A Conceptualisation of Alternative Forms of Tourism in Relation to Community Development

Tourism development is promoted as a tool for poverty alleviation and community development. Global and local tourism remain within the current hegemonic neoliberal milieu. Different forms (terminologies) of alternative tourism development approaches have been proposed; however, their positioning in relation to neoliberal mainstream tourism has been questioned. The paper aims to compare different forms of alternative tourism development in relation to neoliberalism and community development, specifically by contrasting community-based tourism (CBT) with ecotourism (ET), responsible tourism (RT), propoor tourism (PPT) and fair trade tourism (FTT). The paper argues that while CBT’s origin, as well as its development, is to promote a break with neoliberalism and facilitate holistic community development, its actual meaning and operations have been re-shaped and co-opted by neoliberalism. On the other side, the origin and development of ET, RT, PPT and FTT have been in accordance with a neoliberal approach to tourism development; therefore, they are not meant to change the modus operandi of the tourism sector. It is argued that the original conceptualisation and practices of CBT should be the proper strategies to facilitate holistic community development and restructure the tourism industry in a more just and equitable manner. For ET, RT, PPT and FTT to practice what they have proposed to do, it is suggested that they should be integrated within CBT’s original


Introduction
Tourism is considered a principal sector shaping the world and it is associated to various aspects of development (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006).Therefore, many tourism destinations are embarking on growing their respective tourism plans, focusing on different tourism products or a combination of products.Developing countries use tourism as a tool to address poverty.However, the positive relationship between tourism growth and poverty reduction has been questioned and criticised (Gartner & Cukier, 2012;Saayman, Rossouw & Krugell, 2012).
As part of the global system, tourism is within the same hegemonic framework (Giampiccoli, 2007) and it works within a neoliberal milieu (Cleverdon & Kalisch, 2000).The hegemonic milieu works through the hegemonic control and formation of specific discourse to specify the permissible and not permissible, and what to endow positively or negatively (see Escobar, 1995, p. 5;Gosovic, 2002;Peet, 2002).
The growing relevance of the tourism sector (specifically of mass/international tourism) has been under scrutiny and has often been criticised (see for example Bryden, 1973;De Kadt, 1979a;Britton, 1982;Pleumaron, 1994;Brohman, 1996a).At the same time, alternative forms of tourism development that are supposedly able to deliver better outcome in development (specifically in the context of developing countries with disadvantaged communities) have since been proposed (see for example De Kadt, 1979b;Brohman, 1996a).Thus, since the 1980s, alternative concepts of tourism have gained attention such as responsible tourism (RT), fair trade tourism (FTT), ecotourism (ET) and pro-poor tourism (PPT).More possible positive outcomes to poverty alleviation and community development through the potential of alternative tourism forms such as CBT (López-Guzmán, Sánchez-Cañizares & Pavón, 2011) and PPT (Mitchell, 2010) have been proposed.
This paper, which is a literature review and website analysis, is concerned with alternative forms of the tourism development that has previously been conceptualised and practiced in order to minimise the damage of, or restructure completely, the mass/international tourism in favour of a more socially just, equitable and redistributive (of power/resources/benefits) form of tourism.The starting point of this paper is a review of issues that are related to community-based tourism (CBT).Thereafter, other forms of alternative tourism will be analysed.The alternative forms of tourism development that are here considered are ecotourism (ET), responsible tourism (RT), fair trade tourism (FTT) and pro-poor tourism (PPT).Keeping in consideration the contextual milieu that is proposed, the article aims to examine and compare different forms of alternative tourism development in relation to neoliberalism and community development, specifically by contrasting CBT with RT, PPT and FTT.It will be argued that compare to other forms of alternative tourism development investigated in the paper CBT is better positioned to advance a more socially just and equitable tourism that can promote holistic community development and redistributive allocation of power and resources in comparison with other alternative tourism strategies.
The paper intends to contribute to the discourse on the role of alternative tourism in community development, specifically within the context of the relationship between alternative tourism forms and neoliberalism.This relationship has been explored, for example, in the context of justice tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008), PPT (Hall, 2007a), ET (Duffy, 2008) and CBT (Zapata, Hall, Lindo & Vanderschaegh, 2011).However, there does not seem to be specific comparative studies on various forms of alternative tourism.This review is important, as it contributes to the exploration of the raison d'être of alternative tourism forms.The reason for this is that the terminology of alternative tourism forms often seems to be unclear and overlapping or, possibly more importantly, does not necessarily mean in reality what the term suggests to indicate.Terminology can be used as a camouflage and may contribute to the mismatch between theory (the terminology) and practice in alternative development approaches.

Literature Review
Tourism is often referred to as one of the fastest growing sectors and contributing to increased wealth in disadvantage contexts; however, tourism has also been proposed to be a form of production of inequality (Cole & Morgan, 2010, p. 15).Contemporary tourism must be understood within its working conditions and the (de)regulation that is associated with a neoliberal framework, where a multiple connection between neoliberalism and international policy-making exists.The tourism sector is "shaped by a much broader array of national, international, and global policies and process" (Wood, 2009, p. 595).The spread of global neoliberalism since the 1970s has contributed to the guiding and transforming of tourism sectors that are based on a neoliberal milieu (Bianchi, 2010).
In contextualising the issues that are related to alternative tourism, it is valuable to commence by mentioning that alternative tourism forms started to rise as a reaction and criticism towards 'mass tourism' and are a consequence of the sustainability debate of the 1980s (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 18;Le, Weaver & Lawton, 2012, p. 362).From the perspective of developing countries, alternative tourism can be seen as promoting a more participatory, equitable, culturally and environmentally appropriate form of tourism development (Rogerson, 2004, p. 16).Alternative approaches to tourism must be viewed in a context of challenging the dominant neoliberal globalisation (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2012).The issue is to analyse if and how supposedly alternative tourism forms are really alternative or whether they are only camouflaged, embedded in the neoliberal milieu.
Since the work of Seers (1969), community development concepts have evolved from an economic-centred perspective to a more holistic one in which community development must be interpreted in its holistic sense, including economic, cultural, social and environmental matters, and must advance the empowerment, self-reliance and sustainability of community members (individually and collectively).The Cocoyoc declaration of 1974 has been seen as a starting point to alternative development (Hettne, 1990) andthe Swedish Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation (1975, p. 7) amongst other matters has proposed that "Development is a whole; it is an integral, value-loaded, cultural process; it encompasses the natural environment, social relations, education, production, consumption and well-being" and development can have a number of patterns and is an endogenous process.Brohman (1996a, p. 60) parallels similar concepts from a tourism perspective, proposing that tourism development should follow an alternative tourism development approach with the involvement of the local community and "tourism should also be assessed according to how it has been integrated into the broader development goals of existing local communities".The need for community involvement in tourism development is suggested extensively in the literature (Graci, 2012, p. 65).While a community development process should ideally be autonomous, it often requires the involvement of an external actor or actors that should follow specific strategies of facilitation to advance community development properly (see Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012).In this context, facilitation should be directed towards just, equitable and redistributive forms of tourism in which the community becomes the owner, manager and beneficiary (not only in economic terms) of the tourism development process.A shift of control pattern is required in order for tourism to become more locally controlled and beneficial.
The community-based development approach has its origin in the alternative development approach (Karim, Mohammad & Serafino, 2012).It follows that CBT can be linked to the alternative development strategies of the 1970s; therefore, it can be correlated to concepts and issues of empowerment, self-reliance and sustainability, and by the critics of negative impact of international mass tourism (Sharpley, 2000;Tosun, 2000;Cornelissen, 2005, p. 21;Ruhiu, 2007, p. 2;Telfer, 2009, p. 156;Zapata et. al., 2011).
As a community-based development strategy, CBT strives for more equal power relation at various geographical levels, while it works to break the community from hegemonic actors, whether external or internal (Timothy, 2002, p. 15;Giampiccoli & Hayward Kalis, 2012).Jealous (1998, p. 10) states that "CBST [community-based sustainable tourism] primarily utilizes marginalized sectors of society to attain social justice and equity".Thus, CBT does not only strive for better terms for community members in an externally controlled and managed tourism sector, but it also implies a breaking away from and restructuring of the current tourism sector in terms of control, ownership, management and benefits.

Ecotourism
Earlier ecotourism's (ET's) 'soft' approach and the earlier conceptualisation of ecotourism do not seem to include much of the social dimension (see Laarman & Durst, 1987, p. 5).However, it is currently recognised that ET should be socially oriented and "sustain the well-being of local people" (WWF International, 2001, p. 2;Yaman & Mohd, 2004).Limits remain in local benefits and control, as ecotourism is usually controlled by external actors to the community and "does not contribute much to the community itself" (Yaman & Mohd, 2004).As suggested, "(e)cotourism is far from fulfilling its promise to transform the way in which modern, conventional tourism is conducted; with few exceptions, it has not succeeded in moving beyond a narrow niche market to a set of principles and practices that infuse the entire tourism industry" (Honey, 1999, p. 394).In a current context, ET is seen as under the control and influence of a neoliberal framework; thus, ET "is one means by which an increasing range of non-human phenomena, especially landscapes, wildlife and even local cultures in the South, are being neoliberalised" (Duffy, 2008, p. 341).

Responsible tourism
The campaigning for responsible tourism (RT) started in the "mid-nineties, with VSO [Voluntary Service Overseas] and then Tearfund" (Goodwin, 2007, p. 1).The more 'official' origin of RT seems to be based on the values of the Cape Town Declaration that originated during a Conference in Cape Town (organised by Responsible Tourism Partnership and Western Cape Tourism) just before the 2002 Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (RTP online).
According to the Cape Town Declaration, the characteristics of RT are related to environmental, economic, cultural and social milieus.Specifically on the control and benefits of the tourism sectors in relation to local communities the Declaration proposes that RT should "generate greater economic benefits for local people and enhances the well-being of host communities, improves working conditions and access to the industry [and] involves local people in decisions that affect their lives and life chances" (RTP online).The problem, however, is not the guidelines per se, but the controlling and management framework within which they are embedded.In this realm, contradictions are present, for example when "tourism mega-corporations profess a commitment to social justice and responsible tourism whilst cutting jobs, even during profitable times" (Bianchi, 2009, p. 489).
South Africa seems to be an exemplar.The RT principles were laid down during a conference held in Cape Town (South Africa) and the conference itself was generated by the work on RT in the same country during the conference (RTP online).South Africa was the first country to adopt an RT approach and challenge the tourism sector to move towards RT practices (Goodwin, 2011a).Of importance is the fact that, at the same time that RT was promoted by the Tourism White Paper of the country (associated with the RDP [Reconstruction and Development Programme]), Tourism in the GEAR (Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy) policy came out in support of the former White Paper policy (Spenceley & Goodwin, 2007).Despite major accomplishments of the RDP before its conclusion in 1996 (Cheru, 2001), the advent of the GEAR policy does not seem to be coincidental, as it was inherent to the re-inclusion of South Africa in the global milieu through its globalisation strategies towards making South Africa appealing to foreign investment, enhancing the private sector and decreasing the role of the state (Rogerson, 2000).It could be said that it is not coincidental that the shift in the mid-90s in South Africa's macroeconomic policy from RDP to GEAR seems to endorse the RT approach that is based on a global economic framework.Curiously, in its origin, RT was supposed to be named ethical tourism, but "the language of Responsible Tourism came to predominate because for many operators, and for travellers too, the claim to be ethical felt very heavy" (Goodwin, 2011b, p.17).This fact seems already to accommodate the industry (promoter of neoliberal policies) instead of 'forcing' them towards more rigid guidelines.While RT is not a 'new' passing trend any more, but "has become a recognized and accepted sector within the industry, with holidaymakers becoming more aware of their responsibilities as travellers" (Goodwin, 2007, p. 1), doubts arise if, at the same time, its guidelines have been put in practice by 'mainstreaming' them in the whole tourism sector.The South African RT handbook "encourage" the tourism industry to adopt RT practices (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [DEAT], 2003, p. 4) thus doubts remain about the degree to which the tourism industry in the country has adopted the RT guidelines practically and transformed its management practices (Frey & George, 2010, p. 621).As stated, "[o]nly 2% of tourism businesses globally are participating in responsible tourism or CSR initiatives such as the Global Compact, and South African studies into the hotel and tour operator sub-sectors show low levels of transformation" (Frey & George, 2010, p. 621).RT seems to resemble (or correspond with) ET; unfortunately, in South Africa, while ET should in principle include community participation and benefit local communities, these benefits do not occur in practice often, except when they are used for public relations or political reasons of the specific company (Scheyvens, 1999;Weaver, 2000, p. 59;Scheyvens, 2002, p. 72).

Fair trade tourism
The history of fair trade can be traced back to the 1940s when American and English NGOs fostered the neo-colonial vision in an international cooperation framework that included NGOs, states, private sectors and consumers (Kocken, 2006;Hussey & Curnow, 2013).Summarily, "there are serious problems and limitations with Fair Trade" (Hussey & Curnow, 2013, p. 59).Fair trade tourism (FTT) follows very similar features, as it has been "developed in the United Kingdom from the collaborations of the NGO Tourism Concern, the University of North London and the British government's Voluntary Service Overseas development initiative" (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008).
In South Africa, FTT is another form of alternative tourism that is supposed to favour community well-being.The FFT's aims are to let the people who supply the tourism resources benefit from the tourism business (FTT, 2013a).FFT remains within an RT framework, as its main entity, a non-profit organisation, "promotes responsible tourism in Southern Africa and beyond [...] Tourism businesses that adhere to the FTT standard use the FTT label as a way of signifying their commitment to fair and responsible tourism" (FTT, 2013a, b).
FTT exists within the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) as an umbrella organisation (FTTSA, 2011).The FLO presents itself as a "non-profit, multistakeholder body that is responsible for the strategic direction of Fairtrade, sets Fairtrade standards and supports producers" (FLO, 2011a).The Fair Trade (FT) movement reaches most of the countries of the world today (see Map 1).
However, the geographical distribution of producer networks and National Fairtrade Organisations (including labelling initiatives and marketing organisations) seems to be in line with the 'old' understanding of the 'core-periphery' structure or division of the world where the core controls the periphery (see Cleverdon & Kalisch, 2000).Map 1 shows the National Fairtrade Organisations in blue and the producer networks in green.Table 1 presents the definitions of each category within the FLO and the list of members.

National Fairtrade Organizations
Your local Fairtrade organization is the best place to find out where you can buy Fairtrade products, how to become a licensee, or learn what's happening near you.Our members include labelling initiatives and marketing organizations.

Fairtrade Labelling Initiatives
Fairtrade Labelling Initiatives license the FAIRTRADE Certification Mark on products and promote Fairtrade in their territory.As founding members, many of these organizations helped to establish Fairtrade International in 1997.There are 19 national Fairtrade organizations covering 24 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and the UK.

Fairtrade Marketing Organizations
Fairtrade marketing organizations market and promote Fairtrade in their country, similar to labelling initiatives, but Fairtrade International licenses the FAIRTRADE Mark for use in these countries: Czech Republic, Hong Kong and Korea.

Associate members USA and Mexico. Fair Trade Producer Networks
Producer networks are regional associations that Fairtrade-certified producer organizations may join if they wish.They represent small-scale producers, workers and other producer stakeholders.There are producer networks in three continents, namely Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean: Fairtrade Africa Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP) Coordinator of Fairtrade Latin America and the Caribbean (CLAC) Except for very few exceptions such as South Africa and the list of Fairtrade Marketing Organisations and Applicant Members, it still seems as if the 'South' produces for the "North' or, in the case of tourism, as if the 'South' furnishes the 'North'.In this regard the definition of the marketing seems to indicate that the control of product licensing still remains outside the control of the country in this category, as the licensing is done by Fairtrade International.It also serves to reinforce distinctions between the poor Global South farmer or artisan and the benevolent Global North consumer.Fair Trade may channel more income into a select number of Global South communities, but it fails to interrupt poverty and "further entrenches the neo-colonial and capitalist structures that produce and maintain producers' impoverishment on an ongoing basis" (Hussey & Curnow, 2013, p. 40).
Often, a developing country that seeks to be involved in international tourism "confirms its dependent, subordinate position in relation to the advanced capitalist societies -itself a form of neo-colonialism" (Wearing, 2002, p. 238).However, while suggesting that the FTT has various challenges and difficulties, Cleverdon and Kalisch (2000) suggest that there are possibly positive outcomes in FTT if responsible actors in the North and the South collaborate.It is valuable to link this neo-colonial and neoliberal position of FT with its origin.
The problem is not for poorer producers to enter neoliberalism in better conditions, but to restructure/dismantle and radically change the present neoliberal system itself, as suggested along these lines.Substantial structural transformation towards more equitable social, eco-economic systems will only occur if the values that lead to such causes change dramatically.It is likely that they will not change rapidly or voluntary.Ultimately, as poverty, climate change and depletion of social and natural resources take their course, a more responsible approach to the management of society will need to prevail by necessity, with or without certification (Kalisch, 2010, p. 102).The concept of FT should not be put aside all together but it should be used in its more radical approach that counter the historical power relation rooted in the colonial past (see Hussey & Curnow, 2013, p. 59).
South Africa has been a pioneer in FTT (FTTSA, 2011).The reinsertion of South Africa in the global milieu, coupled with its potential of tourism attraction in a context of extreme socio-economic inequality, seems to make South Africa a 'mecca' for experimenting with an 'alternative' tourism approach that is supposed to be more oriented towards the disadvantaged communities.It has been proposed that FTTSA has made a valuable contribution to sustainable development (in the increase in number of visitors in the country), transformed the tourism sector, reformed the labour market in tourism and, "to some extent, poverty alleviation" (Mahony, 2007, p. 405).Curiously enough, however, "(b)y mid-2006, FTTSA had certified 21 enterprises -a negligible fraction of all tourism enterprises in South Africa" (Mahony, 2007, p. 403).The dedication to FTT by government and NGOs is not succeeding in changing the tourism sector that, instead, "carries on as usual" (Scheyvens, 2007).

Pro-poor tourism
Compared to ET, RT and FFT, it can be advanced that pro-poor tourism (PPT) is a new concept.While PPT's origin is recent in time (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008), the geographical and socio-political context that originated in PPT is very similar to the origin of the other alternative tourism development strategies such as RT and FTT.PPT came afloat during the late 1990s, having its background in study that was commissioned by the UK's Department of International Development (DFID) (Scheyvens, 2007;Harrison, 2008).
PPT has been defined as a type of tourism that is more related to the destination in the South compare to the ones in the North and it aims "to increase the net benefits for the poor from tourism, and ensure that tourism growth contributes to poverty reduction" (Ashley, Roe, & Goodwin, 2001, p. 8).It has been advanced that the main argument of PPT (namely increasing the linkage between PPT and the mainstream tourism sector) has been proven to be the right solution (Mitchell, 2010, p. 6).At the same time, any type of tourism development, also mass tourism of the most intensive type, can be regarded as PPT, "even if the non-poor also benefit" (Harrison, 2008, p. 856); thus, "any type of tourism can be pro-poor" (Mitchell, 2010, p. 4).
Within this espoused understanding, PPT is not seen as an alternative to mainstream/mass tourism, but is proposed as a general approach to tourism development that strives to 'unlock' more opportunity for the poor ( Van der Duim, 2008, p. 182).PPT maintain the current status quo (Harrison, 2008); it is not aimed at changing the global neoliberal structural inequity or the global tourism sector within it (Sharpley & Naidoo, 2010).In this context, PPT is supported by the donor community and tourism sector that are associated with the neoliberal agenda and favour a soft approach to PPT, one that is based on a self-regulatory framework that will continue to give more benefits to the non-poor compared to the poor (Scheyvens, 2011, p. 221;Schilcher, 2007).Tourism and international cooperation to favour poor community development can serve as an instrument of capitalist penetration into 'virgin' territories and fit well with tourism organisations and private capital that use the pro-poor tourism label to "'sold' tourism under the banner of poverty alleviation, coupled with the fact that tourism fits with donors' neo-liberal approach to poverty alleviation based on economic liberalization and private-sector driven growth" (Schilcher, 2007).Within this perspective, PPT is used through international cooperation to favour disadvantaged communities' development, but it serves, instead, as an instrument for capitalist penetration/maintenance.The same of RT and FTT also PPT has not been recognised to be far-reaching.According to Mitchell (2010, p. 4), "mainstream tourism has been timid in adopting PPT principles, and its embracing of social and environmental sustainability has been late and piecemeal".
Interconnections between RT, FTT and PPT are visible.The background of PPT is situated in the UK's Department of International Development (DFID) and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (Scheyvens, 2007).Thus, it also originated in the British (or better, the Northern) context, just like RT and, partly, FT.It is interesting to note that the PPT website is maintained by the Responsible Tourism Partnership (RTP) and if one clicks on 'Responsible Tourism Partnership', the home page of the RTP opens (see PPT online).PPT is a collaborative research initiative in which the International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) is involved (Hall, 2007b).At the same time, there also seems to exist a connection between FTT and RT.Beside the FTT webpage title, 'Responsible tourism resources', and the 'Responsible tourism links', FTT of South Africa seems to be indicated unquestionably as an RT labelling agency (and self-endorsing its regional position) by stating: "South Africa's leading responsible tourism NGO, Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa (FTTSA), is changing its name to Fair Trade Tourism (FTT) in order to signal the intention of becoming a regional responsible tourism certification programme" (FTT online 2013 b).Thus, RT seems to be the umbrella milieu within which PPT and FTT operate and generate their guidelines and principles.
The origin and role of ET, RT, FTT and PPT could be summarised by what is proposed by Duffy and Moore (2010, p 742) when they argue that, "(d)espite claims that alternative tourisms such as ecotourism, responsible tourism and nature-based tourism offer a challenge, [a study] of elephant back safaris demonstrates that they have been central to the expansion and deepening of neoliberalism at a global scale".It could also be said that within the origination and management of hegemonic discourse, changes in names are proposed, but the state of affairs remain the same, in the same vein as the way in which "supranational organisations have had difficulty coming to terms with and adapting their policies to the effect of increasing poverty and inequality beyond cosmetic alteration of names, titles and terms" (Mowforth & Munt, 2003, p. 267).

Community-Based Tourism, Neoliberalism and Its Comparative (and Integrative) Position to Other Alternative Tourism Forms
It has been proposed that specific features of alternative forms of tourism development (namely ecotourism, sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism, fair trade in tourism, peace through tourism, volunteer tourism and justice tourism) foster social and environmental transformation towards an alternative globalisation process in which they have been "co-opted by a threatened tourism industry and diverted from fulfilling their full capacities" (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008, p. 347).This paper argues that, while it is true that those alternative forms of tourism development (ET, RT, FTT and PPT) have been coopted and re-shaped by the tourism industry within a more general neoliberal philosophy, their origin and development have never been outside the neoliberal framework and the mainstream tourism industry's 'guidance' and control.
While the potential value of justice tourism in opposing the forces of neoliberalism is also recognised (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008), this paper proposes that CBT should be seen in the same disposition, namely as a form of tourism development that can counteract the forces of neoliberalism and is more inclined to facilitate socially just, equitable and redistributive (of power/resources/benefits) tourism development.CBT's original stance does not propose to insert CBT within neoliberalism, but intends to break from the hegemonic structure of the tourism sector in favour of social justice for the disadvantaged people (see Jealous, 1998, p. 10;Timothy, 2002, p. 15;Giampiccoli & Hayward Kalis, 2012).CBT is about a different vision on the structure of the tourism industry, developed and managed towards a more socially just and equitable form of tourism that should lead to a redistributive process of ownership and control, and the just distribution of resources, knowledge, capacities and benefits within the tourism sector.It could be said that the abovementioned problem of definitions/interpretations of CBT has been exploited by neoliberalism forces to undermine, despite its recognised challenges, its potentials.Neoliberalism works against proper CBT; it works to undermine and dismantle the very base of the tourism neoliberal structure.CBT propositions have been circumscribed, re-conceptualised and, to a great extent, co-opted by neoliberalism to decrease value.While some alternative forms of tourism aim to reform, but are within (and supportive and supported by) the neoliberal milieu (see RT, PPT, FTT and ET), CBT proposes alternative strategies of tourism (and general) development, but they have been hijacked and re-conceptualised by neoliberalism interest.Giampiccoli and Mtapuri (2012), for example, suggest how neoliberal forces have developed different understandings of CBT.In relation to CBT, this issue has been specifically recognised.CBT concepts and practices have been influenced by, and embedded in, the neoliberal framework, thereby losing their original values and objectives (see for example Pleumaron, 2002;Beeton, 2006, p. 50;Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012).Pleumaron (2002) explains the changes (or hijacking) of an alternative tourism approach, starting from the 1990s, also associating it with the Westernbased "burgeoning movement of conservation and ecotourism globalizers" (see also the analysis of Mowforth & Munt, 1998, of sustainable 'new tourism').
PPT, RT and FFT are based on voluntary, self-regulating frameworks to adhere to their set of principles.Instead, CBT is not a self-regulating voluntary process, as it is a form of tourism with its own characteristics, challenges, problems and potentials.CBT is not based on the voluntarism of the mainstream tourism sector, but is a form of tourism that starts from within the community.It is not the mainstream tourism sector going to the community, but the community itself that owns and manages the tourism process.
In its quest to be more socially oriented, ET needs to embrace a CBT perspective, thus going in the right direction of the definition where it states that "the term 'community-based ecotourism' takes this social dimension to a further stage.This is a form of ecotourism where the local community has substantial control over, and involvement in, its development and management, and a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community" (WWF International, 2001, p. 2).Still better, with ET it is possible to sustain the argument that ecotourism projects should be seen as "community-based initiative where business enterprises are owned and managed by the community" (Yaman & Mohd, 2004, p. 584; see also Scheyvens, 2002, p. 71 on similar matters).
Interestingly, an exactly similar concept has been put forward regarding the relation between PPT and CBT.Thus, PPT works if it remains within the CBT parameters, not the contrary.As such, it has been argued that, "to be really affective, PPT must be integrated in a broad community-based development strategy" (Karim et al., 2012).It is curious, but seemingly not a strange contradiction, that (in order to be really more socially oriented) alternative forms of tourism development such as ET and PPT (which are supported by and supportive of the neoliberal system) are supposed to work within a CBT paradigm.CBT, that neoliberal milieu, is trying to re-conceptualise itself by becoming more neoliberal friendly.

Conclusion
This article has reviewed alternative forms of tourism development and posits itself in relation to community development.The article's aim has been to compare different forms of alternative tourism development in relation to neoliberalism and community development.This aim has been reached by outlining the contextual background and, within this background, reviewing various forms of alternative tourism.CBT on one side and ET, RT, PPT, and FTT on the other side were compared.CBT's origin is within the alternative development approach to neoliberal mass/mainstream tourism, thus working towards an alternative working system of the tourism sector.On the other hand, PPT, RT, ET and FTT originated within (and remain within) the neoliberal framework that is linked to the mass/mainstream tourism system.
The paper is limited in scope, as it focuses only on a number of currently existing propositions of alternative tourism forms.More comprehensive theoretical and empirical research is needed to understand in more detail the role (and difference) of the various forms of tourism in development within a comparative approach.The main finding of the paper is how development milieu (neoliberalism in this case) can serve to develop and manage conceptual understanding of alternative tourism forms that in reality are not so much alternative as fully embedded, circumscribed, managed and controlled by the neoliberal discourse to be an effective alternative in practice.This paper suggests that alternative tourism forms (ET, PPT, RT and FFT) are not congruent with their theoretically (and terminologically) proposed aim, but they remain (are constructed) within the neoliberal framework and are thus not leading to a real alternative in tourism development.On the other hand, CBT's (despite its intrinsic challenges and limitations -as any forms of tourism development) origin and contextualisation seem more in line with the alternative tourism approach and holistic community development.Neoliberal forces are jeopardising CBT by re-conceptualising and circumscribing it within specific neoliberal parameters (see also Giampiccoli & Mtapuri, 2012).To be really alternative, RT, FTT, ET and PPT should be integrated within the CBT approach and not vice versa, as the neoliberalism's aim seems to be.