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.