Promoting Sustainable Development through Community-Based Tourism: A Case Study of an Ethnic Community in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Community-based tourism (CBT) is widely recognized as an approach to sustainable development in rural and ethnic communities by creating local economic opportunities while supporting cultural preservation and environmental stewardship. However, CBT outcomes vary across communities, suggesting that success depends not only on community participation but also on how internal resources are mobilized and coordinated. Although previous studies have emphasized human and social capital, limited empirical research has examined how multiple forms of intellectual capital interact with community management mechanisms. Drawing on intellectual capital and dynamic capabilities perspectives, this study investigates the effects of human capital, social capital, and organizational capital on CBT and examines the moderating role of integrating capability in a Pwo Karen community in Uthai Thani Province, Thailand.

Methods: A mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected through structured questionnaires from 88 community members. The questionnaire measured human capital, social capital, organizational capital, integrating capability, and CBT using Likert-scale items. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis with bias-corrected bootstrapping (5,000 resamples) was used to test the proposed relationships. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured group interviews with ten key stakeholders, including community leaders, local guides, and government officers. The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis to contextualize and explain the quantitative findings.
Results: Human capital, social capital, and organizational capital had significant positive effects on CBT. The direct-effects model explained 57.7% of the variance in CBT (adjusted R² = .562). Human capital contributed through local knowledge, skills, and problem-solving capacity, while social capital supported trust, reciprocity, and collective action. Organizational capital contributed through governance structures, shared routines, and planning mechanisms. After adding the interaction terms, the explained variance increased to 67.1% (adjusted R² = .647). Integrating capability positively moderated the relationship between social capital and CBT, indicating that coordination helps translate trust and community networks into effective collective practices. In contrast, integrating capability negatively moderated the relationship between human capital and CBT. Qualitative findings suggest that excessive formalization and coordination may constrain individual initiative, flexibility, and the adaptive use of indigenous knowledge. No significant moderating effect was found for organizational capital.
Application of This Study: The findings provide practical guidance for policymakers, local authorities, and community leaders in designing CBT governance mechanisms. Capacity-building should strengthen individual competencies, community networks, and organizational structures while avoiding excessive formalization. Context-sensitive coordination can facilitate collective action while preserving local autonomy, flexibility, and indigenous knowledge.
Conclusions: This study extends CBT research by demonstrating that integrating capability has differentiated effects on intellectual capital. While it strengthens the contribution of social capital, excessive integration may constrain human capital and provide limited additional benefits to established organizational capital. Sustainable CBT therefore requires a balanced, light-touch governance approach that combines effective coordination with flexibility and respects local social structures, cultural knowledge, and community autonomy.