UNWTO Recommendations on Urban Tourism –
Summary Notes
I. Introduction to Urban Tourism
Key Background:
•
•
Urbanization is accelerating: In 2015, 54% of the global population lived in urban
areas; expected to rise to 60% by 2030.
Tourism growth is fueled by:
o Affordable transport
o Increased mobility
o Digital platforms (e.g., Airbnb)
o Growing middle class
Importance of Urban Tourism:
•
Contributes significantly to:
o Socio-economic development
o Cultural preservation and regeneration
o Intercultural exchange
Emerging Challenges:
•
•
Environmental and Social Pressures:
o Use of natural resources
o Pollution and emissions
o Strain on infrastructure and mobility
o Disruption to host communities
o Fair working conditions
o Peace and security
Need for policy and cooperation:
o Involvement of all stakeholders (residents, tourists, governments, private
sector)
o Long-term planning
o Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—especially Goal
11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
II. UNWTO Recommendations on Urban Tourism
1. Integrate Tourism into the Urban Agenda
•
•
•
•
Make tourism part of city development plans.
Ensure inclusive, resilient, and sustainable urban growth.
Establish governance models involving:
o National, regional, and local governments
o Private sector
o Local communities
Include tourism in urban data monitoring systems for evidence-based decisionmaking.
2. Foster Sustainable Policies and Practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Encourage resource efficiency, waste reduction, and emissions control using circular
economy principles.
Promote Smart Urban Tourism through:
o Governance
o Innovation
o Technology
o Accessibility
o Sustainability (social, economic, environmental)
Ensure tourism is accessible to all, including people with disabilities.
Use big data and technology to:
o Measure tourism impact
o Guide urban planning (housing, transport, infrastructure, etc.)
o Enhance community engagement
Promote diversified tourism products to:
o Spread tourist flow across time and space
o Encourage longer stays
o Attract value-added segments of tourists
Enhance monitoring systems:
o Use UNWTO’s Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories
o Track key areas: seasonality, employment, governance, energy, water, waste,
local satisfaction, and economic benefits
Sustainability depends on long-term, participatory planning involving all
stakeholders.
3. Create Cities for All: Citizens and Visitors
•
•
•
Fully integrate local communities in tourism planning and management.
Promote community inclusion in the tourism value chain:
o Generate local wealth
o Create decent jobs
o Ensure social inclusion (especially for women, youth, and disadvantaged
groups)
Use tourism to support:
o Urban regeneration
o Cultural diversity
o
•
Innovation and knowledge exchange
Treat tourists as “temporary residents”:
o Encourage interaction between residents and visitors
o Plan cities with both groups in mind
Key Takeaways:
•
•
•
Urban tourism is a powerful tool for economic growth, but it must be managed
sustainably and inclusively.
Success depends on multi-stakeholder governance, smart technologies, and
integrated urban planning.
Cities should aim to become places for both residents and visitors to thrive.
Craft Beverage Tourism & Community Development
— Study Notes
1. What is Craft Beverage Tourism?
•
•
Definition: A form of niche tourism focused on beverages like craft beer, cider,
wine, and spirits, typically involving:
o Visits to breweries, distilleries, wineries
o Tasting events, festivals, guided tours
o Local and small-batch production
Why It Matters:
o Supports sustainable community development
o Promotes local culture, agriculture, and businesses
o Encourages community pride and social networking
o Preserves heritage and traditions
2. Theoretical Foundations
A. Community Capitals Framework (CCF)
CCF identifies seven types of resources ("capitals") that enable or limit sustainable
development:
Capital Type
Description
Natural
Local environment and agricultural resources
Built
Physical infrastructure (e.g., taprooms, breweries)
Human
Skills, knowledge, and education of community members
Cultural
Heritage, traditions, and shared stories
Capital Type
Description
Social
Relationships and networks within the community
Financial
Access to funding and economic assets
Political
Influence on policies, regulations, and advocacy capacity
•
Spiraling Up Effect:
o An increase in one capital can lead to growth in others.
o For example, strong social networks can attract investment and improve
infrastructure.
B. Creative Placemaking
•
•
Definition: Using arts, culture, and creativity to transform public spaces and
revitalize communities.
Key Elements:
o Resources (tangible/intangible assets)
o Meaning (connection people feel to a place)
o Creativity (innovation to reimagine spaces and experiences)
Combined, CCF and Creative Placemaking explain how community-driven creativity
can unlock growth through tourism.
3. The Destination Resources Acceleration Framework
A new model combining CCF + Creative Placemaking to explain how tourism development
happens in stages.
Three Levels of Capital Development
Level 1 – Foundational Capitals (Inputs):
•
•
•
Natural: Local ingredients (e.g., hops, fruit)
Human: Knowledgeable and skilled people (e.g., brewers, staff)
Built: Tasting rooms, breweries, revitalized spaces
These create the foundation for tourism.
Level 2 – Cultural and Social Outputs:
•
•
Cultural: Local identity and authenticity (e.g., storytelling, branding)
Social: Collaborations and partnerships
These emerge when creativity and meaning are applied to Level 1.
Level 3 – Financial and Political Outputs:
•
•
Financial: New business growth, tourism revenue
Political: Policy changes enabling industry growth (e.g., more open regulations)
These support long-term growth and sustainability.
4. Real-World Example: Wake County, North Carolina
•
•
•
Industry Growth: 4 craft beverage facilities in 2006 → ~50 by 2020
Support System:
o Associations, event organizers, tourism services
o Business support organizations, educational institutions
Local Focus:
o Emphasis on using local ingredients
o Hyperlocal marketing and storytelling
o Adaptive reuse of buildings (e.g., bars in abandoned areas)
5. Key Takeaways for Sustainable Tourism
•
•
•
•
•
Start with Strengths: Invest in natural, human, and built capital.
Use Creativity: Encourage creative storytelling, design, and cultural expression.
Foster Collaboration: Build strong networks among stakeholders.
Embrace Policy Change: Advocate for supportive laws and regulations.
Think Holistically: Use the Destination Resources Acceleration Framework to
guide strategy.
Conclusion
The Destination Resources Acceleration Framework shows how craft beverage tourism can
power sustainable growth. By integrating community assets, creativity, and meaning,
local stakeholders can build stronger, more resilient economies and cultures.
The Community Capitals Framework: An Empirical
Examination of Internal Relationships
Introduction
•
•
Community development is increasingly complex, requiring effective tools to
understand community change dynamics.
The Community Capitals Framework (CCF) is used to organize information and
understand how community development occurs through community leadership
development (CLD) efforts.
•
The CCF identifies seven forms of "capital" that communities use to create change:
human, social, political, cultural, built, natural, and economic or financial.
Community Capitals Framework (CCF)
•
•
The CCF, developed by Flora and Flora (2008) and Green and Haines (2002), is a
framework that helps explain the nature and processes of community development.
Seven Forms of Capital:
o Human Capital: Skills, education, health, and the abilities of individuals.
o Social Capital: Relationships, networks, trust, and connections among people
and organizations.
o Political Capital: Influence, power, and the ability to engage in decisionmaking processes.
o Cultural Capital: Values, norms, traditions, and heritage that shape
community identity.
o Built Capital: Infrastructure, facilities, and physical resources like buildings
and roads.
o Natural Capital: Natural resources such as land, water, and biodiversity.
o Economic or Financial Capital: Financial resources, investments, and
economic assets.
Research Overview
•
•
The study examines how community capitals relate to each other using data from
participants in community leadership development education programs.
The research aims to contribute to the discussion on the relationships among
community capitals and their effective use in achieving community change.
Research Methods
•
•
•
•
•
The research included 20 sites across five states, focusing on communities with
Community Leadership Development (CLD) programs between 2002 and 2006.
Key community informants provided lists of community projects and activities and
identified individuals who served as leaders.
Researchers interviewed CLD participants to gather details about each activity,
including goals, obstacles, resources used, and the applicability of their CLD
experience.
212 projects and activities led by former CLD participants were analyzed.
Each project was coded using the CCF to identify up to four types of capital involved.
o The primary type of capital was assigned based on the project's main goal.
o Additional capital categories were assigned based on the project's
implementation and resource utilization.
Findings and Analysis
•
•
The analysis indicates that community capitals are organized into two clusters,
challenging the "spiraling up" analogy that suggests a uniform, reinforcing
relationship among all capitals.
Frequency of Capital Implementation:
o
o
o
•
•
•
Human capital projects were the most frequently implemented.
Financial and cultural capital projects were also common.
Social, financial, and political capital were frequently utilized to accomplish
community goals.
Inter-relatedness of Community Capitals:
o Projects often involved multiple types of capital, demonstrating their interrelatedness.
o For example, projects focused on human capital also showed high
involvement of social, human, and political capital.
Checklist and Indices:
o A checklist of specific items related to each community capital was used to
measure the "amount" of each capital utilized in each project.
o Summative indices were created to quantify the nature and extent of capital
use.
Statistical Relationships:
o Significant relationships were found between financial, social, and political
capital indices and the project classifications.
o This confirms the inter-relatedness of these capitals in community projects.
Logistic Regression Analysis
•
•
•
Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between community capital
indicators and project classifications.
The analysis revealed the influence of various capital indices on the likelihood of a
project being classified under a specific capital category.
o For example, the use of the natural capital index significantly increased the
odds of a project being classified as addressing natural capital.
o The human capital index increased the likelihood of a project being classified
as having a human capital component, while the natural and cultural capital
indices reduced this likelihood.
The analysis also highlighted the dynamic nature of the relationships among
community capitals, supporting the idea that different capitals are involved in various
ways in community projects.
Cluster Analysis
•
•
•
•
Cluster analysis was used to further explore the relationships among the CCF
elements.
The analysis revealed two main clusters:
o Financial, built, and natural capitals.
o Social, political, and human capitals.
Cultural capital appeared to have a weaker association with either cluster.
This clustering suggests that community actions involve deploying capitals in specific
combinations, depending on the task, community situation, and available resources.
Summary
•
The study demonstrates that community members engage in various projects to
benefit their communities, utilizing a mix of community resources.
•
•
•
•
Community development activities are often self-organizing, driven by empowered
individuals focused on shared goals, with limited external intervention.
The CCF is a useful framework for understanding community development efforts,
showing that most activities involve multiple interacting capitals.
The relationships among community capitals are better described as a process of
strategic leveraging rather than a uniform "spiraling up" effect.
The selection of which capitals to use depends on the project's objectives and the
community's specific needs and context.
Implications
•
•
•
The findings suggest that community leaders strategically leverage different
combinations of community capitals to achieve specific outcomes.
Understanding these dynamics can help community developers and practitioners to
better support community initiatives and enhance their effectiveness.
Future research could explore the long-term effects of community projects and the
impact of explicitly applying the CCF in community development education.
Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with
the Community Capitals Framework
Introduction
•
•
•
•
The paper uses the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) to examine community
change from a systems perspective.
It identifies social capital as a critical resource that can reverse a downward spiral of
loss into an upward spiral of hope, a process called "spiraling-up."
The study analyzes the Home Town Competitiveness (HTC) project in Nebraska to
illustrate the assets invested, created, and expanded through this process.
The research explores how the CCF can be used to understand the flow among
various forms of capital and its impact on a community's capacity to initiate and
sustain change, particularly in building social capital.
The Importance of Social Capital
•
•
•
•
Social capital is a crucial characteristic of a community.
It can both influence and be influenced by the stock and flow of other forms of
capital.
Understanding the interaction between community capitals and external investments
can clarify the critical role of social capital.
The paper examines how identifying community capitals and strategically increasing
their stocks can lead to a "spiraling up" effect, where these capitals build on each
other to foster positive community change.
The Home Town Competitiveness Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Community Capitals Framework (CCF) is used to analyze the HomeTown
Competitiveness (HTC) program, a comprehensive community development effort.
The analysis is based on field data and interviews to track how capital investments
were made and their outcomes.
In July 2001, the National Rural Funders Collaborative (NRFC) called for
collaborative strategic proposals to address neglect and disinvestment in rural
America.
The NRFC sought collaborations among regional funders and multiple organizations
to develop place-based strategies aimed at reducing poverty in specific rural regions.
The potential to secure $750,000 over three years and growing concerns about rural
population decline in Nebraska led three non-profit organizations to initiate
HomeTown Competitiveness (HTC).
HTC focused on an integrated strategy to reverse the decline in population and percapita income in rural communities on the Great Plains.
The program combined the strengths of three groups:
o Leadership development (Heartland Center for Community Leadership
Development).
o Entrepreneurship development (RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship).
o Community foundations (Nebraska Community Foundation).
A key goal of HTC was to include youth in leadership, philanthropy, and
entrepreneurship to address youth out-migration.
The three organizations had existing place-based strategies, and their leaders had
strong ties to rural Nebraska, both professionally and personally.
The leaders had a history of collaboration and compatible mission statements,
contributing to high levels of bonding and bridging social capital within the newly
formed HTC.
In 2002, HTC received a $50,000 learning partner grant, which was renewed in 2003,
allowing them to support collaborative development and integrate philanthropy,
entrepreneurship, and leadership through local leadership.
HTC's strategy involved:
o Increasing philanthropy by directing rural wealth transfers to community
foundations.
o Retaining youth by involving them in leadership, philanthropy, and
entrepreneurship.
o Enhancing leadership capacity through inclusive leadership development.
o Strengthening local economies by leveraging local assets, particularly through
intergenerational business continuity and fostering innovative business
opportunities.
The National Rural Funders Collaborative (NRFC) used the Community Capitals
Framework (CCF) to assess the effectiveness of its investments in addressing rural
poverty by building capacity, increasing assets for rural families and communities,
transforming rural leadership, and enhancing self-sufficiency.
Community Capitals Framework: Notes for
Exam Preparation
Introduction to the Community Capitals Framework
(CCF)
•
•
•
•
The Community Capitals Framework (CCF) provides a way to organize information
about how community development occurs
Developed by Flora & Flora (2008) and Green & Haines (2002)
Used to understand the nature and processes underlying community development
Particularly useful for examining how community leadership development (CLD)
efforts leverage community resources
The Seven Community Capitals
The CCF identifies seven forms of "capital" that exist in communities:
1. Human Capital: Skills, knowledge, abilities, leadership capabilities, and health of
community members
2. Social Capital: Connections and relationships among people and organizations
3. Political Capital: Access to power, organizations, resources, and powerbrokers
4. Cultural Capital: Values, traditions, heritage, and ways of knowing
5. Built Capital: Infrastructure (buildings, roads, etc.) that supports the community
6. Natural Capital: Environmental resources, landscape, and natural amenities
7. Financial/Economic Capital: Money and financial resources available for
investment
Relationship Among the Capitals
•
•
•
The research examined how these capitals relate to one another in community
development
Previous research by Emery & Flora (2006) suggested a "spiraling up" effect where
change in one capital creates changes in other capitals
This study found a different pattern:
o Capitals appear organized into clusters rather than a simple spiral
o Projects tend to leverage specific combinations of capitals based on goals
o Leaders discriminate in their assessment of which capitals will be most useful
Research Methods Used in the Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examined 20 communities across five states
All communities had implemented at least one Community Leadership Development
program between 2002-2006
Identified 212 community projects/activities for which CLD participants served as
leaders
Projects were coded using CCF categories (up to four types of capital per project)
First capital assigned was the primary goal/purpose
Additional capitals were assigned based on implementation methods and resources
used
Created indices to measure the "amount" of each capital utilized in projects
Key Findings About CCF Relationships
Frequency of Capital Use
•
•
•
Most frequent primary capital in projects: Human Capital
Most frequent secondary capital: Social Capital
Projects often utilized multiple capitals in combination
Capital Clustering
•
•
Analysis revealed that capitals appear organized into two main clusters:
1. First Cluster: Financial, Built, and Natural capitals (with Cultural capital
weakly associated)
2. Second Cluster: Social, Political, and Human capitals
This pattern differs from the "spiraling up" concept proposed by earlier researchers
Interrelationships Among Capitals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Natural capital projects significantly associated with financial and built capital
Human capital projects often leveraged social and political capital
Cultural capital projects associated with social capital
Projects classified with financial capital components strongly associated with built
capital
Social capital projects associated with financial capital
Political capital projects strongly associated with social capital
Implications for Community Development
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community leaders naturally recognize and deploy multiple forms of capital
Leaders are discriminating in their assessment of which capitals to use
The deployment of one capital influences the deployment of other forms of capital
("leveraging")
Community capitals are not equally important in all situations
Projects tend to mobilize specific combinations of capitals based on their objectives
Successful community development may depend on understanding these relationships
Limitations of the Study
•
•
•
The study did not measure long-term effects of community projects
Participants weren't explicitly taught CCF concepts before their work
More research needed to fully understand capital relationships
Alternative Perspectives
•
•
Some research suggests capitals can be grouped into two factors:
o Human factor (social, human, political, cultural)
o Material factor (natural, financial, built)
This study found empirical evidence that contradicts this simple division
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
The CCF is useful for understanding community development efforts
Community development activities typically involve multiple capitals
Capitals interact in mutually beneficial ways through "leveraging"
The pattern of interaction is more complex than a simple "spiraling up"
Effective community leaders assess which capitals will be most useful for specific
goals
Understanding these relationships can help build community capacity