Why Community-Based Tourism and Rural Tourism in Developing and Developed Nations are Treated Differently? A Review

Abstract

Rural community tourism initiatives in developed nations share most positive and negative characteristics with community-based tourism (CBT) initiatives in developing nations. They also share many barriers and conditions for tourism development. What makes them different is the context in which they operate. This paper identifies the main conditions that explain these differences through a review of findings from 103 location-specific case studies and other available literature that provides empirical evidence. The paper also explores the usage of the concepts of CBT and rural tourism. The findings are discussed under seven categories: Definitions, socioeconomic and cultural factors, policy and governance, land ownership, community cohesiveness, assimilation of external stakeholders, and type of visitors. It is argued that it is the developing-/developed-nation context, and not objectively established criteria, which largely dictates authors’ narratives with corresponding takes on tourism development and subsequent recommendations. The paper engages in a discussion about case-study research, its weaknesses and tendencies, providing some recommendations on how to increase the contribution of case studies to knowledge, and calls for more research on externally assisted non-Indigenous community-tourism initiatives in developed nations.

1. Introduction

Community-based tourism (CBT) and other sub-branches of sustainable tourism centered in communities have been commonly applied as vehicles for rural development in peripheral areas. Their beginnings date back to the 1980s, when community-based tourism was believed to be an alternative for rural people in the South [1], and a viable instrument for poverty reduction, offering opportunities for conservation [2] and rural economic development [3]. Because of these benefits, many community-based tourism initiatives became community-development projects in developing nations [4]. Throughout the years, a considerable number of guidelines and project reports have been published by various organizations to facilitate the successful implementation of community-based tourism (e.g., [2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]), many of which were designed to support development of tourism through official development assistance (ODA).

Despite the potential of tourism to generate welfare for communities, as well as social, economic, and cultural benefits in the long-run, many initiatives failed to deliver on their promises [19]. Many of those initiatives failed because of a combination of unfavorable conditions that were identified in the literature (e.g., [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]). Although these conditions were detected in developing and developed nations, scholars believe that, because of different economic, legislative, and political structures, they do not equally apply [27]. Thus far, studies such as that of Tosun [27] or Giampiccoli et al. [28] explored these differences from a theoretical perspective and the authors’ own knowledge and experience. This paper gathered the findings from 103 location-specific case studies that provide empirical evidence of the critical conditions that differentiate community tourism in developing and developed nations (see Appendix A for more information about the case studies). The seven categories proposed in this paper are based on results of a content analysis of a smaller sample of case studies that identified 148 specific factors that facilitate and inhibit CBT in developing and developed nations (in press). Based on this extensive list of factors, seven categories were designed that encompass the key drivers behind these differences and provide some justification for differential treatment of CBT and rural tourism in developing and developed nations seen in the literature.

It is argued that it is the developing-/developed-country context, and not objectively established criteria, which largely dictates the authors’ narratives with the corresponding takes on tourism development and subsequent recommendations. The paper engages in a discussion about the concept and definitions of CBT and rural tourism, the conditions that differentiates them, case-study research, and its weaknesses and tendencies, providing some recommendations on how to increase the contribution of case studies to knowledge. Only studies that encompassed entire small-scale destinations were considered in the review, while studies of rural tourism carried out on individual businesses were discarded.

2. CBT and Rural Tourism: Definitions and Concepts

In the context of developed nations, the concept of CBT has been used rather sporadically. However, according to various definitions of CBT, the concept is applicable to developed nations as well. Several scholars made an attempt to define the term CBT (e.g., [19,29,30,31]), concluding that CBT is ‘tourism owned and/or managed by communities, and intended to deliver wider community benefit’ [19] (p. 12). Although there are many definitions of CBT, the main aspects that characterize it are community control and management, conservation of culture and nature, empowerment, and community development [19,32,33].

CBT initiatives can take many different forms and shapes. Depending on the level of community participation, they range from community employment in businesses, a joint venture between a community or family and an outside business partner, to full ownership/management of the tourism operation [29]. Saayman and Giampiccoli [34] noted that independent initiatives should be encouraged and could form part of a CBT initiative. By this definition, independent family-owned rural businesses could be considered to be CBT initiatives. CBT can also be categorized on the basis of single-community- and multiple-owned structures under a common organizational umbrella (e.g., [35]). The former model is based on activities around the nucleus of a lodge that often employs a rotation system, while the latter includes a variety of micro- and small enterprises that operate under a common organizational umbrella [36,37]. By this definition, independent family-owned rural businesses could be considered to be CBT initiatives only if they are governed by a community organization.

However, the concept of an umbrella organization is also problematic because of the array of possible arrangements within the organization. An organization composed of members driven by individual interests to carry out a specific economic activity to gain personal benefits is very different from an organization whose members act co-operatively in the interest and benefit of the community [38]. As such, the conception of community should be refocused around social interactions generated by individuals willing to pursue common interests, goals, and collective action rather than ‘focus exclusively on local entities characterized by the ownership of common resources and/or on Indigenous socioterritorial-political structures governed by customary mechanisms of control and management’ [39] (p. 515). In a similar vein, Piselli [40] argued that, while the spatial and social dimensions of community are important, a community must ultimately be considered as a network. From this perspective, small-scale tourism initiatives run by communities with or without an umbrella organization fit within most definitions of both rural tourism and CBT.

In terms of characteristics, CBT initiatives in developing nations are very similar to rural-tourism in developed nations. According to OECD’s [41] definition of rural tourism, it should be comprised of small-scale enterprises, characterized by open space, availability of natural and cultural heritage, traditional practices, connections with local families, growth that is slow and organic, local control, and sustainability. While most authors focused on the aforementioned aspects, some linked rural tourism strictly with farm tourism and agritourism (e.g., [42,43]). In some countries such as Spain, legislation separates agritourism from rural tourism on the basis of the presence of farming activity [44]. Besides farming, agritourism destinations are characterized by a spatial scattering of accommodations (farms), while rural tourism can take place in villages and small towns.

Likewise, in CBT, the role of authenticity takes central importance. The concept is based on tourists’ expectations of original experiences, which is particularly relevant to the field of cultural-heritage tourism [45]. Scholars describe rural tourism and CBT as being commonly centered on providing a genuine representation of lifestyles and cultures [46], including their distinctive sense of place and pride [47], and the favorable environment for personal contact between hosts and guests [48]. Moreover, the most commonly cited limitations of rural tourism are also very similar to those found in CBT. In this context, case studies identified the limited access of communities to funding and decision making, low level of human capital [49,50], poor infrastructure and dependency on traditional industries [22,42], negative sociocultural and environmental impact [48], and restricted access to labor markets [51,52], among others.

Peripherality is one of the factors that blurs the differences between developing and developed nations in terms of the conditions for the development of community tourism. The concept is relevant to many rural areas and CBT initiatives around the world. Besides the previously described characteristics of rural tourism, physical distance to larger agglomerations creates social, economic, and political isolation, and consequently a low level of autonomy in planning and development [52], low levels of economic vitality, lack of political power to influence decision making [53], and a lack of infrastructure and amenities [54]. When major decisions are taken by key economic and political institutions located in more central areas, people in the periphery often feel a sense of alienation and a lack of control over their own destiny [21,22]. Moreover, decision makers located in core areas tend to have a limited understanding of the relevant problems [55], often failing to acknowledge the possibility of alternatives to tourism [56].

3. CBT and Rural Tourism: Similar Conditions, Different Treatment

Case-study research is believed to be suitable for a comprehensive, holistic, and in-depth investigation [57] that can provide a more nuanced understanding of tourism development at the local level [58]. However, case-study research has to deal with some important limitations, of which perhaps the most significant is the subjective perception and the ideological approaches of their authors [59] that affect a range of factors, from definitions of concepts employed by their research through analysis, discussion, conclusions, and recommendations.

While most discussed CBT definitions acknowledge a variety of arrangements, the literature use them almost exclusively in a developing-nation context tied to project-based efforts characterized by the ownership of common resources and/or collective control and management. Some authors went as far as to state that CBT in Canada and Australia is used almost exclusively in the context of ‘aboriginal/Indigenous tourism business’ [60]. Others artificially limited the scope of CBT by adding aspects such as the promotion of customary and Indigenous cultures to their definitions (e.g., [61]). The concept of CBT began to appear in the literature in the 1990s, but its background dates back to the 1970s [29,31], when participatory development was introduced by international donors such as the United Nations and the World Bank in response to failures of traditional top–down approaches to development [62,63]. The usage of the term in the literature appears to be a legacy of project-based development assistance.

On the other hand, the concept of ‘rural tourism’ has principally been used in the literature in the context of developed nations, implying private ownership and the management of individual businesses in a rural setting. However, similar initiatives in a rural setting in developing nations are usually identified as CBT, ecotourism, or cultural-tourism initiatives. At first glance, it appears that the difference is strictly geographic location (developing vs. developed nation, remote peripheral vs. accessible, rural areas) and the type of natural or cultural attractions, but the literature review revealed that, in the case of small-scale destinations, the type of visitors (national/international/mixed) and their motivation (e.g., farm, rural lifestyle vs. wildlife watching, ‘exotic’ culture) are more suitable to explain the usage of the concept. On the other hand, larger-scale studies (area or region) tend to adopt the term ‘rural tourism’ to generalize all sorts of arrangements. Although the described usage of both concepts has not changed much since the 1990s, their meanings have been slowly evolving through embracing the notion of community around social interactions and networks, and the capacity of individuals to pursue common goals through collective action (e.g., [39,40,64]).

Other noticeable tendencies that stem from the previously discussed setting are the way in which authors write about tourism initiatives and critical conditions for their development. In a developing-nation context, there is a clear dominance of papers using cases of development-assistance projects (81% of analyzed case studies that stated the channel of initiation). Even though in both developing and developed contexts, many initiatives were started with external assistance (81% and 60%, respectively), project-based development assistance dominated in the former group, and governments’ financial or technical assistance through programs and policies in the latter. The authors of case studies in both contexts identified the low capacity of local communities (e.g., [65,66,67,68,69,70]); technical support from third parties, including capacity building provided by NGOs or governments (e.g., [71,72,73,74,75,76]); and poor or inadequate policies (e.g., [46,67,77,78,79]), among many other aspects. If communities face similar barriers and conditions for tourism development, why are narratives of equity, distribution of benefits, (re)distributive institutional approaches, participative decision making, communal ownership, empowerment, and conflict resolution found almost exclusively in the developing-nation context?

4. The Influence of Developing- and Developed-Nation Contexts

4.1. Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors

Provision of income to communities living in areas of limited opportunities for the development of economic activities is the most basic objective of CBT that is well-suited for the economic regeneration of peripheral rural regions. Although present in both developing and developed countries, inequality and poverty pose varying levels of disadvantage in different nations [28]. Hence, some scholars make an important distinction between underprivileged socioeconomic contexts in developing and developed nations, stating that in the latter even underprivileged people are usually in a better position given by their access to infrastructure and other resources [28].

Indigenousness is one factor that complicates this distinction. Indigenous tourism is not only restricted by factors common for tourism development in remote areas [49,51], but also by the fact that Indigenous peoples are sidelined because of their minority status with their distinctive cultural traditions and internal institutions that are difficult to understand by their non-Indigenous counterparts [78]. According to Trau and Bushell [80], living conditions of Indigenous people in developed nations are often different to the non-Indigenous population. The consequences of colonialism have had a significant impact on Indigenous communities, leaving them in relative poverty in terms of the lack of human capital and limited access to decision making and funding [50,81]. From this perspective, those communities face similar conditions to communities in less developed nations. Despite this drawback, communities in developing nations enjoy access to welfare and programs designed specifically for disadvantaged groups living in the periphery (e.g., [51,68,82,83]). In consequence, their economic conditions are relatively better, as they rarely have to face absolute poverty [80]. A struggle to satisfy basic survival needs is one of the causes and consequences of poverty. However, poor socioeconomic conditions are also directly related to a lack of skills and knowledge required for tourism and low level of formal education, (e.g., [33,56,59,65,66,67,68,69,72,75,77,80,82,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]), and limited access to information to effectively engage in tourism planning and management (e.g., [10,96,97]). These limitations are prevalent in developing nations, although as noted previously, they are common in developed nations in the context of Indigenous tourism.

A limited understanding and knowledge of the tourism and travel industry is a community limitation identified in many cases studies in developing nations. Experiences show that the concept of tourism does not exist in all cultures (e.g., [10,98,99,100]). While people in developed nations usually have some sort of head start in tourism development due to their basic understanding of concepts, for many rural communities in developing nations, tourism is a recent phenomenon that challenges their traditional knowledge and understanding of the world. They are also facing the risk of losing cultural control because of the introduction of new activities that might not be entirely compatible with the local culture, which implies access to economic resources and often engagement with other stakeholders that may lead to conflicts [101].

4.2. Policy and Governance

Tourism-destination policy is regarded to be under the responsibility of public-sector stakeholders. Scholars argue that the intervention and regulation of the public sector is a requirement for effective management systems for tourism development [102,103,104]. Policies are designed with an objective to create an environment that maximizes stakeholders’ benefits [105]. The lack of policy direction supporting community tourism has been identified as a limitation for CBT destinations around the world, such as Tanzania [77,106], Kenya [107], or Indonesia [24]. This issue is not only common in developing nations, but also in some remote areas of developed nations (e.g., [46,56,69,79]). Peripherality is a common issue for many remote communities that struggle to gain local governments’ interest, and financial and administrative support. Such areas are viewed by leaders as unimportant and secondary for immediate action [100]. In consequence, policy actions are often unaligned with the needs and priorities of distant communities [55].

Nonetheless, case studies in mostly developed nations highlight governments’ efforts to boost economies and revitalize rural areas through programs and policies that have had a positive effect on community-tourism initiatives (e.g., [58,70,76,79,83,94,108,109,110]), for example, Australia’s attempt at closing the economic and quality-of-life gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous citizens by integrating them into capitalist economies through policies aimed at economic support and the provision of livelihood opportunities [111]. Although very complicated and far from perfect, there are a number of government-assistance packages available for Indigenous people to start a business [51]. In a similar vein, many rural-tourism initiatives in developed nations can count on national or regional funds to start up community-based initiatives. In Europe, for example, new policies for rural areas were implemented to achieve a balance between traditional agriculture and nature preservation, as well as to revitalize rural and economically depressed areas [112]. The national policies implemented by most EU members are often supplemented by regional policies for the revitalization of rural areas, and territorial cohesion between core and ‘disadvantaged’ areas in the periphery [52].

Because public funds for supporting small scale rural initiatives are limited in many developing nations, NGOs and official-development-assistance (ODA) organizations are in position to provide support for community-based projects, but usually for a limited period of time. Moreover, case studies show that, without central management, organizations run by communities and nongovernmental partners have the limited ability to co-ordinate actions with the local government, to attract scarce public resources, or to secure a public budget to market the destination [26]. It has been widely recognized that project-based, short-life-cycle support for CBT in developing nations is one of the most common reasons for those initiatives to fail [26]. Governments, on the other hand, have power to execute long-term programs and directly engage in local development without relying on short-term objectives [113]. A strong and well-funded public sector also provides infrastructural development, including signage, marketing, and heritage interpretation [48].

However, not all governments and even NGO consultants have the required skills and knowledge of tourism development to initiate and lead tourism development (e.g., [86,87,90,92,95,114,115]). As noted by Ruhanen [104] in an Australian case, because the local government traditionally assumed that role, it can be argued that it has also accumulated a certain amount of experience and skills in supporting tourism development. The experience and tradition of public-private collaboration in tourism development in rural and peripheral areas gives an advantage to many developed nations that managed to create a socioeconomic and institutional setting that favors this type of development. As argued by Keyim [69], achieving it requires a considerable history of civil society and democracy built on low levels of corruption and high levels of trust between public and private stakeholders [69].

4.3. Land Ownership

Land ownership has a long tradition in developed nations. Hence, the majority of community-based initiatives are developed on individually owned private land. On the contrary, in developing nations, communal lands are more prevalent, and it is not uncommon that the community has no secured land tenure (e.g., [91,116]). Those communities living within protected areas have to make contractual arrangements with the government to use land and resources for tourism (e.g., [65,66,91,93]). Land tenure allows communities to decide on the desired land use, activities, and type of development. Without the ownership, the operations in the area can be either highly restricted or forbidden entirely. Furthermore, the lack of land tenure limits potential outside investments in infrastructure and facilities. Coria and Calfucura [117] state that communities can participate in CBT in the absence of land ownership, but this outcome is highly dependent on other favorable conditions; in reality, the lack of community control prevents communities from investing. Many case studies described the struggle for territory in the context of tourism (e.g., [24,77,106,118,119,120]).

Lack of land ownership does not have to necessarily play the role of a barrier for community-tourism development. Although collective ownership does restrict land availability for private ventures [101], contractual arrangements with the land owner (usually the government) that give the right for the collective control of land and resources, and collective land ownership provide some advantages that private ownership does not. The experiences from case studies showed that collective land ownership provides more favorable conditions for decision-making freedom, and accordingly better control over land and tourism development (e.g., [66,86,88,90,92,120,121,122,123,124,125,126]). At the same time, collectivity seems to decrease conflicts over land, because it cannot be individually owned and sold. On the other hand, under individual land ownership, the freedom to control tourism development is limited because land ownership is more prone to manipulation by external actors based on individual owners’ decisions to keep or sell the land (e.g., [45,70,77,127,128,129]).

4.4. Community Cohesiveness

Case studies demonstrate that collectively owned and managed initiatives dominate the tourism in traditional communities (ethnic, rural, or Indigenous) in developing countries. As a result of high social capital and/or strong social hierarchy, the cohesiveness in these communities is relatively high. It is further illustrated by the employment of sharing work/benefit mechanisms that are often used for building tourism infrastructure and tourism cost/benefit sharing (e.g., [55,72,73,74,86,91,92,121,122,125,130,131,132]). Cohesiveness does not, however, mean that communities can be treated as one entity, as they are composed of individuals with different priorities and views on local development [94].

While modern rural communities in developed nations sometimes also display high cohesiveness and the ability to closely work together (e.g., [89,109,133,134,135,136]), there is a higher level of individuality and expectations to invest and operate independent businesses according to the rules of modern economy. Rural-tourism development has often been led by the individual efforts of an operator (a farm/land/accommodation owner), and then followed by other members of the community [42]. Because rural people in developed nations are more likely to have access infrastructure, facilities, the media, and education, cases of tourism initiation by the community without or with limited external support are common (e.g., [79,109,128,134,136,137]) as local actors are often capable of selecting their own actions to secure strategic advantages of the opportunities presented by rurality and/or periphery [52]. Funded externally, characterized by a low capacity to operate tourism, community initiatives in developing nations are rarely given that choice, or deliberately choose the model on the basis of communal ownership that requires strong ties created by socially meaningful relationships based on trust. These types of relationships are possible and highly advisable in the context of developed nations [64], but they are less common and usually only happen in tight-knit communities.

4.5. Assimilation of External Stakeholders

Because of crumbling agricultural activity and limited job opportunities in many rural areas around the world, there is a sustained population drift from those areas to urban centers [22]. At the same time, a comparative lack of innovation and progress in the peripheries, and the availability of natural resources are seen by people from core areas as a business/lifestyle opportunity (e.g., [109,138,139]). Besides a generally good understanding of tourism and business in general, these lifestyle entrepreneurs have advantage over the local people in terms of the education, skills, and resources to invest in tourism [133]. In developed nations, ‘ex-urbanites’, ‘weekenders’. or second-home owners are leading groups composed mostly of country nationals from highly urbanized areas that often carry a set of values and images of rural communities from the past (such as a rural idyll) [42]. In developing nations, the group of ‘lifestyle entrepreneurs’ is composed largely of foreign nationals that might deepen the cultural gap between local and nonlocal entrepreneurs [26].

In traditional communities, foreign investors are seen as outsiders, and are generally not easily accepted due to cultural differences. The assimilation is further complicated when ‘newcomers’ compete with local people for visitors. In consequence, conflicts are not uncommon that might lead to rejection of foreigners, and a strong internal division within the community [140]. The literature on the topic highlights that newcomers and local people perceive each other to be very different, which often reflects conflicting ideas of each group’s desires and needs [141]. In many cases, ‘newcomers’, driven by their own image and expectations of idyllic life, oppose modern development sought by the community [42]. Because of conflicts, those areas become heterogeneous spaces, and in some cases, dual societies comprising locals and migrants are created [140]. The way in which communities deal with conflicts also has a cultural underpinning, with two idealized approaches identified on the basis of individualistic and collectivist cultures [142]. Individualistic cultures deal with conflicts in a more dispassionate, straight-to-the-point way, while in collectivist cultures, conflict is culturally bound, viewed as a destructive force, and resolved in a more emotive way [143]. Hence, it can be argued that the assimilation of ‘lifestyle entrepreneurs’ in an individualistic cultural context is easier than the assimilation of individuals that do not share the same cultural background.

Despite many differences, the ability to collaborate and act for the common good is perhaps the most important factor leading to the acceptance of ‘outsiders’, and fostering social capital and sense of community [144]. Such purposive action, however, cannot occur if interactions between different groups constituting the community are limited or constrained [145]. Community building in such destinations is a complicated process, ‘constantly affected by a lack of communication that blocks the emergence of common interests and collective action’ [109] (p. 516). The experiences from case studies demonstrate that external stakeholders are able to integrate successfully in the absence of significant cultural differences, and when services offered by outsiders complement the local ones rather than compete with them. This, however, has principally been reported in developed nations (e.g., [109,127,139]).

Newcomers are accepted by the community because they bring skills and the capacity to connect the destination with the outside world, and tap into different tourism activities in which local people typically do not engage, and that requires skills and large capital investment (hotels and tour-operating enterprises). On the other hand, local initiatives focus on activities that are familiar and require limited investment (restaurants or community accommodation). For complementarity to occur, however, it is necessary for newcomers to not engage in the same activities, competing with the local population, and that the locals have enough skills and resources to engage in those complementary activities. Case studies showed that this is rarely the case in developing nations, not only because of the lack of those conditions, but also because of a low influx of visitors and operation at low occupancy rates, even after years of operation [146], which consequently increases local competition for visitors.

Due to much less pronounced cultural differences between communities and newcomers in developing nations, assimilation is often much smoother, and outsiders slowly become part of the community. In less traditional communities, people have usually had contact with the outside world for generations across centuries. New forms of mobility, a result of globalization, have strengthened the complexity of communities [139]. There is a constant exchange of people who may leave the community and emigrate somewhere else, while at the same time, new inhabitants may arrive to settle or live at the location for a period of time [141].

4.6. Type of Visitors

Two important factors that effectively differentiate community initiatives in the rural areas of developed nations and CBT in developing nations are the type of visitors and their motivation to travel. Although there is a certain overlap in motivations to travel to seek new experiences, and rural lifestyles and settings, rural tourism in developed nations is largely driven by the familiar image of the idyllic ‘picturesque’, ‘peaceful’, and ‘friendly’ countryside [42], while motivations to visit CBT initiatives run by Indigenous or traditional communities are more related with experiencing novelty, and searching for the unknown and learning about it [78]. Hence, scholars have claimed that cultural proximity decreases domestic demand for Indigenous cultures [78]. Because cultural proximity is usually related with physical distance from visitor-generating centers, case studies showed that CBT initiatives in developing nations attract mostly foreign tourists, while rural initiatives in developed nations attract domestic markets that do not need to travel large distances, and are easier to reach without targeted marketing.

5. Final Remarks

According to the definitions, the concepts of CBT and rural tourism are not much different from each other, as they both refer to family-/individually run businesses with a greater or lesser degree of co-ordination intended to deliver community benefit. They also share most of the positive characteristics and limitations. What makes them different is the context in which they operate. This paper identified and described the main conditions responsible for these differences through a review of case studies in developing and developed nations. These differences explain most tendencies in the narrative of case studies in developing and developed nations, including the authors’ decisions to omit or focus on certain critical factors for community-tourism development. In other words, more often than not, case studies fall into specific categories with their corresponding takes on tourism development and subsequent recommendations.

It can be argued that this is the reason why certain strategies, for example, shared community infrastructure with a rotation system or another mechanism for sharing benefits that are often proposed by consultants in developing nations, are never proposed to underprivileged rural communities in developed nations, despite favorable conditions for such arrangements such as low capacity of local people, the lack of financial resources, and the availability of external funding (through rural-development policies and programs). Would strategies proposed in the context of developing nations be effective in developed nations, and which ones?

While in the case of externally initiated project-based tourism initiatives that are common in developing countries, the technical and financial assistance are guaranteed, publicly funded tourism initiatives in developed countries usually provide funds, but the technical assistance is less common due to the private character of most benefitting stakeholders. Hence, besides the access to welfare and public funds for local development in developed countries, there should be also emphasis on community-centered projects that provide capacity building and direct expert assistance to participating families. This role could be assumed by an umbrella organization managing the publicly funded initiative that oversees the project and provides direct assistance converting a rural tourism initiative to a CBT initiative. Unfortunately, the question of the effectiveness of strategies that are commonly employed in developing countries but rarely in developed nations remains unanswered because studies of externally assisted non-Indigenous community-tourism initiatives in developed nations are extremely scarce. Although this paper addressed the most common reasons for those arrangements not being proposed, the lack of empirical evidence of employed strategies in different contexts warrants further investigation.

Another implication of the findings is that in the absence of individual land rights, collective land management can be equally or in some cases even more beneficial because it gives decision-making freedom about the desired tourism development and control over the land use. Collective ownerships allow communities to pinpoint and invite specific stakeholders to operate in the area based on their complementary role, limiting potential competition. In the case of private land ownership, the optimal solution for the maintenance of control over and coherent tourism development is an umbrella destination management organization that gathers stakeholders around common goals for tourism development.

Another aspect that requires addressing is the fact that many case studies were missing the level of detail required to analyze differences between developing- and developed-nation settings. Given the variety of topics employed by the case studies (see the Appendix A), it is recognized that not all studies set out to identify key characteristics that positively or negatively influenced tourism development. However, even the studies that did focus on description of factors for ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of tourism based on the authors’ own assessment, often provided a limited description of the conditions. Although this aspect is dealt with elsewhere [147], some topics were under-represented and require further research attention: The role of political will, the integration of ‘outsiders’ into communities, strategies employed to resist external pressures, and the role of cultural/ethnic divisions within a community, alliances and co-operation with other communities, the nonmonetary cost of involvement in tourism, the distribution of public resources among local stakeholder groups, land ownership and shared ownership arrangements, the types of networks within destinations, and internal mechanisms for conflict resolution.

The analysis was further skewed by a clear tendency towards research on Indigenous and ethnic communities in both developing and developed nations, and a clear under-representation of studies of small rural communities in developed nations. Despite a fair number of studies on rural tourism, most case studies focus on larger geographic areas of either small towns of roughly 4000 to 20,000 inhabitants, various villages, and larger rural regions. Studies that make in-depth qualitative analysis of small rural-tourism initiatives are still few and far between. With case-study research becoming ‘somewhat disregarded or discredited in recent years’ [148] (p. 740), there is little hope that this gap will be bridged anytime soon despite the undeniable value in qualitative approaches that aim at understanding tourism in rural areas.