Evaluating tourism-linked empowerment in Cuzco, Peru

Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures Evaluating tourism-linked empowerment in Cuzco, Peru David W. Knight ⇑, Stuart P. Cottrell Colorado State University, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 5 November 2014 Revised 8 October 2015 Accepted 2 November 2015 Coordinating Editor: D. Chhabra Keywords: Empowerment Community-based tourism Peru Poverty alleviation Power a b s t r a c t This study evaluates processes of tourism-linked empowerment in four communities outside Cuzco, Peru. Linking Rowlands’ power framework to ethnographic work in the region from June through December of 2013, findings suggest that tourism association members in each community, while experiencing generative empowerment in the form of enhanced agency, collectivity, and selfawareness, have also been the recipients and purveyors of nongenerative empowerment in the form of enhanced domination. Potential factors influencing these processes are also identified, pointing to practical ways community-based tourism can better foster generative rather than merely sustainable (i.e., zero-sum) forms of empowerment in the region. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Sometimes, others complain to you or insult you so that you clean or cook better. Many people can’t take the insults of others, and so they quit working in tourism. But I’ve learned to appreciate what others say, because it’s for my own good. [(QT-2)] ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (303) 819 2769; fax: +1 (970) 491 2255. E-mail address: dkespecial79@gmail.com (D.W. Knight). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.007 0160-7383/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 33 Outside the ancient Inca capital and present-day World Heritage Site of Cuzco, Peru, Renalda1 described her experiences working in turismo rural comunitario (TRC, or rural/community-based tourism). The research team had gathered in the kitchen of her mud-brick, thatch-roofed home in the town of Qorqor, located about forty minutes by car from the city and just up the road from the site selected for the construction of Cuzco’s new international airport (to be completed in 2020). One of her daughters had entered the kitchen and was jumping playfully around on the dirt floor, stirring up a cloud of earth that complicated any efforts to breathe at nearly 13,000 feet above sea level. Renalda continued to describe a particular experience from 2012 in which she and other socias (associates) from her community’s tourism association were being trained to prepare food for visitors: I feel very satisfied when I learn, but at first it wasn’t like that. Last year, a trainer came from the travel company. . .to teach us how to cook better. The man screamed at me and insulted me so strongly – telling me things about how to improve my food preparation – that I cried twice, because I couldn’t cook. Not even my husband would say those things to me or talk to me like that. But I learned from it and now I know how to use a blender to make aji and mayonnaise. [(QT-2)] For the increasing number of individuals choosing to work in TRC in the region, such accounts of perseverance, of learning, of struggling to superar (overcome) or salir adelante (get ahead) are not uncommon. Renalda’s comment, however, alludes to issues of power that ostensibly affect how tourism association members are becoming involved in, being effected by, or influencing the processes and outcomes related to TRC in rural communities outside of Cuzco. TRC is a form of community-based tourism (CBT) being currently promoted in Peru through a nationwide program (the Programa Nacional de Turismo Rural Comunitario) meant to empower rural communities and to promote sustainable development. Rural communities located along major tourism corridors (e.g., between Cuzco and Machu Picchu) have become a focal point of tourism-based poverty alleviation efforts, with myriad institutions from the public, private, and voluntary sectors working with community tourism associations to encourage increased local involvement in tourism enterprise and entrepreneurship. While communities often form a single tourism association at the outset of such partnerships—working collectively to host visitors, cook meals, sell traditional crafts, etc.—diverse expressions of power can contribute to local level conflict and inequalities, leading to large declines in association membership over time or to the formation of multiple tourism associations in a single community. Many studies have evaluated issues of power and processes of empowerment in the context of CBT (Blackstock, 2005; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Sofield, 2003). Some studies suggest that, on the one hand, CBT can contribute to the empowerment of rural people and to the alleviation of poverty (Manyara & Jones, 2007), generating ‘‘less negative effects and disruption of rural cultures” than tourism activities planned through top-down decision-making processes (Salazar, 2012, p. 11). On the other hand, the potential for CBT to empower local people has been a topic of ongoing debate, suggesting that contextual analyses of power are necessary in evaluating CBT’s poverty alleviating potential. Ruiz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez (2010) speculate: From this perspective, and as the result of a concern that is both academic and political, it is worth questioning whether [TRC] – as an accentuated form of community-based tourism – really does strengthen and empower communities, thereby fulfilling at least part of its sustainable development goals. (p. 203) In view of on-the-ground concerns and trends characterizing analyses of power and poverty alleviation in the context of community-based tourism (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Erskine & Meyer, 2012; Han, Wu, Huang, & Yang, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Weaver, 2010), the purpose of this paper is to evaluate processes of empowerment pertaining to TRC and factors influencing those processes in four 1 Names of people interviewed and others involved in this research have been altered for anonymity. However, place names and associations have not been altered, since ‘‘ensuring complete anonymization. . .may be an impossible task, particularly if researchers are to fully appreciate the importance of context in the reproduction of social process, structures, and everyday life” (Clark, 2006, p. 17). 34 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 rural communities outside Cuzco: Chichubamba, Amaru, Sacaca, and Qorqor. This evaluation involves two-steps. First, Rowlands’ (1997) four-part framework of power is applied to conceptualize processes of empowerment among local people, based primarily on local perceptions of TRC and specific interactions with Intrepid Travel—a Melbourne-based international tour operator working with the four communities at the time of the study. Second, consideration is given to potential personal, sociopolitical, and environmental conversion factors (Robeyns, 2005) that appear essential to understanding ways in which TRC may encourage or inhibit the empowerment of local people and contribute to poverty alleviation efforts. Evaluating tourism-linked empowerment Although a fuzzy and contested concept, power is often linked to the idea of agency, which Sen (1985a) describes as ‘‘what a person is free to do and achieve in pursuit of whatever goals or values he or she regards as important” (p. 206). Hindess (1996) describes power in its most simple form as possessing a basic capacity to act. Others consider power to be a chiefly relational phenomenon in which one’s actions, interests, or decisions prevail over the distinct and often times opposing preferences of others (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962; Dahl, 1968; Wrong, 1979). Lukes (2005) describes a kind of covert yet coercive power that prevents others, in a Gramscian sense, from developing opposing preferences at all. He poses the question: Is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they see it as natural and interchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial? (p. 28) Such analyses of power and their relationship to agency and processes of empowerment have led to the creation and operationalization of various frameworks, many of them applied to evaluate gender inequalities or tourism in the context of development and poverty reduction (Alkire, 2009; Ibrahim & Alkire, 2007; Scheyvens, 2011). Two such frameworks that have become increasingly visible in tourism studies since the late 90s include Sen’s (1985b, 2000) view of poverty alleviation as freedom enhancement (Croes, 2012; Dissart, 2012; Van de Mosselaer & Van der Duim, 2013), and Friedmann’s (1992) view of development as psychological, social, and political empowerment (Boley, McGehee, Perdue, & Long, 2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2011). While many studies on tourism-based poverty alleviation appear at least implicitly couched in one of these two alternative development frameworks (i.e., focused on either capabilities or empowerment), it is clear that Sen’s and Friedmann’s conceptualizations are not mutually exclusive (Briedenhann, 2011). Highlighting the overlap between these frameworks, Trommlerova, Klasen, and Lebmann (2015) suggest that Friedmann’s work may be directly linked to Sen’s concept of freedom enhancement, defining empowerment ‘‘as an increase in agency which enables individuals to pursue valuable and important goals” (p. 1). Again, Zhao and Ritchie’s (2007) ‘anti-poverty tourism’ framework highlights empowerment as an essential component of poverty alleviation, with its overarching goal to help people ‘‘develop their capabilities, have a sense of control over their wellbeing and lead dignified lives” (italics added; Scheyvens & Russell, 2012, p. 422). Taken together, the emphasis on capabilities and empowerment in tourism studies highlights the interplay between agency and structure in processes of poverty alleviation (Erskine & Meyer, 2012). This interplay suggests that the empowerment of local people through CBT may depend on a number of conversion factors, including personal characteristics (e.g., personal histories, intellectual attributes) and socio-political and environmental features influencing individual or collective decisions to act (Croes, 2012; Robeyns, 2005; Rowlands, 1997). Robeyns (2005) suggests that Sen’s capability approach ‘‘insists. . .that we need to scrutinize the context in which economic production and social interactions take place, and whether the circumstances in which people choose from their opportunity sets are enabling and just” (p. 99). Given the ways in which local-level contexts are imbued with imbalances of power—both within communities and between residents and other actors making tourism development decisions (Church & Coles, 2007; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Timothy, 2007)— D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 35 evaluations of poverty alleviation within CBT studies should seek to identify particular expressions of power as well as the factors that may be inhibiting or encouraging empowerment processes for local people. These evaluations may benefit from previous efforts to simplify diverse and decidedly contested expressions of power into typologies. Acosta and Pettit (2013) present one such typology, combining previous conceptualizations into a ‘political economy and power analysis’ framework to evaluate ‘‘relations between key development actors” (p. 6). The typology incorporates a range of visible, hidden, and invisible characteristics related to the roles of individuals and institutions, sanctions and enforcement, drivers of change, and other considerations. In a separate approach, Trommlerova et al. (2015) build on the work of Ibrahim and Alkire (2007) and Rowlands (1997) to create a framework for analyzing development through a multidimensional lens linked to both capabilities and empowerment. This framework incorporates four expressions of power: ‘power over’, ‘power to’, ‘power with’, and ‘power within’. Due to its relevance for analyzing expressions of power in the context of CBT (including processes of disempowerment; Hall, 2013), this framework undergirds the analysis adopted in the present study. ‘Power over’ is distinguishable as a negative expression of power that involves the overt or covert domination or coercion of others. The practice of this kind of power rests on the idea that power is finite and non-generative, such that the empowerment of one individual (or many) through domination concomitantly results in the disempowerment of others. Rowlands (1997) refers to such a process as a ‘zero-sum game’. She suggests that one expression of this kind of power may be when marginalized people (e.g., women, the elderly, the poor) are given positions of political or economic decisionmaking authority, perhaps in the name of participation or collaboration. While empowerment of this kind appears commendable, Rowlands warns that the ‘‘difficulty with this interpretation is that if power can be bestowed, it can just as easily be withdrawn; empowerment as a gift does not involve a structural change in power relations” (p. 12). In CBT, this suggests that the interests and goals of local people should drive decision-making processes in an ongoing fashion rather than tokenistically serve short-term and predominantly external interests (Scheyvens, 2011). The remaining three kinds of power emphasize generative and productive processes such that the empowerment of one (or many) does not necessitate the disempowerment of others. Enhanced ‘power to’ may be observed through increased individual (but socially dependent2) agency stemming from or leading to the unlocking of opportunities without domination. In CBT, these opportunities might include the ability for women to work and earn an income, the ability to determine what tourists do when visiting a particular community, or, more simply, the ability to live the kind of life one has reason to value (Sen, 2000). Kelly (1992) suggests that perhaps ‘‘it is ‘power to’ that the term ‘empowerment’ refers to, and it is achieved by increasing one’s ability to resist and challenge ‘power over’” (quoted in Rowlands, 1997, p. 12). The focus of ‘power with’ is on the collective power of a group (e.g., a tourism association in a rural community) to realize group interests or to address the needs of others. In CBT, this process might be realized through collective action directed either internally or externally (e.g., for members of a tourism association or for community members in general)—fomented by a recognition of existing needs and collective efforts to address those needs. Finally, ‘power within’ is very much related to Freire’s (1970) concept of empowerment through conscientization, which has influenced participatory approaches to development since the late 70s (de Negri, Thomas, Ilinigumugabo, Muvandi, & Lewis, 1998). It entails processes of empowerment ‘‘that lead people to perceive themselves as able and entitled to make decisions” (Rowlands, 1997, p. 14), indicating an increased awareness of rights, self, or ways for combating internalized oppression and other forms of domination. While studies tend to categorize these four types of power separately for explanatory purposes, it is important to note that they are interrelated and may build on or detract from each other through 2 Sen (2002), in responding to critiques that the capability approach focuses too much on individual capabilities while ignoring collective elements, concedes that individual capabilities are indeed socially dependent. Later studies (e.g., Ibrahim, 2006) eventually led to the addition and application of collective capabilities (Scarlato, 2013), which are considered opportunities available to individuals as a consequence of their membership in a collective (e.g., a tourism association). Here, ‘power to’ is linked to enhanced agency as a result of increased individual or collective capabilities—both of which would be measured at the individual level (as opposed to ‘power with’, which would be measured at the group level and representative of collective power). 36 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 mutually or cyclically empowering/disempowering processes. Table 1 describes the four types of power and related processes of empowerment that will guide the analysis presented here. Study context The rediscovery of Machu Picchu by Hiram Bingham of Yale University in 1911—quickly followed by an expansive report on the site by National Geographic in its April, 1913 issue—stirred the geographical imaginations of people everywhere and began attracting tourists to the region as early as the 1920s (Gómez-Barris, 2012; Massey, 2006). By the 1950s—after the Peruvian government had built up some much-needed infrastructure in the area—visitors began to arrive ‘‘en masse, transforming the nation’s heritage into raw material for tourist consumption” (Gómez-Barris, 2012, p. 4). International tourist arrivals in Peru saw a 380% increase between 1995 and 2010 (UNWTO., 2012), and the number of annual visitors to Machu Picchu topped one million for the first time in 2012 (Peruvian Times, 2014). On their way to Machu Picchu, most visitors pass through the city of Cuzco (population of 413,000 in 2013; INEI, n.d.), where approximately 1,200 travel and tourism companies are presently registered and serving visitors (DIRCETUR, 2013). In view of upward trends in tourist arrivals to the region, plans are in place to construct a new international airport by the year 2020 in the town of Chinchero, just 30 minutes outside Cuzco (BBC News, 2012; CAPA, 2014). This development will afford visitors easier access to rural communities located between Cuzco and Machu Picchu, generating continued change in the area’s political/ geographical landscape, economy, and culture. Around Cuzco, community-based tourism has been promoted as a means for eradicating poverty through the empowerment of people living in rural areas (Casas-Jurado, Domingo, & Pastor, 2012). Since 2006, these efforts have been undergirded by a national-level focus on TRC and its related forms (e.g., agricultural tourism, ecotourism, homestay tourism, indigenous tourism, cultural tourism) in order to generate economic, environmental, social, and cultural benefits for indigenous and mestizo communities, which tend to be characterized by higher degrees of poverty than urban centers (Casas-Jurado et al., 2012; MINCETUR, 2006). Intrepid Travel, headquartered in Melbourne, Australia and responsible for funding the current study, is one of the many tourism companies promoting TRC in the Cuzco region. After ending a four-year merger with Touristik Union International (TUI) of Germany in July of 2015, Intrepid now expects to generate annual revenues of 230 million USD while continuing to employ nearly 1,800 people globally and to offer over 800 tours across all seven continents (Intrepid, n.d.; Stalker, 2015). Traveling from Cuzco to Machu Picchu, as with all Intrepid tours, groups are limited to 16 passengers and are led by a local (Peruvian) guide. Intrepid has working agreements with four rural, Quechua3 communities situated in or near the so-called Valle Sagrado (Sacred Valley). These communities include Chichubamba, Amaru, Sacaca, and Qorqor, each located about an hour from Cuzco by car and ranging in size from 50 to 220 families (Fig. 1). Traditional livelihoods in these communities include agriculture (potato, barley, fava beans, and quinoa are commonly grown), animal husbandry (chickens, cattle, sheep, and Guinea pig are commonly raised, traded, sold, and consumed), floriculture, textiles, and ceramics. Other livelihoods include transportation, public works, merchandising, and tourism. Intrepid Travel works with only one tourism association in each community such that, upon arrival, Intrepid passengers interact with only those individuals who are part of that association. During their visit, passengers eat a locally prepared lunch, learn about and potentially participate in local people’s way of life (e.g., tilling soil, feeding the Guinea pigs, etc.), and have the opportunity to purchase crafts or textiles from members of the tourism association with which Intrepid works. Visits to these communities by Intrepid groups never entail overnight stays; they occur between one and five times per week, take place around lunch, and last for two to three hours at a time. Intrepid was selected as the focus of this study due to the community-based approach of its tourism operations, to its reputation as one of the larger and more recognizable tour companies in the region, and to the extent that its visits 3 While the civilization that constructed Machu Picchu is often referred to as Inca, this is a misnomer. Inca actually means ‘king’ or ‘ruler’ in the indigenous language of Quechua. D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 37 Table 1 Descriptions of four types of power and empowerment processes.1 Type of power Primary focus Description of Empowerment process2 Power over Domination Power to Agency Power with Collectivity Power within Self-awareness Increased ability to control others (e.g., through overt or covert coercion); may incite compliance, resistance, or manipulation from others; non-generative3 Increased individual ability to exist or to act as one wishes; related to poverty alleviation through freedom enhancement at individual level (Sen, 2000); creates or unlocks opportunities without domination; socially-dependent and generative Increased ability to collectively address individual or group needs or interests; suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of the individuals who comprise it; generative Increased conscientization, self-determination, respect, etc.; similar to Friedmann’s (1992) psychological empowerment; generative 1 Adapted from Ibrahim and Alkire (2007), Lukes (2005), Rowlands (1997), Trommlerova et al., (2015). These processes are influenced by personal conversion factors (metabolism, personal histories, health, reading ability, etc.), socio-political conversion factors (social norms, tourism policies, political hierarchies, etc.), and environmental conversion factors (geography, climate, etc.; Robeyns, 2005). 3 Non-generative empowerment may be described as a ‘zero-sum game’ (i.e., empowerment of one involves disempowerment of another). 2 Fig. 1. Location of Chichubamba, Amaru, Sacaca, and Qorqor in the Valle Sagrado (adapted from Cutts, 2006). were largely representative of TRC practices in Peru (e.g., providing visitors a locally prepared meal, a chance to learn about local ways, a chance to purchase traditional crafts, etc.). Methods Data for this study were collected using rapid qualitative inquiry (RQI) from June through December, 2013. RQI has been described as intensive, team-based, qualitative inquiry based on a case study approach using multiple techniques for data collection and iterative data analysis and additional data collection to quickly develop a preliminary understanding of a situation from the insider’s perspective (Beebe, 2014). As Beebe (2014) suggests, the explicit purpose of this approach is to produce results for outside entities and decision makers like local government representatives in the Cuzco region, Intrepid guides and staff in Peru, or Intrepid staff headquartered in Melbourne. 38 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 Purposeful sampling was used to conduct 93 semi-structured interviews of community households involved in tourism (n = 47), households not involved in tourism (n = 29), Intrepid guides (n = 12), and government representatives (n = 5) (Coyne, 1997). This study draws on interviews with non-tourism association members, with Intrepid guides, and with tourism association members working with Intrepid, but not on interviews with government representatives. For selecting individuals to interview in each community, maximum variation was stressed in terms of geographical location and gender, and phenomenon variation was based on respondents’ involvement (or not) in tourism (Sandelowski, 1995). Interview questions explored the positive and negative aspects of TRC in each community; motivations for working in TRC (or not); the histories of tourism associations working with Intrepid; changes experienced by interviewees as a result of TRC in general or Intrepid visits in particular; and concerns and suggestions from tourism association members working with Intrepid in each community. Interviews lasted anywhere from fifteen minutes to one hour and were transcribed from Quechua or Spanish into English. Other data sources included field notes, participant observation (e.g., of tourism association meetings or interactions between locals and groups during Intrepid visits), and tourism documents from Intrepid, local government, and respective tourism associations. Respondents in the sample offered valuable insights into processes of empowerment linked to TRC in each community. First, they alluded to relational aspects of power apparent in the way decisions were made within tourism associations, within communities, and between communities and Intrepid. Second, they described positive and negative changes fomented by the perceived influence of TRC on individual and collective action, suggesting that TRC was contributing to generative or non-generative forms of empowerment at the local level. A combination of data- and theory-driven analysis led to conceptual interpretations based on themes/categories in the study as well as on Rowland’s four expressions of power and on conversion factors influencing those expressions (Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2007; Pastras & Bramwell, 2013). In this way, new interpretations and categories were allowed to emerge based on empirical data, but these were considered to be characteristics of the theoretical categories selected a priori (i.e., the four expressions of power and concomitant conversion factors; Decrop, 2004). Aligning with approaches from previous studies adopting a constructivistinterpretive paradigm (Dredge & Jenkins, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles, Trevorrow, & Sparrow, 2014), the interpretations presented here are based on several data sources and on diverse local perceptions, emphasizing illustrative examples over exhaustive descriptions (Pastras & Bramwell, 2013). Table 2 provides an overview of the four communities, the four tourism associations partnering with Intrepid, and the research methods employed. Results: generative and non-generative empowerment through TRC Local accounts of TRC and interactions with Intrepid Travel or local government were suggestive of generative processes of empowerment in each community. These processes were most visible among those working with Intrepid Travel and did not characterize communities as a whole, with emergent themes linked to enhanced agency, collectivity, and self-awareness among tourism association members. Regarding enhanced agency (‘power to’), an increased capacity to improve their quality of life and to educate their kids represented the most commonly referenced aspects of empowerment through TRC for association members working with Intrepid. This increased agency appeared to be generated primarily through an increased command over economic resources stemming from Intrepid visits. During an association gathering in Chichubamba, for example, one associate said, ‘‘Before [Intrepid visits], we had enough money to survive. Now, we have enough money to improve” (CI-1). An associate in Amaru referred to the way in which tourism had enhanced her ability to purchase food (as opposed to trading for it): ‘‘. . .with the income from tourism I can buy basic necessities like sugar and rice. Before, it was very sad; we would exchange products in the market and we only did trueque”4 (AI-5). In Sacaca, an associate linked TRC to increased income and agency: 4 Trueque is a term describing traditional trade/bartering practice among Quechua peoples. 39 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 Table 2 Overview of tourism associations and data collection methods by community. Characteristic Approx. population Approx. elevation Name of tourism association1 working with Intrepid (year formed) Year association began receiving Intrepid groups # of members (2013) Percent female members Estimated number of intrepid visitors (2013) Tourism season Source of equally-distributed income Source of individual income Price of lunch for visitors2 Average monthly tourism income per associate3 Weeks spent in community # of Semi-structured interviews # of Intrepid visits observed Community Chichubamba Amaru Sacaca Qorqor 684 2870 m Asociación de Agroturismo (2005) 2008 1,010 3800 m Comité de Mujeres, Amaru (2008) 655 3450 m Asociación Sumaq Warmi (2012) 2010 2010 200 3900 m Asociación Munay Ttica (2013) 2013 14 79% 800 12 83% 350 12 75% 227 24 92% 515 Year round none Lunch and workshop revenues 15 soles (6 USD) 190 soles (70 USD) 4 27 8 April–December Lunch Hand-woven textiles April–December Lunch Hand-woven textiles Year round Lunch Hand-woven textiles 15 soles (6 USD) 54 soles (20 USD) 15 soles (6 USD) 63 soles (23 USD) 3 24 2 3 23 1 25 soles (9 USD) 40 soles (15 USD) 4 19 5 1 Chichubamba and Sacaca had only one tourism association operating in their respective communities as of 2013, while Amaru had four and Qorqor had two. 2 Exchange rate of 1 USD = 2.7 nuevo soles; all lunch prices cost 5 soles extra (1.85 USD) if visitors wished to eat cuy (Guinea Pig); Qorqor association charged more than other communities, preparing an Andean Buffet that offered an array of local foods rather than just soup and a main dish. 3 On average, Intrepid visits contributed to 100% of monthly tourism income for association members working with Intrepid in Amaru and Sacaca, 90% for association members working with Intrepid in Qorqor, and 60% for association members working with Intrepid in Chichubamba. Rural, home-stay tourism is a complementary job. Here, we don’t produce our crops to sell or to export. We don’t have luxuries, but we have food to eat. You can earn 15 soles (6 USD) per day working for someone in the fields, but with tourism you can earn more. With tourism we receive an income – economic support – and we can improve our quality of life. [(SI-8)] In Qorqor, an associate alluded to the commonly expressed interest in using tourism income for educating children, stating, ‘‘I am nothing, from nothing. I’m just a farmer. But I want my kids to become something more, to learn how to be technologists in agricultural science, or administrators. That’s why we want to educate our kids, and tourism will help us do that” (QI-8). In general, local perceptions suggested that involvement in TRC and specific interactions with Intrepid Travel had led to enhanced ‘power to’— making the realization of individual (but socially dependent) goals more effectively possible (Sen, 2002). With respect to enhanced collectivity (‘power with’), generative empowerment was observed in specific actions by tourism association members to realize collective interests in supporting association members or non-members in need. This enhanced collectivity was realized when a tourism association member’s home burned down in Chichubamba, and other association members pooled TRC funds and came together to support him in its reconstruction. Also in Chichubamba, one tourism association member who had been crippled by a bout with polio earlier in life was unable to cook lunch for visitors on his own. Other members of his association consistently helped him cook lunch when he requested their assistance. In Sacaca, the association president alluded to a collective goal ‘‘to escape crisis” (SI-2) through TRC, saying that the tourism association was working in tourism to provide jobs 40 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 for others in the community while helping ‘‘to feed and to educate our kids, to improve our homes, and much more” (SI-2). One older woman in Qorqor, who had not been working in tourism and whose husband had recently died, was encouraged by women from the tourism association to join them, since TRC would not be as physically strenuous as farming or taking care of her sheep. They did this knowing that their income might decrease with the addition of another association member (the association in Qorqor pooled tourism income and divided it equally among members at the end of the year). In each of these cases and others, expressions of ‘power with’ highlighted a kind of generative empowerment in which tourism association members acted collectively to empower others and meet recognizable needs. Finally, pertinent to enhanced self-awareness (‘power within’), TRC appeared to contribute to processes of empowerment for association members in the form of increased conscientization, confidence, and happiness and respect felt by women. This kind of empowerment among marginalized peoples often requires that they ‘‘not only critically reflect upon their existence but critically act upon it” (Freire, 1970, p. 109). A tourism association member in Amaru alluded to this process by describing a particular concern related to his association’s interaction with Intrepid: ‘‘We are waking up with tourism and we are walking forward. . .What is lacking is reflection; we need to think about our rights and our responsibilities” (AI-1). ‘Waking up’ through work in TRC seemed to contribute to increased confidence for many association members. During a meeting with several Intrepid guides in Cuzco, one of them stated, ‘‘The women in Chichubamba used to be very timid, and they could barely interact with visitors. But many of them have become more confident and they have learned to speak out” (IS-5). As this quote suggests, enhanced ‘power within’ was especially significant among female association members. The husband of an association member in Qorqor stated: Before, the women didn’t have any income from their animals, from agriculture, or from their crafts. But now they have a business and they earn something. My wife used to remain by herself and didn’t work much with the other women. Now, she feels better because she works with the others. She is more involved now in the community, working with the association. [(QI-10)] Female association members also reported being happier (‘‘Now, with tourism, we have changed. When we are alone at home, we feel sad. But when we are all together—sitting down—we laugh, we play, we talk”; QI-1) and experiencing more respect from their husbands (‘‘Before, our husbands would come home drunk and say to us, ‘What have you done today? You haven’t worked.’ But now we can say to our husbands that we have our own income”; AI-4). Some women suggested that they participated in TRC not because it brought more money than other jobs (e.g., animal husbandry), but because it was more fun for them. In general, the increased confidence, happiness, and respect for women represented forms of psychological empowerment (Friedmann, 1992; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Scheyvens, 2011) for association members that might not have occurred as readily in the absence of opportunities to work in TRC or to interact with Intrepid Travel. While various expressions of power in the four communities were representative of generative processes of empowerment, expressions of power as domination were also apparent. These expressions represented the use of ‘power over’ and were observed through interactions that ostensibly led to empowerment of some and disempowerment of others. In particular, three themes emerged as expressions of ‘power over’ related to the scheduling of visits by Intrepid, the role of tour guides in shaping visitor/association interactions, and forms of local elitism (Mowforth & Munt, 2009). The scheduling of visits occurred through a decision-making process led by an Intrepid staff member in Cuzco who appeared to possess and exert what could be considered ‘power over’—determining both when Intrepid groups would visit communities and which communities to visit. Tourism association members in each community depended on this staff member to provide them with a monthly visitation schedule, making trips from their communities into the city of Cuzco to meet with her and retrieve the document. Association members from each community often wasted time and money traveling to Cuzco only to find that the schedule was not ready or that no one was unavailable to meet with them. Intrepid’s ability to dominate the scheduling process was exemplified by this particular staff member’s decision to ‘punish’ the tourism association in Sacaca, sending no Intrepid visitors in October because Intrepid guides had difficulty reaching Sacaca’s association president by cell phone. D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 41 An associate from Chichubamba voiced her frustration with the Intrepid employee in charge of scheduling, saying, ‘‘We should not be treated, as we sometimes are by her, like furniture to be moved around. We are people!” (CI-7) In addition to the scheduling process, Intrepid guides also appeared to possess and exert ‘power over’ in determining the way TRC occurred in each community. The role of tour guides as brokers of power has been explored elsewhere (Cheong & Miller, 2004; Cohen, 1985). Ypeij (2012) suggests that English-speaking tour guides working outside of Cuzco—such as those leading Intrepid groups—control the interactions between tourists and indigenous people, attempting to ‘‘give tourists a special experience in hopes of earning money” (p. 27). Intrepid guides observed in this study appeared to exert a kind of power as domination by controlling various aspects of visitor/association interactions, including: 1. Whether groups would actually reach communities at all (e.g., if one passenger was sick, guides often chose to forego community visits entirely), 2. Whether stops would be made at other markets before reaching communities, 3. Which homes in the communities might be visited (as in the case of Chichubamba, where lunches and workshops were held in association member homes rather than in a common meeting place), and 4. What information was shared with the visitors when purchasing products (e.g., that a blanket selling for USD $110 had taken 30 days to weave by hand). One Intrepid guide stated, ‘‘There are Intrepid guides who look for any possible excuse to avoid visiting a community” (IS-4). Decisions to not visit communities appeared to disempower tourism association members to varying degrees, with one associate stating, ‘‘. . .may [the guides] not fail us, because it makes us sad – being all ready to cook, but no one showing up. It demotivates us” (AI-3). Controlling interactions between associations and visitors, then, represented a kind of ‘power over’ materialized in guides’ influence over TRC interactions. Tourism association members appeared to be not only the recipients of power as domination, but also its purveyors. In Amaru, for example, four tourism associations have formed in recent years and come to dominate decisions made during the community’s monthly assemblies. Expressions of ‘power over’ in Amaru were materialized in three particular decisions that ostensibly supported the interests of a class of local elites (i.e., those involved in tourism) over the interests of those not working in tourism. Made during community-wide assemblies, these decisions related to the following: 1. Demanding that community members fill one bag with trash and present it as a kind of entry fee to participate in Amaru’s monthly assemblies, keeping the community clean for visitors; 2. The ongoing enforcement of an agreement from 2005 that all homes in Amaru be ‘improved’ for tourism (e.g., adorning home exteriors with Inca/indigenous designs, cleaning up cooking and dining areas, expanding homes with additional rooms for potential overnight visitors, placing decorative plants about the home, etc.); 3. Requirement that dogs to be kept inside (promoting Amaru as a safe, dog-free zone5 for tourists). Describing those responsible for making these kinds of decisions, one individual not working in tourism in Amaru guessed that only 30% of the community benefited from tourism. Those individuals, according to the respondent, were ‘‘the ones who already have money” (AN-6). Such expressions of power as domination by tourism association members were visible in similar ways in other communities, leading to conflict within associations themselves (as in the case of Chichubamba) or to conflict between associations (as in the cases of Sacaca and Qorqor). For example, some associates in Chichubamba felt that a kind of geographical/familial elitism within their association was restricting opportunities for individuals living in more remote parts of the community. One associate noted, ‘‘The association is divided now – associates living farther down are benefitting 5 While it may seem trivial, keeping dogs inside was a significant consideration in Amaru and other communities. Dogs represent a noticeable health risk not just for visitors, but for local people. 42 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 more. . .We should all work together in unity, as a single force, and work for a single purse, dividing everything equally” (CI-7). Because those association members with more accessible homes (including the current association president) also happened to be related by blood or marriage, processes of disempowerment experienced by some association members (i.e., those living in more remote parts of town) were ostensibly influenced by an array of contextual (i.e., conversion) factors (Han et al., 2014). Across the four communities, then, tourism association members could be characterized as both recipients and purveyors of ‘power over’. Conversion factors influencing empowerment While assessing particular expressions of power may be important for CBT studies on a theoretical level, evaluating contextual elements that hinder or promote the empowerment of local people holds decidedly practical significance. Robeyns (2005) suggests that ‘‘for political and social purposes it is crucially important to know the social determinants of the relevant capabilities, as only those determinants (including social structures and institutions) can be changed” (p. 110). Understanding personal and environmental determinants of empowerment processes may also hold practical significance, although they may not be changed as readily as socio-political factors. This study sought not only to identify particular expressions of power characterizing TRC in the four communities under consideration, but also to identify personal, socio-political, and environmental conversion factors that may be helping or hindering the empowerment of local people. On a personal level, many association members recognized—as Renalda did in the opening quote— the roles of will-power and perseverance in benefiting from tourism. A man in Qorqor suggested, ‘‘In order to work with tourists, you have to have voluntad (will). If you don’t have voluntad, well, it can’t be done. You have to have a vision toward the future and to decide what you’re going to do” (QT-3). An associate in Chichubamba said, ‘‘Some association members think the association president should be fighting for everyone, but people need to mobilize themselves. . .Every one of us has to invest our time and money to improve” (CI-2). Another factor on the personal level related to people’s personalities. As an associate in Chichubamba reflected, ‘‘Many association members are timid and don’t make their voices heard. They are quiet and often afraid to speak up both among other associates and when interacting with outside businesses/agencies. But some are far more outspoken” (CI-6). Personal history (e.g., husbands working previously as porters on the Inca Trail), gender, and physical health also represented significant factors influencing empowerment through TRC in this study. Particular socio-political conversion factors were similarly significant. At the associational level, weak institutional norms that failed to recognize communal goals or the needs of others contributed to increased competition and individualization in the market. Ruiz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramí rez (2010) allude to these processes in CBT: The market undermines the communitarian link if it promotes individualism as the exclusive rule of participation. But if the common aspect, the community, is shaped as the main agent in the [tourism] business. . .the market can promote the collective. (p. 223) Emphasis on individualization and competition over associational or community solidarity occurred in Chichubamba more than in the other three communities. In Chichubamba, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) had encouraged association members to develop individualized businesses in 2005 to earn money through TRC. By the time of this study, significant internal conflict had eroded association cohesion, ostensibly diminishing generative forms of empowerment. As a nonassociation member reflected, ‘‘There is some division between the association and others here because the associates don’t participate in tourism with the community in mind. Instead, they have become fairly individualized, making improvements for themselves” (CN-7). Increased competition and individualization, promoted as a result of specific structural/associational characteristics (e.g., tourism association members cooking lunch and receiving payment individually rather than collectively), thus appeared to influence processes of empowerment in Chichubamba. In addition to local-level determinants (e.g., associational/communal), broader socio-political constraints inhibited generative forms of tourism-linked empowerment for non-association members in all four communities. In particular, the political processes required to form tourism associations D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 43 created a tangible division between those who had formally registered with the Peruvian state to work in TRC and those who had not. As a result, although many wished to work in TRC in each community, non-tourism association members were discouraged from doing so due to the perceived political hurdles, because ‘‘the socios [were] already officially registered” (CN-3). These findings allude to distinct ways in which socio-political (including cultural) factors have impeded processes of empowerment through TRC experienced by local people. For example, the noticeable division created at the community level as a result of political requirements to become officially registered with the state appeared to enhance the decision-making power of community members currently working in TRC who had agreed to undergo specific ‘‘rites of institution” (Bourdieu, 1994, p. 13) to form tourism associations. This power was now realized over those individuals who initially refused to submit to such rites (due to a lack of time, lack of visitors, lack of perceived benefits, etc.), but who now wished to work in TRC, presenting a form of non-generative empowerment through domination observed in the exclusivity of association membership. The association president Table 3 Processes of empowerment and conversion factors linked to TRC in communities. Emergent themes/aspects Processes of empowerment Enhanced Scheduling process controlled by outsiders; guides domination controlling markets; local elites controlling association or community decisions Enhanced agency Tourism association members have increased ability to educate kids and enhance their quality of life Enhanced collectivity Tourism association members collectively acting to support marginalized people (women, the sick, the elderly); collectively addressing needs of association members/non-members Enhanced selfawareness Tourism association members ‘waking up’ and more confident through TRC; female members less timid, happier, and receiving greater respect from their husbands Conversion factors Personal Will-power; personal history; personality; gender; physical health Socio-political Associational/community cohesion and norms; external pressures (e.g., national tourism policies) Environmental Location of homes; location of community; climate; infrastructure Quote We feel somewhat expelled/ excommunicated from the group. . .If Intrepid groups or tourists only visit the homes of other association members, my question is, Why does the Association even exist? What are we [from farther back] – just paint and decoration? Association member (Chichubamba) My home was hardly normal before tourism – almost extreme poverty. I never thought that tourists would visit this community or the people here because we were poor. . . Actually, what I mean to say is that tourism has helped us improve the quality of life for us, our kids, and for the future. Association member (Chichubamba) In five years, I see us as a business: with accounting, administration, contracts. We’ll be able to help orphans, the elderly, and others in need, so they can have a good life. We’ll be able to teach others how to speak English once we learn it ourselves. [The association] can benefit our community – that’s my vision. Association member (Sacaca) Now, we’re looking for ways to learn more about tourism, to improve, to prepare ourselves more for the future when the international airport is finished in Chinchero. We want to get involved in something, so that we aren’t caught like we are now. Association member (Qorqor) With so much sacrifice, we can’t lose. Many others have quit because they don’t have time. There are still many things to do to survive, but we won’t surrender. We press onward. Association member (Sacaca) Young people currently hold positions of authority here and the elderly are isolated in the assemblies. We participate, but we have neither voice nor vote. non-association member (Amaru) We just want the groups to come more often to the end of the road to visit our home! Association member (Chichubamba) 44 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 from Chichubamba stated, ‘‘The non-tourism association members who now want to get involved because all the stones have been removed aren’t welcomed so readily by the socios who have remained” (CI-3). Besides personal and socio-political conversion factors, several environmental characteristics influencing processes of empowerment are worth noting. First, as previously mentioned, the location of homes in Chichubamba created a geographical division among certain association members. Those with more accessible homes (about half of the members) were being visited by Intrepid groups more frequently, restricting opportunities for those farther back. The location of the communities themselves was also a significant conversion factor influencing TRC in communities. Chichubamba and Qorqor, for example, were more easily accessed by Intrepid vans headed from Cuzco to Machu Picchu. Meanwhile, Sacaca and Amaru were more remote and could only be reached by driving up an unpaved mountain road that was often unsafe during the rainy season (from December to March). Associations in Chichubamba and Qorqor, thus received the lion’s share of visitors throughout the year due to a combination of factors related to location, climate, and infrastructure. Emergent themes/aspects and quotes related to processes of empowerment and concomitant conversion factors are provided in Table 3. Conclusion This study analyzed processes of empowerment pertaining to TRC and factors influencing those processes in four rural communities outside Cuzco: Chichubamba, Amaru, Sacaca, and Qorqor. Findings highlight the complexity of such analyses, suggesting that TRC as a special form of CBT may lead to the simultaneous empowerment and disempowerment of individuals in communities, depending on particular expressions of power as domination, agency, collectivity, or self-awareness and on site-specific arrays of personal, socio-political, and environmental conversion factors. The nature of non-generative empowerment within communities was represented by expressions of ‘power over’ that led to an apparent cascade of disempowerment passed down from above (i.e., from government, NGOs, and travel companies, to tourism association members, to community members not working in tourism). These processes appeared to influence tourism associations from within, as well. In the absence of associational or community cohesion, external or elite interests appeared more likely to prevail over the interests of more marginalized groups, highlighting a kind of depotentia through tourism in which a consenting majority adopted the preferences of others as their own, fueling the empowerment of a select few (Hall, 2013). Salazar (2012) describes this process in CBT development: The main issue centers around the conflict that arises over the planning of the growth and development of tourism where local participation is encouraged by [external] agencies, but a vociferous minority, in favor or against, influences decisions, the silent majority remaining unheard, suggesting a passive but tacit acceptance. (p. 12) In this study, such tacit acceptance was observed both in the lack of influence by non-tourism association members over community decisions (e.g., in Amaru), and in association member accounts of perseverance and struggle to benefit from TRC by ‘doing as they were told’, as highlighted by Renalda’s comments in the introduction. Empowerment as enhanced ‘power to’, ‘power with’, and ‘power within’ was also observed in communities. These generative forms appeared to provide association members, in particular, with increased agency in combating expressions of power as domination. This was perhaps most visible in regards to the empowerment of women through TRC, who appeared to experience increased agency and self-awareness against a host of socio-political constraints characterizing rural, indigenous/ mestizo communities in the region. Stating that TRC has led to poverty alleviation for the communities under consideration is a tenuous claim. Indeed, although tourism association members appear to have experienced generative forms of empowerment through TRC—enhancing their ability to realize personal or collective goals through increased income, through increased support for their families or for those in need, through D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 45 greater self-confidence, and the like—they have also, along with individuals not working in tourism, experienced non-generative forms of empowerment. In the communities considered here, nongenerative empowerment as domination points to relational aspects of power by which the interests of some (e.g., tour operators or local elites seeking greater gains from tourism) were realized not just in place of others’ interests, but at the expense of others’ dignity, freedom, or well-being (e.g., the requirement that one bag of trash be offered as payment for participation in Amaru’s general assembly). Intrepid visits thus appear to have contributed to poverty reduction (in a relative, multidimensional sense) for those working in tourism, but the combination and complexity of TRC outcomes (positive and negative) highlight the challenge of ascertaining whether the poor have experienced ‘‘net benefits” from TRC in the communities at large (Bennett, Roe, & Ashley 1999, p. 6). This study suggests that TRC is a conduit by which power may be not only expressed but enhanced, often at the expense of others (i.e., through domination). When such imbalances materialize in the absence of voiced concern or opposition, the insidious form of power described by Lukes (2005) may be at play. For example, some non-tourism association members seemed content with current inequalities, acknowledging that TRC was never meant to benefit everyone in the first place. Further study is necessary to evaluate how broader discourses (e.g., of TRC or development) may be influencing such an apparent lack of opposition to tourism-linked inequalities in the communities considered here. While the four expressions of power were treated in this study as separate entities for analytical purposes, findings suggest that considerable overlap exists between each. For example, by inviting an elderly widow to join the tourism association in Qorqor, current members appeared willing to sacrifice a degree of ‘power to’ (i.e., through decreased individual income) in order to attain enhanced ‘power with’ (i.e., through collective support of a woman in need). Future studies on tourism-based empowerment might evaluate this overlap more explicitly. Issues to consider might include whether tourism association members or non-members perceive themselves to be more or less able to achieve their personal interests and goals as a result of others participating in TRC in their communities, or as a result of non-community actors influencing local tourism practice (e.g., municipal government representatives). On a practical level, findings draw attention to the need for CBT studies and others concerned with the tourism-poverty nexus to consider not only processes of generative versus non-generative empowerment, but also conversion factors that may be influencing such processes for local people. Beyond maintaining the status quo within communities through sustainable tourism development, this study emphasizes the importance of promoting more generative processes of empowerment through tourism in combating dominant expressions of power often prevalent in CBT contexts. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Intrepid Travel for funding this work. Specific recognition and credit must be given to Jane Crouch of Intrepid whose genuine interest in the rights, concerns, and interests of people in partner communities were an irreplaceable source of inspiration, leading to many positive and practical project outcomes. This project would not have been possible without the committed support and generosity of our research assistant, Intrepid staff in Cuzco and Lima, and all tourism association members working with Intrepid in the Valle Sagrado. References Acosta, A. M., & Pettit, J. (May, 2013). Practice guide: A combined approach to political economy and power analysis – Discussion note prepared for the Swiss Development Cooperation. Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved March 7, 2015 from <http:// www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/ACombinedApproachtoPEandPAAMejiaAcostaandJPettit2013.pdf>. Alkire, S. (2009). Concepts and measures of agency. In K. Basu, S. M. R. Kanbur, & A. Sen (Eds.). Arguments for a better world: Essays in honor of Amartya Sen. Ethics, welfare and measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 455–474). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). The two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. BBC News. (August 23, 2012). ‘‘Machu Picchu: Peru Unveils Plans For New Airport”. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from <http://www. bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-19353660>. 46 D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 Beebe, J. (2014). Rapid qualitative inquiry: A field guide to team-based assessment (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Bennett, O., Roe, D., & Ashley, C. (1999). Sustainable tourism and poverty elimination: a report for the Department of International Development. London: Deloitte & Touche, IIED and ODI. Retrieved May 31, 2015 from <http://www.propoortourism. info/documents/SustT1999.pdf>. Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community-based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49. Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., Perdue, R. R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 33–50. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the political field. Sociological Theory, 12, 1–18. Briedenhann, J. (2011). The potential of small tourism operators in the promotion of pro-poor tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(3–4), 484–500. CAPA Centre for Aviation. (2014). ‘‘Chinchero Cuzco International Airport”. Retrieved June 24, 2014 from <http://centreforaviation.com/profiles/newairports/chinchero-cusco-international-airport>. Casas-Jurado, A. C., Domingo, A. S., & Pastor, V. J. (2012). El turismo comunitario como instrumento de erradicación de la pobreza: Potencialidades para su desarrollo en Cuzco (Perú). Cuaderno De Turismo, 30, 91–108. Cheong, S., & Miller, M. L. (2004). Power dynamics in tourism: A Foucauldian approach. In S. B. Gmelch (Ed.), Tourists and tourism: A reader (pp. 239–252). Long Grove: Waveland Press. Church, A., & Coles, T. (2007). Tourism and the many faces of power. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, power, and space (pp. 269–283). Abingdon: Routledge. Clark, A. (December, 2006). Anonymizing research data. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Working Paper Series (University of Leeds), pp. 2–21. Cohen, E. (1985). The tourist guide: The origins, structure, and dynamics of a role. Annals of Tourism Research, 12, 5–29. Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73, 47–55. Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630. Croes, R. (2012). Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capabilities approach. Journal of Travel Research, 51(5), 542–554. Cutts, R. (2006). ‘‘Cuzco and the Sacred Valley of the Incas”. Retrieved October 6, 2015 from <https://www.flickr.com/photos/panr/ 3187060751>. Dahl, R. A. (1968). Power. In D. L. Sills (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. XII, pp. 405–415). New York: Macmillan Free Press. de Negri, B., Thomas, E., Ilinigumugabo, A., Muvandi, I., & Lewis, G. (1998). Empowering Communities: Participatory Techniques for Community-based Programme Development (Volume 1). Center For African Studies (CAFS), in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs and the Academy for Education Development. Decrop, A. (2004). Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 156–169). London: Routledge. DIRCETUR. (November, 2013). Directorio de Agencias Autorizadas. Retrieved from the Dirección Regional de Comercio Exterior y Turismo – Cuzco. Dissart, J.-C. (2012). Building capabilities and territorial resources in mountain tourist areas. Revue de Géographie Alpine, 100(2), 1–9. Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Stories of practice: Tourism policy and planning. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Erskine, L. M., & Meyer, D. (2012). Influenced and influential: the role of tour operators and development organisations in tourism and poverty reduction in Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 339–357. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, Mass and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Gómez-Barris, M. (2012). Andean translations: New age tourism and cultural exchange in the Sacred Valley, Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 39, 68–78. Hall, B. C. (2013). Developing a framework for the analysis of power through depotentia. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 302–312. Han, G., Wu, P., Huang, Y., & Yang, Z. (2014). Tourism development and the disempowerment of host residents: Types and formative mechanisms. Tourism Geographies, 16(5), 717–740. Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Trevorrow, G., & Sparrow, S. (2014). The Coorong Wilderness Lodge: A case study of planning failures in indigenous tourism. Tourism Management, 44, 46–57. Hindess, B. (1996). Introduction: Two conceptions of power. In Discourses of power: From Hobbes to Foucault (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Ibrahim, S. (2006). From individual to collective capabilities: The capability approach as a conceptual framework for self-help. Journal of Human Development, 7, 398–416. Ibrahim, S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 379–403. INEI. (n.d.) Estado de la Poblacion Peruana 2013. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informatica. Retrieved March 2, 2015 from <http://inei.gob.pe/media/menurecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1095/libro.pdf>. Intrepid. (n.d.). ‘‘About Intrepid”. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from <http://www.intrepidtravel.com/about-intrepid>. Kelly, L. (April, 1992). ‘‘The Contradictions of Power for Women”. Paper given to the NFHA Women and Housing Conference. Mimeo. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628–644. Massey, D. (2006). The geographical mind. In D. Balderston (Ed.), Secondary Geography Handbook. Sheffield: Geographical Association. D.W. Knight, S.P. Cottrell / Annals of Tourism Research 56 (2016) 32–47 47 MINCETUR (Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo) (2006). Linamientos para el desarrollo del turismo rural comunitario en el Perú. San Isidro: MINCETUR. Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainability: Development and new tourism in the Third World (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2007). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 131–161). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997–1023. Pastras, P., & Bramwell, B. (2013). A strategic-relational approach to tourism policy. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 390–414. Peruvian Times. (March 12, 2014). ‘‘Drastic new rules coming very soon for visitors to Machu Picchu”. Retrieved June 12, 2014 from <http://www.peruviantimes.com/12/drastic-new-rules-coming-very-soon-for-visitors-to-machu-picchu/21727/ #comments>. Ramos, A. M., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of Palenque: empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 461–479. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114. Rowlands, J. (1997). Questioning empowerment: Working with women in honduras. Oxford: Oxfam. Ruiz-Ballesteros, E., & Hernández-Ramírez, M. (2010). Tourism that Empowers? Commodification and appropriation in Ecuador’s Turismo Comunitario. Critique of Anthropology, 30(2), 201–229. Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats, opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9–22. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18, 179–183. Scarlato, M. (2013). Social enterprise, capabilities and development paradigms: Lessons from Ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1270–1283. Scheyvens, R. (2011). Tourism and poverty. London, UK: Routledge. Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2012). Tourism and poverty alleviation in Fiji: Comparing the impacts of small- and large-scale tourism enterprises. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 417–436. Sen, A. (1985a). Well-being, agency, and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221. Sen, A. (1985b). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sen, A. (2000). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books. Sen, A. (2002). Response to commentaries. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 78–86. Sofield, T. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford: Pergamon. Stalker, I. (2015) ‘‘New-Look Intrepid Follows Its Passion” (pp. 1–2). Canadian Travel Press. Retrieved November 21, 2015 from <http://travelpress.com/subscription/IDEA/101215_083115_ctp/#?page=0>. Timothy, D. J. (2007). Empowerment and stakeholder participation in tourism destination communities. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, power and space (pp. 199–216). London and New York: Routledge. Trommlerova, S. K., Klasen, S., & Lebmann, O. (2015). Determinants of empowerment in a capability-based poverty approach: Evidence from The Gambia. World Development, 66, 1–15. UNWTO (2012). Yearbook of tourism statistics: Data 2006–2010. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization, p. 864. Van de Mosselae, F., & Van der Duim, R. (2013). Tourism and the explicit concern with poverty reduction: A review. In K. Bricker, R. Black, & S. Cottrell (Eds.), Sustainable tourism & the millennium development goals: Effecting positive change (pp. 39–56). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Weaver, D. (2010). Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 43–60. Wrong, D. (1979). Power: Its forms, bases and uses. New York: Harper and Row. Ypeij, A. (2012). The intersection of gender and ethnic identities in the Cuzco-Machu Picchu tourism industry: Sácamefotos, tour guides, and women weavers. Latin American Perspectives, 39(187), 17–35. Zhao, W., & Ritchie, B. (2007). Tourism and poverty alleviation: An integrative research framework. In C. Michael Hall (Ed.), Propoor tourism: Who benefits? (pp. 9–29). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.