Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 36 : 577 - 590 (2015) ว ...kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2016/A1601071509424038.pdf · performance (CBTP) by concentrating on ... To reach such a goal,

Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 36 : 577 - 590 (2015) ว. เกษตรศาสตร์ (สังคม) ปีที่ 36 : 577 - 590 (2558)

Application of Sustainable Tourism Development to Assess Community-based Tourism Performance

Sumalee Nunthasiriphon

ABSTRACT

The foundation of sustainable tourism development is the concept that the economy, socio-culture, and environment are related, and that the strong development of communities relies on the efficient management of these three pillars whenever there is any decision to be made. The objective of this research was to study the application of sustainable tourism development (STD) to assess community-based tourism performance (CBTP) by concentrating on the indicators for the evaluation of CBTP. To reach such a goal, this research begins with a literature review concerning CBT goals and objectives and also STD through an outline of indicators. The next step is a range of comprehensive interviews with the local leaders, public officers, CBT team, and academic scholars of the Koh Kred Kred community, Pak-Kred district, Nonthaburi province, Thailand. The findings of this study demonstrated that the goals and objectives of CBT emphasize the development of community in several aspects, including the generation of revenue and employment, the encouragement of participation, and an increase of awareness regarding the preservation of culture and environment which is part of the sustainable development way. Indicators of CBTP in terms of STD are the guides not only to the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental issues, but also to subjects which concern ecology. To conclude, both CBTP and STD aim to better the quality of life of inhabitants by creating a sustainable economy, valuing the socio-cultural genuineness of local communities, and conserving the environment. Keywords: community-based tourism, sustainable tourism, economy, socio-culture, environment

Tourism Department, Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep, Bangkok 10120, Thailand.E-mail: [email protected]

บทคัดย่อ

ความสัมพันธ์ของแนวคิดด้านเศรษฐกิจ

สังคมวัฒนธรรม และสิ่งแวดล้อม ถือเป็นรากฐาน

ของการพัฒนาการท่องเที่ยวอย่างยั่งยืน และการ

พัฒนาชุมชนให้เข้มแข็งขึ้นอยู่กับการจัดการที่มี

ประสิทธิภาพของสามเสาหลักดังกล่าว การวิจัยครั้ง

นี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อศึกษาการประยุกต์ใช้ตัวชี้วัดของ

การพัฒนาการท่องเที่ยวอย่างยั่งยืนเพื่อประเมินผล

การดำเนินงานของการท่องเที่ยวโดยชุมชน งานวิจัย

นี้เริ่มต้นด้วยการทบทวนวรรณกรรมที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ

วัตถุประสงค์และเป้าหมายของการท่องเที่ยวโดย

ชุมชนรวมทั้งตัวชี้วัดของการพัฒนาการท่องเที่ยว

อย่างยั่งยืน จากนั้นสัมภาษณ์เชิงลึก ผู้นำชุมชน

เจ้าหน้าที่ของรัฐบาล เจ้าหน้าที่ผู้ดูแลการท่องเที่ยว

และปราชญ์ชาวบ้าน ผลการศึกษา พบว่า เป้าหมาย

และวัตถุประสงค์ของการท่องเที่ยวโดยชุมชน เน้น

การพัฒนาชุมชนในหลายด้าน คือ การสร้างรายได้

การสร้างงาน การส่งเสริมการมีส่วนร่วม การสร้าง

ความตระหนักรู้ เรื่องการอนุรักษ์วัฒนธรรมและ

ว. เกษตรศาสตร์ (สังคม) ปีที่ 36 ฉบับที่ 3 578

สิ่งแวดล้อม ซึ่งถือเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของการพัฒนาอย่าง

ยั่งยืน ตัวชี้วัดของผลการดำเนินงานของการท่องเที่ยว

โดยชุมชนในบริบทของการพัฒนาการท่องเที่ยวอย่าง

ยั่งยืน คือ ตัวชี้วัดด้านเศรษฐกิจ สังคมวัฒนธรรม

และสิ่งแวดล้อม และรวมถึงตัวชี้วัดด้านนิเวศวิทยา

กล่าวโดยสรุป ผลการดำเนินงานของการท่องเที่ยว

โดยชุมชนและการพัฒนาการท่องเที่ยวอย่างยั่งยืน มี

วัตถุประสงค์ เพื่อพัฒนาคุณภาพชีวิตของประชาชน

โดยการสร้างสรรค์เศรษฐกิจที่ยั่งยืน การสร้างคุณค่า

ที่แท้จริงของสังคมและวัฒนธรรม และการอนุรักษ์

สิ่งแวดล้อม

คำสำคัญ: การท่องเที่ยวโดยชุมชน การท่องเที่ยวอย่าง

ยั่งยืน เศรษฐกิจ สังคม-วัฒนธรรม สิ่งแวดล้อม

INTRODUCTION

According to Murphy (1985), the most important principle of community-based tourism (CBT) is the participation of all related parties in the plan-making and developing process. Sebele (2010) also suggested that CBT will be achieved when communities share a sense of ownership which encourages their participation in tourism projects. One of the biggest challenges in the development of tourism, according to Häusler and Strasdas (2003), is the empowerment of communities by distributing knowledge to local people and helping them learn directly from experiences in the neighborhood. The data from Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (Public Organization) or DASTA in Thailand (2012) indicated that over 80,000 communities all over Thailand are representatives of a balanced way of life which embraces a harmonious relationship between the people themselves and between people and the environment as well as a unique social and cultural multiplicity. For Trejos and Chiang (2009) and Lopez-Guzman, Borges, and Castillo-Canalejo (2011), CBT is distinctive as it is the community itself that has power over the management of tourism while it also gains a great deal of

advantages from tourism activities. On the other hand, where tourism is inefficiently managed, CBT can help to solve issues about negative tourism impacts (Cioce, Bona, & Ribeiro 2007). This way, several conservationists consider tourism as a means of sustainable utilization of natural resources and also as a way to augment conservation incentives. Ashely (2000) indicated that for inhabitants and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), tourism is a major part of community advancement. There are various cases when NGOs take part in sustainable activities. Nevertheless, according to Ghasemi and Hamzah (2011) and Häusler and Strasdas (2003), sometimes NGOs are inappropriately involved with CBT. Asian Center for Tourism Planning and Poverty Reduction (2005) suggested that the achievement of a CBT proposal largely depends on the capacity to examine the execution of strategies and the accomplishment of the goals and objectives. A variety of indicators are available. Each has its own efficacy for making decisions. Even though the most helpful ones can be used to identify future issues, there are also many other types of indicators which are worth considering (WTO, 2004: 11). Therefore, the purposes of this research were: 1) to study researchers’ and scholars’ perspectives towards CBT goals and objectives, 2) to study the perspectives of key informants towards CBT goals and objectives in Koh Kred community, Pak-Kred district, Nonthaburi province, Thailand, 3) to study the sustainable tourism indicators which are applied by many researchers in order to evaluate the CBT performance, and 4) to develop suggestions regarding potentially useful indicators for the assessment of CBT performance in Koh Kred community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This qualitative research’s methodology is divided into two corresponding sections. The first part, which is the documentary research, comprises the data collected from secondary data sources,


including academic papers, journals, researches, dissertations, manuals, and handbooks, the contexts of which are related to the goals and objectives of community-based tourism as well as sustainable tourism indicators. Such data were collected from June to July 2013. The second part represents the in-depth interviews which were conducted in August 2013 with eight key informants who were living in Koh Kred community, Pak-Kred district, Nonthaburi province, Thailand. These people included public officer representatives, community leaders, members of CBT management team, and scholars. The criteria for sample selection were: 1) the informants must be equipped with knowledge of CBT and have experience in this field, 2) they must be able to reflect, 3) they must be expressive, 4) they must agree to participate in this research, and 5) they must be available for the interview. As a result, eight main informants of this research consisted of both the vice-chairman and the chief administrator of Sub-district Administration Organization (SAO), a community development official, a public health official, a tourism development official, and the community leaders of Moo 1, Moo 3 and Moo 7. All these informants hold major positions in CBT management and planning. The interview questions inquired about the perspective of each key informant regarding the goals and objectives of CBT in Koh Kred community. The results of this research demonstrate: 1) researchers’ and scholars’ perspectives towards CBT goals and objectives, 2) the perspectives of key informants towards CBT goals and objectives in Koh Kred community, and 3) the sustainable tourism indicators which are applied by many researchers in order to evaluate the CBT performance. Content analysis was applied to analyze the results from the documentary review and in-depth interviews. The analysis mainly focused on the question of the study, that is, what are the suitable indicators for the measurement of Koh Kred community for them to achieve their goals and objectives? The research ends with suggestions regarding potentially useful indicators

for the assessment of CBT performance in Koh Kred community.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For Häusler and Strasdas (2003), one of the most efficient types of tourism is CBT. In part one, CBTP was described with an emphasis on the goals and objectives of CBT and sustainable tourism development. Afterwards, the indicators were addressed by the studies of 10 researchers who applied a sustainable tourism development framework for the evaluation of tourism destinations. Community-based tourism goals and objectives According to Mitchell and Reid (2001), the integration of communities in tourism was principally described in terms of the structures and procedures of decision-making power, ownership, types of employment, and distribution of work, as well as the number of local inhabitants who worked in the local tourism industry. Even if community participation, conservation, and enhancement of local people’s quality of life are encouraged by sustainable tourism (Tasci, Semrad, & Yilmaz 2013), Goodwin and Santilli (2009) and Sebele (2010) pointed out that its approach progresses from a large unit to smaller subunits, for the distribution of authority to related parties impedes the participation of communities. Table 1 demonstrates CBT’s goals and objectives from the points of view of 20 researchers in this branch of study as Murphy (1985) considered CBT in terms of community participation and benefits. The keywords were extended by researchers in several viewpoints; for example, the participation of stakeholders (Swarbrooke, 1999), the enhancement of decision-making control and procedures (Mitchell & Reid, 2001), the raising of awareness regarding tourism impacts, the conservation of natural areas, and the generation of financial advantages (Häusler & Strasdas, 2003) as well as the relocation of economic, environmental, social, and cultural benefits (Simpson, 2008).


Table 1 Researchers’ and scholars’ perspectives towards community-based tourism (CBT) goals and objectives

Author (Year) CBT goals and objectives

1. Murphy (1985) Construct community participation and benefits 2. Simmons (1994) Enlarge community participation 3. Swarbrooke (1999) Increase stakeholder participation 4. Mitchell and Reid (2001) Enhance decision-making power structures and processes,

local control or ownership, distribution of employment, and local people employed in tourism

5. Rozemeijer (2001) Generate income and employment, obtain benefits from a naturally sustainable way, and add value to product

5. Halstead (2003) Manage profitability, play a role in environmental sustainability, and evidence in social development

6. Häusler and Strasdas (2003) Educate and interpret tourism service, increase local and visitor awareness of conservation, minimize negative impacts on the natural and socio-culturalenvironment, and support the protection of natural areas by generating economicbenefits

7. Tosun (2005) Build community participation 8. Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Focus on sustainability 9. Lianbin and Kaibang (2008) Benefit local community 10. Simpson (2008) Transfer collective benefits; economic, environmental, and

socio-cultural11. Goodwin and Santilli (2009) Distribute empowerment to stakeholders and deliver

community profits 12. Aref, Redzuan, and Gill (2010) Generate economic profits equation 13. Sebele (2010) Involve esteem, and conserve natural heritage and

environment14. The Thai Ecotourism and Adventure Travel Association (TEATA) and the CSR-MAP Project (2010)

Support sustainable tourism development, support suppliers such as community, hotel, restaurant, service sectors, and tourist guide be sustain in tourism

15. Byrd and Gustke (2011) Create association membership and participation in social activities

16. Frauman and Banks (2011) Accept change planning in socio-economic, socio-cultural and environmental areas

17. Hatton (2012) Engage in socially sustainable activity 18. The Thailand Community-based Tourism Institute (2012)

Train and encourage local people to manage tourism

19. Tasci, Semrad, and Yilmaz (2013) Promote community participation, protection, and improvement of the quality of life for all

20. Lucchetti and Font (2013) Involve community participation, generate benefits for local communities, learn about their culture, and local environment

Source: (Aref, Redzuan & Gill, 2010; Byrd & Gustke, 2011; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Frauman & Banks, 2011, Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; Halstead, 2003;

Hatton, 2012; Häusler & Strasdas, 2003; Lianbin & Kaibang, 2008; Lucchetti & Font, 2013; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Murphy, 1985; Rozemeijer,

2001; Sebele, 2010; Simmons, 1994; Simpson, 2008; Swarbrooke, 1999; Tasci, Semrad & Yilmaz, 2013; The Thai Ecotourism and Adventure

Travel Association (TEATA) and the CSR-MAP Project, 2010; The Thailand Community-based Tourism Institute, 2012; and Tosun, 2005)


All perspectives concentrate on the economy,socio-culture, and environment which generate income and employment, create participation, and raise awareness on environmental conservation and cultural preservation, as well as engage in a sustainable way which complies with Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (Public Organization) or DASTA in Thailand (2012) and show that the aim of community tourism development should be to stimulate participation for the construction of network partners, to create involvement in creative tourism advancement and knowledge, and to help with the planning of strategies on sustainable tourism development which concerns network partners. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the whole viewpoint is optimistic, which is related to the citation by Mason (2008) that positive financial benefits generally comprise the contributions of creation of jobs and a local economy. Satisfactory social effects may include the traditional and cultural revival, while positive environmental impacts can include the use of income from visitors to natural attractions for the restoration and maintenance of such places. Nevertheless, tourism can cause negative impacts, which include a more expensive price of land, food, and merchandise, the fading of cultural identity, and a higher level of pollution which derives from tourism activities. Furthermore, some researchers in Table 1, including Byrd and Gustke (2011), Lucchetti and Font (2013), Murphy (1985), Simmons (1994), Swarbrooke (1999), Tasci, Semrad, and Yilmaz (2013) and Tosun (2005), concentrated on the community involvement perspective which complied with the statement by Monypeny (2008) that the creation of community capacity is a constant action which can be supported by collaboration and procedural integration among society, providers, tourists, and other partners. The higher level of cooperation between local people and related parties is one of the things that community developers should promote in order to encourage community

development. Other perspectives suggest that the main goal is community revenue, which is related to the research by Nicholas and Thapa (2010) who demonstrated that it is crucial to buy local products, use local services, spend more to support communities, and donate money for the preservation of tourism attractions. Nevertheless, the focus is also on sustainable management and a socio-cultural standpoint, which is in accordance with Walker (2008) who mentioned that CBT is recognized as equipment for the building of capacity and community growth such as the improvement of quality of life and a contribution to the sustainable management of natural resources. Even so, enthused pride in local culture is a lower-ranked perspective in CBT goals and objectives, which is in accord with Swarbrooke (1999) who cited that the socio-cultural notion is quite vague and tends to happen only slowly and subtly. Perspectives of key informants towards CBT goals and objectives in Koh Kred community To support the study review, the results of the in-depth interviews with eight key informants (CBT management team members, public officials, community leaders, and scholars in the Koh Kred community) indicated that the CBT goals and objectives place emphasis on the economy, socio-culture and the environment as demonstrated in Table 2. According to Table 2, the first perspectives concentrate on community economics as the Koh Kred community holds CBT activities which are popular during festive seasons and weekends. The CBT management team mentioned that although the Koh Kred community opened only on weekends and holidays, the community welcomed 48,000 visitors during October–December 2012 with an average of 2,000 visitors a day. Koh Kred had approximately 400 shops owned by both residents and non-residents. These shops included a pottery center, souvenir shops, restaurants, food and beverage


stores, Thai dessert stalls, and others that offer local products, which is in accordance with the report by Wang, Bickle, and Harrill (2010) who stated that many residents are pleased with the increased number of shops and amenities as well as the financial profits that have accumulated from tourism activities. This signifies that the higher amount of revenue, the development of local skills, and the wide distribution of benefits are major goals of the Koh Kred community, which conforms to Wall (1997) who reported that local people try to gain profit from tourism by becoming involved in food and restaurant businesses, guide services, local merchandise sales, and the organization of cultural shows for tourists. It is also in accordance with the research by Rozemeijer (2001) which stated that CBT in Botswana concentrated on generating revenue and jobs as well as gaining benefits from nature in a sustainable manner which also enhances product values. Another related research is the study by Aref, Redzuan, and Gill (2010) which cited that the evaluation of the level of community capacity can be achieved using a financial profit equation. Many academics have studied the goals and

objectives of CBT in a sustainable manner in order to cover three aspects—economic, social and cultural, and environmental—which is in accord with the research by Butler (1999) which mentioned that the economic aspect of sustainability puts an emphasis on the desire to support and develop the capability of tourism by making the most of profits while keeping the costs as low as possible. The second dimension of socio-cultural perspectives emphasizes cultural conservation since the Koh Kred community is an area under a strong cultural and traditional influence. According to Local Administration Tumbon Koh-Kred (2011), Koh Kred has seven cultural learning areas: (1) pottery; (2) traditional custom; (3) music and dancing performance; (4) cuisine; (5) costume; (6) language; and (7) belief. The in-depth interviews revealed that the pottery center is a major part of Koh Kred cultural learning. The village in Moo 7 is a pottery village called Guan Ar Man where the Khun-Tum pottery kiln factory is located. Scholars in pottery said that they taught local people and visitors about the art of pottery, but not very much. Although pottery is not widely used in daily life,

Table 2 Perspectives of key informants towards community-based tourism goals and objectives in Koh Kred

Three pillars The key informants’ perspective

Economic 1. Advancement of skills 2. Promotion of local items 3. Raising of earnings 4. Reasonable income 5. No debt

Socio-cultural 1. Enhancement of cultural value 2. Comprehension of culture 3. Distribution of knowledge 4. Understanding of social structure

Environmental 1. Preservation of environment 2. Development of areas 3. Creation of a sense of ownership

Source: Interviews with both the vice-chairman and the chief administrator of Sub-district Administration Organization (SAO), a community development official, a public health official, a tourism development official, and the community leaders of Moo 1, Moo 3, and Moo 7.


local people can still learn how to make it. Visitors always ask common questions to local residents in Koh Kred about how the pottery is made, for example, where the clay comes from, how long should the pottery stay inside the kiln, and how do local people sell outside Koh Kred, among other questions. Nevertheless, the development of Koh Kred society does not rely on tourism growth. Instead, it depends on an annual budget from the government. As a result, it can be seen that the socio-cultural perspective is not clear in the society’s goals and objectives, which is in accordance with the research by Swarbrooke (1999) which demonstrated that the social dimension of sustainable tourism development gains less attention than the environmental one. Still, the viewpoints of several researchers emphasized the objectives in social development and cultural learning, which complied with the study that focused on raising local residents’ and visitors’ socio-cultural awareness by Häusler and Strasdas (2003), the evidence of social development by Halstead (2003), the distribution of collective profits to the community by Simpson (2008), the change in social and cultural planning by Frauman and Banks (2011), and the learning of community culture by Lucchetti and Font (2013). Lastly, environmental perspectives emphasize environmental conservation and community development, which relates to the citation by Murphy and Price (2005) that even though the main focus of sustainable tourism development is on the economic aspect, the real circumstance is the opposite since the environment surpasses the economics. The research by Salazar (2012) mentioned that the meaning of environmental sustainability is that the value of ecology should not diminish. Additionally, the results of the in-depth interviews are in accordance with the study by Wight (1993) which suggested that the key player in tourism products is the environment. Therefore, issues about environmental management and conservation have been given more and more attention in sustainable tourism development. The

results also conform to the research by Nicholas and Thapa (2010) which pointed out that environmental sustainability basically supports the preservation of biodiversity and fundamental ecological procedures. Hence, tourism should help to promote natural conservation to guarantee the sustainability of resources. In conclusion, the criteria that are used to judge CBT’s achievement include better quality of life, greater financial benefits for local people, and stronger development of socio-culture and the environment. Still, in this research, the cultural aspect is less focused. Community leaders have indicated that this could be because it is not easy to preserve Koh Kred cultures which take such a long period to be handed down to new generations. The majority of respondents usually discuss the economic and environmental aspects since they are considered the major factors for the development of communities (Halstead, 2003). Assessment of community-based tourism performance by sustainable tourism development framework According to Simpson (2008), Aref, Redzuan, and Gill (2010), and Frauman and Banks (2011), CBTP helps to distribute opportunities and balance costs for communities, both environmentally and culturally. Rozemeijer (2001) and Mitchell and Reid (2001) stated that in several circumstances, CBTP has been considered a great source of employment and income. A variety of STD issues are connected to CBTP, and one of the most challenging tasks for STD is to provide guidelines for communities so that they can make the right decisions concerning CBTP (Murphy, 1985; Hatton, 2012; Lucchetti & Font, 2013). As CBTP has been gaining more attention internationally, it has never been more difficult to maintain the culture and environment in small-sized communities as they may be harmed by careless development plans which focus too much on generating financial profits. Eventually, not only


communities but also tourists will be negatively affected. Fortunately, the tourism development plan of Koh Kred community—a tourism destination which is gradually growing—is well-crafted in a way that encourages community participation. While CBTP is in progress, there have been attempts to help the community define and reach tourism goals by promoting community involvement while the environment and culture are still well preserved. In 2004, proper indicators of sustainability which could be easily understood and evaluated economically and technically were suggested by the World Tourism Organization (WTO). Proper indicators have many advantages as they bring about more efficient decisions which help to minimize costs and risks, allow negative effects to be promptly addressed and corrected, help to measure the performance of development plans accurately,

and encourage public responsibility, all of which support continual improvement. Table 3 demonstrates 13 indicators which were recommended by WTO (2004) and also by 10 researchers (Table 1) that applied such indicators to assess tourism destination schemes like community-based natural tourism, rural tourism, community owned tourism, and ecotourism, among others in the three dimensions of the economy, socio-culture, and environment. The three indicators used by all studies in Table 3 for the evaluation of tourism destinations are: good financial profits from tourism, involvement of community in tourism, and sustainability of tourism services and operations in terms of the economy, socio-culture, and environment. Points of discussion follow below. Firstly, the evident indicator from an economic aspect that is used by all researchers is the

Table 3 Application of sustainable tourism development indicators to estimate community-based tourism performance

Dimension and Indicators Author (Year) [number: see source]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Economic 1. Capturing economic benefits from tourism

2. Designing products and services Socio-cultural 3. Wellbeing of host communities 4. Sustaining cultural assets 5. Community participation in tourism 6. Tourist satisfaction 7. Health and safety 8. Destination planning and control Environmental 9. Protection of valuable natural assets 10. Managing scarce natural resources 11. Limiting impacts of tourism activity 12. Controlling tourist activities and levels 13. Sustainability of tourism operations and services

Source: ([1] Halstead, 2003; [2] WTO, 2004; [3] Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; [4] Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006; [5] Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; [6] Blancas, Caballero, & González 2010; [7] Rio & Nune, 2012; [8] Lucchetti & Font, 2013; [9] Pérez, Guerrero, González, Pérez, & Caballero, 2013; and [10] Suansri, Yeejaw-haw, & Richards, 2013)


capture of financial profits from tourism business. For example, in the research by Halstead (2003), the economy is considered one of the most important factors since it contributes to CBTP’s accomplishment and sustainability. In the same way, Tsaur, Lin, and Lin (2006) suggested that indicators like the allocation of income from tourism, the creation of satisfactory profits, and the generation of jobs have been used to assess the sustainability of ecotourism from the combined perspectives of resource, community, and tourism. Also, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) indicated that CBTP and STD have to be economically possible, since CBT is definitely identified as an economic activity, which is in agreement with the report by Thongma (2008) which cited that members of the Sobwin community in Mae Wang district, Chiang Mai province, Thailand were satisfied with tourism activities in their society due to the income these activities brought to local people at all levels. Secondly, another major social and cultural indicator is the community’s involvement in tourism activities. Even though the principle of local participation seems simple, it is much more complicated to put into practice as it can be implemented in many different ways (Simmons, 1994). According to Tosun (2005), the operation, as well as the structure and culture of a community, sometimes hinder people’s participation in the procedure of tourism development. The level of participation of local residents is vital for the achievement of sustainable development’s international goals. There have been various researchers who have utilized involvement indicators for the assessment of destination tourism (Blancas, Caballero & González, 2010; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; Lucchetti & Font, 2013; and Pérez et al., 2013; Rio & Nune, 2012; Tsaur, Lin & Lin, 2006). A CBT standard check list concerning the participation of CBT community was suggested by Suansri, Yeejaw-haw, and Richards (2013). For instance, the CBT management team allows local people to take part in the process of planning and

decision making, to plan CBT meetings as well as to let other members know about CBT activities. Such indicators are in accordance with the research by Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell (1999) which revealed that the CBT participatory development procedure gives power to local people in the community by enhancing their ability, know-how, and self-assurance which are necessary for the control of their land and resources, the augmentation of their potentiality, and their community’s tourism development. These indicators also conform to the report by Okazaki (2008) that stimulation from CBT enhances collaboration and involvement in the community, provides new responsibilities, and develops local skills. They are also related to the research by Kibicho (2003) which indicated that the evaluation of community involvement is vital for tourism development, since tourist attractions are located inside the community, and sometimes, the community’s culture is the very thing that attracts visitors. Consequently, the conservation of culture and the environment principally depends upon the level of community cooperation in terms of tourism expansion, planning, and implementation. Thus, the assessment of all stakeholders’ involvement is necessary for the efficient application of CBT (Presenza & Cipollina, 2010). Finally, the sustainability of tourism procedures and services is emphasized by the environmental indicator. According to The Thai Ecotourism and Adventure Travel Association (TEATA) and the CSR-MAP Project (2010), sustainable tourism refers to any type of tourism which gains accomplishment in minimizing negative effects or augmenting the environmental, social, and economic advantages of tourism. Indicators of sustainability offer a foundation for the examination and evaluation of how the major sustainable development issues of tourism destinations are dealt with. Good examples are social and economic advantages, specific use of resources or goals and objectives of CBT including an increase in related stakeholders’ participation, the


raising of awareness among local people and tourists regarding cultural and environmental conservation, and the training of local people to handle tourism properly or to learn and understand tourism services correctly. Since so many indicators were identified by WTO (2004), the chosen ones should be: easy to evaluate, go along well with local circumstances, and offer precise and reliable information. Over decades, The Thailand Community- based Tourism Institute (2012) and The Thai Ecotourism and Adventure Travel Association (TEATA) and the CSR-MAP Project (2010) have been promoting sustainable tourism in Thailand. These organizations have created guidelines that sustainable tourism industry should follow. The general principles of Thai sustainable tourism which are helpful for community members in the management of CBT are the main contents. Suansri, Yeejaw-haw, and Richards (2013) completed a project which produced the CBT standard handbook for the development of ASEAN’s most efficient CBT practice: The three key benefits provide an integrated frame and direction for community development. Inclusive of service and sustainability significance, CBTP indicators are able to improve the quality of life, promote sustainability, and boost confidence and access to the market for the destination. Suggestion of potentially-useful indicators for CBT performance in Koh Kred community Considering all these results, the Koh Kred community can be considered a promising CBT destination where both community leaders and local people are optimistic about CBT. Nevertheless, the suggestions in Table 4 might vary in the future when key informants shift their focuses to other goals and objectives, or when the group of informants or the CBT destination is changed. Koh Kred, a small community with unique traditions, is starting to receive more and more attention from tourists as it welcomes increasing numbers of visitors who would like to learn about

the community’s people, culture, traditions, and ways of living. With the destination’s popularity come both good and bad effects. In some periods, approximately 2,000 visitors a day arrive at Koh Kred, making it stressful for the community to handle such a large influx of visitors. Other CBT attractions might have time to get prepared and to decide on the number and the type of tourists they would like to attract.

CONCLUSION

Rio and Nune (2012) indicated that the examination and the assessment of CBTP are major tools to achieving a CBT destination’s sustainability. The assessment of CBTP is not a rule that must be followed by CBT. In contrast, local people should comprehend the goals and objectives of CBT and actively take part in the evaluation process for CBT using proper indicators. Hence, prior to the consideration of the indicators’ contents, the benefits of communities should be appraised. It is possible for communities which have newly developed CBT to be incapable of meeting several indicators. As suggested by Suansri, Yeejaw-haw, and Richards (2013) and WTO (2004), the most significant thing about the assessment by indicators which must be kept in mind is that the evaluation will not be useful if people in the community do not make use of the findings for future improvement. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the goals and objectives of CBT which emphasize the economy, socio-culture and environment in synergy with the approach of STD. The indicators for the evaluation provided by WTO (2004) can be used as sustainable tourism indicators. In other words, sustainable tourism indicators have been applied as subjects to evaluate the CBTP, as presented in Table 3. The main theme of this research is that the three indicators for evaluation are: financial profits, active community involvement in the planning of CBT, and the sustainability of local people and their services and business, as suggested in Table 4.


It is not at all easy to measure the achievements of CBT since there are various criteria that are involved, including ones relating to the economy, socio-culture, and environment. For instance, Halstead (2003) argued that services and businesses in a community might yield a great deal of profits, but they may not gain support from members of the community. On the other hand, the

services and businesses themselves may not be profitable but they provide a great deal of advantage to the community. Although every indicator is useful for CBTP and STD in its own way, the ones that help to provide early warning are usually the most valuable and might also help to predict feasible negative impacts in such a destination or with travelling experience.

Table 4 Suggestion of potentially-useful indicators for the evaluation of community-based tourism (CBT) performance in Koh Kred community

Goals and Objectives (key informants’ perspectives)

Suggestions for potentially-useful indicators

Economic • Financial profits 1. Advancement of skills 2. Promotion of local items 3. Raising of earnings 4. Reasonable income 5. No debt

1. Level of the community’s constant opportunities to enhance capability in related areas 2. Level of support for the community to create new items using local wisdom and resources 3. Percentage of the community’s rotating opportunities to gain more revenue 4. Level of profit distribution to all related parties 5. Percentage of the community’s employment profit retention

Socio-cultural • Active community participation in CBT planning 1. Enhancement of cultural value 2. Comprehension of culture 3. Distribution of knowledge 4. Understanding of social structure

1. Level of CBT activities which allows visitors to understand cultural exchange, local traditions, and ways of life through first-hand experience or practical activities 2. Existence of the community’s comprehension about cultural differences between visitors and residents 3. Level of the community’s involvement in the support, protection, and transmission of distinctive cultures to the next generation 4. Percentage of local people’s concern about losing their community’s cultural structure and value

Environmental • Sustainability of local services and businesses 1. Preservation of environment 2. Development of areas 3. Creation of a sense of ownership

1. Level of the community’s involvement in ecological preservation and campaign to elevate the community’s awareness regarding the environmental significance 2. Level of cleanliness, tidiness, and pleasurable environment inside the community 3. Existence of CBT knowledge and standpoints

Source: (Blancas, Caballero, & González, 2010; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; Halstead, 2003; Lucchetti & Font, 2013; Pérez et al., 2013; Rio & Nune, 2012; Suansri, Yeejaw- haw, & Richards, 2013; Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006; and WTO, 2004)


Preferably, indicators can help to prevent serious damage to STD beforehand. In addition, it should be remembered that one indicator is able to serve various purposes and that its application can vary as time goes by (WTO, 2004: 11). Lastly, it is important to keep in mind that the objective of this research is not to set up indicator standards, as it only points out that indicators of STD are useful for the evaluation of CBTP and is supportive of CBT. Future research into the study of CBTP and STD still requires further discussion regarding the findings from the investigation on how CBT activities, local people’s attitudes, and tourist’s perceptions affect CBTP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to the Office of the Higher Education Commission Thailand for providing research fund.

REFERENCES

Aref, F., Redzuan, M., & Gill, S. S. (2010). Assessing the level of community capacity building in tourism development in local communities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1) March, 80–90.

Ashley, C. (2000). Theimpactsof tourismonrurallivelihoods: Namibia's Experience. London: Chameleon Press.

Asian Center for Tourism Planning and Poverty Reduction. (2005). Development of acommunity-based tourism monitoring andevaluation toolkit for poverty reductionplanning,assessmentandmanagement. School of travel industry management university of Hawaii at Manoa: The Netherlands development organization, SNV.

Blancas, J. F., Caballero, R., González, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Pérez, F. (2010). Goal programming synthetic indicators: An application for sustainable tourism in

Andalusian coastal counties. EcologicalEconomics, 69, 2158–2172.

Buuter, R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art-review. Tourism Geographies,1, 7–25.

Byrd, E. T., & Gustke, L. (2011). Using decision trees to identify tourism stakeholders. Journalof PlaceManagement andDevelopment, 4(2), 148–168.

Cioce, C. A., Bona, M., & Ribeiro, F. (2007). Community tourism: Montanha beija-flor dourado pilot project (microbasin of the Sagrado river, Morretes, Paraná). Turismo-VisaoeAçao, 9(2), 249–266.

Choi, C. H., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. TourismManagement, 27, 1274–1289.

Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (Public Organization) or DASTA in Thailand. (2012). Knowledgesource, theory/ concept/ research. Retrieved from http://www.dasta.or.th

Frauman, E., & Bank, S. (2011). Gateway community resident perceptions of tourism development: Incorporating importance- performance analysis into a limits of acceptable change framework. Tourism Management, 32(1): 128–140.

Ghasemi, M., & Hamzah, A. (2011). Anevaluationof the role and performance of NGOs incommunity-based ecotourism at Ulu Geroh,Gopeng, Malaysia. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-basedtourism:Asuccess?(Unpublished master’s thesis). ICRT Occasional Paper 11, University of Greenwich, UK.

Halstead, L. (2003). Making community-basedtourism work: An assessment of factorscontributing to successful community-ownedtourism development in Caprivi, Namibia. Namibia: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.


Hatton, M. (2012). The character of community-based tourism. Community-based tourism in the Asia-Pacific. Retrieved from: http://cullin.org/cbt/index.cfm?section=chapter&number=1

Häusler, N., & Strasdas, W. (2003). Trainingmanual for community-based tourism. Germany: InWEnt - Capacity Building International.

Kibicho, W. (2003). Community tourism: A lesson from Kenya’s coastal region. Journal ofVacationMarketing,10(1), 33–42.

Lianbin, Z., & Kaibang, L. (2008). Community tourism as practiced in the mountainous Qiang region of Sichuan Province, China—a case study in Zhenghe village. Journal ofManagementScience, 5, 140–156.

Local Administration Tumbon Koh-Kred. (2011). Koh Kred island guidebook. Nakornpathom petchkasem printing group.

López-Guzmán, T., Borges, O., & Castillo-Canalejo, A. M. (2011). Community-based tourism in Cape Verde – a case study. Tourism andHospitalityManagement, 17(1), 35–44.

Lucchetti, G. V., & Font, X. (2013). Community- based tourism: Critical success factor. Theinternational for responsible tourism. ICRToccasionalNo.27.

Mason, P. (2008). Tourism impact, planning andmanagement. Hungary: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Medeiros de Araujo, L. & Bramwell, B. (1999). Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: the case of Brazil’s Costa Dourada project. Journal of SustainableTourism, 7, 356–378.

Mitchell, E. R., & Reid, G. D. (2001). Community integration island tourism in Peru. Annals ofTourismResearch, 28(1), 113–139.

Monypeny, R. (2008). Capacity building through cooperation. In G. Moscardo (ed.), Buildingcommunity capacity for tourism development,pp. 177–171, London: CABI.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A communityapproach. London: Methuen.

Murphy, P. E., & Price, G. (2005). Tourism development. In W. Theobald (ed.), GlobalTourism, pp. 167–193, Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nicholas, L., & Thapa, B. (2010). Visitor perspectives on sustainable tourism development in the Pitons management area world heritage site, St. Lucia. EnvironDevSustain,12, 839–857.

Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal ofSustainableTourism,16(5), 511–529.

Presenza, A., & Cipollina, M. (2010). Analysing tourism stakeholders networks. TourismReview, 65(4), 17–30.

Pérez, V., Guerrero, F., González, M., Pérez, F., & Caballero, R. (2013). Composite indicator for the assessment of sustainability: The case of Cuban nature-based tourism destinations. EcologicalIndicators, 29, 316–324.

Rozemeijer, N. (2001). Community-basedtourisminBotswana: The SNV experience in threecommunity-tourism projects. Gaborone: SNV Botswana.

Salazar, N. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: issues, threats and opportunities. JournalofSustainableTourism,20(1), 9–22.

Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. TourismManagement, 31, 136–146.

Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15, 98–108.

Simpson, M. C. (2008). Progress in tourism management: Community benefit tourism initiatives—a conceptual oxymoron?. TourismManagement, 29, 1–18.

Suansri, P., Yeejaw-haw, S., & Richards, P. (2013). CBT standard handbook. Chiang Mai: The Thailand Community-based Tourism Institute.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourismmanagement. CABI Publishing.


Tasci, D. A. A., Semrad, J. K., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2013). Community-based tourism finding theequilibrium in Comcec context setting thepathway for the future. Turkey: the COMCEC Coordination Office.

The Thai Ecotourism and Adventure Travel Association (TEATA) and the CSR-MAP Project. (2010). Steppingtowardssustainability:Amanualforsustainabletourismsuppliersandsupporters. Thailand: Thai Ecotourism and Adventure Travel Association (TEATA).

The Thailand Community-based Tourism Institute. (2012). What is community based tourism?. Retrieved from http://www.cbt-i.org/travel.php.

Thongma, W. (2008). Impact of tourism businessmanagement in Chupwin community,ThombonMaewin, Amphur Maewang, Chiangmai. International conference on business and management research (ICBMR) August 27-29, 2008. Bali-Indonesia: 184–193. In Thongma, W. 2009. Upland community-based tourism business management strategies in Chiang Mai province, Thailand. Annual of International Thai Tourism Journal. 28–39.

Trejos, B., & Chiang, L-H. (2009). Local economic linkages to community-based tourism in rural Costa Rica. Singapore Journal of TropicalGeography, 30, 373–387.

Tsaur, S. H., Lin, Y. C., & Lin, H. J. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 640–653.

Tosun, C. (2005). Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism development approach in the Developing World. Geoforum, 36, 333–352.

Walker, K. (2008). Tool to enhance community capacity to critically evaluate tourism activities. In G. Moscardo (Ed.), Buildingcommunitycapacityfortourismdevelopment, pp. 177–171, London: CABI.

Wall, G. (1997). Rethinking impacts of tourism. In Cooper, C. et al. (ed), Tourismdevelopment, pp. 1–10, Chichester: John Wiley and Son.

Wang, S. Bickle, M., & Harrill, R. (2010). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development in Shandong, China. International Journal ofCulture,TourismandHospitalityResearch,4(4), 327–339.

Wight, P. A. (1993). Sustainable ecotourism: Balancing economic, environmental and social goals within an ethical framework. Journal ofTourismStudies, 4(2), 54–66.

WTO. (2004). Indicatorsofsustainabledevelopmentfortourismdestinations:Aguidebook. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

Documents

Kasetsart J. (Soc. Sci) 36 : 577 - 590 (2015) ว ...kasetsartjournal.ku.ac.th/kuj_files/2016/A1601071509424038.pdf · performance (CBTP) by concentrating on ... To reach such a goal,