Community Based Tourism: What’s in a Name?
I have been thinking recently about my future direction within the Asia travel industry and the concept of Community Based Tourism (CBT) has been mentioned to me, independently, by two different people whose opinions I respect.
The key question for me is, over the longterm (well, we are all going to have to work until we’re 90 aren’t we?), how can I use my 25 years of travel industry experience as a specialist tour operator in a worthwhile way?
Until recently, in my spare time, I was a school governor and a trustee of a children’s charity but those tenures have ended and now I am looking for something else. I have always been interested in a responsible approach to travel, and a great believer in authentic travel experiences, so the idea of pursuing something in this line appeals. Especially if it meets one of the aims of this site, namely to bring positive change to the lives of under-privileged children in south-east Asia (not all of them, of course, just as many as possible).
Two of my favourite tours at Magic of the Orient were community-based, although I don’t think the phrase ‘Community based tourism” had been coined when we first started promoting them back in the mid 1990s. One tour was to a hilltribe village in Northern Thailand and the other to a longhouse in Sarawak, East Malaysia (aka Borneo). In both cases the community had built accommodation especially for tourists and in both cases the community were involved in planning and running the set-up. These projects brought income to the community via bed and lodgings, guiding services and souvenir purchases.
Here is a definition of CBT from the Thailand Community Based Tourism Institute (1997):
“CBT is tourism that takes environmental, social, and cultural sustainability into account. It is managed and owned by the community, for the community, with the purpose of enabling visitors to increase their awareness and learn about the community and local ways of life”.
Unfortunately, however, there does not appear to be just one definition. According to Harold Goodwin, a recognized authority on Responsible Tourism, “there is no agreement about the meaning of CBT and ….. whenever the words are used the meaning needs to be made clear”.
OK that’s fair enough so we always need to qualify CBT whenever we talk about it but wait! According to a study by Goodwin, the model is not sustainable: “.. evidence suggests that average bed occupancy achieved by CBT initiatives is around 5% and that this unsustainable.”
What? So is there any point? Goodwin goes on: “The research has demonstrated that there are a number of initiatives which are not CBT which have demonstrated very considerable employment, local economic development and collective community benefits….”
OK, so this is more positive. There are initiatives that are not CBT that are successful. Hmm. So if there is an initiative that is deemed successful does it matter that it is not CBT?
This also begs the question. “how is success measured”? For me, back when we started promoting such tours, the motivation was twofold: 1) to give remote communities the opportunity to benefit from tourism and 2) to provide our clients with an authentic experience. For me it was essential that the hosts were proactive participants rather than passive recipients as in ‘goldfish bowl’ tourism: the tours to Paduang villages – the so-called longneck tribes – in Northern Thailand are examples of passive tourism and, in my opinion, are abhorrent . Simplistically, if these objectives were met, it was successful and certainly the two tours referred to above are still operating today (I shall write more about them later).
Also it must surely depend upon whether the initiative is intended to be the sole provider for a community or whether it is to be incremental income. Given the vagaries of the travel industry I would suggest that the initiative should always be for incremental income.
If we forget, then, the constraints of labels and think instead in terms of (lower case) community based tourism, surely this opens up a wide range of possibilities.
What do you think: is Community Based Tourism no more than academic theory; just more marketing hype with little real value over the long-term; or is it a concept worth pursuing?
