Community-Based Ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga, Thailand: Partial Victories and Bittersweet Remedies

Abstract

By encouraging both ecological sustainability and grassroots development, community-based ecotourism offers hope that the environmental sensitivity and responsibility promoted by ecotourism can also serve the political, economic, and social interests of host communities. However, due to the difficulties of implementing community-based ecotourism in practice, success stories remain rare. This paper explores the feasibility of community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga in southern Thailand. Using the region's oldest ecotourism company as its case study, this paper argues that community-based ecotourism in southern Thailand is only partially successful, and requires four tradeoffs: success and survival at the expense of ecotourism's spatial isolation and structural independence; local employment and benefits at the expense of local initiation and control; social status and mobility at the expense of social cohesion and harmony; and incipient environmentalism at the expense of ecological sustainability. Despite these tradeoffs, the benefits of ecotourism in Phuket still outweigh the costs in terms of community development.

Tourism stakeholder exclusion and conflict in a small island

“…Findings have demonstrated variously that destination branding, impacts management, benefits distribution, community cohesion and visitor experiences can be enhanced through collaboration (Go and Govers, 2000;Almeyda et al, 2008;Morgan et al, 2009). By providing a basis for developing mutually beneficial solutions, collaboration minimises potential tensions and fosters more successful host-guest relationships (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005). By contrast, exclusion of certain stakeholders from decision making may risk creating resentments towards tourists amongst disenfranchised groups (Sanchez and Adams, 2008).…”

“…Collaboration may foster management approaches able to rise to the complexities of implementing sustainable development (Tao and Wall, 2009). Similarly it fosters awareness of the benefits of the approach which may take longer to accrue, thus preempting short term opposition (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005). Other benefits closely associated with sustainability and fostered by collaboration include monitoring of impacts (Almeyda et al, 2010), spread of conservation ethos (Hoyt, 2005), and exchanges of ideas and best practise (Go and Govers, 2000).…”

Community Based Tourism: A Corelation Between Knowledge and Participation in Mountain Based Destination

“…Many literatures state that CBT could strengthen communication and interaction between stakeholders, to gain mutual understanding, solidarity and productivity of tourism vision [6] [9]. The community should be involved in every step of planning process and decision making in achieving sustainable tourism development.…”

“…Oftentimes, people are not involved in determining the vision, mission and not accommodated to bringing out the local rules. Community groups with little power, often defeated by the will and opinions of elites groups that close to government [1] [6].…”

“…Tourist activities those are able to give satisfaction to locals, provide protection against natural, cultural and social life, maintain economic stability and provide benefits to all involved stakeholders, are being the key to the success of sustainable tourism program [3]. The community empowerment concept should be able to improve the economic quality of the locals, to support the conservation of natural and cultural environment, improved quality of life, and strengthening the capacity of locals to be able to meet the needs of the present and future dating [6] [9].…”