*2.2. The Community-Based Destination Model*

In recent years, sustainability aspects, over-tourism evidence, crowding effects on tourism destinations, and uncontrolled demand have increased the need for relational and experience tourism (Ruggieri 2008). Therefore, the need for a new paradigm for the tourist destination was developed spontaneously in rural and isolated areas, and there is a need to support and project this model (Wearing and McDonald 2002). Relevant scientific literature is now more concentrated on the social aspect of tourism, moving the attention from the concept of territory to the concept of locals or residents, defining a community-based tourism paradigm. This model is based on "community development, community survival, community involvement, and local benefits are among the foci here" (Dangi and Jamal 2016). It is considered in the literature as an integrated supply-driven approach based on the local people and companies. This tourism planning and policy model is based on trust, commitment, and synergy among the three key stakeholders. Bramwell and Lane (1993) highlighted two key stakeholders: the tourism industry and host communities.

Therefore, the impacts and responsibilities of the sustainable tourism industry will affect communities rather than sectors of society. Dangi and Jamal (2016) argue that there are apparent differences between sustainable and community-based tourism in planning and implementation. Sustainable tourism planning is a macro-level strategy involving "quasi-governmental, global institutions," whereas community-based tourism involves the "grassroots". Sofield described how community and stakeholder participation may have failed in terms of tourism: "such growing endorsement notwithstanding, participatory development is far from being adopted in practice anywhere in a way that leads to major structural reforms and political structures towards underprivileged people" (1995:26). Indeed, Murphy (1985), Krippendorf (1987), and Britton (1984) tended to be sceptical about the implementation of "community-driven tourism planning." (Murphy 1985).

The experience has shown how the initial thrust towards developing a broader understanding of tourism from a socio-economic industry to a more inclusive socio-cultural activity was positive in terms of the host toward the phenomenon of hospitality and service. However, as it progressed into a more significant commitment, it also changed the traditional tourism concept to one where more stakeholders could participate. Murphy (1985) describes three reasons for developing the basic theory behind community-based tourism. The first reason addresses the "feeling that the growing tourism literature needed some form of synthesis to make it intelligible to the student of tourism and managers of the industry". The second reason was "to offer an approach that would correct the

inadequacies of previous survey texts". The third reason refers to the sustainability and responsibility of tourism since it recognised "that tourism in industrial nations was now reaching a crucial stage in its development, to suggest a planning method that would meet the needs of tourism and integrate them into the general planning process" (Murphy 1985). Beeton (2006) provided some seminal literature that bolstered the research and study to develop an alternative and effective form of tourism activity. Beeton states, "many of those searching for that difference are looking to the people at the places they visit . . . ". Dangi and Jamal (2016) state, "There is a paucity of good research on inequalities in goods, services, and income and related distribution and procedural justice issues". Moscardo (2008) has been an inspiration to the research and study that was carried out for these projects when she speaks about the growth of the socio-economic industry, which contrasts with the slow pace at which sustainable and community-based tourism is growing; perhaps the best explanation for this phenomenon is stated by Moscardo (2008) when she explains, "The challenge for this model is that there exist critical gaps in our knowledge of how to achieve the goals embedded in the community capacity-building approach to tourism development". Indeed, Macbeth (2005) added two other settings that gave this industry a more socio-cultural sense of sustainability and ethics.

In recent years, some critique has been made about the effectiveness and feasibility of community-based tourism (CBT) as an alternative to the mainstream markets (Goodwin and Santilli 2009). Still, the aspect of three key factors can be seen as the driving force in making CBT a primary objective of any local tourism planning strategy and policy. The three factors are commitment, trust, and synergy. It is only by ensuring participation throughout the process by all stakeholders, avoiding "stakeholder fatigue", and consistent consultation with the stakeholders that such an inclusive process of local tourism planning will succeed. Ruggieri and Iannolino (2022) demonstrate the existence of a company network in some island destinations. The relatives and commercial links are managed with trust and by sharing information to create a common vision and high cooperation levels. Following those principles of the community-based model, it is possible to identify some bullet points.


This model is more challenging to study due to the lack of information and statistics and several micro hospitality sectors managed by people not involved in the tourism sector. In Table 2, the main theories are recalled for the analysis.

**Table 2.** Community-based tourism model thematic.


Source: elaboration on literature analysis.
