Community-based rural tourism as a sustainable development alternative: An analysis with special reference to the community-based rural homestay programmes in Malaysia - Theory and Practice in Hospitality and Tourism Research - page 226

study are Miso Walai Homestay in Sabah, Teluk
Ketapang Homestay in Terengganu, Sungai Haji
Dorani Homestay in Selangor, Kampung Parit
Bugis Homestay in Johor and Santubong Home-
stay in Sarawak.
The analysis on the feedbacks indicates that
most of the experts interviewed in this study asso-
ciate success of a homestay programme with the
following criteria:
1. The number of visitors they receive and to its abil-
ity to pull tourists . The pull factors mentioned
by the interviewees are comfortable and clean
accommodation facilities, hospitable hosts, cre-
ative packaging/programming, and the unique-
ness of activities, local resources and attractions
included in the homestay package.
2. The effectiveness of the management especially
with regards to the operations of the homestay
programmes . The factors that lead to manage-
ment effectiveness hence the success of the
homestay programmes are strong support sys-
tem, leadership, creativity, promotional strate-
gies (including through media coverage) and
participation by the villagers where the pro-
grammes operate.
3. Benefits produced by the programmes to the
villagers . These include contribution to their
income, enhancement of their entrepreneurial
skill and ability, contribution to their socio-
economic development and strengthening
ties among members of the communities sur-
rounding the programmes. Only one of the par-
ticipants chose to name a successful homestay
programme based on the programme's contri-
bution to the conservation of local culture.
The findings indicate that the success of a
homestay programme perceived to be based on its
commercial success. Thus, the criteria of a success-
ful homestay programmes perceived by the partici-
pants is linked to the amount of revenue generated
by the programmes. However, revenue generation
from a CBT is only one of the criteria that qualify
CBT as a tourism alternative that aims for sustain-
able development. As mentioned earlier, a CBT
that focuses on sustainable development must also
be supported by resident participation and must
also stress on the protection of local people's cul-
tural identity and natural environment (Russell,
2000).
The feedbacks given by the participants fur-
ther indicate that they indeed equate 'success of
the homestay programmes' with 'the critical fac-
tors that lead to the success of the homestay pro-
grammes' as the feedbacks from questions b and
c are similar. The critical factors are perceived
by the interviewees to be the factors that lead to
the success of the Homestay programmes i.e. the

amount of revenue generated by the programmes.
Furthermore, they perceive that the success of the
homestay programmes relate more to the profit
sustainability of the programme than to the con-
servation of the resources in the programme. There
is an indication that the survey participants are
more concerned with the success of the homestay
programmes as business entities than their success
as an alternative to sustainable development. How-
ever, a successful Homestay program that attracts
high number of visitors and that create much profit
does not always focus on sustainable development.
It can be proposed here that the perceptions that
the survey participants have with regard to success
is separated from their perceptions toward sustain-
able development.

4 CONCLUSION

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid
to the effects of tourism and related developments
upon the culture and environment resources of
destination areas. The increasing popularity of the
concept of sustainable development has resulted in
tourism being viewed as a means to achieve sus-
tainable development (Butler, 1991). Findings from
this exploratory study concludes that the view is
too simplistic and naïve. A CBT product such as
the CBRH programme is quick to be claimed as a
responsible and sustainable development alterna-
tive as it portrays the saint-like elements such as
'grassroot project' (Ghai & Vivian, 2014) and 'peo-
ple-centered development' (Sharpley, 2009). How-
ever, the present study concludes that the success
factors of these CBTs perceived by the participants
who are supposed to understand the operations of
the CBRH programme do not mirror the criteria
of sustainable development.

REFERENCES

Butler, R.W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustain-
able development. Environmental conservation, 18 (03),
201-209.
Dixey, L. (2008). The unsustainability of community
tourism donor projects: Lessons from Zambia.
Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation
and development , 323-341.
Fayissa, B., Nsiah, C. & Tadasse, B. (2008). Impact of
tourism on economic growth and development in
Africa. Tourism Economics, 14 (4), 807-818.
Ghai, D. & Vivian, J.M. (2014). Grassroots environmental
action: people's participation in sustainable develop-
ment : Routledge.
Goodwin, H. (2007). Responsible tourism in destinations .
London, UK: CMRB.
Goodwin, H. & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based
tourism: A success. ICRT Occasional Paper, 11 (1), 37.