لخّصلي

Applying the CBTP Process Model
The CBTP Process Model
(Figure 1) makes the following three assumptions:
• That local capacity building and or￾ganisational development can be
most effectively guided using the
knowledge and insights of stake￾holders.
• That most stakeholders can look be￾yond their immediate circum￾stance.
• That with community values identi￾fied, most stakeholders will move
together toward acknowledged de￾sires that respect local area and
community well-being.
As noted earlier, these assumptions relate to
community development and strategic
planning principles. The facilitated commu￾nity assessment case study has shown that
the first and second of the above assump￾tions are realistic, and that the third may be
a reasonable expectation. Only time and ex￾amples of CBTP initiatives elsewhere will
provide more insights about the value of
this Process Model and validity of its as￾sumptions.
A CBTP approach doesn’t ignore or pre￾clude more market-conscious tourism plan￾ning and development, but first establishes
a common framework for shaping a locally
appropriate tourism industry. In the CBTP
Process Model, the three major feedback
loops (for community assessment, with
community development, and for refining
the tourism products and services) allow for
tourism development to be guided and mas￾saged by community, area, and market￾conscious inputs. Subsequent assessments
could be done after every tourism season,
once a year, or at two- or three-year inter￾vals—the frequency would depend on the
intensity of tourism pressures, other shifts in
the local planning context, and stakeholder
satisfaction. The specific community ap￾proach taken will vary by population size,
cultural context, local need, tourism inten￾sity, seasonality, and previous tourism
planning efforts. Nevertheless, the CBTP
concepts and framework can remain the
same.
Along the planning path, it is the recipe of
individuals—their talents, skills, experience,
limitations, commitment, time, patience, and
perseverance—which ultimately determines
the success of any community-based proc￾ess. Stakeholder alienation, turnover, attri￾tion, and burnout can leave a well founded
process stalled or unable to progress along
an accountable decision path. Personality
dynamics and seemingly unrelated personal
demands and agendas can block, accelerate,
or accentuate positive planning outcomes.
With every tourism season and cycle of
growth or decline, the roles, influence, and
relationships of tourism stakeholders
change (Reisinger, 1994; Smith, 1977). Ac￾cordingly, community-based tour-ism plan￾ning can be pursued as a flexible and re￾sponsive process instead of as the quest for a
rigid plan.