Tài liệu Local residents attidudes and participation in tourism development in ba be national park, vietnam [full]

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... iv ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1 1. Research Motivation ....................................................................................... 1 2. Research Question .......................................................................................... 2 3. Research Purpose ............................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................. 3 1. Ba Be National Park ....................................................................................... 3 2. Personal Benefit from Tourism Development ................................................ 8 3. Community Attachment ................................................................................. 9 4. Tourism Impacts ........................................................................................... 10 5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW ...................................... 13 1) Social Exchange Theory ...................................................................................... 13 5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW .............................................. 15 6. Participation in Tourism ............................................................................... 18 7. Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 22 1. Measurement Variables ................................................................................ 22 2. Research Model ............................................................................................ 25 3. Research Hypotheses .................................................................................... 28 1) Relationship between Personal Benefit and Perception of Tourism Impacts ...... 28 i 2) Relationship between Community Attachment and Perception of Tourism Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 28 3) Relationship between Perception of Tourism Impacts and Support for Additional Tourism Development .............................................................................................. 29 4) Relationship between Perception of Tourism Impacts and Participation in Tourism .................................................................................................................... 30 5) Relationship between Support for Additional Tourism Development and Participation in Tourism ........................................................................................... 30 6) Differences among Variable Groups of Tourism Experience and Tourism Related Job Status .................................................................................................................. 31 4. Site Selection ................................................................................................ 32 5. Sampling and Data Collection ...................................................................... 32 6. Methods of Analysis ..................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ....................................................................... 34 1. Descriptive Analysis about Local Residents ................................................ 34 2. Factor Analysis ............................................................................................. 44 3. Correlation Analysis ..................................................................................... 55 4. Regression Analysis ..................................................................................... 57 1) Regression Analysis of Tourism Impacts Perception .......................................... 57 2) Regression Analysis for Support and Participation in Tourism Development ....... 58 5. Independent Samples T-test .......................................................................... 60 6. Results of analysis ........................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................ 68 1. Discussions ................................................................................................... 68 2. Implications .................................................................................................. 73 1) Theoretical Implications ...................................................................................... 73 2) Managerial Implications ...................................................................................... 74 3. Limitations and Future Research .................................................................. 75 ii REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................. 85 APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................. 86 APPENDIX 3 ............................................................................................. 88 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Factors Affecting WR5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW were Tested ................................................................................ 16 Table 3.1: List of Items ................................................................................ 22 Table 4.1: Description of Survey Respondents ............................................... 35 Table 4.2: Characteristics of Local Residents in Tourism Participation ............. 37 7DEOH/RFDO5HVLGHQWV¶6XJJHVWLRQVZKHQ,QYROYHGLQ7RXULVP3ODQQLQJ ... 38 Table 4.4: Frequencies for Tourism Attitude and Perception ............................ 41 Table 4.5: Factor Analysis of Positive Tourism Impacts Perception .................. 45 Table 4.6: Factor Analysis of Negative Tourism Impacts Perception................. 48 Table 4.7: Factor Analysis of Support for Additional Tourism Development ..... 49 Table 4.8: Factor Analysis of Participation in Tourism .................................... 50 Table 4.9: Correlation Analysis for Variables ................................................. 56 Table 4.10: Regression Analysis for Tourism Impacts Perception ..................... 58 Table 4.11: Regression Analysis for Support and Participation in Tourism Development ............................................................................. 60 Table 4.12: Results of T-test for Tourism Experience ...................................... 61 Table 4.13: Results of T-WHVWIRU5HVLGHQWV¶-RE6WDWXV .................................... 62 Table 4.14: Results of Testing Hypotheses by Multiple Regression Analysis ..... 64 Table 4.15: Results of Testing Hypotheses by T- test Analysis ......................... 66 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Map of Ba Be National Park .........................................................5 Figure 1.2: Map of Villages in and around Ba Be National Park ........................7 )LJXUH5HVHDUFK0RGHORI5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHDQG3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQ7RXULVP Development ............................................................................ 27 v ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of Organizations and Projects - 3PAD: Pro-Poor Partnerships for Agro-forestry Development - IFAD: Fund for Agriculture Development - IUCN: The International Union for conservation of Nature - NGOs: Non-Government Organizations - UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme Abbreviations of the Factors in the Model - CA: Community Attachment - LB: Local Benefit - NEI: Negative Economic Impacts - NSEI: Negative Social and Environmental Impacts - PART: Participation in Tourism - PB: Personal Benefit - PEB: Personal Economic Benefit - SEB: Social and Environmental Benefit - SUP: Support for Additional Tourism Development vi ABSTRACT /RFDO5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHVDQG3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQ7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQWLQ Ba Be National Park, Vietnam Pham Minh Huong Department of Tourism Development Graduate School, Daegu University Gyeongbuk, Korea Supervised by Professor Lee, Ju-Hee Although participation in tourism is studied many times, it has rarely been examined in a research model. The main purpose of this study was to test the model of local UHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGHs and participation in tourism to explore the factors which affect to UHVLGHQWV¶support and participation in tourism in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. From the findings, the author suggested the strategies to LPSURYH ORFDO SHRSOH¶V VXSSRUW for additional tourism activities and their participation in tourism. The raw data of the study was collected from 267 questionnaires among three hamlets insides Ba Be National Park (Pac Ngoi, Bo Lu, and Coc Toc). Noticeably, the results of factor analyses of tourism impacts generated five new factors: Social and Environmental Benefit (SEB), Personal Economic Benefit (PEB), Local Benefit (LB), Negative Social and Environmental Impacts (NSEI), and Negative economic Impacts (NEI). Hypotheses testing revealed that, in a rural area where the community depends on natural resources, community attachment of local residents significantly affects their perception of positive tourism impacts. In addition, social and environmental impacts from tourism are considered very important IDFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJORFDOUHVLGHQWV¶VXSSRUW and participation in tourism. Keywords: 5HVLGHQWV¶ Dttitudes, Participation, Tourism impacts, Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. vii viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1. Research Motivation In the developing countries, tourism can be a viable opportunity to improve the UXUDO UHVLGHQWV¶ quality of life by promoting peace and stability through providing jobs, generating income, diversifying the economy, protecting the environment, and promoting cross-cultural awareness (Honey & Raymond, 2009). Although many rural communities contain appealing tourism resources like natural beauty, interesting and unique culture, or clean untouched environments, etc., infrastructure, transportation system, and FRPPXQLW\¶V knowledge of tourism are often limitations. That may obstruct tourism development in the rural communities. Therefore, governments and national and international organizations are often needed to help local inhabitants to develop effective and sustainable tourism activities. Previous research in the area of sustainable tourism indicated that tourism can develop lasting benefits to local communities when local people support and participate in tourism activities. For the reason, research on FRPPXQLWLHV¶ attitudes toward support for tourism development and participation in tourism are interesting, necessary and attractive. ResidentV¶ attitude toward tourism is one of the most well-studied areas of tourism and has been the subject of study for more than 30 years (McGehee & Andereck, 2004). Previous studies on this subject typically seek WKH OHYHO RIUHVLGHQWV¶VXSSRUW for additional or restrictions of in tourism development in one or more regions and the factors influencing the attitudes (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Látková & Vogt, 2012; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; Vargas-Sánchez et al., 2009). The subject of UHVLGHQWV¶ participation in tourism, also been explored many times in earlier tourism studies (Eshliki & Kaboudi, 2012; Garrod, 2003; Goodwin, 2002; Key & Pillai, 2006; McGehee & Andereck, 2004). In several studies of participation in tourism, community involvement in tourism planning or decision-making was often put in the research model in order to explore the factors affecting them. However, tourism planning or decision1 making is not entire of participation in tourism development which was rarely examined in research models RI UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGHV. Especially in Vietnam, research on rural resideQWV¶SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWRXULVPdevelopment has been studied even less. Because of the necessity to effectively and sustainably develop tourism in Ba Be National Park and improve local UHVLGHQWV¶ support and participation in tourism development, this study intends to analyze interaction DPRQJ ORFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH toward support for additional tourism activities and participation in tourism with some familiar factors: tourism impacts, personal benefit and community attachment in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam. 2. Research Question - WhaW DUH ORFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH toward and participation in tourism development in Ba Be National Park? - Which factors affect locDOUHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGH toward and participation in tourism development in Ba Be National Park? - What kind of strategies should be suggested so local residents gain more benefit from participating more intently strongly in tourism development? 3. Research Purpose - To identify what influences the residents' perception of tourism impacts. - To explore what affects the residents' support for additional tourism development. - To find out what influences the residents' willingness to participate in tourism. - To be applicable to Ba Be National Park and similar areas in Vietnam. 2 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Ba Be National Park The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defined national park as natural area of the land and/or sea, designed to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible. Therefore, to protect biodiversity, in 2012 the Vietnam Government established thirty national parks that represent the most typical Vietnam ecosystems: Five national parks belong to Northern Midland and Mountain Areas; four are situated on the Northern Delta; five are located on the Northern Central Coast; two are on the Southern Central Coast; the Central Highlands has five; four are in the Southeast; and five national parks are situated in the Southwest (vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vѭӡn_quӕc_gia_ӣ_ViӋt_Nam). Ba Be National Park was established in 1992 and is located in Bac Kan, mountainous province in the Vietnam northeast. The area of national park is about 10.048 hectares. The distance from Bac Kan Town to the park is an estimated 50 kilometers, and 250 kilometers from the capital of Hanoi. This national park is considered as a model ecosystem for a forest on limestone mountains both within Vietnam and for the world (Project: Sustainable Tourism Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion, 2011). In 2004, Ba Be National Park was recognized aVRQHRI$VLD¶V natural heritages. Further, Ba Be is an appealing place of ecotourism place with high biodiversity (Ba Be Community Based Tourism Guide Book, 2012). There are 1.268 vascular plants (Tracheophyta), many of which are precious and listed in the Red Lists1 of Vietnam and the world, like nghien (Burretiodendron hsienmu), dinh (Markhamia stipulate), lim (Erythrophloeum 1 The list of threatened species with extinction 3 fordii), climbing bamboo (Ampelocalamus), etc. Especially, climbing bamboo is an endemic flora which grows on the mountain sides of Ba Be National Park. With 182 orchid species, the national park is looked upon as a diversified and high endemic area of orchids for Vietnam and South East Asia. In the national park, there are also 81 species of mammal, 27 species of retile, 17 species of amphibian, 332 species of bird, 106 species of fish, and 553 species of insect and spider (Ba Be Community Based Tourism Guide Book, 2012). Of these species, Trachypithecus francoisi, Hemigalus owston, Lutra lutra, Pardofelis temminckii, Miniopterus schreibrsii, Belomys pearsonii, Gorsachius magnificus, Buceros bicornis, Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus, Python molurus, etc. are listed in the International Red List (Project: Sustainable Tourism Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion, 2011). In the center of Ba Be National Park is Ba Be Lake. The Tay ethnic group refers WRWKHODNHDV³Slam Pé´ which means ³the place is fed by three rivers´ named Pé Nam, Pé Lu, and Pé Leng in Tay language. Ba or Slam mean three, and Be or Pé implies lake. Ba Be Lake was formed about two hundred million years ago and is the largest natural fresh water lake in Vietnam. The water area is 500 hectares, spreading over 8 kilometers (whc.unesco.org). The lake has an average depth of 20 to 25 meters. The deepest point is acknowledged at 35 meters. The average altitude of the lake is about 150 meters above sea level and the lake has never dried. In the World Fresh Water Lake Conference in the United State of America in 1995, Ba Be Lake was recognized as one of the twenty fresh water lakes in the world that needed to be protected. The characteristic of the lake is karst landscape with limestone cliffs around. The water color is always blue, though the lake is influenced by the three rivers (Pe Nam, Pe Lu, and Pe Leng). Ba Be Lake has a special feature compared to other karst lakes in the world: typically karst lakes only have water in one-season, while Ba Be Lake is permanently full of water (whc.unesco.org) Around Ba Be Lake, there are limestone cliffs with a lot of underground springs and caves. Tourists can move about and contemplate the landscapes of the lake by boats. Some fascinating destinations on Ba Be Lake like Fairy Pond, Dau Dang Waterfall, 4 Puong Cave, Hua Ma Cave, An Ma Island, Ba Goa Island which are of particular interest to visitors (Project: Sustainable Tourism Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion, 2011). Figure 1.1: Map of Ba Be National Park Source: http://www.babelaketravel.com/ba_be_lake_vietnam.html Ba Be National Park is beautiful and attractive by not only thick and interminable forests and mountains, but also it holds an interesting and unique culture. The National Park is a place of more than three thousand residents from main ethnic groups: Tay, Nung, Dao, and Kinh. Of them, the Tay people occupy the majority and were the earliest residents of about two thousand years ago. The Nung and Dao people have resided there for about one hundred years, and Kinh is the most recent ethnic groups to live in Ba Be National Park. Normally, the Tay people settle in low locations which are near rivers and 5 springs while the Dao people live halfway up the mountain (Ba Be Community Based Tourism Guide Book, 2012). The tourists who go to Ba Be National Park will have opportunities to experience unique local culture by living in 7D\ SHRSOH¶s stilt houses and engaging in the ³/RQJ 7RQJ´Festival (going to the fields). This is one of the special activities carried out right beside Ba Be Lake on the 10th of January of the lunar calendar. This is an event to thank and beg the Agriculture God for his support. Tourists can also enjoy traditional foods of Ba Be people: ³&RP ODP´ %DPERR-tube rice), grilled fish, sour shrimp, grilled maize, maize wine, etc (Ba Be Community Based Tourism Guide Book, 2012). Because Ba Be is the national park which was founded to preserve the ecosystem and restrict environment devastation, there are not modern hotels. As of December 2012, there are 44 guesthouses in the national park area: Pac Ngoi Hamlet has 15; Po Lu Ham let has 19; Na Mam has 9; and Coc Toc has one. Travelers who visit Ba Be National Park can use the common forms of transportation means like ³;HRP´PRWRUELNHWD[LGULYHU and boat. 7RDVVLVWWRXULVW¶VH[SHULHQFHDQGDSSUHFLDWLRQRI%D%H1DWLRQDO3DUNWKHUHDUH local tour-guides who have a profound knowledge of local culture, terrain, beauty spots, and issues of safety (Ba Be Community Based Tourism Guide Book, 2012). Although Ba Be National Park has a lot of appealing tourism resources to attract tourist and develop tourism, tourism activities has not developed here because there are lack of investment, knowledge of tourism business, and infrastructure, etc. In 2011, the tourist arrivals in Ba Be National Park were estimated at about 24,538 people. Of them, 4,468 people or about 18.2% were international tourists (www.backan.gov.vn). Revenue from tourism in the same year was more than one billion Vietnam dong (VND). In 2012, the number of tourist rose to almost 26,000 visitors and foreigners representing 25% of the total. Although the number of visitor increased about 6% in 2012, there was no significant increase in revenue (Statistics of Ba Be Tourism Centre). Of the communities in the Ba Be national Park, the 3iF 1JzL Hamlet attracts more than five thousand international visitors every year. 6 Source: www.vnppa.org.vn 7 Figure 1.2: Map of Villages in and around Ba Be National Park 2. Personal Benefit from Tourism Development Before the 1990s, there were a few of research which directly tested the influence of personal benefits on the perception of tourism impacts (Perdue et al., 1990). Nevertheless, in the recent years, studies on this subject have increased swiftly. The relationship between personal benefit and perception of tourism impacts; and personal benefit from tourism and support for additional tourism development have been examined in the research of Perdue et al. (1990), Ko and Stewart (2002), McGehee and Andereck (2004), Wang and Pfister (2008), Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2009), Látková and Vogt (2012), etc. However, it is very difficult to exactly define WKH WHUP ³SHUVRQDO EHQHILW´. McGehee and Andereck (2004) stated that ³personal benefit´ LV³YDULDEOHLVQRWGHILQHG within the questionnaire and is a somewhat obscure concept that may be interpreted GLIIHUHQWO\E\HDFKUHVSRQGHQW´ Personal benefit can be understood as economic values, such as tax revenues, employment, personal income, consumer spending, level of economic dependency, etc. (Wang & Pfister, 2008) or noneconomic values like relaxation, the education benefit, the understanding of other people and culture, environment conservation, etc. (McIntosh, 2002). Commonly, an economic indicator has focused UHVHDUFKHUV¶ DWWHQWLRQ, but Wang and Pfister (2008) supported the relationship between UHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGHWRZDUGtourism development and noneconomic benefit. Personal benefit was recognized to directly affect perceptions of tourism impact in the research models of Perdue et al. (1990), and McGehee and Andereck (2004). The results of the preceding research implicated that if local people got personal benefit from tourism, they would perceive positive impacts, but when tourism did not bring benefit to them, negative tourism impacts will be perceived (Perdue et al., 1990). Moreover, when individuals or their family members work in the tourism industry, the economic value domains are often conceived clearly and are identifiable (Jurowski et al., 1997; Wang & Pfister, 2008). Nevertheless, Ko and Stewart (2002) suggested that personal benefit from tourism positively impact on perception of positive tourism impacts, and did not 8 significantly affect perception of negative tourism effects. These findings may be due to the place in which the research was conducted, Jeju Island has a long history of tourism being an integral part of its economy (Ko & Stewart, 2002). Although the findings were opposed on the suggestions of Perdue et al. (1990), and McGehee and Andereck (2004), it is consistent with Andereck et al. (2005) and Gursoy et al. (2002). There are varying opinions about the relationship between perceived personal EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW DQG UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG WRXULsm development. Perdue et al. (1990) and McGehee and Andereck (2004) showed that this relationship is significant. However, Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2009) found the opposite result. Their research indicated that personal benefit did not impact noticeably on ORFDOV¶VXSSRUWIRU tourism development. 3. Community Attachment McCool and Martin (1994) defined community attachment DV ³the extent and pattern of social and participation and integration into the community, and sentiment or affect toward the FRPPXQLW\´. They also showed that community attachment was measured by several different methods, such as length of residency (McCool & Martin 1994: requoted in Goudy, 1982; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Sampson, 1988) or emotional attachment (feeling if moving away) (McCool & Martin, 1994). In other recent studies, the attachment to the community was measured by ORFDOUHVLGHQWV¶IHHOLQJ, sentiment, or knowledge about their land. Gursoy HWDO¶V study (2002) XVHGORFDOUHVLGHQWV¶VDWLVIDFWLRQ with community, feeling at home in the community, positive or negative desire to move away from the community to measure community attachment. The length of the residence in the community, which was categorized into newcomers and old-timers, was also used to measure community attachment by McCool and Martin (1994). Examples of their Likert scale items are ³,I,KDYHWRPRYHIURPP\FRPPXQLW\I would be very sorry to OHDYH´DQG³,¶GUDWKHUOLYHLQWKe town where I live now than anywhere else.´to measure attachment. Jurowski et al. (1997) utilized a contrary scale, negative and positive feelings to measure the attachment. 9 Some studies indicated that local people highly attach to their community will view the benefit of tourism more positively than less attached people (McCool & Martin, 1994). Jurowski et al. (1997) and Gursoy et al. (2004) were consistent with this result. Gursoy et al. (2004) suggested that the residents that have high community attachment have intention to view the state of the local economy more favorably than residents who were not being highly attached. Nevertheless, community attachment did not significantly influence UHVLGHQWV¶ perceptions of economic impact, social impact, and environmental impact (Jurowski et al., 1997). In addition, perception of negative tourism impacts did not have a significant association with community attachment in a /iWNRYi DQG 9RJW¶V UHVHDUFK (2012). An interesting result was found by McCool and Martin (1994). They discovered that newcomers that had a high level of attachment to the community may use the local physical environment as a frame of reference rather than interpersonal relationships, that helped form the context of the old-WLPHUV¶UHVSRQVHs (McCool & Martin, 1994). 4. Tourism Impacts In the recent years, there is more concern for tourism development in developing countries and how that development occurs. Planners and governments believe that tourism development in rural communities will bring opportunities for improving local UHVLGHQWV¶quality of life by increasing incomes, employment, infrastructure, the quality of education, etc. However, tourism development does not only bring positive impacts, but also negative impacts to host communities. Typically, tourism impacts are categorized into three components which are: economic impacts, socio-cultural impacts, and environmental impacts (Aref, 2010; Ko & Stewart, 2002; Oviedo-Garcia et al., 2008; Pham, 2012; Pham & Kayat, 2011; VargasSánchez et al., 2009). 10