This conceptual paper proposes the adoption of a collaborative network approach as a prospective means of improving success in implementing Community-Based Tourism (CBT) initiatives. Drawing upon relevant literature the researchers identify the key attributes that characterise a network-based approach. By proposing alternatives for each attribute, the research provides CBT practitioners with options for making informed decisions about how to build collaboration connecting individual CBT initiatives in multiple locations. The researchers discuss the implications of different approaches for power relations between stakeholders. The proposed framework provides a means of classifying existing CBT networks and analyses the types of network and the circumstances which lead to better outcomes for community development. Further empirical research is required to test the validity of the key network attributes and to develop a comprehensive classification system of CBT networks. Keywords: community development; power relations; community-based tourism; networks This is the Pre-Published Version.
IntroductionThe term Community-Based Tourism (CBT) has been widely used to describe alternative forms of tourism development which are aimed at maximising the benefits flowing to local people and which advocate capacity building and empowerment as means of achieving community development objectives. Common CBT attributes that are documented in the literature include benefits to local communities, active participation by the community in tourism planning, enhanced host-guest interactions, communal management of tourism in general and of profits in particular, and preserving cultural and natural heritage (APEC Tourism Working Group and STCRC, 2010; Goodwin and Santilli, 2009; Johnson, 2010; Moscardo, 2008;Rocharungsat, 2008; Scheyvens, 1991; Stronza, 2008; Trejos and Chiang, 2009; Zapata et al., 2011).The term community has been used in many different ways. Typically the term applies to the idea of a group of people, living in a common territory, possessing shared values and having developed a high level of solidarity (Brent, 2004; Cain and YuvalDavis, 1990; Gilchrist, 2009; Phillips, 1993; Shaw, 2008; Swanepoel and De Beer, 2006). Community development is another highly contested term which is used in the present paper and takes one of two forms: institutional and professional or radical and activist. Institutional community development involves making adaptations to prevailing circumstances, while a radical approach transforms the power relations which have led to exclusion and oppression (Brennan, 2004; Ledwith, 2011; Mayo, 2011; Shaw, 2008; Swane and De Beer, 2006; Taylor, 2011). Some community development practitioners occupy the ground somewhere between adopting to formal 'top-down' structures and policies and aspiring to 'bottom-up' empowerment, equality and a just society (Swanepoel and De Beer, 2006; Shaw, 2008).CBT owes a strong legacy to the idea that community participation and stakeholder cooperation should be c...