Community-Based Tourism and Sustainable Development of Rural Regions in Kenya; Perceptions of the Citizenry

Abstract

Community-Based Tourism (CBT) has been pushed as one of the strategies for poverty alleviation and it might enhance the sustainability of marginalized regions and communities. However, tourism has also been argued to carry seeds for its own destruction and therefore presents a great dilemma and developmental paradox. This research sought to establish perceptions of the citizenry towards community-based tourism as a sustainable development strategy for rural regions in Kenya. The study focused on the awareness levels of CBT, and perceived contributions of CBT to the socio-economic and physical sustainability of rural regions in Kenya. A descriptive research design was adopted with a sample of 395 respondents. Data collected were collated and analyzed using SPSS 25 and Nvivo 12. Findings revealed that agriculture and other economic activities can be integrated with tourism and hospitality to deliver sustainable development in rural regions given the vast resources and attributes ideal for CBT. The majority of the respondents were noted to have a fair understanding of what CBT entails and thus calling for more capacity building, training and appropriate technical support to unlock the full potential of CBT as a sustainable development strategy. Overall results showed favorable perceptions towards CBT as a tool that can contribute to the sustainability of the socio-economic and physical environments in Kenya’s rural region.

1. Introduction

1.1. Sustainable Development and Community Based Tourism Revisited

Kenya has experienced one of the fastest population growths, from 7 million to an estimated 52.2 million with global rankings soaring from 57th in 1955 to 27th in 2019, respectively [1]. At present, over 80% of the population depends on agriculture with about 73.4% of this population being in rural areas and a further 40% being employed in agriculture, an economic activity that greatly depends on land and associated resources [2]. As the population grows, natural resources become scarce and increasingly subject to a lot of pressure as communities and their governments strive to achieve local and national socio-economic development goals. Certainly, a fast-changing human and socio-economic environment regularly presents many challenges to the country’s sustainable development. In this regard, futuristic development planning and governance are envisaged to guarantee the sustainability of scarce resources and at the same time securing sustainable livelihoods for the present local populace. Indeed, without sustainable livelihoods, the future of scarce resources is also put at risk.

Sustainable development is not a new phenomenon, being derived from the famous Brundtland Commission report of 1987 titled “Our Common Future” [3]. Despite the existences of several definitions, it is now widely viewed as: “development that meets the needs of present generation while protecting and enhancing opportunities and possibilities for the future generations” [4,5]. Indeed, sustainability forms the basis for contemporary international cooperation frameworks such as the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and its Sustainable Development Goals [3]. Nevertheless, despite the general recognition of sustainable development as a growth model, its application is still a challenge. Some scholars view sustainable development as an oxymoron and similarly sustainable tourism as an excessively narrow concept for sustainability [6,7,8].

These arguments notwithstanding, communities in rural regions certainly depend on different sources of livelihoods and sustenance systems as defined by resource availability or access, character of the regions they live in and as dictated by their culture. The socio-economic activities practiced by a local community therefore are diverse and can include cultivation agriculture, animal husbandry, informal cottage industries, tourism and hospitality activities, small- and medium-size retail enterprises, and financial services scattered throughout rural regions. Most, if not all, of these economic activities compete over land and related resources and therefore require integrated development and management to sustain the livelihoods of the rural populace [9].

Tourism as a tool for development was first promoted in the 1970s; however, in contemporary societies, focus has been on the role of ecotourism, pro-poor tourism and Community-Based Tourism (CBT) [10,11]. The concept of CBT first appeared in the work of Murphy [12], in which tourism issues and its impact on local communities in developing countries were analyzed. CBT is characterized by the fact that it is the community itself which has control over tourism management and gets a significant proportion of the benefits generated by such activity [13,14]. Thus, this kind of tourism has emerged as a possible solution to the negative effects of mass tourism in developing countries, allowing it to simultaneously become a strategy for social organization for the local community itself [14]. On the other hand, Armstrong [15], viewed CBT as “tourism owned and/or managed by communities and intended to deliver wider community benefit”, and should offer opportunities for local economic development and poverty reduction. Armstrong [15] continued to observe that CBT has received significant endorsements as a sustainable development tool for a number of reasons. First, it should make a positive impact on the conservation of natural and cultural resources in regions. Secondly, CBT must bring socio-economic development in the local community. Thirdly, there must be an increase in the number of businesses whose ownership is in the hands of the local community through appropriate planning and management of tourism. Finally, high quality visitor experiences must be established for tourists visiting the area. In this regard, therefore, the CBT concept has presented new lines of research and opportunities for tourism development: Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) to specifically fight poverty in certain areas; Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives (CBTIs) to deal with the need to search for benefits for the whole community, independent of other socio-political issues, ensuring that the community owns, manages and controls the projects [10,11,13]; and Donor-Assisted Community-Based Tourism (DACBT) [10,11].

It is imperative to note that tourism is multifaceted in nature and has strong back and forth intersectoral linkages and multiplier effects that promise enormous potentials for marginalized regions in the least developed regions and countries [16,17]. In this regard, while destination managers endeavor to develop tourism in marginalized or rural areas, marketers are keen on the attributes that create destination appeal and affect traveler’s choice [18,19]. An attractive tourist destination can thus be built based on the inherent characteristics of a region, which, among others, include quiet and peaceful environment [20], diversity of active sports and outdoor activities, cultural events, shopping, a friendly and hospitable community, beautiful landscapes and associated biodiversity [18,21,22].

One of the key elements in countryside tourism development is to inspire wider local community involvement to serve as a foundation for the sustainability of the tourism destination and industry thereof [23,24]. Although literature suggests that local communities play several roles in local tourism development, very little attention has been given to establish how local communities feel about their involvement [25,26,27]. Nevertheless, community involvement is a critical component of sustainability. In fact, natural resource management experts assert that community-based resource management is a process where locals gain access and user rights to land and related resources, or ownership of local resources, and the use thereof to achieve individual or collective financial and other benefits through stewardship [28]. In the same vein, CBT, viewed as a community-based natural resource management system, endeavors to allocate full or partial rights, ownership and/or control over resources to a section or the whole local community. The aim is to boost revenue streams and livelihoods for poor people in rural areas through better governance, empowerment, and increased economic returns from tourism and natural resource management initiatives [27,28,29,30,31].

In this regard therefore, CBT is considered as a situation where locals own, and/or have access/use rights to tourism resources and activities for their individual or equitable community benefit through stewardship [32,33]. In the Republic of Kenya [4], CBT is a form of tourism that is dependent on community owned or managed resources through communal stakeholders, or carried out by individuals, from within a community, providing equitable returns to the wider community for using these communal resources. In the context of rural regions, these resources are diverse and are not limited to agricultural resources, forests, wildlife, water and fisheries, cultural heritage, infrastructure and the built environment that are collectively used and managed by individuals or a group of people with equitable sharing of benefits [34]. Consequently, this diversity of resources has rendered different forms of community-based tourism enterprises, which include community ranches and nature conservation ventures, culture and heritage enterprises, village and homestay tourism, agri-tourism ventures, shopping and entertainment facilities, catering and hospitality facilities, sporting and recreational facilities, and tours and travel organization firms [35,36].

The aforementioned resources and activities renders Community-based tourism to be diverse in form, nature, and scale of operation, and that it not only relies on natural resources owned and managed by the locals but also on social and cultural heritage, and economic activities such as agricultural production, all of which constitute a community’s general way of life. When these resources are packaged to travelers as tourism products to benefit local and resident communities individually and collectively through equity, this constitutes CBT. Surrogates to CBT include aspects of village tourism, homestays, rural tourism, countryside tourism, cultural tourism, wildlife conservancy tourism, agri-tourism, and ecotourism [37,38,39,40,41]. The diverse nature of CBT provides varied opportunities and carries immense potentials in product and experience offerings to the local populace as well as the traveling public to remote and possibly marginalized locations. In fact, it can be argued that CBT initiatives and products are rarely standardized and therefore each destination and product will always deliver unique experiences with little or no possibility for product substitution.

CBT through community-based resource management combines conservation objectives with income generation activities for the local communities. This resource management approach delivers both ecological and economic advantages. First, it provides an opportunity to generate income amongst locals, and, secondly, enhances cohesion and integration by creating an enabling ecosystem for rural governance and empowerment to the extent that communities see themselves as managers of their resources through direct control, active participation in decision making [10,34]. In addition, CBT has also been viewed to espouse the tenets of environmentally friendly tourism that are culturally appropriate, ecologically sustainable and economically viable. Consequently, in several situations and localities, CBT has been endorsed to promoting conservation, providing beneficial and active socio-economic involvement of local populace and the diversification and economic development of destination areas [3,7,11,13,17,25]. In return, CBT generates income for conservation and the management of natural attractions, public land as well as employing local people, and creates increased awareness and pride in the local community. On the other hand, induced activities such as village visits for living culture, cultural performances, and souvenir production employ unskilled labor and therefore CBT can redistribute income to the poor thence reducing poverty in rural regions [42].

1.2. Global Perspectives of CBT and Sustainability of Rural Regions

The study conducted a critical review of researches carried out around the world to gain a clear understanding of the CBT concept and its contribution to the sustainability of rural regions in various countries. For instance, a research carried out in Romania raised concerns about the complexity of the term “community” when dealing with CBT initiatives. Thus, the term community was noted to present the difficulty of translating into practice the paradigm of CBT [38]. This evokes the notion that community constitutes a wide array of a region’s actors and stakeholders that together with external actors through networks of tourism initiatives produce benefits for communities. Thus, to deliver its potentials for local area development, CBT requires the involvement of diverse actors including local authorities, associations, non-governmental organizations, and the wider private sector players [43]. Further to these arguments, research carried out in Croatia asserts that CBT should be developed through a holistic and comprehensive approach with emphasis on an all-inclusive community participation at all levels of development. Indeed, if developed well, CBT can significantly improve the circumstances of local communities through empowerment and promoting greater economic and social benefits to individuals and organizations [44].

In the context of Brazil, CBT is perceived to promote community development by connecting income generation, social inclusion, gender equity, and environmental sustainability [45]. In CBT projects, therefore, different socio-cultural community groups with distinct roles, concerns, and priorities collaborate to manage tourism activities. To ensure inclusivity, community groups are defined by gender, age, birthplace, level of education, participation in tourism associations, type of income-generating activity, tourism occupation, and lastly years of experience in CBT [45]. In view of these, it can be argued that without inclusivity and benefit sharing, perpetual continuity of CBTEs will be jeopardized as disagreements, strife and disintegration set in. Based on earlier research carried out in Squamish, Canada, Reed [46], endorsed this viewpoint by noting that power relations can affect CBT development and that they exist in any emergent tourism settings. Thus, CBTEs and their external stakeholders should create an enabling ecosystem for CBT operations to flourish, which could be done through regulation, capacity building, infrastructural development, security provision, investment promotion, concessions and leases which are viewed as foundational for any regional development strategies. Indeed, since the inception of CBT, governments, development agencies and NGOs have placed considerable emphasis on CBT as a development model [47].

On the contrary, research carried out in Nicaragua indicates that CBT has been criticized with respect to the low economic impact in terms of jobs and income generated, its small-scale interventions, its short life expectancy after external funding ends, the monopolization of benefits by few local elites, or the lack of business skills to facilitate perpetuity of CBT enterprises (CBTEs) and operations [47]. Therefore, the CBT model in Nicaragua sought to support socio-economic development and poverty alleviation with a shift from over reliance on donors and policy-makers towards redistribution policies that strengthen the skills, resources, and conditions of micro, community-based and family entrepreneurship, together with a stronger orientation towards the domestic markets [47]. Nicaragua CBT model exploited the basic social structure of a community where social capital, trust, commitment and mutual benefit is the focus among its membership, as endorsed by other scholars [48].

Certainly, while using the social–ecological resilience theory, research carried out in Ecuador observed that, although sustainability is one of the major challenges facing tourism, sustainable development can only be achieved in sufficiently resilient socio-ecosystems, which is a significant element of community-based tourism [48,49,50]. Sustainability from a resilience theory standpoint is the possibility that an existing system of resource use will persist indefinitely without a decline in social and natural resource bases [48,49]. Further research in the Dominican Republic observed that communities should invest in strengthening social bonds, developing capacity in local institutions, in diversifying the tourism product and controlling infrastructure development [51]. The research established that trust, networks, local control, flexible governance, leakage prevention and controlled infrastructure development are key in assessing social–ecological resilience and sustainability [49,51].

As with most other countries, international tourism is a vital source of foreign exchange, employment and an important feature of the Laos Democratic Republic government’s poverty reduction strategy [52]. Several development partners have financed many infrastructural projects facilitating tourist movement in the Lower Mekong Basin as well as supporting CBT projects to provide touristic experiences and services. These CBT projects have been observed to afterwards alleviate poverty and develop financial and cultural capital, stir local investments and eventually the development of marginalized regions of the Laos Democratic Republic [10].

Over the last two decades, the development of tourism in rural areas has become a central approach to stir the economy and social development of marginalized areas as a poverty alleviation strategy in most countries. In fact, according to Yang [52], China, the most populous country in the world, has adopted CBT activities and initiatives to secure and improve people’s livelihoods, using a model tourist village in the countryside. These observations have been echoed in the Southeast Asian nation of Cambodia, where findings show that CBT projects are positively contributing towards community development. Nonetheless, these researchers asserted that CBTEs financial sustainability, business practices and community support should be improved to optimize returns to rural and remote regions [52,53]. On a similar note, Armstrong [15] added that the principal conditions for CBTEs success and sustainability include engagement with the private sector; a strong and cohesive host community; genuine community participation, ownership and control; planning for commercial viability; sound market research and demand-driven product development; attractive, quality products based on community assets; transparent financial management; appropriate stakeholder support; and effective monitoring and evaluation. It is vital to note that sustainable CBTEs equals sustainable livelihoods and consequently sustainable development of regions.

On the African continent, since the 1970s, most countries have experienced exponential growth in tourism [54]. This growth in visitor numbers has not necessarily always translated to economic, social or environmental benefits for host communities. Nonetheless, the Kenya Community Based Tourism Network (KECOBAT) [55] notes that the, concept of CBT is widely practiced in southern Africa and Namibia with many success stories [54]. An in-depth field study in one of Namibia’s rural areas established that tourism incomes captured locally improved the livelihoods of rural households and generated linkages in the local economy [56]. In this regard, therefore, the Government of Namibia has acknowledged CBT as a tool for sustainable development of its marginalized regions [57].

These findings have been replicated in Cape Verde, where CBT has not only been used as a strategy for local socio-economic development but has also been recognized as an alternative to traditional mass tourism [14]. The researchers further noted that CBT allows for greater contact with local residents and generates greater economic and environmental benefits for the local community. Thus, in the Cape Verde perspective, the quality of tourism resources provided by local businesses and the community’s hospitality are key elements for the development of CBT.

Research carried out in Tanzania also resonates with other global and regional findings that the CBTE strategy can be used by developing countries to alleviate poverty and meet their regional development challenges of job creation, income generation, community cohesion, community development, inclusion, and empowerment [58,59]. Mgonja et al. [16,59] further observed that CBTEs in Tanzania’s rural regions differ greatly in terms of structure, size, development level and resource capacity, and that many lack clear benefit-sharing mechanisms. It is vital to note that lack of clear and equitable benefit sharing systems can ostensibly lead to disagreements, strife, or splinter groups and finally collapse of CBTEs [32,34,45]. This challenge in addition to poor CBT management threatens the sustainability of CBTEs and the benefits they portend to the sustainability of rural and/or marginalized communities and regions.

Furthermore, in Uganda, CBT has repeatedly been endorsed as an alternative to high volume mass tourism which can potentially be used as a strategy to reduce poverty, a highway to not only improved quality of life, but also greater empowerment and economic benefit to individuals and local communities, and thereby helping resolve regional disparities [60]. Despite these accolades, research carried out in Rwenzori Mountains of Uganda established that alpine CBT has failed to reduce regional income disparities and promote sustainable development because the broader community does not benefit from communal ventures [61].

Kenya is one of the leading destinations in Sub-Saharan Africa mainly known as the home of Safari—a journey to various wildlife habitats to experience nature, witness the wildlife spectacle and open wilderness, enchanting beaches and an interaction with the indigenous communities. These notwithstanding, Kenya has not been left behind in endorsing CBT as a tool for socio-economic development albeit with a few challenges [62,63,64,65,66]. Magayu [67] observed that Kenya, along with many other governments of developing countries in Africa, have advocated for CBT as the preferred contemporary model for tourism development that also serves as a key catalyst for economic regeneration and poverty eradication. According to Gaitho [32], and Manyara and Jones [68], CBTEs in Kenya have mainly taken a culture and nature conservation orientation with support agencies preferring partnership approaches involving external investors who inadequately address community priorities.

In fact, Akama and Kieti [69] pointed out that Kenya’s tourism industry is largely characterized by external control and management of tourism establishments with limited local involvement and high leakages; therefore, the industry does not play an effective role in local socio-economic development. While it may be helpful to have external actors during the initial stages of CBT ventures, the domineering influence of foreign actors, especially when they engage in direct competition with local communities, can work against the attainment of holistic community development and may result in losers and winners [70,71]. Local communities often become losers given the power, financial, experience, capacity and resource differentials between multinational operators and local communities [71]. In view of these, researchers argue that, to fully optimize benefits for local communities, challenges facing CBT must be addressed [69,70,71,72]. For instance, CBT development in Kenya should adopt a “people centered” approach aimed at sustainability and diversity as opposed to conservation alone [66,72]. Indeed, given the importance of CBT as a tourism development strategy in Kenya, the government through its Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife has formulated a CBT development framework, and legal and institutional structures to support the sustainable development of tourism throughout the country [63,64,65]. This is informed by the fact that tourism has contributed significantly to employment creation, is less capital intensive relative to other economic sectors, is the third highest foreign exchange earner and is the fastest growing sector delivering a double-digit growth rate to the economy [64,72].

In support of the public sector’s initiatives to develop CBT in Kenya, the private sector has not been left behind. Two voluntary membership private sector organizations, namely KECOBAT and the Federation of CBT Organisations (FECTO), serve as umbrella organizations representing the interests of CBT enterprises in Kenya [56]. These organizations facilitate information sharing, deliver appropriate technical support and advisory services, mediate and lobby their interests to government and other relevant institutions, and thereby integrate community concerns into the national tourism arena. KECOBAT and FECTO view CBT as a facet of tourism that empowers local residents (often rural, poor and marginalized) to take charge in the decision-making process in tourism development [56]. The NGOs observe that CBT enables residents to work together with other stakeholders to develop opportunities for employment, participation in planning, conservation and running of enterprises either collectively, or by local individuals or families. Despite these positive contributions, CBT is no panacea. In a research carried out among communities living around Mt Kenya National Park, an alpine tourism destination where many locals are involved in conservation and tourism, revealed that economic benefits from mountaineering activities are smaller than usually calculated and low and inconsistent incomes are distributed unevenly amongst the community members [60].

Some tourism scholars argue that with the influx of tourists to countryside destinations that are simplistic and small in the scale of development, the inbound tourist traffic tends to add a burden on local services and amenities [66,67]. Consequently, the visited rural region will suffer challenges of overcrowding, provision of adequate water and sanitation services, heavy traffic and overstretched transport infrastructure, waste management, safety, and security concerns [67]. Thus, this study sought to establish the perceptions on community-based tourism as a tool for sustainable development of the socio-economic and physical environments in rural areas of Kenya, which often are economically depressed and bereft of other development options.

2. Materials and Methods

This research sought to answer the following questions: What are the perceptions and awareness of the populace towards CBT as a potential economic activity in rural regions of Kenya? What are the perceived contributions of CBT to the socio-economic sustainability of rural regions in Kenya? What are the perceived contributions of CBT to the sustainability of the physical environment of rural regions in Kenya? To answer these questions, this study employed a survey research design and was conducted through a critical review of secondary data and literature that was supported with empirical review of primary data collected through an online survey.

The primary data collection methods were informed by the fact that 26% of Kenya’s estimated population of 52.2 million have access to the Internet, while 80.4% of the adult population have mobile subscriptions with Internet access capabilities [1,73]. In this context, an online survey was chosen mainly for four reasons: (1) the interest of stakeholders (in this case CBT associations and networks) and their willingness to provide feedback; (2) time and cost constraint; (3) to access a large and geographically diverse population; and (4) to get quick responses as supported by the views of earlier researchers [74,75,76,77]. Contemporary scholars continue to argue that the scale and real-time nature of online and social media possibilities can be used to expand our range of insights into new questions and domains [77,78,79,80]. This research thus used an online survey to get feedback from interested and engaged tourism stakeholders from a diverse geographical and perceptual reach given time and cost constraints.

A semi-structured questionnaire mainly consisting of closed-ended Likert scale items and developed on Google forms was circulated amongst Kenyans using email, Facebook, Messenger and WhatsApp to recruit respondents for the research. Tourism professional social media networks in Kenya, that is, The Tourism Professional Association, Kenya Association Tour Operator (KATO), Tour Operators Society of Kenya (TOSK), KECOBAT, FECTO, safari/tour guides associations dotted in various regions of the country, tourism student networks, community-based tourism enterprises, government officials and other lay persons were targeted. This was carried out over a period of three months from March to May 2019 with 395 respondents recruited, which was considered to be above the acceptable minimum sample size of 384 for infinite populations.

Quantitative data collected were collated, coded and analyzed using SPSS 25 computer software for descriptive and inferential statistics. Nvivo 12 was used to analyze qualitative data to establish the emerging themes on perceptions of the Kenyan citizenry and eventually all the resultant study findings were presented using tables and charts for interpretation.

3. Results

3.1. Demographics Characteristics of the Respondents

Study results indicate that 55.9% of the respondents were male while 44.1% were female (

Table A1. Respondents by gender (n = 395) [81].

	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Male	221	55.9	55.9	55.9
Female	174	44.1	44.1	100.0
Total	395	100.0	100.0

). These findings were not far from to the gender structure of Kenya’s population which stands at 49.7% male and 50.3% female [1,73]. The difference could be attributed to gender disparities emanating from cultural discrimination against women in Kenyan societies as regards access to socio-economic opportunities and therefore lower Internet penetration and interest among women compared to men. Overall, 98.6% of the respondents where aged from 18 to 50 years (

Table A2. Age of respondents (n = 395) [81].

	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
18–30	244	61.9	61.5	61.8
31–40	118	29.9	29.9	91.6
41–50	25	6.3	6.3	98.0
51–60	7	1.8	1.8	99.7
Over 61	1	0.3	0.3	100.0
Total	395	100.0	100.0

), an age bracket considered the most productive within a population. Furthermore, 92.9% of the respondents had secondary education and above, with over 70% having university and college education (

Table A3. Education levels of respondents (n = 395) [81].

	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Elementary school	28	7.1	7.1	7.1
Secondary school	89	22.5	22.5	29.6
University/College	278	70.4	70.4	100.0
Total	395	100.0	100.0

), which is close to the national literacy levels that stand at 78.7% for ages 15 years and above [1,73]. The research had however targeted adults of 18 years and above giving a slight variation in the findings. The occupational attributes of the respondents were broadly diverse: 26.8% were students, 19.7% were entrepreneurs, 30.4% were employed, 15.4% were unemployed, 2.5% were retired, and 5.1% were local community leaders, housewives and others collectively (

Table A4. Respondents occupation (n = 395) [81].

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
Student	106	26.8	26.8
Entrepreneur	78	19.7	46.6
Employed	120	30.4	77.0
Unemployed	61	15.4	92.4
Local community leader	3	0.8	93.2
Retired/pensioner	10	2.5	95.7
Housewife	3	0.8	96.5
Other	14	3.5	100.0
Total	395	100.0

).

The geographical spread of the online respondents covered all of Kenya’s 47 counties with an average of 2.13% respondents per county where n = 395 (

Table A5. Geographic distribution of respondents by county (n = 395) [81].

		Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Percent
1	Kiambu	18	4.6	4.6
2	Nakuru	18	4.6	9.2
3	Busia	15	3.8	13
4	Kajiado	14	3.5	16.5
5	Nyamira	14	3.5	20
6	Mombasa	13	3.3	23.3
7	Machakos	13	3.3	26.6
8	Kisii	13	3.3	29.9
9	Siaya	12	3	32.9
10	Nairobi	12	3	35.9
11	Lamu	11	2.8	38.7
12	Meru	11	2.8	41.5
13	Kilifi	10	2.5	44
14	Kitui	10	2.5	46.5
15	Kirinyaga	10	2.5	49
16	Murang’a	10	2.5	51.5
17	Kakamega	10	2.5	54
18	Vihiga	10	2.5	56.5
19	Bungoma	10	2.5	59
20	Kwale	9	2.3	61.3
21	Taraka Nithi	9	2.3	63.6
22	Kericho	9	2.3	65.9
23	Makueni	8	2	67.9
24	Nyandarua	8	2	69.9
25	Narok	8	2	71.9
26	Bomet	8	2	73.9
27	Homabay	8	2	75.9
28	Garisa	7	1.8	77.7
29	Migori	7	1.8	79.5
30	West Pokot	6	1.5	81
31	Uashin Gishu	6	1.5	82.5
32	Nandi	6	1.5	84
33	Kisumu	6	1.5	85.5
34	Taita Taveta	5	1.3	86.8
35	Wajir	5	1.3	88.1
36	Marsabit	5	1.3	89.4
37	Embu	5	1.3	90.7
38	Nyeri	5	1.3	92
39	Turkana	5	1.3	93.3
40	Laikipia	5	1.3	94.6
41	Mandera	4	1	95.6
42	Isiolo	4	1	96.6
43	Samburu	3	0.8	97.4
44	Trans Nzoia	3	0.8	98.2
45	Elgeyo Marakwet	3	0.8	99
46	Tana River	2	0.5	99.5
47	Baringo	2	0.5	100
	Average	8.40	2.13

) In total, 22 out of these 47 counties had above average representation with 10 having more that 3% respondents ranked as follows: Kiambu (4.6%), Nakuru (4.6%), Busia (3.8%), Kajiado (3.5%), Nyamira (3.5%), Mombasa (3.3%), Machakos (3.3%), Kisii (3.3%), Siaya (3%) and Nairobi county (3%). Counties with the lowest representation included Mandera, Isiolo, Samburu, Trans Nzoia, Elgeyo Marakwet, Tana River and Baringo (Table A5). These findings roughly represent the population distribution in Kenya [76].

3.2. Awareness Levels of CBT in the Populace

3.2.1. Economic Activities in Rural Areas

The study sought to find out the awareness levels of CBT in Kenya and used dummy variables with attributes to assist in the evaluation. Among these, the first priority was to gain an understanding of the main economic activities practiced in rural areas and the perceptions of their importance to locals. In this regard, the study used an eight-point Likert scale to establish the priority economic activities in Kenya’s rural regions. Findings in

Table 1. Important economic activities in Rural regions in Kenya (n = 395) [81].

	N		Mean	Std. Error of Mean	Std. Deviation
	Valid	Missing
Farming and agricultural activities	395	0	1.97	0.106	2.115
Tourism and hospitality	395	0	3.75	0.122	2.429
Creative or informal (Jua Kali) industries	395	0	4	0.124	2.455
Retail and leisure services	395	0	4.15	0.127	2.532
Manufacturing industry	395	0	4.22	0.126	2.505
Financial/Professional services	395	0	4.3	0.121	2.407
Light industries	395	0	4.37	0.121	2.402
Other	395	0	5.59	0.129	2.566

show that farming and other agricultural activities were ranked number one with $\overline{x}$ of 1.97 (important) and a standard deviation (SD) of 2.115, when n = 395. Ranked second was tourism and hospitality with an of 3.75 (somewhat important), and SD was 2.429, when n = 395. This was followed by creative or informal (Jua Kali) industries with an $\overline{x}$ of 4.00 and SD of 2.455, for n = 395, retail and leisure services $\overline{x}$ = 4.15 and SD = 2.532), manufacturing industry ($\overline{x}$ = 4.22 and SD = 2.505), light industries ($\overline{x}$ = 4.37 and SD = 2.402), and lastly other economic activities (less important) with a $\overline{x}$ = 5.59 and SD = 2.566 when n = 395).

3.2.2. Physical Attributes of Rural Regions

The research delved into establishing physical attributes (Figure 1) in rural areas that can be tapped for CBT development. In light of this, study findings (Figure 1) reveal that over 53.7% of the respondents came from mostly rural regions, followed by a small town (50.4%), very urban (32.2%), mountain and wilderness (31.1%), natural protected area (28.9%), near a historic conservation area (26.6%), near an ocean (21.5%), and with Other trailing at a distant 8.9%.

3.2.3. Best Attributes of Rural Regions

As shown in Figure 2, out of the 12 best attributes of rural regions the study assessed, 10 had 54% and above affirmative responses: peaceful and quiet (92.2%), lots of cultural events and facilities (90.6%), friendly community (86.3%), beautiful landscape (68.6%), historic and heritage sites (68.1%), excitement and variety of experiences (66.6%), sports and outdoor activities (62.8%), good shopping facilities (62.5%), and good public utilities, schools and hospitals (60.8%).

Although rural regions generally scored well on most attributes as CBT destinations, slightly more than half (54.9%) have endemic wildlife resources. On the other hand, “good jobs available” had the lowest score (47.8%), indicating that rural regions are not good areas to work as job opportunities are either not available or do not offer competitive salaries. A small fraction of respondents (10.9%) indicated other variables outside the study, which were considered the best in some rural regions and included the feeling of just being home, diverse communities, adventure, socialization, and a bubbly society.

3.2.4. CBT Enterprises in Rural Regions

On the types of CBT enterprises found in Kenya’s rural regions, study findings in Figure 3 reveal that community nature conservation ventures were the most common with 72.4% of the responses followed by farms and related agri-tourism ventures at 68.4%. Subsequently, there were village and homestays (67.8%), shopping facilities (59.2%), culture and heritage enterprises (57.7%), recreational and sporting facilities (56.7%), entertainment facilities (55.2%), tours and travel organization (48.9%), catering and hospitality facilities (45.6%) and other with 9.4% of the responses.

3.2.5. General Perceptions and Awareness of CBT

After evaluating the resource and attributes of rural regions as CBT destinations, the study assessed the respondents “knowledge and perceptions of CBT” by presenting various CBT definitions. Study results in Figure 4 indicate that most respondents had a fair understanding of what CBT is with a cumulative total of 97.2% of the responses (n = 395) represented by ‘CBT gives a voice and encourages inclusivity and responsibility’ (54.4%), ‘Tourism owned and managed by locals and designed to deliver wider communal benefits’ (21.8%), ‘all of the above’ (13.4%) and ‘where economically marginalized invite tourists to visit their communities’ (7.6% of the responses). Nevertheless, only 13.4% of the respondents had a very clear understanding of what CBT entails with another 83.8% choosing one of the correct definitions of CBT that is, ‘CBT gives a voice and encourages inclusivity and responsibility’ (54.4%), ‘Tourism owned and managed by locals and designed to deliver wider communal benefits’ (21.8%), and ‘all of the above’ (7.6%). This was because all the definitions provided were referring to CBT with “NONE of the above”, which had 2.8% of the responses, as the only wrong answer.

3.3. CBT and Perceived Socio-Economic Sustainability of Rural Regions

The second objective of this study was to establish the perceived socio-economic contributions of CBT to the sustainability of rural regions in Kenya. First, using simple “YES” and “NO” multiple response questionnaire items, the researchers sought to find out the challenges facing rural regions and subsequently how CBT can contribute towards managing these challenges for sustainability. In Figure 5, the results show that “lack of jobs and economic opportunities” was identified as the key challenge with affirmation from 91.4% of the respondents. This was followed by “low wages and poverty” (86.1%), “environmental degradation” (81.3%), “lack of cultural amenities” (66.6%), “lack of educational opportunities” (64.1%), and “access to housing and social amenities” (39%), with “none of the above” at 11.9% and “Other” challenges trailing at 9.9%.

After establishing the general challenges facing rural regions in Kenya, the study went further to establish the socio-economic contributions of CBT to Kenya’s rural regions. A five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) was used to evaluate the perceptions among respondents (n = 395). The results in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for socio-economic contributions of CBT [81].

Contribution	Mean (n = 395)	SD
i. Creates a market for local crafts and produce	4.21	1.082
ii. There are opportunities for young people	4.20	1.080
iii. Tourism industry develops good relations with the locals	4.19	1.042
iv. Community members feel a strong connection with the place	4.18	1.010
v. The quality of life here is improving	4.17	0.995
vi. Supports local festivals/events	4.16	1.099
vii. Creates jobs	4.16	1.283
viii. Supports local shops and services	4.15	1.096
ix. Community is involved in conservation projects in their regions	4.14	1.050
x. Tourism has brought the community together	4.10	1.061
xi. Attracts investment into the area	4.08	1.069
xii. Increases demand for local cultural activities & amenities	4.08	1.132
xiii. Helps maintain local traditions and identity	4.07	1.160
xiv. Community members receive training about nature and culture	4.01	1.179
xv. Supports museums and heritage sites	3.98	1.183
xvi. CBT is vital for long-term prosperity of the community & region	3.98	0.967
xvii. Community members receive training from tourism ventures	3.87	1.207
xviii. The tourism industry spends more back into the local community	3.83	1.396
xix. The indigenous (local) community have control over tourism	3.78	1.225
xx. Increases spending in local businesses	3.75	1.118
xxi. The larger community does not benefit from CBT	3.06	1.600
Average	4.01	1.144

a show that for 16 of the 21 variables under investigation, respondents gave a score of “4”, i.e., “agree”, when figures were rounded to one decimal place.

These perceptions include observations that “CBT creates a market for local crafts and produce” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.21; SD = 1.082), “creates opportunities for young people” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.20; SD = 1.080), “develops good relations with the locals” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.19), “makes members of the community feel a strong connection to their local area” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.18), “improves the quality of life” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.17), “supports local festivals and events” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.16), “CBT creates jobs” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.16), “supports local shops and services” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.15), “involves community in conservation projects in their regions” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.14), “brings the community together” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.10), “attracts investment into the area” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.08), “increases demand for local cultural activities and amenities” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.08), “helps maintain local traditions and identity” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.07), “community members receive training about nature and culture” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.01), “supports museums and heritage sites” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.98), and “CBT is important for the long-term prosperity of my community and region” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.98).

Study results further indicate four other contributions that received affirmative responses of “agree” (4) when the scores were rounded up to whole numbers: “community members receive training from tourism ventures” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.87), “the tourism industry spends more back into the local community” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.83), “indigenous (local) community have control over tourism” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.78) and “CBT increases spending in local businesses” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.75). The item “the broader community does not benefit from CBT” had the lowest mean ($\overline{x}$ = 3.06 representing ‘undecided’) and the highest SD of 1.600. This was a clear indication of divided opinions among the respondents. Nonetheless, the average results of the 21 variables that can contribute to socio-economic sustainability of rural regions was $\overline{x}$ = 4.01 with a SD of 1.144 (Table 2). When conducting the reliability and factor analysis correlation (

Table A6. Socio-economic contributions Factor analysis correlation [81].

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
Correlation	1	1.000	0.642	0.755	0.686	0.589	0.584	0.643	0.632	0.646	0.446	0.408	0.395	0.361	0.334	0.397	0.434	0.479	0.399	0.414	0.471
	2	0.642	1.000	0.634	0.530	0.541	0.518	0.495	0.475	0.544	0.433	0.300	0.357	0.340	0.322	0.336	0.365	0.381	0.312	0.323	0.366
	3	0.755	0.634	1.000	0.676	0.645	0.594	0.612	0.581	0.652	0.438	0.370	0.380	0.359	0.335	0.312	0.412	0.435	0.399	0.411	0.441
	4	0.686	0.530	0.676	1.000	0.674	0.615	0.648	0.655	0.652	0.357	0.355	0.283	0.276	0.305	0.353	0.386	0.373	0.404	0.349	0.471
	5	0.589	0.541	0.645	0.674	1.000	0.610	0.702	0.638	0.590	0.429	0.291	0.375	0.346	0.408	0.356	0.439	0.403	0.412	0.444	0.456
	6	0.584	0.518	0.594	0.615	0.610	1.000	0.598	0.602	0.666	0.420	0.250	0.421	0.393	0.369	0.374	0.419	0.389	0.387	0.410	0.474
	7	0.643	0.495	0.612	0.648	0.702	0.598	1.000	0.760	0.691	0.420	0.373	0.412	0.342	0.360	0.400	0.491	0.467	0.435	0.471	0.531
	8	0.632	0.475	0.581	0.655	0.638	0.602	0.760	1.000	0.730	0.377	0.336	0.385	0.343	0.350	0.384	0.430	0.441	0.427	0.436	0.465
	9	0.646	0.544	0.652	0.652	0.590	0.666	0.691	0.730	1.000	0.433	0.345	0.377	0.390	0.390	0.417	0.427	0.460	0.406	0.422	0.485
	10	0.446	0.433	0.438	0.357	0.429	0.420	0.420	0.377	0.433	1.000	0.433	0.536	0.530	0.498	0.429	0.548	0.500	0.457	0.522	0.511
	11	0.408	0.300	0.370	0.355	0.291	0.250	0.373	0.336	0.345	0.433	1.000	0.298	0.310	0.312	0.410	0.425	0.452	0.466	0.410	0.444
	12	0.395	0.357	0.380	0.283	0.375	0.421	0.412	0.385	0.377	0.536	0.298	1.000	0.662	0.523	0.543	0.544	0.549	0.481	0.562	0.505
	13	0.361	0.340	0.359	0.276	0.346	0.393	0.342	0.343	0.390	0.530	0.310	0.662	1.000	0.693	0.678	0.578	0.590	0.565	0.643	0.521
	14	0.334	0.322	0.335	0.305	0.408	0.369	0.360	0.350	0.390	0.498	0.312	0.523	0.693	1.000	0.667	0.653	0.587	0.606	0.665	0.562
	15	0.397	0.336	0.312	0.353	0.356	0.374	0.400	0.384	0.417	0.429	0.410	0.543	0.678	0.667	1.000	0.663	0.661	0.669	0.641	0.605
	16	0.434	0.365	0.412	0.386	0.439	0.419	0.491	0.430	0.427	0.548	0.425	0.544	0.578	0.653	0.663	1.000	0.711	0.752	0.743	0.711
	17	0.479	0.381	0.435	0.373	0.403	0.389	0.467	0.441	0.460	0.500	0.452	0.549	0.590	0.587	0.661	0.711	1.000	0.721	0.775	0.690
	18	0.399	0.312	0.399	0.404	0.412	0.387	0.435	0.427	0.406	0.457	0.466	0.481	0.565	0.606	0.669	0.752	0.721	1.000	0.694	0.753
	19	0.414	0.323	0.411	0.349	0.444	0.410	0.471	0.436	0.422	0.522	0.410	0.562	0.643	0.665	0.641	0.743	0.775	0.694	1.000	0.702
	20	0.471	0.366	0.441	0.471	0.456	0.474	0.531	0.465	0.485	0.511	0.444	0.505	0.521	0.562	0.605	0.711	0.690	0.753	0.702	1.000

KEY: 1, Helps maintain local identity and traditions; 2, creates jobs; 3, increases spending in local businesses; 4, supports local shops and services; 5, attracts investment into the area; 6, increases demand for local cultural activities and amenities; 7, supports museums and heritage sites; 8, creates a market for local crafts and produce; 9, supports local festivals/events; 10, CBT is important for the long-term prosperity of my community and region; 11, local community have control over tourism; 12, locals receive training from tourism ventures; 13, locals receive training about nature and culture; 14, locals are involved in conservation projects in their regions; 15, tourism industry develops good relations with the locals; 16, the quality of life here is improving; 17, locals feel a strong connection with the place; 18, tourism has brought the community together; 19, there are opportunities for young people; 20, the tourism industry spends more back into the local community.

) of the variables under review, the results in

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test for correlation and significance [81].

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.951
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	6040.785
	df	190
	Sig.	0.000

indicate that the sample was adequate (0.951), and that there was a strong relationship among variables (high chi-square value of 6040.785 at 190 degrees of freedom) with a significance level of less than 0.001.

3.4. CBT and Perceived Sustainability of the Physical Environment in Rural Regions

The research delved further into establishing the contributions of CBT to the physical environment. Using a five-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to indicate the level to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements given. The study results in Figure 6 show respondents ranked “CBT supports the care of nature and the environment” highest, where $\overline{x}$ was 4.21 (agree) with a SD of 1.093. This was followed by “CBT contributes to environmental sustainability” where $\overline{x}$ was 4.23 and SD of 0.980. The item “future development prospects for their rural regions are good in CBT” followed with an $\overline{x}$ of 4.15 and SD of 1.081. Finally, “CBT burdens local services and amenities” had an $\overline{x}$ of 2.91 and SD of 1.492, which was observed to be the biggest deviation from the mean of all items in this category. It was evident that respondents had divided opinions on whether CBT adds pressure and is a burden to local services and social amenities. The average mean for the four variables evaluated was 3.785 (i.e., “agree” when rounded up to a whole number) and the SD was 1.162.

The study further conducted a factor analysis to establish correlation within the variables and the reliability of the results and sample size (

Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s Test for correlation and significance [81].

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.764
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	296.292
	df	6
	Sig.	0.000

and

Table 5. Factor analysis correlation matrix: CBT contribution to physical environment [81].

		1	2	3	4
Correlation	1	1.000	0.074	0.467	0.415
	2	0.074	1.000	0.133	0.284
	3	0.467	0.133	1.000	0.561
	4	0.415	0.284	0.561	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	1		0.071	0.000	0.000
	2	0.071		0.004	0.000
	3	0.000	0.004		0.000
	4	0.000	0.000	0.000
a. Determinant = 0.324

KEY: 1, supports the care of nature and the environment; 2, tourism adds to the burden on local services and amenities; 3, CBT contributes to environmental sustainability; 4, physical development Prospects for this area are good in CBT.

). The results in Table 4 indicate that the sampling was adequate (0.764), and that there was a strong relationship amongst variables (high chi-square value of 296.292 at six degrees of freedom) with a significance level of less than 0.001.

The results in Table 5 indicate a strong correlation for all variables except with the variable “tourism adds to the burden on local services and amenities”. This variable should have been substituted with another variable as it showed a weak correlation with the other variables reviewed to establish the contribution of CBT to the sustainability of the physical environment in rural regions in Kenya. This means the correlation figures were below the determinant of 0.324 and were tending towards zero.

Lastly, on the questionnaire item as to whether respondents wanted more tourism activities in their rural regions, study findings revealed that the general public endorsed CBT as a sustainable development strategy for rural regions (Figure 7).

As a follow up on the above findings, using an open-ended questionnaire item, the study went further to establish from the respondents what should be done to make CBT in Kenya’s rural regions better. Several qualitative responses were provided and later transcribed for text analysis using Nvivo 12 to identify the Top 25 used theme words, as shown in Figure 8 (word frequency). Key among these themes with respective weighted averages were: businesses (6.59%), region (3.60%), community (3.15%), improve (3.14%), groups (2.53%), events (2.44%), create (2.21%), involvement (2.19%), activities (2.14%), facilities (2.00%), support (1.75%), and instruments (1.70%).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Farming and other agricultural activities were considered important and therefore given more attention by Kenyans in rural regions. This was evident by the favorable mean in the Likert scale and a narrower spread (SD = 2.115) of responses relative to other items tested in this category (Table 1). However, most importantly, over 80% of Kenya’s population depends on agriculture with 75% living in rural areas. Tourist and hospitality were ranked second (Table 1) with fair importance, followed by creative or informal (Jua kali) industries, retail and leisure services, manufacturing industry, light industries, and other economic activities all together, which support the core sectors of the economy with two way multiplier effects. These findings endorse the development strategies and priorities adopted by the government of Kenya. Indeed, the Government considers agriculture, tourism and hospitality among the main drivers of the vision 2030 economic growth strategy. The vision ranks economic sectors by their potential to deliver a double-digit growth rate of the economy, albeit this time tourism is ranked first followed by agriculture and livestock. Essentially, in the context of this research, farming and agricultural activities can be integrated with tourism and hospitality in rural regions among other developments to deliver sustainable development.

On the objective that sought to establish CBT perceptions and awareness, results indicate that a majority of Kenyans (83.8%) had a fair understanding of CBT, with another 13.4% having a very clear understanding of CBT (Figure 4). Thus, this calls for more awareness creation and capacity building training and where appropriate, technical support to develop CBT in Kenya’s rural regions. This is because, to effectively adopt CBT as a development strategy for Kenya’s rural regions, stakeholders and especially the local community should have a very clear perception and understanding of what CBT entails. Only then can CBT unlock the potential and deliver sustainable development to rural regions.

The study findings further reveal that Kenya’s rural regions boast several resources and attributes that serve as attractions and natural capital for the development of CBT. Beautiful landscapes, historic and heritage sites, a unique variety of experiences, sports and outdoor activities, good shopping facilities, and good public utilities, schools and hospitals are collectively indicative of a hospitable society and exciting cultural experiences in Kenya’s rural regions. These results indicate the diverse dimensions that CBT can take in Kenya’s rural regions. It is however interesting to note that community nature conservation ventures were ranked first despite another finding in this study indicating that endemic wildlife has been ranked among the least important attributes of the rural landscapes on Kenya. This might be because protected wildlife areas are not as widespread as physical landscape and other cultural attractions; indeed, only 8% of Kenya’s land is covered under conservation and less than 4% forest is covered. Rural regions in Kenya have the potential for the development of a wide array of CBT experiences and product offerings to the traveling public visiting countryside locations.

On the research objective as to the perceived contributions of CBT to the socio-economic sustainability of the rural region. It was a unanimous result (Table 2) that local communities viewed CBT as a great advantage with the potential to alleviate socio-economic development challenges facing rural regions of Kenya. All 21 items under evaluation had average $\overline{x}$ of 4.01 (“agree”) and the evaluations were consistent with a narrow range of responses (SD = 1.144). These overall results are favorable perceptions towards CBT as a tool to contribute to the socio-economic sustainability of rural regions in Kenya by delivering net socio-economic benefits to the local community and economy presently and into the future with the assumption that there are good governance structures for its development. The perceived contributions of CBT include CBT creating a market for local goods and services, providing development opportunities for young people, fostering good relations amongst local stakeholders, a sense of local pride and place, improved livelihoods and quality of life and creating jobs.

However, there was clear ambivalence whether the broader community benefit from CBT. This item had the highest SD and the lowest mean undecided (SD = 1.600, $\overline{x}$ = 3.06). This was a clear indication of divided opinion amongst respondents whether the larger community does benefit from tourism or not. It is important to note that this Likert scale item was intentionally phrased in the negative to control the ceiling effect in the responses. Notwithstanding, it can be argued that the multiplier effects of CBT should deliver benefits in rural regions, and indeed the overall average for socio-economic contributions tested had a result of “agree” ($\overline{x}$ = 4.01). Further checks on reliability indicated a reliable sample size was used, and that variables under review showed a high level of relationship and a significance level of less than 0.001. Tests that statistically confirmed that the data and results were valid for this objective.

On the objective seeking to find out the contributions of CBT to the sustainability of the physical environment in Kenya’s rural regions, respondents endorsed (“agree”; $\overline{x}$ = 3.875) the view that CBT can be used as a strategy for the sustainable management of the physical environment. These results had the lowest standard deviation indicating more consistent results. However, results on “CBT adds pressure and is a burden to local services and social amenities” showed ambivalence and therefore implicitly indicate uncertainty on the carrying capacity of local services and social amenities to host CBT. This can only be confirmed by carrying capacity assessments and therefore the divided views are acceptable. Indeed, further inferential statistics to test reliability and correlation revealed that the item “CBT adds pressure and is a burden to local services and social amenities” did not have any significant relationship with the other variable under consideration. That is, the figures were below the determinant value and were tending towards zero. Although the responses for other variables were favorable, there was the need for replacing this variable under question with a wider range of variables to more accurately test the objective.

Lastly, from study results, several themes from qualitative data emerged and illustrated a clear desire that more CBT developments should be made in Kenya’s rural regions. However, the view is that CBT should largely be managed as a business in structure and form. Despite communal ownership and management, only professional management of CBT will guarantee long-term sustainability for jobs and livelihoods. CBT should be developed within rural regions by and for local community members who invest in the development of diverse and unique facilities, activities, and events through inclusivity in engagements and support using appropriate strategies and approaches. These developments are envisaged to improve local transportation infrastructure and sustainable attractions management that is orderly and in harmony with standard community-based tourism experiences and hospitality, village and homestay tourism, cultural events, natural sites, and agri-tourism to collectively deliver sustainable development in rural and marginalized regions of Kenya.