Rural tourism and sustainable development in Lebanon: evolution and dynamics

Abstract

This paper addresses the evolution of sustainable rural tourism development in Lebanon. Despite many

challenges hindering its development, the Lebanese tourism market witnessed positive changes in the

last two decades with the emergence of rural tourism products. By using a stakeholders’ mapping

approach and a temporal and spatial analysis, this paper studies the contribution of rural tourism

initiatives in Lebanon to the objectives of the National Rural Tourism Strategy, and examines the gap

between strategic planning and what actually happens on the field. Results show that rural tourism

development in Lebanon is a complex and dynamic process driven by bottom-up interventions. The

objectives of the National Rural Tourism Strategy are partially achieved and a gap between strategic

planning and what happens on the field exists. The success of rural tourism in Lebanon as a driver for

sustainable development relies on the ability of the public and private sectors to take specific actions

and measures that will help in the achievement of the strategy objectives, namely through reinforcing

the rural tourism regulatory and legislative framework and the establishment of a national rural tourism

observatory to collect and analyze data for future planning, especially in terms of product development

and marketing.

Keywords: Rural tourism, Rural development, Sustainable development, Strategy, Lebanon

1
1. Introduction

This paper addresses the evolution of rural tourism in Lebanon and links it to the issue of

sustainable development. Rural tourism can be defined as an experience which encompasses a

wide range of services and activities that take place in non-urban areas. The essential

characteristics of rural tourism include wide-open spaces and low levels of tourism

development; its products are built upon the features of natural and cultural heritage. Interest in

rural tourism has grown as an alternative to maintain social and economic development in rural

areas where primary traditional activities are in decline. The perceived benefits of rural tourism

rely on the potential to provide rural areas with economic growth and employment, and on the

opportunity to realize the economic value of cultural and natural heritage. Scholars have

demonstrated that sustainable forms of tourism can contribute to the improvement of living

conditions in rural areas.

As a response to changes in rural policies and strategies, new forms of rural tourism emerged

in both developed and developing countries. Though, many researchers criticize rural tourism

as a developmental option for developing countries due to: 1) the lack of regard to the economic

and cultural well-being of local communities, 2) the little concern in nature conservation, and

3) the exclusion of local residents from decision-making. They argue that rural tourism has only

contributed to the alleged paucity of revenues, the inequity of benefit distribution and the

perceived social costs to resident communities (Yinga and Zhoub, 2007; Byrd et.al., 2009).

In Lebanon, tourism has always been one of the leading economic sectors, it constitutes a main

source of income and employment, and it accounted for 19 % of GDP in 2017 (Blom Invest

Bank, 2018). The rich and diverse cultural and natural heritage of Lebanon, its vibrant society,

2
and its strategic location on the eastern Mediterranean allow tourism to play this leading role.

However, the Lebanese tourism industry faces many challenges including political instability,

low competiveness, seasonality, and environmental degradation. In the last decade, Lebanon’s

tourism market recorded important fluctuations driven by internal and external factors. Lebanon

has been severely affected by the assassination of his Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, the

war with Israel in 2006, internal political instability in 2008, and the influx of Syrian refugees

since 2011. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Tourism, the number of international

arrivals to Lebanon dropped from around 2.17 million in 2010 to 1.21 million in 2013. Though,

by the end of 2017 signs of recovery started showing with 1.86 million tourist arrivals. Despite

this unstable situation, the tourism industry witnessed positive changes since 2004. In parallel

to the decline of conventional tourism in main Lebanese cities and touristic attractions,

alternative tourism forms are prospering in many rural areas, mainly providing nature and

adventure based tourism products. On the domestic market, Lebanese society is showing a

growing interest in visiting mountain villages and spending short vacations in rural areas all

over Lebanon. Moreover, the economic challenges that Lebanon’s rural areas are facing pushed

many municipalities to reconsider their economic development models and to work on creating

synergies between agriculture and tourism. This process is largely supported by international

organizations and donor agencies.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Rural Tourism

In the past few decades’ rural areas have experienced major economic and social changes and

challenges. They are no longer purely associated with agricultural production but are seen as a

field for the stimulation of new socio-economic activities, often incorporating tourism and

leisure. Traditional rural economic activities such as agriculture and forestry have decreased

3
dramatically in the course of globalization. In many places, tourism and related services have

been viewed as replacement industries for traditional rural livelihoods, and tourism is widely

regarded as an effective source of income and employment for rural communities. (Saarinen,

2007; Saxena et. al., 2007)

There is little consensus in the world on the definition of rural tourism. Scholars give different

meanings to rural tourism. In simple terms it can be conceptualized as tourism taking place in

rural areas (Gonzalez Guerrero, 2008; Neumeier and Pollermann, 2014; Nair et.al. 2015). The

Commission of the European Communities (1990) defined rural tourism as “tourist activity

carried out in a rural area, consisting of integrated leisure activities, for someone whose aim is

contact with the local environment, and which is interrelated with the local society”. The

Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD, 1994) defines rural tourism

on the basis of location, as tourism occurring in the countryside. According to Valdés Peláez,

(2004) rural tourism is an “activity, taking place in the rural environment, whose main objective

is the search for tourist attractions associated with rest, the countryside, traditional culture and

escape from the crowds”. Zhang (2012) suggests a more elaborated definition for rural tourism:

“a form of tourism, which takes the nature and humanities objects with the rurality as tourist

attractions, depends on the beautiful landscape, the natural environment, architectures, culture

and other resources in rural areas, and expands and develops projects such as meeting affairs,

holiday-makings and leisure activities based on traditional rural leisure travels and experience

tours”. This study adopts one of the most generic definitions of rural tourism advanced by

Fuentes (1995) cited in Polo and Frías (2010) “Rural tourism is a tourist activity carried out in

a rural environment, made up of an integrated leisure supply, aimed at a demand whose

motivation is its contact with the autochthonous surroundings and which is inter-related with

the local society”.

4
Rural tourism depends on the natural, cultural, geographical, and social features of rural areas.

Ideally, it occurs in countryside or “rural areas” characterized by their low population density,

predominance of agricultural activities, small scale infrastructure, limited services,

geographical remoteness, preserved landscape, and untouched environment. The natural

resources and cultural heritage of rural areas constitute an important prerequisite for the

development of different rural tourism types including: agro-tourism, wine tourism, nature

tourism, ecotourism, community based tourism, village tourism, cultural tourism, religious

tourism, and adventure sports tourism.

Rural tourism is interpreted differently around the world. In Finland, rural tourism is associated

with renting farmhouses. In Hungary, rural tourism includes activities and services offered in

rural areas. In Slovenia, the most important type of rural tourism is that of family farms, where

guests stay either in the house of the farmers or in individually designed houses, while visiting

farms in order to dine or to take a tour around the farm is also very popular. In the Netherlands,

rural tourism is mostly camping on farms, as most services are limited to activities which

employ trails (cycling, walking and horseback riding). Rural tourism products in Malaysia

include homestays, eco or nature-based tourism, agro-tourism, cultural and heritage based

tourism. According to the Government of Alberta in Canada, rural tourism is not just farm-

based tourism; it also comprises special interest nature holidays and ecotourism, walking,

climbing and riding holidays, adventure, sport and health tourism, hunting and angling,

educational travel, arts and heritage tourism, and, in some areas, ethnic tourism. In Greece, the

main part of rural tourism consists of providing a bed and breakfast in traditionally furnished

rooms or studios, while food mainly consists of homemade dishes. Additional services include

also restaurants and taverns or organizing cultural and recreational activities (Irshad, 2010; Polo

and Frías, 2010; Abdullah and Sanusi, 2015; Penerliev, 2017). The lack of consensus regarding

5
rural tourism and its different forms extends to the understanding of its accommodation services

which vary both among and within countries and geographical areas and can include: Bed and

Breakfast, Guesthouses, Hostels, Furnished apartments, Eco-lodges, and campsites.

2.2. Rural Tourism Development and Sustainability

Sustainable development has become the guiding principle of development policies and

strategies around the world. A conceptual model of sustainability considers the interaction

between socio-cultural, economic, and ecological conservation dimensions. Linking this

concept to rural tourism means that this activity should sustain local economies without

damaging the society and the environment on which it depends. Compared to forestry and many

other primary economies, such as mining and fisheries, tourism is regarded as a more “soft”

and therefore sustainable option to the environment (Saarinen, 2007). In Finland, the Ministry

of Agriculture and Forestry outlines that the foundation of rural tourism is based on

environmental responsibility and preservation of the rural cultural heritage (Ministry of

Agriculture and Forestry, 2000). The goals of sustainable rural tourism represented in Figure.1

are almost identical to the ones of sustainability in general.

Social Capital
Socio-cultural:
Economic:
Job creation and
Viability and profitability
employment, income
of tourism in the rural area,
generation, quality of life,
demand satisfaction, fair
community participation,
Sustainable trade
respect of cultural values
Rural Tourism

Environment: Biodiversity
conservation, responsible
use of natural resources,
rural landscape protection
and valorization, and use of
renewable energies

Figure.1. Sustainable Rural Tourism Dimensions

Source: (Author’s elaboration)

6
During the last three decades the European countryside and rural communities have been

affected by profound changes. In mid-1980s, many European countries began to look for

alternative and more profitable activities to help revitalize rural economies, as it became

obvious that the agricultural sector alone did not hold the key to rural development.

Consequently, rural tourism became one of the main tourism sub-sectors that exhibit a priority

development in Europe and that is considered as one of the most appropriate tools of reviving

the fading rural areas. This is done by maintaining or even increasing employment,

diversification of jobs, preservation of services and increasing the number of cultural events,

nature conservation or revitalization of rural arts and crafts in order to attract tourists.

Furthermore, rural tourism often provides incentives for infrastructural development, which in

turn contributes to the growth of other economic sectors in rural areas and helps in the formation

of the destination image (Verbole, 2000; Polo and Frías, 2010; Penerliev, 2017).

It is believed that rural tourism development can act as an agent for the positive transformation

of rural areas. In addition to job creation and income generation, rural tourism services and

activities can also develop social, cultural, educational, and environmental values. Therefore,

the contribution of rural tourism to both socio-economic benefits and environmental

conservation efforts in rural areas has attracted increasing attention from international

organizations, governments, private sector actors, donors and NGOs. (Saarinen, 2007; Polo and

Frías, 2010; Ghasemi and Hamzah, 2014)

Nevertheless, rural tourism development is a complex system characterized by non-linear

negotiated processes and linkages among different stakeholders having different opinions based

on their expectations and perception of benefits. Rural tourism development is a dynamic and

on-going process embedded in a given social, political and historical context. Numerous

7
researchers suggest that approaches to rural tourism development, should consider the

important role of public participation and bring the grass-root members of the community on

board to empower them, involve them in decision making, ensure their control over tourism

resources, and provide them with equitable social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Tourism development experts argue that residents’ active involvement in the tourism

development process is conducive to a more sustainable tourism development and that any

assessment of sustainable rural tourism is relative and socially constructed. (Verbole, 2000;

Saxena et.al., 2007; Yinga and Zhoub, 2007; Byrd et.al., 2009; Polo and Frías, 2010; Ghasemi

and Hamzah, 2014; Xu et. al., 2017)

On the other hand, tourism development in rural areas could be associated with an intrinsic

probability of harming the environment, and such destruction can result in resource loss and

conflicts between various stakeholders. In developed countries, although the interdependence

and association between different rural communities have been strengthened, the autonomy and

cohesion of rural communities have weakened and social capital loss has emerged as an

important issue (Park et.al., 2012). Furthermore, tourism development in rural communities

poses a multiplicity of challenges and constraints. Rural areas are typically at a disadvantage

with respect to the commercial, economic and logistical issues such as product quality,

accessibility, availability of skills, and investment opportunities, on which tourism development

depend (Holland et.al., 2003).

Verbole (2003) argues that in order to understand tourism in rural areas, the social actors need

to be identified and processes need to be investigated. By identifying various networks and

other organizational practices it is possible to gain insights into decision-making for rural

tourism development and promotion. From a macro perspective, Xu et. al., 2017 consider that

8
rural areas are changing rapidly due to different reasons, becoming places of dynamic, diverse,

and contested modes of production, consumption, and protection. In order to respond to these

changes, both developing and developed countries have adopted tourism as a useful method to

promote community development in rural areas. However, tourism is not a panacea for all rural

communities because they have different cultures, are in different contexts, and have different

resources. As a result, these communities have to face the specific problems of rural tourism

development. Several authors have called for an integrated approach in addressing the

challenges of rural tourism development. Integrated Rural Tourism (IRT) is theorized as

tourism explicitly linked to the economic, social, cultural, natural and human structures of the

localities in which it takes place. The argument is that IRT leads to a more sustainable tourism

than other forms of tourism because it creates powerful network connections between social,

cultural, economic and environmental resources. (Cawley et.al., 2007; Saxena and Ilbery, 2010;

Panyik et. al., 2011). According to Saxena et al. (2007) IRT can be viewed as a web of networks

of local and external actors, in which endogenous and embedded resources are mobilized in

order to develop the assets and capabilities of rural communities and empower them to

participate in, influence and hold accountable the actors and institutions that affect their lives.

(Cawley & Gillmor, 2008)

For Laing and Lewis (2016) it is imperative that the development of tourism destinations in

rural areas occurs in accordance with an appropriate strategy that takes into consideration the

specific demands of the host environment. The need for integration and coordination in rural

tourism destination development lends itself to the principles of clustering, considered as key

component in fostering integration and stimulating economic development in rural destinations.

Instead of viewing each destination resource in isolation, a cluster-based approach to

destination development calls for an understanding of interdependence among industry players

9
within the region as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A tourism cluster can be

defined as: a complex group of different elements, including services carried out by tourism

business; richness provided by tourist holiday experiences; multidimensional gathering of

interrelated companies and industries; communication and transportation infrastructures;

complementary activities; supporting services; and natural resources and institutional policies

(da Cunha and da Cunha, 2005). Capone (2004) proposes a similar construct and defines a

tourism cluster as “a geographic concentration of interconnected companies and institutions in

tourism activities. It includes suppliers, services, governments, institutions, competitors, and

universities”. Some definitions, such as the one proposed by Beni (2003) cited in da Cunha and

da Cunha (2005), highlight the relational aspect of tourism clusters by stressing on the

importance of cohesion and linkages among political, social, productive and business actors.

Tourism clusters are often developed with the specific goal to unite independent stakeholders

to build a successful regional tourism product that is able to provide increased economic and

social benefits to the local community, to market the local area and to provide cooperative

opportunities for greater exposure and reach than it would be possible within individual

marketing efforts. Moreover, tourism clusters help in stimulating local business that in turn

leads to increased employment opportunities and income generation.

2.2. Rural Tourism Approaches and Strategies

The development of sustainable rural tourism has become a priority of national tourism policies

and strategies in many countries. Rural tourism development is often based on the global

economic significance of tourism and the estimations of the present growth of rural tourism in

particular. All this has caused an increasing amount of rural tourism development policies,

strategies, programs, and projects implemented in both developed and developing countries

with public and/or private funding.

10
Rural tourism has been promoted across several developed and developing countries as an

alternative to the traditional mass tourism industry. Aside from pursuing the socio-economic

revitalization in rural areas, the diversification strategy of the industry is justified by tourism,

environmental and economic reasons. Rural tourism development followed different paths and

dynamics in different countries and regions depending on the economic, cultural, social, and

resource availability situations. In Slovenia the national policies approach tourism in the

countryside as a potential source of income generation that will enhance the viability of rural

communities and view the rural landscape and the human and cultural capital of the local

communities as potential tourism products (Verbole, 2000). Finland’s Strategy and

Development Program for Rural Tourism considers tourism as a specific part of the tourism

industry which draws its development possibilities from the intrinsic resources of “rurality” and

the rural way of living; it aims to benefit rural communities and their wellbeing and to maintain

rurality, rural values and ways of living. According to Saarinen (2007) the Finnish national rural

tourism strategy provided development opportunities and benefits for rural areas, however, the

unrealistic expectations and goals caused problems for rural communities. Unfeasible rural

tourism development goals have been considered as the results of insufficient understanding of

tourism dynamics and the lack of research-based or valid knowledge in development plans. In

Lithuania, rural tourism development depends a lot on state and local government support

involving regulations, education, promotion, and stimulation of investments. This support,

increased accessibility to Lithuania’s rural areas and improved the professionalism of

employees in the rural-tourism sector (Vadymovich, 2016). In the case of Portugal, the state’s

conservation efforts of the Historic Village of Portugal program played an important role to

present national history and national identity and contributed to rural tourism development and

promotion (Silva, 2015). According to the Polish government guidelines for the development

of tourism in Poland “rural tourism can become a distinctive form of tourism if the original

11
features of the Polish countryside in terms culture and nature are preserved.” Poland’s

Marketing Strategy for the Tourism Sector for 2012- 2020 calls rural tourism a “brand product”

comprising all forms of tourist activity in rural areas: people spending their vacations on the

farm, folk events, folk handicraft, traditional farm life, ecotourism, and visits to national parks

and reserves” (WV Marketing, 2013). The Malaysian Rural Tourism Master Plan which was

formulated in 2001 defined rural tourism as: “tourism that provides opportunities to visitors to

visit rural areas and rural attractions, and to experience the culture and heritage of Malaysia,

thereby providing socio-economic benefits for local communities”. The rural tourism homestay

program in Malaysia was specifically designed to accommodate tourists in a village with a local

family, thus enabling them to learn about local lifestyle, culture and nature (Abdullah and

Sanusi, 2015). Rural tourism development in Indonesia based on the local philosophy of

“creating a beautiful world” where rural communities are the most important stakeholder in and

successful initiatives are based on cultural heritage and landscape conservation described in the

Indonesian Charter for Heritage Conservation as “inextricable unity between nature and

manmade heritage in space and time” (Fatimah, 2015). In Mexico, there has been an increasing

interest in putting the poor at the core of rural tourism development. Thus, federal and state

governments are supporting local development through policies that encourage the creation of

micro enterprises linked to tourism in rural areas and have even created mechanisms or

programs to assist rural people with finance and technical advice. (Gonzalez Guerrero, 2008)

Conversely, rural tourism development processes can lead to unwanted changes and are

criticized by different researchers. In Romania, substantial changes in the countryside

accompanied by the need for more robust economic activities have caused some families to turn

to tourism as an economic diversification strategy. Rural tourism entrepreneurship showed

positive experiences on the economic level and in other aspects of rural communities’ life.

12
However, the development of rural tourism in Romania remains highly uneven on the spatial

level (Iorio and Corsale, 2010). In a study on rural tourism in Australia’s countryside, Jackson

and Murphy (2002) found that the supply of tourism products by a range of different types of

businesses made the coordination and management at the destination level difficult. This is

because each firm possesses its own individual agenda and priorities. Additionally, as Liu

(2006) observed in the case of Kedah in Malaysia, rural tourism in developing countries can

prove particularly challenging when there has been a lack of local capacity building and when

tourism is not integrated into the country’s overall rural development strategies. In China, rural

tourism has played a major role in rural transformation and has been impacted by this rapid

transformation. Local authorities in China have regarded rural tourism as an important source

of government revenue and as a key indicator of high governance performance. This strong

centralized governance system did not allow the proper involvement of local communities in

the decision-making process and to maintain control over the tourism industry, especially when

powerful tourism development partnerships are built between local authorities and outside

investors. As a result, conflicts between villagers and local authorities have emerged, and local

leaders have played an important role in protecting local residents’ rights in a rebellious way

(Xu et. al., 2017). Laing and Lewis (2016) found in their research about “Destination

development strategy for rural communities in La Brea, Trinidad” that rural tourism destination

development should focus on developing local assets and building the capacity of local people.

It also suggests cluster development approaches should be context-specific. Wilson et. al.

(2001) documented in their research on the factors of success in rural tourism development in

six rural area of Illinois in the United States of America, the importance of the community

approach to rural tourism development and found that tourism entrepreneurship in rural areas

cannot work without the participation and collaboration of business persons directly and

indirectly involved in the tourism sector. In South Korea, according to Park et.al. (2012) the

13
rural tourism development policy implemented to activate rural economies increased

interdependence between rural communities and the outside world and has raised community

conflicts, undermined traditional communities, and reduced the social capital.

2.3. Rural Tourism in Lebanon

Located on the eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon is a microcosm of the urbanizing

Mediterranean problematic (Map.1). It is a country of contrasts, where natural beauty lays

beside chaotic development and expansion of cities (Makhzoumi et al, 2012). Although small

(10,452 km2) Lebanon is known as a combination of eastern and western cultural values, its

moderate climate and rich history constitute the foundations for the development of an ideal

tourism destination. Despite this great potential, several weaknesses are hindering the

advancement of tourism (Ladki and Sadik, 2004). Tourism has suffered severe blows resulting

from the civil war (1975-1990) and political unrest (2004-2017) that took place in Lebanon and

the surrounding countries. Between 1990 and 2004 the tourism industry rebuilt itself in parallel

with the reconstruction of the basic infrastructure. Governmental policies in the post-war period

focused on promoting conventional tourism in urban and coastal cities, while rural areas

remained neglected. Information and statistics on the tourism sector are lacking and make

analyzing the tourism value chain and its different forms very challenging, especially with

regards to rural tourism. (Abou Arrage et. al., 2014; USAID, 2014)

The rural areas of Lebanon represent a large portion of the total land area, but a decreasing

percentage of the population (11% of the total population in 2014 according to the World bank).

Rural to urban migration is a well-studied phenomenon in Lebanon. The search for improved

economic opportunity has brought many people, particularly youths, to urban and coastal areas,

where the majority of the population lives (USAID, 2014).

14
The Lebanese rural landscape is a combination of natural ecosystems and cultural heritage,

characterized by a rich and diverse mosaic of ecosystems with high arid uninhabited mountains

(1,800 to 3,000 m above sea level); inhabited middle mountain and mild hills villages (500 to

1,800 m) with terraced agricultural lands on the slopes and in the valleys cultivated with

perennial crops, olives trees and fruit trees; and wide agricultural plains in the hinterland (Beqaa

valley at 900 m altitude) cultivated with vineyards, industrial crops, and vegetables (Map.2).

Strongly affected by land management plans, the rural landscape of Lebanon is facing many

challenges. Rural-urban economic disparities and non-sustainable land management practices

contribute to the erosion of the country’s natural and rural values. Landscape degradation

problems are pertinent for remote and mountainous rural areas. Failure in planning and

management are further aggravated by political marginalization that has left rural communities

in Lebanon in need of social and economic development. The ongoing political instability and

economic challenges depopulated much of the countryside, disrupted traditional rural lifestyles

and undermined traditional rural economies. (Abou Arrage et. al., 2014; USAID, 2014)

From an environmental perspective, the rural landscape of Lebanon has been threatened by a

multitude of factors that have caused the loss of biodiversity, the fragmentation or destruction

of habitats and different forms of pollution. Human activities have caused pollution through

urban sprawl, land encroachment, industrialization, improper management and discharge of

wastewater and solid waste. Among these human activities, uncontrolled tourism and

infrastructure development constitute an increasing pressure and threat on the natural and

cultural resources of rural areas. In response to the degradation of the natural landscape,

between 1992 and 2016 the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the

Ministry of Tourism designated a number of Protected Areas. By the end of 2017 the existing

classification of Protected Areas in Lebanon included 15 Nature Reserves, 3 UNESCO Man

15
and Biosphere Reserves, 24 Natural sites, 5 Himas (tradition way of landscape protection by

municipalities and local communities), 12 Protected Forests and 14 Touristic Sites. In total,

these protected areas cover around 6% of the Lebanese territory and are mostly present in rural

areas where various rural tourism activities are practiced with different forms of governance. A

multitude of other rural landscapes and natural landmarks (forests, valleys, rivers basins,

mountain peaks, caves, specific geological landforms, etc.) remain without any form of

protection, and are facing many challenges. Most of these sites constitute an important asset for

the tourism industry in Lebanon, in particular rural tourism and nature-based tourism forms.

In addition to conventional forms of tourism, the rich cultural and natural heritage and landscape

of rural areas and the distinguished hospitality of local communities constitute the main assets

for the development of different rural tourism forms including: nature-based tourism, adventure

sports tourism, ecotourism, agro-tourism, wine tourism, community-based and experiential

tourism, cultural tourism, and religious tourism (Map.3). However, rural tourism is not well

defined and governed in Lebanon, with very few scientific studies and publications on this

issues. According to USAID (2014) rural tourism value chain assessment report, the precise

share of rural tourism in the total tourism sector in Lebanon is unknown. The majority of hotels

are in Beirut (46%) and along the coast (29%), where nightlife and beach tourism is centered.

While there are fewer hotels in rural areas, the small size of the country makes it possible for

many visitors to participate in “spider” tourism, staying in Beirut hotels with departures to

touristic sites in rural areas and return to Beirut every day. In their study about the rural tourism

market in Lebanon, Ghadban et.al. (2017) studied the perception and behavior of potential rural

tourists on the domestic market. Personal characteristics, especially respondents’ personal

income and cultural background, have been identified as major factors that affect their decision-

making process regarding rural tourism services and facilities. Results also revealed a lack of

16
awareness by the surveyed respondents about critical sustainable tourism issues in rural areas,

and a visitor perception that is somewhat different from what is actually being provided by

tourism stakeholders in rural areas.

Map.1. Geographical location of Lebanon Map.2. Topography and landscape map

of Lebanon

Map.3. Map of Lebanon with governorates division

and main towns and villages of touristic importance

17
The USAID (2014) rural tourism value chain assessment considers that rural tourism is a major

component to the rural populations’ economic recovery. Rural tourism provides employment

and income generation opportunities, and may have the effect of reducing rural to urban

migration that has occurred at staggering levels as noted above. Additionally, rural tourism

provides an opportunity to preserve the natural resource base and cultural heritage of Lebanon.

Agriculture, forestry, and rural landscapes unique sceneries, along with rural villages

themselves, occupy large areas of land and represent the main stock of natural and cultural

heritage which serves as the foundation of rural tourism. Rural tourism can provide the incentive

necessary to provide an economic return to these resources that will induce their preservation

for generations to come. Based on this assessment, a National Rural Tourism Strategy was

elaborated in 2014 with the support of the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) and adopted by the Ministry of Tourism. Its main objectives were to enhance domestic

rural tourism in Lebanon, unlock the great economic potential of this sector in rural areas and

find alternative ways of income generation to face the political and security instability.

3. Research Methods

The objective of this research paper is to analyze the evolution and dynamics of rural tourism

in Lebanon in the last two decades (1997-2017). The paper presents the case study of rural

tourism evolution in Lebanon from a temporal and spatial perspective with focus on the most

important projects and initiatives implemented by different stakeholders and their respective

roles. It analysis their contribution to the development of a sustainable rural tourism industry in

general and examines the gap between the objectives of the National Rural Tourism Strategy

and what actually happens on the field.

18
Qualitative research is employed as the main method with primary data collection and

secondary data review of theoretical and practical literature on sustainable rural tourism in

general, specific case studies from the world, and rural tourism context in Lebanon. Primary

data was collected during three years (2015-2017) using semi-structured interviews and focus

groups with 71 persons representing the different stakeholders involved in the rural tourism

development process and distributed as follow: 36 local nature tour operators, 3 public

institutions, 10 municipalities, 7 NGOs, 10 rural tourism service providers, 3 nature reserves,

and 2 media representatives.

The results are presented in the form of a stakeholders’ map representing the different rural

tourism actors with a description and analysis of their roles, in addition to a time-based

description and analysis of rural tourism evolution in Lebanon taking into consideration the

different projects and initiatives. The paper proposes recommendations and actions that could

help in integrating different rural tourism initiatives and projects in a structured Rural Tourism

Value Chain, which will ensure the coherence of the sector with the National Rural Tourism

Strategy and the contribution of rural tourism to sustainable development in Lebanon.

4. Results

4.1. Rural tourism stakeholders

Rural tourism development in Lebanon involves multiple stakeholders who are continually

reshaping and transforming the process. The stakeholders’ map shows two categories of rural

tourism actors: rural tourism value chain actors (internal stakeholders) and institutional and

enabling environment actors (external stakeholders). Having different interests and goals, they

both influence the process of rural tourism development. (Figure.2)

19
 Figure.2. Lebanon rural tourism stakeholders’ map
Source: (Author’s elaboration)

4.1.1. Rural tourism value chain actors

International travel agents and tour operators used to sell packages to Lebanon combining

different types of tourism, with focus on cultural tourism. After the assassination of the

Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, most of the international operators removed

Lebanon from their catalogues. European countries, the USA and Canada issued restrictions on

travelling to most of the remote rural areas in Lebanon which limited the number of

international tourists’ arrivals to Lebanon (Map.4).

20
 Map.4. United Kingdom travel advise for Lebanon
(Source: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/lebanon)
Updated on June 2018 and Valid until September 2018

On the domestic market, there are around 500 Lebanese travel and ticketing agents operating

in Lebanon providing conventional packages and tours with focus on the main archeological

and religious sites, some recreational activities in major coastal and mountain resorts, and visits

to wineries. They do not show a real interest in the rural tourism trend yet. Conversely, the

number of nature and rural tour organizers increased between 1997 and 2010 from 4 to 15. In

2014 it reached 28, and by the end of 2017 they were 50. It is a relatively high number compared

to the small rural tourism market in Lebanon. (Figure.3)

21
 60

50 50
44
40
34
30
28
25
22
20
15
10 11
9
7
4
0
1997 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure.3. Number of rural and nature trip organizers in Lebanon (1997-2017)
Source: (Author)

The results of the survey conducted with 36 out of 50 identified nature and rural tour organizers

show the importance of rural tourism as a growing trend on the Lebanese market especially on

the economic level (Table.1). Between 2013 and 2017, the number of nature and rural tour

organizers and their turnover grew by 50%.

Table.1. Number of nature and rural tour organizers and their turnover (2013-2017)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Nature and rural tour organizers 25 28 34 44 50
Turnover 1,093,750 $ 1,225,000 $ 1,487,500 $ 1,925,000 $ 2,187,500 $
Source: (Author)

According to the survey, 18 of 50 nature and rural tour organizers identified in 2017 are

officially registered as companies (36%), among which only two are registered as travel agents;

60% do not have any legal status, they operate as non-formal groups, promote their activities

through social media platforms and participate occasionally in local fairs and exhibitions; and

4% are registered as non-profit organizations but act like tour organizers. By being a non-formal

group or a non-profit organization, tour organizers avoid the rigidity of the current legal

framework, which recognizes only conventional travel agencies and does not take into
22
consideration the rural tourism context. This high number of non-registered nature and rural

tour organizers creates an unfair competition with the registered ones. It reduces the quality of

rural tourism services and activities, and can create negative impacts on some destinations,

especially with the absence of any supervision by the Ministry of Tourism and with the little

awareness on responsible and sustainable tourism principles. (Figure.4)

Non formal groups

36%

NGO
60%

4%
Registered Company

Figure.4. Status of rural tourism trip organizers

Source: (Author)

Other important characteristics of nature and rural tour organizers revealed by the study are:

 One-day hiking trip is the most important activity organized in rural areas. Hiking is included

in 75% of the day trip programs, while the other 25% offer cultural tours, adventure sport

activities, wine tours, and agro-tourism activities;

 Less than half of nature and rural tour organizers organize weekend tours with overnights in

guesthouses or other rural accommodation. The frequency of these trips is one every two

months. The reason behind this low number is the high cost of accommodation and the low

profitability of such packages;

23
 35% of nature and rural tour organizers use the services of local guides;

 40% of rural tourism trips include visits to nature reserves, which shows the growing interest

in ecotourism;

 The most visited destinations are concentrated in Mount Lebanon governorate, with less

visitation to remote rural areas due to security issues on the Lebanese borders with Syria.

Operators who provide rural tourism services, activities and products include: accommodation,

transportation, restaurants, nature reserves, recreational parks and venues, traditional food and

handicrafts producers, local guides, and touristic attractions and sites. There is a big difficulty

to have accurate data on their number and performance due to the absence of accurate data and

official statistics, in addition to the inexistence of a specific regulatory framework that governs

their work. The following table presents an estimation of their numbers in 2017 based

interviews and field observation conducted for this study (Table.2). The rural tourism sector

generates direct jobs and employment for around 14,280 persons (12% of the total number of

direct jobs in the tourism industry). On a geographical level, more than 50% of the restaurants,

snacks and accommodations facilities in rural areas are concentrated in Mount Lebanon

governorate.

24
Table.2. Rural tourism services and activities providers in Lebanon until end of 2017
Category Number of businesses Estimated number of employees
Rural and eco-tour operators 50 60
Local guides 40
Transportation (taxi, car rental, buses) 200 300
Restaurants and snacks
Mount Lebanon 1,000
Beqaa 300
6,000
North 400
South 200
Rural Attractions
UNESCO world heritage site 3
Archeological sites 40
Protected areas 15 400
Other natural and cultural monuments 50
Museums 30
Rural Hotels
Mount Lebanon 260
Beqaa Valley 23
3,000
North Lebanon 62
South Lebanon 26
Alternative lodging
Furnished apartments 150
Religious accommodation 20
Guesthouses 70
600
Camping 30
Youth Hostels 7
Eco-lodges 4
Agro-tourism
Wineries 60
Food processing units 50
1,500
Conventional farms 10
Organic farms 12
Rural cooperatives producing traditional food
100 1,000
and local specialties
Handicrafts producers 1,000
Recreational and adventure parks 20 100
Resorts 20 200
Nature and adventure sports clubs 12 30
NOGs and associations 10 50
Total 14,280
Source: (Author)

4.1.2. Rural tourism external environment actors

The Lebanese Ministry of Tourism played an important role in planning and promoting rural

tourism in the last two decades; especially between 2013 and 2017, in coordination with public

and private sector actors, namely international organization, NGOs, and local authorities. The

elaboration of the National Rural Tourism Strategy with support from USAID and its adoption

by the Ministry of Tourism in 2014 was a key milestone for the advancement of the sector from

an operational and strategic perspective. Other ministries and public entities involved in the

rural tourism development process are: Ministry of Culture (management of archeological

25
heritage and museums), Ministry of Environment (Nature Reserves and other protected areas),

Ministry of Agriculture (agricultural and rural development), Ministry of Public Works and

Transportation (development of rural infrastructure), Ministry of Interior (safety and security),

Ministry of Public Health (food safety and hygiene), Ministry of Youth and Sports (outdoor

and nature sports federations, as well as Youth Hostels), and the Ministry of Information (Media

and Promotion).

Conventional media (TV, radio, newspapers) play a limited role in promoting rural tourism,

except for some specialized magazines such as “Lebanon Traveler” initiated by a local NGO

with the support of a USAID. On another hand, social media platforms (websites, blogs, photo

and video sharing networks, …) are being extensively used to promote rural tourism projects,

initiatives, services, activities, and sometimes rural destinations, due to the ease in producing

and accessing information. However, promotion on social media can have negative impacts on

rural destinations, especially with the absence of a regulatory framework and when the

promoted destination does not have proper management and the capacity to welcome the

growing number of visitors.

Municipalities are playing an important role in developing and promoting rural tourism in

Lebanon. In the last two decades, around 300 municipalities (27% of the total number)

implemented at least one project, initiative, activity, or event to develop and promote rural

tourism. Most of the municipalities benefit from funds provided by local and international

organizations and almost half of them work under the framework on Unions. However, a clear

cooperation mechanism between municipalities of the same area does not exist, resulting in a

slow and complex process. Clustering and rural tourism management on the destination level

is still weak in Lebanon except in the case of some nature reserves who are trying to play the

26
role of a Destination Management Organization such as in the case of the Shouf Biosphere

Reserve, the biggest in Lebanon. As for international organizations and donors, they play a

major role in enhancing the rural tourism sector through the implementation of projects in

cooperation with local and international NGOS, municipalities, the private sector, or directly

with the Ministry of Tourism. Most of these projects focus on local development targeting

specific villages. USAID remains the main international organization in terms of project

numbers and funds aiming at increasing economic opportunities in rural areas and quality

improvement of rural tourism services. The USAID funded program “Lebanese Industry Value

Chain Development” (LIVCD) introduced the concept of value chain management in

development work and applied it on the rural tourism sector. LIVCD implemented more than

40 rural tourism projects on the local, regional, and national level. (Map.5)

Map.5. LIVCD rural tourism value chain intervention in Lebanon

(2013-2017)

27
The role of local communities is gaining a bigger importance in rural tourism development.

Most of the development projects are adopting a participatory approach involving local

stakeholders in decision making and project management.

4.2. Rural tourism evolution in time and space

The emergence of rural tourism in Lebanon dates back to the mid and late nineties, specifically

between 1995 and 1997 with the creation of 4 tour-operators specialized in nature-based and

adventure tourism activities, namely: hiking, trekking, climbing, and rafting. The market was

limited to few foreigners and local travelers. Rural accommodation services mostly consisted

of conventional hotels, mountain resorts, and furnished apartments. Thus, the visitation of rural

areas was characterized by high seasonality and by its concentration in certain mountain hubs

known historically for their beautiful landscape and mild climate in Summer and snow sports

in Winter. From 1998 to 2004 rural tourism witnessed an important but slow evolution,

especially with the designation of the first Lebanese nature reserves and the introduction of

ecotourism. The number of nature and rural tour organizers increased from 4 to 7 and one-day

hiking excursions for the domestic market started to emerge, in addition to packaged tours (5

to 8 days) for the international market. Between 2005 and 2008, a rural development program

funded by USAID “Expanding Economic Opportunities in Lebanon” targeted mainly the

tourism sector. Its main objective was to promote village-based tourism and cluster destinations,

and shed the light on hidden attractions of rural areas. The project produced guidebooks and

brochures covering the whole country and supported the installation of a touristic signage

network. By the end of 2008, a Charter for Responsible Tourism in Lebanon was declared,

hence it has never been implemented. With the development of this niche market, rural tourism

accommodation started to flourish (inns, youth hostels, non-formal guesthouses, and camping

sites). They were located mainly in villages bordering nature reserves.

28
Between 2006 and 2008 many rural tourism development projects were implemented in

Lebanon with the objective of supporting local economies through the improvement of the

agricultural sector and rural tourism. Among these projects, two major rural tourism

development programs funded by USAID had a major influence on the future of rural tourism.

They introduced to the tourism market new services and activities, specifically in terms of

accommodation and nature-based activities represented mainly by guided hiking:

1. The Lebanon Mountain Trail LMT: a long distance hiking trail extending over a 470 km

path. It crosses 75 towns and villages from north to south at altitudes ranging from 600 to

2,000 meters above sea level, in addition to one World Heritage Site, two Biosphere

Reserves, and four Protected Areas. The trail was conceived and developed in a way to

showcase the natural beauty and cultural wealth of Lebanon’s mountains and rural areas, and

to demonstrate the determination of the local communities to conserve this unique heritage.

During the project implementation, and for the first time in Lebanon, 11 guesthouses were

partially renovated and their owners were trained on the basics of hospitality services. Within

its mandate to improve economic opportunities in rural areas through responsible forms of

tourism, the Lebanon Mountain Trail Association is continuously supporting the

development of new guesthouses on the trail by upgrading the existing one.

2. The DHIAFEE Network was conceived by an international NGO “ANERA” in 2005 in

recognition of the outstanding potential for tourism to contribute to the economic

development of rural communities throughout Lebanon. The main goal of the DHIAFEE

was to increase economic opportunities in rural communities by stimulating sustainable

income and employment in the tourism sector, more specifically in the accommodation

services. The program established a network of 44 alternative tourism lodging facilities and

classified them in seven categories as following: Guesthouses; Small hotels; Hostels; Youth

hostels; Religious lodgings; Eco-lodges; and Camping site.

29
By 2010, the number of nature and rural tour organizers increased to 15, and hiking became

more popular among the Lebanese community. The guesthouses sector also became more

organized with the support of the Ministry of Tourism. In 2011, a decree organizing guesthouses

activities was issued. Despite the unstable political and security situation in the country and the

decreasing number of international tourist arrivals between 2011 and 2016, rural tourism

activities and accommodation services maintained their growth. New camping sites,

guesthouses and boutique hotels were created in rural areas. Their geographical distribution

covers the whole Lebanese territory. A number of municipalities, local NGOs, and individual

initiatives, rehabilitated the cultural and natural heritage sites with the aim of transforming them

into touristic attractions using private and external funds. New hiking trails were created in

many villages, and nature reserves became more involved in rural tourism and ecotourism

development. Nature and rural tour organizers increased to 28 in 2014, and 50 in 2017. They

diversified their activities; but hiking remained the star product of the sector.

The following figure represents a summary of the temporal evolution of rural tourism in

Lebanon since 1997 and the different milestones that marked this sector. (Figure.5)

Figure.5. Chronological evolution of rural tourism in Lebanon

Source: (Author)

4.3. Rural tourism strategic development

The rural tourism strategy for Lebanon adopted by the Ministry of Tourism in 2014 and funded

by USAID, was prepared in a participatory way with the consultation of more than 80

stakeholders representing different nodes of the rural tourism value chain. It comprised eight
30
strategic objectives: 1) Develop and improve marketing and promotion to increase consumer

awareness and the visibility of rural tourism destinations, products and services domestically

and internationally; 2) Institutionalize rural tourism at the level of the local communities; 3)

Improve and enforce conservation and protection of the environmental, cultural, historical,

agricultural heritage of rural areas; 4) Diversify, modernize, and improve quality of rural

destinations, products & services; 5) Improve policies, legislation, and regulation of the rural

tourism sector and enforcement of laws across the value chain; 6) Improve information & data

collection and management to support planning; 7) Develop the culture of rural tourism among

the young generation and in the education system; and 8) Improve domestic and international

business linkages and networking.

The Ministry of Tourism along with other stakeholders from the public and private sector were

able to work on the strategic objectives 1, 4, 7 and 8 (rural tourism promotion, product

diversification and quality improvement, integration of rural tourism in the education system,

and business linkages). The institutional and legislative framework (strategic objectives 2 and

5), the conservation and protection of the natural and cultural heritage (strategic objective 3),

and the improvement of information management and data collection (strategic objective 6)

need to be addressed by all concerned stakeholders in order to organize the rural tourism value

chain and insure its sustainability on the social, economic, and environmental levels. Hence,

working to achieve the remaining strategic objectives might be e very complex and challenging

process in Lebanon and will require a long time compared to other countries due to the unstable

political situation, bureaucracy, and the centralized governance system. The following tables

summarize the level of progress of the eight objectives included in Lebanese National Rural

Tourism Strategy according to the field survey and observations. (Table.4)

31
Table.4. Level of progress of the National Rural Tourism Strategy objectives (2014-2017)
Level of progress
Strategic objective
Low Medium High
1) Develop and improve marketing and promotion to increase consumer awareness
and the visibility of rural tourism destinations, products and services domestically X
and internationally
2) Institutionalize rural tourism at the level of the local communities X
3) Improve and enforce conservation and protection of the environmental, cultural,
X
historical, agricultural heritage of rural areas
4) Diversify, modernize, and improve quality of rural destinations and products X
5) Improve policies, legislation, and regulation of the rural tourism sector and
X
enforcement of laws across the value chain
6) Improve information & data collection and management to support planning X
7) Develop the culture of rural tourism among the young generation and in the
X
education system
8) Improve domestic and international business linkages and networking X
Source: (Author)

The field observations and interviews with key rural tourism stakeholders reveal that despite

the adoption of a national strategy, rural tourism projects and initiatives remain fragmented and

are not homogeneous in terms of their goals and perception of sustainable rural tourism. They

are market driven rather than “developmental” and do not have the same level of contribution

to local development. Consequently, the gap between the national strategy and rural

development projects exists on different levels. A better coordination and networking between

the concerned stakeholders and the institutionalization of the sector will help in reducing it.

5. Conclusion

The development of rural tourism in Lebanon, like elsewhere in the world, is a complex process

involving a wide variety of stakeholders. It affects and is affected by social, economic, and

environmental factors. The Lebanese rural tourism market witnessed a very dynamic evolution

in the last two decades driven by bottom-up interventions implemented by the private sector

and development projects funded by international organizations. These interventions had a

major influence on local interests in rural tourism and shaped the state strategic objectives that

figured in the recent National Rural Tourism Strategy adopted by the Ministry of Tourism.

32
Being very ambitious, the national strategy objectives aim at developing and reinforcing the

rural tourism value chain in Lebanon. The results of the study showed that these objectives were

partially achieved and a gap between strategic development and what happens on the field in

terms of rural tourism projects and initiatives exists, especially with the absence of a legislative

and institutional framework for the sector. Therefore, more efforts should be deployed to fill

this gap and a permanent evaluation and monitoring mechanism should be adopted on the local,

regional, and national levels in order to ensure the contribution of rural tourism to the

sustainable development. The success of rural tourism in Lebanon as a driver for sustainable

rural development relies on the ability of the public and private sector to take specific actions

and measures that will help in the achievement of the eight objectives of the National Rural

Tourism Strategy. These actions and measure can be summarized as follow: 1) Creation of

structured and collaborative networks among all concerned stakeholders, 2) Reinforcement of

the regulatory and legislative framework for rural tourism services and activities, 3) Integration

of local rural tourism products in regional clusters and creation of Destination Management

Organization models, 4) Promotion of investment in rural infrastructure and sustainable rural

tourism products, especially on the environmental level, 5) Quality improvement of rural

tourism services and activities, and 6) Establishment of a national rural tourism observatory to

collect data and analyze it for future planning, especially in terms of products development and

marketing.

33
6. References

 Abdullah, N.C. and Sanusi, Z.M. (2015). Governance of Rural Tourism: Legal and Policy
Framework of Selected Countries. Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, (2) 112-118.

 Abou Arrage, J., Khreis, A., El Kurdi, A., Mikhael, M. and NASR, F. (2014). Heritage
and Landscape Sustainable Management in the Tourism Industry: Case studies from
Lebanon. University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute, Series Reports 139, ISBN 978-951-51-
0416-8, 99, pp. 53-70.

 Augustyn, M. (1998). National Strategies for Rural Tourism Development and

Sustainability: The Polish Experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6 (3) 191-209.

 Blom Invest Bank (2018). Lebanese Tourism Sector: 2017 in Review. Blom Invest Bank,
5 p.

 Byrd, E.T., Bosley, H.E. and Dronberger, M.G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder
perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management,
(30) 693-703.

 Capone, F. (2004). Regional competitiveness in tourist local systems. Paper presented at

the Proceedings of the 44th European Congress of the European Regional Science
Association (ERSA), Regions and Fiscal Federalism, Porto, Portugal. 19 p.

 Cawley, M., Marsat, J.B. and Gillmor, D.A. (2007). Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism:
Comparative Perspectives on Institutional Networking in France and Ireland. Tourism
Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 9 (4)
405-420.

 Cawley, M. and Gillmor, D. (2008). Integrated rural tourism: Concepts and practice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2) 316-337.

 Commission of the European Communities (1990). Community action to promote rural

tourism. Communication from the commission. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities Com, 90/438.

 da Cunha, S.K. and da Cunha, J.C. (2005). Tourism cluster competitiveness and
sustainability: Proposal for a systemic model to measure the impact of tourism on local
development. Brazilian Administration Review, 2 (2) 47-62.

 Fatimah, T. (2015). The Impacts of Rural Tourism Initiatives on Cultural Landscape

Sustainability in Borobudur Area. Procedia Environmental Sciences, (28) 567-577.

 Ghadban, S., Shamed, M., Abou Arrage, J. and Abou Fayyad, A. (2017). Rural tourism
in Lebanon: what does the market reveal? Management & Avenir, (96) 165-185.

34
 Ghasemi, M. and Hamzah, A. (2014). An investigation of the appropriateness of tourism
development paradigms in rural areas from main tourism stakeholders’ point of view. 5th
Asia Euro Conference 2014, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (144) 15-24.

 Gonzalez Guerrero, G. (2008). Rural Tourism in the Context of Ejidos and Community
Development in Mexico. In: Tourism Development: Growth, Myths and Inequalities, Ed.
Burns, P.M., and Novelli, M. Centre for Tourism Policy Studies (CENTOPS), University
of Brighton, UK, CABI Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84593-425-5, 259-271.

 Holland, J., Burian, M., and Dixey, L. (2003). Tourism in poor rural areas: Diversifying
the product and expanding the benefits in rural Uganda and the Czech Republic. Pro-Poor
Tourism Working Serie, Working Paper No. 12, 38 p.

 Iorio, M. and Corsale, A. (2010). Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania.
Journal of Rural Studies, (26) 152-162.

 Irshad, H. (2010). Rural tourism: an overview. Government of Alberta, Rural

Development Division, 29 p.

 Jackson, J. and Murphy, P. (2002). Tourism destinations as clusters: Analytical

experiences from the new world. Tourism and Hospitality, 1 (4) 36-52.

 Ladki, S.M. and Sadik, M.W. (2004). Factors Affecting the Advancement of the Lebanese
Tourism Industry. Journal of Transnational Management Development, 9 (2-3) 171-185.

 Laing, C. and Lewis, A. (2016). Exploring clustering as a destination development

strategy for rural communities: The case of La Brea, Trinidad. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management

 Liu, A. (2006). Tourism in rural areas: Kedah, Malaysia. Tourism Management, 27( 5)
878-889.

 Makhzoumi, J., Chmaitelly, H. and Lteif, C. (2012). Holistic conservation of bio-cultural

diversity in coastal Lebanon: A landscape approach. Journal of Marine and Island
Cultures (1) 27-37.

 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2000). Rural Policy and Rural Tourism Groups,
Strategy and Development Program for Rural Tourism. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry.

 Nair, V., Munikrishnan, U.T., Rajaratnam, S.D. and King, N. (2015). Redefining Rural
Tourism in Malaysia: A Conceptual Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 20 (3) 314-337.

 Neumeier, S. and Pollermann, K, (2014). Rural tourism as promoter of rural development,

prospects and limitations: case study findings from a pilot project promoting village
tourism. European Countryside, (4) 270-296.

35
 OECD (1994). Tourism Strategies and Rural Development. Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Paris.

 Panyik, E., Costa, C., and Rátz, T. (2011). Implementing integrated rural tourism: An
events-based approach. Tourism Management, 32 (6) 1352-1363.

 Park, D.B., Lee, K.W., Choi, H.S. and Yoon, Y. (2012). Factors influencing social capital
in rural tourism communities in South Korea. Tourism Management, (33) 1511-1520.

 Penerliev, M. (2017). Alternative tourism in Bulgaria – general characteristics. Espaço e

Economia. [Online], 10 | 2017, Online since 17 July 2017, accessed on 18 September
2018. URL: http://espacoeconomia.revues.org/2921; DOI:
10.4000/espacoeconomia.2921

 Polo, A.I. and Frías, D. (2010). Collective Strategies for Rural Tourism: The experience
of networks in Spain. Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, 2 (1) 25-45.

 Saarinen, J. (2007). Contradictions of Rural Tourism Initiatives in Rural Development

Contexts: Finnish Rural Tourism Strategy Case Study. Current Issues in Tourism, 10 (1)
96-105.

 Saxena, G., Clark, G., Oliver, T. and Ilbery, B. (2007). Conceptualizing Integrated Rural
Tourism. Tourism Geographies, 9 (4) 347-370.

 Saxena, G. and Ilbery, B. (2010). Developing integrated rural tourism: Actor practices in
the English/Welsh border. Journal of Rural Studies, (26) 260-271.

 Silva, L. (2015). How ecotourism works at the community-level: the case of whale
watching in the Azores. Current Issues in Tourism, 18 (3) 196-211.

 USAID (2014). Rural Tourism Value Chain Assessment Report. Lebanon Industry Value
Chain Development Project, 56 p.

 Vadymovich, B.A. (2016). Innovative Approaches of Regional Policy of Rural Tourism

Development. Final Dissertation submitted to Instituto Politécnico de Bragança to obtain
the Master Degree in Management, Specialisation in Business Management, 60 p.

 Valdés Peláez, L. (2004). El turismo rural: una alternativa diversificadora. Líneas

estratégicas de su expansión. Papeles de Economía Española (102) 298-315.

 Verbole, A. (2000). Actors, Discourses and Interfaces of Rural Tourism Development at

the Local Community Level in Slovenia: Social and Political Dimensions of the Rural
Tourism Development Process. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (6) 479-490.

 Verbole, A. (2003). Networking and partnership building for rural tourism development.
In: D. Hall, L. Roberts, and M. Mitchell (Eds.), New directions in rural tourism.
Burlington: Ashgate, 152-168.

36
 Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D.R., Fesenmaier, J. and Van Es, J.C. (2001). Factors for Success
in Rural Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, (40) 132-138.

 WV Marketing, 2013. The Tempting tourists: Rural tourism in Poland. Special section
published in association with Warsaw Voice SA in a project co-financed by the Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development, 16 p.

 Xu, K., Zhang, J. and Tian, F. (2017). Community Leadership in Rural Tourism
Development: A Tale of Two Ancient Chinese Villages. Sustainability, (9) 23-44.

 Yinga, T. and Zhoub, Y. (2007). Community, governments and external capitals in

China’s rural cultural tourism: A comparative study of two adjacent villages. Tourism
Management, (28) 96-107.

 Zhang, X. (2012). Research on the Development Strategies of Rural Tourism in Suzhou

Based on SWOT Analysis. Energy Procedia, (16) 1295-1299.

37