structures

involvement of the community may not only prove difficult
in terms of operational and management practicalities,
financial control and legal issues but may also cause
problems in achieving the goal of benefit delivery to the
community due to inherent complexities as described in
Sections 1–4 of this paper (Blackstock, 2005; Murphy,
2003; Tosun, 2000; Weaver, 1998). The trepidation of
stakeholders regarding community involvement should
not, however, stop investors, NGOs and governments
from striving to ensure that the community receives
benefits from the tourism initiative. Even if these stake-
holders do not have the time, inclination or skills to involve
the community in the tourism initiative using the concept
of CBTIs, they may still plan, prepare and deliver tangible
benefits to communities. Moreover, a CBTI should not be
used as an excuse to exclude the community from the
initiative but as a framework with which to ensure better
results and benefits for the community. Equipped with an
understanding of CBTIs and their principles stakeholders
may be more willing to embrace the activities that can
ensure the delivery of appropriate and proportionate
benefits to the community.
Further research is required into the relationship
between tourism and development (Beeton, 2006; Colan-
tonio & Potter, 2006; Hawkins & Mann, 2007; Ioannides,
2006; Scheyvens, 2002; Simpson, 2008; Telfer, 2002).
Examinations into the role of communities in tourism
initiatives in developed and developing countries, how they
derive benefits and what the most appropriate benefits are
for different communities are integral to this need.
Additional case studies should be conducted in a range of
geographical areas and with communities that are experi-
encing a variety of tourism initiatives over varying life
cycles; different ownership structures, types of product and
sizes of operation should be examined. A coherent
analytical framework with which to assess impacts and
benefits should be used in order to achieve standardization
and comparability across the studies. Wherever possible
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
Table 3
Fundamental components for best practices in CBTIs
Fundamental components for best practice in community benefit tourism
initiatives
Interaction
Communication (open and regular)
Engagement, consultation and participation with and between all
stakeholders
Commitment from stakeholders
Public relations and awareness campaigns
Linkages with regional, national and international levels of stakeholders
Transparency
Transparent ownership structure
Active liaison officers, conscious of potential roles within each stakeholder
group
Centres of information and market knowledge
Clear areas of responsibility
Analyses/evaluation
Analysis of demonstration projects and/or other existing CBTIs
Thorough and regular identification of benefit target areas within the
community
Environmental and cultural considerations
Monitoring procedures, checks and balances
Practicalities and skills
Training, capacity building and skills transfer
Accounting and banking skills
Funding in place for set-up, operation and marketing (e.g. loans, grants,
donations, private investment)
the actions of individual stakeholders and the roles that
they play in different initiatives should be evaluated;
investigation into the strategies that they are currently
using to liaise with communities is required along with any
activities being conducted to transfer benefits to commu-
nities. These studies should ideally be carried out on a long-
term or periodic basis so that the effects of different
strategies, impacts and benefits can be established and
assessed more accurately.
The implementation of a series of case studies assessing
the impacts and benefits of tourism initiatives on commu-
nities and investigating various aspects of CBTIs and their
stakeholders will also provide opportunities to examine
other areas for the further development of CBTIs. One
important area for development is the design and testing of
mechanisms with which to determine the most appropriate
and effective benefits for a community and how these
benefits can be delivered in a proportionate manner. If
structured correctly, participatory work with communities
could link with the case study assessment process and be
used to assist in the development of these mechanisms.
Clearly sequenced, replicable, discussion focused and
progressive techniques should be used such as ‘H’ diagrams
(Guy & Inglis, 1999), likes, dislikes and changes preference
rankings, asset mapping and historical mapping (Ashley &
Hussein, 1999; Chambers, 2002; Guy, Fuller, & Pletsch,
2002; Kerka, 2003; Mayoux, 2001; Stockholm Environ-
ment Institute (SEI)/UNDP, 1998). This approach,
15
coupled with a series of key informant semi-structured
interviews and a short, highly focused household survey
(De Vaus, 2001) should assist in the identification of
specific areas for community benefit and how to deliver
those benefits appropriately and effectively (Simpson,
2008).
CBTIs provide a concept by which the private sector,
governments and NGOs can deliver a range of livelihood
and other benefits to communities without, necessarily,
carrying the potential baggage of significant community
ownership or involvement. Another important area of
CBTI development therefore, is the introduction of the
concepts and practicalities of CBTIs to private investors,
existing tourism operators, NGOs and government bodies;
an education and awareness raising process should be
undertaken to present the concepts and management
implications to these stakeholders. Case studies presenting
best practice and strategy documents outlining the roles
and activities for different stakeholder groups could be
presented in regional forums with emphasis placed on the
opportunities for all tourism businesses and stakeholders to
benefit communities in all situations and environments.
Other topics, linked to the development of CBTIs, to be
addressed in the forums should include evolving tourism
management strategies, corporate social responsibility
issues, potential benefits to tourism businesses of benefiting
communities, the responsibilities of civil society and
government bodies in policy making, the implementation
of policy, stakeholder collaboration and communication
(Ashley & Haysom, 2006; Hall, 2000; Murphy & Murphy,
2004; Ryan, 2002; Tosun, 2006).
Changes in the business and management of tourism and
in the roles and activities of stakeholders are required to
embrace the complexities and multifarious issues of
delivering benefits to communities. More studies are
needed to illustrate how CBTIs work in practice in a
variety of contexts and how the right proportion and most
effective benefits can be delivered to the relevant commu-
nity. Further research into the fundamental components
for best practice in CBTIs and testing of these components
in order to improve theory development in this area is
required. Furthermore, the development of mechanisms to
determine proportionate and appropriate benefits will be
necessary to link research to policy and to practice with
the aim of maximizing the benefits from tourism and the
effectiveness of those benefits to communities around the
world.
References
Adams, W. M., & Infield, M. (2003). Who is on the Gorilla’s Payroll?
Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan national park. World
Development, 31(1), 177–190.
Ahmad, A. (2001). Ecotourism development in national parks in Brunei: an
analysis of the benefits and disbenefits on Iban and Dusun communities.
Unpublished thesis, Charles Sturt University, Identifier NBD:
25106829, Albury-Wodonga Campus Library, Australia.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
Archabald, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2001). Tourism revenue-sharing
around national parks in Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify
and reward local communities. Environmental Conservation, 28(2),
135–149.
Arnstein, R. S. (1971). Eight Rungs on the ladder of citizen participation.
In S. E. Cahn, & A. B. Passett (Eds.), Citizen participation: Effecting
community change (pp. 69–91). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ashley, C. (1998). Tourism, communities and national policy: Namibia’s
experience. Development Policy Review, 16(4), 323–352.
Ashley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibia’s
experience. Working Paper 128, Overseas Development Institute
(ODI), London, England.
Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H. (2000). Pro-poor tourism: Putting
poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda. In , Natural resource
perspectives, Vol. 51 (pp. 1–12). London, England: Overseas Develop-
ment Institute.
Ashley, C., & Haysom, G. (2006). From philanthropy to a different way of
doing business: Strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor
approaches into tourism business. Development South Africa, 23(2),
265–280.
Ashley, C., & Hussein, K. (1999). Developing methodologies for livelihood
impact assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in
East Africa. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Ashley, C., & Jones, B. (2001). Joint ventures between communities and
tourism investors: Experience in Southern Africa. International Journal
of Tourism Research, special issue on fair trade in tourism, 3(5),
407–423.
Ashley, C., & Roe, D. (1998). Enhancing community involvement in wildlife
tourism: Issues and challenges. London, England: International
Institute for the Environment and Development (IIED).
Ashley, C., Roe, D., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies:
Making tourism work for the poor—A review of experience. Pro-Poor
Tourism Report No. 1. URL /http://www.odi.org.uk/pptourism/
ppt_report.pdfS.
Ashton, R. (2001). In: R. Mader (n.d.). Community tourism in community
forum seminars. URL /http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/com-
munity.htmlS.
Beeton, S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Victoria,
Australia: Landlinks Press.
Belsky, J. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The Politics of commu-
nity-based rural Ecotourism in gales point Manatee, Belize. Rural
Sociology, 64, 641–666.
Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism.
Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49.
Blank, U. (1989). The community tourism industry imperative. New York,
USA: Venture Publishing.
Boyd, S. W., & Singh, S. (2003). Destination communities: Structures,
resources and types. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, & R. K. Dowling
(Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 19–33). Oxford,
England: CAB International.
Butler, R. W., & Hinch, T. (1996). Tourism and indigenous peoples.
London, England: International Thomson Business Press.
Campbell, L. M. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing communities.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 534–553.
Campbell, L. M. (2002). Conservation narratives and the received wisdom
of ecotourism: Case studies from Costa Rica. International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 5, 300–325.
Chambers, R. (2002). Relaxed and participatory appraisal: Notes on
practical approaches and methods for participants in PRA/PLA related
familiarization workshops. Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
Working Paper, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Colantonio, A., & Potter, R. B. (2006). Urban tourism and development in
the socialist state: Havana during the ‘Special Period’. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Declaration on Responsible Tourism, Cape Town, South Africa. (2002).
Guiding principles for responsible tourism, Responsible Tourism Partner-
ship. URL /http://www.icrtourism.org/capetown.htmlS.
De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: Sage.
Dwyer, L., & Edwards, D. (2000). Nature-Based tourism on the edge of
Urban development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 267–287.
East Kent Partnership. (2005). Feasibility study for an East Kent Natural
Park. Canterbury, England: East Kent Partnership.
Fagence, M. (2003). Tourism and local society and culture in tourism
communities. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, & R. K. Dowling (Eds.),
Tourism in destination communities (pp. 55–78). Oxford, England: CAB
International.
Goodwin, H. (1996). In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conserva-
tion, 5(3), 277–291.
Guy, T., Fuller, D., & Pletsch, C. (2002). Asset mapping: A handbook.
Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Rural Partnership /http://www.rural.gc.-
ca/conference/documents/mapping_e.phtmlS.
Guy, S., & Inglis, A. (1999). Tips for trainers: Introducing the ‘‘H-form’’—a
method for monitoring and evaluation. PLA notes Issue 34 (pp. 84–87).
London: IIED.
Hall, C. M. (1999). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public
policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3), 274–289.
Hall, C. M. (2000). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public
policy perspective. In B. Bramwell, & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism
collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability
(pp. 143–158). Clevedon, England: Channel View.
Hall, C. M. (2003). Politics and place: An analysis of power in tourism
communities. In S. Singh, D. J. Timothy, & R. K. Dowling (Eds.),
Tourism in destination communities (pp. 99–114). Oxford, England:
CAB International.
Hawkins, D. E., & Mann, S. (2007). The world bank’s role in tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 348–363.
Haywood, K. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the
community. Tourism Management, 9(2), 105–118.
Ioannides, D. (2006). Commentary: The economic geography of the
tourist industry: Ten years of progress in research and an agenda for
the future. Tourism Geographies, 8(1), 76–86.
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community
tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204.
Jepson, P. (2005). Governance and accountability of environmental
NGOs. Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 515–524.
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: The significance of social
capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303–324.
Kalisch, A. (2001). Tourism as fair trade: NGO perspectives. London,
England: Tourism Concern.
Kerka, S. (2003). Community asset mapping. Educational Resources
Information Centre (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and
Vocational Education, Trends and Issues Alert No. 47 /http://
www.cete.org/acve/docs/tia00115.pdfS.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in phuket
and Ao phangnga, thailand: Partial victories and bittersweet remedies.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 4–23.
Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holiday makers: Understanding the impact of
leisure and travel. Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann.
Lea, J. (1988). Tourism and development in the third world. London,
England and New York, USA: Routledge.
Li, Y. (2004). Exploring community tourism in China: The case of
Nanshan cultural tourism zone. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(3),
175–1187.
Li, W. (2006). Community decision-making: Participation in development.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 132–143.
MacLeod, D. V. L. (2004). Tourism, globalisation, and cultural change: An
Island community perspective. London, England: Channel View
Publications.
Mader, R. (n.d.). Community tourism in community forum seminars. URL
/http://www.planeta.com/ecotravel/tour/community.htmlS.
Masberg, B. A., & Morales, N. (1999). A case of strategies in ecotourism
development. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 2, 289–300.
Mayoux, L. (2001). Participatory methods. EDIAIS application guidance note
/http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/word-files/ParticMethods.docS.
Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in
the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 26(2), 157–172.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
Midgley, J. (1986). Community participation: History, concepts and
controversies. In J. Midgley, A. Hall, M. Hardiman, & D. Narine
(Eds.), Community participation, social development, and the state (pp.
13–43). London: Methuen.
Mountain Agenda. (1999). Mountains of the world: Tourism and
sustainable mountain development. Berne, Switzerland: Centre for
Development and the Environment (CDE).
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability: New tourism
in the third world. London, England: Routledge.
Murphy, C. (2003). Community tourism in Kuene: A review of five case
studies for the WILD Project Directorate of Environmental Affairs.
Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification (WILD), Research
Discussion Paper No. 64. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Environ-
ment and Tourism.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London, England:
Methuen.
Murphy, P. E. (1988). Community driven tourism planning. Tourism
Management, 9(2), 96–104.
Murphy, P. (1998). Tourism and Sustainable Development. In W.
Theobald (Ed.), Global Tourism (2nd Edition, pp. 173–190). Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Murphy, P. E. (2007). Response to review: Prentice, R. Tourism
Management, 28(3), 947–950.
Murphy, P. E., & Murphy, A. E. (2004). Strategic management for tourism
communities: Bridging the gaps. Clevedon, England: Aspects of
Tourism series Channel View Publications.
Nelson, S. P. (2000). The inter-relationship between nature based tourism in
a community and nearby lodges in the Brazilian Amazon. Presented at
the Cuarta Feria Ecoturistica y de Produccion 15–23 Julio, 2000 Buena
Noche de Hato Nuevo, Manoguayabo, Santo Domingo, D.N.,
Republica Dominicana.
Olsen, B. (1997). Environmentally sustainable development and
tourism: Lessons from Negril. Jamaica. Human Organization, 56(3),
285–293.
Ormsby, A., & Mannle, K. (2006). Ecotourism benefits and the role of
local guides at Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(3), 271–287.
Page, S. J., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Ecotourism. Harlow, England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Parker, S. (1999). Collaboration on tourism policy making: Environment
and commercial sustainability on Bonaire. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 7(3), 240–259.
Poultney, C., & Spenceley, A. (2001). Practical strategies for pro-poor
tourism, Wilderness Safaris South Africa: Rocktail Bay and Ndumu
Lodge. Pro-poor tourism working paper no.1. URL /http://www.pro-
poortourism.org.uk/safrica_cs1.pdfS.
Prentice, R. (1993). Community driven planning and residents preferences.
Tourism Management, 14(3), 218–227.
Prentice, R. (2007). Book Review of Murphy, P. E. & Murphy, A. E.:
Strategic management for tourism communities: Bridging the gaps.
Tourism Management, 28(3), 940–946.
Pretty, J. (1995). The many interpretations of participation. In Focus, 16,
4–5.
Richards, G., & Hall, D. (2000). Tourism and sustainable community
development. London, UK: Routledge.
Roe, R., Goodwin, H., & Ashley, C. (2002). The tourism industry and
poverty reduction: A business primer. Pro-poor tourism briefing No. 2.
URL /http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/final%20business%20-
brief.pdfS.
Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North
Sulawesi. Indonesia. Tourism Management, 20, 673–682.
Rwandan Office of Tourism and National Parks (ORTPN). (2006).
Rwanda tourism: The Rwandan experience /http://www.africasia.-
co.uk/uploads/rwanda_tourism.pdfS.
Ryan, C. (2002). Equity, management power sharing and sustainability—
Issues of the ‘new tourism. Tourism Management, 23, 17–26.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local
communities. Tourism Management, 20, 245–249.
17
Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empowering communities.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Shah, K., & Gupta, V. (2000). Tourism the poor and other stakeholders:
Experience in Asia. Overseas Development Institute—Fair Trade in
Tourism Paper. Nottingham, England: Russell Press.
Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. J. (2002). Tourism and development: Concepts
and issues. Clevedon, England: Aspects of Tourism series Channel
View Publications.
Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning.
Tourism Management, 15, 98–108.
Simpson, M.C. (2008). An integrated approach to assessing the impacts of
tourism on community development and sustainable livelihoods.
Community Development Journal, in Press.
Singh, S., Timothy, D. J., & Dowling, R. K. (2003). Tourism in destination
communities. Oxford, England and Cambridge, USA: CABI Publish-
ing.
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)/UNDP. (1998). Participatory
assessment and planning for sustainable livelihoods. SEPED/BDP Draft
No.1, United Nations for Development Program (UNDP) /www.vul-
nerabilitynet.org/OPMS/getfile.php?bn=seiproject_ho-
tel&key=1140130220&att_id=950S.
Suansri, P. (2003). Community based tourism handbook. Responsible
Ecological Social Tours (REST) Project, Thailand.
SUDAM. (1999). Diagnóstico e Análise do Pólo de Ecoturismo do Estado
do Amazonas PRODEAM/SUDAM/OAS/MMA. URLs /http://
www.ufpa.br/plano/arquivos/Plano7.PDFS; /http://www.seplan.to.-
gov.br/dma/areas_protegidas/Parque_Estadual_do_Cantao/Plano_-
de_Uso_Publico_do_PEC.pdfS.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Oxford, England:
CABI Publishing.
Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: Does it really work? Tourism
Management, 16, 487–489.
Telfer, D. J. (2002). Conclusion: Tourism and development. In R.
Sharpley, & D. J. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and development: Concepts and
issues (pp. 338–348). Clevedon, England: Aspects of Tourism series
Channel View Publications.
Timothy, D. J. (2002). Tourism and community development. In R.
Sharpley, & D. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and development: Concepts and
issues (pp. 149–164). Clevedon, England: Channel View Publications.
Timothy, D. J., & Ioannides, D. (2002). Tour operator hegemony:
Dependency and oligopoly in insular destinations. In Y. Apostolo-
poulos, & D. J. Gayle (Eds.), Island tourism and sustainable
development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean experiences
(pp. 181–198). Westport, Connecticut, USA: Praeger.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism
development process in developing countries. Tourism Management,
21, 613–633.
Tosun, C. (2005). Stages in emergence of participatory tourism develop-
ment process in developing countries. Geoforum, 36(3), 333–352.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism
development. Tourism Management, 27(3), 493–504.
Tosun, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2003). Arguments for community
participation in the tourism development process. Journal of Tourism
Studies, 14(2), 2–14.
United Nations. (1992). Report of the United Nations conference on
environment and development, Rio de Janiero, 3-14 June 1992, Vol. I,
Resolutions adopted by the conference, Resolution I, annex II. New
York, USA: United Nations.
United Nations. (1997). Nineteenth special session of the general assembly
for the overall review and appraisal of the implementation of Agenda 21,
Assembly resolution S/19-2, annex of 28 June 1997, paragraph 69. New
York, USA: United Nations.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (1998). Guide
for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. Madrid, Spain:
UNWTO.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2004a). Indicators of
sustainable development for tourism destinations: A guidebook. Madrid,
Spain: UNWTO.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 M.C. Simpson / Tourism Management 29 (2008) 1–18
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2004b). National and regional
tourism planning: Methodologies and case studies. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2005). Making tourism
more sustainable: A guide for policy makers. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2000).
Philippine community benefits from tourism case study. URL /http://
www.usaid.gov/stories/philippines/cs_philippines_tourism.pdfS.
Wearing, S., & MacDonald, M. (2002). The development of community
based tourism: The relationship between tour operators and develop-
ment agent as intermediaries in rural and Isolated communities.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10, 191–206.
Weaver, D. (1998). Ecotourism in the less developed world. Wallingford,
England: CAB International.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2001). Guidelines for community-based
ecotourism development. WWF International.
Wyllie, R. (1998). Hana revisited: Development and controversy in a
Hawaiian tourist community. Tourism Management, 19, 171–178.
Yaman, A. R., & Mohd, A. (2004). Community-based ecotourism:
A new proposition for sustainable development and environ-
mental conservation in Malayasia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(4),
583–589.
Young, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or blight? London, England: Penguin
Books.
Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and
tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20,
351–360.