Is tourism a gift? An “ethnography of exchange” and the offer of so-called “Community-Based Tourism” experience in Anã/Santarém/Pará

¿El turismo es un don? Una “etnografía de los cambios” y la oferta de la experiencia “llamada” Turismo de Base Comunitaria en Anã / Santarém/ Pará

Abstract

This article intends to show that the tourism experience developed in the community of Anã /Santarém /Pará involves several relations of exchange and reciprocity, according to Mauss's conception (1925/2017). For this author, the gift is ambivalent, because it is both interested and disinterested, voluntary, and obligatory. The ambivalent character of the gift was understood by the notion of interest postulated by Bourdieu (2011). Field research followed the assumptions of anthropological ethnographic research and the methodological path was constructed from the conception of Lanna (2000) on the “ethnography of exchange”. The data were collected by direct observation and interviews, in two periods: August 2016 and January 2017. We highlight the main results: the observation of five exchange relationships between the internal and external agents from the Anã community, involving several types of “services” as defined by Mauss (1925/2017); the interpretation of tourism as a gift in social environments that it promotes the exchange of goods and spirituality in an ambivalent way; the finding that the community does not have autonomy over the management of tourism in its territory. We consider that the enterprise in Anã has not yet reached the condition required to be considered, in fact, community-based tourism.

Keywords:
Community-Based Tourism; Gift; Ethnography of exchange

Resumen

Este artículo tiene por objetivo mostrar que la experiencia de turismo desarrollada en la comunidad de Anã/Santarém/Pará involucra varias relaciones de intercambio y reciprocidad, conforme a la concepción de Mauss (1925/2017). Para este autor, el don es ambivalente, pues, es a la vez, interesada y desinteresada, voluntaria y obligatoria. El carácter ambivalente de la dádiva fue comprendido por la noción de interés postulada por Bourdieu (2011). La investigación de campo siguió los presupuestos de la investigación etnográfica antropológica, y el camino metodológico fue construido a partir de la concepción de Lanna (2000) sobre la “etnografía del cambio”. Los datos fueron recogidos por observación directa y entrevistas, en dos períodos: agosto de 2016 y enero de 2017. Destacamos como principales resultados: la observación de cinco relaciones de intercambio entre los agentes internos y externos a la comunidad de Anã, que involucran varios tipos de “prestaciones”, como define Mauss (1925/2017); la interpretación del turismo como una dádiva en ambientes sociales que promueve el intercambio de bienes y de su espiritualidad de forma ambivalente; la constatación de que la comunidad no posee autonomía sobre la gestión del turismo en su territorio. Consideramos que la experiencia de turismo desarrollada en Anã no alcanzó, aún, la condición requerida para ser considerada, de hecho, de base comunitaria.

Palabras clave:
Turismo de Base Comunitaria; Don; Etnografía del cambio

Resumo

Este artigo objetiva mostrar que a experiência de turismo desenvolvida na comunidade de Anã/Santarém/Pará envolve várias relações de troca e reciprocidade, conforme a concepção de Mauss (1925/2017). Para esse autor, a dádiva é ambivalente, pois é simultaneamente, interessada e desinteressada, voluntária e obrigatória. O caráter ambivalente da dádiva foi compreendido pela noção de interesse postulada por Bourdieu (2011). A pesquisa de campo seguiu os pressupostos da pesquisa etnográfica antropológica, e o caminho metodológico foi construído a partir da concepção de Lanna (2000) sobre a “etnografia da troca”. Os dados foram coletados por observação direta e entrevistas, em dois períodos: agosto de 2016 e janeiro de 2017. Destacamos como principais resultados: a observação de cinco relações de troca entre os agentes internos e externos à comunidade de Anã, que envolvem vários tipos de “prestações”, como define Mauss (1925/2017); a interpretação do turismo como uma dádiva em ambientes sociais que ele promova a troca de bens e de sua espiritualidade de forma ambivalente; a constatação de que a comunidade não possui autonomia sobre a gestão do turismo em seu território. Consideramos que a experiência de turismo em Anã não alcançou, ainda, a condição requerida para ser considerada, de fato, de base comunitária.

Palavras-chave:
Turismo de Base Comunitária; Dádiva; Etnografia da troca

1 INTRODUCTION

The community of Anã/Santarém/Pará is in Tapajós-Arapiuns Extractive Reserve (RESEX) territory, on the right bank of the Arapiuns River (an affluent of the Tapajós River), in Santarém city, western of Pará State. Since 2008/2009, this community is hosting a tourism enterprise idealized by the Non-Governmental Organization “Health and Happiness Project” (HHP) and develops various exchange/gift relationships, whereby it establishes alliances between different internal and external social agents to the community. These alliances, in turn, create “social spheres” (Mauss, 1925/2017) that constitute and guide the social dynamics in Anã.

It is important to state that community agents do not have autonomy in the management of the tourist activity in their territory. Thus, the authors of this article do not consider the tourism enterprise developed in Anã as Community-Based Tourism (CBT) experience, although it is promoted as a reference for community tourism in the Amazon by the nongovernmental organization responsible for its marketing in the travel market. This was the reason we used the word “community-based tourism” in quotation marks, to emphasize that the tourism enterprise developed in Anã has not yet reached the condition required to be considered as such. Henceforth, and since we have already presented a preliminary justification for not referring to Anã as CBT entreprise, we will use the expression “tourism enterprise in the community of Anã/Santarém/Pará” whenever we need to cite the tourism experience developed in Anã.

We have identified, through field research, that some exchange relationships are based on interests beyond the economic perspective, at the symbolic sphere. This character, which is sometimes economically interested and sometimes desinterested, is what denotes the ambivalence of gift exchange since, according to Mauss (1925/2017), although it presupposes the idea of an act devoid of interests, the act of giving is never completely disinterested. In this sense, as we interpret the exchange relationships observed in field research as gifts and according to the theoretical perspective of Mauss (1925/2017), we use the notion of interest elaborated by Bourdieu in “Theory of Practice” (Rodrigues Guimarães, 2013). This theory is used as supplementary theoretical contribution to understand how human acts may be interested and simultaneously disinterested, and what conditions determine them.

We emphasize that the theoretical dialogue with Bourdieu (2011) and the concepts of habitus and field- cherished concepts by the author-enabled us to perceive that the establishment of gift relationships provoked by the social “field” of tourism, originated the Social Tourism Network in Anã/Santarém/Pará.

Thus, we define the tourism enterprise in the community of Anã/Santarém/Pará as the empirical object of this article. The collected data were interpreted from a methodological design elaborated by the authors based on the concept of “ethnography of exchange” from Lanna (2000).

In the scope of this article, we analyze the exchange relationships categorized in five environments: a) 1st exchange environment-NGO, Local Tourism Management Group (L.T.M.G.) and tourists; b) 2nd exchange environment-NGO and market; c) 3rd exchange environment-L.T.M.G. and community; c) 4th exchange environment-Tourists and community; f) 5th exchange environment-researcher/advisor with L.T.M.G., community and NGO.

2 BOURDIEU’S NOTION OF INTEREST APPLIED TO THE FIELD

In the article “Is a disinterested act possible?” Bourdieu (2011, p. 137) begins his analysis with two questions: “Why is the word interest to a certain point interesting? Why is it important to ask about the interest agents may have in doing what they do?”

The author explains that, initially, the notion of interest presented itself to him as an “instrument of rupture with an enchanted and mystifying vision of human behavior” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 138). Subsequently, Bourdieu (2011) states that sociology can only be conceived by the “principle of sufficient reason” developed by classical philosophers. That is, the principle holds that agents can act reasonably without being rational. This means that, by the hypothesis of rationality, we can give reason to human behavior, which is not to say that this same “behavior has reason as its principle” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 138).

Bourdieu (2011) concludes that, for sociological theory, there is a reason for agents to act in a certain way. This reason guides human action, and it can justify why seemingly incoherent actions become coherent. Thus, “sociology postulates that social agents do not engage in gratuitous acts” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 138). Therefore, all acts are motivated and from this perspective, we understand that there is a reason, a justification, for the community of Anã to maintain- for 10 years now-an asymmetrical relationship with the NGO that advises tourism in this place. During this time, the community has not yet been able to create strategies to assume the autonomy of the tourist activity carried out in its territory.

In this context, Bourdieu (2011) argues that in order to understand a reasonable action and inquire whether a disinterested conduct is possible, and under what conditions it can occur, we must first know how the concepts of habitus, field, interest or illusio, and symbolic capital can guide our analysis of the performance of social agents. Thus, we briefly present these concepts to better understand the conditions that generate interest, or disinterest, of Anã community towards the empirical object of this research.

The illusio is a Latin word that comes from the root ludus (game). For Bourdieu (2011), illusio is to be involved in the game and the game through an “enchanted relationship”, so it is believed that it is worth playing the game, because the interest is to participate in it. Thus, for the author, illusio and interest have similar meanings, since they refer to the meaning of the game.

According to Bourdieu (2011) illusio is the enchantment of the game, in such a way that we are able to forget that we are entangled in a social game, because illusio is the result of the “ontological complicity between the mental structures and the objective structures of social space” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 140). These two structures condition human action, and correspond, respectively, to “habitus” and “field”. Therefore, according to the author, illusio is imposed on the agents, since we were born, inserted in social games, and we learn through “habitus” how to play the game, that is, we learn the meaning of the game in practice.

Bourdieu (2011) conceptualizes habitus as a “socialized body”, “structured” that absorbed the objective structures of a social field. For the author, it is the habitus, also known as a “structured structuring structure”, that allows the individual to establish a dialectical relationship with reality, because it is the instrument that social agents use to perceive the world and with which they guide their action in the world.

The “field”, in turn, is a social universe that has “objective structures” and its own laws, a “nomos”, which characterizes it as an environment “independent of other universes” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 148) and therefore gives it autonomy vis-à-vis other fields. For the author, the rules of the field only concern the social agents of that field, so what is considered outside the moral standard in one environment will not be interpreted in the same way in another social environment.

In this context, Bourdieu (2011, p. 150) emphasizes that we tend to think that “all apparently disinterested actions conceal intentions to maximize a certain kind of profit”. However, the notion of symbolic capital (and symbolic profit) reveals other reasons why people act disinterestedly from an economic point of view.

Symbolic capital are values shared by agents who belong to a particular field, and only have value for themselves, such as saintliness, generosity, honor, pride in belonging to a community, as we can see in interviews with Anã community members, among others. These values are internalized by individuals via habitus and perpetuated in practice by the “principle of differentiation”, which allows them to recognize their differences and attribute values. Thus, in some social settings, these values acquire greater importance in social practice than the pursuit of economic profit, and thus create “explicit norms” or “tacit injunctions” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 151), based on noneconomic interests.

In the social field of tourism in Anã, we observe “tacit injunctions” regarding the recognition of tourism as an activity that generates cultural gain. Therefore, community members who can get in touch with tourists expressed their desire to remain integrated with the local dynamics of tourism through the possibility of cultural interaction and, consequently, acquisition of other values. An example of this is the learning of American English, which is being offered by the youths at Saint Mary's College (California/USA), who have been sending groups for a period of approximately 15 days in the community of Anã since 2014.

According to the above example, young Americans use a kind of “booklet” with figures and short words in English, to facilitate communication with the citizens of Anã. In this way, the community learn some words that are used in the daily interaction of tourists, such as fish, when the lunch is fish. As the length of stay is relatively long -15 days -we observe that, in addition to learning small words, a true “communication between souls” occurs (Lanna, 2000, p. 176). This contact establishes a friendship between these social agents, which goes beyond the course of the trip, evidenced by the exchange of email addresses, profile accounts in social networks and many other demonstrations of affection in the farewell of the group.

The conduct of the community in the above example leads us to conclude, in a superficial analysis, that these people cultivate disinterested, or noneconomic habitus. However, when we think of this reality in the light of Bourdieu's postulates (2011, p. 153), which state that “habitus predisposed to disinterestedness” is only possible in social universes, where this disposition is rewarded, we are obliged to reflect how behaviors, apparently disinterested, of Anã’s residents can be rewarded. We seized two possibilities: one of a personal order and another, a collective one. The personnel is the possibility of Anã’s residents to receive a stay in American territory, of a young person involved in the cited experience; and the collective is the experience of tourism in Anã to be endorsed by the satisfaction of the group served, and be indicated as a quality interaction experience in the Amazon.

This analysis shows us how (economic) disinterest, in Bourdieu's perspective, is “part of the game”. The author stresses that although many social environments are governed by a “norm” of disinterest, they are not totally devoid of interest, because “behind the appearance of piety, virtue, disinterestedness, there are subtle, camouflaged interests” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 152). Therefore, for the author there are no disinterested acts, and that the subtle interests of apparently disinterested actions must be unveiled by careful social analysis.

3 GIFT GIVING AND TOURISM

Gift giving is a relational human action that creates friendly, dependable, and domineering social bonds. The act of giving is an action that is not restricted to the exchange of material goods, because in addition to these goods, it also involves spiritual values and subjective interests.

In this way, gift giving stimulates the exercise of alterity, as Lanna (2000, p. 176) explains:

“[...] to give something properly, I must put myself a little in the place of the other (for example, my guest); understand to a greater or lesser degree, how this, receiving something from me, receives myself (as its host).”

Mauss (1925/2017) was a sagacious scholar, interested in the variety of human phenomena. After analyzing field data from his contemporary anthropologists, such as Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown-since he himself had never conducted field research-he developed the notion of gift giving and alliance to explain how social life is organized and articulated by agents that experience it.

In this sense, in the work The Gift, Mauss (1925/2017) shows how acts of gift giving and receiving at different times and places on the planet, create the obligation to reciprocate. The dynamics between giving-receiving-reciprocating is, for Mauss (1925/2017), the basis that enables all forms of sociability and communication between humans. Therefore, the gift is a “‘total’ social fact,” which motivates life in society. (Lanna, 2000, p. 178).

Mauss (1925/2017) explains that because of the expectation of retribution, the act of giving is not a disinterested act, for whoever gives always awaits the opportune moment to receive the material or spiritual return of the act practiced.

Therefore Mauss (1925/2017) argues that gift giving is ambivalent, because while it is voluntary/spontaneous, it is also obligatory; simultaneously interested and disinterested and, in the conception of Lanna (2000), useful and symbolic. This author presents the dialectics inherent to the exchange:

The same exchange that makes me a host also makes me a potential guest. This is because “giving and receiving” implies not only a material exchange, but also a spiritual exchange, a communication between souls. In this sense, Mauss's Anthropology is a sociology of symbol, of communication; it is still in this ontological sense that all exchange presupposes, to a greater or lesser degree, some alienability. In giving, I always give something of myself. When accepting, the recipient accepts something from the donor. He leaves, even momentarily, to be another; the gift brings them closer, makes them similar. (p. 176)

Lanna's analysis (2000) shows three aspects of the exchange: a) it establishes reciprocity between the people involved in the act of giving and receiving, whoever receives has the moral commitment to reciprocate; b) it establishes rules for communication between two souls; two individuals; c) it defines alienable values between two human beings; between two subjectivities that meet and are allowed to approximate by means of “giving” on the one hand, and “receiving”, on the other, of a “gift”.

For Mauss (1925/2017, p. 197), exchanges may include “banquets, rituals, military services, women, children, dances, festivals, and fairs…” That means, circulation of goods, persons, adornments, privileges, names, charities, communions, words, visits, etc., a wide variety of “services”, which may be material or spiritual, possess more or less alienability, and are characterized as “total” or “agonistic” (that is the case of the potlatch from American Northwest Indians). The “total service” refers to the involvement of a whole social group, a “clan”, in the exchange process, as a demonstration of reverence for their chief. This one, in turn, sacrifices himself for his group in battles that can lead him to his death, so they are called agonistic. Agonistic rivalry between clan chiefs aims to establish hierarchy among them.

One key aspect of Mauss's thesis (1925/2017) was not to understand gift exchange as a moment of “wealth circulation”, but to realize that gift exchange is responsible for the organization of different “social spheres” (Lanna, 2000) in which it establishes “alliances”. Thus, through gifts, marriage, political, economic, religious, juridical, diplomatic, and hospitality alliances are established between people, communities, and people.

Hospitality alliances are especially observed in tourism, since the act of receiving someone in your home, your city, your community, involves much more than material matters. Being hospitable is to offer the best of oneself; it is to donate to the harmony of social interaction; it is to practice otherness and create all favorable conditions for the well-being of the other. And all these actions create emotional bonds, create a moral obligation to repay the gift received. However, in commercial tourism hospitality is paid, and therefore the gift becomes economically interested, this commercial relationship also creates possibilities of disinterested gifts, or with a gain of symbolic capital, as can be seen in the social interactions between tourists and the members of Anã community.

4 METHODOLOGY

The data analyzed in this article were collected in two immersions in Anã community, held from August 18 to 26, 2016, and January 26 to 31, 2017. Although the field research was relatively brief, actions in situ were guided by the principles of anthropological ethnographic research, which in Geertz's perspective (1926/2015) require the ethnographer to understand the enormous variety of complex conceptual structures that sometimes overlap one another. At the same time, these structures are “strange, irregular, and inexplicit” (Geertz, 1926/2015, p. 7) demanding the researcher, first, to grasp and then to render.

In this sense, to “grasp” the relational dynamics between internal and external agents of Anã community, involved in the tourism experience, we used direct observation and in-depth interviewing, simultaneously, in both immersions mentioned. That is, after observation revealed who was who in the tourism “social game” (Bourdieu, 2011) of Anã, we requested the interview.

Thus, 10 interviews were carried out, of which 7 were with Anã’s main leaderships, 2 were conducted with tourists, and 1 with the NGO representative that advises tourism in the community. Figure 1 shows the role of each interviewee in Anã’s Social Tourism Network, as well as the other roles they play. Another relevant fact present in the figure is the signage of belonging to the Local Tourism Management Group (L.T.M.G).

The combination of techniques allowed us to: a) identify the internal social agents and perceive the roles played by each one in the microcosm of the community; b) identify the external social agents and verify their interests in the tourism experience, including the public, private, third sector, and tourists in this group; c) identify that internal and external agents involved in tourism establish relations of exchange and reciprocity, which in turn embrace “services”, according to Mauss's (1925/2017) theoretical assumptions; d) find that all observed exchange relationships have interconnections that link the agents in a social network, which is a condition for the tourism experience to happen.

We share Peirano's (2014) view that ethnography is not only a method, but a theoretical formulation, and thus, the social dynamics that permeates the tourism experience in Anã will not be presented in this article only from the perspective of a description, as it is expected in social research with an ethnographic approach. What is sought is to interpret “lived action” (Peirano, 2014, p. 336) in this field of research, according to theoretical constructs already tested in other empirical contexts, and thus, broaden the range of theoretical interpretations of Community-Based Tourism.

Against this background, we use the term “ethnography of exchange” developed by Marcos Lanna (2000, p. 176) to construct a methodological way that would help us better interpret the data collected. For the author, it is necessary to understand “how the exchanges are created and practiced in the different times and places.” (Lanna, 2000, p. 175; emphasis added), in order to know the different forms of sociability impregnated by the gift. Thus, Lanna's conception inspired us to create the category “exchange environments” to gather the various gift relationships observed in the field, which unfolded into five interaction environments called: 1st exchange environment; 2nd exchange environment; 3rd exchange environment; 4th exchange environment; 5th exchange environment.

Frame 1
Profile of the interviewees of the Social Tourism Network in Anã

	Interviewees	Role in the Tourism Network	Labor Activities	Take part in L.T.M.G?
1	D. Pompermaier	Executive manager of the NGO tourism project.
2	M. Odila Godinho	General coordinator of tour operations; President of TURIARTE.	Fish breeder.	Yes
3	A. Godinho	Exhibitor of the Meliponário project.	Honey Producer.	Yes
4	Michaela	Italian tourist
5	M. Lopes Pinto	Coordinator of the Dreamers Women in Action group of Anã (MUSA)	Fish breeder.
6	F.C. Faria	Tourist from São Paulo
7	A. Godinho	Articulator of operations to the tour routes execution.	Local school watcher; honey producer; fish breeder	Yes
8	R. Godinho	Tour Coordinator of the “Community Hostel in Anã”;	Teacher in another community.	Yes
9	A. C. Godinho Imbiriba	President of Anã Rural Producers Association (APROANÃ), during 2016/2018.
10	A. W. dos Santos Cardoso	Coordinator of operations of tour routes; President of Anã Agroextractivist Fish Farmer Association (APAA);	Nursing assistant at the Anã health center.	Yes

• Source: The authors

For each identified exchange environment, a brief ethnography was developed in order to understand how gift relationships are established between Anã’s internal and external agents, what “services” are involved, and how they generate “alliances” (Mauss, 1925/2017) that connect these agents to an interdependent social network structure (Wellman & Berkowitz, 1991), because without community tourism, the experience does not occur. This set of relationships, which have interconnections, forms the Social Tourism Network in Anã, which is represented in infographic 1:

Infographic 1
Social Tourism Network in Anã/Santarém/Pará

In the exchange environments, there are some interests of the social agents, which are somehow contemplated by the exchanged gifts. These interests correspond to what Bourdieu (2011) calls “forces” on the field, which in some environments were identified as asymmetric. In this way, the author's concepts will be used to reveal “subtle” interests, “camouflaged” in supposedly disinterested acts, which sometimes confuse asymmetry in gift relationships.

In the set of the analysis, we apply Bourdieu's concept of “field” to argue that the tourism experience under study is a social universe independent from that of other universes, which has its own norms, a nomos, and therefore constitutes a field auto-nomos (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 148). The nomos present in the social field of tourism in Anã refers to the rules that guide the “social game” (Bourdieu, 2011, p. 139), which must be known and shared by the agents involved, so that they maintain the “illusio” (interest) in the game, and be aware of how to operate their “habitus” in the field.

Finally, we point out that, because Mauss (1925/2017, p. 320) considered that gift giving establishes hierarchies, data analysis also shows how the hierarchy is established in gift relationships observed in Anã social field of tourism.

5 GIFT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE SOCIAL FIELD OF TOURISM IN ANÃ: EXCHANGE ETHNOGRAPHY

For Mauss (1925/201, p. 193), in so-called primitive and archaic societies there were complex social facts, through which one could perceive “everything that constitutes the social life of societies that preceded our own”, that is why the author defined these facts as “total social phenomena”. To better understand these phenomena, Mauss concentrated on studying how contractual law and the system of economic benefits worked out among the social groups of those societies, and thus found that “exchanges and contracts take place in the form of gifts; in theory these are voluntary, in reality they are given and reciprocated obligatorily” (Mauss, 1925/2017, p. 193). Thereby, the author unveiled the principle which governs gift exchange: apparently free and gratuitous action, but, obligatory and interested.

Thus, the gift from Mauss's perspective (1925/2017) is a kind of service which takes the form of gift, as a “present generously given”, even though in this act of offering “there only a polite fiction, formalism, and social deceit, and when really there is obligation and economic self-interest “(Mauss, 1925/2017, p. 194). In this way, we use Mauss's (1925/2017) conception of gift to analyze how the ambivalent character of gift giving, either as disinterested acts, or as interested acts, in the exchanges observed in Anã community.

5.1 1st exchange environment: NGO and the Local Tourism Management Group (L.T.M.G.)

This relationship is between the NGO and a group made up of five people from the community, who we named Local Tourism Management Group (L.T.M.G.). Frame 2 shows that there is a hierarchical relationship of Health and Happiness Project (HHP) to L.T.M.G.

Frame 2
1st exchange environment

Agents involved in the exchange and hierarchical relationship	What gift is offered; services	Condition of each social actor in the relationship
HHP NGO L.T.M.G.	Technical, financial, and market support for the experience development. Local tourism operation: tourist reception; hostel and restaurant management; the tours sold by the NGO.	Colonizer
		Colonized person

• Source: The authors

By means of exchange, L.T.M.G. offers the NGO all the local tour operation sold to the tourists by that entity, thus, the community receive the tourists; guide visitors in local activities; manage the hostel and the restaurant, and finally, take the tourists back to their original destination. On the other hand, the NGO offers to carry out technical, financial, and market support to the tourism enterprise in Anã. It is responsible for attracting tourists in the domestic and international market and organizing the operation until the arrival in the community.

We consider this an asymmetric gift relationship, because, since it started its activities in the community of Anã in 2008, the NGO established a domination and dependence relationship with the L.T.M.G., which remains today. Therefore, we pointed out on Frame 2 that the HHP is in the colonizer position while the L.T.M.G, is in the colonized.

During these 10 years, the NGO raised funds to finance the “Anã Community Hostel” (which offers lodging in a maloca with hammocks and a restaurant); conducted training of the local workforce to labor with tourism; idealized the product that it called “Community Based Tourism” and became the only distributing agent in the market, since it does not allow tourism agencies nor the community itself to interfere in the commercial relationship with the tourist consumer.

As tourism has been growing in the community (Assis, 2017), and this has impacted the local economy in different ways, the community sees the NGO as a resource provider that were scarce or even nonexistent in the local context. Thus, community members do not yet consider the possibility of assuming a greater degree of control and management of tourism, with a view to improve gift exchange relationship that is now hierarchical and relatively unfavorable.

The commercial relationship between the agents of this exchange environment is asymmetric because the value that the NGO passes on to the community as a “service” (Mauss, 1925/2017) is disproportionate to the value it earns with the cost of the package paid by the tourists. To illustrate this issue, we can state that in August 2016, we purchased an individual package of four days and three nights for R$950.00 reals, with lodging, meals, and visits to local projects. From this total, we verified through interviews with members of the L.T.M.G. that the Forest and Tourism Cooperative (TURIARTE)¹, responsible for the financial management of packages, said that approximately R$30,00 reals per package sold is given to the Anã Association of Rural Producers (APROANÃ), the local association, to be invested in the community.

In addition, TURIARTE also states that it pays R$20.00 reals for the project to create fish in a tank-net, and R$15.00 reals for the project of rearing stingless bees. Therefore, each package generates, in our conception, directly to the community only R$65.00 reals. It is also important to inform that the cost of the package includes the hiring of local labor and locally produced food, although, the president of TURIARTE (Interviewee 2), said that it does not have an accounting sheet to record the multiplier effect of tourism-generated money. That is, she cannot say how much each tour package generates, directly and indirectly to the community. In this sense, it caused us estrangement when a honey producer said the following declaration:

Sometimes a big group comes up and leaves R$20,000, R$30,000 reals, and that money stays here in the community, circulates everything here, you do not need to buy material from other communities, so that money circulates everything [sic] here in the community. . . (Interviewee 3).

Based on the statement, and to understand how the money circulates in Anã, we asked the APROANÃ’s president (Interviewee 9) which actions are developed in the community with the money sent by TURIARTE. He informed us that he does not know the amount mentioned by Mr. A. Godinho (Interviewee 3), and he does not know how much TURIARTE has already passed on to the entity, since there is no periodic information on the accounts or cash flow control. In turn, as president of the local community association, he demonstrated an omission in controlling the flow of tourism, as he stated that he did not have data on how much his entity should have received from TURIARTE. This same situation was observed in the fish farmers association.

Thus, it was observed in Anã, the Mielke’s postulate (2009, p. 26), that “communities do not have, because of their own situation, extensive knowledge about the consequences-positive and negative impacts-of tourism activities”. The fact that local associations do not see themselves as co-responsible for controlling visitors’ entrance and exit, leads to loss of income collection. Thus, the entire community is impaired because it fails to develop social projects that could be funded by resources generated by tourism.

It is important to emphasize that the NGO is not efficient in the transfer of knowledge, which promotes the independence of the community for the management of tourism in its territory. Although L.T.M.G. is able to perform operational tasks in the tourism enterprise, it lacks the technical conditions to access the market, either by lack of knowledge about its functioning and how to operate in it, or because the community does not have a tower antenna for Internet connection.

It is clear that the relationship between the NGO and the community is structured in a way to maintain its subordination, which expresses a typical relation of colonial power, based on the relation of subjugation, which is the coloniality of being (Assis, 2017).

The L.T.M.G. does not consider itself qualified to manage the entire tourism operation, nor does it claim greater participation and knowledge in the process. Thus, we asked: could it be possible to evolve this exchange ratio between L.T.M.G. and the NGO in order to provide a greater degree of autonomy to the community in the tourism activity? This autonomy is an essential requirement for the experience to become actual Community-Based Tourism.

5.2 2nd exchange environment: NGO and the market

This exchange environment involves a hierarchical relationship between the NGO and TURIARTE. Although TURIARTE was created as an associative entity to promote and market tourism and handicrafts of seven communities in the Arapiuns/PA region, it still does not have the conditions (techniques, infrastructure, workforce) to access the consumer market independently of the NGO. In this way, its role is limited to answering the virtual contacts of tourists attracted by the NGO, and operating the tourist routes together with the L.T.M.G. In this condition, TURIARTE is subordinated in the relationship with the NGO, as shown on Frame 3.

Frame 3
2nd exchange environment

Agents involved in the exchange and hierarchical relationship	What gift is offered; services	Condition of each social actor in the relationship
NGO TURIARTE	Technical and financial support for the tour market in Anã;	Superior
	To answer to virtual contacts of tourists; to coordinate, together with L.T.M.G., the tour operation.	Subordinate

• Source: The authors

As a non-governmental organization that has been developing social actions in the Amazon for 30 years (Assis, 2017), HHP has a broad media coverage, thus many promotional tourism actions were associated with the NGO’s image, and thus tourism gained visibility, as explained by Pompermaier (2016):

We took advantage of the fact that Health and Happiness historically has a good media coverage, it appears a lot on television, publications, in many magazines, we have stuck in it and we have been promoting the trips in this process [emphasis added], then we have achieved throughout the time to have a more consistent promotion process, and then it helped out appearing on Regina Casé’ show, on Fantástico, Luciano Huck came here, then, with several donors, we got a story in TAM magazine, and now we got a story in AZUL magazine, so I get a post with 6,000 views, I do not get a lot of people liking the page (Facebook), but in the travel advertisement I have 6,000, 7,000 views, that helps a lot, so we chose to sell directly. (Interviewee 1)

This report demonstrates how the NGO’s media influence impacted positively the dissemination of the tourism enterprise in Anã, and how this process allowed the marketing of “tourism in Anã” product direct to customers, without intermediation of travel agencies.

The direct relationship with the consumer market was a stance adopted by the NGO executive manager of the tourism project, Mr. Pompermaier. He understood that the “conventional tourism distribution chain is very expensive for the Brazilian”, so he does not accept grant commissioning to intermediaries who have an interest in sending tourists to visit Anã. According to his global market conception (he is Italian), the world has changed and it is connected by the Internet. Therefore, tourists are more independent and do not want to pay more for products that they can access without middlemen. On this issue, he states that:

The agency contacts me and I say: this is our price, sell your package with the rest, with the hostel in Alter do Chão, with transfers, with hotel, and add the rest and include mine inside for you to get yours, but I do not give you commission, this is my price [emphasis added]. (Interviewee 1).

Mr. Pompermaier informs that conventional operators do not sell Anã, and that this type of product is not interesting to the general public, but to a small segment of consumers, who are looking for specialized tourism agencies. Mr. Pompermaier also emphasizes that it is easier to establish dialogue with smaller, segmented agencies because they accept the pricing strategy.

This market strategy and this type of partnership were verified when we interviewed a tourist from São Paulo who reported having arrived in Anã through the “Turismo Consciente” agency (www.turismoconsciente.com.br), which operates in São Paulo selling trips exclusively for the Amazon. The tourist explained (Interviewee 6) that the São Paulo travel agency sold an all-inclusive trip to Anã, even the vegetarian food requested by her.

Regarding sales, which is preferably managed independently of the traditional tourism and online distribution chain, and without the establishment of alliances with collaborative community tourism networks, it highlights one of the strategies of the NGO to maintain a relationship of dependence, asymmetrical, with the community. Because there is no Internet signal in Anã, the community is dependent on the communication structure in Santarém, in the NGO's office.

It is a fact that the lack of communication antenna denotes omission of the public authority to provide basic infrastructure. However, it is important to recognize that if the NGO objective was to promote Anã's autonomy over tourism management in its territory, the ten years of technical advice would be enough to implement alternatives for telephone and Internet communication tools in the community.

We also note that, although members of L.T.M.G were sponsored by the NGO to travel to know other community tourism initiatives in the Brazilian context, in order to learn good practices, they did not have qualification about sale techniques of tourist products in the market. Therefore, if we considered that the problem of communication was overcome, even so, local leaders would not know how to “sell” Anã as a tourist product. This situation reveals yet another obstacle in the way of the community autonomy for the management of the tourism enterprise.

In this context, it is clear that this exchange relationship is based on economic interest, however, it is disguised, or rather, in Bourdieau’s conception (2011) “camouflaged” by the NGO's discourse that tourism promotes “income generation and territorial development.”² Besides the discourse, the economic interest is present in actions that establish new forms of colonialities in the Amazon, such as the coloniality of knowledge (Assis, 2017).

On the other hand, the community of Anan accepts the terms of this relationship of dependence because it recognizes that, in addition to gaining extra income, tourism makes it possible to gain symbolic capital through cultural exchanges. The community also realizes that they are not able to claim and assume a greater role in the process, which characterizes a "coloniality of being" (Fanon, 2008), that is, a sense of subalternity emanates from the community citizens.

In this exchange environment, L.T.M.G. establishes a hierarchical relationship with the community because it is the local manager of tourism, that is, being the direct beneficiary of tourism, L.T.M.G. determines who will be the indirect beneficiaries, as can be seen on Frame 4.

Frame 4
3rd exchange environment

Agents involved in the exchange and hierarchical relationship	What gift is offered; services	Condition of each social actor in the relationship
L.T.M.G. General Community	Pay cash for: - labor for general services. - inputs produced locally (fish, fruit and vegetables, chicken, honey, etc.); - guided tour to projects.	Direct beneficiaries of tourism: - local tourism manager group - hostel and restaurant workers.
	They sell their labor, local products, and visits.	Indirect beneficiaries of tourism: -producers and local residents.

• Source: The authors

The L.T.M.G. benefits itself directly in two ways: a) direct economic benefits-they receive payments per day of work in different tasks, ranging from the reception of groups or people and general services in the hostel and restaurant; b) political power-they represent the “community” for the tourist, and for all actions related to tourism in Anã, such as development projects, promotion of the tourism enterprise. This power is also constituted by the fact that this group has the responsibility of mobilizing and hiring the families that work directly in tourism, and families that indirectly are benefited from the tourist activity in Anã, selling produce that they grow locally.

The community, in general, offers three types of gifts in this exchange, which can be interpreted as “modern gifts” (Lanna, 2000), such as: selling their workforce to the hostel and restaurant; sale of locally grown produce (fish, fruit and vegetables, poultry, honey, etc.); a guided exhibition to learn about the fish project creation in a tank-net of the Anã Dreaming Women in Action (MUSA), and the Meliponário project, to create native bees.

The MUSA project was created in 2002 by the initiative of a group of women concerned about the need to obtain food for their children, and started to create tambaqui fish in a tank-net. A community resident, R. Godinho (Interviewee 8), points out the role of women and the collaborative position of men in the project: “The MUSA project is composed of 15 women, and behind these 15 women, because you know, right [sic], there are labors which need male strength like to build cages, so a man is needed”.

People who sell their labor to the tourism enterprise are also considered direct tourism beneficiaries, since they are paid directly, proportional to the flow of tourist visitation. That is, the income obtained increases or decreases according to the number of tourists.

Families that grow food in the community, such as fish, fruit and vegetables, poultry, honey, etc., are considered indirect beneficiaries of tourism, because their production is not consumed exclusively by tourists. Thus, part of the products is sold in the community and part to the tourism enterprise. However, we noted that tourism stimulated new business in the community, as reported by a honey producer:

Lots of things changed, for example, nowadays, many people did not do business with soft beiju, they just ate, today they do not just cook beiju, they sell it to the hostel, to the visitor, changed several things that people did not do with manioc and now they do enough to sell. (Interviewee 3).

5.4 4th exchange environment: tourists and Anã

In this exchange, tourists present a supposed cultural superiority to the community, so we understand that they establish a hierarchical relationship with Anã, as shown on Frame 5.

Frame 5
4th exchange environment

Agents involved in the exchange and hierarchical relationship	What gift is offered; services	Condition of each social actor in the relationship
Tourists General Community	Purchase of local products; Cultural interaction.	Supposed cultural superiority.
	Sale of local products; Cultural interaction	Supposed cultural inferiority

• Source: The authors

Tourists’ interest to community members is symbolic. They seek to know the riverine culture and way of life of traditional populations living in the community. They come to Anã expecting to find a more “genuine” and “authentic” culture, since they have been persuaded by advertisements that emphasize the “exotic” character of the “forest people” (Assis, 2017). They tend to feel culturally superior to the locals, since from the “modern” culture standpoint in which they are inserted, they see the Amazonian modus vivendi as “backward”, not modern, subaltern. This supposed cultural superiority denotes asymmetry in this relation and in addition, it may justify tourists’ greater curiosity and desire to interact with the inhabitants of the Amazon. The interest of the visitor was evident in the report of an Italian tourist:

I like to come here because I like to see the reality of the people who live here, that is not only where they live, what they do, but also them, the person, so I like to talk, to see what they think, what they know the rest of the world, what they like to do, to play and to laugh too, so more than to do things in silence, I like talking to a person, to interact. (Interviewee 4).

The tourist showed an interest in uncovering the particular “world” of the person she encountered, and the desire to share playful activities such as playing and laughing. This tourist had experiences in visits to African communities and reported that she had had a lot of interaction with African children through games, and that she found the lack of social life among the children of Anã very strange. She expected to find children playing on the street, and said she became “disappointed” in observing every family in their home, which she herself attributed to the existence of television sets in the homes, a fact not observed in the African communities visited by her.

Analyzing the flow of the community's gift to tourists, we find that it is interested and disinterested. The economic interest lies in the need to obtain financial “service” in two aspects: the sale of local products to tourists; and by the fact that the community itself is a factor of attractiveness for tourism, being the personification of the Amazonian modus vivendi. The possibility of the community being considered attractive for tourists generates a sense of pride among its residents, which arouses the desire to belong to the Tourism Social Network.

The economic disinterest lies in the symbolic interest, as the community establishes cultural relations with tourists, perceived as an opportunity to “expand” knowledge, as exposed by a member of L.T.M.G.:

For me it's so cool working like that because I gain from the experience of the people who come [sic], who are so cooperative with us, they are from different cultures, it helps to broaden our knowledge, we gain from them, they gain with us. (Interviewee 7).

The testimony shows that the community perceives the exchange relationship between the community and tourists as a “win-win” situation. We emphasize that moments of social interaction lead to the exchange of knowledge between two very distinct cultures, two alterities, promoting the encounter with the other, bringing them closer together, which in Lanna's (2000) conception makes individuals similar.

As far as the community is concerned, this approach with the tourist is also an opportunity for them to show that the Amazon is not only forest, that there is life to be valued, since people who do not belong to the Amazon region have a preconceived idea that this part of the Brazilian territory is a demographic void. Therefore, we highlight below, part of the discourse from a community member:

The people out there think that the forest is only the trees and the animals, they do not take into consideration our 'life', they do not take into account us, as the riverside, we here, mainly the West of Pará, we are abandoned, and then there is the illusion that there is only bush here… it's not just weed…there are people, and a lot of people. (Centro de Estudos Avançados em Promoção Social e Ambiental - Projeto Saúde e Alegria, 2011, p. 15).

Therefore, we perceive that, although the contact of the riverside with the visitors may generate a supposed cultural inferiority, because the way of life of those is seen as backward by the globalized world, this same opportunity of social interaction can produce elements that demystify tourists’ preconceived idea of the inhabitant of the forest, and transform this encounter into a special and unique moment of expressive cultural gifts and true exchanges with each other. This was the feeling of a tourist from São Paulo when she stated that she was satisfied with “the quality of the people” she encountered, and when asked about the meaning of this “quality”, she justified:

I think maybe it's more heart work and dedication than a purely commercial work, so you actually meet with other people, which I'll say is a relationship with the human being, I think this type of trip is a travel you find people with the same heart, right, open. (Interviewee 6).

From the foregoing, we find that the gift relationship between tourists and community members is crossed by interests that surpass the economic one. These interests guide positive behaviors for a quality interactional relationship. We did not observe in the reports collected, animosities that could be derived from the observed asymmetry in relation to the supposed superiority of one side, and supposed inferiority of another. This is due to the interest of both sides to establish a satisfactory “cultural experience” (a term used in the media to refer to the cultural encounter) in which they recognize benefits.

However, we must note that this “apparent” interaction harmony is the result of a “cultural experience” environment monitored by the NGO, since tourists do not enter the community without purchasing tourist packages, and after arriving there, they do not circulate freely in the community without the guidance of some L.T.M.G. member or someone trusted by this group. In addition, the hostel structure is spatially distant from the community village, which favors the segregation of the community from the tourist dynamic.

We have identified that the contacts of the visitors with the hosts are mediated by people prepared to offer the tourism experience, thus excluding the genuine naturalness of an intercultural contact. The preparation of the inhabitants aims to minimize the “strangeness” (Kincaid, 2005) that the manner of tourist being, acting and/or speaking causes in the natives of a tourist place. Kincaid (2005) argues that natives do not like tourists because they seem strange in their eyes, not only because of the physical appearance, but by the way they behave and express their habits, which leads people from the place visited, according to the author, to treat visitors with jocosity.

This may be a justification for the NGO to monitor the environments of sociocultural interaction between hosts and tourists. In this context, the community loses the leading role in the destination and the opportunity for greater cultural exchange. Irving (2009) states that the condition for the development of CBT is the community's performance as a “subject” and not as an “object” of the tourism process, which leads us to conclude that the tourism enterprise in Anã cannot yet be considered as such.

One way the community can address this issue is by creating interactional moments with tourists, involving their daily activities, such as making manioc crops, collecting honey and fruit, removing fish from the cage, among others. With this programming in mind, the community could negotiate greater participation in tourist routes.

5.5 5th exchange environment: researcher/advisor with L.T.M.G., Anã, and NGO

This exchange environment can be defined as the most important among those identified, since from this emanates all the inferences of the research. The exchange relationships established between the doctoral researcher and her advisor, with the L.T.M.G., the community, and the NGO are based on the partnership, without hierarchy, as shown on Frame 6.

Frame 6
5th exchange environment

Agents involved in the exchange and hierarchical relationship	What gift is offered; services	Condition of each social actor in the relationship
	Researcher offers knowledge	Partnership
	Community offers the tourism case.	Partnership

• Source: The authors

The relationship between the researcher/advisor and the agents involved in this exchange environment began in August 2016 when the first exploratory visit to the research field occurred. This trip was very important because it enabled the establishment of social interactions with the members of L.T.M.G., and from this, it was possible to map all other agents that make up the interconnected social network to offer the tourism experience in Anã.

After this exploratory trip, another trip occurred in January 2017, which made possible the contact with a group of international tourists who were spending a “season” in the community hostel. Of course, in this research trip, it was possible to see how this experience combines an internal and external group of social agents, and how the community is involved in a power and dependency relationship with the NGO.

Based on all the observations already made in the field and future immersions in the Anã community, we aim, at the end of the doctoral research, to offer as a gift to Anã community, a reflexive research on strategies to generate the autonomy of this community, and its leading role in the relationship with tourists and tourism that takes place in its territory. In addition, we would like to offer the NGO suggestions about actions of knowledge transfer to the community so that Anã can achieve independent tourism management.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This article sought to show several exchange relationships in tourism practice in Anã/Santarém/Pará, through Marcel Mauss’s concept of gift giving (1925/2017), analyzed in its ambivalent character by the notion of Bourdieu’s interest (2011). The tourism enterprise examined involves five exchange environments, in which gifts/services circulate between Anã’s internal and external agents. Thus, we conclude that gift exchanges generate interconnections between the environments, which in turn connect the agents in a social network structure necessary to offer the tourism experience in the community.

We note that, although tourism activities generate capital and symbolic gains for the community, the NGO that advises tourism in Anã has not yet created conditions for the community to manage tourism in its territory in an autonomous way, in order to avoid an asymmetrical power relation that engenders other colonialities, such as knowledge and being.

In this coloniality of being, the sense of subalternity towards the NGO, justifies the fact that the community has not, up to the present moment, claimed the self-management of the tourism enterprise, and it has been subjected to a dependency relationship for 10 years, with an unbalanced and unfair financial return, especially if we consider that the community and its way of life are the main attraction for tourists.

It is worth noting the female leading role in Anã. The women started this tourism enterprise which remains strong until now, favoring the prominence of this community comparing to other community’s initiatives located on the Arapiuns/Pará River. However, we note that, despite its vigor, this group is not yet able to claim the power of the NGO, and it is also permissive with the dominance of that entity over the community.

In this tourism enterprise marked by asymmetric exchanges, we also wish to emphasize that the community, through its most expressive local associations, such as APROANÃ, MUSA and beekeepers, does not seek to establish strategies to monitor the flow of visitors sent by the NGO. So, the associations mentioned have no idea if they are receiving the amounts agreed with the NGO, as well as they do not know how much they are earning from the tourist activity. This is extremely important, because without the knowledge of the actual economic relevance of tourism, the community does not realize the importance of self-management, and it is conniving with the control exercised by the NGO.

Lastly, we point out that the observation about the tourism experience in Anã has made us realize that, besides being an economic activity, tourism can be interpreted as a gift in social environments in which it promotes the exchange of goods and spirituality in an ambivalent way. As a relational activity among humans, which requires the establishment of exchanges to be effective, tourism establishes moral bonds between those who donate and those who receive hospitality. For this reason, we consider tourism as another example to which Mauss's Theory of Gift (1925/2017) can be applied.

Finally, the research has shown that community tourism initiatives demand the articulation of agents in a network, and to understand how this network is structured, we must take an accurate look at the subtle and camouflaged interests that permeate the relationships between social agents.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank to Dr. Guaciara Barbosa de Freitas for directing the project resources “Young people, technologies and socio-communicative movements in Amazonian cities”. MCTI/CNPq Edital Universal 14/2014, to fund part of field data collection.

REFERENCES

• Assis, G. C. (2017). A cultura ribeirinha como fator de atratividade para o turismo no Arapiuns/pa - Uma análise sobre a colonialidade do saber amazônico. Seminário Internacional América Latina: Políticas e Conflitos Contemporâneos. II Sialat. Belém, PA: Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos.
• Bourdier, P. (2011). É possível um ato desinteressado? Razões Práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. (M. Corrêa, trad.). (pp. 137-156). 11a ed. Campinas, SP: Papirus.
• Campelo, L. (2015, out., 14). Turismo de base comunitária e artesanato da floresta ganham força com a fundação da primeira cooperativa do Rio Arapiuns. 2015. Disponível em: <http://rogerioalmeidafuro.blogspot.com.br/2015/05/turismo-de-base-comunitaria-e.html>.
  » http://rogerioalmeidafuro.blogspot.com.br/2015/05/turismo-de-base-comunitaria-e.html
• Centro de Estudos Avançados em Promoção Social e Ambiental - Projeto Saúde e Alegria. (2011). Prazer em conhecer Anã. Santarém, PA: CEAPS.
• Fanon, F. (2008). Peles negras, máscaras brancas. Salvador, BA: EDUFBA.
• Geertz, C. (2015) A interpretação das culturas. [Reimpr.] Rio de Janeiro, RJ: LTC. (Trabalho original publicado em 1926).
• Irving, M. A. (2009). Reinventando a reflexão sobre turismo de base comunitária - inovar é possível? In Turismo de base comunitária: Diversidade de olhares e experiências brasileiras. (pp. 108-119). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Letra e Imagem.
• Kincaid, J. (2005). A small place. In Hernandez, J. B. (Ed.) Women writing resistance: essays on Latin América and the Caribbean. (pp. 147-156).. South End Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Lanna, M. (2000). Nota sobre Marcel Mauss e o ensaio sobre a dádiva. Revista de Sociologia e Política, (14), 173-194.https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782000000100010
  » https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782000000100010
• Mauss, M. (2017). Ensaio sobre a dádiva: forma e razão da troca nas sociedades arcaicas. In Mauss, M. Sociologia e Antropologia. (P. Neves, trad.). (pp.191-308). São Paulo, SP: Ubu Editora. Originalmente publicado em 1925.
• Mielke, E.J.C. (2009). Desenvolvimento turístico de base comunitária. Campinas, SP: Editora Alínea.
• Peirano, M. (2014). Etnografia não é método. Horizontes Antropológicos, 20(42), 377-391.https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0104-71832014000200015
  » https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0104-71832014000200015
• Rodrigues Guimarães, A. C. (2013) ¿Será Bourdieu utilitarista?. Trabajo y Sociedad, 20, Verano, Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
• Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S.D. (1991). Introduction: Studying Social Structures. In: Wellman, B.; Berkowitz, S.D (Orgs.). Social Structures. A Network Aprroach. (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• 1
  On May 1st, 2015, the founding assembly of the Forest Ecotourism and Handicraft Cooperative (TURIARTE) was held in the Atodi community. TURIARTE aims to boost tourism and promote the sale of handicraft products produced by artisans from seven communities in the Arapiuns / PA region. (Campelo, 2015).
• 2
  On its homepage (www.saudeealegria.org.br), the NGO states that the tourism experiences it supports in the Tapajós region are community-based tourism initiatives that contribute "to income generation and the territorial development of region". Source: NGO homepage. Accessed on September 20, 2015

• Peer-reviewed article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 July 2019
• Date of issue
  May-Aug 2019

History

• Received
  12 Nov 2018
• Accepted
  04 Feb 2019