e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 1 Ar. Harsimran Chadha MANIT, Bhopal Dr. Preeti Onkar MANIT, Bhopal An Exploration of Community-Based Tourism within the Context of Tourism Planning and Development Planning for sustainable tourism development poses numerous challenges for planners and researchers. The need to incorporate Community-Based Tourism (CBT) in tourism planning and development has become indispensable. This paper aims to explore the conceptual understanding of CBT by reviewing its various definitions, the chronological development of the concept, models devised by various researchers, and also the tools to measure the impacts of tourism. The literature concludes by identifying a need for the quantification of the impacts of tourism and CBT on the community for the success of a tourism development plan. Keywords: Community-Based Tourism; Impacts; Models; Review; Tools Ar. Harsimran Chadha, Research Scholar, Department of Architecture & Planning, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Mobile- +919977454884 Email: hsimranchadha@gmail.com Dr. Preeti Onkar, Associate Professor, Department of Architecture & Planning, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Mobile- +919893159655 Email- ompreeti2005@yahoo.co.in http://ertr.tamu.edu/ mailto:hsimranchadha@gmail.com mailto:ompreeti2005@yahoo.co.in e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 2 Ar. Harsimran Chadha is presently pursuing a Ph.D. from the Department of Architecture and Planning, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal, India. She holds a B. Arch degree from Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh and M. Arch degree from MANIT, Bhopal. She is working as HOD, Department of Architecture & Interior Design in Government Women’s Polytechnic College, Indore. Her research area is focussed on Sustainable Tourism Planning and Development, with special reference to communities involved and affected by tourism. Her Ph.D. is centred on developing a framework to measure the impacts of cultural tourism on communities. Dr. Preeti Onkar is Associate Professor in Department of Architecture and Planning, MANIT Bhopal. She is an academician and a practicing consultant to various architectural and planning projects. She has been practicing for the last 20 years and is presently working on prestigious architectural and planning projects for Government of Madhya Pradesh, India. She is a Senior Architect for Institute Consultancy Service Cell MANIT. Her area of interest is focused on Quality of life through inclusive design and planning. She has been co-editor of two issues of the International Journal of Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. She has also contributed chapters for three books of reputed publications. She has published her work in various national and international journals. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 3 Introduction and background Tourism developed significantly after the Second World War (Cobbinah, Black, & Thwaites, 2013). In a rush to develop at a fast pace, development plans initially ignored planning for tourism, which has led to the need for a sustainable tourism plan for development. Community participation and stakeholder interaction are some of the few solutions to solve the above problem. All forms of tourism development should be economically viable, environmentally sensitive and meet the needs and desires of host communities (Salazar, 2012). To translate community values into sustainable directives, residents should be empowered to participate in the decision-making process (Blackstock, 2005). More research has focused on sustainable tourism, ecotourism, responsible tourism, rural tourism, pro-poor tourism, and Community-Based Tourism (CBT) in the era of mass tourism (Pawson, D’Arcy, & Richardson, 2016). These alternative forms of tourism have to be established to provide visitors with unique experiences and have the potential to contribute to sustainable community development. Greater community participation in tourism planning is essential as the impacts of tourism are felt more intensely by the local community at the destination areas (Simmons, 1994). The community should play a significant role in tourism planning and development. The three principal dimensions of tourism studies are tourists, tourism industry, and the settings, which primarily include the socio-cultural fabric and the physical environment (Yuan, Gretzel, & Tseng, 2015). A relationship between tourists and the residents is another essential component (Jafari & Ritchie, 1981), and cooperation among four actors namely; the local people, tourists, tourism companies, and the authorities, is essential for successful implementation of sustainable tourism development (Björk, 2000). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 4 Social scientists criticise tourism as a tool for development as it directly affects the natural landscape, and the local populations at the destinations (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). However, tourism can have positive impacts on society, if it is used as a tool for achieving economic, psychological, social, and political empowerment of the local community (Scheyvens, 1999). Tourism can also solve poverty-related problems in less developed countries through community-based tourism projects (Dolezal & Burns, 2015). Maximum interaction is required between the local inhabitants and the management committees to enable CBT to bring more benefits to the host community as it creates better rapport with those who are directly affected. Increased local involvement and participation will help to ensure that the residents are empowered (Sebele, 2010). There are numerous ways by which the host community can use tourism as a tool for community development. Community-Based Tourism can recognise, support and promote community ownership of tourism; it should also involve community members from the beginning in all aspects. Moreover it promotes community pride, improves the quality of life and ensures environmental sustainability. It also preserves the unique character and culture of the local area and fosters cross-cultural learning, respects cultural differences and human dignity. CBT should distribute benefits fairly among community members, and contribute a fixed percentage of income to community projects (Potjana, 2003). Elements of CBT are primarily community participation, power redistribution and collaboration processes (Okazaki, 2008). Both developed and developing countries have perceived the positive impacts of tourism (UNWTO, 2004). At the same time, the concern about its negative impacts, especially its potential damage on the locals’ well-being in the developing and less-developed countries have resulted in shifts in resource management paradigms (Tasci, Semrad, & Yilmaz, 2013). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 5 This research paper aspires to explore the concept of CBT through the diverse perspectives of various authors- Kevin Mearns, Bill Faulkner, Brian Garrod, Tek B. Dangi, Kirsty Blackstock, and Etsuku Okazaki. It also aims to holistically understand CBT by studying its various definitions in different time frames, reviewing its different models, and also impact measurement tools for measuring the impact of tourism development on the community. Literature review–theoretical perspectives of CBT This section is centred on the evolution of CBT, its definitions, models and lastly the tools to measure the impacts of tourism on the community. Firstly, a detailed literature review is carried out to outline the chronology of the events regarding the evolution and the development of the concept of CBT. The table of the evolution of CBT shows the decadal growth and the related changes portray the perspectives and contributions of different researchers from time to time. Community-Based Tourism evolved as an approach to rural tourism, which ultimately led to its further development during the decolonization period. Secondly, the definitions of CBT are categorized using several parameters such as social, economic, political and ecological factors. The study of various definitions highlights that CBT is a continually changing and evolving form of niche tourism. Consequently, a greater understanding is needed to assist communities in developing CBT in a sustainable way (Ernawati, Sanders, & Dowling, 2017). The link between tourism and community can be strengthened by highlighting the essential criteria such as community participation, community benefits (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009), community involvement, community empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999). The term ‘community-based ecotourism’ also incorporates the social dimension. It is a form of ecotourism where the residents have substantial control over, and involvement in, its development and management, and a significant proportion of the benefits remain within the community (Denman, 2001). The third section illustrates some http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 6 selected models and methods of CBT. The tools, as well as techniques used to measure the impacts, are discussed in the last section. Evolution of cbt-conceptual exploration of its concept Community-Based Tourism is illustrated in chronological order from the 1950s until the second decade of the new millennium in Table 1. The birth of the concept of CBT began in the early 1950s under community and rural development schemes, initiated by the United Nations. Community development was introduced as a substitute for charity (Sebele, 2010). The fast development of tourism in the 1960s in the form of mass tourism created many adverse impacts (Pawson et al., 2016), which led to the beginning of the development of concepts and frameworks of Sustainable Tourism. Involvement of local communities in major decision - making processes was an essential element of sustainable tourism. The involvement of local communities in tourism development plans began as they were the principal partners as well as the most affected by the adversities. The Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Government of the Northwest Territories, used the term CBT during the early 1980s in Canada (Murphy & Andressen, 1988). Peter Murphy then formally introduced the term CBT in 1985 in his book titled Tourism-A Community Approach (Murphy, 1985). Subsequently, concepts and definitions slowly developed. Significant literature regarding the principles of CBT, its benefits, and the challenges facing its implementation was published in the last decade of the twentieth century (Pawson et al., 2016). The case-studies concerning CBT also became noticeable during this period in Thailand, Cambodia, New Zealand, Mexico. (Asker, Boronyak, Carrard, & Paddon, 2010). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 7 TABLE 1: EVOLUTION OF CBT Period Perspectives regarding the evolution of CBT Result/ Inference The 1950s to 1960s (1951–1960) Community development was introduced as an approach to rural development. United Nations made community development popular to educate local people & involve them in decision-making. It also helped to remove stigma of charity (Sebele, 2010). Approach to rural dev. substitute for charity The 1960s to 1970s (1961–1970) The conceptual origin of the term CBT appeared as a part of the community- based development strategy in the 1970s (Saayman & Giampiccoli, 2016). Community-Based Natural Resource Management Organizations flourished since the 1970s as it was recognized that the conservation of protected areas could not be achieved without the support of local communities (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009). The importance of community and community tourism appeared in the literature since the 1970s. CBT developed as a consequence of the sustainable tourism movement, the emergence of small-scale and ecotourism products. It was an alternative to unsustainable mass tourism (Pawson et al., 2016). Alternative to unsustainable mass tourism; Useful for the conservation of natural resources The 1970s to 1980s (1971–1980) Sustainable tourism framework emerged, though the concept of community participation had been applied in a myriad of ways since the first human settlements (Choi & Murray, 2010). Inclusion and involvement of local communities in tourism began as local residents were seen as a key resource in sustaining the product (Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002). CBT emerged during the 1970s as a response to the negative impacts of the international mass tourism development model. Most CBT programs were related to small rural communities and nature conservation through ecotourism (Zapata, Hall, Lindo, & Vanderschaeghe, 2011). Sustainable tourism movement and eco-tourism development paved the way for the development of CBT in order to form a link between tourism & poverty reduction in LDCs (Pawson et al., 2016). Response to the negative impacts of the international mass tourism; The link between Tourism and poverty reduction The 1980s to Mid– 1990s (1981–1985) Tourism: A Community Approach by Peter Murphy when published, was based on his research on tourism in the 1980s in small communities in British Columbia and the Yukon, Canada (Dangi & Jamal, 2016). CBT was referred to as an essential form of alternative tourism. It helped rural communities of the developing world in overcoming the adverse effects of mass tourism (Weaver, 2010). The Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Government of the Northwest Territories, used the term CBT during the early 1980s in Canada (Murphy & Andressen, 1988). CBT presents a way to provide an equitable flow of benefits to all affected by tourism through consensus-based decision-making and local control of development (Salazar, 2012). It was the first application of the term CBT. It provided an equitable flow of benefits. The Mid–1990s to 1990s (1986–1990) The study of CBT increased, and CBT enterprises became more abundant, definitions and conceptual narratives expanded and became more ‘scientific’. CBT gained momentum. It was used as an instrument by NGOs to address regional socio-economic development (Pawson et al., 2016). Definitions, concepts expanded. The 1990s to Mid-2000s (1991–1995) Focus on academic literature on CBT increased as publications and case studies concerning CBT and its various components increased since the 1990s (Pawson et al., 2016). Focus on academic literature The Mid– 2000s to 2000s (1996–2000) CBT enterprises become more noticeable, especially in the developing world as communities became aware of the benefits of CBT. It was also used as a tool to address poverty in rural and regional communities (Pawson et al., 2016). CBT enterprises increased The 2000s to Mid–2010s (2001–2005) Blackstock expresses a need to understand the relationship between community participation and power structures to advance more empowering and socially just understandings of CBT (Blackstock, 2005). The discussion of CBT became prominent since the turn of the century. Critical evaluations started regarding the extent to which it is community-oriented, whether these developments were self- determined choices or impositions. It was realized that tourism development through the community was more suitable for economically limited settings (Mayaka, Croy, & Cox, 2017). Empowerment, Critical analysis, The Mid–2010s to date (2006–2018) The negative impacts of tourism on the local community in the developing and less developed countries were felt. So there was a need for the shift towards resource management and community development paradigms in support of sustainable tourism (Tasci et al., 2013). CBT contributes to cultural, environmental conservation. Many studies about CBT initiatives focus towards redistribution of economic benefits to indigenous communities (Garcia Lucchetti & Font, 2013). The shift towards resource management and conservation http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 8 With the purpose to address solutions to mass tourism development, CBT emerged as a tool to benefit the local people. Various CBT enterprises, particularly those focussed on ecotourism emerged in the in the early 21st century. The rising growth of CBT addresses specific issues such as poverty alleviation among the local communities and also the conservation of resources, culture, and heritage. The study of the evolution of CBT depicts the prominent role it plays in sustainable tourism development. The detailed evaluation of changes in various parameters in different time frames will assist in analysing those characteristics which pose direct and indirect impacts. The emergence of the negative impacts of mass scale tourism lead to the emergence of CBT. Definitions and perspectives of CBT Community Based Tourism is a community-owned tourism activity, which is primarily operated, managed or coordinated at the community level. It contributes to the well-being of communities by supporting sustainable livelihoods. It also aims to protect valued socio- cultural traditions, and heritage resources, both natural and cultural (Twining-Ward, 2007)(Mann, 2000) (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009). In the definitions of CBT framed since 2000 till date (illustrated in Table 2), the involvement of community and sharing of benefits from tourism to citizens is universal. The role of communities has undergone a transition from just involvement to their engagement in planning, development activities, and also in its management. Community involvement is an inseparable part of tourism management and development. It increases the learning experiences of the community groups and their awareness level. It also promotes the pro-poor strategies in the community setting (Twining-Ward, 2007). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 9 TABLE 2: DEFINITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF CBT . No. DEFINITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF CBT AUTHOR, YEAR KEYWORDS 1 1. Community-Based Tourism is broadly defined, as that appears to include almost all forms of tourism, which involve community members and benefit them: ‘anything that involves genuine community participation and benefits.’ (Mann, 2000) Involve community, Share benefits 1 2. ‘Community-based ecotourism’ is a form of ecotourism where the local community has substantial control over, and involvement in, its development and management, where a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community. (Denman, 2001) Control over development and management 2 3. ‘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.’ (Potjana, 2003) Ownership; Visitor awareness 3 4. Community-based enterprises (CBEs) can be defined as a sustainable, community-owned and community-based tourism initiative that enhances conservation and in which the local community is fully involved throughout its development and management and are the main beneficiaries through community development. (Manyara & Jones, 2007) Conservation enhancement 3 5. Community-based tourism (CBT) is a type of sustainable tourism that promotes pro-poor strategies in a community setting. CBT initiatives aim to involve local residents in the running and management of small tourism projects as a means of alleviating poverty and providing an alternative income source for community members. CBT initiatives also encourage respect for local traditions and culture as well as for natural heritage. (Twining-Ward, 2007) Poverty Alleviation; Respect for traditions, culture, and Heritage 6. CBT can, therefore, be defined as tourism owned and/or managed by communities and intended to deliver wider community benefit. (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009) Deliver wider benefits 7. “CBT is generally small scale and involves interactions between visitor and host community, particularly suited to rural and regional areas.” (Asker et al., 2010) Small-scale; The interaction between visitor and host community 6 8. CBT is located within a community (i.e. on communal land or with community benefits such as lease fees), owned by one or more community members (i.e. for the benefit of one or more community members) and managed by community members (i.e. community members could influence the decision-making process of the enterprise). (Zapata et al., 2011) Location within community 6 9. CBT aims to create a more sustainable tourism industry (at least discursively), focusing on the receiving communities in terms of planning and maintaining tourism development. (Salazar, 2012) Planning and maintaining tourism development 1 10. CBT is an approach that engages the host community in the planning and development of the tourism industry. (Butler, Curran, & O’Gorman, 2012) Host community engagement 1 11. ‘CBT is tourism planned, developed, owned and managed by the community for the community, guided by collective decision-making, responsibility, access, ownership, and benefits.’ (Tasci, Croes, & Villanueva, 2014) Collective decision-making; Responsibility http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 10 The above table shows various definitions and perspectives of CBT by different authors from time to time. Potjana (2003) has laid stress on the environmental, social, and cultural perspectives of sustainability. Twining-Ward (2007) has highlighted that CBT is also a means of alleviating poverty and tourism provides alternative sources of income to the community members. Asker et al. (2010) have highlighted two essential issues, firstly that CBT is a small scale, particularly prominent in rural areas, and secondly, CBT involves close interaction between visitors and host communities. It helps visitors to learn about the culture of the place they are visiting, and the host community benefits by earning directly from the visitors. Salazar (2012) point out that CBT helps in the creation of a sustainable tourism industry. It is helpful in the empowerment and social mobility of the rural people and the urban locals. Lastly, Tasci (2014) has added the terms published in collective decision- making and responsibility in their definitions of CBT, which are very appropriate in the present scenario. The thorough study of various definitions of CBT will help a researcher to identify those aspects which are essential for successful implementation of its concept. It will also enable in identifying those features that cause significant impacts of tourism on local communities. Models of CBT The community-based models (illustrated in Table 3) primarily depict the increasing demand of the tourism - development in conjugation with the needs of the community at macro and micro levels (Dangi & Jamal, 2016). These models also discuss the typology of community participation and various transformations undergoing in the patterns of participation (Tosun, 1999). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 11 TABLE – 3: MODELS OF COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Research Paper- Author-Journal Type of Model Description Parameters and Components Why has this Model ha been Developed? Inferences 1. Tourism as a Community Industry- by Peter E. Murphy - Tourism Management 1983 (Murphy, 1983) Ecological Community Approach to Tourism Planning Various Planning Levels National Level - Economic and Social Issues; Regional Level – Environmental; Local Level- Physical 1.Plants- tourist attractions 2. Animals- Residents’ Reactions 3. Predators- Industry’s Investment and Return 4.Prey- Visitors’ Reactions Planning for Tourism industry was based only on economic criteria. A symbiotic relationship between tourism and community, modelled on ecosystem framework,need to be developed. As the scale of planning decreases, more public participation should be encouraged. Tourism can be integrated into the general planning procedures of all communities. 2.Towards a Typology of Community Participation in The Tourism Dev. Process- Cevat Tosun- In. Journal of Tourism and Hos. Research 1999 (Tosun, 1999) Typology of Community Participation This model discusses three main forms of Community Participation in Tourism Development Planning. It can be advanced as conceptual vehicle for policy formulation. Types of Community Participation- 1.Spontaneous participation 2.Induced participation 3.Coercive participation Since the concept of Community Participation in Tourism Development had evolved and popularised in isolation, the author realised that there was a need to consider it in an adaptive paradigm. Community participation is a desired objective in tourism development process. It consists of many different approaches. The typology may function as the signs and warnings on the road. Community participation takes different forms ranging from citizen power to manipulation. 3.Community Tourism Planning--A Self- Assessment Instrument – Donald G. Reid- Annals of Tourism Research 2004 (Reid, Mair, & George, 2004) Community Tourism Self- Assessment Instrument (CTAI) It is tool designed to measure residents’ reactions to tourism in their localities. It thus generates discussion between residents and planners. Four steps of Tourism Development Planning Model are- Identification of impacts of tourism; Community Awareness; Planning Phase and finally the Monitoring Phase This tourism planning process model provides a macro framework focussed at local level. It tries to find how communities establish tourism in their areas. It is a quantitative tool to assess the ability of a community to initiate a tourism plan. It is important for both tourism planners and researchers. 4. A Framework for Monitoring Community Impacts of Tourism- Bill Faulkner- Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1997 (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997) A Framework to Monitor the Residents Reactions to tourism It was designed for a comparative study of the social impacts of tourism in destination communities in Australia. Two dimensions of Tourism development were Extrinsic and Intrinsic Extrinsic Dimensions include stages of development, level of tourit activity and type of tourists involved. Intrinsic Dimensions involve characteristics of members of the host community. The impacts of the growth of tourism were experienced by local communities. To avoid the adverse effects and to maximise the benefits of tourism , it was required to monitor the impacts continuously. It identifies key variables, and the relationship between these variables and community reactions to tourism. This model indicates the changes in locals’ perceptions and attitudes toward tourism. 5.Local Participation in the Planning and Management of Ecotourism, Brian Garrod, Journal of Ecotourism, 2003 (Garrod, 2003) Inclusion of Local Community into Planning and Management of Ecotourism Projects It identifies elements of good practices for local participation. It has revised similar model proposed by Susan Drake in 1998. Eight Stages proposed are- Determining participation mechanisms, initial dialogue, support mechanisms, preliminary studies, collective decision - making, action plan, implementation, and lastly monitoring and evaluation. The nine step model proposed by Drake could not tell when and how local participation is to be introduced. This model highlights the need for effective leadership, empowerment of local communities and their involvement in all stages of project cycle. Local participation should be pivotal in constructing the concept of Ecotourism. It is absolutely necessary to let the local community to shape the outcomes of ecotourism. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 12 The ecological model of Peter E. Murphy advocated the development of a symbiotic relationship between the tourism industry and the local community (Murphy, 1983). The four components of the ecosystem-plants; animals; predators; and prey have been equated with the tourists’ attractions; residents’ reactions; industry’s investment, return; and lastly visitors’ reactions. Murphy (1983) suggests that all these four components should attain a state of mutual independence and co-existence. As far as community participation is concerned, the model of Cevat Tosun presented the description of the emergence of several categories based on which the community is divided and addressed to exhibit the types of participation namely, spontaneous, induced and coercive participation (Tosun, 1999). Community Tourism Self-Assessment Instrument (CTAI) proposed by Reid, et al. presents an important tool for tourism planners. It can be used to focus on problems faced by communities due to tourism development (Reid et al., 2004). Faulkner and Tideswell (1997) have proposed a framework to monitor the reactions of residents to tourism development. He has laid importance for the monitoring of impacts continuously (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997). Brian Garrod (2003) presented the revised model of Susan Drake, (1990), as it failed to show when and how the of local participation should be introduced (Garrod, 2003). It proposes a revised model approach to incorporate local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism projects (Garrod, 2003). These models show different approaches to community involvement in tourism planning, and also try to measure the impacts of tourism on communities. The review of these models asserts the need for the development of indicators and appropriate tools to measure impacts, which are detailed in the next section. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 13 Indicators, tools to measure impacts Indicators are the building blocks for sustainable tourism and are intended to be used as tools that assist managers to respond to important issues (Mearns, 2015). Indicators measure information with which decision-makers may reduce the chances of unknowingly taking poor decisions (UNWTO, 1996). Indicators act as important tools that help planners to identify and evaluate the problems, thus improving the sustainability level of that region. These indicators may have multiple uses as practical planning tools. Three basic functions for sustainable tourism indicators are the formulation of general action plans at a regional level, the definition of short-term strategies for destinations and the establishment of destination benchmarking practices (Lozano-Oyola, Blancas, González, & Caballero, 2012). A good indicator helps in better decision-making by lowering risks. Through the identification of emerging issues, it allows prevention and corrective actions. It thus leads to the implementation of sustainable development of tourism. It also identifies limits and opportunities. Hence it helps other stakeholders of tourism to make wise decisions. Finally, constant monitoring can lead to continuous improvement (UNWTO, 2004). The use of indicators has become widespread, and include broad technical indicators (i.e. indirect/direct, descriptive/analytical, and subjective / objective) and discipline-based indicators (e.g. economic indicators, social indicators, tourism indicators or psychological indicators) (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). Indicators may be identified at various levels - national level, regional level, for specific destinations or individual enterprises (UNWTO, 2004). They may be classified as leading indicators (signals known to relate to future issues, e.g., increasing numbers of visitors to a tourist destination); current indicators (signs of important attributes of the current state of affairs e.g., beach erosion measures); or trailing indicators (key measures of the effects of past actions e.g., endangered species). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 14 They can be in the form of descriptors (measures of stocks or flows); ratios (links between two factors, e.g., harvesting to replanting); or indices (aggregations of values for several different factors). Indicators can also be categorized as economic indicators (income, expenditure, earnings, employment); social indicators (population demographics, societal state, community, institutions); or environmental indicators (water, air, wildlife, land, habitat, energy and resource use, waste) (UNWTO, 1996). To be more applicable, micro (community, local or regional) indicators should be developed with the support of regional, national and/or international governmental organizations. In the further development of sustainable community indicators, involving residents is crucial because they are a major stakeholder group. Furthermore, educating stakeholder groups should be a top priority because one of the major failures in implementing indicators at the local level has been a lack of awareness and participation among stakeholders (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006). Impacts of tourism on the local communities are diverse. Adverse effects, also called tourism costs to include traffic congestions, litter, noise, overcrowding and price hikes due to tourism. Positive impacts include an increase in opportunities for employment, better local infrastructure development and recreational activities (Martinez-Garcia, Raya, & Majo, 2017). Since the impacts of tourism are cumulative, there is no single tool to evaluate all environmental, social and economic impacts together (Schianetz, Kavanagh, & Lockington, 2009). The various tools to measure these impacts are presented in Table 4. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 15 TABLE – 4: TOOLS TO MEASURE IMPACTS OF TOURISM Tool Description Applicability, Advantages & Disadvantages Ecological footprint (EF) Accounting tool that enables to estimate of resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements for a defined human population or economy in terms of a corresponding productive land area (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). A simple and transparent methodology, allows easy comparisons of environmental performance between organisations of different scale, a strong communication tool, has a limited role within a policy context (Wiedmann & Barrett, 2010). Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) It aims to assess the impacts (direct and indirect, short and long term as well as local and global) of a project on the environment (Bruhn-Tysk & Eklund, 2002). Used for assessing environmental impacts of new projects, originated in early 1970s in the USA, generally used for specific projects, like marinas, airports, eco-resorts, is not for the assessment of whole tourism destinations (Schianetz et al., 2009). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) An analytical tool specifically designed to assess the environmental impacts relating to the whole production chain (Tukker, 2000), from ‘cradle to grave’, that is from extraction of raw materials to final disposal (Schianetz et al., 2009). Used for the assessment of environmental impacts only, and not social and economic impacts. It is quite complex as it includes input and output data over the whole life cycle of a product system (Schianetz et al., 2009). Environmental Auditing (EA) A management tool to assess environmental performance, identifying any negative environmental impacts and evaluating the opportunities to change current practices to improve that performance (Goodall, 1995). A very flexible tool can be adapted to different tourism operations, can be combined easily with other assessment tools, such as SI, LCA and EIA. Despite its historical focus on environmental issues, social and economic aspects can be easily included (Schianetz et al., 2009). Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Used for evaluating public or private investment proposals by weighing the costs of the project against the expected benefits (Ness et al., 2007). Applied welfare economics tool with roots reaching back to the early 20th century; can be an effective tool for weighing the social costs and benefits of different alternatives (Ness et al., 2007). Carbon Footprint A measurement of the total GHG emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, an organization, event or product and are expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalent (M. Awanthi et al., 2018). An effective tool for ongoing energy and environmental management has become a widely used concept against global warming over the last few years (M. Awanthi et al., 2018). Human Development Index (HDI) Used by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for evaluating social and economic progress in different countries. It consists of three general parameters: longevity (life expectancy at birth), knowledge (adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio) and standard of living (GDP per capita) (Ness et al., 2007). A composite statistic used to rank countries was created by two economists, Mahbubul Haq and Amartya Sen, in 1990 (B. Biagi et al., 2017). The HDI has been calculated for UN member countries with sufficient data and a handful of other non-member countries since 1975 (Ness et al., 2007). Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale (SUS-TAS) an instrument for evaluating tourism sustainability measures residents’ attitudes toward issues. It comprises of seven-factor structure - perceived social costs, perceived environmental sustainability, perceived economic benefits, long-term planning, ensuring visitor satisfaction, community-based tourism, and maximizing community participation (Zhang, Cole, & Chancellor, 2015). Choi and Sirakaya developed SUS-TAS, assisted by a panel of prominent international tourism scholars. It not only offers a promising instrument for gauging community sentiments toward sustainable tourism development but also bridges existing paradigms such as social exchange theory with sustainability (Sirakaya- Turk, Ekinci, & Kaya, 2008). The 44-item SUS-TAS was initially developed and validated with data collected from 427 residents randomly selected from a tourist city in Texas (Zhang et al., 2015). Tourism Impact Assessment Scale (TIAS) Standardized measurement of resident’s attitude towards tourism development (Rollins, 1997). Using the TIAS, a multiple regression model was used to test the effects of independent variables on resident attitudes towards tourism development in the Columbia River Gorge region of Oregon and Washington, USA (Lankford & Howard, 1994). Tool for planning tourism and recreation development (Rollins, 1997); developed in response to the need for standardized measurement of resident attitudes toward tourism development (Lankford & Howard, 1994). http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 16 These assessment tools are used to monitor various regional developments. Some of these tools may be used to measure the impacts of multiple projects in a region. Compilation of above tools relates to the assessment criteria of different perspectives of tourism and community. Certain tools assist in evaluating the impact of tourism on communities, whereas others are used to measure the impact of communities on tourism development. The second type of tools is mainly those which measure the attitude of communities towards sustainable tourism development. This also provides a base for indicators based on tourism like social cost, visitor’s satisfaction, economic benefits, resident’s satisfaction, etc. thus establishing a link with the concept of CBT in terms of measuring the impacts of tourism on communities. The above impact assessment tools measure different aspects of sustainability in tourism like environmental, economic, HDI, visitors’ satisfaction and social sustainability which open up a new platform for measuring the impacts of tourism on local community in terms of assets and benefits created. The concept of CBT will only then lead to inclusive tourism development thus having positive impacts of tourism which means benefits to communities and the government. Summary and conclusions Tourism, being a mass scale activity, involves enormous investments. As it is the most demanding revenue-generating industry, it likely is biased towards development, rather than towards sustainability. For any holistic development in the era of inclusiveness, tourism is now seen as a development tool for and by the community. The various definitions highlight the key role played by communities in tourism planning and development. The central idea of CBT is the focus on its projected benefits for a community. It ensures control over development while it targets sustainability in tourism development since the primary beneficiaries are within the community. It also involves conservation of culture, tradition, and heritage. It strives to promote pro-poor strategies by alleviating poverty and http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 17 providing alternative sources of income. It intends to deliver more extensive community benefits even though it is small scale in nature. It is indeed an approach to create a more sustainable tourism industry. By studying the various definitions of CBT, we can conclude that the community plays a significant role in the planning and development of a tourism destination. The various roles are involvement, development, management, visitors’ interaction, maintaining, and also conserving the tourism infrastructure. The community is offered ownership, benefit-sharing, poverty alleviation, and provided an alternative source of income by the tourism activities proposed by government in return of their roles offered. This is also evident that communities will play a significant positive role in the development and planning of tourism if they receive suitable benefits. The relationship between tourism development and community can be explored more rigorously if we can quantify the impacts in terms of its magnitude, direction and scale. Hence there is a demand for studying the relationship between tourism and communities. The relationship involves both the role of communities in the development of tourism and the impact of tourism on communities. Community-Based Tourism was introduced as an approach to rural development and conservation of protected areas. It was then seen as an alternative to unsustainable mass tourism useful for the conservation of natural resources. The chronology of CBT reveals that it gained momentum and developed as a response to the negative impacts of mass tourism. It also established a link between tourism and poverty reduction. Subsequently, it was seen as a way to provide an equitable flow of benefits to locals. It emerged prominently when tourism was linked to regional socio-economic development. Several models were developed targeting different disciplines and parameters to stress the importance of local inclusion, to fill the gap of theoretical perspectives of CBT and http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 18 practical validity. Some of them aimed to gain more benefits for the local community. The framework suggested by Faulkner goes beyond assessing the impacts on community and measuring resident’s attitudes and perceptions. Several tools are listed and discussed above out of which some tools emphasize ecology, and some lay stress on the measurement of the impact of tourism on the community. Another category of tools classification is the tools which measure the impact of community on tourism such as SUS-TAS and TIAS. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES TOOLS TO MEASURE IMPACTS DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS MODELS OF CBT • Ecological Footprint • Carbon Footprint • Cost Benefit Analysis • Life Cycle Assessment • Human Development Index • Environmental Impact Assessment • Tourism impact Assessment Scale • Ecology – Murphy • Community Participation – Tosun • Planning Model – Reid • Community Empowerment – Garrod • Monitoring Community Impacts--Faulkner • Physical , • Social, • Economic, • Cultural, and • Environmental Impact Measurement Framework Fr o m Ex is ti n g Li te ra tu re N ew Pe rs p e ct iv e s CBT Framework Typology of Communities Types of Impacts • Trade • Location • Ethnic • Religion • Positive & Negative • Long term & Short term • Linear & Multiple • Cumulative • Induced Indicators from Literature Future Research PROPOSED FRAMEWORK Fi n al O u tc o m e Model for Quantification of Impacts Of Tourism on Communities FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING THE IMPACTS OF TOURISM ON COMMUNITIES ( Compiled by Authors ) http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 19 Measurement is the initial step that leads to control and eventually to improvement. To manage, we need to measure the impacts. It is essential to identify the negative impacts and to evaluate the degree to which extent they impact various communities. The summary of the literature reviewed in this paper will open up avenues for further research in CBT, especially the quantification of impacts of tourism on various communities. It finally draws attention towards the importance of the development of a framework for measuring the impacts of tourism on communities. The analysis of literature generates new perspectives for the quantification of the impacts of tourism for its feasibility and sustainability together. Based on existing literature and new perspectives added, a framework of CBT is proposed which can be developed as a model for quantification of impacts. A new perspective is required that will exclusively explain different types of impacts on different communities. The new framework will put forth the solution of measuring various impacts on varied communities. As communities play a vital role in tourism planning and development, it is essential to study the typology of communities. It is necessary to extend the work of Cevat Tosun (Tosun, 1999) in terms of generating specific typologies for community participation in tourism development. Secondly, more dimensions should be added to impact measurement methods. Apart from positive or negative impacts, other types like direct or indirect, long term or short term, and linear, multiple or cumulative impacts should also be explored. The study of these impacts and their measurements will enable tourism planners to formulate appropriate tourism policies for cities. This is how we actually take a base from the already available literature and move ahead in a new direction. This research will contribute to better policy formulation and implementation. References Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., & Paddon, M. (2010). Effective Community Based http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 20 Tourism: A Best Practice Manual. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. Björk, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a Conceptual Perspective, an Extended definition of a Unique Tourism Form. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(3), 189–202. Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi005 Bruhn-Tysk, S., & Eklund, M. (2002). Environmental impact assessment—a tool for sustainable development?: A case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00104-4 Butler, R., Curran, R., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2012). Pro-Poor Tourism in a First World Urban Setting: Case Study of Glasgow Govan. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(5), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1888 Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903524852 Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018 Cobbinah, P. B., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2013). Tourism Planning in Developing Countries: Review of Concepts and Sustainability Issues. International Journal of Social, Human Science and Engineering, 7(4), 313–320. Dangi, T. B., & Jamal, T. (2016). An integrated approach to “Sustainable Community-Based Tourism.” Sustainability, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050475 Denman, R. (2001). Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. WWF. Dolezal, C., & Burns, P. M. (2015). ABCD to CBT: asset-based community development’s potential for community-based tourism. Development in Practice, 25(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2015.982075 Ernawati, N. M., Sanders, D., & Dowling, R. (2017). Host-Guest Orientations of Community-based Tourism Products: A Case Study in Bali, Indonesia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2119 Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A Framework for Monitoring Community Impacts of Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589708667273 Garcia Lucchetti, V., & Font, X. (2013). Community based tourism: critical success factors. ICRT Occasional Paper, (27), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.icrtourism.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/OP27.pdf Garrod, B. (2003). Local Participation in the Planning and Management of Ecotourism : A Revised Model Approach. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040308668132 Goodall, B. (1995). Environmental Auditing: A Tool for Assessing the Environmental Performance of Tourism Firms. The Geographical Journal, 161(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3059925 Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-Based Tourism: a success? Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J. S., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667183 Jafari, J., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1981). Toward a Framework for Tourism Education- Problems and Prospects. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 13–34. Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing A Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 121–139. http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 21 Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F. J., González, M., & Caballero, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecological Indicators, 18, 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.014 Mann, M. (2000). The Community Tourism Guide. Earthscan Publications Ltd Published. Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost723.0 Martinez-Garcia, E., Raya, J. M., & Majo, J. (2017). Differences in residents ’ attitudes towards tourism among mass tourism destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research, (March), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2126 Mayaka, M., Croy, W. G., & Cox, J. W. Participation as motif in community-based tourism: a practice perspective, 26 Journal of Sustainable Tourism § (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1359278 Mearns, K. (2015). Applying Sustainable Tourism Indicators to Community-Based Ecotourism Ventures in Southern Africa. Athens Journal of Tourism, (September), 179– 194. Murphy, P. E. (1983). Tourism as a community industry: An ecological model of tourism development. Tourism Management, 4(3), 180–193. Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism- A community approach. Methuen & Co.Ltd. Murphy, P. E., & Andressen, B. (1988). Tourism development on Vancouver island: An assessment of the core-Periphery Model. The Professional Geographer, 40(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1988.00032.x Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802159594 Pawson, S., D’Arcy, P., & Richardson, S. (2016). The value of community-based tourism in Banteay Chhmar, Cambodia. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1183143 Potjana, S. (2003). Community Based Tourism Handbook- REST. Reid, D. G., Mair, H., & George, W. (2004). Community Tourism Planning: A Self- Assessment Instrument. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.007 Rollins, R. (1997). Validation of the TIAS as a Tourism Tool. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(96)00083-7 Saayman, M., & Giampiccoli, A. (2016). Community-based and pro-poor tourism: Initial assessment of their relation to community development. European Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 145–190. Salazar, N. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.596279 Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00069-7 Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., & Lockington, D. (2009). Concepts and Tools for Comprehensive Sustainability Assessments for Tourism Destinations : A Comparative Review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, (November 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost659.0 Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), 136– 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.005 Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(94)90003-5 http://ertr.tamu.edu/ e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR), Vol. 17, No.01, 2019 http://ertr.tamu.edu 22 Sirakaya-Turk, E., Ekinci, Y., & Kaya, A. G. (2008). An examination of the validity of SUS- TAS in Cross-Cultures. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308328 Tasci, A. D. A., Croes, R., & Villanueva, J. B. (2014). Rise and fall of community-based tourism - facilitators, inhibitors and outcomes. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-03-2014-0012 Tasci, A. D. A., Semrad, K. J., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2013). COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM Finding the Equilibrium in the COMCEC Context- Setting the Pathway for the Future. Tosun, C. (1999). Towards a Typology of Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.1999.9686975 Tukker, A. (2000). Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00045-1 Twining-Ward, L. (2007). A Toolkit for Monitoring and Managing Community-Based Tourism. SNV - University of Hawaii. UNWTO. (1996). What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. UNWTO. (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations- A Guidebook. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our ecological footprint : reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers. Weaver, D. (2010). Community-based tourism as strategic dead-end. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 206–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081635 Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator- perceptions and methods. Sustainability, 2(6), 1645–1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645 Yuan, Y., Gretzel, U., & Tseng, Y. (2015). Revealing the Nature of Contemporary Tourism Research : Extracting Common Subject Areas through Bibliographic Coupling. International Journal of Tourism Research, 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2004 Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.559200 Zhang, Y., Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, C. H. (2015). Facilitation of the SUS-TAS Application with Parsimony, Predictive Validity, and Global Interpretation Examination. Journal of Travel Research, 54(6), 744–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514535848 http://ertr.tamu.edu/