Community Implementation of the ASEAN Community-Based Tourism (CBT) Standard: An Executive Stakeholder Study on Lao PDR

Abstract

The ASEAN Community-based Tourism (CBT) Standard was adopted by 10 ASEAN member states in 2016 in order to collectively promote the ASEAN region as a competitive and sustainable community-based tourism destination and to enhance sustainable tourism provision through ASEAN criteria. Among the ten ASEAN member states, Lao PDR (Laos) has a unique CBT development experience through collaboration with various international development agencies that started in 1999. Such a history brought about issues when the ASEAN CBT Standard was implemented at the provincial and district levels in Laos, including the concerns of related communities on the ASEAN CBT Standard not being easily applicable considering the state of tourism development. While the adoption and application of the regional standard called the ASEAN CBT Standard is a significant collective enforcement involving the tourism industries in ASEAN, there has been a lack of studies regarding the dynamics of the implementation of regional tourism standards at the national level. In order to fill this research gap, this study utilized in-depth interviews with seven executives with significant experiences from the government, international development agency, international organization, and private sectors. Interviewees give a diversity of perspectives on the enabling factors and challenges in implementing the ASEAN CBT Standard at the national level (focusing on Laos), which showed the complexity of CBT dynamics and necessity of good governance. The results also revealed how regional standards can be further recognized, promoted, sustainable to the key stakeholders of the Laos tourism industry, better accepted and utilized by end users, and possibly better customized according to the local circumstances for sustainable tourism development. The findings of this study evidence that collaboration among key stakeholders and the expected roles of these stakeholders are critical when implementing the ASEAN CBT Standard.

1. Introduction

Lao PDR has been a member of ASEAN since 1997 and adopted the ASEAN CBT Standard in 2016. Before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism was rapidly growing in Laos [1]. In 2019, international tourist arrivals increased by 14.4%, reaching 4.79 million. International tourism receipts totaled USD 934 million. During the years 2010–2019, international tourism receipts increased faster than international arrivals, suggesting increased sector value. Accordingly, it has been estimated that tourism directly contributes 4.6% of the GDP of the country [2]. In 2019, the highest number of international tourists to Laos were arrivals from Thailand, accounting for more than 2.1 million vis (45.0% of the total), followed by the People’s Republic of China, with more than 1 million (21.3%), Vietnam with 0.92 million (19.3%), and the Republic of Korea with 0.2 million (4.2%). Owing to the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Visa Exemption that allows ASEAN nationals to travel Laos without visa for 14–30 days, more than 3.1 million people arrived from the ASEAN region, accounting for two-thirds of all international visitors to Laos [3].

Meanwhile, in the literature there has rather been a scarcity of efforts to assess the ASEAN CBT Standard compared to other formidable tourism-industry-related standards. As such, it would be meaningful to examine the implementation the ASEAN CBT Standard for individual ASEAN member states. In this regard, Laos constitutes a unique case among the 10 ASEAN member states, as it has the most successful and sustainable community-based ecotourism model that tracks back to 1999, considerably before the adoption of the ASEAN CBT Standard in 2016, as a way to improve sustainable tourism provision in the region. This implies that Laos has significant potential to become a growing community-based tourism destination, with its rich experiences of working with diverse international partners for technical assistance and a public sector that has learned from the existing models, as well as a private sector that has demonstrated the methods for income generation for the community [4].

Furthermore, limited investigations are ongoing on how to customize and/or localize the ASEAN CBT Standard by taking into consideration the unique environments and circumstances of each ASEAN member state, leaving much to be desired about knowledge regarding enhancing the chance of successful and sustainable implementation. While there are a few reviews including the voices of general CBT stakeholders in implementing the ASEAN CBT Standard, these are at a rather general level and the implications for policymakers, who are usually high-ranking officials, remain insubstantial [5].

To this end, this study utilizes a series of in-depth interviews with executive-level stakeholders in Laos who represent the government, an international organization, and the private sector. This approach is crucial in that it enables a holistic view of tourism development in Laos, which has evolved from partnerships among stakeholders leading community-based tourism projects. In addition, interviews with an international organization dedicated to ASEAN tourism development are utilized to allow the ASEAN perspective for examining the case of Laos in facilitating and coordinating CBT operation, evaluation, and even the review mechanisms for sustainable standard management.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Contexualizing CBT under the Sustainable Tourism Development Domain

Dangi and Petrick [6] noted sustainable tourism (ST) development came up as an alternative option to the negative effects mass tourism was causing and to respond to the failures of traditional top-down approaches on community development during the 1980s for tourism advancement. Several scholars [7,8,9,10] concluded that there are various forms of alternative tourism, namely, ecotourism, rural tourism, and community-based tourism, which complement sustainable tourism development. According to the Brundtland Report published in 1987 [11], the concept of sustainable development became well known by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Furthermore, UNWTO 1994 [12] also clearly stated that “Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while projecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic and social needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life”.

CBT finds its roots in the 1970s [13]. Murphy [14] presented the term “community industry” to describe a tourism development where the industry not only attracts visitors through its competitiveness but also gives back to the community; a corporate enterprise that represents the interests of the whole community. The study revealed residents’ willingness and capability to participate and get involved in tourism development.

Scheyvens [15] identified four dimensions of community empowerment in economic, psychological, social, and political dimensions. Each dimension has critical success factors. For instance, income opportunities through local ownership of businesses and related capacity building are important elements of economic empowerment. For psychological empowerment, protecting the local identity and increasing local pride through educational activities are crucial. In the case of social empowerment, community cohesion is an important element, through respect for local culture and tradition. Lastly, in political empowerment, the roles of visionary leaders are important and support from local and national government is equally critical.

In particular, CBT promotes community participation and calls for the protection and improvement of the quality of life of communities influenced by tourism development [16].

As described by the Netherlands Development Organization Asia Pro-Poor Sustainable Tourism Network [17], CBT is a type of sustainable tourism that promotes pro-poor strategies in a community setting. The CBT initiatives aim to involve local residents in the management of small tourism projects as a means of alleviating poverty and providing an alternative income source for community members toward sustainability. In addition, CBT has become a pro-poor growth development tool in developing countries to alleviate poverty.

With the help of international donor agencies, CBT networks are involved in the aspects of information and experience sharing and of self-help [18]. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) [19] highlighted seven fundamental characteristics of CBT: (1) involving appreciation not only of nature but also of the indigenous cultures prevailing in natural areas as part of the visitor experience; (2) containing education and interpretation services as part of the offer to tourists; (3) generally, but not exclusively, organized small groups with specialized, locally owned businesses; (4) minimizing the negative impacts on the natural and socio-cultural environment; (5) supporting the protection of natural and cultural areas by generating economic benefits from them; (6) providing alternative income and employment for local communities; and (7) increasing local and visitor awareness of conservation efforts.

Furthermore, in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Handbook on how to develop and sustain CBT [20], CBT was recognized as (1) an important generator of business opportunity for SMEs, (2) an effective vehicle for distributing economic benefits, and (3) a catalyst for partnership between the public and private sectors. The authors emphasized that implementing CBT can be relatively easier than sustaining it. Therefore, while evolving CBT in a sustainable way, product competitiveness should be guaranteed and a profitable business model needs to be applied to add value as an enterprise. Also, during that development process, balanced leadership and systematic management is required.

In addition, Dodds et al. [21,22] suggested there are three main types of CBT: (1) a project in which community members are employed using a rotation system and profits are allocated for community projects or dividends to residents, (2) a project that involves family or group initiatives within the communities, based on community assets, and (3) a joint venture between a community or family and an outside business partner. Furthermore, CBT is usually promoted by international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

2.2. CBT Operation in Laos

After first opening the border for international tourists in 1989, Laos published the first National Tourism Development Plan in the following year. After that, the second National Tourism Development Plan in 1998 targeted conventional sightseers, special interest tourists, and cross border and domestic tourists. Under the second national plan, Laos initiated a major tourism development project, the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project (NHEP), which eventually became the model for all future CBT ecotourism projects in the province, in Luang Namtha Province in 1999. The project was co-funded by the Government of New Zealand, through the New Zealand Overseas Development Agency, and the Government of Japan, through the International Finance Corporation, while additional technical assistance was provided by UNESCO [4,23]. Through the NHEP, according to the Luang Namtha Provincial Tourism Department, the number of tourists to Luang Namtha increased from 4732 in 1995 to 24,700 in 2000. The more recent trend for visitor statistics is shown in Figure 1.

According to an exploratory survey in 1999, the international visitors were interested in overnight treks with trained guides to the Nam Ha National Protected Areas and guided river trips to the protected areas [2]. The main reason international visitors come to the Luang Namtha province is to appreciate its outstanding natural and cultural landscape. Community income increased through the economic opportunities created by the provision of food, lodging, and handicraft sales, which in turn promoted income distribution among the villagers. The NHEP devised a manual for guide training and developed a monitoring system to track the numbers of visitors and carrying capacity in attempt to assess the impact of the treks in the communities [23]. The NHEP was recognized as the “best practice” of ecotourism projects towards great sustainability by the United Nations in 2001 and by British Airways in 2002 for its contribution to poverty reduction [24]. Borrowing from the successful NHEP model, the Asian Development Bank implemented the Mekong Tourism Development Project (MTDP) from 2003 to 2007 in four provinces of Laos containing ten to twelve CBT sites, aiming to enhance private sector partnerships and the competitiveness of the developed CBT sites. Serving as a continuation of the MTDP, the Sustainable Tourism Development Project (STDP) (2009) targeted nine provinces in Laos [24]. In 2016, Laos adopted the ASEAN CBT Standard with nine other ASEAN member states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 2023, Laos adopted its own CBT Standard because of the necessity of localization of the regional standard. The development history of CBT partnerships in Laos is summarized in

Table 1. Development history of CBT partnerships in Laos.

Year	Event
1989	Start of international tourist arrivals
1990	First National Tourism MasterPlan enacted
1992	Laos National Tourism Authority established
1999	Nam Ha Ecotourism Project began
2003	Mekong Tourism Development Project
2004	National Growth for Poverty Eradication Strategy
2006	National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan published
2009	Sustainable Tourism Development Plan
2016	ASEAN CBT Standard adopted
2023	Laos CBT Standard adopted

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

and the current list of CBTs in Laos in

Table 2. Current list of CBTs in Laos.

Province (Number)	Name of CBT
Phongsaly (2)	Kor Man Village Natural Ethnic Village
Luang Namtha (3)	Namtha Protected Area Namdi Village Nalan Nature and Cluster Tour Village
Bokeo (2)	Old Tea Forest Yakha Mountain Namkan Cultural Tour
Oudomxay (4)	Tham-chon-ong, Xay District Cultural Tour, Banfan Village, Xay District Cultural Tour, Arno Village, Lar District Tham-Tanongpor and Village Tour, Lar District
Luang Prabang (4)	Handicrafts Tour, Ban Xanghay Village, Laung Phrabang District Khoungsi Waterfall, Laung Phrabang District Nongkheiw, Mouang Ngoy District Natural Cultural Tour and Handicraft Tour, Nambak District
Houaphanh (2)	Natural Cultural Tour and Handicraft Tour, Saleine Village Nam Et Phou Luey National Protect Area, Viengthong District
Xayyabouly (2)	Namphoi National Protect Area Elephant Ride at Ang Natieng
Xiangkhouang (1)	Hot Spring, Banxang Village
Vientiane (3)	Poukham Cave, Viengthong Village Lom Cave, Phoundindeng Village Natural Tour, Anglaung Village
Bolikhamxai(3)	Tad Xay Waterfall, Thaphabath District Natural and Handicraft Tour, Na Village Vangnamyent, Napavanh Village
Khammouane (2)	Nongpapha Cave, Thakhek District Xang Cave, Hinboun District
Savannakhet (4)	Dongling, Phonmoung Village Wa Landscape, Champhone District Faysui Reservoir, Champhone District Phantadphon Temple and Cultural Tour, Xayphouthong District
Salavan (2)	Thevada Waterfall, Hangphounoy Village Handicraft and Cutural Tour, Huenhoun Villege
Sekong (3)	Tad Phak Waterfall, Dand Village Tad Huakhon Waterfall, Dand Village Cutural Tour, Kandone Village
Attapeu (2)	Tad Saepha Waterfall, Sanamxay District Tad Sae Ponglay waterfall, Sanamxay District
Champasak (5)	Tad Fane Waterfall, Paksong District Tad Cham Waterfall, Paksong District Tad Ngueng Waterfall, Paksong District Donkhone-Donded, Khong District Keit Ngnong Village, Pathomphone District
Total	44

Source: Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism of Lao PDR [25].

.

2.3. Implementation of the CBT Standard in the ASEAN

The Thai CBT Standard Handbook, developed by the Thailand Community-based Tourism Institute (CBT-I) in 2013, consists of five pillars, namely, (1) sustainability tourism management for CBT, (2) distribution of benefits to the local area and society and improvement in quality of life, (3) celebration, conservation, and support of cultural heritage, (4) systematic, sustainable natural resources and environmental management, and (5) CBT service and safety with 29 criteria and 176 indicators. The handbook is written based on the feedback from communities as well as related stakeholders in Thailand and in Europe. This standard encouraged community members to set the sustainable developmental direction and to monitor and assess the progress of local CBT development by collecting information in a systemic manner. In addition, the result of the assessment for each criterion is useful information for planning future development, as the checklist can assist communities to prepare for the market [26]. However, criticisms exist in that the CBT-I Standard remains a self-assessment tool and a guide rather than a certification with responsibilities. Additional critiques followed regarding some of the indicators being ambiguous and lacking quantifiable measurement schemes [13].

The ASEAN CBT Standard was adopted by ten ASEAN member states, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, during the 19th meeting of ASEAN Tourism Ministers in the Philippines held in January 2016. It was initially intended to provide direction to communities for keeping the quality of services for tourists at a consistent level across the ASEAN. The ASEAN, as a whole, found it necessary to adopt a set of standards to guarantee a consistent experience across its 10 member states. Evaluation of the quality is enabled by a checklist, which consists of eight criteria, 23 sub-criteria, and 171 indicators. Out of the 171 indicators, 89 indicators are for minimum requirements, 52 are for advanced requirements, and 30 are for best practice requirements. For certification, the CBT initiative needs to fully comply with at least 70% of the relevant minimum requirements and 60% of the advanced requirements of the indicators in

Table 3. Summary criteria and indicators for ASEAN CBT initiatives.

Criteria		Sub-Criteria	Indicators
			Minimum Requirement	Advanced Requirement	Best Practice Requirement	Total
1	Community ownership and management	1.1 Effective and transparent governance arrangements exist	5	2	0	7
		1.2 Legitimate establishment	2	0	0	2
		1.3 Effective and transparent management exists	5	2	1	8
		1.4 Effective partnerships exist	2	2	1	5
		Sub-total	14	6	2	22
2	Contribution to social well-being	2.1 Human dignity is maintained	2	1	1	4
		2.2 Benefits and costs are shared equitably	1	1	1	3
		2.3 Links exist to regional economies	2	1	1	4
		2.4 Cultural integrity is maintained and valued cultural traditions are enriched	3	2	1	6
		Sub-total	8	5	4	17
3	Contribution to conserving and improving the environment	3.1 Natural resources are being conserved	1	2	1	4
		3.2 Conservation activities to improve the environment	4	1	2	7
		Sub-total	5	3	3	11
4	Encouragement of interaction between the local community and guests	4.1 Guest and local community interaction exists	2	3	3	8
		4.2 Sustainability of Community-Based Tourism products	1	1	3	5
		Sub-total	3	4	6	13
5	Quality tour and guiding services	5.1 Ensuring food and beverage service provider quantity	3	2	1	6
		5.2 Managed tours and activities to ensure quality	5	4	4	13
		Sub-total	8	5	5	19
6	Quality food and beverage services	6.1 Ensuring food and beverage service provider quality	3	2	1	6
		6.2 Managed food and beverage services for quality	12	3	1	16
		Sub-total	15	5	2	22
7	Quality accommodation	7.1 Ensuring accommodation service provider quality	4	1	1	6
		7.2 Managed accommodation to ensure quality	16	10	1	27
		Sub-total	20	11	2	33
8	Performance of CBT-Friendly Tour Operations	8.1 Commitment to CBT ideals	5	2	2	9
		8.2 Contribution to community and nature protection	4	5	2	11
		8.3 Support for the local economy	2	1	1	4
		8.4 Promotion of joy of discovery, knowledge, and respect	3	2	0	5
		8.5 Satisfying and safe experiences for tourists and the community	2	2	1	5
		Sub-total	15	12	6	34
		Total	89	52	30	171

Source: ASEAN Secretariat [27].

. The checklist can also function as a self-administered tool to identify weaknesses in the current tourist services and offerings. The assessment is conducted in an evidence-based manner through documents, observations and interviews, and photographs. The handbooks, checklists, codes of conduct, and community audit workbooks of the ASEAN CBT Standard are accordingly provided to the community [27].

2.4. CBT Partnership in Laos

Pio [28] suggested that there are three types of CBT partnerships in the Lao context: (1) donor-assisted partnerships, (2) CBT public–private partnerships (CBT PPPs), and (3) inclusive business models. The first type, donor-assisted partnership, brings development agencies, communities, central and local governments, and the private sector together. The partnership model prioritizes benefits for the community in short- and long-term periods and benefit distribution systems such as village funds. This partnership model originated from the NHEP begun in 1999, where the private sector was involved in selling and administering the products through partnership agreements. However, disruption in the funding cycle of international development agencies, which frequently leads to interrupted involvement of the agency, may prevent smooth cooperation among stakeholders.

The second type of CBT partnership, PPP, is developed by the private sector and focuses on the size of economic benefits rather than its distribution amongst the community. In the context of Lao, CBT PPP usually involves tour operators that have previous experience in CBT projects. As Laos tend to have less capacity for facilitating the establishment of PPPs, not many such partnerships exist. Community–private sector joint ventures were defined by Ashley and Jones [29] as a contractual partnership between a community and a private investor, where they work together in establishing a single tourism venture. They posit that lessons can be learned from successful joint venture partnerships, although it is highly unlikely that any joint venture can be easily replicable. One of the lessons from Ashley and Jones [29] is that national policy and legislation should play an enabling role in the process. In Laos, cases have been reported in which the lag time between the development and sales of the products led to the disinterest of the community and the private sector in the joint ventures. Furthermore, transparent and effective PPPs should be established to reduce poverty by developing the local skills of the community, such as the Konglor Cave located in Khammouane Province that won the ASEAN CBT Standard Award.

An example of the third type is exemplified by the Lao government investing in road access and basic tourism amenities and the community reaching an agreement with the government to manage the site. For example, the Tree-top Explorer ziplining and trekking program at Nong Louang village is a good representation of the inclusive business model, in that it is owned by a leading private entity in ecotourism. It is often considered that the inclusive business model is the fastest growing model and instigates improved access and regulations in Laos [13].

With these diverse types of partnerships, CBT governance can also play a role in enhancing the cooperation among relevant stakeholders for participatory tourism development [30]. This concept of governance suggests new forms of coordination between governments and non-state actors such as in the business, community, and voluntary sectors [31]. Weak governance can bring challenges in the region, despite ASEAN’s aspirations of leveraging the ASEAN CBT Standard as a tourism planning and human resources training tool and even for funding [13].

This paper seeks to address the perspectives of executive CBT stakeholders from Laos in the framework of the ASEAN CBT Standard, defined as those at the top, management, or executive levels or those stakeholders with high client or revenue volume. Therefore, the following research objectives guide the study undertaken here:

(1)

To explore the perspective of CBT stakeholders including from public, private, and international development agency sectors who pursue overall sustainability in tourism regarding the major challenges of the ASEAN CBT Standard in Laos;

(2)

To understand how the ASEAN CBT Standard is perceived and utilized in Laos from the perspective of executive CBT stakeholders for sustainable ASEAN CBT Standard implementation;

(3)

To examine the current CBT partnership and multilateral collaboration among key CBT stakeholders in Laos towards sustainable tourism.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

A qualitative approach is deemed suitable for this study due to the complexity of CBT dynamics and the necessity to draw on the CBT experts’ experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors [13]. To carry this out, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect information from the interview participants [32]. The semi-structured interviews contained a list of questions developed from the literature on CBT. The questions were organized to solicit answers on the recent CBT projects that the interviewees were involved in, issues related to the ASEAN CBT Standard, the level of awareness of the ASEAN CBT Standard among different stakeholders, the contribution of CBT to Laos’ tourism industry, and, finally, the positive and negative impacts of the CBT.

This research adopted a content analysis approach to analyze of the data. According to Weber [33], content analysis utilizes a set of procedures to make valid inferences from texts. It is applied in a diversity of disciplines to analyze various forms of communication by utilizing textual data, whereas Stepchenkova [34] notes that a growing number of tourism studies utilize qualitative data such as interviews and open-ended questions. Gray and Densten [35] state that content analysis extracts patterns and structures, draws out key features to which researchers want to pay attention, develops categories, and combines them into perceptible constructs in order to seize the meaning of the textual data. Therefore, it can be considered a systemic process to extract valid implications from data of a qualitative nature.

Based on Simpson’s [36] identification of the key stakeholders in CBT, the executive interviewees were recruited from the Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism (MICT) of Laos, the Provincial Tourism Department of Laos, international developmental partners, and the private sector. The interviewees were chosen from public, private, international organization, and international development agencies based on their familiarity with CBT and expertise regarding sustainable tourism development experiences. The interviewees were also equipped with diverse perspectives on the ASEAN CBT Standard within the ASEAN framework for their high-level experience in the decision making, management in development, and implementation of CBT. Also, they had extensive experience with a multi-stakeholder approach in implementing sustainable tourism development, including CBT practices.

3.2. In-Depth Interview Design and Data Analysis

The interviews were designed accordingly to the main research aim and objectives. Also, during the interviews, critical issues and responses were noted and followed-up through additional pertinent questions. Due to the COVID-19 situation, interviews were conducted via online video meetings. All respondents were given written information beforehand about the research objectives so that they could fully understand their role in the in-depth interviews. The interview question notes consist of seven questions including how the ASEAN CBT Standard is perceived among communities in Laos, the limitations of the ASEAN CBT Standard, and how the ASEAN CBT Standard can be made sustainable with multilateral partnerships in Laos. This also gave interviewees the time to prepare their responses in advance for the actual meeting. All participants gave informed verbal and recorded consent for the data collection and recording. Respondents were coded (RP1-RP7) so that their anonymity was guaranteed. As summarized in

Table 4. Profiles of the executive stakeholders interviewed.

Respondent	Capacity	Nationality	Relevance	Interview Length (Minutes)
RP1	Tourism Officer of ASEAN Secretariat	Indonesia	In-depth knowledge and experience in ASEAN tourism standards; 20 years of professional experience in ASEAN region	50
RP2	Central Government Official/Policy Makeron CBT Development	Laos	Focal point of Laos CBT development, implementation, and evaluations at a working level; more than 15 years of professional experience	50
RP3	Provincial Government Official	Laos	5 years of experience working in the field
RP4	Specialist in an International Development Agency	United States	25 years of professional experience in Laos tourism development and the Greater Mekong Subregion	70
RP5	Consultant, Specialist in Tourism Planning, Project Design, and Capacity Building	New Zealand	25 years of experience in international tourism consultancy	60
RP6	CEO of Private Firm in Ecotourism/CBT	Laos	20 years of experience in the private sector and pioneer of ecotourism in Laos	30
RP7	CEO of Private Firm in Forest Conservation	France	More than 20 years of experience in the private sector and a front runner for tourism-based conservation	30

Source: Author’s own.

, the interviews lasted from 30 to 70 min, depending on the complexity of the topics discussed. All interviews were conducted in the English language.

3.3. Data Analysis

After the in-depth interviews with the seven experts were conducted, the recorded responses were coded and summarized. Drafts of the summary were sent to each interviewee for confirmation and validation of their answers so that there was no misinterpretation. The framework shown in

Table 5. Analytic framework of in-depth interviews.

	Limitations of ACS	Positive Aspects of ACS	Recommendations for Sustainable ACS
(Former) ASEAN Secretariat (RP1)	The ACS Awards do not have an independent review mechanism	It provides regional recognition	Increase transparency and efficacy by enabling an independent review by independent assessors
National Tourism Organization (RP2)	Some criteria of the ACS do not comply with the local situation	It contributes to raising the overall criteria of CBT in Laos	Develop Lao CBT Standard
Provincial Tourism Department (RP3)	The ACS is not widely known among the community	It is a useful tool to enhance CBT activities and make them more inclusive, sustainable, and qualitative, as the criteria of the ACS is relatively high for Laos	Collaborate with private agencies as they opened the trail to private agencies between 2009 and 2010
International Development Agency 1 (RP4)	Localization of the standard for context is not considered	It promotes regional cooperation and regional knowledge sharing by maximizing community satisfaction	Improve the legal and regulatory framework so that the private sector can develop the experience, market it, and manage the day-to-day operations with its own strengths
International Development Agency 2 (RP5)	The ACS is not evaluated by an independent auditor or system	It is reasonably practical and helpful to raise the quality of a CBT experience across borders at a regional level	Strengthen the trust among stakeholders
Private Sector (RP6)	The ACS lacks trustable recognition among consumers who experience it	If the criteria for the ACS are met at a certain level, it would be good for businesses in the long term	Provide trustable recognition through reinforced assessment of the criteria
Private Sector (RP7)	The ACS is not known in the private sector	It would be useful to train local staff to learn more about the concept of standards, evaluation, or monitoring	Provide training programs for local staff led by IDAs

Source: Authors’ own.

was utilized to facilitate the analysis derived from the data extracted from the interviewee responses; it is noteworthy that these portray the concern and views on the ASEAN CBT Standard (ACS) implementation in Laos.

Also, through content analysis of the data, categories were developed and classified into the following themes: the ASEAN CBT Standard and Awards, independent review mechanisms, the localization of the ASEAN CBT Standard, partnership between the private sector and the community, lack of demand for recognition, and multilateral stakeholder collaboration efforts. These perceptual constructs were used to facilitate comprehension of the responses [34].

4. Results

The major findings from the study are discussed in the following subsections, including the limitations and positive aspects of the current ASEAN CBT Standard when applied to the general context of Laos. The ASEAN CBT Standard requires the communal understanding of respective stakeholders in order to operate cohesively. That is, a multilateral stakeholder collaboration is a necessary condition that most interviewees emphasized. The gap between the supply and demand sides for CBT products remains a fundamental issue.

4.1. The ASEAN CBT Standard and Awards

At the 20th meeting of ASEAN Tourism Ministers in Singapore held in January 2017, the Ministers presented the first ASEAN CBT Awards to 26 recipients from 10 ASEAN member states. According to the joint media statement from the meeting [37], the awards were based on the ASEAN CBT Standard comprised of umbrella performance indicators for the coordinated management of tourism products offered by communities under the organization of a CBT Committee. The ASEAN CBT Standard was used to create a checklist of the performance standards, which consisted of 8 criteria, 23 sub-criteria, and 171 indicators, categorized into minimum, advanced, and best practice requirements. For self-assessment, the communities were provided with standard handbooks, checklists, codes-of-conduct, and community audit workbooks in the form of evidence of documents, observations, interviews, and photographs [27].

There are two types of recognition related to the ASEAN CBT Standards: certification and award. CBT operations can reach the certification stage when the evaluation complies with 70% of the relevant minimum requirement and 60% of the advanced requirement indicators of each criterion. RP1 mentioned that regional recognition for the ASEAN tourism standards is based on an agreed number among all the ASEAN member states, which may promote equality but may hinder efficiency in promotion of tourism service quality. RP1 said, “in terms of how we recognize tourism standards regionally we select based on the numbers agreed by all ASEAN member states”. As Wong et al. [38] mentioned, the political culture within ASEAN is based on consensus and the principle of equality, which has an influence on the improvement of tourism collaboration at the regional level and identifying the strengths and weakness of CBT communities by applying the ASEAN CBT Standard. Therefore, an ASEAN Tourism Standards Award is given to recipient countries based on their principle of equality, meaning there are the same number of awardees per country, despite their varying levels of tourism development and performance.

4.2. Independent Review Mechanism

Currently, the ASEAN Tourism Standards Award does not have an independent review mechanism for submissions by the respective ASEAN member states. In order to improve the suitability of the ASEAN Tourism Standards Award, an independent review mechanism for the submissions by each ASEAN member state is recommended, as revealed in the interview. The evaluation process, including audit, review, and assessment, should depend on the result of the independent review in order to increase the transparency and efficacy of the award itself. RP1 commented “independent body at the regional level should review the candidates as level of implementation of review or assessment could be different from one to another”.

The lack of an independent review mechanism implies (1) exposure to subjective interpretation of the evaluation criteria, (2) the lack of willingness of each ASEAN member state to take the third party’s opinion in order to increase real quality, and (3) decisions susceptible to political influence. The challenges for introducing an independent review mechanism may include (1) limited financial support, (2) an increased cost for capacity building, and (3) heavy dependency on donor organizations, especially in for poor communities [13]. Given the significance of an independent review process and the benefits it can bring, CBT operators may need to consider what an independent evaluation process will entail. Likewise, the ASEAN member states also need to envision the long-term sustainability of standards through an external evaluation system. They should consider improving the evaluation system by including a cross-country assessment among countries, increasing the fairness within ASEAN, as RP1 mentioned.

4.3. Localization of the ASEAN CBT Standard

After the adoption of the ASEAN CBT Standard in 2016, RP2 mentioned that the ASEAN CBT Standard was translated into the local language and disseminated at the provincial and district levels. There were also training programs targeting locals, such as the Training of Trainers (ToT), at the provincial level with the aid of NGOs and international development partners. Master trainers could share their experiences with the local trainers on how to implement the ASEAN CBT Standard in the community and villages in order to increase the level of awareness. However, there have also been challenges, as some of the criteria in the ASEAN CBT Standard were not agreeable to the local conditions. RP2 mentioned “there are too many criteria in the ASEAN CBT Standard that are too high for the Lao CBT model. That’s why we are developing our own standard. It is lower than the ASEAN CBT Standard so community can first meet the Laos CBT Standard before applying to the ASEAN CBT Standard. But two of them share the same goal”.

The MICT of Laos worked on the draft of the Lao CBT Standard in their own language, based on the framework of the ASEAN CBT Standard, in 2021 and announced the Lao CBT Standard in 2023.

Before the ASEAN CBT Standard came to Lao PDR in 2016, there were no CBT standards or certification schemes in Laos. However, there were the best sustainable tourism practices and cases, such as the UNESCO-National Tourism Authority NHEP, the first community-based ecotourism project in Laos. In the past, the NHEP had been widely recognized as a model example of CBT throughout Southeast Asia. Although the ASEAN CBT Standard can be a useful tool to improve CBT activities in the region and create a robust system, the benchmarks are rather high for Laos, as voiced by both RP2 and RP3. RP3 shared their thoughts by saying, “I think the assessment criteria of ASEAN CBT Standard is appropriate and suitable. But each country has different issues to follow all the criteria and it is not easy to meet all the criteria written in the ASEAN CBT Standard”.

Not surprisingly, application of the ASEAN CBT Standard across the country is still sluggish due to the imbalance of knowledge and information asymmetry among stakeholders. With the technical assistance from developmental partners, the Laos National Tourism Organization is providing training opportunities through workshops and forums to strengthen the capacity of government officials and the community while sustainably managing CBT growth.

4.4. Partnership between the Private Sector and the Community

RP2 stressed that CBT should always involve the private sector and the local community. The private sector can sell community-based tourism products as part of their tour package through promotion and joint marketing with tour companies. Therefore, PPPs and community involvement are important for CBT success, as the private sector can connect visitors to the local community. Unless there is direct income generated through the CBT activities, it would not be easy to encourage local communities to actively involve themselves in CBT activities. Therefore, efforts should be coordinated to expand job opportunities for all community members.

RP3 mentioned that, in 2000, the Nalan Trail started out with two main trails that were designed for two- or three-day trekking programs. In compliance with the provincial law of Luang Namtha, the local people and the government were responsible for the implementation and management. Between 2009 and 2010, the government opened the trails to all private agencies, so that 12 new trails could be connected to the Nalan Trail and achieve synergy. As a result, there are 14 new trails for trekking in the Nam Ha National Protected Area. On the other hand, there are 48 families who have participated in the CBT program in Nalan Village, among which only 18 families maintain the proper conditions to offer homestays. The rest of the families provide related services such as traditional performances, baci ceremonies, handicraft souvenirs, food, and tour guides. Families render different services because respective households have different capacities and conditions. Ban Nalan was the first village to host tourists overnight via participating in the NHEP. RP3 stated “after receiving the translation of ASEAN CBT Standard, we (Luang Namtha Provincial Tourism Department) know where to go and are able to encourage community to enhance their offerings to meet the standard”.

The objectives of partnerships between the private sector and local communities should align with the empowerment of the communities, so that they can become equal players in the industry. However, there are many cases in Laos, as well as in other ASEAN member states, where the community is not fully equipped with the skills, knowledge, and resources to access tourism demand in a sustainable and inclusive way. As RP3 shared, the willingness of the private sector to approach the community as an equal partner is important. This approach drives the CBT projects forward, especially in developing countries such as Laos. As RP3 has shared through the case of Nalan village, community-oriented mechanisms in close partnership with the private sector are key in project management.

Therefore, at the national level, it is important to support the establishment of regulations and policies that enable partnerships between the community and the private sector to work together within the legal framework, rather than relying on partnerships that are market-based outcomes, as RP6 mentioned. To summarize, the main barriers that prevent partnerships between the private sector and the community are (1) a lack of endorsement from the government, (2) a lack of confidence on the quality of products and proactive attitudes by the private sector to create new market opportunities, and (3) a lack of awareness by both the community and the private sector on the potential of partnerships.

4.5. Lack of Demand for Recognition

RP4 mentioned that the ASEAN CBT Standard is not a defining factor for what makes a successful CBT, though its usefulness is noted. The standards and certifications still lack widespread demand from the industry and service providers in Laos. There are certainly some benefits of recognition for the CBT enterprises, such as increased marketing potential and consumer confidence and an improved profile for the businesses, among others. RP4 mentioned “It is good for business. The ASEAN CBT Standard Award is always featured at the ASEAN Tourism Forum where not only high-level government officials but also many tourism operators around ASEAN are involved. I think that’s one of the biggest factors to drive the interests of tour operators as well as government. It is a good venue and give confidence to the businesses”.

On the service provider side, as RP4 puts it, villagers that have experienced CBT recognize the need for rules and a framework to run the enterprise in a sustainable manner. On the consumer side, tourists who visit a Laos CBT destination certified through the CBT Standard can expect some credibility, as it is endorsed by ASEAN. At the same time, visitors tend to have a certain level of anticipation on the minimum level of service that can be expected from the destination, thereby raising the consciousness of consumers regarding the usefulness of the ASEAN tourism standards. Therefore, such credibility should be agreed upon by the three parties: the government, the operators, and the consumers. From the perspective of the community, there is a lack of demand to pursue the ASEAN CBT Standard due to the community’s inability to meet the standards in the short-run and directly market this achievement.

Despite the strong regional ownership of the ASEAN CBT Standard, it is not without limitations. RP4 commented that “ASEAN CBT Standard is good with strong regional ownership and political commitment, knowledge exchange among ASEAN member states. When it is implemented, it should be localized depending on country/local context. Even beyond the local context, for example, one type of CBT enterprise may not be necessarily relevant to another type of enterprise”.

Based upon RP4’s experience, a non-certified CBT enterprise may well perform better than a certified counterpart, especially when it has strong leadership, good community ethics, and good business practices. In addition, RP5 argued that the private sector, like hotels, guest houses, and tour operators, in Laos seem to be indifferent towards the ASEAN CBT Standard, as there are many other recognition options to choose from, including Travelife, EarthCheck, Sustainable Travel International, and the Global Sustainable Tourism Council. At the same time, the tourism industry tends to have more creditability when standards are evaluated by an independent auditor rather than by a government-operated system. RP5 said “in my experiences working with standards, the third party and independent system for standards are considered more neutral and have more integrity than a purely government run system”. To this end, the private sector in Laos may not see substantial marketing benefits through ASEAN CBT Standard certification. Also, they tend to believe that the certification may not have a significant impact in boosting the number of visitors. The reasons for the lack of demand can be summarized as: (1) a perceived lack of marketing benefits from the private sector, (2) a lack of perceived credibility by consumers due to imbalanced previous experiences, and (3) the availability of options for other recognition schemes.

4.6. Multilateral Stakeholder Collaboration Efforts

In general, for the development of CBT enterprises there must be a high level of collaboration among the government, private sector, community, and tourists. The objectives of CBT usually align with government policy to create jobs and reduce poverty, while tour operators are aware of the CBT values, which in turn allows them to provide extra offerings for visitors. Communities gain a substantial income source to sustain their families and tourists look for authentic experiences with the people from the community.

Although RP6 asserted that it was not difficult to involve local communities via hiring villagers for food and beverage supply services and forest patrols in ranger programs, ultimately, community cooperation should be formalized and some of the responsibilities transferred to the community; this will facilitate empowerment of the community members.

For multilateral stakeholder collaboration, it is important to build trust and reliability among all the involved parties through transparency and communication. Governments should facilitate the involvement of the private sector so that it can initiate new activities and grow, especially in and around the 24 National Protected Areas (NPAs), considering the unique characteristics of Laos’ CBT. The regulations for tourism require special attention and should be treated differently from those on the hydropower and the mining sectors in the region if the government wants to ensure meaningful tourism development in Laos. Stakeholders should bear in mind that the ultimate beneficiaries should be the host community, while the community should also contribute to the product in a meaningful way in terms of authenticity and marketability. RP7 raised the need for systemic training and educational opportunities from international development agencies for local staff who directly deal with tourists for better implementation of the CBT Standard. The interviewee shared that most community staff lack knowledge on the CBT Standard itself, as well as the understanding of the need for evaluation or monitoring of tourism quality.

5. Discussion and Implications

The results show a diversity of perspectives regarding the enabling factors and major challenges in implementing the ASEAN CBT Standard into Laos at the national level through executive-level interviews with stakeholders from various public and private organizations. The findings suggest that for successful implementation, the community should work with the private sector from the early stages of the development of CBT, as demonstrated in the NHEP in Laos [39,40]. Specifically, the local communities should take advantage of partnering with the private sector and expanding income generation opportunities [40]. In addition, the interviewees indicated that the involvement of international development agencies in the tourism sector and their financial support to the Laos government’s CBT development efforts should be continued. Capacity building for public officials in the tourism sector to establish systems and procedures and to implement regional tourism standards would be an important part of the training. Therefore, having a multi-stakeholder approach to implementing the CBT Standard would serve as an effective tool to further utilize and stabilize the CBT Standard. The interviewees also shared their view on the ASEAN CBT Standard, which could be too demanding to attain for most communities on their own. Most communities, if not all, need technical assistance to achieve the CBT Standard. Also highlighted is how the ASEAN CBT Standard can be further promoted, accepted, and utilized by the key stakeholders in CBT in Laos. As suggested and implied by the executive stakeholders in CBT in Laos during their interviews, the MICT of Laos and the NTO adopted not only the ASEAN CBT Standard in 2016 but also the Laos CBT Standard in 2023. This adoption of the Laos CBT Standard validated the necessity of a national standard, which was transformed from the ASEAN CBT Standard in consideration of the state of tourism development in the respective member states. This implies that the ASEAN CBT Standard is a useful, necessary, and strategic framework, as each ASEAN member state can follow it to be competitive destinations under the umbrella of CBT standards. The executive interviewees echoed the adoption of the ASEAN CBT Standard itself is a big step for community-based tourism development in Laos. However, despite these accomplishments, it was suggested during the interviews that the national CBT Standard could be the first step for local communities to achieve; adhering to CBT standard practices in Laos should accelerate the implementation of the ASEAN CBT Standard, a transnational, collective, and regional standard. Also, when the global standards or regulations are implemented for actors in tourism destinations, local contexts and practices need to be engaged [41]. As emphasized by many scholars, there are key features of governance, including a requirement for knowledge, the application of power, resources and rules, and also coordination and cooperation, among numerous tourism actors necessary in order to apply policies including CBT standards for tourism destinations [6,42]. Ultimately, good local tourism governance can facilitate local participation and ownership of policy actions as well as initiatives [30].

6. Conclusions

These research findings highlight the need for consideration of the national tourism development status in applying the ASEAN CBT Standard in respective ASEAN member states. Although the ASEAN CBT Standard is a collective effort towards adopting a common framework in the ten member states, the NTO of the respective countries, like the one in Laos, can assist local communities to meet the national-level CBT Standard first, if applicable, with the help of private sector and international development partners. The results of executive-level stakeholder interviews show that the improvement of the evaluation system of the ASEAN CBT Standard is necessary for the further development of CBT in Laos. Therefore, it is advised to take multi-stakeholder approach to accelerate the implementation of the ASEAN CBT Standard in the region. To become a sustainable tourism sector, a collaborative business model should be practical. From this perspective, it is recommended to use public–private partnerships for better implementation of the localized CBT Standard in Laos. In addition, it is also suggested to monitor and assess the progress of the Lao CBT Standard, which was adopted in 2023. If the local communities in Laos can accept and apply the localized CBT Standard, it will be the first step towards the successful implementation of the regional CBT Standard to increase collective competitiveness as an umbrella of the tourism destination brand.

This study is limited in that it focuses on a single ASEAN member state, Laos, even though Laos constitutes a unique case for investigation. Future research could attempt to examine the implementation status of other ASEAN member states, especially focusing on the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). GMS countries, namely Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam, have been marketing themselves collectively as a tourism destination. Additional interviews can be arranged and implemented with relatively advanced CBT nations in the ASEAN region like Malaysia and Thailand, with emphasis on good local governance of the AESAN CBT Standard application at local and national levels.

Lastly, the interviews with local community members from Laos can be also used to learn about the various perspectives with regard to the progress of the national CBT Standard in Laos since its adoption in 2023, including its benefits and challenges.