The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building: Pro-Poor Tourism Perspective
Hiroaki Saito
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan hiroaki.saito@uqconnect.edu.au
A growing recognition that tourism is a feasible strategy for poverty alleviation explains why pro-poor tourism (ppt) has gained increased attention. While many developing nations have benefited from the positive effects that ppt brings to their local economies, many communities are left behind due to their lack of capacity to conduct tourism activities. To develop local communities and introduce ppt, top-down (td) and bottom-up (bu) approaches have often been adopted; however, these approaches cannot yield expected outcomes without strong stakeholder intermediaries who play a crucial role in overcoming key challenges inherited in community capacity building. This study examines the roles of four types of stakeholder intermediaries commonly discussed in community capacity building. Based on their roles and limitations, the study presents a framework that proposes a context in which each type of stakeholder intermediary contributes prominently to successful community capacity building. The study provides valuable insights into how scholars and practitioners can consider the selection and application of different types of stakeholder intermediaries in community capacity building for the successful adaptation of ppt.
Keywords: stakeholder intermediary, capacity building, local community, pro-poor tourism
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.10.3-17
In recent decades, the tourism industry has shown dramatic growth around the world. With the growing recognition of the positive effects that tourism brings to national economies, many nations have commenced introducing tourism activities into their national plans for economic development. As tourism contributes to the growth of gdp in most nations, its positive impacts, created in developing nations and particularly their local communities, are substantial. The idea of 'tourism as a strategy for poverty alleviation' has become widespread and pro-poor tourism (ppt), defined as tourism that generates net benefits for the poor by using the advantages that tourism offers to developing nations (Roe, 2001), and ppt has
Introduction
become a buzzword for many practitioners and academics. Indeed, published books, organizational reports, and academic journal articles acknowledge several benefits that ppt brings to local communities in developing nations. These benefits include increased employment opportunities for local people (Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, 2004); development of extensive linkages and wider participation of the informal sector, which generates positive multiplier effects on economically disadvantaged groups (African Pro-Poor Tourism Development Centre, 2006); and other indirect benefits, such as government support for new infrastructure or community welfare services, which improves the lives of local people (Goodwin, 2008). While ppt seems to be a panacea for poverty alle-
Academica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017 | 27
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
viation in developing nations, its introduction often faces many challenges. Among them, one of the most widely publicized issues is a lack of community capacity to adopt tourism business in local communities (Chok, Macbeth, & Warren, 2007; Spenceley & Goodwin, 2007).
To build community capacity for adopting ppt, many developing nations have employed various strategies. Among them, top-down (td) and bottom-up (bu) approaches are the most commonly used. However, it has been argued that these approaches will not yield expected outcomes without strong stakeholder intermediaries who coordinate the multiple stakeholders and effectively foster community capacity building (Aref, Redzuan, Emby, & Gill, 2009). While previous research identified various terms to conceptualize different types of stakeholder intermediaries, there has been a lack of consensus in understanding their roles and limitations in community capacity building. More specifically, researchers and practitioners have very limited understanding of what each stakeholder intermediary term refers to, what their roles and limitations are, and in which context each type of stakeholder intermediary yields better success in community capacity building. This lack of understanding does not only deter effective stakeholder collaborations but also makes the instillation of ppt in local communities more challenging.
The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the roles of different types of stakeholder intermediaries in community capacity building and provide a framework to depict in which context each stakeholder intermediary can achieve the best possible outcomes in community capacity building. The study contributes to the present body of knowledge in stakeholder intermediaries in community capacity building and offers a pathway for future researchers and practitioners to employ appropriate types of stakeholder intermediaries for the successful adaptation of ppt.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, a review of the literature on community capacity building is provided. Different types of stakeholder intermediaries commonly discussed in previous studies are identified. Their definitions, roles, and limitations in community capacity building are discussed along
with relevant examples. Based on the analysis of each stakeholder's intermediary characteristics, the study then proposes the specific contexts where each stakeholder intermediary can provide a more prominent contribution to successful community capacity building. Finally, a framework that depicts these propositions is presented, and theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future studies are also discussed.
Community Capacity Building
Community capacity is defined as 'the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community, that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the wellbeing of that community' (Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal, 2001, p. 7). Community capacity considered adequate to conduct tourism business is the prerequisite for adopting ppt; however, many local communities in developing nations do not possess these capacities. They often do not have the infrastructure system and facilities that are able to bring tourists to their areas (e.g. road, transportation, sewerage, electricity and telecommunication systems); local people in these communities often do not have business management skills (lack of commercial viability and capability); and their economy significantly relies on foreign investment of finance and human capital (Zhao & Ritchie, 2007). To overcome these issues and increase their capability to adopt tourism activities, local communities, with support from various organizations (e.g. ngos, government organizations, and private sectors), undertake communitycapacitybuild-ing.
Community capacity building is the practice 'by which individuals, organizations, institutions, and societies develop abilities to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives' (United Nations, 2006, p. 7). In relation to community capacity building, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) offer a useful framework that suggests five key stages local communities experience during their community development and the tasks required in each stage to effectively build community capacity.
Accordingly, Stage 1 refers to the community sit-
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
uation in which a loose network of people or groups exists around the local community but they are not coordinated well, and their common issues and needs are not identified clearly. Thus, the main tasks in this stage are defining the domain of interests and identifying stakeholders that can contribute to the collaborative actions for community capacity building.
Stage 2 is a state in which stakeholders who engage in the project come together from different areas and develop more specific plans and actions with the local community. The key issue in this stage is to create synergy and collaboration among the involved parties. Tasks in this stage, therefore, include promoting the value of sharing knowledge and building trust among the involved stakeholder groups.
Stage 3 is the state in which local communities start forming their own identities and take charge of their practice and growth. In this stage, communities often experience strong tension with other involved stakeholders. The tension is particularly strong if new stakeholders join the process, often disrupting the pattern of interactions among existing stakeholder groups. Thus, tasks in this stage involve clearly defining, or redefining, the roles of the local community and involved stakeholders and managing the boundaries of the strategic focus of stakeholder collaboration.
Stage 4 refers to the situation in which the community has gained enough skills and knowledge and has started acting as a strategic steward of its domain. The tasks in this stage include sustaining energy, setting standards, educating novices, and establishing legitimacy.
Lastly, Stage 5 is the state in which the local community has fulfilled their potential, and then subdivides and mainstreams. The tasks in this stage involve celebrating accomplishments, generating new initiatives or institutionalizing roles and practices. While the situations of local communities considerably vary from one place to another, Wenger et al.'s (2002) framework is useful in understanding how communities go through their development stages and what tasks are required for effective community capacity building.
To effectively build community capacity and move to the next stage of community development, local
communities and stakeholders must utilize various strategies. While a number of different strategies have been adopted, they are generally categorized into two types: top-down (td) and bottom-up (bu) approaches (Fraser, Dougill, Mabee, Reed, & McAlpine, 2006).
Top-Down Approach
The top-down (td) approach facilitates community capacity building in a trickle-down manner (Wang & Wall, 2007). The approach is often used to develop the macro-level economy of the community or region (Ashley & Elliott, 2003). Its main characteristic is a dominant form of policy planning and implementation initiated by government bodies (Bond, 2006). The td approach is often used when government authorities traditionally hold strong power over local communities and in which a hierarchical structure is culturally embraced in the society (e.g. high power distance) (Wang & Wall, 2007). The approach is also used when governments identify potential economic benefits in local communities (e.g. unique landscape or animals, heritage, indigenous culture to attract tourists) (Gi-anna, 2011). Through rigidly organized procedures, professional networks and extensive investment of government resources, the td approach brings about a number of benefits to local communities and contributes to community capacity building (Theerapap-pisit, 2009). In fact, an improvement of infrastructure systems through the td approach often increases accessibility of tourists to the local areas; enhances the quality of life of local people; and attracts other industries to work together with local communities, which all contributes to economic development in such communities.
The td approach was the most dominant strategy until two global phenomena occurred in the 1980s: the shift of the role of state government, and economic globalization (Shatkin, 2004). First, as the national governments in many parts of the world shifted their roles and scaled back their assistance to local governments, they redefined their relationships with local authorities through decentralization (Shatkin, 2004). As a result, power was transferred from national governments to local authorities (Geddes, 2005). Second, economic globalization fostered local authorities to
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
pursue economic growth and social equity in rural areas (Shatkin, 2004), and this led to the simultaneous localization of economic activities and inter-firm linkages (Swyngedouw, 2004). Furthermore, international agencies began to impose pressure on local authorities to implement more participatory governance (Ged-des, 2005). As a result, the social equity development and the establishment of partnerships in the decisionmaking process became the centre of attention (Leach & Wilson, 2002).
The abovementioned phenomena have made the issues of the td approach salient. With that approach, tourism policies and plans are often less reflective of a community's social, cultural, and environmental concerns and their voices are often unheard (Chok et al., 2007). Therefore, conflicts between local community and developers (e.g. government bodies) often occur, which makes local development unsustainable (Moscardo, 2008). Furthermore, a strong emphasis on macro-economic benefits sometimes displaces existing communities to 'somewhere else,' which also becomes another cause of disputes between local residents and developers (Wang & Wall, 2007). Another key issue associated with the td approach is a lack of partnerships among stakeholders. Since the td approach is undertaken in a rather vertical manner, only a few inter-sectional linkages are created; when the implementation of community capacity building is not undertaken in a holistic manner; this also makes community development unsustainable (Wenger et al., 2002). These issues related to the td approach are adverse to social equity development and the philosophy of sustainable development, which are the recent focus of any tourism destination development (Liburd & Edwards, 2010).
Bottom-Up Approach
The bu approach begins from 'what is there already,' such as the local human capital, their needs, aspirations, and the natural resources in the community (Al-tieri & Masera, 1993, p. 106). This approach is often used in the community situation in which no particular dominant legislation is imposed by governments and each stakeholder pursues its own interests without any coordination (Sabatier, 1986). The bu approach is
also useful in the situation in which local communities already have some degree of available resources, ideas and, most importantly, willingness to develop their own plans and solutions for community problems, but still lack the skills and knowledge to do so (Manyara & Jones, 2007).
In the bu approach, two key practices are often emphasized: community empowerment and the participation of local people in the decision-making process. Community empowerment refers to a transfer of power to local people and increases their autonomy to manage their local business (e.g. tourist companies, event companies, or accommodation providers) without relying on external parties (e.g. public agencies) (Mahony & Zyl, 2001). One of the ultimate objectives of capacity building is to create an autonomous environment in local communities whereby empowerment is a critical component of this approach (Harrison & Schipani, 2007). Community empowerment practice often involves skill training or development seminars offered by a variety of external stakeholders such as ngos and aid agencies (Ashley, Brine, Lehr, & Wilde, 2007). Second, in contrast to the td approach, the bu approach has a strong emphasis on the involvement of local people in the decision-making process, irrespective of the different geographic, social and political contexts (Selman, 2004). By facilitating the local people to be involved in the decision-making process and encouraging them to decide their own future, the bu approach urges local people to transform from passive listeners to proactive members to develop their community (Finn & Checkoway, 1998).
While the bu approach certainly contributes to community capacity building, it also has various issues. The approach often has potential to create conflicts among stakeholders involved in community capacity building. As opposed to the td approach, the bu approach encourages various stakeholders to participate in policy development and the decision-making process. When these stakeholders are involved in a decision-making process, their competing interests, contracting viewpoints, complex power relationships, and interdependencies can make it difficult for them to reach consensus (Sabatier, 1986). Thus, it often becomes the case that 'decision making at
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
community-level may fall into the hands of a small and self-perpetuating clique, which may act in its own interests with disregard for the wider community' (Botes & Rensburg, 2000, p. 49). Similarly, poor communication between stakeholders and local communities in the bu approach is often reported (Tosun, 2006).
To summarize, while both the td and bu approaches have been traditionally adopted for fostering successful community capacity building, they commonly face two key issues: conflicts, and lack of linkages between local communities and stakeholders. Since these issues significantly hinder effective community capacity building and make it difficult to adopt ppt in local communities, solutions need to be identified. While extant studies provide various suggestions to address these issues, previous studies highlight the crucial role that stakeholder intermediaries play in overcoming these challenges and fostering successful community capacity building (Wenger et al., 2002).
Stakeholder Intermediaries
Stakeholder intermediaries are individuals or independent third parties 'who play an integral part in collaborative activities supporting any aspect of the innovation process' for the mutual benefit of two or more groups (Howard Partners, 2007, p. iii). In a community capacity-building process, stakeholder intermediaries often seek a way to effectively coordinate involved actors by understanding their interests, power relationships, and available resources (Wearing & McDonald, 2002). While previous research presents several terms to conceptualize different types of stakeholder intermediaries, there has been a lack of consensus in understanding their roles and limitations in community capacity building. Specifically, we have a very limited understanding of what each stakeholder intermediary term refers to, what their roles and limitations are, and in which context each type of stakeholder intermediary can better contribute to successful community capacity building. Without a clear understanding of their roles, limitations and better applications, it would be difficult for local communities and involved stakeholders to successfully collaborate and effectively undertake community capacity building. The following sections provide a review of four types
of stakeholder intermediaries commonly discussed in the literature. Their definitions, roles, and limitations in community capacity building are discussed along with relevant examples. Based on the review of the characteristics of stakeholder intermediaries, this study develops propositions to illustrate the context (i.e. td and bu approaches and community development stage (Wenger et al., 2002)) where each type of stakeholder intermediary offers the most prominent contribution to community capacity building.
Mediators
The term 'mediation' is defined as a form of dispute resolution that aims to assist two or more disputants in reaching mutual understandings and agreement (HG.org Legal Resources, 2011). In line with this thought, a mediator is defined as an independent third party or group who assists two or more parties to reach mutual understandings and agreement and solve conflicts between them (Howard Partners, 2007). As such, the main role of mediators is to intervene between conflicting stakeholders, mediate their relationship, and settle conflicts by finding appropriate solutions (Zorn & Farthing, 2007). As community capacity building involves various stakeholders who embrace different views and competing interests, conflicts among these stakeholders are inevitable (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). For instance, governments often attempt to maximize macro-economic benefits for the region while local communities or civil societies emphasize socio-cultural aspects of community development, such as better health and improved wellbeing of the local people (Shikida, Yoda, Kino, & Morishige, 2010). Similarly, interests of policy makers or developers in community projects differ from those of environmental practitioners or local residents. Such situations often create conflicts, which leads to a turbulent environment in the local area and an undermining of the efforts of community capacity building (Jamal & Stronza, 2009). At this point, the mediators' skill of bringing competing parties together and finding a way to settle the disputes becomes crucial (Zorn & Farthing, 2007).
When conflicts occur during community capacity building, mediators first seek to examine if there
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
are any existing guidelines or policies to mitigate the disputes. If not, they create a platform for collaborative policy making by bringing competing parties together (often local people and developers) (Shikida et al., 2010). For this purpose, mediators locate a series of meetings with either one-to-one (e.g. mediators and local people) or group meetings (Warner, 2000). In a conflict mediating process, mediators emphasize developing economic, political and social linkages between competing stakeholders (Bierschenk, Chau-veau, & Sardan, 2002).
For the successful management of conflict settlement, mediators must have skills to effectively communicate with different types of stakeholders; a wide network with business and research organizations; and trust from both local communities and other stakeholders (Howard, 2005). Through the utilization of these skills, mediators help to mitigate the disputes and facilitate effective collaboration for community capacity building (Ansell & Gash, 2007). While mediators play an important role in community capacity building, their role, by definition, is limited in mitigating and mediating conflicts when they occur or when they are likely to occur because they are considered to be more reactive stakeholder intermediaries rather than proactive intermediaries. Furthermore, their primary concern is to settle disputes; thus, they do not engage in network development.
Given the nature of their role, mediators are often NGOS, civil society and community representatives (e.g. Liegeois, 2013; United Nations Development Programme, 2014). Murphy, Neheta-Manungo, and Mwilima (2007) conducted research in a small rural community called Sikanjabuka in north-eastern Namibia. The local community had significant disputes with the other stakeholders including the public sector, nature conservation agencies, and neighbouring communities. In this situation, an ngo called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (irdnc), played the role of mediator. By monitoring and analysing the situation, irdnc found firstly that the conflicts were caused by a lack of effective policy, which led to overlapping or competing roles of the conservancies and tribal authorities. To emphasize the importance of conflict resolution for further con-
sensual negotiations, irdnc set up a series of meetings with competing parties. As a result, conflicts were moderated. From this case study, the authors suggest that it is not always possible to solve the entire conflict, particularly when involving social tensions and traditional structures; however, the breakdown of the main conflict into controllable pieces facilitated by the mediator provided the entry point to mitigate deeply rooted social tensions.
While mediators are important in both the td and bu approaches, the current study suggests that they play a more pivotal role in the td approach, which is often adopted in situations in which local authorities or government bodies traditionally hold strong power (Wang & Wall, 2007). Government bodies often develop policies for local development without sufficient consultation with the local people. Furthermore, they are able to utilize their coercive or political power to influence local communities (Wang & Wall, 2007). Thus, the likelihood of conflicts between governments and local communities is high, and the nature of conflicts is often severe. In this regard, mediators can play an important role in mitigating potential conflicts by bringing the two parties together and creating a platform for discussion. Furthermore, in relation to the community development stage (Wenger et al., 2002), mediators may contribute better in Stage 3. In this stage, local communities start forming their own identity and taking charge of their activities; it is in this environment that strong tension between local communities and other stakeholders (e.g. government bodies) is likely to occur (Wenger et al., 2002). This is exactly the situation in which mediators are required to play a critical role.
pi Mediators offer a prominent contribution to the td approach, and Stage 3 in the community development stage, through their conflict mediation skills.
Cultural Brokers
The second type of stakeholder intermediary is a cultural broker, which can be defined as an independent third party or a group who facilitates 'border crossing' between two parties coming from different cultural
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
backgrounds (Michie, 2003). In contrast to mediators, cultural brokers primarily engage in mitigating 'culture-related' conflicts by interpreting the values, norms, and beliefs of two (or more) cultures. Community capacity building often involves a number of socio-cultural interactions among various stakeholders (Sarkar & George, 2010). As each stakeholder possesses their own cultural values and beliefs (Zeppel, 2009), the way they see the world varies considerably (Shimakawa, 2008). For instance, when developers are from Japan and engage in community capacity building in South Africa, their values and beliefs towards the projects are very different from those of the locals. Even within the same country, national government bodies located in the centre of downtown have different cultural values from those of stakeholders living in suburbs or rural areas. When stakeholders come from different cultural backgrounds and are working together for community capacity building, it is likely that culture-related conflicts arise (Nash, 1981). In such situations, cultural brokers play an important role.
The main role of cultural brokers is the prevention and mediation of cultural conflicts between local communities and external stakeholders such as developers, governments or organizations coming from 'outside' the community (Michie, 2003). By providing outsiders with the flow of information about the livelihoods, rituals, norms, and social organization of the local community, cultural brokers translate the 'strangeness' of the local culture into another cultural idiom familiar to the external stakeholders (Cole, 2007). Thus, cultural brokers act as an interpreter of local values to outsiders with different cultural backgrounds (Shi-makawa, 2008). When culture-related disputes occur or are likely to occur between involved stakeholders, cultural brokers bring them together and create a platform to discuss the differences in the cultures of the conflicting stakeholders (Robins, 2001). Such cultural awareness activities help local communities and stakeholders to have a better understanding of each other and lead to effective collaboration for community capacity building. While cultural brokers significantly contribute to community capacity building, their role is limited. For instance, their primary concern is to mitigate potential or existing conflicts ris-
ing from cultural differences between stakeholders. Therefore, dealing with other types of conflicts (e.g. non-cultural conflicts) or network development is beyond their roles.
To successfully undertake cultural brokering, cultural brokers must have a superior understanding of both the worldviews outside the community and the cultural values, norms and practices of the local community; thus, either consultants who are familiar with the local environment or local elites/representatives often become the cultural brokers (James Cook University, 2011). The work of cultural brokers in community capacity building can be seen in Dunn's (2007) study in Thailand. During her research, she employed a local elite with a deeper understanding of the community who acted as a cultural broker between Dunn, external stakeholders and the local community. Facilitated by Dunn, the cultural broker set up several meetings with a variety of stakeholders in the community including other community members in the same project, government officials (for gaining the insights of political issues), teachers (for integrating education as a part of community capacity building) and others. The cultural broker opened the dialogue to discuss cultural awareness for community capacity building. Because of these meetings to share different knowledge, perspectives and cultural values, the cultural broker prevented potential cultural conflicts and facilitated better collaboration for community capacity building.
Given their roles of cultural interpretation and cultural conflict mediation, this study proposes that cultural brokers are needed in both the td and the bu approaches. As mentioned earlier, the td approach often involves conflicts between government bodies and local communities due to the government's lack of understanding of the local communities (Wang & Wall, 2007). It is likely that this 'lack of understanding' not only refers to the needs of local communities but also encompasses socio-cultural values, norms and beliefs of local people. Thus, in the td approach, cultural brokers can bring two parties together and facilitate cultural awareness and understanding between them. In contrast, in the bu approach, cultural brokers can perform cultural brokering between lo-
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
cal communities and other stakeholders coming from different cultural backgrounds, such as other communities, private organizations, ngos and npos. In relation to the community development stage (Wenger et al., 2002), cultural brokers can contribute better to Stage 2. In Stage 2, various stakeholders come together from different cultural backgrounds and start building specific plans and actions (Wenger et al., 2002). To increase synergy for the local community and other stakeholders to collaborate, having a mutual understanding of values, beliefs and norms is crucial. Therefore, cultural brokers play a pivotal role in facilitating such cultural awareness in such situations.
P2 Cultural brokers offer a prominent contribution to both the td and the bu approaches, and Stage 2 in the community development stage, through their skills for mitigating culture-related disputes.
Facilitators
The term 'facilitation' refers to a practice of enabling groups to work cooperatively and effectively, especially when the work involves interactions and interdepen-dencies among various stakeholders (United Nations Environment Programme, 2009). Thus, 'facilitator' is defined as 'an individual [or groups] who enables groups and organizations to work more effectively; to collaborate and achieve synergy' (Kaner, Lind, Toldi, Fisk, & Berger, 2007, p. xv). Compared to the previous two types of stakeholder intermediaries, facilitators mainly assist in developing collaborative networks among stakeholders. A strong and sustainable network is fundamental for local communities and stakeholders to access the necessary resources to achieve community objectives (Ford, Wang, & Vestal, 2012). In this regard, facilitators act as a catalyst to initiate the contacts and bridge between stakeholders based on the aims and objectives of the community capacity building (Bjork & Virtanen, 2005).
In community capacity building, the process of network development is to look first at the existing linkages in the local community. Once facilitators examine the 'current situation' of the existing network, they bring the key stakeholders together. Here, facilitators become intermediaries who identify the op-
portunities and dilemmas of all involved stakeholders towards community development (Kaner et al., 2007). To establish a well-organized network and ensure the involvement of local people in the development process, facilitators also seek out 'who the key stakeholders are' (Franch, Martini, & Buffa, 2010). After clarifying the strengths and needs of local communities and extant stakeholders and establishing the shared visions and objectives, facilitators seek additional stakeholders who are likely to contribute further to the effective development of the communities (The World Bank, 2002). Throughout these processes, facilitators organize a series of regular meetings, interviews, and workshops (Wenger et al., 2002). Once linkages and partnerships are developed, facilitators monitor and maintain these relationships (Monypenny, 2008). Through adopting various tactics and being an advocate for network development, facilitators play a crucial role in community capacity building. However, just as other types of stakeholder intermediaries, facilitators also have limitations in their roles. For instance, their primary focus is to develop stakeholder linkages and partnerships. Therefore, mediating conflicts among stakeholders is outside their scope. Furthermore, while facilitators play a pivotal role in the early stage of community capacity building in which a linkage among stakeholders is not yet developed, their roles become less important once a comprehensive network has been developed.
To effectively facilitate network development, facilitators must possess not only strong technical and analytical skills to examine interrelationships among stakeholders but also abilities to facilitate the decision-making process and build trust among stakeholders (Inter American Development Bank, 2010). Thus, it is necessary for them to have skills such as listening, managing debates and identifying ways to move the discussion forward, and even charisma (King, Smith, & Frank, 2000). Facilitation roles are often played by individuals or agencies both internal or external to the community such as ngos (Kaplan, 2000) and public and private organizations in the local area (Atkinson & Willis, n.d.). As an example, the Overseas Development Institute (odi) (2004) played a facilitator role in developing collaborative linkages for the ppt pilot
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
project in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. Their initial step was to have a meeting with key stakeholders and discuss what they could achieve through community capacity building. After the initial meeting, the odi found existing and potential ppt linkages for further development. In the process of creating linkages among stakeholders, they focused on making business sense to the operators; creating a positive impact on a significant number of poor people; and ensuring the feasibility of implementing further development. After a series of meetings organized by the odi, local communities and stakeholders came up with shared visions and missions toward ppt development. Built on these visions and missions, they were able to expand their network further for subsequent projects.
Given the roles facilitators play in community capacity building, this study proposes that they can contribute prominently to the communities using a bu approach. The bu approach is often adopted in the situation where a number of groups exist around the community but are not coordinated well and are pursuing their own interests (Sabatier, 1986). In other words, it is a situation where stakeholders are 'out there,' but they do not know with whom and how they ought to collaborate. Here, facilitators play a crucial role in developing a stakeholder network which will contribute to the community capacity building. In relation to the community development stage (Wenger et al., 2002), facilitators play a more important role in Stage 1. This stage involves the situation in which a loose network of people or groups exists around the community but are not coordinated well and their common issues and needs are not clearly identified (Wenger et al., 2002). In such a situation, facilitators bring relevant stakeholders together, define the shared goal, and identify other potential stakeholders to contribute to community capacity building.
P3 Facilitators offer a prominent contribution to the b u approach, and Stage 1 in the community development stage, through their network development skills.
Honest Brokers
Although the discussion of honest brokers remains limited in literature, this type of stakeholder interme-
diary seems to have great potential to address two key issues associated with community capacity building whereby they may contribute to community development in a more effective manner. The term, honest brokers, is defined as an individual or third party who pulls stakeholders together both internally and externally and encourages them to discuss common issues to achieve shared objectives (Williams, 2002). Honest brokers, compared to the three other types of stakeholder intermediaries, play a multi-dimensional role. One of the key roles they play is preventing or mediating conflicts among stakeholders (Brown, Keen, & Dyball, 2005). When conflicts are anticipated between parties, or occur in the process of community capacity building, honest brokers become the middlemen and act as informal consultants. They first examine the nature of the conflicts, then, seek to identify the key issues, immediate concerns, potential impacts and underlying needs of relevant stakeholders (Brown et al., 2005). For this purpose, honest brokers often locate a series of interview sessions with each relevant stakeholder. These sessions also help them to identify appropriate solutions to unblock commercial, social, and environmental constraints (Williams, 2002).
Another key role of honest brokers is to facilitate network development among stakeholders (Wescott, 2002). On a wider scale, honest brokers bring various stakeholders together (i.e. both national and international organizations with diverse skills and capabilities) to form strategic alliances, collaborations and joint ventures for the projects associated with community capacity building (Wescott, 2002). On a narrower scale, honest brokers encourage creating horizontal linkages between communities and private sectors (Paarlberg & Varda, 2009). By playing various roles, honest brokers contribute to overcoming key challenges associated with td and bu approaches and fostering effective community capacity building. However, to play such multiple roles, honest brokers require several skills and extensive knowledge. For instance, they must have strong networking skills, knowledge of the relevant industry; a high level of communication skills, negotiation, and leadership skills, and the ability to see the big picture and opportunities (Brown et al., 2005; Wescott, 2002; Williams,
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
2002). Therefore, a challenge associated with honest brokers is to locate those who possess such multiple skills in community capacity building.
Often, large international organizations or skilful outsiders from external agencies, such as ngos and npos, play the role of honest broker (Mitchell, Keane, & Laidlaw, 2009; Bourguignon, Elkana, & Pleskovic, 2007). Warner (2000) observed the dispute settlement facilitated by the honest broker, Foundation for People and Community Development (fpcd), in Lakekamu Basin in Papua New Guinea. fpcd initially used office-based analytical tools which clearly mapped the causes of the disputes. Then, they identified each stakeholder's immediate concerns and their underlying motivations. Following a series of focus group discussions and consultations, fpcd held interviews with all key stakeholders to negotiate the manner of dispute settlement. fpcd made it clear to the local community and stakeholders about their entitlement to participate in the decision-making process, an appropriate style for discourse and the decision-making procedure all stakeholders had to follow. As a result, fpcd resolved the conflicts. In terms of honest brokers' network development roles, the Asian Development Bank (adb) in the Great Mekong Subregion program (Asian Development Bank, 2007) established the linkages between local communities and government bodies and also with officials from other countries to undertake the project for community capacity building. Because of partnership development, adb successfully secured substantial funds for the infrastructure projects as well as technical support for human resource development in the local area.
As honest brokers play multiple roles, this study proposes that they can contribute to both the td and the bu approaches as well as to Stage 1 to 3 of community development (Wenger et al., 2002). The td approach and Stage 3 often involves conflicts between policy makers and local communities. In such situation, honest brokers can play the role of conflict mediator by providing a platform for both parties to discuss objectives, concerns and potential impacts that community capacity building activities bring to local communities. In contrast, the bu approach often involves various stakeholders coming from different
backgrounds and holding different interests in community development, which somewhat also reflects Stages 1 and 2 in the community development stage. In such a situation, honest brokers can perform facilitator roles to bring stakeholders together to discuss shared visions and the goals of projects, and develop networks. Furthermore, they may engage in cultural broking to interpret the values, beliefs and norms of different parties so that they can work together collab-oratively without cultural misunderstanding.
P4 Honest brokers offer a prominent contribution to both the td and bu approach, and Stage 13 in the community development stage, through their skills for conflict mitigation and network development.
Figure 1 summarizes the four propositions developed in this study, and suggests the context where each type of stakeholder intermediary offers a prominent contribution to successful community capacity building. Although the four key stakeholder intermediaries may contribute to successful community capacity building in general, the current study suggests that their involvement is more critical in the early stage of community development (Stage 1 to 3) in which the network is limited, and the local community needs to develop partnerships for better collaboration, and in addition, in the situation where the local community is likely to experience conflicts with involved stakeholders.
Discussions and Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to critically examine the roles and characteristics of different types of stakeholder intermediaries and provide a framework to illustrate in which context each stakeholder intermediary can offer a more prominent contribution to successful community capacity building. The study first reviewed the literature on community capacity building and identified two critical issues inherited in the td and the bu approaches: conflicts and lack of linkages between local communities and stakeholders. Four types of stakeholder intermediaries who could contribute to resolving these two issues were identified from the literature; namely, mediators, cultural
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
12345 Development stage
Figure 1 A Proposed Framework of Stakeholder
Intermediary Contribution in Community Capacity Building
brokers, facilitators and honest brokers. Their definitions, roles, and limitations in community capacity building were discussed along with relevant examples. Based on the analysis of these stakeholder intermediaries, the study developed a series of propositions and a framework that illustrates the specific contexts (i.e. td and bu approaches and community development stage (Wenger et al., 2002)) in which each type of stakeholder intermediary can better contribute to successful community capacity building. The current study proposes that mediators contribute better to the t d approach and Stage 3 by utilizing their conflict resolution skills. Cultural brokers play an important role in both td and bu approaches, and Stage 2, by resolving culture-related conflicts between stakeholders from different backgrounds. Facilitators are better utilized in the bu approach, and Stage 1, in which the situation requires development of partnerships and networks to shape shared goals and initiate better collaborative works. Lastly, honest brokers play multiple roles whereby they can offer broader contributions in both td and bu approaches as well as in various stages of community capacity building (Stage 1-3).
Theoretical and Practical Implications
While this study offers a number of theoretical and practical implications, one of the most important con-
tributions is the clarification of the roles and characteristics of various stakeholder intermediaries in community capacity building. Previously, many practitioners and researchers used different terms to refer to various types of stakeholder intermediaries and there has been very limited understanding of what each stakeholder intermediary term refers to, as well as what their roles and limitations are. Clarification of their definitions, roles and limitations enables future researchers to adopt appropriate terminology and type of intermediaries and critically examine their functions in each community capacity building context. Another important contribution is that this study provides a framework that proposes the specific contexts (i.e. td/bu approach and community development stages) in which each type of stakeholder intermediary can offer a more prominent contribution to community capacity building.
The framework suggests how each type of stakeholder intermediary confronts the issues commonly confronted in community capacity building, and fosters successful community development. Such a framework can be used as a basis for future studies to critically evaluate the application of different stakeholder intermediaries in each context. Accumulation of these studies from different contexts would help to identify the success rate and success contexts of different destinations with different types of stakeholder intermediaries. The framework would also be useful for practitioners who are interested in community capacity building or those who are already engaging in community development practices. It will help them to choose the right type of stakeholder intermediary to contact and what outcomes they can expect from these intermediaries.
Limitations and Future Study
As with any research, the current study has several limitations. Firstly, the types of stakeholder intermediary discussed in this study are limited in number. The study focused on only four types of stakeholder intermediaries. Although these stakeholder intermediaries are commonly discussed in previous studies, it is possible that there could be other types of intermediaries who could play an important role in com-
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
munity capacity building. To gain a more holistic understanding of various types of intermediaries, future study should examine other types of stakeholder intermediaries, particularly their roles and limitations in community capacity building. Such study would further improve our understanding of stakeholder intermediaries and foster successful community capacity building.
Another limitation of this study, and critical, is a lack of any empirical test of the developed framework. Built from the extant literature, the current study developed a framework that proposes the specific context in which each type of stakeholder intermediary can better contribute to successful community capacity building. However, empirical validation of the propositions has yet to be made. Thus, any future study should empirically test the propositions and validate the model.
While there would be various ways to empirically test and validate the model, any future study should first examine the 'current situation' of the local community. This examination may include assessing whether the td or the bu approach is being used; in which community development stage they are; and who the middlemen or stakeholder intermediaries are. Once the community situation is examined, conducting a series of semi-structured interviews with stakeholder intermediaries would be useful to clarify their roles, functions and the limitations in the project. These interview sessions would provide researchers with clear ideas about which type of stakeholder intermediaries the individual or group represents. Conducting the focus group interviews with local communities and other stakeholders could verify the roles and functions of stakeholder intermediaries. A longitudinal study would also be useful to critically examine the intermediaries' functions and evaluate their performance in a long-term perspective. For example, longitudinal studies can examine how each type of intermediary contributes to resolving issues and fostering effective collaboration not only at the decisive time but also when new conflicts occur or when new partnerships are required along the way. Furthermore, it is possible that the same individuals or organizations will shift their roles from one type of stakeholder in-
termediary (e.g. facilitator) to another (e.g. cultural broker) as the community development stage moves to the next level. As such, a longitudinal study using a combination of other qualitative techniques would be useful to empirically test the model and to investigate role shifts or to evaluate the boundary conditions within which each type of stakeholder intermediary may successfully perform their roles in community capacity building.
While tourism brings several benefits to developing nations, a lack of community capacity often hinders local communities in such nations from adopting ppt. Given that stakeholder intermediaries play a critical role in community capacity building, the current study investigated the roles and applications of various stakeholder intermediaries. Clarification of their roles, characteristics and limitations, as well as a developed framework, provide valuable insight into how scholars and practitioners should consider the selection and application of the appropriate type of stakeholder intermediary in each context. The author anticipates that the improved understanding of different types of stakeholder intermediary and their application for community capacity building practices will open avenues for future research, particularly in ppt or broader community-based tourism. Furthermore, the study also contributes to effective implementation of community capacity building for the successful adaptation of ppt.
References
African Pro-Poor Tourism Development Centre. (2006). What is pro-poor tourism? Retrieved from http://www .propoortourism-kenya.org/what_is_propoortourism .html
Altieri, M., & Masera, O. (1993). Sustainable rural development in Latin America: Building from the bottom-up. Ecological Economics, 7(2), 93-121. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. Aref, F., Redzuan, M., Emby, Z., & Gill, S. (2009). Barriers of tourism industry through community capacity building. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(4), 399-408.
Ashley, C., Brine, P., Lehr, A., & Wilde, H. (2007). The role of tourism sector in expanding economic oppor-
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
tunity. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/rn -rcbg/CSRI/publications/report_23_EO Tourism Final .pdf
Ashley, C., & Elliott, J. (2003). 'Just wildlife' or a source of local development. Retrieved from http://www .propoortourism.org.uk/85.pdf
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Greater Mekong Subregion: Development effectiveness brief. Retrieved from http://www. adb.org/publications/gre ater-mekong -subregion-development-effectiveness-brief
Atkinson, R., &Willis, P. (N. d.). Communitycapacitybuild-ing: A practical guide. Retrieved from http://www.chsq .ubc.ca/archives/files/Community Capacity-Building A Practical Guide.pdf
Bierschenk, T., Chauveau, J. P., & Sardan, J. P. (2002). Local development brokers in Africa: The rise of a new social category (Working Papers 13). Mainz, Germany: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat, Institut für Ethnologie und Afrikastudien. Retrieved from http://www.ifeas.uni -mainz.de/workingpapers/Local.pdf
Bjork, P., & Virtanen, H. (2005). What tourism project managers need to know about co-operation facilitators. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(3), 212230.
Bond, P. (2006). Global governance campaigning and mdgs: From top-down to bottom-up anti-poverty work. Third World Quarterly, 27(2), 339-354.
Botes, L., & Rensburg, D. (2000). Community participation in development. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal, 35(1), 41-58.
Bourguignon, F., Elkana, Y., & Pleskovic, B. (Eds.). (2007). Capacity building in economics education and research lessons learned and future directions. Washington, d c: World Bank.
Brown, V, Keen, M., & Dyball, R. (2005). Lessons from the past, learning for the future. In V. Brown, M. Keen & R. Dyball (Eds.), Social learning in environmental management: Towards a sustainable future (pp. 247-265). London, England: Earthscan.
Chaskin, R., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community capacity. New York, ny: Aldine De Gruyter.
Chok, S., Macbeth, J., &Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as atool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of 'pro-poor tourism' and implications for sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2/3), 144-165.
Cole, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship and empowerment: Considering the barriers - a case study from Indonesia. Tourism, 55(4), 461-473.
Dunn, S. (2007). Toward empowerment: Women and community-based tourism in Thailand (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Oregon, Eugene, or. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/ bitstream/handle/1794/6122/Susan_Dunn.pdf ?sequence=2
Finn, J., & Checkoway, B. (1998). Young people as competent community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work, 43(4), 335-345.
Ford, R., Wang, Y., & Vestal, A. (2012). Power asymmetries in tourism distribution networks. Annals ofTourism Research, 39(2), 755-779.
Franch, M., Martini, U., & Buffa, F. (2010). Roles and opinions of primary and secondary stakeholders within community-type destinations. Tourism Review, 65(4), 74-86.
Fraser, E., Dougill, A., Mabee, W., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114-127.
Geddes, M. (2005). Neoliberalism and local governance: Cross-natural perspectives and speculations. Policy Studies, 26(3), 359-377.
Gianna, M. (2011). Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal ofSustain-able Tourism, 19(4-5), 423-436.
Goodwin, H. (2008). Tourism, local economic development, and poverty reduction. Applied Research in EconomicDe-velopment, 5(3), 55-64.
Harrison, D., & Schipani, S. (2007). Lao tourism and poverty alleviation: Community-based tourism and the private sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2/3), 194-230.
HG.org Legal Resources. (2011). Mediation law. Retrieved from http://www.hg.org/mediation-definition.html
Howard, J. (2005). Knowledge exchange networks in Australia's innovation system: Overview and strategic analysis. Retrieved from http://www.howardpartners.com.au /publications/ken-report.pdf
Howard Partners. (2007). Study of role of intermediaries in support of innovation. Retrieved from https://www .howardpartners.com.au/assets/innovation -intermediaries-publication-report-apr-2007—final.pdf
Inter American Development Bank. (2010). Cluster best practices for the Caribbean (Private Sector Development Discussion Paper No. 5). Washington, dc: Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved from http:// idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum
=35516731
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKIsaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169-189.
James Cook University. (2011). Definitions: Roles and responsibilities and in aboriginal and torres strait islander research. Retrieved from http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/ researchservices/ethics/atsi/JCUPRD_054035 Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (2007). Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making (2nd ed.). San Francisco, ca: Jossey-Bass. King, K., Smith, A., & Frank, F. (2000). The partnership facilitator's guide. Hull, Quebec: Human Resources Development Canada. Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc .ca/Collection/MP43-373-3-20 00E.pdf Leach, S., & Wilson, D. (2002). Rethinking local political
leadership. Public Administration, 80(4), 665-689. Liburd, J., & Edwards, D. (2010). Understanding the sustainable development of tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Liegeois, J. (2013). Developments in mediation, current challenges and the role of romed. Paris, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Mahony, K., & Zyl, J. V. (2001). Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism: Case studies of Makuleke and Manyeleti tourism initiatives. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu / ~wwwcec/special/Makulekecontractualpark.pdf Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628-644. Michie, M. (2003). The role of culture brokers in intercultural science education: A research proposal. Retrieved from http://members.ozemail.com.au/ mmichie/culture _brokers1.htm-_ftn2 Mitchell, J., Keane, J., & Laidlaw, J. (2009). Making success work for the poor: Package tourism in northern Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/ download/3221.pdf Monypenny, R. (2008). Capacity building through cooperation. In G. Moscardo (Ed.), Building community capacity for tourism development (pp. 155-171). Wallingford, England: cabi.
Moscardo, G. (2008). Building community capacity for tourism development. Wallingford, England: cabi. Murphy, C., Neheta-Manungo, D., & Mwilima, E. (2007). Who will benefit from tourism and wildlife management? Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Nash, D. (1981). Tourism as an anthropological subject. Current Anthropology, 22(5), 461-481.
Overseas Development Institute. (2004). ppt facilitation at wilderness safaris' rocktail bay site: Analysis and progress in 2003. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/ resources/download/31o6.pdf
Paarlberg, L., & Varda, D. (2009). Community carrying capacity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 597-613.
Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. (2004). Importance of tourism in the poorest countries. Retrieved from http://www .propoortourism.org.uk/info_sheets/7%info%sheet.pdf
Robins, S. (2001). Noos, 'bushmen' and double vision: The p khomani San Land claim and the cultural politics of 'community' and 'development' in the Kalahari. Journal of Southern African Studies, 27(4), 833-853.
Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implemtation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Sarkar, S., & George, B. (2010). Peace through alternative tourism: Case studies from Bengal, India. The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(1), 27-41.
Selman, P. (2004). Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3), 365-392.
Shatkin, G. (2004). Globalization and local leadership: Growth, power and politics in Thailand's eastern seaboard. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 11-26.
Shikida, A., Yoda, M., Kino, A., & Morishige, M. (2010). Tourism relationship model and intermediary for sustainable tourism management: Case study of the Kiri-tappu wetland trust in Hamanaka, Hokkaido. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 105-115.
Shimakawa, T. (2008). Kanko ni Tsukeru Kusuri, sustainable tourism Riron [Medicine for tourism: Theory of sustainable tourism] (2nd ed.). Tokyo, Japan: Doyukan.
Spenceley, A., & Goodwin, H. (2007). Nature-based tourism and poverty alleviation. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2-
3), 255-277.
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or 'glocalisation'? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25-48.
The World Bank. (2002). Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook. Retrieved from http://siteresources .worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/
486312-1095094954594/draft.pdf
Theerapappisit, P. (2009). Pro-poor ethnic tourism in the Mekong: A study of three approaches in northern Thai-
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017
HlROAKISaitq
The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building
land. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 201221.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management,
27(3), 493-504.
United Nations. (2006). Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public administration. Retrieved from http://unpani.un.org/intradoc/groups/ public/documents/un/unpan022332.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme. (2009). Sustainable costal tourism: An integrated planning and management approach. Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from http://www.uneptie .org/shared/publications/pdf/DTIxi09ixPA -SustainableCoastalTourism-Planning.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Supporting insider mediation: Strengthening resilience to conflict and turbulence. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/ content/dam/undp/library/crisis%prevention/ Supporting-Insider-Mediation---Strengthening -Resilience-to-Conflict-and-Turbulence-EU%Guidance %Note.pdf
Wang, Y., & Wall, G. (2007). Administrative arrangements and displacement compensation in top-down tourism planning-a case from Hainan province, China. Tourism Management, 28(1), 70-82.
Warner, M. (2000). Conflict management in community-based natural resource projects: Experiences from Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Retrieved from http://www.odi .org.uk/resources/download/2026.pdf
Wearing, S., & McDonald, M. (2002). The development of community-based tourism: Re-thinkingthe relationship between tour operators and development agents as intermediaries in rural and isolated area communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 191-206.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, ma: Harvard Business School Press.
Wescott, G. (2002). Partnerships for capacity building: Community, governments and universities working together. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(9-10), 549-571.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103-124. Zeppel, H. (2009). Managing cultural values in sustainable tourism: Conflicts in protected areas. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 93-104.
Zhao, W., & Ritchie, B. (2007). Tourism and poverty alleviation: An integrative research framework. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2/3), 119-143.
Zorn, E., & Farthing, L. (2007). Communitarian tourism hosts and mediators in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 673-689.

This paper is published under the terms of the Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0) License.
10 | Académica Turística, Year 10, No. 1, June 2017