Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Group: 06: Community Based Eco-Tourism
Group: 06: Community Based Eco-Tourism
Group: 06: Community Based Eco-Tourism
ECO-TOURISM
Group: 06
Student ID:
160111
160114
160116
160120
160123
160125
CONTENT
1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..02
1.2 Social…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….........02
1.3 Cultural………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….03
1.4 Biodiversity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….03
1.9 References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….09
2.1 Social………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
2.2 Cultural……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
2.3 Economic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………21
2.5 Biodiversity………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………29
7
1.1 Community based eco tourism:
Community-based ecotourism (CBET) has become a popular tool for biodiversity conservation, based on the principle that biodiversity must pay for itself by generating economic
benefits, particularly for local people. There are many examples of projects that produce revenues for local communities and improve local attitudes towards conservation, but the
contribution of CBET to conservation and local economic development is limited by factors such as the small areas and few people involved, limited earnings, weak linkages between
biodiversity gains and commercial success, and the competitive and specialized nature of the tourism industry. Many CBET projects cited as success stories actually involve little
change in existing local land and resource-use practices, provide only a modest supplement to local livelihoods, and remain dependent on external support for long periods, if not
indefinitely.
Investment in CBET might be justified in cases where such small changes and benefits can yield significant conservation and social benefits, although it must still be recognized as
requiring a long term funding commitment. Here, I aim to identify conditions under which CBET is, and is not, likely to be effective, efficient and sustainable compared with alternative
approaches for conserving biodiversity. I also highlight the need for better data and more rigorous analysis of both conservation and economic impactsa
1.2 Social
1.2.1 Community cohesion
Community is one of the biggest stake of community based ecotourism. There is various types of community all over the world who has their own identity. They attract tourist by their
own speciation. (Scheyvens, 1999).
Community interest is very much essential in community based eco tourism . This makes good planning, implementation, management and monitoring problematic in the complex
tourism system.
For community based eco tourism community awareness is an important thing. Community should have to aware about the tourism, its framework , communication skills and some
rules . Which help them to run the system properly. (Manyara & Jones, 2007).
It is a form of society which favours equal rights, freedom of speech and a fair trial and tolerates the views of minorities. A healthy community requires responsible and active
inhabitant who value the system of government and work towards a shared vision of intestine life.
Evidence has demonstrated that the most effective way to maximize such environmental and fiscal benefits is through projects which emphasize local community ownership and
control.(Manyara & Jones ,2007).
Cultural program
Community gathering
8
1.3.Cultural
1.3.1 Cultural diversity
Cultural diversity is the quality of diverse or different cultures. The phrase cultural diversity can also refer to having different cultures respect each other's differences. The phrase
"cultural diversity" is also sometimes used to mean the variety of human society or cultures in a specific region, or in the world as a whole. For community based eco tourism cultural
diversity make the own identity of the community and this diversity attracts the tourist. (Okazaki, 2008)
1.4 Biodiversity
9
1.5 Environment
1.5.1 Natural features
▪ Attractive scenery
▪ Flora
▪ Fauna
▪ Landscape
Natural features are the key attributes of ecology based tourism. Natural features like natural scenery, flora, fauna, landscape can promote community based ecotourism. (Tisdell, 1996).
1.6 Management
10
1.6.5 Reciprocity
It means stronger relationships of trust, benefit sharing, common rules, shared norms , reciprocity between neighbors , and endorsement of environmental behaviors.
1.6.10 Accessibility
We have to ensure maximum access to communities tradition , culture & natural resources , without creating any kind of disturbance to its resources.
c
c
1.7 Support
1.7.1 Government Support
Government participation is most visible in developing economies where tourism planning and promotion tend to be controlled directly by governments. Government agencies taking
greater interest, allocating funds and time to collaborative projects and playing a vital role in the planning, development and management of tourism initiatives. The factors that have
helped to change in governments’ approach include.
Governments are motivated to play an integral and collaborative role in tourism planning and management and the private sector requires government assistance to ensure the
sustainability of tourism. Sustainability issues affecting tourism on the agenda of governments as government agencies have control over a wide range of features that affect the
maximization of benefits tourism can deliver to communities (Simpson, 2008).
11
1.7.2 Financial Assistance
Ecotourism is beginning to catch the eye of private investors to catch the eye of private investors and other funders who are interested in financing sustainable development, land
rehabilitation, wildlife reintroduction, and/or conservation research. Example from Africa show how ecotourism can synergistically build support for this goals.
Ecotourism does not simply imply the establishment of activities to attract visitors but also seeks to establishment of activities to attract visitors but also seek to establish a productive
base that allows local people to enjoy acceptable living standards. In many cases, the simple process of setting aside areas for visitation has created conflicts over resource ownership
because local people were evicted from their land or had limited access to the resources that enabled their survival. A mechanism to mitigate conflicts over the use of natural resources
and biodiversity conservation, with the integration of local people, is the so called community based ecotourism (CBET), a “practice of tourism where the local community has a
significant control over, and participation in its development and management, and a major percentage of the benefits stay within the community”
Ecotourism impact on local communities focuses on one of the three key values of ecotourism – economic sustainability. In addition to its inherent social and environmental benefits, it
is the economic sustainability of ecotourism that is provided to local communities through local ownership, observing and maintaining traditional practices of developing goods and food,
and offering employment opportunities that provide lasting value. The local economic impact is calculated by tracing how both tourist goods and services such as food and loading and
how the tourism suppliers themselves obtain goods services.
Local peoples maximize their benefits, and have some control over ecotourism occurring in their regions, Akama has suggested that alternative ecotourism initiatives are needed which
aim to empower local people:
. . . the local community need to be empowered to decide what forms of tourism facilities and wildlife conservation programs they want to be developed in their respective communities,
and how the tourism costs and benefits are to be shared among different stakeholders (Akama, 1996, p. 573).
If a community is to be politically empowered by ecotourism, their voices and their concerns should guide the development of any ecotourism project from the feasibility stage through to
its implementation. Diverse interest groups within a community, including women and youths, should also have representation on com- munity and broader decision-making bodies.
Akama 248 R. Scheyvens /Tourism Management 20 (1999) 245—249 argues that for local communities to be able to exert some control over ecotourism activities, however, power will
need to be decentralized from the national level to the community level (Akama, 1996). This could include involving grassroots organizations, local church groups, and indigenous
institutions in decision-making processes and on representative bodies such as national parks boards or regional tourism associations.
12
1.8 Integrated Attributes
1.8.1 Responsible travel:
Ecotourism is responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well being of local people. (Wood, 2002) The tourists should not exploit the nature or
hunt any wildlife during their travel.
1.8.2 Exploration:
Eco tourism is a scope for exploring the nature. Various rare species of flora and fauna can be discovered. Eco-tourism is nature-based tourism that involves education and
interpretation of the natural environment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable. (Allcock et al., 1994)
The very nature of the Earthwatch experience requires the participants be "deep green" ecotourists committed to being environmentally responsible, not by merely minimizing their
impact on the environment, but by environmental enhancement of habitats and species. (Weiler & Richins, 1995) When eco-tourism initiates in an area, the community people become
more aware of their surrounding environment and they take care of the environment for its preservation and conservation. Besides they learn modern agriculture techniques from the
foreigners.
Weiler, B., & Richins, H. (1995). Extreme, extravagant and elite: a profile of ecotourists on Earthwatch expeditions. Tourism Recreation Research, 20(1), 29-36
1.8.4 Collaboration:
The people of the community should be collaborative with the stakeholders and the tourists.
NGO–Community Collaboration for Ecotourism: A Strategy for Sustainable Regional Development (Barkin & Pailies, 1999)
Meanwhile, the relationships they have developed with the tourists, the industry, and other organizations have led to opportunities to establish complementary small enterprises and
work in other lodges and other fields. (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008)
13
1.8.9 Eco sensitivity
Inhabitants of a community becomes senstivite to the eco-system of the nature where eco-tourism is initiated.Residents showed a high degree of awareness and sensitivity regarding
environmental conservation issues in the area. (Pipinos & Fokiali, 2007)
1.8.12 Expectation
Tourist perceptions of community visits; gifts and services that tourists would like; tourist expectations; suggestions on how visits could be improved; tourist definitions of ecotourism;
and quality-of-life questions directed at local people. (Malek-Zadeh, 1996)
1.8.13 Enjoyment
Ecotourism is travel to relatively undisturbed natural areas for study, enjoyment or volunteer assistance. (Malek-Zadeh, 1996)
1.8.14 Experience
Community people should try their best to give the tourists a good and memorable experience.Community-Based Ecotourism (CBE) might fit into a typical travel itinerary, just about
anywhere in the world. It should also provide insight into how such experiences can be designed to maximize community participation. (Malek-Zadeh, 1996)
14
1.9 References
• Akama, J. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. tourism Management,17(8), 567—574
• Barkin, D., & Pailles, C. (1999). NGO-Community Collaboration for Ecotourism: A strategy for sustainable regional development. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(2), 69-74
• Belsky, J. M. (1999). Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community‐Based Rural Ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize 1. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 641-666.
• Blangy, S., & Mehta, H. (2006). Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(3-4), 233-236.
• Brennan, F., & Allen, G. (2001). Community-based ecotourism, social exclusion and the changing political economy of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Tourism and the less
developed world: Issues and case studies, 203-221.
• Forstner, K. (2004). Community ventures and access to markets: The role of intermediaries in marketing rural tourism products. Development Policy Review, 22(5), 497-514.
• Funnell, D. C., & Bynoe, P. E. (2007). Ecotourism and institutional structures: The case of North Rupununi, Guyana. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 163-183
• Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success. ICRT Occasional paper, 11(1), 37.
• Haywood, K. M. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism management, 9(2), 105-118.
• Isaacs, J. C. (2000). The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 61-69.
• Kimmel, J. R. (1999). Ecotourism as environmental learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 40-44.
• Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?. Trends in ecology & evolution, 19(5), 232-237.
• Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga, Thailand: Partial victories and bittersweet remedies. Journal of sustainable tourism,
13(1), 4-23.
• Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of
sustainable tourism, 15(6), 628-644.
• Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of
sustainable tourism, 15(6), 628-644.
• Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of sustainable tourism, 16(5), 511-529.
• Ogutu, Z. A. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation &
Development, 13(3), 251-256
• Pipinos, G. & Fokiali, P. Environ Dev Sustain (2009)
• Sakata, H., & Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 880-899.
15
• Salafsky, N., & Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World
development, 28(8), 1421-1438.
• Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism management, 20(2), 245-249.
• Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V., & Sönmez, S. (1999). Redefining ecotourism: The need for a supply-side view. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 168-172
• Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of tourism research, 35(2), 448-468.
• Tisdell, C. (1996). Ecotourism, economics, and the environment: observations from China. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 11-19.
• Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism management, 28(5), 1168-1179.
• Wurzinger, S., & Johansson, M. (2006). Environmental concern and knowledge of ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 217-226.
• Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, practices and policies for sustainability. UNEP.
16
2.Chapter: 02- Attributes from Policies
17
2.1 Social
2.1.1 Community Driven Process
Community based eco-tourism and its planning should be a community driven process. Community people should hold the authority for the conduction of tourism.
Community participation
Social Interaction
18
2.1.5 Public Interest:
The people of the community should prioritize the collectively defined public interest. They should compromise their individual interest in terms of greater benefit of the community
people.
19
2.1.10 Involving poor members of a
community
• Ensure basic need of lower class people.(3.2-e.8)
• Give priority to both local and lower class people. (5.3.12)
• We should serve facilities according to their income range. (4.12)
• We also give priority to women & elderly people of a particular community. (5.11)
• Create some reliable income source & facilities in rural area for them. (4.13)
21
2.1.19 Free Of Fear And Violence (G-16)
In community based eco tourism local people can freely participate with the tourism business. And it should be ensure that they don’t face any kind of fear and
violence from outside.
Unity
22
2.1.24 Health Care (G-3)
In community based eco tourism there should have to include health care facility . Therefore it is a rural place so people and tourist need a good health care facility .
2.1.27 Equity
Providing equal access for all, to economic and productive resources, physical and social infrastructures. Equity is achieved by ensuring that everyone is enjoying the basic
needs and demand by providing all the people their specific deficits. There should be no discrimination.
2.1.28 Needs
The basic needs of the people living in a community is to be ensured like food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, education etc. Besides to get a livable community the necessary
services is to be provided like supply of fresh water, energy, accessibility, transportation etc.
23
2.1.30 Collaboration
For making community based eco-tourism successful collaboration of the community people with the stakeholders and tourists is required.
Collaboration
24
2.2 Cultural
2.2.1 Culture And History Of Community
Housing policies promote and protect the cultural and historical typology of communities. Historical and cultural preservation metrics align across all government jurisdictions.
Cultural co-existence
2.2.5 Diversity
Diversity exists among societies or communities due to their individual socio-cultural expression. Even diversity exist in between the people of the community where people with
different religion, cast, race, color etc. live together in peace and harmony.
25
2.2.6 Heritage building
• Preservation of heritage building of a particular area.(3.2-e.5).We should preserve their characteristics.
26
2.3 Economic
2.3.1 Productive Local Economy
Every community should have economy of its own based on their local resources and skills. In community based eco-tourism local economy can be more productive by selling tourism
products, handicrafts, performing arts, facilitating transportation through boat or cart etc.
Earning
Spending
Saving
Investing
2.3.4 Employment(G-8)
Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation including through a
focus on higher-value added and labor-intensive section.
27
2.3.5 Self sufficient & sustainable development
The development should be like every one can afford it & can create fund by them self to run the process properly . We
have try to make them self sufficient by creating sufficient Economic sector in their community . Thus they can fulfil their
own demand by their own product .(4.11)
28
2.4 Natural Environment
29
2.4.6 Using Indigenous Resources
Promotion of small scale building materials production units will help creation of jobs for women, for Which skill development programs will be initiated. Step will be taken to economies
the use of scarce building materials and to promote low-cost environmentally-sound technology and the use of indigenous resources, including mud, Wherever appropriate.
30
2.4.9 Expansion of the ‘green belt’
The importance of thick belts of mangroves in reducing the destructive capacity of storm surges, was demonstrated during disasters. An expansion of the green belt
would afford extra protection and increase livelihood opportunities for the people.
31
2.4.12 Water & sanitation
• Ensure the access to pure drinking water and good sanitation. (5.9.7)
• Waste management process must be stablished in community.
Hygiene sanitation
Drinking Water
Solid waste
Gray water
Fertilizer filter
Seed
Food
32
2.4.15 Recycling And Reuse(G-13)
improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and
substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally
Agricultural Waste
Building materials
33
2.4.19 Energy Efficiency
Include the development of energy-efficient housing and technologies that can reduce both the cost of living and the environmental impact.
Renewable Energy
34
2.5 Biodiversity
2.5.2 Biodiversity(G-13)
Integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning development process poverty reduction strategies and accounts. Mobilize and significantly increase financial
resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystem.
35
2.5.4 Protected Of Flora And Fauna(G-15)
Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products.
36
2.6 Physical Element
2.6.1 Built environment
• Ensure the maximum utilization of a land without hampering the built environment . (5.1.6)and ensure not to feel any kind of water body & river.(5.1.13)
• We should not excess land acquire for any kind of govt. project. (5.1.3)
Infrastructure development
Indigenous technique
38
2.6.9 Accessibility
• Every kind of community facility should be nearby. (5.5.2)
• Ensure evacuation in disaster affected area in list amount of time. (5.10.3)
• Ensure universal accessibility & emergency accessibility in all kind of infrastructure. (5.9.4)
universal design means creating spaces that meet the needs of all people, young and
old, able and disabled. From the arrangement of the rooms to the choice of colors, many
details go into the creation of accessible spaces. Architecture tends to focus on
accessibility for people with disabilities, but Universal Design is the philosophy behind
accessibility. (G-9)
39
2.6.12 Duty Free And Quota Free Market (G-8)
Realize timely implementation of duty free and quota free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions,
including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access.
40
Neighbourhood Upgrading
41
2.6.18 Self-help Housing
The local people should be provided with such designs that they are able to construct by their own. This makes them skillful and a resilient outcome is obtained.
Multipurpose usage
cyclone shelter
Cyclone shelters
Community
42
2.6.21 Repair and maintenance of embankments and polders
Embankments have provides security from flooding. So it is very important to rehabilitate existing river flood embankments so that they are fully functional and able to provide the level of
security for which these were constructed. Like embankments, polders need urgent repair to protect the livelihoods and the people against high cyclone storm surges and future
projected sea level rises.
43
2.6.24 informal settlement
• Enforce the law to stop the new growing informal settlement. (5.9.3)and existing informal settlement NGO and other authority should work for betterment.
44
2.6.27 Future Growth (Challenge & Opportunity)
Inhabitants and stakeholders should think regarding a sustainable future for every community. Besides, the challenges for expansion in size and population of a community in the future
are to be addressed like food security, shelter etc. On the other hand the future growth of a community can be taken as an opportunity for the future like skilled man power, productive
economy etc.
Spatial Integration
45
3.Chapter: 03- Case Study
(Community based eco tourism in Chi-Phat, Combodia)
46
3. 1 Community-based Ecotourism in Chi Phat:
Chi Phat commune is located in the Southern Cardamom Protected Forest of Koh Kong province in southwestern
Cambodia. Chi Phat is mainland South East Asia`s largest remaining tract of rain forest situated directly in the heart
of the Cardamom Mountains. With mountains, mangroves and low land swamps on the one hand and many cultural
artifacts such as burial jars and wooden coffins on the other hand, Chi Phat and its surrounding area has a variety of
attractions to offer both to local and international tourists. Tourists can a walk through the forest trials and meet warm
and friendly village people.
48
3.3 Climatic Condition of Chi Phat:
49
Average monthly rainy days over the year:
50
3.3.1 Sun Path Study of Chi Phat:
51
21st June 21st December
3.4 History of Chi Phat Community-Based Ecotourism
A decade ago, Chi Phat rainforest was facing the destruction. Forest fires were uncontainable, while wildlife was being poached for the commercial trade to Thailand, Vietnam, and
Phnom Penh. At that time, Wildlife Alliance named Chi Phat commune the “Circle of Death” because of its extreme condition of natural resource depletion. Wildlife Alliance arrived and
started working in the Cardamoms in 2002 to cope with forest fires, forestland encroaching, slash and burn cultivation and wildlife poaching. In 2003, Wildlife Alliance found that 280
households were destroying natural resources to make a living because they were impoverished and did not have any livelihood assets (Gauntlett, 2013). After comprehensive
discussion and participatory planning with the local people and authorities, Chi Phat Community-Based Ecotourism was initiated in 2007 and has been supported so far by Wildlife
Alliance.
52
3.5 ATTRIBUTES those made the CBET of Chi Phat Successful:
The two CBETs of Yeak Laom and Chi Phat are very different in terms of geographical location, maturity stage, and management and operation structures. (Seyhah, 2017)
Productive Local Economy Self sufficient & sustainable development End Hunger
Rice cultivation in Chi Phat commune was wet rice cultivation. Chi Phat commune had a rice cultivation area of 416 ha, but only 46% of the area was cultivated. There was no irrigation
system in the commune, so rice cultivation was rain fed. The average productivity was low, only 1 ton/ha. The total rice production was 190 tons in 2010. Rice production per capita was
272 kg/person. There were only 4 small-scale rice mills.
53
Natural resources Landscape Biodiversity
Cardamom Landscape in southwestern Cambodia is the most significant forest watershed in Cambodia, providing precipitation for the whole area with 3,500 to 4,500 mm of rain
annually feeding 22 rivers and 3,145 villages. Cardamom Mountain Range is the second largest forest in Southeast Asia, one of only seven remaining elephant corridors in Asia and the
only habitat in the world for Siamese crocodiles and Royal turtles. It is also one of the world’ s 32 biodiversity hotspots, an important archeological corridor and the largest carbon sink in
Cambodia (Gauntlett, 2013). Southern Cardamom Protected Forest is one of the conservation areas in the Cardamom Landscape. One of the advantage of the community is it is located
in the heart of the Cardamom Mountains which is claimed as one of the last elephant corridors and large predator ranges in South East Asia (Asker et al., 2010). It is the home of
Cambodia's 2,300 plant species, more than half of Cambodia’s 200 bird species, and 14 globally threatened mammal species (Wildlife Alliance, 2015; Asker et al., 2010). It covers an
area of 144,275 ha which are the habitat of globally endangered wildlife including the Asian elephant, Indochinese tiger, Pileated gibbon and other species of birds ( Daltry & Momberg ,
2000; Wild Aid , 2003; cited in Sun, 2014).
Since 2002, Wildlife Alliance18, together with the governmental forest administration, has worked to conserve the natural resources and develop the communities in the area. It works to
provide direct protection to forests and wildlife in the Southeast Asia tropical belt. Its mission is to eradicate deforestation, wildlife extinction, climate change and poverty with cooperation
from local communities and authorities.
Wildlife Alliance named Chi Phat commune the “Circle of Death” because of its extreme condition of natural resource depletion. Wildlife Alliance arrived and started working in the
Cardamoms in 2002 to cope with forest fires, forestland encroaching, slash and burn cultivation and wildlife poaching. In 2003, Wildlife Alliance found that 280 households were
destroying natural resources to make a living because they were impoverished and did not have any livelihood assets.
The CBET member were mostly from the 280 households who were hunters, wildlife traders, farmer clearing forest and loggers . Wildlife Alliance tried to include them in the membership
of CBET so that they stopped the livelihood activities that harm the natural resources.
54
Participatory planning
Support
After comprehensive discussion and participatory planning with the local people and authorities, Chi Phat Community-Based Ecotourism was initiated in 2007 and has been supported so far by Wildlife
Alliance.
Appreciative Participatory Planning Action (APPA)19 method of the Mountain Institute has been used to empower the community to own, manage and run Chi Phat CBET. In this theme
discussions encompassed management structure, leadership, role and responsibilities of leaders. The public sector considers the management of the community important, in particular
with regards to the operational aspect.
Chi Phat can be success in case Chi Phat is able to self-manage and self-operate without any support of funds from partners or organization. The incomes can pay off the expenses.
The other point is that Chi Phat has sufficient characteristics – documents necessary for CBO, including planning, transparent expense reports.
Moreover, as a successful community, they should maintain quality assurance on all products and services to ensure best standard practices of all their services including
accommodation, food hygiene, and guides with knowledge and good communication skills. Furthermore, it should have good management with working groups who have the required
skills and a clear set of duties/responsibilities.
55
Training Of Local Universal Literacy Promote Life Long Learning
Wildlife Alliance also provided ongoing training for the CBET members about hospitality, Eco guiding , computers, English and accounting. Communication among the Chi Phat
community and the management committee members has developed, an improvement in speaking English, better living conditions for the locals and a good benefit system. Tourism is a
service industry, therefore it is crucial that newly recruited guides or working groups should be provided training. The job requires good facilitation and communication skills. No proper
trainings to new members of CBET including cooks and guides. This will lead to the conflict as there are no appropriate training and to strengthen their skills and experience. Even
though new guides who are young and can speak better English, they do not really understand how to arrange the trip and guide people. Training to strengthen skills and experiences
are crucial in order to build the capacity of the local people, especially the direct service providers, such as, guides and cooks. Chi Phat CBET had to provide its members a series of
capacity building training sessions, such as, eco-guiding, cooking, hospitality, first-aid, booking, biking and bike repair. In addition other training included sanitation and waste
management, tourism knowledge.
Waste Management
Gray water
Fertilizer filter
Seed 56
Food
Appropriate Regulatory Framework
Chi Phat CBET has a management committee with a mandate of three years. The management committee was elected by the local people. At the time of the survey for this study, it
consisted of eleven members who had the following position: chief, deputy chief, secretary, chief accountant, deputy accountant, guide and motor taxi team leader, mountain bike
mechanic, cooking team leader, boat team leader, ranger team leader and storekeeper. The management committee manages the following sections of CBET: accommodation and
transportation, tour, food and beverage, booking and invoicing and storekeeping.
57
Conservation Of Nature, Bio-diversity And Eco-system Well-being & Quality Of Life Cultural Sustainability
Chi Phat CBET’s objectives are to conserve natural resources, to preserve local culture, to improve local communities’ livelihoods, to promote exchange between tourists’ culture and
local culture and to empower local communities to manage the CBET independently. The tourist attractions of Chi Phat CBET include wildlife, forests, bat caves, ancient burial sites,
waterfalls and local Cambodian livelihoods. The primary tourism services are trekking, mountain biking, boating and kayaking, and so on. Chi Phat is believed to have contributed
significant economic affluence to its members. This factor mainly covered variables, such as, income generation to members of the community, employment opportunities for the locals –
young people and women, money reserved in the CBET funds, a fair benefit sharing system to its members, and the local people are given opportunity to become members of the
project. Community members look deeply into how the benefits are shared among members and how employment opportunities are given to the young people and women, and the
number of tourists that have arrived in Chi Phat. Whereas, members from the public sector look at how much of the CBET funds can be saved from tourism income and how it is going to
be used, and whether the community has got external funding from any organizations. The public sector look at the bigger picture – external image of the community and its economic
sustainability.
Two hundreds and forty-five of the 280 households who previously destroyed the forests and hunted wild animals were benefited from Chi Phat CBET. A hundred households of them received direct
income20 from the CBET; 20 households of them gained indirect incomes from the CBET; 75 households of them produced vegetables, fruit and livestock; and 50 households of them were employed in
the reforestation nursery21
58
Institutional frame work Training Of Local Collaboration
Tour operation
Tourist control Participatory planning
Employment
A CBET member had to provide about 20% to 30% of his or her income earned from providing service to tourists to Chi Phat CBET. Additionally a CBET member had to participate CBET meetings and
other non-remunerative activities. According to the CBET chief, meetings were conducted monthly for the CBET members in order to discuss issues regarding the CBET operation and the like. All the
CBET members were involved in remunerative activities of the CBET such as homestays, guesthouses, motorbike taxi services, restaurants and guides to tourists, on a rotational basis. For example, the
CBET management committee created a schedule listing all homestay owners in numerical order.
59
Participatory Inhabitants
Non-member residents were not allowed to serve tourists who booked their vacation with Chi Phat CBET. However, there were non-members of the CBET operating guesthouses and
homestays independently. They did not have the obligation to pay a proportion of their income to Chi Phat CBET. These residents did not want to join the CBET because they did not
wish to be controlled by Chi Phat CBET. Local farmers can sell their crops to the CBET members and Chi Phat CBET. Therefore the income earned in this way were indirect income
from CBET.
Chi Phat CBET was trying to create more employment and income-earning opportunities for local people by attracting more tourists and was planning to build a new restaurant and other
new services.
Services and infrastructure need to be strengthened and the momentum already seen in the community should be maintained. Services should be checked regularly through visitor
feedback, then the community should improve its service quality using the suggested feedback as a guide. Overall, hospitality needs to improve; the NGO officers advised that the
community should consider improving existing services before creating new products.
60
Community consent Support
Most residents are likely to have positive perceived impacts of and strong support for CBET. Only a small percentage of the residents have negative perceived impacts of and slightly oppose CBET.
A stakeholder of Chi Phat explained that, before joining the community, the livelihood was hard for him. After the community created, both his wife and his children hag job. He thought
that his living was a lot better than before. Overall, in reality people said it was impossible for him but actually his life has completely changed. he was a drunken man before but now
people trust him. Nobody could predict how he changed himself. He reduced drinking and worked hard – life has changed.
Female residents are very likely to be the Regular Beneficiary Supporters of Chi Phat CBET. CBET of Chi Phat provides equal opportunities for both men, women and young people who
just finish secondary school or high school. They can apply for work.
61
Accessibility
Before CBET, most of the roads of Chi Phat was bumpy and muddy. But now, not only that the road was retrofitted (by CBET project), the amount of rubbish is reduced. The road
condition is good and there are even bridges too. There are more road to other places that couldn’t be accessed before. Chi Phat CBET also provided drainage.
62
Tourists Safety issues
The private sector strongly emphasized the need for improvement and enhancement of safety issues, especially amongst the guides. In the case of an emergency, there needs to be
equipment such as an I-com (a handheld transceiver), or HT - Walkie-talkies, and ambulances. Furthermore, there needs to be a comfortable area for visitors to wait for first aid
assistance to arrive.
This is another important factor contributing to the success of the Chi Phat community. The collaboration and support of stakeholders, such as, from the non-profit organizations, the
local authority, the private sector and the community. They emphasized the collaboration of the public sector, who provide strong support to the community in matters such as legal
support, the recognition of importance of Chi Phat from government high ranking officers, promotion, and documentation in regards to standard criteria, as well as monitoring and
evaluation.
63
Well-being & Quality Of Life
Chi Phat is believed to have contributed significant economic affluence to its members. This factor mainly covered variables, such as, income generation to members of the community,
employment opportunities for the locals – young people and women, money reserved in the CBET funds, a fair benefit sharing system to its members, and the local people are given
opportunity to become members of the project. Community members look deeply into how the benefits are shared among members and how employment opportunities are given to the
young people and women, and the number of tourists that have arrived in Chi Phat. Whereas, members from the public sector look at how much of the CBET funds can be saved from
tourism income and how it is going to be used, and whether the community has got external funding from any organizations. The public sector look at the bigger picture – external image
of the community and its economic sustainability.
Chi Phat communes can be considered as tourism-hungry communities from the viewpoint of attitude toward tourism. Residents’ positive attitude is an evidence that tourism is
appropriate for the local community.
The public sector, the development organization and the community members have frequently mentioned this attribute during interviews. It is believed that the local people are now more
knowledgeable of entrepreneurial and business skills related to tourism. Hiwasaki (2006), concluded that increasing awareness and building capacity among members of the community
is crucial and it leads to the success of the community. Hence, this supports that awareness of the people in Chi Phat, those who have received training and participated in the project,
can be indicators to evaluate success. They now have a strong awareness of the environment and conservation issues, the danger of illegal activities, and waste management issues.
The people get along well with each other and are active participants and strong members of the community. An example of this can be seen through the creation of self rangers and the
green ambassador who try to raise awareness of waste management issues, reforestation and other issues. This could well be regarded as development of a successful community.
A sense of belongings
A sense of belonging appeared in the discussions with members of the public sector, they considered it as an attribute that encourages or influences the success of the Chi Phat
community. The local people understand the benefits of tourism and decided to change their perceptions to protect their community. They are proud to be residents of this community
and happily talk about it with outsiders. They consider themselves a model community and therefore it has increased their confidence when participating in the national or sub-regional
meetings or discussions. Through tourism, community members now have a high sense of belonging, are proud of themselves, and live happily and in harmony. More importantly, the
project itself helps to increase a collectivism attitude among the members. The local people consider the collective benefits (to members of the community) important. Evidence to
support this statement is the show of solidarity by its members who gave thumbprints on a petition against the mining exploration companies because they want ecotourism in Chi Phat.
64
3.6 Building type:
Residential building
Ground floor open for only family use Plinth level is quite higher then ground level
Ground floor used as market place and upper floor Used as residential purposes.
65
Bungalow type building
66
Guest house
67
3.7 Structural and spatial detail
Section
Elevation
Construction technique 68
3.8 Life style & livelihood
69
3.9 Biodiversity
Elephant
Parrot birds Bear
70