






































Events and Tourism Review


Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                 

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,              

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review                                     
 
December 2025                                                                                                                                          Volume 8 No. 1      

   

 

Community-Based Tourism: Global Perspectives, Benefits, Challenges, and 

Research Frameworks for Sustainable Development 

 

Suosheng Wang 
Indiana University, Indianapolis 
 

Beatrice Imbaya 
Susan Matiku 
Rita Nthiga 
Wendy Rop 

Moi University, Kenya 

 

Correspondence: ropwendy@mu.ac.ke (W. Rop) 

 

 
 

 

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to register 

with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the 

five-step process. 

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure to 

select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be sure 

to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

Recommended Citation 

Wang, S., Imbaya, B., Matiku, S., Nthiga, R. & Rop, W. (2025). Community-Based Tourism: 

Global Perspectives, Benefits, Challenges, and Research Frameworks for Sustainable 

Development. Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51.  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:ropwendy@mu.ac.ke
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
37 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

 
 

 

 

Abstract 

 

This review synthesizes global and regional perspectives on community-based tourism (CBT), 

highlighting its evolution from a niche concept to a mainstream development strategy linked to 

poverty reduction, cultural preservation, and socio-ecological resilience. Drawing on recent 

literature, the paper examines the opportunities and benefits of CBT alongside persistent challenges. 

A comparative analysis of CBT implementation in developing and developed nations underscores 

contextual differences in policy frameworks, land tenure, and community cohesion. The review 

further explores key research frameworks applied in CBT assessment, including the Sustainable 

Livelihoods Framework (SLF), Social Exchange Theory (SET), and Community Capitals 

Framework (CCF), as well as global guidelines like the AlUla Framework and practical models such 

as community-based ecotourism (CBET). Special attention is given to SLF and its adaptation for 

tourism (SLFT), outlining its strengths, applications, and limitations. The paper concludes by 

emphasizing the need for integrated, participatory, and resilience-oriented frameworks to ensure 

CBT delivers inclusive and sustainable outcomes, particularly in developing regions such as African 

countries. 

 

Keywords: Community-based Tourism (CBT); Benefits and Challenges; Research Frameworks; 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Tourism (SLFT); Africa 
 

 

Concepts and Perspectives 

Community-based tourism (CBT), which involves local communities in planning, 

developing, and managing tourism activities, has become a widely adopted approach for sustainable 

tourism development (Lee & Jan, 2019). Both CBT and sustainable tourism development (STD) aim 

to balance economic growth, environmental conservation, and social equity by integrating local 

knowledge, promoting conservation, and enhancing community well-being (Kiss, 2004; Lee & Jan, 

2019). CBT seeks to ensure that economic benefits remain within the community while prioritizing 

cultural and environmental sustainability (Tosun, 2006). Resident involvement fosters ownership, 

responsibility, and improved economic and social outcomes (Ngo et al., 2024; Jackson, 2025). 

According to Summit (2002), CBT promotes belonging among residents and supports 

tourism development alongside natural resource conservation, protecting heritage and customs. 

Successful CBT practices enhance livelihoods and community survival, while neglect can lead to 

environmental degradation, resource loss, displacement, and reduced revenues. Over the past three 

decades, CBT has evolved from a niche alternative to a mainstream sustainable development 

strategy emphasizing local ownership, participatory governance, and equitable benefit-sharing. 

Foundational definitions focused on local participation (Murphy, 1985; Scheyvens, 1999), while 

recent studies incorporate social justice, inclusive governance, and resilience-building (Lemunge et 

al., 2025; Priatmoko et al., 2021). CBT is now linked to inclusive growth, climate resilience, and 

community empowerment (Abreu et al., 2024; Clark et al., 2024). 

Effectiveness depends on mobilizing social capital, negotiating power dynamics, and 

integrating into competitive tourism value chains (Kumar, 2023; Lemunge et al., 2025). When 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
38 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

supported by capacity building and institutional partnerships, CBT contributes to Sustainable 

Development Goals such as poverty reduction, food security, gender equality, and responsible 

consumption (Abreu et al., 2024; Lemunge et al., 2025). Conversely, poor governance, elite capture, 

and limited managerial capacity undermine equity and authenticity (Clark et al., 2024; Kumar, 

2023). Contemporary literature frames CBT as both an alternative to mass tourism and a 

community-centered development model requiring sustained investment in skills, transparent 

governance, and equitable benefit-sharing to achieve long-term sustainability. This shift underscores 

CBT’s growing role as a strategic tool for resilience and inclusive tourism development in Africa 

and other developing regions. 

Global Perspectives on Community-based Tourism 

Globally, community-based tourism (CBT) has been shown to support conservation and 

cultural revitalization, especially when communities continue to hold meaningful decision-making 

authority and secure equitable access to benefits. Studies from Latin America and the Pacific 

confirm the role CBT’s play in strengthening Indigenous identity and socio-ecological resilience 

through locally governed tourism enterprises (Ruiz-Ballesteros & del Campo Tejedor, 2020; Gascón 

& Mamani, 2021). Similarly, other studies point to positive conservation outcomes where CBT 

aligns with community land rights and participatory governance (Kumar et al, 2023; Esmail et al., 

2023).  However, elite capture, corruption, limited digital skills, and donor dependency have been 

identified as challenges that still continue to undermine local control and divert benefits away from 

vulnerable households (U4, 2022; Wang et al., 2021).  

Additionally, empirical studies from Indonesia and Nepal show that institutional gaps and 

weak market linkages frequently leave CBT ventures commercially fragile and overly dependent on 

external funding or tourism seasonality (Wijayanto et al., 2022; Savage et al., 2021). Consequently, 

recent research studies recommend that, if CBT is to deliver long-term conservation and cultural 

outcomes, there is need to have stronger governance structures, to clarify community property 

rights, and to build capacity that link communities to value chains (Suyatna, 2024; Jackson, 2025). 

Community-based Tourism in Africa 

Community-based tourism in Africa has been widely linked to community-based 

environmental conservation, revenue-sharing, cultural preservation, and improved livelihoods, 

particularly in wildlife-rich and culturally significant landscapes. Empirical studies show that, when 

communities have protected land rights, effective institutions, and transparent benefit-sharing 

mechanisms, CBT can improve household income, reduce human-wildlife conflict, enhance 

environmental resilience and strengthen local governance (Oduor, 2020; Snyman & Bricker, 2019; 

Lemunge et al, 2025).  

In Kenya, conservancies such as those in Maasai Mara and the northern rangelands 

demonstrate both the potential and challenges of CBT, in that, while they contribute to economic 

empowerment and biodiversity protection, they continue to face the challenges of uneven benefit 

distribution, power struggles, limited access to markets and institutional weaknesses (Sagana et al., 

2023; Weldemichel & Lein, 2019). Capacity building is particularly critical for inclusive outcomes 

thus according to Imbaya et al. (2019), training, skills development, and community engagement 

significantly improve the commercial viability and equity of CBT initiatives. 

Besides wildlife-focused CBT, cultural heritage and coastal initiatives demonstrate the 

integration of environmental and cultural conservation into local tourism. For instance, coastal 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
39 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

sacred forest programs and Swahili cultural tourism enterprises at the Kenyan coast support 

ecosystem protection and cultural revitalization as they generate local income (Kibicho, 2004; 

Runya et al, 2023). In addition, trans-boundary initiatives around Mt. Elgon and Lake Victoria 

highlight the potential for regional collaboration, enhanced environmental governance, and tourism 

competitiveness, though they also underscore the challenges of multi-jurisdictional coordination 

(Omondi & Nabanoga, 2020; Nyamweya, 2023). Collectively, recent African and Kenyan research 

indicates that CBT can be a powerful tool for sustainable development, but its success depends on 

strong governance, institutional support, capacity building, and equitable benefit-sharing 

mechanisms. 

Benefits and Challenges 

Insights from Recent Review Articles 

 These insights are based on a synthesis of seven recent conceptual and review articles that 

explore the opportunities, benefits, and challenges associated with community-based tourism 

development: Strydom et al. (2018), Kihima and Musila (2019), Stone & Stone (2020), Prakoso et 

al. (2020), Afeno-Agbe & Mensah (2022), Velan (2022), and Suyatna et al. (2024). Based on these 

review articles, the following is a synthesized summary of the opportunities, benefits, and 

challenges associated with CBT. 

 Opportunities and Benefits of CBT: 

• Socio-Economic Development: CBT generates income, employment, and supports small-

scale enterprises; It brings foreign exchange and stimulates local economies.  

• Community Empowerment: CBT enhances local capacity, fosters ownership, Community 

control and management and encourages participation in decision-making; It strengthens 

community pride and identity. 

• Cultural Preservation and Conservation: CBT promotes safeguarding of traditions, heritage, 

and local values.  

• Environmental Sustainability: Encourages responsible tourism and conservation of natural 

resources.  

• Policy and Planning Support: CBT provides a framework for inclusive tourism policy-

making and long-term planning.  

 Challenges of CBT: 

• Limited Capacity and Skills Development: Communities often lack the necessary skills, 

education, and resources to manage CBT effectively.  

• Governance and Institutional Weaknesses: Poor coordination, lack of transparency, and weak 

institutional support hinder CBT success. 

• Economic Leakage and Inequity: Benefits may not be evenly distributed; local elites may 

dominate projects, and revenue may not stay within the community. 

• Market Access and Promotion: Difficulty in reaching broader markets and attracting tourists 

limits growth. 

• Cultural and Structural Barriers: Resistance to change, lack of trust in external stakeholders, 

and bureaucratic hurdles impede progress.  

• Conflicts and Power Dynamics: Internal disputes and unequal power relations can erode trust 

and disrupt CBT initiatives.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
40 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

• Sustainability Concerns: CBT must be economically viable and socially inclusive to avoid 

becoming exploitative or unsustainable. 

• Inadequate infrastructure: Basic facilities such as reliable transportation, accommodation, 

communication network and utilities, which are essential for supporting tourism activities. 

• Limited research: Without sufficient research to understand the complexities and unique 

challenges faced by communities attempting to implement and sustain CBT initiatives, it 

becomes difficult to identify best practices, measure impacts accurately and develop 

effective strategies for overcoming obstacles such as limited capacity governance issues and 

economic inequities. 

Comparative Perspectives on CBT Development: Developing vs. Developed Nations  

 Drawing on a review of 103 location-specific case studies and relevant literature, Zielinski et 

al. (2020) conducted a comparative analysis across multiple thematic categories to investigate how 

community-based tourism (CBT) and rural tourism are conceptualized and implemented differently 

in developing and developed nations, despite sharing similar goals and challenges. The key 

differences are: 

- Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors: Developing nations often use CBT as a tool for poverty 

alleviation, while developed nations focus more on lifestyle and heritage preservation. 

- Policy and Governance: Developed countries tend to have more robust institutional 

frameworks, whereas developing nations rely heavily on external support and NGOs. 

- Land Ownership: Land tenure systems differ significantly, affecting community control and 

tourism development. 

- Community Cohesiveness: Social cohesion and collective action are more prevalent in some 

developing contexts, influencing CBT success. 

- External Stakeholder Assimilation: The role of NGOs, donors, and government varies, with 

developing nations more dependent on external actors. 

- Type of Visitors: Developed nations attract domestic and regional tourists, while developing 

nations often rely on international visitors. 

 The study argues that the national context - rather than objective criteria - largely shapes how 

CBT is perceived and implemented.  

Illustrative Case Studies  

Table 1 presents selected case studies on community-based tourism, organized according to 

the key opportunities/benefits and challenges each case reveals. 

Table 1. Selected Case Studies on CBT Benefits and Challenges 

Destination  Opportunities/benefits Challenges Authors 

Ghana Modest economic gains through 

infrastructure and income. 

Conservation incentives promoting 

sustainable resource use. 

Community empowerment via 

involvement in tourism planning. 

Apathy toward participation. 

Employment and revenue sharing 

issues. 

Capacity limitations. 

Human-wildlife conflict affecting 

livelihoods. 

Mensah 

(2017) 

Nepal Improved individual well-being and 

psychological health. 

Lack of proper mechanisms and 

planning. 

Baniya et 

al. (2018) 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
41 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Community development through 

entrepreneurship and cultural 

preservation. 

Enhanced quality of life (financial 

and emotional). 

Limited scope and community 

engagement. 

 

Kenya Participation in decision-making and 

Benefit Sharing 

Annual compensation and 

employment of Local communities 

Infrastructure development 

 

Participation is confined to given 

consent on land utilisation and benefit 

sharing  

Community lacks power to ensure 

that agreements are implemented  

Benefits not evenly distributed 

Kihima & 

Musila 

(2019) 

Thailand Abundant Tourism Resources 

Improved Security and Local 

Economy 

 

Resource Ownership Conflicts. 

Benefit Leakage. 

Financial Constraints. 

Low Community Participation. 

Lo & Janta 

(2020) 

Romania 

 

Rich natural and cultural resources. 

Entrepreneurial leadership driving 

CBT success. 

Social and cultural capital. 

Revitalization of rural areas. 

Post-socialist transitions affecting 

stability. 

Municipal barriers and bureaucracy. 

Weak institutional frameworks 

threatening sustainability. 

Nagy & 

Segui 

(2020) 

Vietnam Cultural and craft heritage attracting 

tourists. 

Growth in tourism, especially 

international visitors. 

Support from government and NGOs. 

Community hospitality and 

interactive experiences. 

Limited human resources and 

training. 

Space and material constraints. 

Competition from industrial products. 

Infrastructure and marketing gaps. 

Pham et al. 

(2021) 

Indonesia Ecological and cultural assets. 

Strong community engagement 

potential. 

Positive indicators for sustainability 

and growth. 

Competitive tourism potential. 

Governance and bureaucratic 

inefficiencies. 

Limited stakeholder collaboration. 

Weak promotion and visibility. 

Internal and external community 

conflicts. 

Ahsani et 

al. (2022) 

Ethiopia Positive community attitudes toward 

tourism. 

Eco-tourism potential with rich 

resources. 

Existing infrastructure supporting 

CBT. 

Weak tourism marketing. 

Inadequate accommodation facilities. 

Low community awareness of CBT 

principles. 

 

Gebreyesus 

et al. (2022) 

Malaysia Ecotourism entrepreneurship  

social, cultural capital and networks  

Institutional support 

Environmental awareness  

Cultural preservation 

Improve gender relations 

Lack of trained human resources 

Competition and dominance by 

outsiders/non-native investors owning 

Community-based ecotourism 

enterprises 

Kunjuraman 

(2022) 

 

Frameworks for Assessing CBT in Research 

There are multiple frameworks used in community-based tourism, each focusing on different 

aspects of development and sustainability. The frameworks used in community-based tourism 

are primarily conceptual theories, policy guidance, and practical models, centered on community 

ownership, empowerment, equitable benefit-sharing, and sustainability - often informed by 

participatory development traditions and social-ecological perspectives. In evaluation practice, CBT 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
42 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

studies increasingly link local outcomes to livelihoods (via the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework), 

resident attitudes (via Social Exchange Theory), and multi‑capital community assets (via the 

Community Capitals Framework). 

Core Conceptual Frameworks 

Participatory Development: This foundational model emphasizes the active and meaningful 

involvement of local communities at all stages of tourism planning and management, from decision-

making to implementation and benefit distribution. 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF): SLF places people at the center and analyzes 

assets (human, natural, physical, financial, social), vulnerability context, structures/processes, 

strategies, and outcomes - making it useful for assessing how CBT contributes to livelihood 

resilience and poverty reduction.  

Social Exchange Theory (SET): This theory is often used to understand the local 

community's perception of tourism impacts. It suggests that residents are more likely to support 

tourism development if they perceive the benefits (e.g., income, jobs) as outweighing the costs (e.g., 

cultural dilution, environmental stress). 

Socio-Ecological Resilience: Resilience thinking highlights non‑linear change, thresholds, 

adaptive capacity, and multi‑level governance - increasingly applied to tourism destinations and 

community systems coping with shocks (e.g., pandemics, climate extremes) and guiding CBT 

strategies for adaptability. 

Community Capitals Framework (CCF): CCF assesses seven interconnected capitals: 

natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built - encouraging balanced investment and 

offering a diagnostic lens for CBT projects and outcomes. 

Global Policy and Measurement Guidance 

The International Union of Local Authority (AlUla Framework): A global guideline 

developed by UN Tourism (formerly UNWTO) and the G20, which provides a framework for 

inclusive community development through tourism aligned with the United Nations Sustainable 

Development Goals (SDGs) (Yanes et al 2019, Prakoso et al 2020; Arias et al., 2014). Prakoso et al., 

2020 reported that this framework focuses on using tourism for inclusive community development. 

Its primary goal is to help achieve the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially 

regarding poverty reduction and decent work. Key aspects include promoting economic growth and 

job creation within the community, empowering marginalized communities, and ensuring cultural 

and environmental sustainability. 

Practical Implementation Models 

The “6A” framework: This framework entails the major 6 A’s in a destination i.e. Attraction, 

Accommodation, Accessibility, Activities, and Amenities, or sometimes Available 

packages/Ancillary services (Tong et al., 2025): While a general tourism destination model, it is 

adapted in CBT to ensure these components are developed or managed by the local community to 

maximize local retention of benefits. 

Integrated Ecotourism Model (CBET): This model specifically focuses on combining 

environmental conservation goals with community development objectives, often within protected 

areas, and involves the community as stewards of their natural resources (Raspati et al., 2017) 

Multi-stakeholder Approach: Many initiatives, such as the CAMPFIRE initiative in 

Zimbabwe or the TourDure program in South Korea, utilize a collaborative approach involving 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
43 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

communities, NGOs, governments, and private sectors to provide essential support, funding, and 

market access (Stone & Stone, 2025; Jung, 2022). 

Community-Based Enterprise (CBE) Model: This model treats the CBT initiative as a 

business owned and operated by the community (formally or informally), with profits shared among 

members or reinvested into community projects (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2014). The fundamental 

goal of these frameworks is to ensure that communities have significant control and ownership over 

the tourism activities in their areas, moving beyond low-level employment provision to true 

economic and social empowerment.  

A typology of CBT Assessment Frameworks 

CBT frameworks used in research can be grouped into three overlapping categories: 

1. Sustainability-focused frameworks 

(a)  Holistic sustainability: This approach ensures a balance between the environment, economy, and 

social aspects of tourism, mainly focusing on the SDG’s 

(b)   Livelihoods frameworks: This framework connects CBT with local livelihood improvement by 

focusing on enhancing job opportunities, creating markets for local products, and leading to 

improvements in quality of life through investments in health, education, and infrastructure. 

(c) Community Capitals Framework (CCF): This analytical tool examines seven interconnected 

capitals (natural, cultural, human, social, political, financial, and built/physical) to assess and 

advance sustainable tourism development strategies 

2. Empowerment and participation frameworks  

(a) Ladder of participation: This model illustrates degrees of community involvement, from non-

participation to full citizen control, to ensure the community has power and influence in decision-

making. 

(b) Community empowerment: This framework prioritizes the community's ability to own tourism 

products, make their own decisions, and enjoy the benefits of tourism. 

3. Business and operational frameworks 

(a) Business Plan Approach framework - this framework emphasizes treating CBT as a business 

with a solid plan, market strategy, and commercial mindset to ensure profitability and sustainability. 

(b) Operational frameworks such as Monitoring and evaluation - this component includes 

establishing baseline assessments, setting performance indicators, and using feedback mechanisms 

like surveys and community meetings to track progress and make necessary adjustments. 

(c) Value proposition - this framework involves understanding what travelers want and creating a 

compelling value proposition that goes beyond just supporting the community, ensuring the product 

is attractive to tour operators and travelers.  

 Integrated and Hybrid Frameworks 

(a) Community-based ecotourism: This framework combines CBT principles with ecotourism to 

foster ecological and cultural awareness, based on social equity and leading to the long-term well-

being of local people. 

(b) Integrated models: These frameworks bring together multiple elements, such as public and 

private sector collaboration, regional coordination, and a focus on sustainability, to create a more 

comprehensive approach to tourism development.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Livelihoods+framework&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQIAxAC&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ladder+of+participation&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQIBRAB&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Community+empowerment&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQIBRAD&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Value+proposition&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQIBxAE&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Community-based+ecotourism&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQICxAB&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3
https://www.google.com/search?q=Integrated+models&sca_esv=fbce5c1644a5d5c8&source=hp&ei=VtQEaY2TCvefhbIPtY_uoQs&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaQTiZiim1eoBjBXSnz4JQnW6miXlg5vn&ved=2ahUKEwjfjq6W386QAxUzZ0EAHYlJNksQgK4QegQICxAD&uact=5&oq=Frameworks+used+in+Community+based+tourism& &sclient=gws-wiz&mstk=AUtExfC3FFKVjiOzEfFaoYGd6satz-cMS5Y7oebVRQSgSOfNl4ldZGi_QH6UIj0uEt4UWwqdNvlzki9fNFQmL8qU6OUHIM-mSY5UHj5qFOtiiTl6FP22irNMQF8hLR__rcavPcw&csui=3


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
44 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Community-based tourism (CBT) extends far beyond tourism - it intersects with livelihoods, 

culture, governance, and sustainability. Frameworks such as the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework 

(SLF) and the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) provide structured approaches to capture 

these diverse dimensions systematically, rather than focusing solely on economic indicators. By 

applying these frameworks, researchers and practitioners can gain deeper insights into community 

perceptions and power dynamics, evaluate livelihood and multi-capital outcomes, understand 

resident support for tourism, and measure sustainability consistently and comprehensively. 

Compared to SET and CCF, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) has been applied 

less frequently in evaluating tourism’s impacts on communities. The following section provides an 

expanded review of SLF and its application in assessing community-based tourism. 

 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) in CBT  

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework - Origin and application 

The origin of Sustainable Livelihoods as a concept is widely attributed to a 1992 discussion 

paper by Chambers and Conway. Chambers and Conway defined a livelihood, to comprise of the 

capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of 

living; a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain 

or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next 

generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and 

in the short and long-term (Chambers & Conway, 1992: 7). 

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) has its origin in the development circles in 

the 1980s and 1990s. The focus on livelihoods as argued by Solesbury (2003) was necessitated by 

wider shifts in approaches to development from economic growth to human wellbeing and 

sustainability. The initial application in policy was in 1999 as the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach 

by the UK’s Department for International Development - DFID (DFID 1999).   

In 1998, The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) through a White Paper, developed The 

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework, a framework for analyzing rural development 

interventions. The framework highlighted five interacting elements: contexts (policy settings, 

politics, history, agro-ecology, socio-economic conditions); resources (capital assets); institutions 

(formal and informal institutions and organizations); strategies (agricultural intensification/ 

extensification, livelihood diversification and migration); and outcomes (Scoones, 1998; Ellis & 

Allison, 2004; DFID, 1999; Solesburry, 2003; Natarajan et al., 2022; Gkartzios et al. 2022; Kumar 

et al. 2023; Yang 2024). 

Serrat (2017) argues the following about the sustainable livelihoods approach. First it 

improves understanding of the livelihoods of the poor. Second it organizes the factors that constrain 

or enhance livelihood opportunities and shows how they relate. Finally, it can help plan 

development activities and assess the contribution that existing activities have made to sustaining 

livelihoods. 

Strengths and Critiques of SLF 

The main support of the livelihoods approach was its strength as opposed to earlier analysis 

of development measures which ‘do not fit or capture the complex and diverse realities of most rural 

life’ (Chambers & Conway, 1992: 4). The concept of sustainable livelihoods also linked the three 

extant concepts of capability, equity and sustainability (Solesbury 2003). Natarajan et al., (2022) 

noted that the popularity of the SLF among development practitioners emerged both from its 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
45 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

practical focus, and its de-politicization of wider shifts in the development landscape. The SLF also 

values local knowledge, engages with local people and, in Robert Chambers (1983) term, seeks to 

‘put the last first’. 

Solesbury (2003) argued that livelihoods approaches are overly mechanical and fail to 

account for time and chance. Scoones (2013) identified four major gaps: lack of engagement with 

economic globalization; insufficient attention to power, politics, and governance; inadequate 

treatment of long-term environmental changes such as climate change; and neglect of broader 

agrarian transitions. Natarajan et al. (2022) highlighted weaknesses in theory, method, scale, 

historical conceptualization, politics, and decolonizing knowledge debates, proposing a reformulated 

SLF for the 21st century—structural, spatially disaggregated, dynamic, and ecologically coherent. 

Yang (2024) supports this updated framework, emphasizing: (i) “livelihoods in flux” to reflect 

dynamic and unpredictable strategies; (ii) reduced emphasis on assets, focusing instead on nested 

relationships among assets, power, and environmental contexts; (iii) inclusion of livelihood 

characteristics, vulnerability, and opportunity to balance negative connotations; and (iv) greater 

attention to macro factors (policy, markets, societal shifts) and microelements (cultural traditions, 

collective governance). 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Tourism (SLFT)  

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Tourism (SLFT) is an adaptation of the broader 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, specifically tailored to the tourism context. It provides a 

holistic approach to analyzing how tourism affects the livelihoods of local communities. 

SLFT is increasingly used to guide and evaluate community-based tourism initiatives, 

especially in rural and developing areas. The framework helps assess tourism’s impact on local 

livelihoods, design sustainable tourism projects that deliver community benefits, and inform 

governments and NGOs on strategies to reduce poverty and enhance resilience. It does so by 

examining five key forms of capital: 

1. Human Capital - Skills, knowledge, health, and the ability to work in tourism-related jobs. 

Example: Training locals as guides or hospitality staff. 

2. Social Capital - Social networks, relationships, and institutions that foster cooperation and 

trust. Example: Community-based tourism initiatives or cooperatives. 

3. Natural Capital - Natural resources such as land, water, and biodiversity that tourism 

depends on. Example: Ecotourism in protected areas or scenic landscapes. 

4. Physical Capital - Infrastructure and tools needed for tourism, including roads, buildings, 

and technology. Example: Lodges, transportation systems, and communication networks. 

5. Financial Capital - Income, savings, credit, and other economic assets. Example: Revenue 

from tourism reinvested into the community. 

Application of SLFT in Assessing Community-Based Tourism 

Evaluating Livelihood Outcomes: SLFT offers a systematic approach to assessing how CBT 

projects influence the economic, social, and environmental well-being of local communities. For 

example, a study in Sabah, Malaysia, applied SLFT to examine tourism’s impact on local 

employment, skill development, and access to resources (Kunjuraman, 2023). 

Identifying Gaps and Vulnerabilities: The framework helps identify weaknesses in tourism 

planning, such as over-reliance on external funding, seasonal income fluctuations, and limited local 

autonomy. A case study of the Aangan project in Goa, India, revealed that CBT initiatives often 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22000882#b0070


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
46 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

struggle when institutional support is withdrawn, underscoring the need for community 

empowerment and capacity building (Mahatme et al., 2025). 

Integrating Socio-Cultural Capital: Recent adaptations of SLFT incorporate socio-cultural 

capital into the original framework, acknowledging the role of cultural identity, traditions, and 

community cohesion in tourism success. This addition enhances SLFT’s relevance to CBT, where 

cultural experiences are central to the tourism product (Kunjuraman, 2023). 

Promoting Resilience and Sustainability: SLFT encourages the design of CBT projects that 

build resilience by diversifying income sources, strengthening local governance, and fostering long-

term capacity. It supports strategies such as equitable profit-sharing, inclusive decision-making, and 

sustainable resource use (Mahatme et al., 2025). 

Guiding Policy and Practice: Policymakers and NGOs use SLFT to design, monitor, and 

evaluate tourism interventions. The framework ensures that tourism development aligns with 

broader goals, including poverty reduction, gender equity, and environmental conservation (Paiano 

et al., 2024). 

Limitations of SLFT in Evaluating Community-Based Tourism 

When applying SLFT to assess CBT, the literature highlights several key limitations: an 

overemphasis on economic capital, limited integration of power dynamics and governance, a static 

representation of livelihoods, insufficient attention to cultural and emotional capital, and a lack of 

tools for measuring subjective well-being. 

Overemphasis on Economic Capital: SLFT often prioritizes financial and economic 

outcomes, which can overshadow non-economic values such as cultural preservation, emotional 

well-being, and community identity. This narrow focus may lead to tourism models that prioritize 

profit over sustainability or equity (Kunjuraman, 2023). For example, in the Aangan CBT project in 

Goa, India, economic dependency on external funding created vulnerability when institutional 

support was withdrawn (Mahatme et al., 2025). 

Limited Integration of Power Dynamics and Governance: The framework tends to 

underrepresent power relations, political structures, and governance issues that influence tourism 

outcomes. It may not fully capture how elite capture, external control, or lack of community 

autonomy affect CBT success (Kunjuraman, 2023). Local empowerment and self-sufficiency are 

critical, yet SLFT does not adequately address these dimensions. 

Static Representation of Livelihoods: SLFT can be overly static, failing to reflect the 

dynamic and evolving nature of tourism livelihoods. Seasonal tourism, shifting visitor preferences, 

and changing community roles are often not well captured (Kunjuraman, 2023). For instance, 

seasonal fluctuations in tourism income posed major challenges in the Goa case study, affecting 

long-term sustainability (Mahatme et al., 2025). 

Insufficient Attention to Cultural and Emotional Capital: Traditional SLFT focuses on five 

types of capital—human, social, natural, physical, and financial—but often overlooks socio-cultural 

capital, including traditions, identity, and emotional ties. This omission weakens its ability to assess 

CBT projects that rely heavily on cultural experiences (Mahatme et al., 2025). Expanding SLFT to 

include socio-cultural capital has been proposed to better reflect CBT realities. 

Lack of Measurement Tools for Subjective Well-being: SLFT does not provide robust tools 

for measuring subjective well-being, such as community satisfaction, pride, or perceived quality of 

life. These indicators are crucial in CBT, where success is not only economic but also social and 

emotional (Paiano et al., 2024). 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
47 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Conclusion 

Community-based tourism represents a powerful tool for achieving sustainable development 

goals, fostering local empowerment, and promoting cultural and environmental stewardship. 

Drawing on recent literature, this paper examines the concept of community-based tourism, 

highlighting its opportunities and benefits as well as the persistent challenges it faces. The review 

analyzes key research frameworks used in CBT assessment, including Social Exchange Theory 

(SET) and the Community Capitals Framework (CCF). Particular attention is given to the 

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) and its adaptation for tourism (SLFT). The review paper 

indicates that research frameworks like SLF, SET, and CCF provide valuable lenses for assessing 

CBT impacts, yet each has inherent limitations that call for more dynamic, context-sensitive, and 

multi-dimensional approaches. Integrating socio-cultural and emotional dimensions, power 

dynamics, and resilience thinking into existing frameworks can enhance their relevance and 

effectiveness. Future research should consider all these major research frameworks, paying attention 

to each model’s strengths, applications, and limitations. The paper concludes by emphasizing the 

need for integrated, participatory, and resilience-oriented frameworks to ensure CBT delivers 

inclusive and sustainable outcomes. 

 

References 

Abreu, L. A., de Lima, J. R. S., & dos Santos, M. R. (2024). Community-based tourism and best 

practices with the SDGs: Comparative analysis of three CBT communities. Governance, 

Environment and Sustainable Tourism, 14(2), 36. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/2/36 

Afenyo-Agbe, E., & Mensah, I. (2022). Principles, benefits, and barriers to community-based 

tourism: Implications for management. In Prospects and challenges of community-based 

tourism and changing demographics (pp. 1-29). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. 

Ahsani, R. D. P., Wulandari, C., Dinata, C., Azmi, N. A., & Fathani, A. T. (2022). The challenges 

and opportunities for developing community-based tourism in Indonesia. Journal of 

Governance: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, 7(4), 864-876. 

Arias, B., Bel, N., Fisas, B., Lorente, M., Marimon, M., Morell, C., ... & Vivaldi, J. (2014). The 

IULA Spanish LSP Treebank: building and browsing. In Proceedings of the 9 th 

International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14). 

Baniya, R., Shrestha, U., & Karn, M. (2018). Local and Community Well-Being through 

Community Based Tourism–A Study of Transformative Effect. Journal of Tourism and 

Hospitality Education, 8, 77-96. 

Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st 

century, Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. 

Clark, C., Nyaupane, G. P., & Xiao, X. (2024). Building Community Resilience and Adaptive 

Capacity Through Investments in Tourism and Conservation. Journal of Travel Research, 

0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875241304482  

Cohen, P. J., Schwarz, A. M., Boso, D., & Hilly, Z. (2014). Lessons from implementing, adapting 

and sustaining community-based adaptive marine resource management. 

Conway, G. (2022). Exploring sustainable livelihoods. In Revolutionizing Development (pp. 85-92). 

Routledge. 

Ellis, F. (2003). A livelihoods approach to migration and poverty reduction. DFID. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/2/36?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875241304482


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
48 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Ellis, F., & Allison, E. (2004). Livelihood diversification and natural resource access. Overseas 

Development Group, University of East Anglia. 

Esmail, N., et al. (2023). What’s on the horizon for community-based conservation? Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution, 38 (7): 666-680. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953472300037X 

Fanggidae, A. H., & Se, M. Model of Community Based Policy of Tourism and marketing strataegy 

in Kupang-West Timor Corridor, East Nusa Tenggara Province. 

Gascón J, & Mamani K. S. Community-based tourism, peasant agriculture and resilience in the face 

of COVID-19 in Peru. J Agrar Chang. 2022 Apr;22(2):362-377. doi: 10.1111/joac.12447. 

Epub 2021 Aug 31. PMID: 38607870; PMCID: PMC8661877  

Gebreyesus, A., Tesfay, G., Tesfay, M., & Meheretu, Y. (2022). Opportunities and challenges of 

community-based tourism development in Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of 

Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 11(3), 938-954. 

Giampiccoli, A., & Mtapuri, O. (2012). Community-based tourism: An exploration of the concept 

(s) from a political perspective. Tourism Review International, 16(1), 29-43. 

Gkartzios, M., Gallent, N., & Scott, M. (2022). A capitals framework for rural areas: ‘Place-

planning’the global countryside. Habitat International, 127, 102625. 

Havadi Nagy, K. X., & Espinosa Segui, A. (2020). Experiences of community-based tourism in 

Romania: Chances and challenges. Journal of Tourism Analysis: Revista de Análisis 

Turístico, 27(2), 143-163. 

Imbaya, B. O., Nthiga, R. W., Sitati, N., & Lenaiyasa, S. (2019). Capacity building for inclusive 

growth in community-based tourism initiatives in Kenya. Tourism Management 

Perspectives, 30, 11–18. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211973619300042 

Jackson, L. A. (2025). Community-Based Tourism: A Catalyst for Achieving the United Nations 

Sustainable Development Goals One and Eight. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 29. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010029  

Jung, M. (2022). The Role of Social Capital and Trust in Community-Based Tourism Stakeholder 

Collaboration (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey). 

Kariithi, J. N. (2025). Stakeholder Engagement and Community Participation: Mount Elgon 

Protected Areas, Western Kenya in Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism. Routledge, Apple 

Academic Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003494461-

8/stakeholder-engagement-community-participation-mount-elgon-protected-areas-western-

kenya-jacqueline-kariithi.  
Kibicho, W. (2004). Community tourism: A lesson from Kenya’s coastal region. Journal of Vacation 

Marketing, 10(1), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670301000104  

Kihima, B. O., & Musila, P. M. (2019). Extent of local community participation in tourism 

development in conservation areas: a case study of Mwaluganje Conservancy. Parks Vol, 25. 

https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.parks252bok.en 

Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? 

Trends in ecology & evolution, 19(5), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.010. 

Kumar, V., Agarwala, T. & Kumar, S. (2023). Community-based Tourism: A Bibliometric 

Visualization Analysis. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 12(3):813-833. 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720.401  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953472300037X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211973619300042?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010029
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003494461-8/stakeholder-engagement-community-participation-mount-elgon-protected-areas-western-kenya-jacqueline-kariithi
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003494461-8/stakeholder-engagement-community-participation-mount-elgon-protected-areas-western-kenya-jacqueline-kariithi
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003494461-8/stakeholder-engagement-community-participation-mount-elgon-protected-areas-western-kenya-jacqueline-kariithi
https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670301000104
https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720.401


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
49 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Kumar, S., Sengupta, K., & Gogoi, B. J. (2023). Interventions for sustainable livelihoods: a review 

of evidence and knowledge gaps. International Journal of Social Economics, 50(4), 556-

574. 

Kunjuraman, V.. (2022). The development of sustainable livelihood framework for community-

based ecotourism in developing countries. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221135540 

Kunjuraman, V. (2023). A revised sustainable livelihood framework for community-based tourism 

projects in developing countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(4), 540-546. 

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable 

development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of sustainability. Tourism Management, 

70, 368-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003. 

Lemunge, H. D., Kiwango, W. A., & Mwanyoka, I. R. (2025). Community-based tourism in Africa: 

a systematic review of the status and emerging opportunities. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2461741  

Lo, Y. C., & Janta, P. (2020). Resident’s perspective on developing community-based tourism–a 

qualitative study of Muen Ngoen Kong Community, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Frontiers in 

Psychology, 11, 1493. 

Mahatme, M., Gore, S., Mahatme, V., Borde, N., & Desai, P. H. (2025). Capacity Building as a 

Revitalization Strategy for a Community-based Tourism Project. South Asian Journal of 

Management, 11(1). 

Mensah, I. (2017). Benefits and challenges of community-based ecotourism in park-fringe 

communities: The case of Mesomagor of Kakum National Park, Ghana. Tourism Review 

International, 21(1), 81-98. 

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Routledge. New York-London: Methuen 

Mtapuri, O., & Giampiccoli, A. (2014). Towards a comprehensive model of community-based 

tourism development. South African Geographical Journal, 98(1), 154–168. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2014.977813 

Magayu, M. (2014). Community based tourism development-a framework for Kenya. 

Natarajan, N., Newsham, A., Rigg, J., & Suhardiman, D. (2022). A sustainable livelihoods 

framework for the 21st century. World Development, 155, 105898. 

Ngo, T. H., Tournois, N., Dinh, T. L. T., Chu, M. T., & Phan, C. S. (2024). Sustainable Community-

Based Tourism Development: Capacity Building for Community; The Case Study in Cam 

Kim, Hoi An, Vietnam. Journal of Sustainability Research, 6. 

https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20240022. 

Nyamweya et al. (2023). Lake Victoria: Overview of research needs and the way forward. Journal 

of Great Lakes Research. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133023001648  

Oduor, A.M.O. (2020). Livelihood Impacts and Governance Processes of Community-Based 

Wildlife Conservation in Maasai Mara Ecosystem, Kenya. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 260, Article ID: 110133. 

https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3903921  

Paiano, A., Bhuiyan, M. A., Lagioia, G., & Crovella, T. (2024). Sustainable livelihoods and tourism: 

An overview of the nexus in developing countries. Sustainable Tourism: Frameworks, 

Practices, and Innovative Solutions, 33-58 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221135540
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2461741
https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2014.977813
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133023001648
https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3903921


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
50 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Pham Hong, L., Ngo, H. T., & Pham, L. T. (2021). Community-based tourism: Opportunities and 

challenges a case study in Thanh Ha pottery village, Hoi An city, Vietnam. Cogent Social 

Sciences, 7(1), 1926100. 

Pasanchay, K., & Schott, C. (2021). Community-based tourism homestays' capacity to advance the 

Sustainable Development Goals: A holistic sustainable livelihood perspective. Tourism 

Management Perspectives, 37, 100784. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100784. 

Prakoso, A. A., Pradipto, E., Roychansyah, M. S., & Nugraha, B. S. (2020). Community-based 

tourism: concepts, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism and 

Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 95-107. 

Priatmoko, S., Kabil, M., Purwoko, Y., & Dávid, L. D. (2021). Rethinking Sustainable Community-

Based Tourism: A Villager’s Point of View and Case Study in Pampang Village, 

Indonesia. Sustainability, 13(6), 3245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063245 

Respati, A., Purwanto, E., Santoso, S., & Handayani, I. G. A. K. R. (2017). The Reconstruction of 

Ecotourism Model Based on Resources and Local Wisdom. International Journal of 

Business, Economics and Law, 13(4), 138-143. 

Ruiz-Ballesteros, E., & del Campo Tejedor, A. (2020). Community-based tourism as a factor in 

socio-ecological resilience, economic diversification and community participation in 

Floreana (Galápagos). Sustainability, 12(11), 4724. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114724 

Runya, R. M., Karani, N. J., Muriuki, A., Mariga, D., Kamau, A. W., Ndomasi, N., Njagi, K., 

Munga, C., Okello, J. A., (2022). Local perceptions, opportunities, and challenges of 

community-based ecotourism in Gazi Bay, Kenya. WIO Journal of Marine Science 21(2): 

95-108 [doi: 10.4314/wiojms.v21i2.9  

Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama rhino 

sanctuary trust, central district, Botswana. Tourism management, 31(1), 136-146. 

Serrat, O. (2017). The sustainable livelihoods approach. In Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, 

and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp. 21-26). Singapore: Springer 

Singapore. 

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. Working Paper 72, 

Brighton, UK: Institute for Development Studies. 

Scoones, I. (2013). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. In Critical perspectives in rural 

development studies (pp. 159-184). Routledge. 

Solesbury, W. (2003). Sustainable livelihoods: A case study of the evolution of DFID policy (Vol. 

217). London: Overseas Development Institute. 

Stone, M. T., & Stone, L. S. (2020). Challenges of community-based tourism in Botswana: a review 

of literature. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 75(2), 181-193. 

Stone, M. T., & Stone, L. S. (2025). Sustainable community-based tourism: Role of stakeholder 

collaboration. In Handbook on Sustainable Community-Based Tourism (pp. 113-132). 

Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Strydom, A. J., Mangope, D., & Henama, U. S. (2018). Lessons learned from successful 

community-based tourism case studies from the global south. African Journal of Hospitality, 

Tourism and Leisure, 7(5), 1-13. 

Summit, J. (2002). World summit on sustainable development. Johannesburg, South Africa, 9(3), 

67-69. 

Suyatna, H., Indroyono, P., Yuda, T. K., & Firdaus, R. S. M. (2024). How Community-based 

Tourism Improves Community Welfare? A Practical Case Study of ‘Governing the 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114724


Wang et al. (2025) / Events and Tourism Review, 8(1), 36-51. 
51 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025), 36-51, DOI: 10.18060/29458                                                                                                                                                             

               Copyright © 2025 Suosheng Wang, Beatrice Imbaya, Susan Matiku,             

Rita Nthiga, and Wendy Rop 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Commons’ in Rural Nglanggeran, Indonesia. The International Journal of Community and 

Social Development, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026241228717 

Suyatna, H. (2024). How community-based tourism improves social innovation and poverty 

alleviation: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Development in Tourism, 8(1), 

23–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026241228717  

Snyman, S., & Bricker, K. (2019). Living on the edge: Benefit-sharing and human–wildlife conflict 

in African community conservancies. Journal of Ecotourism, 18(2), 83–102. 

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism 

Management, 27(3), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.004. 

U4 (Chr. Michelsen Institute). (2022). Corruption in community-based conservation: A synthesis of 

lessons. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. 

https://www.u4.no/api/publications/corruption-in-community-based-conservation/pdf  

Varwell, S. (2022). A Literature Review of Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation: Lessons for 

Contemporary Student Engagement. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research 

Journal, 10(1), 108-144. 

Wang, M., Jiang, J., Xu, S., & Guo, Y. (2021). Community Participation and Residents’ Support for 

Tourism Development in Ancient Villages: The Mediating Role of Perceptions of Conflicts 

in the Tourism Community. Sustainability, 13(5), 2455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052455   

Weldemichel, T. G., & Lein, H. (2019). “Fencing off” community rights? Conservation, 

dispossession, and tourism development in East Africa. Conservation & Society, 17(4), 360–

372. 

Wijayanto, A., Wirahayu, S., & Rahayu, W. (2022). Barriers to local community involvement in 

community-based tourism: A case from Indonesia. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality 

Studies, 10(2), 45–63. 

Yang, L. (2024). An overview of community livelihoods in Biosphere Reserves: based on the 

sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. Frontiers in Forests and Global 

Change, 7, 1375051. 

Zielinski, S., Jeong, Y., Kim, S. I., & B. Milanés, C. (2020). Why community-based tourism and 

rural tourism in developing and developed nations are treated differently? A review. 

Sustainability, 12(15), 5938. 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026241228717
https://doi.org/10.1177/25166026241228717
https://www.u4.no/api/publications/corruption-in-community-based-conservation/pdf
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052455

