Expansion and Specification of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices Survey Model for Community-Based Tourism Development

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of the Knowledge Attitude Practices (KAP) survey and suggests its extension to Knowledge Attitude Skills Practices (KSAP). It brings value to tourism theories at the level of the tourist and hosts, and argues that communities must be capacitated with the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices that transcend tourism. This is a conceptual paper, compiled using secondary data that already exists in the public domain. The paper suggests carrying out surveys that incorporate KSAP regarding CBT at level 1, tourism at level 2, and livelihoods at level 3, for a holistic understanding of these aspects among community members, tourists, and other stakeholders. The KSAP model posited in this paper is a tool that may be used by considering the prevailing local conditions and contexts, and the appropriate unit of analysis from tourism stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Community-based tourism (CBT) is a popular tourism development strategy [1]. It is a tourism development model is meant to achieve sustainable community development, through enterprises owned and managed by communities for their benefit [2]. According to the World Bank [3], CBT is about adventure tourism, which is a fast growing travel niche today, with visitor growth forecasted to increase from 7% to 10% in the African market. The attraction of CBT is that it can happen in any setting, both rural and urban [4]. CBT’s growth has been phenomenal, with benefits accruing to local communities while, at the same, improving the wellbeing and the experiences of visitors.

Similar to any form of tourism, CBT faces numerous difficulties and challenges. While it remains an ideal platform for community-led development, other researchers have found problems with CBT implementation and, despite these challenges, CBT remains an attractive platform for tourism development [5]. Community-based tourism is a tourism approach “which involves community control over management and tourism development, ownership, and generates direct financial benefits [to communities]” [6].

More research needs to be undertaken to understand and excogitate the success criteria for CBT [7]. There is a paucity of knowledge in the extant literature regarding the key success factors, or barriers, for the establishment and development of viable CBT ventures [8]. The aim of this article is to propose an expanded and specific Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices (KSAP) survey model that includes community characteristics, helping to better understand what needs to be done to enhance CBT’s chances of success. This is important because CBT ventures must be developed in sync with each community’s strengths [8]. This suggests that the prevailing conditions and ways of life (including the culture) should be taken into account when developing community-based ventures to enhance their chances of success. The work will entail enhancing the strengths and ameliorating the weaknesses and threats, while taking advantage of the opportunities.

This paper investigates the use of the Knowledge Attitude Practices (KAP) survey and suggests its extension to Knowledge Attitude Skills Practices (KSAP). This extension adds value to theories of tourism at the level of the tourist and hosts, and argues that both communities, tourists, and other tourism stakeholders must be capacitated with the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices in areas such as cultural tourism, ecotourism, CBT, tourist attractions, tourist experiences (social, gastronomic, aesthetic, emotional and spiritual experiences), conservation, livelihoods, sustainable tourism, and so on. KSAP has international/universal application and transcends tourism. In this paper, we elaborate on this using specific examples related to CBT. The origin of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) survey is associated with the investigation of health behavior, and is currently being tested in community-related studies [9]. It can be observed that the KAP method is scarcely known in tourism studies, “even in community-based tourism research, that requires information about capacities of local people” [9]. However, the KAP survey can be very useful in CBT, as it can demonstrate the potential capabilities and capacities of the local people [9]. Thanh (2016:538) suggests that the relation between the KAP survey and CBT (using the extended Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices (KSAP) survey), as well as the use and adaptation of the KAP survey in tourism studies, are both helpful in unpacking the capacities of people, and in finding practical pathways for the development of tourism in their areas. It is difficult to standardize the KSAP questionnaire, but it is worth doing so; particularly for researchers interested in CBT studies [9]. Previous studies have evaluated precondition [10], the CBT affinity index [11], and the CBT classification system [12]. Others have used Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), as in the case of gathering information about the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of community conservation in National Parks [13]. This paper was compiled based on previous studies/extant literature and author conceptualizations. In other words, secondary data available in the public domain were used, and this was complemented by author conceptualizations and the subsequent extension of these ideas. No original primary data were collected during the compilation of this review. Concept papers are important for providing a basis from which new knowledge can be built, in a systematic and organized way. Concept papers also act as building blocks for unpacking and identifying the gaps in knowledge, and highlighting the relationships between constructs, for the presentation of new arguments and premises.

2. Literature Review

Community-based tourism has its roots in the 1970s, motivated by the notions of bottom-up development [14]. Thus, CBT emerged within the context of the alternative development approaches of the 1970s, whose motive was to empower communities in pursuit of social justice and sustainability [15]. It also represents a response against external business investors who want to take advantage of the touristic potential in communities [16]. Therefore, CBT confronts the inequalities induced by conventional tourism in developing countries by attempting, for instance, financial leakages that stifle the socio-economic development in tourist destinations [16]. It can be said that CBT can used as a vehicle for the promotion of community-led socio-economic development in communities by the communities, in pursuit of self-reliance and sustainability. When communities own their ventures, this opens up possibilities for the reduction of poverty, the transmission of wealth and resources from generation to generation, and further stimulates the overall local economic development [17,18]. Critical for CBT is Urry’s [19] observation that “we look at the environment…we gaze at what we encounter…and the gaze is socially constructed”. CBT is about seeing and experiencing the environment being visited, in which communities play host, inducing subjectivities between the tourist and the hosts.

Community-based tourism also fits into the wellbeing policies developed in the Millennium Assessment (2003, 2005). These relate to the need to meet the requirements of freedom of choice and action, good social relations, and the basic material needed to live. It is also beneficial from the perspective of the social and psychological sciences, focusing on the subjective wellbeing of the individual, and emphasizing the importance of agency and participation in social life. For example, in the Self-Determination Theory by Ryan and Deci [20], The Theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis [21], the Index of Life Quality based on Values [22], the Theory of Wellbeing based on Needs (having, loving; as proposed by Allardt [23] and developed by Tulla and Tuuli [24], who added doing as the forth need), and many others [25].

In tourism development, the issue of community participation can be viewed from two perspectives; namely, community participation in decision-making and participation in the sharing of tourism benefits [26,27,28]. We argue that CBT embraces both of these perspectives in the interest of holistic and inclusive participation. As such, in CBT, the fundamental issue is to emphasize local control, and community empowerment and ownership as the means to achieve and sustain community prosperity [15]. The literature recognizes that CBT ventures should be owned, controlled, managed, and organized by the local community [7,8,29]. This article also recognizes the “centrality of disadvantaged community members in CBT and their control of CBT” [30,31]. Therefore, it can be said that CBT is about the development, control, and management of CBT ventures in the tourism industry, to obtain collective benefits for the good of the community [2]. It must also be recognized that, when tourism originates and is led by the community, there is a high likelihood that communities will want to take advantage of its socio-economic outcomes [32]. Communities embrace outcomes that enhance and improve their standard of living. Light et al. [33] observe a growing demand for new and unique tourist experiences, due to the influence of budget airlines and the ever increasing importance of festivals and events in communities.

It can be conceded that CBT development is not easy and, despite its value, it has been criticized for following Western ideas without taking local knowledge into account [14,34]. Some of the key challenges that CBT ventures face include business inexperience, poor education, a poor financial base, power imbalances in the community, competing interests in the community, and the time required to mobilize the community [2]. The World Bank [3] also indicates various challenges that encumber CBT development, including: competition within communities; a lack of expertise, skills, economic awareness, and information; infrastructural challenges; the quality of tourism products; a lack of prioritization for the tourism sector against other community tasks; fears of the possible negative impacts of tourism (such as overtourism or ‘voyeurism’) if CBT is not properly managed. Moreover, many CBT ventures have failed because of the over-reliance on foreign donors, members not accruing benefits from the land, poor job creation, poor entrepreneurial and marketing skills, poor community participation and involvement, a lack of finances, and a poor sense of ownership felt by the communities [35], including corruption and unstable governments. Cretan et al. (2020) argue that the rampant corruption among political elites led to protest actions in Romania in October 2015, culminating in the resignation of the government, as corruption represents an injustice that can stifle economic development and growth in all sectors, including tourism [36]. CBT ventures must also learn new skills, such as using Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

The same knowledge and understanding of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in tourism should be perverse and relevant in CBT. ICT is critical for marketing CBT ventures via the internet to reach a global audience for bookings, including the use of social media and smartphones for the same purposes [37,38]. Knowledge of the English language is also important, in order for the people involved in CBT to be able to communicate with the tourists, and ICT can also assist the people involved in CBT to learn English [39]. Local people should be aware, and knowledgeable, about the local natural and cultural assets that attract tourists, allowing these assets to be properly managed for CBT’s long-term sustainability [40]. Having knowledge of the context is important to tailor-make the offerings, allowing the knowledge and information existing in the community (regarding the existing asset base) to be leveraged. Taking stock of the available natural endowments is critical, as they offer a strong foundation for building viable ventures and for the development of sustainable CBT enterprises. Light et al. (2021) argue that domestic tourism allows citizens to engage with transitional justice projects, such as memorial museums that open up opportunities for the expansion of domestic visits, with the possibility of encouraging young people to visit them as part of a formal educational curricula [41]. They also observe that visitors appreciate the museum as a site of memory, indicating how tourism (including community-based tourism) can spur the quest for education and transitional justice among young people [42].

A lack of capacity and skills are amongst the most commonly cited problems with respect to CBT ventures. In this context, more facilitation is required. Thus, in some instances, linking CBT ventures with external entities, in a collaborative partnership manner, can reduce “the risk of failure for CBT, because it is rare to find CBT ventures that are initiated and fully controlled by the community” [43]. Dodds, Ali, and Galaski [8] are of the view that finances are a key component for the viability of CBT ventures. They juxtaposed this with the need for training in the excerpt.

The key element that determines the overall success of CBT is finance. A framework to develop CBT is, ultimately, dependent on both external and internal factors, although financial viability is the overarching element that defines success. The community not only needs training and capacity building in order to meet guests’ needs, but they also need enough customers to make the training and capacity investment financially viable. Training and skill building are usually provided by external agencies, and these external agencies must observe financial viability in order to collaborate and partner with CBT ventures. Successful CBT also requires that communities must not be too dependent on external agencies (private businesses or public governments/training institutions, etc.); otherwise, they are not empowered to run and manage their own enterprises [8].

Dodds, Ali, and Galaski [8] also argue that financial independence can be achieved with initial external assistance through funding and capacity building. Without this, ventures may fail to build that capacity, create jobs, or empower and generate income for community members.

External facilitators could jeopardise CBT and community development process. While external entities could be helpful at the beginning of setting up the CBT ventures, their impact can be adverse when they engage in direct competition with local communities, resulting in a scenario of losers and winners [44]. Against such a backdrop, it should be noted that the collaborative relationship between CBT owners/beneficiaries and external facilitators should always take cognizance of the fact that local members are the owners and beneficiaries of CBT ventures, to ensure sustainability beyond the external facilitation and assistance [10].

In order to properly advance holistic community development, capacity facilitation in CBT should have specific characteristics to focus on far-reaching and comprehensive matters beyond CBT. Therefore, “poor people may learn skills that can apply in other ways to boosts their livelihood” [45,46]. Hainsworth [47] pointed out that the CBT approach should not only consider matters related to CBT, but should include issues of community decision-making and community development issues. As such, community development is about the empowerment of communities by building capacity in communities, allowing them to take ownership of their development efforts [48]. These issues are also recognized in many CBT manuals and/or handbooks. It is rightly argued that CBT is a training ground for the acquisition of business skills, such as financial management, operation management, and marketing, as well as interpersonal skills for non-tourism projects [49]. From a Vietnamese perspective, it is argued that, because tourism is a very competitive economic sector, “developing and operating a CBT venture is not unlike any other small business—the foundations of success are built upon good skills and knowledge. It is therefore more than likely that local staff will require tourism capacity building and training across a range of areas such as understanding the tourism industry, financial management, and marketing amongst others” [4].

Other challenges to CBT development include the apathy of community members, the lack of benefit sharing opportunities, limited employment opportunities, and the lack of capacity [26]. Specifically, with reference to apathy, in the seminal article titled, “Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries”, Tosun [50] affirms the presence of apathy and the low level of awareness in communities as an obstacle to the development of participatory tourism development. Attitude and knowledge can also be factors that affect the development of CBT projects in cases where there is poor community participation because of a lack of resources and knowledge, or when there is no cohesion in that community [51]. This also emphasizes the importance of skills and attitudes to inform practice.

Mensah [26] argues that the challenges faced when adopting the CBT approach relate to the techniques, methods, and tools used during its implementation. It is for this reason that external facilitators should have a clear understanding of CBT and, particularly, of the community members involved in CBT, to engage in an appropriate facilitation process to enhance the chances of success. For example, it is noted that, for community-based sustainable tourism (CBST) development, the requirement is that there must be sufficient technical assistance on how to run a tourism-based enterprise, how to make the projects compete for market share, and to nurture them to be able to operate on a commercial basis with sustainability in mind [52]. As such, facilitators must know, the local context from the start. Thus, before advancing a CBT project, “the suitability of the local area should be checked and it should be ensured that the] fundamental preconditions have been met” [53]. Jugmohan and Steyn [10] suggest a number of preconditions that should be explored before starting a CBT project. These include: infrastructure, physical/natural and cultural tourism assets, market access and marketing, product development, individual/communal profitability, decision making structures, community capabilities, financial resources, a community leader/initiator, community interest in tourism, local leadership/government, and threats to physical environment and culture. They also observe that the CBT Pre-Condition Evaluation and Management Model (PEM) suggests that the management and evaluation of these preconditions should be carried out before implementation, to enhance the chances of the CBT project succeeding. Time is also required to ensure community buy-in, learning, consultation, development, and the building of the capacity of CBT operators [4]. An analysis of the preconditions shows that there is a need for multiple teams from different disciplines to collaborate to make this possible. In other words, multidisciplinary teams will be needed to develop strategies and interventions that respond to the local needs and take into account the local context.

When properly organized, CBT can open up the possibilities of diversification of the economy, enhancement of livelihoods, the preservation of nature and culture, the creation of local businesses, and overall community empowerment [14]. There are benefits that communities receive through their involvement in CBT ventures, such as being part of decision making processes, participating in caring for the environment, and the initiation of “commercially grounded” initiatives” [26]. To foreground the raison d’etre of this article, the next section discusses the KAP survey and its expansion in a CBT context.

3. KAP, KSAP and CBT

The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey is usually “conducted to collect information on the knowledge (i.e., what is known), attitudes (i.e., what is thought), and practices (i.e., what is done) about general and/or specific topics of a particular population” [54]. The KAP survey can serve:

• To identify knowledge gaps, cultural beliefs, and behavioural patterns that may identify needs, problems, and barriers to help plan and implement interventions;
• To deepen the understanding of commonly known information, attitudes, and factors that influence behaviour;
• To generate baseline levels, and measure changes, that result from interventions;
• To assess and identify communication processes and sources that are important for program implementation and effectiveness;
• To help set program priorities and make program decisions [54].

A document from USAID and SPRING [55] also indicates the following objectives regarding the KAP survey, which can:

• Measure the extent of a known situation;
• Confirm or disprove a hypothesis;
• Provide new tangents of a situation’s reality;
• Enhance the knowledge, attitude, and practices of specific themes;
• Identify what is known and done about various health-related subjects;
• Establish a baseline (reference value) to be used in future assessments;
• Help measure the effectiveness of health education activities’ ability to change health-related behaviours;
• Suggest an intervention strategy that reflects specific local circumstances;
• Suggest the cultural factors that influence specific local circumstances;
• Plan activities that are suited to the respective population involved.

A KAP survey can be complemented with other techniques, such as focus groups and open ended interviews as to “help deepen topics addressed in the KAP survey” [55]. It is also important to mention that, in a KAP survey, it is important to divide the community into smaller groups or sub-categories [56]. In the case of CBT, the subcategories could be: (1) people directly involved in CBT, (2) people indirectly involved in CBT, (3) people not involved in CBT.

The KAP survey has been used in “medicine prevention, public health like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, bird flu and things alike, but it is hardly to find any theoretical studies on KAP” [9]. However, it is not widely used by experts in tourism studies, where its use would be worthwhile (Thanh, 2016:540). A study in 1991 mentions the Knowledge Skills and Abilities Profile (KSAP) [57]. As mentioned earlier, studies on the use of a KAP survey in relation to tourism and travel are scarce [58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. In terms of related studies, Wilder-Smith et al. [60] mention some studies of travel health with respect to travellers from Western countries. Barrow, Lembuya, Ntiati and Sumba [13] observe that a KAP survey was used “as a mechanism to gain baseline and relevant information of rural people’s knowledge about attitudes and practices concerning community conservation” in National Parks in East Africa. More recently, and related to tourism, Lacante et al. [58] used a KAP survey to “determine the travellers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on prevention of travel related diseases and to evaluate patterns of disease of travel-related disease in Indonesia”.

Another study [62] used a KAP survey in the hospitality sector, by “evaluating the food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of kitchen staff in economy hotels in Cairo and Giza governorates”. Hanson, Schutgens, and Baral [64] deployed the KAP survey model to “explores whether tourists’ support for snow leopard conservation is dependent on their knowledge about snow leopards, beliefs and attitudes toward this species, and stated values toward the species”. It is evident that “Knowledge, attitudes, and practices, therefore, interact in the KAP model” [64]. The KAP survey model has also been used in an institutional project related to tourism by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)—a Jamaican Government agency [65].

Within the tourism milieu, the knowledge part of KSAP surveys is used to assess community knowledge with respect to tourism concepts and attractions [9]. Within this context, and going beyond the KAP survey, it has been argued that there is a need to include the ‘S’ of skill to transform KAP into KSAP. Thanh [9] observes that:

The lack of communication or service skills is a great barrier to involving local community members in the tourism industry. That is the reason why the “Skills” is introduced as the fourth component to measure the capacity of local people for tourism development. This component makes surveys in community-based tourism study different from those in public health or family planning and population studies…Communication skills, cooking skills, hospitality skills, foreign language speaking skills, training skills, culture and nature interpretation skills, and so on are introduced into the questionnaire.

The introduction of the ‘S’ into the KAP survey brings about some uniqueness to the tourism sector, given the importance of skills to the sectors of the economy. This is the significant contribution of this article in the realm of tourism theorisation. Thus, a KSAP survey serves to investigate “tourism-related practices. Questions normally concern the use of different activities of the community that may serve tourists such as tourist guiding, lodging, meal providing, transporting, escorting and so forth” [9]. However, the KAP method is scarcely known in tourism studies, including in CBT research, where information about the capacity of the local people is needed [9]. The next section proposes a model for KAP in CBT.

4. Discussion: Towards a KSAP Model for CBT

The aim of this section is to sketch a model of a KSAP survey specifically for CBT. Because community members need to be trained in various fields, such as marketing, financial management, cooking, guest services, the international tourism market, and so on, it is also necessary to investigate KSAP regarding these same issues. Secondly, it is essential that CBT also assists community members in their holistic community development that goes beyond the tourism sector because they must tackle other challenges in the community. Thus, KSAP could be divided into three levels. At the first level, KSAP will be related to CBT, the second level of KSAP will be related to tourism, and the third to issues related to individual- and community-wide holistic development, livelihood improvements, and wellbeing. In short, a KSAP survey must investigate individual/community knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices in relation to those three levels; that is, CBT, tourism, and livelihoods. In addition, KSAP should also be linked to the recognized preconditions that are pertinent to CBT development. It is a requirement to have the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices of the precondition issues. Without the sufficient awareness and evaluation of these preconditions, it is risky to advance CBT. The KSAP survey on preconditions allows the necessary steps to be taken to adjust what is required to enhance the chances of success for CBT enterprises (see Jugmohan and Steyn, 2015, about CBT preconditions cycle) [10]. Based on this, Figure 1 depicts the model. As such, the model must be understood as flexible, adjustable, and expandable, based on specific local community conditions and context. This not a one size fits all model, as contexts differ. In addition, each level could have slightly different items to investigate.

Figure 1 indicates that the first level of the KSAP survey is related to specific CBT issues. Therefore, a list of issues related to the ‘Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices’ in CBT, in terms of the community members, should be part of the survey. For example, issues related to cooking for the guests or the financial management of the CBT ventures can be part of this list. This first level should allow for the understanding of the Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices of the community members that are specific to CBT. Therefore, this evaluates whether a specific individual is ready to be involved in CBT and identifies any gaps that are present, in order to assist the individual to fill those possible gaps (see Figure 1 below).

The second level relates to the tourism sector. This is important because most, if not all, CBT ventures must interact with the wider tourism sector by, for example, establishing relationships with external tour operators. It is important to understand the Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices in relation to the individuals working in CBT, to ensure that specific action is taken to fill the identified weaknesses or gaps. When a person who is involved in CBT is more knowledgeable and aware of the tourism sector in which he/she interacts, the chances of success of the CBT venture can be enhanced. Finally, a third level of KSAP is related to livelihoods. Issues such as financial management (mentioned in the first level) in CBT can be expanded to include more financial management issues for everyday livelihoods, such as shopping expenses, budgeting, bank issues, and so on. The third level is highly relevant because it can assist in improving the wellbeing of the individuals involved in CBT. In turn, this can positively enhance their knowledge and attitude towards CBT. Therefore, the three KSAP levels should be understood as connected to each other, where each level serves to compensate, contribute, and reinforce the other, in pursuit of a holistic approach to tourism development.

The use of KSAP as a precondition to evaluate the community readiness to be involved in CBT is fundamental because only by knowing the Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices of community members is it possible to understand, and to put into practice, strategies to fill possible gaps. This is important because capacity building is essential for CBT development, and is a key precondition for CBT implementation [66]. In this context, applying the KSAP survey in CBT is relevant at any stage, although it is particularly essential in the initial stage—as a precondition—before initiating any CBT project/venture. It is a fundamental advantage to know, in advance, the possible gaps, problems, and challenges affecting community members who intend to be involved in CBT, so as to rectify them at the outset of a CBT project’s implementation. We argue that Figure 1 presents a model that can be adjusted based on local specificities. This argument is consistent with the literature that considers KASP to be relevant for the purposes of molding interventions, testing a hypothesis, setting baseline indicators, understanding the cultural factors of a phenomenon, setting priorities, and planning with communities.

5. Conclusions

This article looked at the KAP survey and how it is used in various studies. This paper suggests an extended version of KAP to include ‘Skills’, given their importance in tourism and other economic sectors. We argue that this is important because capacity building must centre on upskilling community members with knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices that transcend tourism. As such, the paper suggests that, when carrying out surveys, consider the Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Practices of the community members about CBT at level 1, tourism at level 2, and livelihoods at level 3. We argue that this approach is compact, all-encompassing, and holistic in understanding the KSAPs among community members and in the community, as well as for other stakeholders. This means that other entities in tourism and other sectors can also use the model to understand their situation based on the KSAP. For instance, tour guides may want to understand their KSAP during their interactions with guests when they carry out their tours. The KAP survey has been used in different circumstances, and for different phenomena, thereby giving it some semblance of universal application. The KSAP survey has the potential to achieve the same universality. The strength of the KSAP is that it is leveraging on the success of the KAP survey. The addition of the ‘S’ implies the need to collect more data related to ‘Skills,’ which is a burden worth assuming, given the importance of skills in increasing efficiency, confidence, and productivity.

Overall, the paper contributes to the CBT literature and wellbeing studies by developing this model that allows an understanding of how the host–guest relationship influences the wellbeing of both groups, through investigating their KSAP. This will allow for packaging the appropriate offerings based on the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices embedded in the given communities. This will also contribute to the formulation of tourism policies that aim to make tourism more sustainable. The limitation of this KSAP model is that it has not been empirically tested to validate its use and appropriateness in different contexts.