Developing an NSD Process for Sustainable Community-Based Tourism Under Uncertainty: A Case Study from Thailand

Abstract

Thailand is globally recognized for its tourism potential and rich diversity of cultural and natural heritage. Community-based tourism (CBT), in particular, holds significant promise for inclusive and sustainable development. However, CBT initiatives across the country remain fragile in the face of uncertainty, whether from pandemics, climate events, or market shifts, and are often constrained by fragmented practices and the absence of a shared service development framework that addresses sustainability tensions. This study addresses that gap by developing and validating a sustainability-oriented new service development (NSD) process comprising five phases and sixteen steps, tailored specifically for CBT under uncertainty. Through expert interviews and iterative action research in two contrasting Thai communities, the process was refined to include tools for place identity, customer analysis, service testing, and adaptive planning. The framework enables CBT communities to move from ad hoc efforts to structured, resilient, and market-aligned service practices. Expert validation confirmed its effectiveness and adaptability, while also recommending digital transformation and financial integration as future directions. This process offers a pathway for improving CBT outcomes in Thailand, and a potentially adaptable framework for CBT development across diverse contexts in uncertain tourism environments.

1. Introduction

The tourism industry has long been a crucial pillar of Thailand’s economy, renowned for its diverse cultural, natural, and historical attractions. Since the mid-20th century, tourism has contributed significantly to national development, accounting for as much as 18.21 percent of Thailand’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019 [1]. Beyond economic stimulation, tourism enhances domestic consumption, fosters employment, and promotes human capital development, all of which are essential for improving national competitiveness. Therefore, the Thai government integrated community-based tourism (CBT) into its 20-Year National Strategy as a mechanism to advance toward a “high-value and sustainable Thailand” by 2037 [2]. This direction aligns with global movements such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) initiative launched in 2017, which promotes CBT as a means to drive rural development and its growth [3].

Despite its promise, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the deep vulnerabilities within the tourism sector. CBT, in particular, struggled to respond effectively to sudden disruptions due to its unsolid structures, inconsistent planning, and lack of adaptive strategies [4,5,6]. The pandemic emphasized the need for more resilient and systematic approaches to tourism development, particularly in community contexts where resources and capabilities are often limited. CBT’s potential to contribute to local empowerment, income distribution, and sustainable living remains high, but only if supported by robust frameworks that can endure both external and internal challenges.

At present, Thailand lacks a standardized service development model tailored for CBT. The absence of a shared framework or toolset has led to fragmented practices, inefficiencies, and missed opportunities for innovation [4,7]. While many CBT communities possess strong cultural and natural assets, they often lack structured methods to turn these assets into sustainable, market-ready tourism services. CBT development must navigate three fundamental tensions: between market demands and community values, between revenue generation and local identity preservation, and between growth aspirations and preservation needs. These tensions call for a sustainability-oriented NSD approach that places sustainability at its core. This gap is particularly problematic in today’s chaotic, unpredictable environment, where success depends not only on creativity but also on strategic foresight and operational readiness.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and develop a new service development (NSD) process specifically designed for CBT under conditions of uncertainty, within the context of Thailand. Drawing on insights from 12 multi-sectoral experts and iterative field testing across two CBT communities of contrasting capacity, this study offers an empirically grounded, field-tested framework. It not only addresses the systemic challenges facing CBT but also introduces practical tools and strategies that can be replicated or adapted in other CBT contexts. The findings highlight both the limitations of current CBT practices and the opportunities for enhancing community capacity to operate competitively and sustainably within an evolving tourism landscape characterized by uncertainty.

This study employs a three-phase research design: (1) expert interviews to explore current challenges, (2) participatory action research with two contrasting CBT communities to iteratively develop and test the framework, and (3) validation through pre-post surveys and expert assessment. Following this introduction, the paper reviews relevant literature and theoretical foundations, outlines the research methodology, presents results from field testing and validation, and concludes with a discussion of contributions, limitations, and future directions.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Community-Based Tourism in Thailand

Over the past decades, Thailand has embraced community-based tourism (CBT) as a development strategy aimed at empowering local communities and decentralizing economic benefits. Community-based tourism encourages local people to participate in planning, manage their tourism activities, and use the income earned from tourism to benefit their community [8]. Unlike mass tourism, which often marginalizes local stakeholders, CBT supports cultural preservation, creates local jobs, and offers visitors more authentic experiences [8,9,10].

Thailand’s diverse geography, deep-rooted traditions, and rich biodiversity make it particularly well-positioned to benefit from CBT. In this context, the cultural capital embedded within tourism functions as a form of soft power—an intangible asset rooted in creative knowledge, values, and local heritage that appeals to global audiences and differentiates Thai tourism service offerings in competitive markets [11,12]. This soft power dynamic contributes not only to national economic strength but also to long-term competitiveness by transforming local place identity and cultural sustainability into influence and demand. Moreover, it encourages the development of learning hubs and cultural institutions within local contexts. When amplified by digital technologies and supported by collaborations across public, private, and academic sectors, soft power from CBT can be a scalable force for sustainable development [13].

The community, in this sense, acts not only as a guardian of local culture but also as a social force that holds people together. This positioning aligns with national development goals. The “Sustainable Community-Based Tourism Strategic Plan 2016–2020”, introduced by the Department of Cultural Promotion [14], marked an important milestone, advocating for CBT as a value-added economic strategy. The plan emphasizes mobilizing existing assets, strengthening community networks, and building local capacity for tourism development. Yet despite policy support, the practical steps for enabling CBT remain fragmented and inconsistent. Many communities still face barriers, as most initiatives depend on community-led implementation without systematic frameworks or structured guidance, particularly among populations with limited formal education or technological literacy, which affects operational sustainability. This calls attention to the urgent need for structured, adaptable processes that can guide community actors from ideation to implementation.

2.2. The Concept of Resilience and VUCA World

As the world is becoming more complex and unpredictable, resilience has become a critical factor for survival and sustainable development in tourism discussions. The VUCA framework—volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—has become a lens through which contemporary socio-economic disruptions are understood [15]. These dynamics are particularly evident in service industries such as tourism, where global pandemics, climate disruptions, and economic and political shifts continuously reshape the landscape.

An emerging counterpart to VUCA is the BANI framework—brittle, anxious, nonlinear, and incomprehensible—proposed by Cascio [16], which emphasizes emotional, technological, and systemic fragility in a hyperconnected, post-industrial society. In both frameworks, uncertainty is not merely a condition to react to, but a persistent force that requires systemic rethinking of how communities build resilience.

Resilience in this context refers not just to recovery, but to the ability to absorb, adapt, and transform in response to disruption. In CBT, this means anticipating change, diversifying offerings, and embedding adaptive planning. Scenario planning enables communities to develop strategic plans across multiple timeframes [17]. The barbell strategy advises distributing resource allocation across primary and secondary plans, ensuring communities maintain alternatives as a strategy for risk management [18]. These tools have been proposed to build organizational tolerance and foresight, yet they are rarely applied in community-level tourism in Thailand. This study argues that when uncertainty is embraced as a driver of innovation, it can catalyze the development of new tools, new mindsets, and more agile, sustainable tourism practices.

2.3. New Service Development for CBT

While structured service development models are widely applied across various industries, their integration into CBT, particularly in developing countries where it is most needed, such as Thailand, remains limited. New service development (NSD) frameworks such as the four-phase model by Johnson et al. [19] and the simplified two-phase approach by Zeithaml and Bitner [20] offer well-defined processes for innovation. Additionally, service-dominant logic [21,22] views value as co-created between providers and customers, while the Double Diamond framework [23] guides iterative design by alternating between exploring possibilities and narrowing down to solutions, an approach well-suited for CBT contexts where communities must balance diverse ideas with practical constraints. However, these models often assume a level of technical capacity and institutional support not commonly found in community-based settings.

Importantly, because CBT revolves around the design and delivery of experiential services, the development process must be inherently human-centered. Design thinking methodologies, therefore, offer a particularly suitable approach for CBT as they emphasize empathy, stakeholder inclusion, and iterative problem-solving within complex and contextualized environments [24,25]. Without a standardized or recognized NSD framework, most CBT groups operate with ad hoc decision-making, often shaped by temporary projects or the personal initiative of local leaders [4]. There is no unified process for turning ideas into viable tourism services, nor are there tools widely adopted for market relevance, visitor journey design, or place identity conceptualization [26,27,28,29]. While some high-performing communities may develop their own informal systems, these are rarely documented, evaluated, or shared.

Developing an effective NSD framework for CBT requires integration of strategic tools and techniques that address the unique challenges communities face under uncertainty. The VUCA environment demands that CBT communities develop both service capabilities and uncertainty management with sustainable development, making resilience-based approaches essential for long-term CBT development. Strategic tools, including scenario planning [17,30], place identity development frameworks [26,27,28,29,31,32,33], and uncertainty management techniques [17,18], become critical components for enabling communities to navigate volatility while developing market-aligned services that preserve cultural authenticity and generate sustainable benefits.

In the context of CBT, co-creation is not just a design principle but a developmental imperative. As communities face increasing uncertainty and rapid market changes, the ability to quickly adapt service offerings becomes critical for survival. Digital transformation offers a powerful solution to this challenge. By integrating emerging technologies alongside traditional engagement methods, communities can now facilitate inclusive participation without the constraints of geography or institutional barriers while significantly accelerating their adaptation cycles. Such technologies allow communities to rapidly iterate services in response to changing conditions, reducing both development time and resource requirements [34,35]. Such approaches increase the probability of successful implementation of communities with resource-limited settings by fostering shared ownership, lowering prototyping costs, and enabling faster iterations, which are all essential for sustainable innovation in CBT [36].

While Thailand’s tourism industry is showing signs of recovery, much of the economic benefit remains concentrated in just a few popular areas [37]. This uneven distribution limits the strengthening of local foundations across the country. With an NSD process that fits the needs of CBT and is empowered by technology [38], each community could boost its income and well-being, leading to a more balanced and widespread revival of tourism. This study addresses that gap by proposing an NSD process tailored specifically for CBT, offering a practical, validated pathway for transforming ad hoc CBT initiatives into resilient, market-aligned service innovations through real-world application in communities with varied readiness levels.

2.4. Theoretical Framework

This research integrates NSD theory [19,20], value co-creation [21,22], iterative design concept [23], resilience thinking [17,18], and adaptive systems design [17,18] to address CBT development under uncertainty. Traditional NSD models provide structured processes for service practice, but their application to CBT requires fundamental adaptation due to resource constraints, limited planning capacity, continuous environmental volatility, and the need to balance cultural authenticity with market expectations while maintaining equitable benefit distribution and community cohesion. Traditional NSD frameworks assume stable environments and resource-rich contexts, which are unsuitable for community-based contexts. These models were developed for commercial sectors with market research capabilities and technical expertise, conditions that are rarely present in CBT development. Moreover, CBT requires systematic place identity development [26,27,28,29,31,32] and accessible market insights [10,32] to bridge internal community self-perception with external visitor expectations while responding to accelerating market changes. These distinctive requirements necessitate frameworks specifically designed for community contexts rather than direct adoption of commercial models.

Resilience theory addresses CBT’s vulnerability to persistent uncertainty. Drawing from ecological resilience and organizational adaptation literature, the framework recognizes that CBT communities face continuous volatility from pandemics, climate change, and rapid market shifts rather than temporary disruptions. The VUCA framework [15] and its BANI extension [16] characterize these conditions, under which reactive crisis management proves insufficient. Effective frameworks must, therefore, incorporate anticipatory design and scenario planning as fundamental requirements [17,30], enabling communities to build adaptive strategies viable across multiple future possibilities. The development process must also be human-centered and participatory [24,25], with co-creation approaches [34,35,36] and technology enablement [34,35,38] transforming service development from expert-driven interventions into community-led innovation.

By integrating service innovation principles with resilience thinking and design thinking methodologies [24,25], this study develops an NSD framework that combines resilience-based strategic planning, systematic place identity development, accessible market insights, and participatory co-creation. Rather than universal standards, the framework enables context-specific adaptation, recognizing that sustainability priorities vary across communities based on unique values and challenges. Importantly, this framework represents a theoretical synthesis in which NSD theory, resilience thinking, design thinking, and digital tools create synergistic value beyond their individual contributions. Resilience is embedded throughout all phases rather than treated as a separate outcome, with each step incorporating uncertainty consideration, adaptive capacity building, and scenario awareness. This integrated, resilience-driven NSD approach distinguishes the framework from conventional models that typically address resilience as reactive recovery rather than proactive design embedded within service development itself. Ultimately, the framework aims to move CBT from ad hoc, reactive practices [4] toward structured, proactive service development capable of functioning effectively under persistent uncertainty.

3. Methodology

To develop a robust process innovation model, this study adopted a three-phase research design aimed at developing a contextually grounded NSD process specifically for CBT that can effectively respond to uncertainties. This research employed a mixed-methods design integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to enhance validity and comprehensiveness. The qualitative component combined expert interviews with participatory action research across two contrasting community contexts, enabling a deep understanding of CBT development challenges and refinement of the NSD framework, comprising a structured process and associated tools and techniques. The quantitative component employed structured pre-test and post-test surveys to measure changes in community capacity and visitor experience. This methodological integration enabled triangulation through multiple data collection approaches: expert interviews, participatory action research across two contrasting communities, and structured pre-test/post-test surveys, strengthening the validity and generalizability of findings. Additionally, triangulation was reinforced through engagement with diverse stakeholder groups (policy experts, practitioners, community leaders, and tourists), ensuring comprehensive validation from multiple perspectives.

3.1. Phase 1: Expert Interviews to Explore Current Practices and Field Challenges

The first phase involved conducting in-depth interviews with 12 experts selected from the public sector, private tourism businesses, academia, and CBT leaders (Appendix A). The purpose was to investigate how NSD processes were currently applied or adapted within CBT settings, and to identify real-world operational challenges under uncertainty, particularly in the Thai context. The interviews aimed to collect insights on the actual CBT process used by Thai communities, limitations faced by practitioners, and perspectives on how external shocks (e.g., pandemics, environmental disruptions) impacted CBT development processes and service development capabilities. The data collected in this phase served as foundational input for shaping the early version of a CBT-specific NSD framework. Following data collection, interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, with an additional researcher conducting independent verification to ensure coding reliability and minimize researcher bias in theme identification.

Expert selection employed purposeful sampling to ensure comprehensive and practice-oriented perspectives on CBT development under uncertainty. Participants were required to have direct hands-on experience with CBT initiatives in Thailand, enabling them to provide insights grounded in real-world operational challenges. To capture multidimensional viewpoints relevant to both policy and practice, experts were strategically recruited from diverse sectors, including public agencies, academic institutions, social innovation organizations, and CBT communities, with demonstrated success. Additionally, these experts represented different areas of expertise, such as CBT management, NSD processes, and expertise in navigating uncertainty, which collectively contributed to shaping a robust and context-specific NSD framework for CBT.

3.2. Phase 2: Iterative Development with a Best-Practice CBT Community and a Trial CBT Community

This phase employed a strategic two-site approach to comprehensively develop and refine the process steps, associated tools, and techniques of the NSD framework (

Table 1. Tools and techniques proposed for field testing.

Theme	Tools/Techniques	Reference
Sustainable Development (Week 1–3)	Scenario Planning	[17,30]
	SWOT	[39]
	Business Model Canvas (BMC)	[39]
	Tourism Model Canvas	[40]
	The Resilience Cycle: Holling Loop	[41]
	Persona	[42]
Place Identity (Week 4–6)	Self-Documentation	[25]
	5 Whys	[25]
	Value Analysis	[25]
	Brainwriting	[25]
	Storytelling	[25]
	Customer Journey Mapping	[25,32,33]
	Case Study	[43]
	Narrative	[25,44]
	Test Marketing	[26]
	Projective Technique	[45]
	Place Slogan Reflection Technique	[26]
	Framework-Based Mapping	[31]
	Content Analysis	[31]
Uncertainty (Week 7–9)	Scenario Planning	[17]
	Barbell Strategy	[17]
	VUCA Prime	[46]
	Role Play	[18]
	Weighting Score	[47]
	Uncertainty Metrix	[48]

) across different community contexts. This methodology was designed to first establish the framework’s effectiveness under optimal conditions in high-capacity communities with established CBT operations and strong organizational structures, then test its adaptability under challenging conditions in resource-constrained contexts. By implementing action research in both a high-capacity best-practice community and a trial community with limited prior CBT development experience and constrained resources such as human capacity and digital literacy, the study was able to identify critical success factors, necessary modifications, and implementation strategies required for broader framework adoption across diverse CBT contexts with varying levels of readiness and resource availability.

3.2.1. Action Research with a Best-Practice CBT Community

To test and develop the tools and techniques derived from literature and expert interviews in Phase 1, this phase began with testing in a high-capacity CBT community recognized as a best-practice case. The selected community demonstrated success through informal planning approaches and ad hoc decision-making processes. However, they lacked systematic frameworks, standardized tools, and documented methodologies that could be replicated or scaled. The goal was to examine how structured NSD tools could function alongside and enhance existing community practices under favorable conditions, and to identify which tool features were most effective for broader adaptation. The criteria for selecting a best-practice site included demonstrated success in CBT development evidenced by public recognition or awards, resilience in overcoming external uncertainty such as natural disasters, a well-established community identity rooted in local culture and assets, transparent management structures, and feasibility for data collection.

Based on these criteria, Ko Kerd, a riverside community in Ayutthaya Province, was chosen. Originally formed as a community group focusing on homestays and integrated agriculture, Ko Kerd evolved into a recognized CBT destination known for its diverse tourism products, strong leadership, and continuous innovation, earning national awards such as the Thailand Tourism “Kinnaree” Award, for its CBT excellence despite facing several challenges: managing sustainability amid leadership transition following the loss of its founding leadership; lacking systematic planning frameworks and clear directional guidance; recurrent environmental disruptions from annual flooding; the need to continuously refresh and evolve their established place identity to maintain competitive differentiation in the market; and building resilience against major external uncertainties that significantly disrupted operations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic [49].

Action research was carried out with 10 community members participating throughout the process, during which nine structured weekly workshops were organized into three thematic clusters: designing sustainability-focused services (weeks 1–3), identifying community place identity (weeks 4–6), and developing tools for managing uncertainty (weeks 7–9), as shown in Table 1. Workshops generated continuous feedback through participant observation and semi-structured interviews incorporating questions derived from Extended TAM [50,51]. These qualitative assessments explored four key dimensions: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward the NSD process, and intention to use. Insights were continuously analyzed and used to refine the NSD framework following an iterative development approach to ensure that the framework remained relevant and usable in real-world CBT contexts.

3.2.2. Action Research with a Trial CBT Community to Test Adaptability

To evaluate the framework’s broader applicability, researchers extended the field application to a CBT community with comparatively lower readiness and capacity characterized by limited organizational capacity, minimal prior CBT development experience, constrained human and financial resources, and limited technology literacy. This strategic contrast was essential for understanding how to simplify, sequence, or localize NSD tools for communities with limited resources, thereby assessing the framework’s potential for widespread adoption across diverse CBT contexts.

The selection criteria for the trial community deliberately contrasted with the best-practice site, focusing on communities that operated potential CBT activities but lacked systematic organizational structures and processes, had minimal prior experience with self-directed CBT development and management, experienced uncertainty impacts but lacked established coping mechanisms, and maintained continuous operations despite challenges. Additionally, the target community should struggle to effectively leverage its unique identity for tourism development, manage tourism independently but with limited capacity, while remaining accessible for data collection. Expert consultation with CBT specialists guided the final selection to ensure the chosen community represented typical challenges faced by emerging CBT initiatives.

Ban Phuan, located in Lopburi Province, was chosen as the trial community as it matched the desired criteria with its unequal starting capacity and lack of structured tourism development. The village is primarily led by elder female residents and is known for its traditional weaving craft, yet its involvement in formal CBT programs has remained limited in impact compared to its rich cultural and craft assets. The community faces typical challenges of emerging CBT destinations: an aging population as younger residents migrate for better opportunities, resulting in limited human capacity and reduced technology literacy for digital tools; limited educational levels among residents, constraining their ability to engage with systematic planning frameworks and documentation processes; and insufficient financial resources and tourism management knowledge for independent service development [52,53]. These demographic and capacity constraints made Ban Phuan a strategic contrast to Ko Kerd, allowing researchers to test the adaptability of the NSD process in a resource-limited context. The inclusion of this community helped assess the practicability of simplified tools and gradual implementation for underserved areas.

The same nine-week action research format was applied, involving 10 community members from Ban Phuan, mirroring the sequence used in Ko Kerd. Continuous feedback was collected through participant observation and semi-structured interviews, similarly employing Extended TAM-derived questions across the same four dimensions to enable direct comparison with Ko Kerd’s technology acceptance patterns. The objective was to evaluate whether the proposed NSD tools and process could be adapted for communities with limited capacity. The workshops enabled testing of simplified tools, modified sequences, and localized approaches necessary for broader implementation across diverse CBT contexts with varying readiness levels.

3.3. Phase 3: Validation

After the iterative development and testing of the NSD framework across two contrasting community contexts, Phase 3 focused on comprehensive validation through both quantitative measurement and expert evaluation. This phase employed a mixed-methods approach to assess the framework’s effectiveness, combining structured survey instruments to measure observable changes in community and tourist perceptions with in-depth expert interviews to evaluate the framework’s potential for broader application and commercialization.

3.3.1. Pre-Test and Post-Test Surveys

To complement the qualitative insights from action research, structured pre-test and post-test surveys were administered in the Ban Phuan community to capture measurable changes in community readiness and tourist satisfaction following the implementation of the NSD framework. The survey assessment employed a pre-test–post-test design across two participant groups to evaluate framework effectiveness from both supply-side (community) and demand-side (tourist) perspectives on the NSD framework’s effectiveness. Community members from Ban Phuan (n = 110) participated in surveys that were designed to measure changes in their capacity and confidence regarding sustainable tourism development. Given participant characteristics, the survey instrument was designed as a brief, focused measure validated by three domain experts for clarity and relevance, using carefully selected items with high face validity and 5-point Likert scales. The survey instrument, grounded in established tourism sustainability literature, assessed four key dimensions: (1) sustainable tourism and impact assessment, measuring community awareness and capability to manage tourism impacts on the local environment and society [54,55]; (2) competitiveness, evaluating perceived ability to compete effectively in the tourism market while maintaining community values [56]; (3) sustainable culture, assessing confidence in preserving and leveraging cultural assets for tourism development [57]; and (4) business sustainability, examining readiness to develop and sustain CBT designed through the framework for long-term continuity [58]. Another group, tourist participants (n = 315), was surveyed using a pre-test–post-test nonequivalent groups design to evaluate their experience and satisfaction with CBT services developed through the NSD framework. Based on customer experience and tourism satisfaction literature, the assessment focused on five dimensions: (1) overall experienced value, measuring perceived worth and quality of the tourism experience [59,60]; (2) sustainable culture, evaluating tourist appreciation for authentic cultural experiences [57]; (3) customer satisfaction, assessing overall satisfaction with services and experiences provided [61]; (4) destination brand loyalty, examining likelihood to recommend and revisit the destination [62]; and (5) sustainable business, measuring tourist perception of CBT development’s alignment with current global trends and modern tourist behavior patterns [58].

Response data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics to compare pre-test and post-test scores. Welch’s independent samples t-test was selected over the standard Student’s t-test as it does not assume equal variances between groups, providing more robust results when this assumption may be violated. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores (for community surveys) or between baseline and post-implementation groups (for tourist surveys). Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. Effect sizes and confidence intervals were not calculated as the primary objective was to demonstrate whether the implementation of the NSD framework resulted in measurable positive changes across both supply and demand sides of the CBT ecosystem, rather than to establish precise effect magnitudes [63,64].

3.3.2. Expert Validation Interviews

Following the completion of community-based testing, the original 12 experts from Phase 1 were re-engaged through comprehensive in-depth interviews to provide a critical assessment of the refined NSD framework. This expert validation phase employed the same structured interview protocol used in Phase 1, allowing for direct comparison of expert perspectives before and after framework development and testing.

Expert interviews concentrated on evaluating whether the developed NSD framework successfully addressed the challenges and limitations identified during the initial expert consultation in Phase 1. The assessment focused on three primary dimensions: First, experts evaluated the framework’s effectiveness in resolving previously identified challenges. Second, they assessed the framework’s practical applicability, examining ease of use, potential for community ownership, and adaptability across diverse contexts with varying readiness levels and resource constraints. Third, experts considered whether the framework offered meaningful improvements across the full development process compared to existing CBT development methods. In addition, they also evaluated its commercial viability using innovation design thinking principles derived from the IDEO framework [65], which extends beyond ideation to provide a comprehensive market-readiness assessment through three interdependent dimensions: desirability, examining market need and stakeholder interest in the proposed innovation; feasibility, assessing technical and practical implementation within real CBT contexts; and viability, evaluating economic sustainability and potential for long-term adoption and scalability across different community settings, collectively addressing the innovation-to-market pathway essential for successful commercialization [66].

The data collected from interview responses were systematically reviewed through expert validation to identify areas of expert consensus regarding framework strengths, limitations, and potential for broader adoption. Experts’ assessments across the three evaluation dimensions—framework effectiveness, practical applicability, and commercial viability—were synthesized to determine whether the NSD process successfully addressed Phase 1 challenges and demonstrated readiness for implementation. The analysis focused on documenting expert recommendations for framework refinement, identifying opportunities and commercialization strategies. Key findings were verified through follow-up communication with experts to ensure accurate interpretation of their perspectives. The expert validation process provided a critical independent assessment of framework effectiveness, offering insights into both immediate applicability and long-term potential for the NSD innovation in supporting sustainable CBT development across diverse community contexts.

Overall, this methodology reflects a design-based, practice-led approach that centers real-world applicability, community collaboration, and phased development as core principles in shaping innovation for sustainable tourism services.

4. Results

The results of this three-phase research demonstrate a systematic progression from identifying CBT development challenges to creating a comprehensive, field-tested NSD framework. Each phase contributed distinct insights that shaped the relationship between process steps, practical tools, and overarching project objectives. The iterative development process revealed how structured innovation can effectively bridge the gap between community assets and sustainable tourism outcomes under conditions of uncertainty.

4.1. Phase 1: Findings from Expert Interviews

The initial round of in-depth interviews with 12 experts yielded several critical insights. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data led to the identification of three comprehensive themes, each encompassing multiple subthemes (see Figure 1):

• Challenges in existing NSD process for CBT: Experts highlighted that many CBT communities either lacked a formal service development framework or relied on fragmented, reactive approaches. The most critical gaps identified were in strategic planning and place identity development, with experts consistently emphasizing that most CBT communities engaged only in short-term, project-based thinking rather than comprehensive long-term development planning, resulting in scattered and inconsistent initiatives. While various tools for place identity development existed, these resources remained fragmented, diverse, and inaccessible to resource-constrained communities, lacking a unified, community-appropriate approach. Moreover, current place identity development adopts a one-sided perspective, either prioritizing community viewpoints or visitor viewpoints, failing to achieve the balanced integration that addresses both community identity and visitor experience. Additionally, experts noted the lack of consistency in CBT practices and poor alignment with government policies, where existing CBT often failed to connect with national development directions and available support programs. These deficiencies often led to inconsistent visitor experiences and inefficient resource use, necessitating the development of a comprehensive NSD process that would begin with foundational assessment and planning phases.
• Impact of uncertainty on CBT operations: Respondents underscored the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal flooding, and tourism market volatility. These uncertainties revealed the fragility of CBT models that did not incorporate risk planning, adaptive service mechanisms, or diversified income streams. In particular, a key challenge for CBT was the rapidly shifting customer demand patterns and evolving tourist behaviors. Communities frequently reported their inability to keep pace with these dynamic changes in market preferences, which have accelerated significantly since the outbreak of COVID-19. Tourist expectations were found to shift quite often within mere months. This velocity of change far exceeds the adaptive capacity of most rural communities, which lack both the resources and expertise to conduct regular market assessments or consumer behavior analysis. Consequently, even CBT initiatives that successfully completed their initial development phases often failed to generate sustainable outcomes, as their offerings became misaligned with actual market demands by the time of implementation due to the disconnection between community capabilities and the speed of consumer behavior change.
• Integration of sustainable development: Experts identified significant barriers in Thai CBT communities’ understanding and implementation of sustainability principles. Most communities lacked a comprehensive understanding of how to integrate sustainability practices into their tourism development, often relying on traditional approaches that failed to account for long-term environmental, social, and economic impacts. The most critical challenge was the lack of technology adaptation, with communities struggling to integrate appropriate digital tools and platforms that could enhance service delivery, market reach, and operational efficiency. Additionally, communities faced difficulties in adapting to changing market demands, often failing to respond effectively to evolving tourist preferences and tourism trends. Other significant challenges included targeting incorrect customer segments due to inadequate market research, insufficient upskilling and reskilling of community members to meet modern tourism service standards, and limited capacity to scale development beyond local markets toward regional and global opportunities.

Figure 1. Thematic analysis of evolving challenges in current CBT development.

Figure 1. Thematic analysis of evolving challenges in current CBT development.

These three interconnected themes revealed fundamental gaps in current CBT development practices: the absence of structured processes, insufficient adaptive capacity under uncertainty, and limited integration of sustainability principles into existing processes. In response to these findings, the researchers revised the initial analysis and planning phases of the NSD process to be more strategic, focusing on four key areas: strengthening strategic planning capabilities to move communities beyond short-term thinking, developing systematic approaches to place identity that enable authentic CBT activities aligned with both market demand and community assets, ensuring CBT communities can understand and adapt to evolving market demands in a timely manner, and integrating technology solutions to compensate for resource limitations and knowledge gaps. This led to the revision of the existing NSD process used in Thai CBT, with key additions including explicit stages for strategic planning, place identity development, target customer definition, and technology adaptation. This enhanced framework established a more robust foundation for field testing in Phases 2 and 3.

4.2. Phase 2: Results from Action Research

4.2.1. Results from Action Research in Ko Kerd Community

Nine structured weekly workshops were conducted with 10 community members, organized into three thematic clusters: designing sustainability-focused services (weeks 1–3), identifying community place identity (weeks 4–6), and developing tools for managing uncertainty (weeks 7–9). The community engaged actively with the initial 14-step NSD process, providing feedback that informed ongoing refinements. The process encouraged the community to state its unique place identity, conduct a realistic inventory of local resources, and define clear strategic objectives for CBT development.

Key outcomes included the following:

• Strategic planning tool adoption and capacity gaps: Community members successfully engaged with multiple strategic planning tools, including vision-setting frameworks, resource mapping exercises, and the Resilience Cycle Holling Loop. The Holling Loop was particularly well-received, enabling the community to identify their current development phase—Growth, Equilibrium, Creative Destruction, or Renewal—and align priorities accordingly, with clear guidance on resource optimization for each stage [41]. However, the process revealed significant capacity gaps: participants tended to wait for external funding rather than developing self-sustaining business models, reflecting limited experience with business planning perspectives. Additionally, when working with standard strategic planning tools that divided goals into multiple timeframes (short-term, medium-term, and long-term) [30], participants struggled to differentiate between these timeframes, often conflating medium and long-term planning. Communities expressed stronger interest in understanding relevant government policies to align CBT directions, enabling easier access to available support systems.
• Market-aligned strategy through customer persona development: The community adapted generic persona frameworks into a tourism-specific version [67,68] that examined visitor motivations, travel behaviors, and spending patterns. This process yielded two distinct target segments: existing clients characterized as urban eco-travelers seeking authentic agricultural experiences, and a new desired audience of young cultural learners interested in traditional knowledge exchange. Using another approach, participants analyzed existing visitor reviews and travel content for a deeper understanding. However, this approach provided limited new insights as most content reflected information originally provided by the community itself or mirrored their own promotional messaging. Participants particularly valued the specificity of tourism-focused personas, noting that abstract concepts like sustainable tourism became more actionable when translated into detailed profiles with specific motivations and behavioral patterns.
• Defining place identity through case study exploration: The community explored various place identity tools, initially producing ideas that closely resembled their existing activity offerings. Through a separate identity-mapping approach, community members identified both tangible assets (riverside location, organic farming, traditional architecture) and intangible qualities (local language, rituals, festivals) as integrated identity elements [69]. The breakthrough came when participants engaged with physical case study cards from recognized sources like UNWTO Best Tourism Villages [70,71], showcasing diverse and previously unfamiliar successful CBT initiatives with similar community characteristics. This exposure enabled the community to discover alternative development pathways they had not previously considered, most notably inspiring the reconceptualization of their annual flooding challenge as a potential distinctive experiential feature, transforming a perceived operational constraint into a unique selling point. AI-generated images were used to support this ideation process by helping community members visualize unfamiliar concepts and potential developments, bridging abstract planning discussions with concrete visual representations that facilitated shared understanding across participants with varying educational backgrounds.
• Weighted-scoring matrix for systematic idea prioritization: The community generated multiple development ideas and narrowed them down to three top ideas. To select the most appropriate direction, participants employed a weighted-scoring matrix evaluating five dimensions: the four pillars of sustainability (Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental) plus Management capacity [55,72,73]. The matrix helped communities identify hidden trade-offs and ensured sustainability was designed-in, not added-on, preventing overemphasis on short-term economic goals. Critically, the community determined their own priority weightings for each sustainability dimension based on their unique context and aspirations. For instance, communities rich in cultural resources might assign higher weights to the Cultural dimension, while others might prioritize Environmental considerations or distribute weights equally across all four pillars. The Management dimension remained unweighted as a universal requirement across all communities. This customized assessment approach enabled the community to systematically evaluate their three top ideas and select one aligned with both their sustainability priorities and operational capabilities. The community assigned the following weights: Economy 40%, Social 20%, Cultural 15%, and Environmental 25%. Through this assessment, the winning idea emerged as an integrated community tourism route connecting existing diverse activities into station-based experiences. This concept scored highest due to strong performance in Social criteria (equitable benefit distribution across all community members) and Management feasibility (high confidence in implementation capability). Notably, the idea of seasonal flooding tourism experience, which had generated significant excitement during brainstorming, scored lowest, as scores revealed uncertainty about their capacity to manage and operationalize this innovative but challenging concept.
• Technology acceptance patterns revealing adoption factors: Ko Kerd participants demonstrated varied ease-of-use perceptions. Familiar frameworks led to rapid engagement, while some novel instruments like the Tourism Model Canvas [40] and scenario planning [30] initially posed challenges, with participants noting that they appeared “too theoretical”. However, participants found these new tools “interesting compared to informal discussions which we used normally”. Iterative simplification of frameworks throughout the engagement improved accessibility across the community’s diverse educational backgrounds. Perceived usefulness was strongly endorsed, with participants highlighting time savings, novel ideation, comprehensive planning coverage, and deeper understanding of their target customers. Attitudes evolved from initial hesitation around academic complexity toward active engagement as tools were simplified. Behavioral intention to continue using tools was evident, with participants expressing interest in studying tourist analysis further and exploring ways to integrate technology into their planning processes. Overall, the community expressed satisfaction with the outcomes achieved within the nine-week workshop timeframe.

By the end of the field engagement, the 14-step process remained intact but underwent internal structural reordering and refinement. Key adjustments included repositioning Place Identity after Define Target Customer, aligning with the practice of using market insights as a foundation for service design, the removal of Stakeholder Analysis as a standalone step as it was integrated into the strategy phase, and the relocation of Technology Adaptation to follow Idea Generation, reflecting its greater utility as a tool for refining rather than initiating concepts. Additionally, two new steps, Resource Analysis and Resource Planning, were incorporated to strengthen understanding and strategic use of local assets. Tools were also refined through localized adjustments (

Table 2. Tools and techniques applied across development phases.

Step	Phase 1 (Literature and Interview)	Phase 2 Ko Kerd (Week 1–9)	Phase 2 Ban Phuan (Week 1–9)
Discovery Phase
1. Objectives and Strategy	Scenario Planning SWOT BMC Tourism Model Canvas Holling Loop	○ Scenario Planning ○ SWOT ○ BMC ○ Tourism Model Canvas ● Holling Loop	○ Scenario Planning ○ SWOT ○ BMC ○ Tourism Model Canvas ● Holling Loop (Visual)
2. Resource Analysis	-	△ Group Discussion	● Visual Mapping (with Holling Loop)
3. Define Target Customer	Generic Persona	△ Generic Persona ● Tourism Persona	○ Generic Persona ● Tourism Persona + AI
4. Place Identity	Storytelling Case Study (Card) Narrative Test Marketing Projective Technique Place Slogan Reflection Technique Framework-Based Mapping Content Analysis	○ Storytelling ● Case Study Physical Cards ● Narrative ○ Test Marketing ○ Projective Technique ○ Place Slogan Reflection Technique △ Framework-Based Mapping ○ Content Analysis	○ Storytelling △ Case Study Physical Cards ● Digital Cases + AI ○ Narrative ○ Test Marketing ○ Projective Technique ○ Place Slogan Reflection Technique ○ Framework-Based Mapping ● Content Analysis + AI
Design Phase
5. Idea Generation	Self-Documentation 5 Whys Value Analysis Brainwriting Storytelling Customer Journey Mapping Case Study (Card) Roleplay Content Analysis	○ Self-Documentation ○ 5 Whys ○ Value Analysis ○ Brainwriting ○ Storytelling ○ Customer Journey Mapping ● Case Study Physical Cards ○ Roleplay ○ Content Analysis	○ Self-Documentation ○ 5 Whys ○ Value Analysis ○ Brainwriting ○ Storytelling ● Customer Journey Mapping + AI △ Case Study Physical Cards ● Digital Cases + AI ○ Roleplay ● Content Analysis + AI
6. Customer Analysis	-	○ Content Analysis	● Content Analysis + AI
7. Technology Adaptation	-	● Digital Cases + AI (Visualization)	● Digital Cases + AI (Visualization)
Evaluation Phase
8. Idea Screening	Scenario Planning Barbell Strategy VUCA Prime Role Play Weighting Score Uncertainty Metrix	△ Scenario Planning ○ Barbell Strategy ○ VUCA Prime ○ Role Play ● Weighting Score ● Uncertainty Metrix	○ Scenario Planning △ Barbell Strategy ○ VUCA Prime ○ Role Play ● Weighting Score ● Uncertainty Metrix
9. Resource Planning	-	△ Group Discussion	△ Group Discussion
10. Concept Testing	-	△ Group Discussion	△ Role Play △ Service Blueprint
11. Feasibility Analysis	Group Discussion	○ Group Discussion	○ Group Discussion
Development Phase
12. Development	Group Discussion	● Group Discussion	● Group Discussion
13. Service Testing and Pilot Run	-	-	△ Role Play ● Service Blueprint + AI
14. Market Testing	-	△ Group Discussion	△ Content Analysis
Launch Phase
15. Commercialization	Group Discussion	● Group Discussion	● Group Discussion
16. Post-Launch Review	-	-	● Group Discussion

Legend: ● high effectiveness, △ moderate effectiveness, ○ low effectiveness.

). For example, tool selection was refined based on participant preferences, with frameworks like the Holling Loop proving more effective than traditional approaches, and standard persona frameworks were adapted into tourism-specific versions. These refinements laid the groundwork for the third phase of testing in a less-prepared community context.

4.2.2. Results from Action Research in Ban Phuan Community

In contrast to Ko Kerd, the Ban Phuan community represented a community operating under structural constraints such as limited digital literacy and resource availability. Despite this, the nine-week workshop sequence was successfully implemented, offering valuable lessons in adaptability, accessibility, and community learning behavior.

Key outcomes included the following:

• Strategic planning visualization through icon-based simplification: Among the strategic planning tools introduced, Ban Phuan community members responded most positively to the Resilience Cycle Holling Loop, similar to Ko Kerd. The Holling Loop’s development stage selection mechanism enabled them to identify their community’s current phase and receive phase-specific, actionable guidance aligned with their circumstances. Implementation required substantial adaptation from text-heavy to highly visual formats. For instance, policy alignment discussions, which Ko Kerd members could navigate through written descriptions, necessitated icon-based representations in Ban Phuan. Relevant national and global policies, such as government support for gastronomy tourism and cultural heritage preservation initiatives, were visualized through simple icons, enabling participants to grasp policy landscapes without dense textual content. This visual translation proved essential for facilitating clear communication and comprehension across participants with varying literacy levels, ensuring all community members could actively engage throughout the process.
• Market intelligence through AI-enhanced tools: Community members engaged with market demand analysis through tourism-specific persona frameworks similar to Ko Kerd. However, Ban Phuan participants lacked the capacity to independently fill in personas with detailed market data. To address this limitation, AI tools were employed to generate persona profiles by generation, providing foundational information on typical characteristics, including occupations, preferred activities, spending patterns, and social media platform usage, across different age groups. Additionally, AI-powered social listening tools extracted tourism trend insights from curated content [31] of ten popular Thai travel influencers (Appendix A) representing diverse styles and platforms. These approaches proved essential for small communities lacking resources and capabilities for comprehensive market research.
• Place identity development through expanded digital case study collection: Whereas Ko Kerd successfully utilized physical case study cards with brief information, Ban Phuan’s lower baseline understanding required substantially more contextual detail and visual support. The case study tool was, therefore, transitioned to a digital format. Each case study provided expanded information, including detailed background on community development, multiple photographs for visual context, implementation strategies, explicit explanations of how place identity was leveraged, and customer journey mapping examples from actual operations [32]. This digital expansion enabled community members to deeply examine how communities with similar characteristics had successfully developed tourism offerings, providing concrete reference points that physical cards could not accommodate. The enhanced format proved particularly valuable for helping participants envision practical implementation pathways, especially for a community with limited independent development experience, having relied primarily on external facilitators for past developments.
• Weighted-scoring matrix adapted to community-specific priorities: After ideation, the community shortlisted three concepts for prioritization assessment using the same weighted-scoring matrix. Ban Phuan set their own priorities and assigned the following weights: Economy 40%, Social 10%, Cultural 20%, and Environmental 30%. The relatively high Environmental weighting (30%) reflected the community’s intention to both prioritize and preserve this dimension, recognizing that while their cultural assets were already strong, environmental sustainability deserved greater attention. Through this assessment, the winning idea emerged as online sales of tie-dyed silk with customizable options. This concept scored highest as it directly addressed a critical constraint in which the community sold tie-dyed silk only at their physical shop, remotely located and difficult for customers to access. This winning idea created new market reach while leveraging existing weaving expertise, generating additional revenue streams while minimizing environmental impact from visitor traffic and allowing better preservation of the local environment. Notably, the idea of constructing a new landmark archway scored lowest, as scores revealed weak performance in Economic criteria (requiring external contractors rather than utilizing community resources or creating internal employment) and Management feasibility, since most community members were female and had low confidence in their capacity to oversee such infrastructure development.
• Technology acceptance trajectory toward independent development: Initially, perceived ease of use, as well as perceived usefulness, was very low among Ban Phuan’s elderly members, who expressed uncertainty (“never had tools before, worth trying”, “not sure if the team is ready… we tried before but couldn’t do it”). However, adaptations emphasizing visual interfaces and applying technology improved both dimensions. Participants recognized how digital tools could enable previously externally-dependent activities. Attitudes shifted from hesitant uncertainty toward cautious engagement as visual approaches proved more accessible. They commented the adapted framework was quite useful (“normally, we would need other people to do for us, either universities or public offices”). Unlike Ko Kerd’s autonomous adoption, Ban Phuan’s sustained use intentions showed promising development, with participants expressing willingness to continue if given more time and practice, which was considered a sign that resource-constrained contexts could move toward greater self-independence.

Field testing in this lower-capacity context prompted framework expansion to the 16-step configuration through two critical additions: (1) dedicated Customer Analysis following Idea Generation, employing AI-supported social listening to deepen understanding of service-user expectations; and (2) Service Testing and Pilot Run utilizing Service Blueprint tools to visualize operational flow and resource requirements for the winning idea from the weighted-scoring matrix. Participants demonstrated strong adaptive learning once visual tools were introduced, indicating that barriers were tool-based, not capability-based. These refinements, combined with successful tool adaptation across dramatically different capacity levels, confirmed the framework’s potential for widespread replication when appropriately facilitated.

4.3. Phase 3: Results from Validation

4.3.1. Results from Action Research in Ko Kerd and Ban Phuan Communities

To complement qualitative insights from action research, structured surveys administered at Ban Phuan before and after framework implementation captured measurable changes across both supply-side (community) and demand-side (tourists) perspectives, providing empirical evidence of the framework’s impact on CBT development outcomes.

Community capacity assessment (n = 110). Surveys administered to Ban Phuan community members before the nine-week workshop series and immediately after completion measured changes across four dimensions grounded in tourism sustainability literature (

Table 3. Community capacity changes following the NSD framework implementation (n = 110).

Dimension	Pre-Test (SD)	Post-Test (SD)	Change	t	p
Sustainable Tourism and Impact Assessment	3.93 (0.53)	4.36 (0.65)	+0.43	−7.96	<0.001
Competitiveness	3.86 (0.57)	4.50 (0.59)	+0.64	−11.40	<0.001
Sustainable Culture	4.02 (0.47)	4.58 (0.51)	+0.56	−8.52	<0.001
Sustainable Business	4.01 (0.51)	4.51 (0.54)	+0.50	−8.99	<0.001

All items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Values in parentheses represent standard deviation (SD). Null hypothesis tested: no significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores. Welch’s t-test used; all differences significant at p < 0.001.

). Results showed improvements across all assessed areas. Sustainable tourism and impact assessment capacity, measuring awareness and capability to manage tourism impacts on the local environment and society, increased from the pre-test (M = 3.93, SD = 0.53) to the post-test (M = 4.36, SD = 0.65), a mean gain of 0.43 points. Perceived competitiveness in the tourism market improved from the pre-test (M = 3.86, SD = 0.57) to the post-test (M = 4.50, SD = 0.59), an increase of 0.64 points. Cultural sustainability confidence, assessing perceived capability to preserve and leverage cultural assets for tourism development, rose from the pre-test (M = 4.02, SD = 0.47) to the post-test (M = 4.58, SD = 0.51), up by 0.56 points. Business sustainability readiness, measuring confidence in developing and sustaining tourism initiatives in the long term, similarly increased from the pre-test (M = 4.01, SD = 0.51) to the post-test (M = 4.51, SD = 0.54), a gain of 0.50 points. All changes were statistically significant (p < 0.001, Welch’s t-test), suggesting that improvements in community capacity were associated with the NSD framework implementation.

For the tourist side’s assessment (n = 315), a pre-test–post-test nonequivalent groups design was employed, comparing visitor experiences before framework implementation (baseline group) with experiences following framework-informed service redesign (

Table 4. Visitor experience changes following the NSD framework implementation (n = 315).

Dimension	Pre-Test (SD)	Post-Test (SD)	Change	t	p
Overall Experienced Value	3.51 (1.20)	4.05 (0.64)	+0.54	−8.38	<0.001
Sustainable Culture	3.55 (1.21)	4.01 (0.46)	+0.46	−6.26	<0.001
Customer Satisfaction	3.61 (1.16)	4.03 (0.55)	+0.42	−6.33	<0.001
Brand Loyalty	3.60 (1.19)	4.03 (0.57)	+0.43	−6.18	<0.001
Sustainable Business	3.51 (1.19)	4.01 (0.63)	+0.50	−7.60	<0.001

All items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Values in parentheses represent standard deviation (SD). Null hypothesis tested: no significant difference between baseline and post-implementation groups. Welch’s t-test used; all differences significant at p < 0.001.

). Post-implementation scores exceeded baseline across all dimensions. Overall experienced value, measuring perceived worth and quality of the tourism experience, increased substantially (baseline M = 3.51, SD = 1.20; post-implementation M = 4.05, SD = 0.64). Sustainable culture, evaluating tourist appreciation for authentic cultural experiences, improved markedly (baseline M = 3.55, SD = 1.21; post-implementation M = 4.01, SD = 0.46). Customer satisfaction rose (baseline M = 3.61, SD = 1.16; post-implementation M = 4.03, SD = 0.55), as did destination brand loyalty indicators, including likelihood to recommend and revisit (baseline M = 3.60, SD = 1.19; post-implementation M = 4.03, SD = 0.57). Perceptions of sustainable business alignment—tourist assessment of CBT development’s consistency with global trends and modern travel preferences—also increased (baseline M = 3.51, SD = 1.19; post-implementation M = 4.01, SD = 0.63). All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001, Welch’s t-test), suggesting positive changes in visitor perceptions following the intervention.

The quantitative results indicate statistically significant improvements in both community capacity and visitor experience following framework implementation, suggesting the framework’s potential for bridging supply-side and demand-side considerations within CBT development.

4.3.2. Results from Expert Validation Interviews

The final validation phase assessed the refined NSD process’s effectiveness and potential for broader adoption. Twelve experts who participated in the initial interviews from Phase 1 were re-engaged to review the updated 16-step process, now grounded in field data from two contrasting community contexts.

Key insights from this phase include the following:

• Validation of resilience-based strategic planning as critical innovation: The Resilience Cycle Holling Loop received strong expert endorsement for introducing adaptive planning mechanisms that adjust to community development phases. Experts highlighted its value in helping communities identify their current phase and align priorities accordingly, preventing mismatched strategies such as pursuing expansion when consolidation is needed. This innovation addresses multiple Phase 1 challenges: short-term project-based thinking through systematic long-term planning; uncertainty management via resource allocation; policy alignment by guiding communities toward relevant support; and sustainable development through human skill set and resource planning that prepares communities for larger markets. The tool’s ability to shift communities from reactive responses to proactive, phase-appropriate planning was recognized as addressing fundamental gaps in existing CBT approaches.
• Recognition of market intelligence integration as a demand–supply bridge: The systematic integration of market demand understanding through personas, influencer content analysis, and AI-supported social listening received validation as addressing the critical disconnect between community capabilities and tourist expectations. Experts emphasized that accessible tools for understanding visitor preferences had been absent from CBT approaches, forcing communities to rely on intuition or expensive research. This tackles Phase 1 challenges where communities could not keep pace with rapidly shifting customer demands. The technology-enabled yet facilitator-mediated approach was praised as pragmatic, addressing sustainable development through technology adaptation that enables correct customer targeting, enhanced market reach, and evidence-informed decision-making aligned with actual demands.
• Place identity framework validated through comprehensive case study library: Experts strongly endorsed the digital case study database, particularly its AI-powered features, including automated extraction of implementation details and intelligent filtering by community characteristics to discover relevant examples. The library enables communities to discover relevant precedents and mix elements from multiple successful examples rather than wholesale replication, fostering authentic identity development. This resolves Phase 1 challenges where place identity tools remained fragmented and inaccessible, while addressing one-sided perspectives by showing how similar destinations balance authenticity with market expectations. The framework enhances competitiveness through similar successful examples, previously unavailable to small communities, supporting sustainable development by preparing them to scale beyond local markets toward regional and global opportunities.
• Context-specific sustainability scoring validated: Experts affirmed the weighted scoring matrix as departing from one-size-fits-all frameworks, recognizing that enabling communities to assign customized weights to sustainability dimensions based on their unique values empowers genuine local ownership rather than mechanical compliance. This addresses Phase 1 concerns about limited understanding of sustainability integration by letting communities define what sustainability means in their context. The customization mechanism supports sustainable development while reducing dependency on external facilitators, as communities develop internalized capability to evaluate options independently, building toward self-sustaining improvement beyond initial facilitation.
• Expert assessment of framework viability using IDEO criteria: Beyond addressing Phase 1 challenges, experts evaluated the framework’s potential for broader adoption using IDEO’s three-dimensional assessment. For desirability, experts confirmed strong market need, noting that fragmented CBT development practices created genuine demand for standardized yet adaptable processes. Regarding feasibility, experts affirmed the framework’s technical and practical implementability, observing that field testing across contrasting community capacities demonstrated successful adaptation through visual tools, facilitated implementation, and progressive simplification, proving the framework could function effectively in real CBT contexts despite resource constraints. On viability, experts recognized economic sustainability potential, highlighting that reduced dependency on external consultants, faster service development cycles, and improved market alignment could generate sufficient value to justify implementation costs, while the standardized process remained consistent with flexible content customization based on available resources. Several experts noted the framework’s potential for digital transformation into an interactive platform that could enhance accessibility and scalability, supporting broader adoption across Thailand’s CBT sector.

Overall, expert validation confirmed the framework’s success in addressing critical gaps identified in Phase 1, providing the standardized, adaptable process that Thailand’s fragmented CBT sector has lacked, enabling resilience under uncertainty through stage-responsive tools, and offering a replicable model validated across diverse community contexts, while revealing clear pathways for future enhancement through digital transformation and financial integration. Figure 2 presents a comprehensive overview of the NSD process refinement from the initial literature review to its final form after iterative phases. Figure 3 depicts the final 16-step NSD process organized into five phases with associated tools and techniques.

The developed NSD framework operationalizes these solutions through a comprehensive five-phase, 16-step process that systematically guides communities from initial strategic foundation through sustainable implementation and continuous improvement.

Phase 1: Discovery (Steps 1–4) establishes the strategic and contextual foundation for CBT development. This phase begins with Objectives and Strategy setting utilizing the Resilience Cycle Holling Loop, enabling communities to identify their current development phase and align priorities accordingly. Resource Analysis follows through structured group discussions, inventorying available community assets across human capabilities, physical infrastructure, financial resources, and knowledge repositories. Define Target Customer employs persona development tools and content analysis to create specific, actionable profiles of priority visitor segments, moving beyond abstract concepts with more sustainable tourists toward detailed characterizations, including demographics, motivations, and behavioral patterns. Place Identity concludes the Discovery phase through case study exploration and focus group discussions, enabling communities to state both tangible assets and intangible qualities as integrated identity elements while examining how communities with similar characteristics have successfully positioned themselves.

Phase 2: Design (Steps 5–7) transitions from foundation-setting to concrete service ideation and refinement. Idea Generation employs facilitated group discussions, customer journey mapping, and AI-generated mock-up visualization to stimulate creative thinking about potential tourism offerings. Customer Analysis deepens understanding of service-user expectations through content analysis of travel influencer posts and social media insights, introducing market validation thinking at a crucial decision point. Technology Adaptation, positioned strategically after initial ideation, evaluates how digital tools and platforms might enhance, refine, or enable proposed service concepts.

Phase 3: Evaluation (Steps 8–11) applies systematic screening and feasibility assessment to prioritize viable concepts. Idea Screening employs the Weighted Scoring, enabling communities to customize evaluation criteria across sustainability dimensions—economic, social, cultural, environmental—based on their unique values and constraints. This context-specific prioritization ensures selected innovations authentically reflect community priorities rather than externally imposed standards. Ideas are then sequenced based on implementation readiness and risk profiles. Resource Planning translates selected concepts into realistic implementation roadmaps, while Concept Testing utilizes Service Blueprint tools to visualize operational flow, touchpoints, and resource requirements before substantial investment.

Phase 4: Development (Steps 12–14) executes service creation and conducts pilot testing through roleplay simulations and limited audience trials, validating operational feasibility and resolving implementation challenges before full-scale launch. Market Testing gathers feedback to ensure developed services align with actual market expectations.

Phase 5: Launch (Steps 15–16) manages formal market entry while establishing a customer feedback collection system, as it is a practice often absent in traditional CBT, enabling continuous refinement based on visitor experiences and evolving market conditions. This final phase recognizes CBT development as an ongoing adaptive process moving forward to sustainability.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This research addresses Thailand’s critical gap in standardized CBT service development under uncertainty. Through co-creation with experts and testing across two contrasting communities, the study developed a comprehensive NSD process integrating resilience-based planning, place identity development, market intelligence, and context-specific sustainability assessment. Validated through methodological triangulation, the framework demonstrates adaptability across diverse community capacities, offering a replicable model for sustainable tourism development in volatile environments. Field testing revealed critical gaps between literature assumptions and CBT realities. While standardized NSD frameworks [19,20] provide structure, communities lack long-term planning capacity and unified tools for CBT development. Adaptive capacity proved more constrained than the literature anticipates [5,7] since communities are unable to respond to uncertainty or accelerated post-COVID tourist preference shifts evolving within months rather than years. Beyond resource constraints emphasized in the sustainability literature, communities demonstrated varied literacy levels requiring explicit technology and service design skill development while lacking systematic market assessment methods to identify authentic customers beyond momentary visitors. Regarding transferability to fundamentally different contexts, the framework’s applicability rests on three core assumptions: (1) a collaborative governance structure where facilitators prioritize community agency over top-down mandates; (2) a learning-oriented mindset within the community; and (3) the presence of intermediary facilitators capable of bridging service design concepts with local practicalities. With these preconditions in place, the framework provides a flexible architecture adaptable to diverse socio-cultural dynamics beyond the Thai context.

Comparison with existing literature reveals both validations and differences from established service development theory. Traditional NSD frameworks assume stable operating environments, resource-rich contexts, and technical competence for sophisticated tools. Field testing revealed significantly different realities: CBT communities operate under persistent volatility, possess limited resources, demonstrate constrained digital literacy, and require technology-supported approaches rather than independent adoption. These conditions necessitated fundamental adaptations, including visual rather than text-heavy tools and context-specific rather than universal evaluation criteria. Similarly, while design thinking principles suit CBT’s human-centered service delivery, their application required substantial modification. Communities with limited tourism exposure struggled with unstructured ideation, requiring extensive visual aids and concrete examples. Communities needed structured skill-building support rather than informal, unplanned learning. Digital tools functioned effectively only through automated, AI-assisted processes that communities could then customize and apply rather than independent adoption. Importantly, AI serves primarily as a communication tool to visualize ideas and smooth the development process, not as a decision-maker, in which communities retain full authority over final choices. These adaptations demonstrate that effective frameworks for resource-constrained contexts must embrace capacity limitations, treat uncertainty as a constant rather than a temporary threat, and combine local assets with market perspectives.

This structured yet flexible process represents a significant departure from existing CBT development approaches through four core contributions that directly address the key challenge domains identified at the outset. First, resilience-based strategic planning enables communities to align priorities with their current development phase. Unlike traditional planning approaches that apply uniform strategies regardless of organizational maturity, this tool enables communities to recognize whether they are in expansion, consolidation, disruption, or renewal phases and align interventions accordingly. This approach addresses the uncertainty challenge by replacing reactive crisis responses with proactive, phase-appropriate adaptation, building organizational resilience through self-awareness and strategic alignment.

Second, the Place Identity development resolves the challenge of bridging community authenticity with market relevance through an AI-powered case study library. By enabling communities to discover and adapt elements from successful examples rather than operating in isolation or attempting wholesale replication, this approach prevents the common pitfall where communities develop either overly insular identities that fail to attract visitors or superficial market-driven positioning lacking cultural foundations.

Third, systematic Market Intelligence Integration woven throughout the development process addresses the critical disconnect between community capabilities and tourist expectations. Through accessible tools, including persona development and social media insights, communities gain evidence-informed understanding of visitor preferences without requiring expensive market research. This transforms CBT planning from intuition-based guesswork toward data-informed decision-making, enabling resource-constrained communities to respond to rapidly shifting tourist preferences that previously exceeded their adaptive capacity.

Fourth, the Weighted Sustainability Scoring Matrix empowers context-specific prioritization by enabling communities to assign customized weights to sustainability dimensions based on their unique values, challenges, and development goals. This innovation fundamentally challenges the one-size-fits-all evaluation frameworks that dominate CBT assessment, recognizing that sustainability priorities vary significantly across communities and that identical service ideas should receive different prioritization in different contexts. The weighted scoring reflects development priorities rather than value hierarchies. Building on self-assessment conducted through earlier NSD steps under the Discovery phase—particularly Objectives and Strategies, Resource Analysis, and Place Identity development—communities identify which dimensions are already mature versus requiring further development. For instance, Ban Phuan assigned lower weight to cultural sustainability not from disregard, but because this dimension is already their strongest, most mature asset; they instead prioritized dimensions they perceived as gaps needing attention. This mechanism ensures communities strategically address underdeveloped areas rather than neglecting any sustainability dimension. By empowering communities to define their own evaluation criteria, the framework fosters genuine local ownership rather than applying generic standards without consideration of local context. These four contributions function not as isolated tools but as an integrated system addressing interconnected challenges. This systemic integration demonstrates that effective CBT development under uncertainty requires not merely better tools but fundamentally different process logic that embraces rather than resists volatility, respects rather than overrides local context, and synthesizes authentic inputs from communities.

In conclusion, the NSD process developed through this research represents both a strategic and systemic innovation for sustainable CBT development. It transforms how communities think about, design, and deliver tourism experiences, which are anchored in identity, driven by data, and resilient in the face of rapid changes from uncertainty. Ultimately, by fortifying the capacity of local communities as the very foundation of society, this research fosters inclusive growth, impartial value creation, and long-term national-level competitiveness in rapidly evolving tourism economies for the future.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study contributes a novel and practical NSD process for CBT under uncertainty, it is not without limitations. First, the research was conducted in two Thai communities with distinct but culturally and geographically localized characteristics. Although the contrasting readiness levels between Ko Kerd and Ban Phuan offer meaningful variation, the generalizability of findings to other national contexts, particularly those with differing governance structures, tourism infrastructure, or socio-political dynamics, requires further validation.

Second, the process of digital integration was explored only conceptually. While experts and researchers discussed the potential of automation and platform-based implementation, the tools were tested solely in facilitated in-person workshops. Thus, questions remain regarding the extent to which communities could independently engage with the NSD process in a fully digital, self-service format. Future research should examine issues of digital literacy, access to technology, and the design of user-friendly digital interfaces to support autonomous use.

Third, the study emphasized service planning and innovation while deliberately separating process design from financial feasibility, cost-benefit analysis, and business modeling. While commercial viability was flagged by experts as essential for long-term sustainability, these dimensions were intentionally reserved for subsequent research phases to maintain focus on foundational community capacity-building and sustainability value alignment under uncertainty. This prioritization reflects the premise that strengthening communities’ ability to design and develop services establishes a sustainable foundation—once these capabilities are developed, communities are better positioned to engage with business planning and financial analysis effectively. Future iterations of the NSD process would benefit from integrating cost-benefit analysis frameworks, economic forecasting, funding strategies, and scalability mechanisms into the development pathway to bridge the gap between service design and commercial resilience.

Fourth, community surveys were conducted immediately after the workshop series’ completion. While this timing was essential to capture participants’ fresh experiences, it may introduce potential social desirability bias or Hawthorne effects, where participants report positive outcomes due to close engagement with researchers [74,75]. To mitigate this, the study utilized anonymous surveys and cross-validated the results with outputs produced during the sessions. Nevertheless, future longitudinal research is recommended to incorporate follow-up assessments, evaluating the long-term effectiveness and adaptability of the framework within the community context.

Finally, the process still requires skilled facilitation. Facilitators—not only skilled community leaders but also government officers, NGO staff, academics, or private sector developers—could implement this framework in partnership with communities. Facilitators play a key role in guiding appropriate use of AI-assisted tools, reminding communities to apply critical judgment rather than relying uncritically on AI outputs, ensuring the overall process remains community-centered, and overseeing the smooth implementation of the NSD framework as a whole. Ultimately, facilitators serve to strengthen communities’ voices rather than replace them; empowerment—not dependency—remains the framework’s highest aim. Despite efforts to simplify tools and promote visual and narrative-based approaches for inclusivity, certain stages of the NSD process, such as service blueprinting, scenario analysis, and customer segmentation, remain challenging for communities to navigate independently. This implies a continued need for capacity-building and facilitator training, especially in underserved or low-capacity areas. Future research could examine pedagogical approaches and training curricula that enable communities to progressively internalize framework capabilities and reduce facilitation dependency over time.

Taken together, these limitations do not undermine the significance of the study but rather point to rich avenues for future exploration. As the process is adapted for new geographies, digitized for scale, and expanded to include financial and operational modeling, its potential for transformative impact can be more fully realized. The framework’s validated structure offers tangible benefits across multiple scales. The framework enables CBT communities to develop sustainable tourism services independently or in partnership with external facilitators where knowledgeable personnel are lacking, substantially reducing the resources, costs, and time typically required. This strength of the local community contributes nationally, with more diversified tourism offerings and improved competitiveness in rapidly evolving tourism markets leading to enhance overall quality of life. With a strong local-level foundation, broader and higher socioeconomic development can be achieved conveniently. The framework’s inherent flexibility, validated across contrasting community capacities, positions it for progressive geographic adaptation. While immediate application focuses on Thai contexts, the underlying logic and tools are adaptable to similar developing settings across Southeast Asia and, with further refinement, to any CBT destination worldwide where communities possess rich cultural and natural resources but lack systematic approaches to translate these assets into viable, market-aligned tourism services. By providing communities with the structured yet flexible tools to navigate uncertainty, preserve authenticity, and respond to market dynamics, this research contributes to a future where CBT realizes its full potential to advance inclusive, sustainable development—fortifying local communities as the very foundation of resilient societies in an era of persistent global change.