Developing Sustainability Performance Indicators for Community-based Tourism in Caramoan, Camarines Sur and Jovellar, Albay, Philippines
Frechie Belle Otivar Lo1* and Antonino F. Alejandro2
1Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College 4031 Laguna, Philippines
2Conrado Benitez Institute for Business Education and School of Tourism, Philippine Women’s University, Taft Avenue 2401 Manila, Philippines
Tourism development in a community is often highly driven by tourist demand, setting aside the need to carefully plan tourism development. However, the lack of sensibly designed community-based tourism (CBT) indicators can hinder the identification and monitoring progress of the community towards its sustainability goal. Thus, this study attempted to determine the sustainability performance of Philippine CBT organizations and determine the key indicators that explain their sustainability performance. The focus of the study was the CBT organizations of Caramoan in Camarines Sur and Jovellar in Albay. There was a total of 196 respondents consisting of community stakeholders who were selected through purposive sampling. The study underwent two phases to achieve the research objectives. The first phase was the harmonization of various CBT indicators from established CBT standards and studies. From 25, it was narrowed down to 15 CBT indicators. After identifying the criteria to be used, the second phase involved statistical treatment of data through mean, standard deviation, and principal component analysis (PCA). The survey results showed the CBT organization’s agreement with almost all the sustainability performance indicators, whereas they also depicted disagreement with quality accommodation. The result of PCA showed that five key indicators explain the sustainability performance of the two communities: socio-economic component, services component, tourist-community benefits component, community development component, and resources component. The study results can provide valuable information to detect sustainability problems and determine applicable CBT standards to achieve excellent performance in CBT operations, attain long-term CBT benefits, and serve as a useful benchmark in developing sustainability performance indicators for other CBT sites in the country.
Keywords: management performance, rural development, sustainability indicators, tourism management
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The concept of sustainability has evolved into different development strategies, government programs and policies, and community consciousness and awareness for the last three decades. Community-based tourism
(CBT) is widely recognized as an effective alternative and sustainable tourism solution (Novelli et al. 2017).
CBT upholds grassroots mechanisms to enhance capacity and community productivity. It provides supportive and meaningful ways to improve community development and decent livelihood for marginalized communities.
However, there are cases when tourism development in ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 14 Feb 2022
a community is highly driven by tourist demand, setting aside the need to carefully plan tourism activities and development to meet visitors' urgent demands. Moreover, critical factors in CBT development are unconsciously neglected due to a lack of skills and expertise in areas required for the operation of tourism, high dependence on resource consumptive activities, poor or inadequate government policies, and no clarity about tourism, its costs, and benefits, and ways in which communities could participate (Zielinski et al. 2020). Therefore, there is a need to formulate indicators that can help decision-makers measure internal and external factors that affect tourism and its impacts (UNWTO 2004). Determining indicators is a vital component in assessing the sustainability performance of CBT, its resources, and the viability of tourism activities. According to the United Nations World Trade Organization (UNWTO 2004), there is a need to create a set of indicators to enable tourism management to limit their values according to priorities defined by their pertinent issues to gain forward-looking perspectives.
A group of sustainable tourism indicators generates a plan of action or policy that ultimately helps achieve the tourism destinations' objectives (Ocampo et al. 2018).
Therefore, indicators have an essential role in identifying and assessing progress and directing and monitoring policies toward sustainable development. Using CBT indicators, the community first appreciates the opportunity to pursue sustainable performance to the benefit of their success that can support the decision-making process, i.e. the assessment of the degree of achievement of the sustainability performance to prevent unsustainable conditions such as negative social and cultural impacts, environmental degradation, and habitat fragmentation, to name a few (Franzoni 2015). This study's sustainability performance is based on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) CBT and other international CBT standards or CBTS. Following the CBTS (ASEAN 2016) will ensure a quality visitor experience that provides meaningful and enjoyable travel and meets their expectations. It will also help protect the community's natural and cultural heritage resources, guarantee its income flows, and ensure improved well-being and livelihood.
Background of the Study
The CBT sites may be situated in protected or non- protected areas. This study examines both to elicit imperative results about sustainability performance necessary for CBT sites in a national park or other conservation areas and non-protected sites. CBT as a form of sustainable tourism potentially enables protected area managers to allow local people to derive economic benefit from the park and to encourage local support for its maintenance. Local people are important stakeholders
with whom protected area managers must cooperate for shared responsibility in protecting its natural resources so that benefits can be derived from the community (Sène- Harper and Séye 2019). This study explored the CBT sites of Caramoan, Camarines Sur as a protected area, as well as Jovellar, Albay as a non-protected area. The municipality of Caramoan is located in the Caramoan Peninsula, Camarines Sur. It is a 2nd class municipality about 95 km away from the provincial capital (Amata 2021). The natural resources offered by the CBT organization of Caramoan are beachscape adventures.
The community is known for limestone cliffs and caves found in Caramoan National Park, a 34.7-km2 natural protected area composed of a hilly peninsula, with deep gorges and rough, rocky terrain, lowland forests, and distinct microhabitats such as mangrove forests, dunes, and beaches. Its main features are caves, white sandy beaches, small lakes, brackish water lagoons, and isolated limestone karst formations (Clores et al. 2021). It became more famous when it hosted an international TV franchise that brought foreign and local tourists to the area. Tourism became a significant source of income and employment for the community of Caramoan. The community mainly benefits from the tourism activities such as island hopping, where former fishermen and jobless residents became boatmen and guides for tourists; the town's laidback ambiance became busy with hotels, homestays, and restaurants catering to the needs of the visitors. Various local food and souvenir products are also offered at the local market and streets. However, the lack of CBT policies and guidelines to sustain the programs of the community was evident when the boatmen and Caramoan Eco-Guides Association were reorganized in 2019 with a new set of municipal tourism officers. Community leaders also opted to reorganize, and the municipal tourism office has imposed new guidelines. Another CBT site in Bicol is the Jovellar Underground River, Jovellar, Albay. The underground river is 180-m-long, offering immersive falls and a navigable cave for tourists. The attraction used to be unknown to local tourists, but through the community's efforts, it slowly gained attention. In 2016, the CBT site started receiving local and foreign tourists. The community organized a group called Jovellar Underground River Tour Guides and Boatmen Association to provide a livelihood to the surrounding communities and protect their natural attraction from environmental degradation.
Ecotourism became an essential economic activity that provided employment and business opportunities for the community members. However, in the absence of clear CBT guidelines and standards, it will be a challenge to ensure the sustainability of CBT operations and maximize the benefits and opportunities of ecotourism to the community. Currently, there are no sustainability performance indicators for CBT in the Philippines that the communities can use as a tool to improve current CBT
practices and/or for further development and monitor their progress towards sustainable CBT. Bicol Region also lacks specific guidelines or CBT indicators that communities within the region can utilize in crafting CBT operations and management. Moreso, the communities of Caramoan and Jovellar does not follow any CBT guidelines which supposedly can guide them to achieve sustainable CBT management and operations. Hence, this study harmonized various CBTS using the ASEAN CBT as baseline criteria.
These indicators will then be utilized to examine the sustainability performance of the two communities and analyze key indicators that can define the community’s sustainability performance. This gap will be filled by identifying the necessary CBT requirements for CBT in the Philippines, notably in the Bicol Region. This study will be beneficial to policymakers and decision-makers from local to national government offices to formulate relevant CBT policies for a sustainable CBT. The study also aimed to benefit local tourism stakeholders – which consist of the local government unit (LGU), tourism officers, barangay officials, community organizations, and residents, as well as private tourism enterprises and institutions for inclusive growth brought by an effective and efficient CBT management to prevent and lessen negative environmental impacts, improve tourist facilities, uphold sustainable livelihood, betterment of local services to ensure visitor satisfaction and optimize resources and uphold community development. Well-established CBT operations will also benefit protected area managers through strong partnership and cooperation with the community for shared responsibility in protecting its natural resources, which will also be beneficial to the host community. Moreover, the study would be beneficial to scholarly research as currently no studies have been conducted yet that tackle a specific model for sustainable CBT in the two communities, the Bicol Region, and the Philippines. Thus, this paper aims to develop sustainability performance indicators for CBT in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, and Jovellar Albay. Ultimately, this study will attempt to [1] determine the sustainability performance of the CBT organizations of Caramoan and Jovellar, as well as [2]
determine the key indicators that explain the sustainability performance of the two CBT organizations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Relationship between Sustainable Tourism and CBT Sustainable development is the foundational principle for enhancing human and economic development while maintaining the functional integrity of ecological and social systems that support local economies. Tourism has played a critical role in sustainable development in many countries,
especially developing countries such as the Philippines.
Tourism development has been used as an important strategy for increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty, creating jobs, and improving food security (Richardson 2021). Through tourism, sustainable development can be achieved by: enabling the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, empowering local communities through capacity-building programs, and improving life and economic stability; a more responsible community by protecting and conserving natural resources; greening practices through the use of renewable resources to combat climate change; and fostering cultural diversity, peace, and understanding (UNWTO 2020). However, tourism has also been associated with negative environmental, social, and economic impacts – leading to calls for sustainable tourism development. Sustainable tourism has been defined by UNWTO as tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment, and host communities. One particular form of tourism known for its bottom-up approach to sustainable tourism development is CBT. It is defined as a form of tourism that seeks to empower communities to manage tourism growth and achieve community aspirations relating to their well-being and includes economic, social, and environmentally sustainable development (ASEAN 2016).
Members of different societies in developing countries share first-hand experiences and develop powerful alliances with various local tourism stakeholders to enhance the conservation of natural resources, preserve traditional culture, and generate income at the local level contributing to the sustainable tourism development of society (Suansri and Richards 2014; Yamashita 2011). The idea of CBT is therefore to foster sustainable tourism development through local empowerment considering the three dimensions of sustainability: social (educational opportunities and preserving culture), environment (management and protection of natural resources), and economic (diversifying the local economy, generating income and provision of job opportunities (Yamashita 2011).
Development of Sustainable Tourism and CBT Indicators
Several literature works have tackled various processes and indicators that could address sustainability issues in the tourism industry. While there is no “one-size-fits-all”
standard that destinations can apply best in their local context, an appropriate set of measures is necessary to guide local policy-makers and community leaders to establish a mechanism for sustainable tourism operation and appreciate the opportunity to practice sustainable performance. A study to measure sustainable tourism amidst the complexity of tourism systems and specifics of a given location highlighted the need for the identification of variables at different
dimensions relevant to the behavior and consensus of key stakeholders (Franzoni 2015). In like manner, Asmelash and Kumar (2019) developed a comprehensive set of indicators to conduct a meaningful assessment of progress towards sustainable tourism development with emphasis on broad-based participation of key stakeholders for an informed decision in the tourism industry. The development of sustainable tourism indicators was also a strategy asserted in the study of Ocampo et al. (2018) in the Philippine context – particularly for ecotourism, wherein the indicator sets were formed by establishing sustainable eco-tourism indicators from various literature works. The identification and use of indicators to evaluate the sustainability of tourism destinations is a critical component of the global development agenda; however, the compatibility of existing indicators with local perspectives and objectives is necessary to identify local sustainability indicators hinged on local understanding (Gutierrez et al. 2020).
While the previous studies exhausted a comprehensive list of indicators, they generally focused only on sustainable tourism and ecotourism. The study of Novelli et al. (2017) explored how the ASEAN CBTS would accelerate its implementation through a collaborative multi-stakeholder approach by harmonizing CBT practices. “If CBTS is to contribute to the sustainable growth of CBT and ultimately to the socio-economic well-being of remote rural areas, they will need to emerge from a harmonized set of CBT guidelines, which, at the same time, acknowledge local differences. The appropriateness and feasibility of CBTS remain an under-researched topic…” (Novelli et al. 2017).
Thus, this paper addresses the gap in the previous studies by determining sustainability performance indicators, particularly for CBT sites that have not been explored in Philippine tourism studies. This study harmonized various CBTS using the ASEAN CBTS as baseline criteria and utilized these indicators to determine the sustainability performance of the CBT sites of Caramoan and Jovellar.
Determining key indicators using the harmonized CBTS is a necessary tool and crucial to building community capacity, improving CBT products and services, fostering and sustainable CBT management practices.
HARMONIZED CBTS
CBT as a favorable approach to sustainable tourism development (Yamashita 2011) is necessary to uphold using reliable indicators. With an established standard, communities can effectively assess the performance of the community to achieve sustainable CBT. The study explored various CBT models of international standards to identify sustainability performance indicators relevant to the context of the two CBT sites. The harmonized CBTS consists of indicators from established CBT organizations
(ASEAN 2016; CRSTDP 2006; GSTC 2018) and studies (Masud et al. 2017; Lee and Jan 2019) using the ASEAN CBTS as the baseline criteria. To harmonize indicators with the same concept, the researchers created a mapping process shown in Figure 1.
As an ASEAN member-state, the Philippines was compelled to adopt the ASEAN Tourism Strategic Plan criteria to provide a quality visitor experience by showcasing community livelihood and cultural and natural assets in a safe, presentable, and attractive manner (ASEAN 2016). The ASEAN CBTS consists of eight indicators:
community ownership and management, contribution to social well-being, conservation and improvement of the environment, the interaction between the local community and the guests, quality tour and guiding services, quality food and beverage services, quality accommodations, and friendly tour operators. These eight indicators were used as the baseline criteria. To further enhance the criteria that will meet other international CBTS, the requirements identified in the CBT model of Lee and Jan (2019) were used. It has four indicators: economic sustainability, social sustainability, environmental sustainability, and quality of life satisfaction. Upon reviewing the indicators, the economic, social, and environmental sustainability were harmonized on the first three criteria of ASEAN, as it has the same scope of the standard. In contrast, the last criteria about quality-of-life satisfaction were added to the new set of standards. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council's (GSTC 2018) Destination Criteria were used to align its indicators to the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals and is a recognized affiliate of the UNWTO. The GSTC's criteria for destinations have the following indicators: maximize economic benefits to the host community and minimize negative impacts;
maximize benefits to communities, visitors, and cultures;
maximize benefits to the environment and minimize negative impacts; and demonstrate sustainable destination management. Upon review, all the criteria of GSTC were already aligned with the first three criteria of the ASEAN CBTS. The Caribbean Regional Sustainable Tourism Development Programme (CRSTDP 2006) was considered as their indicators were based on good practices of various CBT. The program was supported by various international organizations and funded by the European Union. It follows four indicators: access to market, commercial viability, policy framework, and implementation challenges in the local context. After further review, the researchers added the four indicators to the new criteria as it has a different scope from the ASEAN standard. Finally, the model created by Masud et al. (2017) was chosen as it studied the influence of community participation in managing CBT. The study employed several constructs that the present study narrowed down into four indicators: sustainable economic development,
support involvement and involvement of the local community, environmental sustainability, infrastructure development used by the community, and encouraging cultural activities by residents. Consequently, the criteria for infrastructure development used by the community and the encouraging cultural activities by residents were added to the harmonized criteria. The rest of the first three constructs were aligned with the ASEAN CBTS.
As illustrated in Figure 1, there was a total of 25 identified indicators from the five models. The indicators having the same aspect as the ASEAN CBTS were combined. Hence, the harmonized CBT indicators became 15. These were community ownership and management, contribution to social well-being, conservation and improvement of the
environment, the interaction between the local community and the guests, quality tour and guiding services, quality food and beverage services, quality accommodations, friendly tour operators, quality of life satisfaction, access to the market, commercial viability, policy framework, implementation challenges, infrastructure development used by the community, and encourage cultural activities by local residents.
Indicator 1: Community Ownership and Management
One of the ideals of the CBT concept is the empowerment of the local community to own and manage a tourism enterprise and resources where the benefits go directly
Figure 1. Mapping process of the harmonized CBTS.
to the community (ASEAN 2016). In terms of control and involvement in the planning, development, and management of tourism, CBT strives to unlock opportunities for communities so that income stays within the local economy and improves the quality of living of the community, thereby building up local communities rather than external parties (Giampiccoli and Saayman 2018).
Indicator 2: Contribution to Social Well-being Maintaining human dignity in the community means that exploitation and human trafficking are not tolerated; there is gender equality and social inclusion; initiatives are available for capacity building for disadvantaged members of the community; and, through CBT activities, there is improved community access to basic services (ASEAN 2016). Linking tourism to the style and type of values and aspirations of the local community and effectively engaging residents in developing social programs with integration to other sectors are all keys to encouraging positive contribution to a community's social capital (Moscardo et al. 2017).
Indicator 3: Conservation and Improvement of the Environment
CBT is one of the approaches to biodiversity and natural resources conservation in communities, as it not merely seeks tourism business profit maximization but manages the impact on the community and the environment. CBT recognizes the importance of natural resources both flora and fauna as an asset for tourism development, hence the need to protect and reduce exploitation of these resources (Yamashita 2015). Effective community participation empowers local people to gain more tourism benefits, which may turn into an incentive for continued local support for biodiversity and wildlife conservation (Bello et al. 2016).
Indicator 4: Encouraging Interaction between the Local Community and the Guests
It is crucial in achieving sustainable CBT to create a positive interaction between residents and host communities as the quality of its interaction contributes to both tourists' experience and perception and acceptance and tolerance of tourists by residents (Armenski et al. 2011). Visitors and host communities interact in different contexts and such interactions are necessary for constructing a rewarding experience and cultural understanding both for tourists and local communities (Su et al. 2016).
Indicator 5: Quality Tour and Guiding Services Tour guides are the most visible players in tourism as it works across all the sectors of the industry. Through interpretative guiding, tour and guiding services can
support sound tourism development leading towards sustainability through active and efficient exertion of functions to promote and assist tourists gain rewarding experiences; to facilitate environmental conservation, experience management, and resources management;
and to stimulate consumption and the production of local products and services (Hu 2007). To ensure the quality of the tour and guiding services, communities must actively facilitate cross-cultural understanding opportunities and provide an appropriate and specialized service for an identified tourist market (ASEAN 2016).
Indicator 6: Quality Food and Beverage Services Food and beverage services are considered very crucial in influencing satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the beverage industry (Dani and Rawal 2019) and in the ASEAN CBTS (2016), this criterion emphasized that opportunities must exist for tourists to participate in the meal preparation and learn traditional cooking techniques;
visitor dietary preferences are accommodated and natural biodegradable products are used in serving and packing food. Local food is a key component of the tourism experience and a very important part of the tourism system that builds community pride and authenticity that improves food quality and in return satisfies tourists and gain sustainable tourism experience (Zhang et al. 2019).
Indicator 7: Quality Accommodations
Quality accommodation is vital and contributes to tourists’
satisfaction, which will lead to revisiting intentions.
One of CBT’s appeals lies in the range and availability of attractions and facilities such as accommodation, which has a positive and significant impact on the local economy (Chin et al. 2018; Hidayati and Faiz 2020). One particular accommodation that can be found in most CBT areas is homestays. Homestays are a critical component, especially in rural CBT areas, given tourists need lodging and the capacity of the involved village families to provide quality accommodation facilities and services. Homestays appeared to make a positive contribution to lifting families from poverty and sustaining decent living from CBT (Pasanchay and Schott 2021).
Indicator 8: Friendly Tour Operators
CBT offers the greatest value to tourists when tour operators are working as a team with local community members to craft a unique and authentic experience.
Strong partnerships with responsible tour operators are a key success factor to achieve sustainable CBT operations (Suansri and Richards 2014). A friendly tour operator is responsible for bringing tourists to CBT areas with knowledge and expertise in all areas of CBT visitor service, demonstrates care for the sustainability
of nature and culture, and supports the economic and social development of the local community (ASEAN 2016). Moreso, a tour operator ensures that the current and relevant environmental and cultural information has been properly informed to the tourists.
Indicator 9: Quality of Life Satisfaction
To provide sustainable development on CBT, local residents must be provided with life satisfaction sustainability realms such as health and safety, material, and community well-being (Kim et al. 2013; Lee and Jan 2019). A crucial indicator for supporting sustainable tourism development is the residents’ perception of community life satisfaction (Lee and Jan 2019). Moreover, tourism affects the community’s overall quality of life due to tourism development, which also aims to enhance residents’ way of living through social, cultural, economic, and environmental benefits.
Indicator 10: Access to the Market
Choosing the kind of access to tourism destinations and ensuring the availability of transport services greatly influence all the systems of tourism. In the study of Alasgarova (2017), both time and cost of transportation affect tourist decision-making in visiting a destination along with its safety and security, speed, and reliability.
Kanwal et al. (2020) stressed the importance of road and transport infrastructure to provide easy and convenient access to tourism destinations and increase business activities that can affect positively the local economy of the community and improve their standard of living. Road and transportation infrastructure can promote tourism destinations and can develop new tourist sites (Virkar and Mallya 2018).
Indicator 11: Commercial Viability
Commercial viability is one of the critical factors in determining good practices of CBT. It requires close attention to demand, product quality, investment in business skills, the inclusion of private sectors, promotion, and finance (CRSTDP 2006). Ngo et al. (2018) highlighted how economic incentives from commercially viable CBT enterprises can successfully facilitate a change in the awareness of the locals.
Indicator 12: Policy Framework
To ensure meaningful community engagement in tourism programs, a strong and well-enforced national policy must be in place that accounts for varying conditions that lead to the failure or success of CBT initiatives (Yanes et al.
2019). The government has a critical role as their support and political will are the main success factors for tourism development. CBT endeavors can be a waste of resources
if not supported by a government with a sound policy promoting CBT. The government has to have a responsible leadership role and provide continuous psychological, financial, technical, and educational support in all steps of CBT development (Yilmaz and Venugopal 2013).
Indicator 13: Implementation in the Local Context Tourism policies at the local level lead toward the effective standardization of processes and practices if implementation was properly carried out. The standardization fosters consensus on uniformity of various practices for the overall improvement in the quality of services and products offered in the locality (ACS 2017). Community benefits can only be achieved if CBT is effectively implemented particularly capacity- building initiatives, which serve as a tool to understand all the opportunities involved in CBT (Dodds et al. 2018) and become proactive in developing CBT programs.
The existence of a local tourism development plan, if effectively implemented, can provide a coordinated link between the current situation at a destination and how it can be further improved in the future through various activities and programs for the residents and tourists.
Indicator 14: Infrastructure Development Used by the Community
Infrastructure is an indispensable element of a tourism destination that is provided by public authorities intended to support the local community and its development and deliver visitors’ needs (Mandić et al. 2018). Infrastructure development is expected to provide local communities with a better quality of life through employment and education benefits, as well as enhance the natural and environmental resources management (Kanwal et al. 2020), and the perception of the overall quality of life of the communities affirmed a link to sustainable tourism (Mamirkulova et al.
2020). Tourism infrastructure development is a predictor of the improvement of the resident’s quality of life.
Indicator 15: Encourage Local Activities by Local Residents
Yolal et al. (2016) provide empirical evidence of the significant positive relationship between the subjective well-being of the residents attending community events and the socio-cultural impacts of festivals. Community members view festivals and cultural events as having important contributions to determining their level of well- being. Such activities also provide good opportunities for promoting the culture of the community to tourists. It was revealed in the study of Lunchaprasith (2017) that locals who actively take part in the development and promotion of gastronomic experiences to visitors have a positive cultural, social, and economic impact on the community.
METHODOLOGY
The study underwent two phases to achieve the research objectives. The first phase was the harmonization of various CBT indicators from established CBTS and studies. From 25 indicators, it was narrowed down to 15 CBT indicators. After identifying the criteria to be used, the second phase involved statistical treatment of data, which utilized mean and standard deviation to determine the sustainability performance of the two CBT sites, and PCA was utilized to determine the key indicators of sustainability performance.
The respondents consist of the local community stakeholders who were directly involved in CBT operations such as the members of the CBT organizations, LGU officials and their personnel appointed for tourism, tourism officers, barangay officials and personnel overseeing CBT operations, private stakeholders providing tourism-related products and services; and non-government organizations involved in various CBT programs. Only CBT members who are active for at least one year in the organization are considered a respondent to provide better judgments based on their own experience and knowledge. At least 196 respondents were considered to achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. In particular, 110 respondents were from Caramoan and 86 were from Jovellar. The community stakeholders were selected purposively to meet the criteria of the target respondents. Two research assistants were hired and trained to facilitate the survey with the researcher to reduce refusal rates and ensure that all items were answered and returned. Both research assistants are college students from Bicol Region to communicate well with the community in their local language. Data gathering was conducted from January–March 2020.
Research Instrument
The survey questionnaire consists of two parts: Part I includes the profile of the respondents and the CBT site profile, whereas Part II was designed to determine the sustainability performance of the CBT sites in Caramoan and Jovellar. The latent variables were based on the harmonized international CBTS set by ASEAN (2016), the CRSTDP (2006), the GSTC (2018), and from the studies of Masud et al. (2017) and Lee and Jan (2019). From 25 identified indicators, the harmonized CBT indicators became 15. All the eight indicators of the ASEAN CBTS (2016) were considered as baseline criteria such as community ownership and management, contribution to social well-being, conservation and improvement of the environment, the interaction between the local community and the guests, quality tour and guiding services, quality food and beverage services, quality accommodations, and friendly tour operators. The quality of life satisfaction as
an indicator was from the study of Lee and Jan (2019), four indicators (access to the market, commercial viability, policy framework, and implementation challenges) were from the CRSTDP (2006), and two indicators (infrastructure development used by the community and encourage cultural activities by local residents) were from the study of Masud et al. (2017). The formal questionnaire (see Appendix) was finally formulated shown in the following 15 sections, which consist of 48 items.
Indicator 1: Community Ownership and Management (ASEAN 2016)
[1] Transparent and effective governance arrangements exist;
[2] Legal establishment;
[3] Transparent and effective management exists; and [4] Strong partnership exists.
Indicator 2: Contribution to Social Well-being (ASEAN 2016)
[5] Community human dignity is maintained;
[6] Equitable share of benefits and costs;
[7] Integrity of culture is well-maintained;
[8] Enriched valued cultural traditions; and
[9] Information resources on cultural awareness for tourists.
Indicator 3: Conservation and Improvement of the Environment (ASEAN 2016)
[10] Conservation of natural resources; and
[11] Improvement of the environment through conservation activities.
Indicator 4: Encouraging Interaction between the Local Community and the Guests (ASEAN 2016)
[12] Guest and local community interaction exists;
and [13] Sustainability of CBT products.
Indicator 5: Quality Tour and Guiding Services (ASEAN 2016)
[14] Ensure quality and expertise of the local guide;
and [15] Ensure quality activities and managed tours.
Indicator 6: Quality Food and Beverage Services (ASEAN 2016)
[16] Quality food and beverage service provider are ensured; and
[17] Ensure quality through well-managed food and beverage services.
Indicator 7: Quality Accommodations (ASEAN 2016) [18] Quality accommodation service providers are ensured; and
[19] Ensure quality through well-managed accommodations.
Indicator 8: Friendly Tour Operators (ASEAN 2016) [20] Tour operations and management are committed to CBT ideals;
[21] Committed to nature protection and contribution to the community;
[22] Support for the local economy;
[23] Promotion of joy of discovery, knowledge, and respect; and
[24] Safe and satisfying experiences for tourists and the community.
Indicator 9: Quality of Life Satisfaction (Lee and Jan 2019)
[25] Healthy well-being;
[26] Safety well-being;
[27] Family satisfaction;
[28] Standard of living; and [29] Cultural life satisfaction.
Indicator 10: Access to the Market (CRSTDP 2006) [30] Accessible year-round by either/both/all land, sea, air travel; and
[31] Available regular/commercial transport service.
Indicator 11: Commercial Viability (CRSTDP 2006) [32] Effective community enterprise development programs with skills development and job creation;
[33] Innovation with authentic craft and agricultural products and cultural events; and
[34] creation of local and regional markets to maintain visitation levels.
Indicator 12: Policy Framework (CRSTDP 2006) [35] Specific sectoral policies to support CBT are formulated;
[36] Encourage CBT product development through fiscal incentives;
[37] Participatory planning in tourism development;
[38] Presence of supportive institutional structures; and [39] Development of funding mechanism for a sustainable CBT.
Indicator 13: Implementation in the local context (CRSTDP 2006)
[40] Accessible training interventions to local people;
[41] Encouragement of broad participation and effective communication of CBT stakeholders;
[42] Equitable distribution of benefits;
[43] Build awareness of tourism impacts and management and mitigation measures through educational programs; and
[44] Cultural awareness information resources for tourists.
Indicator 14: Infrastructure development used the by the community (Masud et al. 2017)
[45] Established roads, schools, clinics; and [46] Improved public utilities such as water and electric supply.
Indicator 15: Encourage local activities by local residents (Masud et al. 2017)
[47] Community-initiated festival/traditional activities; and
[48] Rich culinary experience offered to tourists.
The community stakeholders were asked to rate their level of agreement with the 48-item questions through a survey to determine if their CBT practices align with the international standard for CBT operations. This approach determines which indicators are being supported and implemented in the context of the two study sites. The respondents were asked to rate their CBT sustainability performance (anchored at 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree).
While the indicators used were gathered from established standards of ASEAN, the Caribbean Tourism Organization, and published research studies, the instrument was validated to ensure its applicability in the context of the two CBT communities in the Bicol Region. Hence, the Department of Tourism Region V Office, the academe, and an expert in tourism sustainability research were consulted to validate the survey questionnaire. In addition, the survey questionnaires were subjected to pilot testing in the model community of Donsol to minimize ambiguity in the survey questionnaire. Finally, the survey instrument was translated into Filipino to understand the indicators better.
Validation of CBT Indicators
The constructs of the study were examined in terms of validity using factor analysis to determine which indicators explain and define their sustainability performance. Factor analysis was used to determine if there was an underlying pattern in the set of variables. The test involved Kaiser- Myer-Olkin (KMO) for sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity. The sustainability performance indicators showed valid factors (KMO = 0.71). Bartlett's test is below the 0.05 level, which means the factors are valid (sig = 0.000). Factor analysis suggested 15 components out of the 48. The reduced factors explain the variance of sustainability performance by 61.24%. The principal component analysis (PCA) calculated the percent variance explained by the variables. PCA is an ordination technique used to display patterns in multivariate data and explore relationships between dependent variables (Syms 2008).
This model can extract the most important information by compressing the size of the data and simplifying its description. Orthogonal factor rotation was likewise
used to analyze further and improve factoring. Varimax rotation involves adjusting the coordinates of data that result from a PCA. The rotation is intended to maximize the variance shared among items to represent how data correlate with each PCA. This process is important in this study as it simplifies the loadings of items. The Scree plot is a way of visualizing the magnitude of the variability associated with each one of the components extracted in a PCA (Frey 2018).
RESULTS
Resident Demographics and Site Profile
Table 1 shows the demographic and CBT site profile. It revealed that the majority of the respondents were male (68%), whereas the remaining were female (32%). The age category of the majority of them was between 30–44 yr old (53%), followed by 15–29 (34%), and 45–59 (14%). Most of the respondents finished secondary education (46%) – followed by technical courses graduate (38%), tertiary (11%), elementary (3%), and graduate studies (1%). The respondents were primarily members of CBT/ people's organization (51%) – followed by the LGU (17%), private stakeholders (12%), barangay officials (11%), tour operators (4%), travel agencies (3%), municipal/
provincial tourism office (2%), and non-government organization (1%).
In terms of the CBT site profile based on the Philippines Tourism Product Portfolio, the CBT sites offer nature recreation and adventure (79%) – followed by sun and beach tourism (15%), and diving and marine sports tourism (6%). Regarding CBT policies, the community has programs (70%) related to tourism and ordinances (30%).
Tourism facilities and infrastructure available in CBT sites mainly were for recreation, parks, and entertainment (79%) – followed by accommodation (13%), travel trade (5%), and dining (3%). For safety and security, CBT sites rely most on their tourist-oriented police/ village guard (97%), whereas some were concerned about their hospital and medical facilities (3%).
Sustainability Performance of the CBT Organizations
Table 2 shows the respondents’ level of agreement with 15 sustainability performance indicators. The result revealed that except for quality accommodation, all the sustainability performance indicators are being agreed upon by the two communities. The indicators with highest mean values were conservation and improvement of the environment (M = 3.58, SD = 0.42), quality food and beverage services (M = 3.63, SD = 0.45), quality of life
Table 1. Demographic and CBT site profile.
Part IA: demographic profile
Variable Description Frequency Percent
Gender Female 63 32%
Male 133 68%
Total 196 100%
Age 15–29 66 34%
30–44 103 53%
45–59 27 14%
Total 196 100%
Education Elem 6 3%
Grad studies 2 1%
None 1 1%
Secondary 90 46%
Technical 75 38%
Tertiary 22 11%
Total 196 100%
Part IB: CBT sites profile
Variable Description Frequency Percent
Attraction Diving 11 6%
Nature 155 79%
Sun beach 30 15%
Total 196 100%
Policies Ordinance 58 30%
Program 138 70%
Total 196 100%
Facilities Accom 26 13%
Dining 6 3%
Recreation 154 79%
Travel 10 5%
Total 196 100%
Safety Hospital 5 3%
Police 191 97%
Total 196 100%
Office Barangay 22 11%
Community 100 51%
Hotel 24 12%
LGU 33 17%
Mun/City 3 2%
NGO 1 1%
Tour optr 7 4%
Travel agent 6 3%
Total 196 100%
satisfaction (M = 3.60, SD = 0.33), access to market (M
= 3.51, SD = 0.42), and encourage cultural activities by local residents (M = 3.52, SD = 0.48). This was followed by indicators which the respondents expressed their agreement such as community ownership and management (M = 3.44, SD = 0.34), contribution to social well-being (M = 3.45, SD = 0.31), interaction between local community and the guests (M = 3.48, SD = 0.42), quality tour and guiding services (M = 3.43, SD = 0.45), friendly tour operators (M = 3.46, SD = 0.31), commercial viability (M = 3.45, SD = 0.33), policy framework (M
= 3.41, SD = 0.32), implementation challenges in the local context (M = 3.43, SD = 0.34), and infrastructure development used by local residents (M = 2.99, SD = 0.40). The only indicator with the lowest mean value is quality accommodation (M = 2.47, SD = 1.35). Overall, the CBT of Caramoan and Jovellar agrees (M = 3.39, SD = 0.45) that their CBT practices were aligned on sustainability performance indicators.
Key Indicators in Explaining Sustainability Performance
The PCA revealed in Table 3 that from 15 sustainability performance indicators, only five potential factors best explain sustainability performance. The socio-economic component registered a 28.9% variance explanation –
Table 2. Sustainability performance of the CBT organizations.
Mean Standard deviation
Community ownership 3.44 0.34
Social well-being 3.45 0.31
Conservation 3.58 0.42
Interactions 3.48 0.42
Quality tour 3.43 0.45
Quality food 3.63 0.45
Quality accommodation 2.47 1.35
Friendly tour operator 3.46 0.31
Quality of life 3.60 0.33
Access to market 3.51 0.42
Commercial viability 3.45 0.33
Policy framework 3.41 0.32
Implementation in the local context 3.43 0.34
Infrastructure 2.99 0.4
Encourage local activities 3.52 0.48
Overall 3.39 0.45
Table 3. PCA.
Total variance explained Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared
loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings Total % of
variance Cumulative
% Total % of
variance Cumulative
% Total % of
variance Cumulative
%
1 4.346 28.974 28.974 4.346 28.974 28.974 3.815 25.431 25.431
2 1.566 10.441 39.415 1.566 10.441 39.415 1.444 9.626 35.057
3 1.320 8.802 48.218 1.320 8.802 48.218 1.437 9.581 44.638
4 1.069 7.129 55.347 1.069 7.129 55.347 1.416 9.441 54.079
5 1.059 7.063 62.410 1.059 7.063 62.410 1.250 8.331 62.410
6 .959 6.393 68.804
7 .839 5.594 74.398
8 .709 4.726 79.124
9 .625 4.168 83.292
10 .577 3.849 87.141
11 .489 3.258 90.398
12 .446 2.971 93.370
13 .377 2.516 95.886
14 .345 2.300 98.186
15 .272 1.814 100.000
Extraction method: PCA
followed by the services component (10.44%) and tourist- community benefits Component (8.8%). The community development component and resources component have similar explanatory variance values (7%). The rest of the components (6–15) were not retained because their eigenvalues fell below 1.
Based on the rotated component matrix of PCA shown in Table 4, the following are the composition of the sustainability performance indicators. The socioeconomic component (seven indicators) consists of implementation challenges in the local context, political framework, commercial viability, contribution to social well- being, quality tour and guiding services, encourage local activities by local residents, and encouraging interaction between the local community and the guests.
The services component (two indicators) consists of quality accommodation and market access. The tourist- community benefits component (two indicators) consists of quality food and beverages services and quality of life satisfaction. The community development component (two indicators) consists of community ownership and management, as well as infrastructure development used
by the community. Finally, the resources component (two indicators) consists of conservation and improvement of the environment, and friendly tour operators.
The scree plot is shown in Figure 2 to visualize the PCA mentioned above. As can be seen, there is a significant drop from the socio-economic component to the services component (eigenvalue of 4.34–1.57). This finding signifies that the socio-economic component registered the highest contribution in explaining sustainability performance. The rest of the components from 6–15 were not considered contributory.
Table 4. Rotated component matrix.
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Implementation
challenges 0.793
Political framework 0.780 Commercial viability 0.735 Social well-being 0.731
Quality tour 0.626
Encourage local
activities 0.587
Interaction 0.530
Access to market 0.804
Quality accommo-
dation 0.701
Quality food 0.741
Quality of life satis-
faction 0.723
Infrastructure 0.881
Community own-
ership 0.550
Conservation 0.883
Friendly tour op-
erator 0.532
Extraction method: PCA
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations
Figure 2. Scree plot of sustainability performance.
DISCUSSION
The sustainability performance of Caramoan and Jovellar based on the CBTS affirms their conformity with the set indicators. Consistent with the previous studies, the communities pays more attention on conservation and improvement of the environment, as they realize that only high-quality ecological products from a protected natural environment can attract visitors and have a competitive advantage towards tourism development (Chin et al. 2018;
Masud et al. 2017); the availability of quality food and beverage services, which is considered as a critical factor in influencing satisfaction for visitors (ASEAN 2016; Dani and Rawal 2019; Zhang et al. 2019); the presence of friendly tour operators as an important tour intermediaries for an authentic travel experience and responsible tour operator for the community (Suansri and Richards 2014; ASEAN 2016); the achievement of quality of life satisfaction, wherein residents enhanced their way of living is a crucial indicator for supporting sustainable tourism development (Kim et al. 2013; Lee and Jan 2019); the availability of access to the market to provide easy, safe and convenient travel to CBT sites (Alasgarova 2017; Virkar and Mallya
2018; Kanwal et al. 2020); and encourage cultural activities by local residents, as they view that participation to festivals and cultural events have an important contributions in their level of well-being (Yolal et al. 2016; Lunchaprasith 2017;
Masud et al. 2017). The study also found similar results from previous studies on the communities’ agreement on the following indicators such as community ownership and management, wherein empowerment and active involvement in CBT operations are upheld (ASEAN 2016;
Giampiccoli and Saayman 2018); contribution to social well-being, wherein human dignity are maintained, and values and aspirations are pursued (Moscardo et al. 2017;
ASEAN 2016); encouraging interaction between local community and the guests for socio-cultural exchange (Armenski et al. 2011; Su et al. 2016; ASEAN 2016); the presence of quality tour and guiding services for quality visitor experience and contributing to local economic development (Hu 2007; ASEAN 2016); the commercial viability of CBT enterprises to facilitate change in the awareness of the locals, as it can provide effective enterprise development program (CRSTDP 2006; Ngo et al. 2018);
a policy framework for a sustainable, well-enforced and institutionalized CBT programs (Yilmaz and Venugopal 2013; Yanes et al. 2019); overcome implementation challenges in the local context through the provision of training and education and effective stakeholder communication and collaboration (ACS 2017; Dodds et al. 2018); and an established infrastructure development used by local residents for an improved standard of living (Mandić et al. 2018; Kanwal et al. 2020; Mamirkulova et al. 2020). However, the communities rated low in terms of quality accommodation due to the absence of accommodation facilities in one CBT site – in contrast with the previous studies, which indicate the importance of quality accommodation to tourists’ satisfaction and meaningful experience (ASEAN 2016; Chin et al. 2018;
Hidayati and Faiz 2020; Pasanchay and Schott 2021). These results suggest that the CBT organizations understand the need to perform sustainably in operating CBT activities and crafting programs.
According to the UNWTO (2004), the identification of a set of indicators enables tourism managers to limit their indicators according to their defined issues and conditions.
Previous scholarly works offered alternatives for reducing a large number of indicators to fit a specific case to have strong relevance to the existing conditions of the site (Ocampo et al. 2018). Hence, the identified key indicators in explaining sustainability performance provide the communities with specific areas to focus on monitoring and improving current CBT practices.
In the socio-economic component, being the most significant contributor to defining sustainability performance, the communities may focus on educational
and training interventions; policies and programs to support CBT product development, planning, institutional structures, and funding mechanisms; enterprise development, innovative, and authentic crafts, products and market visitation levels; and encourage activities that will enrich guest-local community interactions (Ngo et al.
2018; Novelli et al. 2017; ASEAN 2016; CRSTDP 2006).
Furthermore, the communities would aim for an equitable share of benefits, maintaining the integrity of cultural traditions and human dignity, ensuring the quality and expertise of local guides and CBT activities, as well as an active community-initiated traditional activity (Moscardo et al. 2017; ASEAN 2016).
In the services component, communities need to assess their capacity and offer quality accommodations, as it contributes to tourist satisfaction and can provide a decent living for the communities (Pasanchay and Schott 2021).
CBTs must be able to establish quality service providers and well-managed tourist activities, as well as year-round accessibility through all forms of transportation (ASEAN 2016; CRSTDP 2006).
In the tourist-community benefits component, the communities may pay attention to providing quality and well-managed food and beverage services to tourists, as food is considered a crucial factor in influencing the satisfaction and behavior intentions of visitors (Dani and Rawal 2019); thus, a well-managed service provider from the community is essential (ASEAN 2016). Furthermore, through a successful CBT operation, the communities support sustainable tourism development when their overall quality of life is enhanced particularly in health, safety, family satisfaction, and good standard of living (Lee and Jan 2019).
In the community development component, emphasis may be given to ensuring the legal establishment of CBT structure and government arrangement, as well as a strong partnership (ASEAN 2016). It is also necessary to provide infrastructure development not only for the tourists but also for the use of the communities – particularly established roads, schools and clinics, and improved utilities (Masud et al. 2017).
In the resources component, while conservation and protection are essential for the CBT site within a protected area, it is equally important to promote environmental protection to CBT sites outside protected areas. CBT recognizes natural resources as an asset for sustainable tourism development thus, communities must uphold conservation program initiatives and proactive activities that would involve all the tourism stakeholders (ASEAN 2016; Yamashita 2015). Moreso, tour operators as the community partners in bringing tourists must be committed to CBT ideals that support the local economy
and its resources and respects local and tourist's needs (ASEAN 2016; Richards and Font 2019).
In sum, both the CBT organizations can achieve sustainable performance when guided by a set of standards carefully crafted to suit the local context and with the commitment of every community stakeholder to actively participate and support. It is also recognized by this study that although the ASEAN CBTS provided established indicators that would address essential components of CBT operations, its harmonization with other international indicators will supplement the limitations it has in other areas such as quality of life satisfaction. It is also evident that most of the components consist of indicators coming from two different organizations or literature.
CONCLUSION
The lack of accepted assessment methodology using carefully designed indicators can hinder proper progress monitoring of the community's sustainability goal (Ocampo et al. 2018). Thus, in the absence of CBT guidelines and standards applicable for Caramoan and Jovellar, this study attempts to develop sustainability performance indicators for CBT using the harmonized international CBTS and identify its key indicators to prioritize on areas with pertinent issues. From this set of criteria, the communities can define their sustainability performance as relevant to CBTS and ideals. The study results showed that while the communities agree to perform sustainably in almost all the CBT sustainability performance indicators, the key component is socio-economic. Identifying the key indicators would help community stakeholders analyze its negative driving forces, determine the inadequacy and effectiveness of responses addressed to these issues, and remember actions to maximize positive results for the tourism industry in the community. Ultimately, it is recommended that the indicators can be converted into tangible management action that will enable community stakeholders to identify problems proactively before they become complicated and design strategies based on their current progress in attaining sustainable CBT. The value of this study is evident in its attempt to develop and validate sustainability performance indicators, which are currently lacking in the Bicol region, where the CBT sites are located. This contribution is a valuable strategic planning and development tool for local communities that can determine standards and actions, achieve excellent performance in CBT operations, and attain long-term benefits. This study can also serve as a useful benchmark in developing sustainability performance indicators for CBT in the country and provide helpful information for primary CBT stakeholders.
Limitations and Future Research
This study was conducted amid growing concerns about COVID-19 from January–March 2020, which limited the scope of activities with the communities. Identifying indicators needs a proactive community discussion to have a consensus on the applicable criteria. Ideally, before conducting the assessment, the community must already be educated about each indicator. Future researchers may consider multi-stakeholder discussion as part of the process of identifying CBT indicators. Furthermore, while the two CBT sites were visited, there were few to no tourists which limited the researcher from gathering data from tourists. Hence, future researchers may include tourists in assessing the performance of the community.
Finally, it is also essential for future researchers to continually explore specific indicators deemed relevant to the community, given the continuously changing trend and emerging issues in the tourism industry such as health and safety indicators that were not included in this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the University of the Philippines' Faculty, REPS, and Administrative Staff Development Program for funding the research study.
Also, the authors are grateful to Mr. Edgar Allan Dela Cruz Mendoza for his invaluable support in this study.
REFERENCES
ALASGAROVA F. 2017. The role of tourism transport’s development in economic growth. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series 17(3): 85–92.
AMATA J. 2021. The extent of Community Participation in the Ecotourism Project in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, Philippines. Open Access Library Journal 8(11): 1–29.
ARMENSKI T, DRAGIČEVIĆ V, PEJOVIĆ L, LUKIĆ T, DJURDJEV B. 2011. Interaction between tourists and residents: influence on tourism development. Polish Sociological Review. p. 107–118.
[ASEAN] Association of Southeast Asian Nations. 2016.
ASEAN community-based tourism standard. Retrieved on 14 Oct 2019 from https://www.asean.org/wp-content/up- loads/2012/05/ASEAN-Community-Based-Tourism-Standard.pdf
ASMELASH A, KUMAR S. 2019. Assessing the progress of tourism sustainability: developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tourism Management 71:
67–83.
[ACS] Association of Caribbean States. 2017. The Crucial Role of a Tourism Policy in Enhancing Tourism Activ- ity within the Region. Retrieved on 15 Oct 2019 from
http://www.acs-aec.org/index.php?q=press-center/releases/2015/
the-crucial-role-of-a-tourism-policy-in-enhancing-tourism-activ- ity-within
BELLO F, CARR N, LOVELOCK B. 2016. Community participation framework for protected area-based tourism planning. Tourism Planning & Development 13(4): 469–485.
CHIN C, LAW F, LO M, RAMAYAH T. 2018. The impact of accessibility quality and accommodation quality on tourists' satisfaction and revisit intention to rural tourism destination in Sarawak: the moderating role of local communities' attitude. Global Business and Management Research 10(2): 115–127.
CLORES M, BAUTISTA J, FERNANDEZ J, CUESTA M, BROWN R. 2021. Diversity and distribution of amphibians and reptiles in the Caramoan Island Group, Maqueda Channel, Southern Luzon, Philippines. Jour- nal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 14(1): 1–14.
[CRSTDP] The Caribbean Regional Sustainable Tourism Development Programme. 2006. Competing with the Best: Good Practices in Community-based Tourism in the Caribbean. Retrieved on 20 Oct 2019 from https://
www.onecaribbean.org/wpcontent/uploads/CompetingWithTheBest- WORDGoodPracticesCBTENG.pdf
DANI R, RAWAL Y. 2019. Tourist satisfaction and per- ception about food and beverage service quality in Nainital. International Journal of Basic and Applied Research 9(5): 131–140.
DODDS R, ALI A, GALASKI K. 2018. Mobilizing knowledge: Determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism.
Current Issues in Tourism 21(13): 1547–1568.
FRANZONI S. 2015. Measuring the sustainability per- formance of the tourism sector. Tourism Management Perspectives 16: 22–27.
FREY B. 2018. The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vols. 1–4).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781506326139
GIAMPICCOLI A, SAAYMAN M. 2018. Communi- ty-based tourism development model and community participation. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure 7(4).
[GSTC] Global Sustainable Tourism Council. 2018.
GSTC destination criteria. Retrieved on 14 Oct 2019 from https://www.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria/gstc-des- tination-criteria
GUTIERREZ E, RIVERA J, SOLER A. 2020. Creating local sustainability indicators towards evidence-based policymaking for tourism in developing economies:
evidence from the Philippines. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 22(5): 561–590.
HIDAYATI W, FAIZ I. 2020. The Role of Accommodation and Food Service Industry to the Development of Tour- ism in Jawa-Bali. Eko-Regional: Jurnal Pembangunan Ekonomi Wilayah 15(1).
HU W. 2007. Tour guides and sustainable development:
the case of Hainan, China. UWSpace. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10012/2732
KANWAL S, RASHEED MI, PITAFI A, PITAFI A, REN M. 2020. Road and transport infrastructure develop- ment and community support for tourism: the role of perceived benefits, and community satisfaction.
Tourism Management 77: 104014.
KIM K, UYSAL M, SIRGY M. 2013. How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management 36: 527–540.
LEE TH, JAN FH. 2019. Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents' perceptions of sustainability. Tourism Management 70: 368–380.
LUNCHAPRASITH T. 2017. Gastronomic experience as a community development driver: the study of Amphawa Floating Market as a community-based culinary tourism destination. Asian Journal of Tourism Research 2(2): 84–116.
MAMIRKULOVA G, MI J, ABBAS J, MAHMOOD S, MUBEEN R, ZIAPOUR A. 2020. New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Global Ecology and Conservation 24: e01194.
MANDIĆ A, MRNJAVAC Ž, KORDIĆ L. 2018. Tour- ism infrastructure, recreational facilities, and tourism development. Tourism and Hospitality Manage- ment 24(1): 41–62.
MASUD M, ALDAKHIL A, NASSANI A, AZAM M.
2017. Community-based ecotourism management for sustainable development of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management 136:
104–112.
MOSCARDO G, KONOVALOV E, MURPHY L, MC- GEHEE N, SCHURMANN A. 2017. Linking tourism to social capital in destination communities. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 6(4): 286–295.
NGO T, LOHMANN G, HALES R. 2018. Collaborative marketing for the sustainable development of commu-
