Tourism is a fragmented industry, which means the purchase of one involves the purchase of products from multiple establishments. This is linked to the fact that most of the tourism enterprises are small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs), which means that the tourism industry can benefit the local economy to great depth. The top end of the tourism industry is dominated by large multinationals, with major airlines, hotel groups, and tour operating companies. Local consumption can benefit from tourism consumption, tourism infrastructure can be shared by locals and tourists; moreover, consumption of tourism by tourists can accelerate the delivery of infrastructure to a local, local people can be benefited (Henama, 2017).

“Heritage is what modem society wants to inherit and pass on and history is what a scholar deserves recording” (Tunbridge and Asworth, 1996). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “Heritage is something that can be passed down from one generation to the next, something that can be preserved or inherited, and has historical or cultural value.” Inheritance can be considered a physical “object”: a part of a property, a building, or a place that is “capable of ownership,” that is able to be “owned,” and “passed on” to someone else (Campanella, 2013).

Heritage can become a money-spinner, if it is properly presented to meet the needs of customers who are constantly seeking meaningful experiences (Henama, 2017). Heritage tourism may be an amalgamation of words to appear more widely in tourism planning. This confirms that the local community has identified important elements of their places to be significantly protected and passed on to future generations. Heritage tourism also shows that people are dedicated to caring for and sharing these identified elements or resources.

Preservation of the world’s cultural heritage is important for the promotion and education of present and future generations. A large part of tourism depends on places of natural, native, and historical importance which are tourism product based. To honor the cultural significance of the destination, people involved in the tourism industry need to be sensitive to the cultural groups they have a special interest in and need to be directly involved in the plarming and promotion of the destination. More importantly, different regions have to recognize that heritage resources are important for their sustainability and are not exogenous factors (Shanna and Shanna, 2017). Heritage tourism can refer to religious tourism, migratory tourism, living culture, historical culture, built heritage, archaeological sites, and ancient monuments. It provides a means of establishing local pride as it emphasizes presenting and accepting local values and cultural memory while allowing local communities to connect with the wider-world. Inheritance management can be another challenge.

Tourism authorities-oriented infrastructure development may hesitate to allow the site managers and other authorities to impose any restrictions on the use of the site or to take conservation measures. Interpretation of heritage provides protection of awareness to tourists and locals (Salazar and Xu, 2015).

The understanding and management of heritage tourism is a social phenomenon. It is more subjective in nature and is related to the actual relationship between space and person at the core of the phenomenon. Many researchers presented the challenge that people who come to a place only come to “gaze,” are educated or enjoy themselves. For some, it is argued that it is an emotional experience that people “feel” rather than “gaze” (Uruguay 1990).

From this point of view, the industry being an employment-oriented industry has a belief that it can resolve socio-economic anomalies if it is to be extended to many sectors of society. In view of these facts, community-based tourism (CBT) has been started to be developed with broad objectives. It is also argued that there is a need to assess the impact on livelihoods and not just income with a diversity of positive and negative effects. There is a strong belief that CBT engages and empowers native individuals as actors in tourism plarming, development, and management. There is a perception among local stakeholders that CBT helps them understand how tourism can contribute to their well-being and can play an active role in reducing the negative effects of tourism. This means that local tourism resources and products should be managed, developed, and owned by local communities themselves to ensure maximum tourism benefits to local stakeholders, making them more responsible.

Capacity development is the process through which capabilities are acquired, strengthened, optimized, and maintained over time. For individuals, competence may relate to leadership, advocacy skills, training/speaking ability, technical skills, organizing skills, and other areas of personal and professional effectiveness. There is a large range of capacity-building approaches—a continuum—that include peer-to-peer learning, organizational development, training and academic studies, research, publications, and gr ant-building facilities. Along with quality, capacity building (CB) also takes place across organizations, within communities, across geographies, within the nonprofit sector, and hi regions. It consists of individuals and groups of individuals, organizations, groups of organizations within the same sector or region, and organizations and actors from different sectors and regions (Whittle et al., 2012).

CB only makes sense when it refers that it has plans to build capacity. It builds the capacity of many individuals who live almost on destination communities, who directly or indirectly lead to initiate and support many social processes. Support a continuous learning society. Social education and empowerment are based on each other. Empowerment is the method of increasing the capacity of individuals or groups and converting selections into desired actions and outcomes.

The relationship between human communities and places is not unique to rural areas, where land becomes part of people's lives, interacting with buying and selling, working and playing, and living and dying. It is both history and future (Swales, 2015).

Community capacity building (CCB) is an essential component for the achievement of community development. Tourism development and CB for indigenous communities are needed for progress at hand. CCB programs facilitate underdeveloped communities to promote their ability to participate in tourism decision-making processes. They encourage community participation and provide tools that enable them to do so.

Capacity development is the method by which individuals, organizations, and societies develop their abilities over time to organize and achieve social and economic goals. It is a plan that extends the period of CB to cover all aspects of creating and maintaining capacity addition over time. It not only includes many forms of teaching and training but also continuous efforts to develop institutions, political awareness, financial resources, technology systems, and a broad enabling environment (“Glossary,” United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, 2006).

This confirms that the local community has ideirtified important elements of their places to be significantly protected and passed on to future generations. Heritage tourism also shows that people are dedicated to caring for and sharing these identified elements or resources. To build community capacity, community participants need to acquire skills and knowledge that help people think and act in new ways. The concept of community skills and knowledge is considered to be a tool for tourism development and community development as well as assistance in local conununities. Resource mobilization is considered as a means of determining the capacity of the community to identify the dimensions of conununity capacity as well as the development of tourism resources in local communities. Therefore, mobilizing conununity resources is an essential component of conununity capacity. They can affect the ability of the conununity to achieve their goals. Community resource mobilization comes in many forms (Arif et al., 2010).

Capacity development in conununities can be seen as the ability of conununity residents to participate in tourism activities. An important objective of CB is to verify whether individuals, organizations, and conununities have built their capacity for the development of tourism in their conununities. Tourism development in local conununities cannot be successful without the involvement of community leaders and community residents (Gangnibo, 2010).

CB through tourism development is an essential condition for improving the process of tourism activities and enhancing its benefits for local conununities. Tourism development can also be used as a technique to reduce conflicts between conservation and development to increase conununity participation. Local support and CB is essential prior to tourism development to include native conununities. Local conununities are usually complex and heterogeneous, and tourism development needs to suit their diverse needs (Chia-Chiubuhui-Mintai, 2014).

Direct or indirect participation of local residents in tourism activities is an important part of developing heritage tourism. There are traces of local influence in the tourism development process (Emstein, 1969). Local people have control over all development without any external force or influence (Choguil, 1996; Dewar, 1999). Locals can contact explorers directly and develop real tourism by themselves (Choguil, 1996; Dewar, 1999; Sundar, 1995). People are consulted in many ways, for example, attending a conununity meeting or public hearing. Developers can accept some contributions from local people who take advantage of their project (Emstein, 1969). The rights of local people are recognized and accepted at the local level (Sundar, 1995).

But, in practice, in most places, people are told about the tourism development program, which has already been decided in the community.

Developers run projects without listening to the opinions of local people (Emstein, 1969). Tourism development is usually developed by some powerful individuals or government, without any discussion with the people (Emstein, 1969).

CCB can be broadly defined as “community group growth” to define, analyze, and act on concerns of importance (health, or any other) to its members (Labonet and Leverac, 2001 a, p. 16). CCB is additionally seen as a process (Goodman et al., 1998) that increases assets and characteristics that a conununity is able to attract. CCB is not specific to a particular locality, or to individuals or groups within it, but also to interactions between the two. CB as a technique for sustainable skills, resources, and commitments in various settings has evolved due to the need to increase the profitability of the project (Gibbon, 1927; Labonte and Leverac, 2002). These qualities exist in relation to specific issues and concerns of specific people and groups, and specific activities or projects. Conununity empowerment and conununity capacity are closely constructed as social organizations and crowds try to address inequalities in people’s lives (Lavark, 2007, p. 19). CCB is often the means by which community empowerment results can be achieved. Both CCB and empowerment are achieved through building knowledge, skills, and competencies at the local level. The vision of CCB is intended to be an empowering experience for conununities and involves the use of a participatory “tool” in combination with nine “capability domains” to help people organize themselves and be serious about their individual and collective circumstances. Crucially, it enables people to strategically plan to resolve their situations, to evaluate, and to present the process visually as outcomes. Rather than being a substitute for project objectives, community capacity constitutes a separate set of goals that run “parallel” to the specific purpose of a project. The “tool” is typically implemented as a workshop to build community capacity (Glenn, 2014).

A major challenge in sustainable tourism is to develop economically viable enterprises that provide livelihood benefits to local communities while protecting indigenous cultures and environments. Such undertakings are difficult to assess due to the general lack of effective assessment and monitoring methods, the lack of consensus about the methodology, and the inability of some monitoring systems to include all elements of tourism impacts (Simpson, 2007).

When we talk about CCB, we are basically talking about “local solutions to local problems,” which enable communities to deal with problems, ultimately without relying on external resources. CCB can be seen as a way to encourage the development of more “healthy” or “active” communities. The pooling of skills and resources, as well as the identification of key local problems that many seek to address through common action can provide a springboard for effective action in many areas.

A review of the literature about CB and in-depth qualitative studies revealed the relevance of CCB for plaiming tourism development in rural or urban areas. “Learning opportunities and skills development,” “resource mobilization,” “partnership relationships/networking,” “leadership,” “participatory decision making,” “ asset-based approach,” “sense of community,” “communication,” and “The Development Pathway” are nine broad domains to serve as the foundation for community-based activity by those in the field to support and nurture the development of competent communities (Selma and John, 2011). The findings of this study are that tourism contributes to the literature and community development. In addition, the findings of this study may be useful in assisting tourism planners, and academic researchers to assess, monitor, and evaluate cunent or potential tourism development. The results of this investigation also assist researchers in the field of community development and the tourism industry. Tourism developers often build conununity capacity. Conununity capacities like to encourage a sense of community among residents as a way to contribute to the construction. Thus local communities play an important role in addressing tourism development base CB (Beaton, 2006). In relation to this, community leaders, stockholders, and tourism development practitioners should regard the concept of conununity spirit as a refinement of conununity members. While there is a substantial body of literature on the concept of conununity understanding and definition (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Davidson and Couture, 1989; McMillan and Chavis, 1986), only a few discuss the practical application of literary approaches successfully measure a sense of conununity in various cultural contexts. Local conununities need to strengthen the sense of conununity in order to build community capacity in tourism development (Conway and Hachen, 2005). Lack of a sense of conununity has led to a full-fledged rumor about explanations for people not participating in development activities (DeNeui, 2003). If the local conununity is not involved in the conservation process, it is very difficult to protect any heritage site (Sharmin and Khan, 2019). This book illustrates the relevance of CCB and community participation in tourism development in rural and urban areas.

Key points on ensuring good practice in the CCB (extracted from Community Capacity Building-A Practical Guide by Roland Atkinson and Paul Willis, 2006)

  • • Involve the local people from the start before any action is taken; start with the issues that concern them.
  • • Locally-based resources are required, such as neighborhood homes, so that support can be readily obtained.
  • • Changing the existing bureaucratic culture to involve customers in decision-making processes maybe important. Adequate time and resources need to be given for participation and action.
  • • Local people should be employed where possible in key roles so that management is maintained within the community where possible.
  • • Making available for a wide variety of small projects rather than a limited number of large projects helps prevent a relatively narrow pool of community members from joining, thereby promoting wider programs and interest within the conununity.
  • • It is important to recognize that conflict is a very common part of the CCB process and that conununity activists facilitating CCB projects require skills to negotiate and resolve small group conflicts.
  • • There is a need to protect against greater involvement (and potential exploitation) of volunteer conununity members because the danger of choosing particular conununity groups and individuals (general suspects) is not excluded from others.
  • • '‘Taking it too far”—it may be unfair to push conununity groups and individuals into CCB projects.
  • • Community members need to have confidence in the priorities and policies of housing organizations, this can be particularly challenging with housing staff that may be treated with hostility and mistrust by conununity members and tenants.


Aref, F. Barners to Community Capacity Building for Tourism Development in Communities in Shiraz, Iran. J. Sustain. Tourism 2011, 19 (3), 347-359, DOI: 10.1080/ 09669582.2010.517314.

Aref, F.; Redzuan, M. B. Community Capacity Building for Tourism Development. J. Hum. Ecol. 2009, 27 (1), 21-25, DOI: 10.1080/09709274.2009.11906187.

Atkinson R.; Willis, P. Community Capacity Building-A Practical Guide, 2006, http://www. Guide.pdf.

Ghaderi, Z.; Abooali, G.; Henderson, J. Community Capacity Building for Tourism in a Heritage Milage: The Case of Hawraman Takht in Iran. J. Sustain. Tourism 2018,26 (4), 537-550. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1361429.

Glenn, L. Community Capacity Building. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research; Michalos, A, Ed.; Springer, 2014, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_456.

Henama, U. Marikana: Opportunities for Heritage Tourism. Aft: J. Hospitality Tourism Leisure 2017, 6 (4), ISSN: 2223- 814X Copyright: © 2017 AJHTL.

Leksakundilok, A. Community Participation in Ecotourism Development in Thailand. Thesis, University of Sydney, Geosciences, 2006.

Moscardo, G. Building Community Capacity for Tourism Development. CABI, 2008, Business & Economics.

Poria, Y.; Butler, R.; Airey, D. Tire Core of Heritage Tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 2003,30, 238-254. DOI: 10.1016/50160-7383(02)00064-6.

Salazar, N.B.; Zhu, Y. Heritage and Tourism. Global Heritage: A Reader, 1st ed; Meskell, L. Ed.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015.

Sharma, A.; Shanna S. Heritage Tourism in India: A Stakeholder’s Perspective. Tourism Travelling (open-access) 2017, 1 (1), 20-33, DOI: 10.21511/tt. l(l).2017.03).

Shannin, S.; Khan, N.M. Community Based Cultural Tourism: An Attitude towards Sustainable Conservation Model for Heritage Site, Proceedings of International Conference on Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Feb 07-09 2019; Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology: Rajshahi, Bangladesh, 2019.

Simpson, M.C. An Integrated Approach to Assess the Impacts of Tourism on Community Development and Sustainable Livelihoods. Community Dev J. 2009, 44 (2), 186-208,

Svels, K. World Heritage, Tourism and Community Involvement: A Comparative Study of the High Coast (Sweden) and Kvarken Archipelago (Finland). Scand. J. Hospitality Tourism 2015, 15 (1-2), 183-201, DOI: 10.1080/15022250.2015.1009708.

Tunbridge, J. E.; Ashworth, G. J. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict; John Wiley & Sons, 1996.

United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration. Definition of Basic Concepts and Terminologies in Governance and Public Administration (PDF); United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2006.

Whittle, S.; Colgan, A.; Rafferty, M. Capacity Building: What the Literature Tells Us; The Centre for Effective Services: Dublin, 2012.

Wu, C.-C.; Tsai, H.-M. Capacity Building for Tourism Development in a Nested Social-Ecological System—A Case Study of the South Penghu Archipelago Marine National Park, Taiwan. Ocean Coastal Manage. 2016,123, 66-73, ISSN 0964-5691, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.02.001.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >