Public Version

Developing Sustainable Resorts in Developing
Countries: A Proposed New Generation Rating

Framework for Malaysia.
Muhamad Syafiq Salehudin
A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Built Environment, the University of New South Wales
December 2012
1
ABSTRACT
A commonly accepted approach to mitigate negative environmental, social and economic

impacts and encourage the creation of sustainable buildings is to evaluate resort buildings to
ensure their sustainability. There are two types of assessment approach for evaluating the
sustainability of tourism accommodation facilities: sustainable tourism assessment systems
(STAS) and green building rating tools (GBRT). In the tourism industry there is a tendency
by developing countries to assimilate existing sustainable tourism assessment systems such as
EarthCheck and Green Globe and green building rating methods such as LEED and Green
Star. However, it is arguable if these existing STAS and GBRT could be adapted to the
diverse climates, local cultures, societies and economies of developing countries. Most STAS
and GBRT are developed and designed to reflect the environmental concerns, building
standards and social needs of their home countries. A framework to develop a new generation
sustainable resort development for Malaysia was formulated through this research. In line
with this study, three existing STAS and GBRT were critically reviewed. It was found that
STAS are more focused on the operational phase of resort development and GBRT are more
focused on resort facility design and construction. The review also revealed that GBRT
evaluations mainly concentrate on environmental performance assessment and thus are not
adequate at addressing the wider sustainability issues which are important for a developing
country such as Malaysia. Although some of their indicators are universal and can be adapted
for use in resort development in Malaysia, others are more contextually specific and either
needed major changes for adaptation or is not applicable. In combination with findings from
relevant literature, interviews and survey, a suitable rating structure and a set of indicators to
assess sustainable resort development were identified. To validate the overall findings of this
research the identified rating framework was then tested against five Malaysian case studies.
This research suggests a number of recommendations for the development of tourism sustainability rating tools
in general: - Developing such a rating framework should be based on previous research and the technical
knowledge of tourism experts. Local tourism experts and stakeholders should be key participants in this process,
as the development of rating tools requires collaboration. Local tourism sustainability strategies and goals
should be addressed as a major aim. A tourism sustainability assessment framework should suit the local context
of the country; depending on its culture, issues, players, practices and institutions. It is essential for each country
to design its own indicators in its own way to serve its shared goals and to solve its own tourism centric
problems. Countries should learn from previous established work and ideas and they should use the work of
This framework can be further developed into a tool for the
experts as inputs to their discussion.
Malaysian context on compilation of benchmark data and weightings as appropriate.
2
PREFACE
The following conference proceedings and journals were produced and published during the course
of this research:
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2011, ‗Renewable Energy potential for Energy
Efficient resort development in Malaysia‘, the 49th Annual AuSES Solar Conference, 30
November – 2 December, Sydney, Australia.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2011, ‗Comparative study of assessment tools
for comprehensive assessment of resort development in Malaysia: Sustainable tourism
th
assessment tool or green building rating tool?‘ 10 International Conference for research in
tourism, 14 July – 17 July 2010, University of Las Vegas Nevada.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2011 ‗An assessment systems for sustainable
resort development in Malaysia‘. World Tourism Conference, 2011, Paris, France.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2011 ‗A critical review of environmental
assessment/certification tools for resort development in Malaysia‘ World sustainable
Building Conference 2011, Helsinki, Findland.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2012 ‗Sustainable resort development:
Malaysian Case Studies‘ Journal of Tourism Management 2012.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2012 ‗Sustainable assessment system criteria
and indicators for resort development for developing countries – the case of Malaysia‘ PLEA
2012.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2013 ‗A Field Survey of Local Community
Empowerment Initiatives at Selected Resort in Malaysia’ International Journal of Arts
and sciences. Volume 06, Number 01 ISSN: 1944-6934
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2013 ‗Development of sustainable resort in
tropical climate – a proposed new rating framework‘ International Journal of Arts and
sciences. Vol 7. (2013)
3
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2013 ‗Challenges to Sustainable Resort and
Hotel Development in Malaysia.‘ ICTTL 2013 conference in Paris, France during 14 - 16
February, 2013.
The bulk of the paper above reviewed a few existing sustainable tourism assessment systems
(STAS) such as EartCheck, Green Globe and CST and green building rating tools for
example LEED, Green Mark and GBI (Malaysia). These sustainable rating tools and
assessment systems have been in circulation and in use worldwide. All of them were tested
against the concept of sustainability in order to verify claims that they were designed to
evaluate the sustainability of houses.
Through these exercises, the researcher acquired new rating skills which are needed to
properly evaluate resorts sustainability according to the stipulated sets of standards and
indicators within these rating tools and assessment systems. Inadequacies or incompatibility
of any indicator within these rating tools and assessment systems were critically reviewed
and reported in the papers listed above and in this thesis. Findings from these smaller studies
formed part of the basis for the ensuing list of sustainable resort indicators as outlined and
explained in this thesis.
In order to validate the list of indicators extracted from interviews with sustainable resort
development experts who have direct experience in designing, building and operate
sustainable resorts. Two data collection methods have been explored. Quantitative survey
was conducted in sequence with the semi-structured interviews to add more weight to the
overall research findings from the qualitative research used initially. For this research, five
case studies were chosen to validate the applicability of the rating tool.
The questionnaire survey was designed to gather a consensus on the importance of the
sustainable resort indicators in order to determine their weights which could then be used to
create a new sustainable resort rating tool for Malaysian in the future. In order to
successfully conduct the questionnaire survey, a sample frame of 150 was established from a
survey population. However; only 54 completed samples were received. Although this is low
response rate could contribute to a non-response error, the aim of this research was only to
4
demonstrate and justify the processes involve in developing a new sustainable rating tool for
Malaysia.
Besides semi-structured interviews and the questionnaire survey, the researcher initially
explored other qualitative and quantitative research methods such as Delphi method surveys
which were rejected as viable data collection methods due to financial constrains, lack of
manpower and concerns over the commitment of the research participants among others.
Nevertheless, this exploration has further increased the knowledge of the researcher in the
field of qualitative and quantitative research and the analyses of the data found from the
semi-structured interviews, questionnaire survey, case study and lessons learnt from
conducting all of them are presented in detail in this thesis.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am eternally grateful to my family and friends. Love, understanding and patience, enormous support
and sacrifice during this challenging odyssey, is the most important factor to my success. I would also
like to express my gratitude towards my mother Radiah Binti Jamidin and father Salehudin Mohd
Dewa for their undying support and encouragement, which enabled me to become the person that I am
today. Your love and patience will be cherished forever. Without them being there through thick and
thin, I would not be able to complete this research as I did.
For his patience, dedication and friendship, I would like to thank my supervisor Scientia Professor Dr.
Deo Karan Prasad – his support and commitments were inspirational and also to my Co-supervisor
Dr. Paul W.H Osmond who has given his unduly guidance and support throughout his supervision of
this research.
The author is also deeply thankful to the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for funding the
research and providing administrative support for the author to successfully complete this research on
time. Besides them, the author is very appreciative of both the Faculty of the Built Environment
(FBE) and the Graduate Research School at UNSW for funding the conference trips throughout the
candidacy. It is also a pleasure to be doing research with thoughtful, passionate and inspirational
colleagues such as John Blair, Yolanda Tobing, Jia Wen, Siti Salwa Ishak and Nurul Huda Anuar at
the FBE. Their friendship and encouragements will always be remembered.
A path begun in Batu 4 Gombak will find its terminus in Sydney. None of it had been predictable,
easy or straightforward. Ultimately, all praised to the Almighty the most gracious and most merciful.
Of it all, I can say just one thing: God is truly lord of all.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv
Chapter 1 – Outline of Thesis

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Rationale 1
1.3 Research Gaps 3
1.4 Research Aim 5
1.5 Research Questions 6
1.6 Research Objective 6
1.7 Outline of Research Methodology 6
1.8 Thesis Structure 7
Chapter 2 – Sustainability
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 The Sustainability Concept 10
2.3 Sustainable Development (SD) 15
2.4 Sustainability and Sustainable Development 18
2.5 Triple Bottom-line and Quadruple Bottom-line of Sustainability 19
2.6 Summary 22
Chapter 3 – Tourism, Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Resort Development
3.1 Introduction 24
3.2 Malaysian Context 24
3.2.1 The Climate 24
3.2.2 Natural Disasters 28
3.2.3 Environmental Stresses and Pressures 30
3.2.4 Encouraging Sustainable Building 31
3.3 Tourism 32
7
3.4 Tourism in Malaysia 33
3.4.1 Benefits Derived From Tourism 35
3.4.2 Threats Due to Tourism Development 39
3.5 The Need for Sustainable Tourism 40
3.6 Achieving Sustainable Tourism 42
3.6.1 The Principle of Sustainable Tourism 43
3.6.2 Key Issues for Sustainable Tourism 45
3.7 Sustainable Tourism in Malaysia 48
3.8 Resort Development 48
3.9 Challenges to Sustainable Resort Development in Malaysia 50
3.10 Resort Development in Malaysia and the Need for a
Sustainable Rating Tool 53
Chapter 4 – Review of Existing Rating Tools
4.1 Introduction 56
4.2 Green Building vs. Sustainable Building 56
4.2.1 Sustainable Building 56
4.2.2 Green Building 57
4.3 Genesis of Building Rating tools / Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems 58
4.4 Sustainable Building Rating Tools Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems 60
4.5 Overview of Green Building Rating Tools 61
4.5.1 LEED 62
4.5.2 Green Mark 64
4.5.3 GBI Malaysia 66
4.6 An Overview of Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems 68
4.6.1 Green Globe 69
4.6.2 EartchCheck 70
4.6.3 CST 70
4.7 Comparisons of Different Schemes 73
4.7.1 Nature and Purpose of Assessment 74
4.7.2 Target Building Group 74
4.7.3 Scope of Assessment 74
4.7.4 Stages of Building Being Assessed 74
4.7.5 Weighting Factors 75
4.7.6 Nature of Assessment 75
4.8 Towards a Sustainable Tourism Rating Tool for Malaysia 77
8
4.8.1 Adaptation of Alternative Energy Sources 77
4.8.2 Manipulation of Passive Building Design Elements
to Improve Environmental Sustainability for the Resort Industry 78
4.8.3. Using Traditional / Local Materials in Resort Design 78
4.8.4. Cultural Adaptation 79
4.8.5. Design, Site Selection and Construction Phase Evaluation 79
4.9 Summary 80
Chapter 5 – Research Methodology

5.1 Introduction 81
5.2 Sequential Mixed-mode Research Strategy 81
5.3 Developing a Sustainable Resort Rating Framework 84
5.3.1 Structuring the Sustainable Resort Rating Tool 85
5.4 The Initial Set of Indicators 86
5.4.1 Indicators 86
5.4.2 Developing the Initial Set of Indicators and Their Measures 86
5.5 Weighting 87
5.5.1 Weighting the Criteria and Indicators 88
5.6 Qualitative Research Method 89
5.6.1 Interview with Rating Tool Developers 89
5.6.1.1 Data Collection Procedure 89
5.6.2 Interviews with Sustainable Resort Development Experts 89
5.6.2.1 Research Sampling 90
5.6.2.2 Sampling for the Interviews 91
5.6.2.3 Data Collection Procedure 92
5.6.2.4 Constructing the Interview Questions 94
5.6.2.5 Interview Transcripts 94
5.7 Quantitative Method 95
5.7.1 Sampling for the Survey 95
5.7.2 Data Collection Procedure 96
5.7.3 Constructing the Questionnaire Survey 97
5.8 Case Study as a Validation Method 99
5.8.1 Selection of Case Study 99
5.8.2 Data Collection Procedure 100
5.9 Research Ethics 100
5.7 Summary 101
9
Chapter 6 – Qualitative Data Analysis and Findings
6.1 Introduction 102

6.2 Interview with Rating Tool Developer 103
6.2.1 Green Building Rating Tool Developer 103
6.2.2 Sustainable Tourism Assessment System Developer 105
6.3 Analyses of Interview Transcripts 106
6.4 Result 108
6.4.1 Sustainability and Sustainable Tourism Issues 110
6.4.2 Environment 112
6.4.3 Economic 113
6.4.4 Social 115
6.4.5 Governance 116
6.4.6 Criteria for Sustainable Resort Development for Malaysia 119
6.5 Discussion of Findings 122
6.6 Summary 123
Chapter 7 – Quantitative data analysis and findings

7.2 Analysis of Data 125
7.3 Finding from the Survey 126
7.4.1 Results from Section 1 of the Questionnaire 126
7.4.2 Results from Section 2 of the Questionnaire 126
7.4.3 Results from Section 3(a) – Site Development 128
7.4.4 Results from Section 3(b) – Material Resources and Cycle 130
7.4.5 Results from Section 3(c) – Energy Efficiency 131
7.4.6 Results from Section 3(d) – Water Efficiency 133
7.4.7 Results from Section 3(E) – Indoor Environmental Quality 134
7.4.8 Results from Section 3(F) – Culture and Heritage Conservation 136
7.4.9 Results from Section 3(g) – Commitment to local community 137
7.4.10 Results from Section 3(h) – Sustainable Maintenance
Management. 138
7.4.11 Results from Section 3(i) – Waste and Pollution 139
7.4.12 Results from Section 3(j) – Finance & Economics 140
10
7.4.13 Results from Section 3(K) –Resilience 142
7.4.14 Results from Section 3(l) – Governance 143
7.5.2 Comparison Among Other Rating Tools and Assessment Systems 145
7.5 Summary 146
Chapter 8 – Validation of Results using Case Studies

8.2 Scoring the Case Studies 153
8.3 Rating Scale 154
8.4 Case Studies 154
8.4.1 Case Study 1 155
8.5.1 Framework for the Sustainability Rating Tool and its Application 223
8.6 Summary 225
8.6.1The Sustainability Scores of Case Studies 225
Chapter 9 – Conclusion

9.2 Recapitulations 226
9.3 Summary of Literature Review Findings 227
9.4 Review of research methodology and lessons learnt 228
9.4.1 Collecting Data to assess Sustainable Resorts 228
9.4.1.1 Collection of data using semi structured interviews 229
9.4.1.2 Issues with Interviews 229
9.4.1.3 Summary from Qualitative Data Analysis 230
9.4.2.1 Collection of Data Using Questionnaire Survey 231
9.4.2.2 Issues with questionnaire surveys 231
9.4.2.3 Summary of Quantitative Analysis 232
9.5 Summary of Case Study Analysis 232
9.6 Limitations of the Research 233
11
9.7 Contribution to Knowledge 233
9.7.1 New Framework for a Sustainability Rating Tool 233
9.7.2 Identifying Priority Areas for Future Improvement 234
9.7.3 Assisting the Planning and Design Process 234
9.7.4 Improving Resort Management 235
9.7.5 Developing a Rating Systems for Sustainable Resorts Development 235
9.8 Recommendation for Future Research 236
9.9 Recommendation for Future Sustainable Rating Tool Development 236
9.7 Summary 237
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Research process * 9

Figure 2-1: The Three Spheres of Sustainability 10
Figure 2-2: Population Growth, History and Projected, 1950-2100 15
Figure 2-3: The three pillars of the sustainable development model derived from ICLEI (1996) 20
Figure 2-4: Quadruple bottom-line derived from USA SME CEOs Association (2012) 22
Figure 3-1: Average Temperature for Malaysia 25
Figure 3-2: Map of Malaysia 26
Figure 3-3: Distribution of Annual Rainfall 26
Figure 3-4: Average Rainfall (mm) Graph for Kuala Lumpur 27
Figure 3-5: Annual Solar Radiation in Different Cities in Malaysia (kWh/m²) 27
Figure 3-6: International tourist arrival receipts 35
Figure 3-7: Two of the main tourism areas in Malaysia: Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu 37
Figure 3-8: Processes of socio-economic development in Langkawi 38
Figure 3-9: Malaysia‘s workforce distribution 2012 39
Figure 3-10: The impacts of tourism development (modified from WWF Malaysia 2005) 40
Figure 3-11: Sustainable Tourism (Desbiolles derived from Mclaren definition 2006) 43
Figure 3-12 - The principles of sustainable tourism (modified UNWTO 2013) 44
Figure 3-13: Five key pillars of sustainable tourism UNWTO (2013) 46
Figure 3-14: Resort Development in Malaysia (derived from Omar et al 2013) 49
Figure 4-1: Building performance goal defined by scope of issues considered 57
Figure 4-2: LEED Assessment criteria 62
Figure 4-3: BCA Green Mark assessment criteria 65
Figure 4.4: GBI Malaysia assessment criteria 66
Figure 5-1: Hierarchical structure of the neighbourhood rating system 81
Figure 5-2: Overview of Research Methodology 83
Figure 5-3: Steps of developing the framework for sustainable resort rating tool 83
Figure 5-4: Weighting structure for the proposed rating framework 87
Figure 5-5: Case studies location 96
Figure 6-1: Qualitative data analysis and findings framework 102
Figure 6-2: NVivo 8 using open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998) 106
Figure 6-3: Example from research data (semi-structured interview) NVivo 8 using open coding 107
Figure 7.1: The twelve (12) sub-criteria of the sustainability 127
Figure 7.2: The twelve criteria weights 128
13
Figure 7-3: Framework to develop the resort sustainability rating tool 148
Figure 8-1: Case studies location (adaptation form www.turky-visit.com) 155
Figure 9-1: Processes for developing sustainable rating tool for Malaysian resort 227
14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Most-visited countries by international tourist arrivals (WTO 2013) 34

Table 3-2: Malaysian tourist arrivals and receipts 1998-2012 34
Table 3-3:12 Aims for sustainable tourism (UNWTO, 2013) 45
Table 3-4: Relating the five pillars to the 12 aims for sustainable tourism (WTO 2013) 47
Table 4-1: LEED rating criteria and indicators (LEED 2013) 64
Table 4-2: BCA Green Mark assessment criteria 65
Table 4.3: GBI Malaysia assessment criteria and indicators 67
Table 4-4: Key characteristics of sustainable tourism assessment systems 72
Table 4-5: Comparison of the features of different schemes 73
Table 5-1: Example of criteria and indicators 81
Table 5-2: Interview participant numbers 92
Table 5-3: The survey respondent 96
Table 6-1: Descriptive statistics of answers to questions in Section A of interview 110
Table 6.2: Assessment criteria and indicators of the assessment tool 124
Table 7-1: Descriptive statistics for Question 2 - criteria weights and criteria rank 127
Table 7-2: Site development criteria indicators 130
Table 7-3: Weight for each indicator in the site development criterion 131
Table 7-4: Indicators for Material resources and material cycle‘s criterion 131
Table 7-5: Weight for each indicator in the material resource and material cycles criterion 131
Table 7-6: Indicators for energy efficiency criterion 132
Table 7-7: Weights for each indicator in the energy efficiency criteria 132
Table 7-8: Indicators for water efficiency criterion 130
Table 7-9: Weight for each indicator in the water efficiency category 133
Table 7-10: Indicators for indoor environmental quality criterion 135
Table 7-11: Weight for each indicator in the indoor environment quality criterion 135
Table 7-12: Indicators for culture and heritage conservation criterion 136
Table 7-13: Weight for each indicator in the culture and heritage conservation criterion 136
Table 7-14: Indicators for contribution and commitment to local community criterion 137
Table 7-15: Weight for each indicator in the contribution and
commitment to local community criterion 138
Table 7-16: Indicators for sustainable maintenance and management criterion 138
Table 7-17: Weight for each indicator in the Sustainable maintenance
and management criterion 139
Table 7-18: Indicators for waste and pollution criterion 140
15
Table 7-19: Weight for each indicator in the waste and pollution criterion 140
Table 7-20: Indicators for finance and economics criterion 141
Table 7-21: Weight for each indicator in the finance and economics criteria 141
Table 7-22: Indicators for resilience (adaptation and mitigation) criterion 142
Table 7-23: Weight for each indicator in the resilience
(adaptation and mitigation) criterion 143
Table 7-24: Indicators for governance criterion 143
Table 7-25: Weight for each indicator in the governance criterion 144
Table 7-26: Indicators Ranking 152
Table 8-1: Case study 1 final score 168
Table 8-6: Overall Case Studies Sustainability Scores 225
Table 9-1: Comparison of the features of different schemes and research findings 238
16
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
AAA Autoclave aerated concrete

ACEM Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia
AHP Analytical hierarchy process
API Air Pollution Index
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BCA Building Construction Authority
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
CEPAS Comprehensive environmental Performance Assessment Scheme for Building
CIBD Construction Industry Development Board
CSR Corporate social responsibility
CST Certification for Sustainable Tourism
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
ETP Economic Transformation Plan
GBI Green Building Index
GBRT Green Building Rating Tool
GHG Green house gas
GNI Gross national income
HDI Human Development Index
HVAC Heating ventilation and air-conditioning
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
ICLEI International Council for Local environmental Initiatives
IEQ Indoor environment quality
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IBS Integrated building system
LADA Langkawi Development Authority
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOTUS Vietnam Green Building Rating Tool
MOT Ministry of Tourism
NKEAs National Key Economic Areas
OHS Occupational safety and health
PEMANDU Performance Management Delivery Unit
QBL Quadruple bottom-line
QLASIC Quality assessment system in construction
SBCI Sustainable building and construction initiative
17
SBTool Sustainable building tool
STAS Sustainable tourism assessment system
UBBL Uniform Building by Law
UNDP United Nation Development Program
UNEP United Nation Environmental Programme
UNSW University of New South Wales
UNWTO United Nation World Tourism Organisation
USA SME United States of America Small and Medium Enterprise Association
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VGBC Vietnam Green Building Council
VOC Volatile organic compound
WECD World Commission on environment and Development
WTO World Tourism Organisation
18
Chapter 1 – Outline of the thesis
1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the outline of the entire research by starting with the rationale for the research,
the overall aims of the study, the research questions and an outline of the methodology employed. The
significance of the study is discussed followed by a description of the scope. Finally, the organisation
and content of each chapter are laid out in the thesis structure, Section 1.8.
1.2 Research Rationale
In recent years developing countries‘ governments have increasingly turned to the tourism sector to
improve national and regional economic performance (Smith 2012). High demand for recreation by
local and international tourists and availability of modern and affordable transportation that allows
access to distant tourism areas has provided opportunities for increased government revenues, job
creation and improved foreign exchange earnings (Ministry of Tourism Malaysia 2013). The rise of
mass tourism has led to the rapid growth of the travel and tourism industry in the South East Asian
countries. Many countries of this region see tourism as a component of their economic plans for
modernization. The growth of the tourism industry in many developing countries has had profound
effects. In some cases it has helped to improve the local environment while in others, rapid and
uncontrolled tourism development has destroyed local ecosystems and local resources (Coccossis,
1996, Masau & Prideaux 2010).
While the governments of developing countries have not been deterred from encouraging tourism
industry growth, attempts have been made by local tourism developers to maximize the benefits while
avoiding or at least minimizing their costs (Smith & Holmes 2009). Such attempts have met with
mixed results particularly with tourism accommodation facilities such as resorts. Part of the problem
lies with the lack of understanding on how to minimize the adverse impacts of tourism development.
Furthermore research done by Liu (2010) reveals that in the past, tourism developers have been
hindered by the absence of adequate information about the complex processes of developing low
impact resorts. Masau & Prideaux (2010) explained that policy development for tourism
accommodation facilities has relied on inappropriate non-resort models of development. The
consequences have led to overbuilding of hotels and other accommodation, pollution of tourism areas,
often by wastewater, destruction of ecological habitats, under provision of infrastructure, proliferation
of poor quality architecture, loss of the ambiance often provided by natural environments and social
disruption (Regerson 2012).
19
Resorts have been a major feature of the tourism industry. For much of its existence, resorts have been
developed to provide shelter and protection for tourists from local external threats ranging from
climate conditions and natural disasters to dangerous animals. One technique for achieving this goal is
to embrace alternative forms of tourism development such as sustainable resort development because
this can take place without degrading or depleting resources and has proven to have a low impact on
the environment. ―Sustainable‖ in this context refers to tourism which promotes economic growth
while attempting to minimize impacts on the environment and local culture, and upholding the social
rights of current and future generations. As a consequence it is desirable that the tourism industry
including resort development and operations adopt practices aimed at promoting the sustainability of
tourism (Collier 2006, Lee 2010, Masau & Prideaux 2010).
Until recently, acceptance of sustainable tourism in the mainstream tourism market has been fraught
with difficulties in convincing tourism developers and financiers that there is economic advantage to
be gained from sustainability. However, this has changed, partly attributable to global political
pressure to promote the benefits of the tourism industry through a number of reports. These have
included the United Nation World Tourism Organisation Report 2010, the Plan of Action for
sustainable tourism development in Asia (UNWTO 2010), the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992)
and the creation of Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: ‗Towards Environmentally
Sustainable Development‘ (1992). Unfortunately, the term, sustainable tourism has been used to
justify many ―green-washing‖ activities with fabricated sustainability outcomes.
As idealistic as it is, sustainable development is still the only global environmental ideology that has
been accepted by the majority of countries in the world. It has resulted in various instruments such as
energy efficiency standards, building insulation codes, carbon trading, and building rating and
certification. In order to satisfy building certification, sustainable assessment systems, building rating
tools, design tools, building performance tools and validation tools have been actively developed
(Devuyst et al , 2001). The vast majority of the assessment and evaluation aids are implicitly designed
to curb consumption of natural resources in line with national environmental protection strategies and
policies. Sustainability assessment systems and building rating tools are useful tools that can steer the
tourism industry in a more sustainable direction.
This research is concerned with improving the sustainability of the tourism industry. Malaysian
resorts are used as case studies. The research argues that application of a sustainability rating tool will
provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability performance of resort development and
help to improve the Malaysian tourism industry.
20
The main reason for developing sustainable building rating systems is because this is amongst the
most effective means of encouraging building developers to build low environmental impact buildings
(World Green Building Council 2006).
1.3 Research Gaps
There are a great number of methods and tools to evaluate and rate the sustainability of tourism
facilities and buildings worldwide. According to Campbell & Hood (2006), rating systems represent
key tools to evaluate and compare buildings. They provide systematic frameworks for specifying
performance criteria, thereby enabling actors in the building industry to be more measured and
accurate about the movement towards more sustainable forms of designing, constructing and
operating buildings.
The Malaysian tourism industry has over the years been working towards more sustainable
development. The need for a rating or assessment system has become more apparent with the
increasing demand from tourists and local communities for sustainable facilities and sustainable
tourism development (Hashim 2008). This is also supported by objectives of many companies in the
Malaysian tourism industry today where corporate social responsibility (CSR) calls for them to
support initiatives which bring low environment impacts from their resort premises.
As the need for sustainability has become more apparent, encouraging Malaysian tourism developers
to improve the performance of their facilities becomes more urgent. Market transformation could be
promoted by rewarding best practice with building performance certification obtained through a
sustainable rating tool. Furthermore, the Malaysian government plans to develop more tourism
destinations with sustainable resorts and hotels by 2020 (ETP 2010). Therefore, a new method for
measuring the sustainability of resort developments at local level in Malaysia is needed to reach the
government targets.
This research established that rating systems in the tourism industry operate separately at both the
development (design and construction) and operational phases of resort projects (see Chapter 4).
Green building rating tools are being used in the early phase of resort development and are limited to
building site, design and construction only. Green building rating tools also do not address the social
and economic context adequately. Sustainable tourism assessment systems are also used, but cannot
address the early phase of resort development because the focus is on the operational phase only.
According to Toth (2002) and Font (2002) sustainable tourism assessment systems (STAS) are one of
the instruments for providing documented assurance that a service, organisation, product or business
21
complies with a given standard. STAS have the potential to reduce tourism‘s negative environmental
and social impacts, ensure that the tourism industry is held accountable to stakeholders and provide
marketing benefits to those firms that meet the certification standards (Toth 2002 and Font 2002).
Studies about sustainable tourism assessment tools are often found in the literature, but none focus on
the local context in South East Asian countries. This thesis will provide the framework for sustainable
resort development in Malaysia.
Green building rating tools today are mostly devised to evaluate the environmental impacts of
buildings without emphasising the connections with the socio-economic aspects of building
development, for example, building occupants and the local community. However, in less developed
nations and in the tourism industry generally, basic socio-cultural and economic values are central to
people‘s lifestyles because tourism is one of the main economic instruments empowering the local
community (Sassi 2006, Ko 2010).
According to Lin et al (2006) and Ko (2010) most building rating tools and sustainable tourism
assessment systems were established in developed countries with different climate conditions. Many
of their sustainability technologies are not readily transferred to tropical or subtropical climates. The
research also indicates that there are great differences in social-economic conditions between
developed and emerging countries such as energy structure, building industry, values and local culture
that may decrease the appropriateness and reliability of foreign rating systems. Moreover, transferring
and modifying them may cause unpredictable or distorted results when mandatory policies are based
on imported tools. In order to make sustainable practices easier to implement, technical services and
resources for determining the sustainability of buildings should be developed based on an appropriate
local context (Ali & Al Nsairat 2009).
Additionally, Ko (2005) argues that the issues and concerns related to sustainable tourism vary from
one tourism destination to another. He also suggests that criteria, indicators and data gathering
methods could vary from one tourist destination to another, in order to adapt the methodology to the
specific conditions of each tourist destination. Hence, a new framework for developing a sustainable
resort assessment system is needed in developing countries to ensure that tourism destinations have
reduced environmental impacts while being cost effective and socially responsive.
By integrating criteria from the two evaluation systems of green building rating tools and sustainable
tourism assessment systems, this research has created a framework for a new generation sustainability
rating tool. It is specifically targeted at resort development in Malaysia and is based on the strengths
22
of each evaluation system. It provides a more holistic assessment approach which includes paying
careful attention to local context.
In addition to contributing to the creation of a new sustainable resort evaluation system for Malaysia,
lessons learnt from the research process are significant and could be replicated for creating similar
rating frameworks for other tourism facilities in developing countries such as transportation hubs (i.e
airport, marinas etc) or amusement parks. The results of this study also provide a theoretical
contribution to the field of study by addressing the gap in the sustainable tourism development and
building assessment system knowledge regarding the possibility of rating resorts according to the
quadruple bottom-line concept.
Quadruple bottom-line sustainability (see Chapter 2 section 2.5) extends the triple bottom-line
sustainability concept which is widely recognised in business. Triple bottom-line accounting and
reporting frameworks used by business owners and managers reflect their practices beyond the
financial bottom line to include environment impacts and social contributions (Blair et al 2003).
According to Teriman (2009), when discussing sustainable development at the local or even national
level, the involvement of the governance aspect in facilitating development should not be
underestimated, especially in developing countries. Therefore, a framework incorporating the function
of governance in rating tourism development rating, known as the quadruple bottom-line
sustainability (QBL) rating has been proposed for this research.
Tourism in Malaysia is largely resort-based and therefore the accommodation sector is the prominent
tourism sub-sector. According to Ministry of Tourism Malaysia about 65% of total tourists‘
expenditure is on accommodation. Tourists spend most of their time at a resort, and most of tourists‘
resource consumption (e.g., water and energy) takes place at the resort level (MTP 2011). For the
above reasons, it was considered appropriate to focus this analysis on the accommodation sub-sector.
The main objective of this research is to demonstrate the process which is entailed in developing a
new development rating system for sustainable resorts rather than creating a complete and finalised
scheme that could be used immediately. The framework as developed at this point could be regarded
as an interim product, requiring refinement.
1.4 Research Aim
The aim of the research is to develop an appropriate framework for a new generation sustainable
resort development rating tool for Malaysia
23
1.5 Research Questions
A number of research questions have been have been asked which address the thesis aim and help to
guide the research process.
Research Question 1:
Are current sustainable tourism assessment systems and green building rating tools capable of
adequately addressing the sustainability of Malaysian resort developments on their own?
How to develop a new generation rating tool for Malaysia sustainable resort development?
Can the new generation rating tool adequately evaluate the sustainability of Malaysian tourism resort
development?
These research methods are briefly outlined below and are explained in detail in Chapter 5.
1.7 Research Objective
Research objectives:
1. To investigate the adaptability of existing rating tools
2. To examine the methods used to develop existing rating tools
3. To develop a rating tool that adequately evaluates the sustainability of Malaysian tourism
resort development
1.6 Outline of the Research Methodology
The research started by conducting an extensive literature review (Chapters 2, 3 and 4). Several
qualitative and quantitative research techniques were then reviewed (see Chapter 5) to identify the
most suitable research methods. Three methods were selected for the research and justified in Chapter
5. A sequential mixed-mode strategy was adopted to organise the research. This involved the
24
gathering of interpretive (qualitative) data from a group of sustainable development experts and a
separate group of sustainable tourism experts (refer to Chapter 5 for sampling method and Chapter 6
for the results from a content analysis of interview transcripts). It also involved collecting quantitative
data through a questionnaire survey covering a sample of the spectrum of people involved in
sustainable resort development, comprising many stakeholders from government, planning as well as
construction management professionals and academics. The quantitative data (presented in Chapter 7)
served to statistically strengthen the qualitative data found earlier. The proposed framework for
sustainable resorts in Malaysia derived from analysis of this qualitative and quantitative data was then
tested using existing resorts in Malaysia as case studies in order to validate the overall proposed rating
framework. The description of the case studies is discussed in the Chapter 8.
Figure 1-1 summarises the research activities while Chapter 5 describes each research method used in
this study in detail. A flow chart summarising the research process is also presented in Figure 5-1 (see
Chapter 5).
1.7 Thesis Structure
This research has been arranged into nine chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the entire research.
It starts with the rationale for the research, the aim of the research and the outline methodology
employed throughout the study. Moreover, the significance of the research is discussed followed by
the scope of the study.
Chapter 2 explains the underlying concepts of sustainability, sustainable development and the
quadruple bottom-line concept. This chapter also presents the context of the research to give an
insight into environmental, social and economic conditions in Malaysia.
Chapter 3 presents the concept of sustainable tourism and sustainable resort development. It also
explains the demand for sustainable resorts, Malaysian initiatives regarding sustainable resort
development and challenges in developing this form of tourism in Malaysia.
Chapter 4 explains in detail the theories behind building assessment systems and the differences
between sustainable tourism assessment systems and green building rating tools. Subsequently, three
green building rating tools and three sustainable tourism assessment systems are introduced.
Chapter 5 explains the research methodology which has been devised to obtain Malaysian views of
sustainable development from sustainable tourism experts. The chapter also describes how a sample
of Malaysian stakeholders involved in sustainable resort development is obtained.
25
Chapter 6 presents the results from the analysis of qualitative data and discusses the findings while
Chapter 7 describes the results from the analysis of quantitative data.
Chapter 8 presents the results and discusses the findings from the analyses of the case studies. The
case studies act as a validation of the results discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.
Lastly, Chapter 9 offers conclusions about the research by recapitulating on the processes which were
followed, the findings from literature review and the results of the qualitative and quantitative data
collection. It then outlines the limitations experienced in this study and recommends additional
research areas that need to be addressed. A set of guidelines for the development of a new sustainable
resort development rating tool for Malaysia is outlined for the benefit of other researchers.
26
Stage 1 - Literature Review
Chapter 4: Review Rating Tools and
Chapter 2 & 3 : Review Literature
Assessment systems
Reseach Methodology
Chapter 5: Search for Suitable Research Methodology and Justify Selection
Stage 2 - Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Chapter 6: Interviews with Chapter 6: Conduct Semi- Chapter 6: Analyse & Discuss
Assessment System Developers structured Interviews Interview Transcripts
Stage 3 - Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

Chapter 7: Conduct Survey on to Validate Chapter 7 : Analyse and Discuss Survey
Set of Indicators Results
Stage 4 - Case studies

Chapter 8: Conduct Case Study Reseach Chapter 8: Analyse and Discuss Case
to Validate Practicality of Framework Study Results
Conclusion
Chapter 9: Conclusion of the Research
Figure 1-1: Research process
27
Chapter 2 – Sustainability
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the context for the research that will form part of the argument for a new rating
scheme for resort development. The chapter starts by defining the sustainability concept and the
quadruple bottom-line approach. Then the chapter reviews the international progress made by
sustainable development in last few decades.
2.2 The Sustainability Concept
Sustainability is a term that includes the environment, society and the economy of societies and all
three domains are interrelated intrinsically and should not be examined and treated separately. The
sustainability system must not be simplified into individual aspects and dealt with separately because
the connections between the entities within the system are far more important (Meadows 1998, Sassi
2006, Dresner 2008) (Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1: The Three Spheres of Sustainability (University of Michigan 2002)
Drensner (2008) stated that sustainability promotes good and decisive thinking on how to plan a
development using fewer resources. Many international scholars have discussed the term
28
―sustainability‖ at length in relation to their respective fields, such as the buildings, sociology,
economy and environment. Pugh (1996) explained environmental sustainability as the
“...preservation, the resilience and the adaptation of physical and biological systems...”. The research
also defined economic sustainability as “... generating maximum flow of economic welfare whilst
maintaining the stock of assets, including environmental assets…” Pugh (1996). Social sustainability
according to the same research is “... people oriented, identified with the stability and cultural
diversity of social systems..”. The author (Pugh 1996) also highlighted that problems and concerns
about the balance, reconciliation and the value of all three dimensions. The research underlines that
sustainability is not just about scientific or analytical interpretations but is related to the broad
operating principles of political economy and its spheres of application include ―green‖ and ―brown‖
plans and processes of social and intellectual change (Pugh 1996).
Starting from the late 1980s, sustainability has been a buzzword in built environment studies. The
word sustain comes from the Latin, sustenere, meaning to hold up or keep elevated. In the context of
resources and the environment, ‗sustain‘ would literally mean to maintain or prolong the productive
use of resources and the integrity of the resource base. This implies, among other things, that there are
physical and other constraints to productive resource use. The concept of sustainability, as such, came
into widespread popular usage during the 1960s as part of the environmental movement and during the
1980s as part of the political rhetoric.
In 1962, Rachel Carson published a book called ―Silent spring‖ which brought to public attention the
concern towards the environment. The author explained the dangers and devastation caused by the
widespread use of chemicals in farming and pest control. The book also described in detail how
humans assaulted the environment by polluting the rivers, sea, earth and air with dangerous forms of
development that brought negative impacts to environment. Carson (1963) also explained that the
effect of pollution is mostly irreversible causing unstoppable chain reactions killing a significant
number of life forms including human themselves through intimate exposure and digestion of
contaminated food. The author reminded people that the environment is a complex system containing
different varieties of organism that depend on one another for survival. The author‘s concern about
human exploiting and polluting the environment were not just borne out of fear for the survival of that
generation only but future generations as well. The human population was increasing rapidly and the
use of poisons to produce more food and forms of development that can harm the environment slowly
but surely restrict the chance of survival of future generations.
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) estimated there are already
7.17 billion people on earth. Hence it was necessary for the world to alter the environment in order to
29
feed the growing population and keep it healthy. The ongoing explosion of human population
especially in developing countries led Meadows and their colleagues to simulate world systems using
systems dynamic modelling in 1972. In the book ‗The limits to growth‖ (Meadows et al.1972) they
explained that if the burgeoning trends of that time in world population, pollution, industrialization,
food production and resource depletion, continued unchanged, in one hundred years the limits to
growth in this world would be reached. It would result in a rather sudden and uncontrollable collapse
in both population and industrial capacity. The book stated that it was possible to modify these growth
trends and to establish economic and environmental stability that is sustainable for future generations.
The authors (Meadows et al. 1992 and 1972) suggested that the state of global equilibrium could be
obtained so that the fundamental material needs of each human on this planet could be satisfied, with
each human having the same level of opportunity to realize his or her individual human potential. The
authors also stated that if the world population decided to strive for this second solution rather than
the first outcome, the sooner they began to aim for it, the greater would be their chance of success. To
conclude, Meadows et al (1972) ideas suggest population growth, the world and its economies will
have to be in a state of equilibrium in order to sustain human existence for generations to come.
Indira Gandhi, past prime minister of India reminded delegations in 1972 at the World Population
Conference in Stockholm, Sweden that environmental concerns were only applicable to the affluent
developed countries as the rest of the world was still reeling with the issue of food shortages,
overpopulation and poverty (Drenser, 2002). Even today according to Pogge (2012), poverty remains
one of the core issues facing mankind. After 20 years of continuous growth, Meadows et al (1992)
revisited their world system model and confirmed that poverty was an important feedback loop that
influences the ability of development process to be sustainable (Meadows et al. 1992). A major
obstacle to sustainability is poverty and unequal distribution of wealth, Sassi (2006) adding that
poverty would prevent the majority of people being able to consider environmental issues.
Poverty causes conflict such as domestic abuse, war, prejudice, lack of education and disease as well
as environmental degradation. The effects of poverty are serious. According to Khavul & Bruton
(2013) children who grow up in poverty suffer more persistent, frequent, and severe health problems
than do children who grow up under better financial circumstances. Poverty undermines social and
economic sustainability (McGranahan 1999). Furthermore, general definitions of sustainability
constantly tend to marginalize the primary environmental concerns of the poor, even as the definitions
claim to incorporate them. People in poverty mainly face short-term and localised environment
problems, whereas wealthy people‘s environmental problems are more extensive and long term
(McGranaham et al 1999). The research (McGranaham et al 1999) also pointed out that the lifestyle of
the wealthy requires more resources and produces more waste due to their wealth. Affluent people are
30
able to protect themselves from environmental hazards within their homes which could lead to larger
scale environmental issues (McGranaham et al 1999). For example, according to Marcotullio et al
(2007) waterborne sewage systems that reduce illnesses serve wealthy people‘s homes but at the same
time decrease the quality of waterways and strain water supplies. Moreover, electricity that appears to
be clean in homes creates air pollution during generation.
Poor people do not have the income to own and use resource intensive capital goods, like cars and
various consumer goods. Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) defend the poor because the level of waste
generated per person is much lower than for wealthy people and they also commonly practise reuse
and recycling of waste thrown away by others. Their book (Mitlin & Satterthwaite 1996) also noted
that the poor also contribute minimally to emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) per person through
their activities and the limited number of possessions that they own. Generally poor people also
generate very low amount of non-biodegradable wastes (Mitlin & Satterthwaite 1996). The authors
explained that poor people also contribute minimally to soil and forest degradation or overuse of
freshwater through their small scale farming, small and medium industries and forest foraging in rural
areas. Unlike poor people, wealthy farmers, commercial companies, landowners and government
produce ecological damage through industrial scale farming, cultivation of cash crops and sprawling
urban areas. Conversely, Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) agreed that poverty does cause ill heath from
the lack of access to safe and sufficient water supplies, provision of sanitation, safe and adequate
housing and access to health care.
Due to the lack of comprehensive research, it has not yet been identified how much environmental
degradation has been caused by wealthy people and commercial industry as compared with the
environmental damage produced by the world‘s poor, scraping through their lives every day . Most of
the international research is location specific or only specific to certain groups of people, but the need
to balance concerns over the environment to those of socioeconomic conditions of humans persists.
The sustainability path of each country or region is thus different. However, the aspiration remains
unchanged which is to strike a sense of balance between the importance of the environment and the
socioeconomic condition of the people.
The Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (1992) presented a detailed understanding of the link
between environmental problems and the connection with economic conditions and social justice.
Brandon & Lombardi (2004) described how economic, social and environment needs must be met in
balance with each other for sustainable outcomes in the long term. The summit also lamented that
small scale, local decisions and actions, both good and bad, had cumulative global consequences.
Justifying success in one area requires action in others in order to be sustainable over time. Therefore,
31
sustainability is a concept that requires understanding of not just single items but the total system that
interconnects environment, society and economy.
Sassi (2006) suggested that raising living standards, which means reducing the number of people
under the poverty line, will require more resources, create more waste and also increase
environmental degradation. Gibson et al (2005), Dyllick et al (2002) and Ostrom (2007) explained
that sustainability could address these problems while at the same time dealing with the lack of
equality in economy and society. Gibson et al (2005) claim that economic and social development that
is sustainable could simultaneously provide the benefits of a healthy environment in the long term. A
healthy environment means clean air, unpolluted water and healthy soil, which are necessary for the
survival of future generations (Gibson et al 2005). Sassi (2006) explained that conversely, if the
environment deteriorates further, social and economic development of the population will also be
negatively affected. Sassi‘s research (2006) also stated that embracing sustainability will require
major ethical changes.
Sassi (2006) also noted that developing countries cannot afford to only focus on environmental
protection in the development process. They need development that can increase economic growth
and secure improvements to a basic quality of life. Economic growth is the common denominator
among diverse ideologies and political inclinations but it is only a matter of time before these
different ideologies have to critically consider the environment through development (Dresner 2008).
Daly & Bergh (2002) thorough their research, found that only a small number of people will benefit
from the exploitation of the environment while the majority of humans rue their lives and the
environment suffers.
The survival of the human population is very much dependant on the continued availability of natural
resources (Williamson et al 2003). Starting from the industrial revolution, natural resources were
deemed limitless and could be exploited for personal financial gain. However, due to rapid growth of
the world‘s population due to better health and longevity the amount of natural resources is decreasing
faster than eco-systems can regenerate them. This phenomenon has accelerated since the early days of
industrialisation when humans learned how to mass produce everything at the expense of ecology. As
the world‘s population increased rapidly, the United Nation Population Division (2011) (Figure 2-2)
predicted a world population of 11 billion in 2050, with the implication that more people would have
to accept limited resources.
32
Dresner (2002) explained that sustainability encourages high-quality and significant thinking into how
to sustain a development constantly with much less resources at hand.
Figure 2-2: Population Growth, History and Projected, 1950-2100 (United Nation Population
Division 2011)
2.3 Sustainable Development
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 1980) was the
first organisation that highlighted explicitly the concept of sustainable development in its document,
the World Conservation Strategy. The Brundtland Commission Report in 1987 further defined
sustainable development as ‗development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations‘ to meet their own needs‘ (WCED, 1987: 43). The Commission
further noted that sustainable development was not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a dynamic
method of transformation in which ‗all are in harmony and enhance both current and future potential
to meet human needs and aspirations‘ (WCED, 1987: 46).
The World Conservation Strategy was significant for stressing that rather than conservation and
development being two different and exclusive activities, they were actually interdependent. From the
research conducted by Dresner (2002) the World Conservation Strategy suggested that development
involved the conservation of the living resource base on which development ultimately depends. In
the longer term, development will not be able to take place unless we conserve our living resources.
Similarly, Dresner (2002) noted that conservation would not happen unless at least minimal standards
of development were met, for instance, the basic needs of shelter, clean water and food. Subsequent
33
interpretation of ―sustainability‖ and ―sustainable development‖ run into the hundreds and reflect a
wide range of viewpoints. Regardless of lack of agreement on an unequivocal definition of the
concept, there is common agreement that it involves simultaneous satisfaction of social, economic and
environment goals. Holdren (1995) explained that meeting environmental objectives in society which
also fails to meet social justice and equity and economic balance does not make for sustainability.
The World Conservation Strategy further explained that the concept of sustainable development does
imply restrictions – not absolute restrictions but restrictions forced by the contemporary state of
technology and social organization on environmental resources and the ability of the biosphere to
absorb the effects of human actions. But technology and social organization can both be controlled
and enhanced to make way for a new era of economic development. The World Conservation Strategy
also stated that sustainable development is a process in which the utilization of resources, the
orientation of investment, the direction of technology development and institutional change are all in
harmony and enhance both present and future potential to meet society needs and aspirations. This
statement by the World Conservation Strategy regarding sustainable development is one which a
majority of institutions and experts endorse. It captures the key temporal pre-requisite of sustainability
regarding durability and persistence into the long term future through its explicit reference to
intergenerational equity.
Brandon & Lonbardi (2005) explained that the sustainable development concept neither implies that
nothing ever changes nor that nothing bad ever happens. The research also suggested that it is also not
about maintaining the status quo or reaching perfection (Brandon & Lonbardi 2005). Development as
defined in the research presented by Brandon & Lonbardi (2005), is also not about continuous
physical growth but is about qualitative improvement. Brandon & Lombardi (2005) also stated that
sustainability does mean sustained growth but at some point a physical growth will cease while
quality of life will continue to improve. Moreover, although the term sustainable development or
sustainability or ecologically sustainable development are conceptually simple, the practice varies
with circumstances and inclination, and can be divisive (Higgins 2001).
For Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) sustainable development is about minimising the depletion of
natural capital or non-renewable natural resources and the degradation of ecosystems while at the
same time, meeting desirable social, economic and political goals. These might include respect
towards human rights and the needs and priorities of low income or other disadvantaged groups . On
another level, Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) believe that to achieve sustainable development,
environmental capital has to be sustained along with the commitment to ensuring that people‘s needs
are met. This is to remove the idea of sustainable development being focussed mainly on
34
anthropocentric issues, for example human growth, human development and attaining social and
political sustainability.
Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) stresse the vagueness of both sustainability and sustainable
development terms due to their interchangeable use by many people, with no recognition that the two
mean or imply different things. This notion is also stated in Drenser‘s research (2002). Mitlin &
Satterthwaite (1996) are concerned that most of the literature related to sustainable development has
concentrated only on ‗environmental sustainability‘ as the only goal of sustainable development. This
is one of the reasons they put forward the idea that sustainable development has to consider why so
many people‘s needs are not currently met through the consideration of the underlying economic,
social and political causes of poverty and deprivation (Drenser 2002, Mitlin & Satterthwaite 1996).
Furthermore, Drenser (2002) reveal that most studies done by international scholars on sustainable
development do not question the current distribution of power and ownership of resources except
where these are considered a factor in unsustainable practices. Mitlin & Satterthwaite (1996) stated
that most literature on sustainable development assumed that it is possible for sustainable
development plans to be implemented within existing social and political frameworks and integrated
with national conservation strategies in order to meet people‘s needs and this seems to be an
acceptable way of starting to implement sustainable development without making wholesale changes
to existing social and political structures.
Pugh (2000) described sustainable development as consisting of various patterns of growth that are
better environmentally and socially. To Pugh (2000) sustainable development is not just about
promoting environmentalism while unfavourably restraining growth or, conversely, by permitting any
form of economic growth while taking less care over environmental protection or conservation. Pugh
(1996) also described strong sustainable development would be economic development with
uncompromised moderation on the use of necessary environmental capital that would change the
pattern of production, consumption and lifestyle. On the other hand, weak sustainable development, as
explained by Pugh (1996), would embrace the option of the status quo because it is more feasible and
realistic. The research also stated that weak sustainable development would include restructuring, for
example, changes in taxes and incentives to influence production and consumption. It might also
include re-regulation of economic activity, applying conservation and protection measures and
perhaps involve environmental impact assessment when development impinged on environmental
capacity. Sustainable development ultimately is a process and not an end goal or destination as
Brandon and Lombardi noted in their book (2005). The concept of sustainable development is
evolving and is open to further adaptation as knowledge progresses.
35
2.4 Sustainability and Sustainable Development
Harding (1998) offers a useful guide to describe the relationship between sustainability and
sustainable development:
 Sustainability is the ultimate goal or destination that can exactly defines the state of being, of
what is sustainable (whether it be a society, logging, fishing etc), is informed by science but
ultimately depends on personal values and world views.
 To achieve a state of environmental sustainability, a framework or process is needed. Certain

conditions have to be met and steps in the process toward ‗sustainability‘ have to be made.
The framework of sustainable development is the means for achieving sustainability.
 Briefly, ―sustainability‖ refers to the goal and ―sustainable development‖ is the path or
framework to achieve it. As with the term ―sustainability‖, what is considered as a necessary
path and time frame will vary amongst individuals.
Harding (1998) and Daly (1996) also stressed that development is not identical or synonymous with
growth. Growth is about becoming quantitatively bigger and, in contrast, development can be defined
as becoming qualitatively better.
Sustainable development can be also illustrated as the intentional means whereby people strive
towards sustainability, the co-evolution of world population and natural systems to enable adaptation
to change indefinitely (Dresner 2002). Qualitative development and improvement is the basis of
sustainable development and not quantitative growth (Daly 1996). Daly (1996) further explained that
sustainable development needed to incorporate social equity in order to improve present quality of life
with intergenerational equity directed to meeting the needs of the future. The research also stated that
sustainable development should conserve and enhance natural resources, which cannot be substituted
by other forms of capital. Implementation of sustainable development strategies will also
acknowledge cultural development and cultural diversity (as with biodiversity) as one of the core
elements in the adaptive process of realising sustainability (UNEP 2013).
36
2.5 Triple Bottom-line and Quadruple Bottom-line of Sustainability
Beside the interpretations of sustainability as described in the earlier section there is also the framing
of the sustainability notions through a variety of visualisations (Cohen et al 2008). These
visualisations serve as a foundation to include the reality of existing practices by organisations,
governments, and businesses (Elkington 1994). They also serve as the conceptual foundation to
quantify the sustainability of these practices and form an objective framework to report on progress
towards sustainability goals and performance (Cohen et al 2008, Rogers & Ryan 2001, Slaper & Hall
2011).
Meadows (1998) and Constanza et al (2007) generally recognise four distinct ―capitals‖ which are the
main components for supporting the concept of human welfare-producing economy:
 Natural - The land, sea, air and ecosystems from which the human economy derives its
materials and energy and to which it ultimately returns its waste
 Built - Buildings and cities, the physical infrastructure which produces economic outputs and
the human artifacts thus obtained.
 Human - The health, skills, knowledge and values of the human population
 Social – The web of formal and informal interpersonal connections and institutional
arrangements which facilitate human interactions.
This list provides a useful model to help sustainable development stakeholders to structure, process
and create relationships which are essential to the transition to sustainability.
The belief of tripartite and simultaneous satisfaction of environmental, social and economic goals
referred to above can also be expressed in terms familiar to the business world (Constanza et al 2007,
Engelbrecht 2011). Luckman (2006) explained that the triple bottom line can be described as
satisfying not only the acknowledged bottom line of providing profit to businesses, organizations or
nations, but also the need for businesses to simultaneously meet environmental and social goals in
carrying out their activities.
The triple bottom line approach has international acceptance in the business and corporate world as an
accounting and reporting framework, it has been used by business owners and managers to reflect
their corporate reporting beyond the finance and profit bottom line to include environmental impact
and social contribution (Elkington, 1998). Blair (2003) suggested that this idea was a huge shift from
conventional, economic focused business bottom line sustainability which restricted assessment to
37
finance and profitability. Triple bottom line for sustainable development encompasses a much broader
picture and includes a bigger focus on economic sustainability that the mere financial feasibility the
Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (United Nation 2002) explained that triple
bottom line sustainability has three mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development namely
social, economic and environmental protection. The declaration further explained that these three
pillars interact and create a common platform from which sustainable development can be exercised
to achieve common benefits for all. Figure 2-3 illustrates the inter-connections between the three
traditional pillars of sustainability.
Figure 2-3: The three pillars of the sustainable development model derived from ICLEI (1996)
According to Engelbrecht (2011) and Teriman et al (2009) quadruple bottom line sustainability is
based on and extends the triple bottom line concept of sustainability to include governance. Teriman
et al (2009) describe that when discussing sustainable development at the local or national level the
value of governance in facilitating sustainable development, should not be underestimated.
Governance can be described as “emerging forms of collective decision-making at local level, which
led to the development of different relationships, not simply between public agencies but between
citizens and public agencies” (Goss, 2011 p.45). This definition implies that the governance
framework goes beyond mere relationships between administrators in local government and other
stakeholders in the development process. The governance aspect is a more concerted effort of
38
decision-making, incorporating elements such as participation and collaboration (Teriman, 2009). The
governance theme is embedded within the institutional capital of local government. Evan et al (2005
p. 853) described this institutional capital in their research as the “basic monetary and human
resources, existing and working structures and networks within national government or local
government, as well as with organised interest and individual outside the government”. Other
research done by Nolmark (2007) defined “governance in development process encompass issues
such as government, democracy, decision-making, involvement of citizen in development and also
institutional capacity of organisation and the mechanisms such as law, regulations and planning
systems.”
Amstrong et al (2006) stressed that governance had become an issue of global significance.
Engelbrecht (2011) agreed with the notion by explaining that the improvement of governance
practices is widely recognised as one of the essential instrument in strengthening the foundation for
the long term performance of nations and corporations. Smerdon (2002) explained governance as the
system by which countries and businesses are directed and controlled. Governance was described by
another researcher (O‘Donavan, 2003) as an internal system encompassing policies, processes and
people to serve the need of shareholders and other stakeholders. Overall, governance in sustainable
development is defined as an integrated and participative approach to sustainable development
because it includes the interest of a wide range of stakeholders, having regard to the fundamental
principles of good financial, social, ethical and environmental practices
Engelbrecht (2011) and Flugge (2012) highlighted in their research that the quadruple bottom line
approach implies that sustainable development has moved beyond current conceptions of triple
bottom-line and embraces the substance and value of the concept itself by encompassing a strategic
and long-term view of business‘s and nations‘ future. Sustainable development within an anticipatory
governance framework is a new way of perceiving development - it purpose, methods and its impacts.
Gleeson et al (2010) explained that the Australian government agreed to implement the QBL
approach in their planning and development process where governance will act as the fourth pillar.
The report further explained that Australian government agreed that governance was a key element in
implementing balance in triple bottom line accountability and sustainability principles. The Australian
planning and development committee also stressed that the current three pillars of the triple bottom
line should never be viewed as separate or discreet arenas of performance measurement. The fourth
bottom line pillar of governance should connect with and ensure appropriate balance and
accountability between the objectives of each pillar.
39
Gleeson (2010) stated that the governance element in sustainable development is in many regards the
precursor to establishing a good direction for sustainability. Coordinated governance is essential for
translating the vision of sustainability into targets, and to plan, implement and review the programmes
that will achieve those targets. It can be concluded that, when the objective is transformation rather
than mere observation, the rationale for including governance as a fourth bottom line is reinforced
(UNEP 2013).
As explained earlier in this section, governance is described in the present context to include formal
regulatory business and administrative and political processes of development. These processes
determine or influence decision-making and the informal networks, tradition and cultural behavioural
norms which act as enablers or disablers of sustainable development (UNEP 2013).
From the above discussion, the function of governance is central in the process towards achieving
sustainable development. Governance should be integrated within the existing triple bottom line
mechanism for sustainable development, as shown in Figure 2-4.
Governance Economic
•Ethics •Cost minimisation
•Compliance •Access to capital
•Monitoring, evaluation, comunication, •Growth by acquisition
recognition & rewards •Commitment and contribution for local
•Sustainable planing and management community
•Conflict resolution •Reduce poverty rate
Quadruple Bottom-line
Sustainable Development
Social Environment
•Health and Safety •Waste management - resource & intensity
•Culture • Water - resource access & allocation
•meets basic needs • Energy
•Quality of life • Biodiversity
•Promotes education, creativity and the • Pollution
development
Figure 2-4: Quadruple bottom-line derived from USA SME CEOs Association (2012)
2.6 Summary
The chapter has presented an introduction to the research context by defining the sustainability
concept, sustainable development and the quadruple bottom line approach. The information laid out in
40
this chapter forms the context for the whole study and suggests the rationale to develop a new
sustainable assessment framework for new development, particularly sustainable tourism resort
developments. Governance determine or influence decision-making and the informal networks,
tradition and cultural behavioural norms which act as enablers or disablers of sustainable
development. Therefore, a framework incorporating the function of governance in rating tourism
development rating, known as the quadruple bottom-line sustainability (QBL) rating has been
proposed for this research. The next chapter (Chapter 3) describes the Malaysian context, tourism
development and the concept of sustainable tourism.
41
Chapter 3 – Tourism, Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Resort
Development
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes tourism development and the concept of sustainable tourism. It starts with a
definition of tourism and the sustainability concept of tourism development before proceeding to
explain their basis and practicalities. This chapter also discuss the Malaysian context for the research,
its environmental conditions and pressures on and opportunity for sustainable development. Then the
chapter describes Malaysian tourism, resort development in Malaysia and challenges in developing
sustainable resorts in Malaysia.
3.2 The Malaysian context
Malaysia is located in the South East Asia region, bordering Thailand in the north with Singapore to
the south and Indonesia to the south and east. Malaysia has two major land masses which are
Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia comprising Sabah and Sarawak (650km to 950km eastwards
across the South China Sea) which are two large states on the island of Borneo. According to the
Department of Statistics Malaysia (2012) the population as of 2012 was 29.7 million and most of
them reside on the west coast of the peninsula
3.2.1 The climate
Malaysian weather benefits from a tropical climate with high temperatures and high humidity
throughout the year. During the day, temperatures are around 30 º C year around and night time
minima are around 20ºC (Figure 2-5). According to the Malaysian Meteorological Department (2013),
there are only two distinct seasons, the southwest monsoon when light south westerly winds flow
below 15 knots from May to September and the Northeast monsoon where north easterly winds flow
up to 20 knots from November to March.
42
Figure 3-1: Average Temperature for Malaysia (http://www.worldweatheronline.com 2013)
Winds over the east coast states of peninsular Malaysia may reach 30 knots or more during strong
surges of cold air from the north. Straddling both seasons is the shorter inter-monsoon period which is
characterised by light but variable winds. According to the Malaysian Meteorological Department
(2013) it is also worth mentioning that during the months of April to November, when typhoons
frequently form over the west Pacific and move westwards across Philippines, south-westerly winds
over the northwest cost of Sabah and Sarawak region may strengthen to reach 20 knots or more.
As a country that is surrounded by seas, the effect of land and sea breezes on the common wind flow
pattern is very striking particularly during days with clear skies (Al- Amin et al 2013). On bright
sunny afternoons, sea breezes of 10 to 15 knots very often develop and reach up to several tens of
kilometres inland. On clear nights, the reverse process takes place and land breezes of weaker strength
can also develop over the coastal areas (Malaysia Meteorological Department 2013).
43
Figure 3-2: Map of Malaysia (www.Ezilion.com 2013)
According to Moten (2007) Malaysia has an annual rainfall of around 2600 millimetres, which is
above the global average, but considered normal for an equatorial region. From year to year, the total
annual rainfall of Malaysia shows considerable fluctuation and within the country there are significant
spatial and temporal variations. Malaysian rainfall distribution patterns over the country are
determined by the seasonal wind flow coupled with local topographic features (Malaysia
Meteorological Department 2013). The department also further explained that, during the northeast
monsoon season, exposed areas like the east coast of peninsular Malaysia, Western Sarawak and the
northeast coast of Sabah (see Figure 2-7) the rainfall distribution of the country according to season.
Figure 3-3: Distribution of Annual Rainfall (Moten 2007)
44
Figure 3-4: Average Rainfall (mm) Graph for Kuala Lumpur
(http://www.worldweatheronline.com 2013)
Malaysia naturally has a significant amount of sunshine and solar radiation due to its location near the
equator. However, according to the Malaysia Meteorological Department (2013) it is extremely rare
for Malaysia to have a full day with clear skies. The cloud cover cuts off a substantial amount of
sunshine and thus solar radiation. On average the country receives about 6 hours of sunshine per day.
There are however, seasonal and spatial variations in the amount of sunshine received. Alor Setar and
Kota Bharu in the north of peninsular Malaysia, receive about 7 hours per day of sunshine while
Kuching which is on the island of Borneo receives only 5 hours on average (Malaysia Meteorological
Department, 2013). Usually in January, Kuching will receive on average 3.7 hours sunshine per day.
One the hand, Alor Setar receives a maximum of 8.7 hours sunshine per day in the same month.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600 kWh/m²
Series1
400
200
0
Figure 3-5: Annual Solar Radiation in Different Cities in Malaysia (kWh/m²) (The Green
Mechanics 2013)
45
3.2.2 Natural Disasters
The main natural disaster in Malaysia is flooding. In Malaysia, floods may continuously occur in
almost every region including mountain areas. Floods not only happen because of the intensity of
monsoon rains but also as a result of human presence and activities that affect ecosystems.
Destruction of highlands, deforestation, and flood plain encroachment contribute to flooding in
Malaysia. Even though the Malaysian government implemented major flood mitigation systems
which involved mega engineering projects such as the SMART tunnel in Kuala Lumpur, despite the
erection of flood gates and river embankment reinforcement, floods continue to plague the country.
Floods in Peninsular Malaysia in December 2006 and January in 2007 were considered the largest
flooding event in Malaysia for 100 years. This event took place in Kota Tinggi in Johor (the
southernmost state on the peninsula) when the whole stretch of the Johor river burst its banks
resulting in an evacuation of over 100,000 people at its peak (Star Publication (M) Bhd 2006).
According to the Meteorological Department of Malaysia (2013), floods in southern Johor were
believed due to global warming. This is because Johor is not within the usual monsoon affected zone.
Bernama (2009a) stated that every year the Kelantan River cannot contain the amount of water
brought by heavy monsoonal rains and inundates all settlements along it for at least one month per
year. Vernacular houses in both of Malaysia regions might have coped well during floods because
they are designed to adapt with local climate situation. Vernacular houses in Malaysia are elevated
above the ground as an adaptation strategy for floods and protection from wild animals. However,
modern contemporary houses which are built directly on the ground are not designed to resist flooding
and are damaged. During floods people are evacuated and temporarily placed in public buildings such
as schools and town halls and relief efforts are coordinated by the state and federal governments.
Hawkes et al (2007) and the Malaysia Meteorological Department (2013) explained that the nation
straddles two seismically active areas “which are the interpolate boundary between the Indo-
Australian and Eurasian Plates on the West and the inter-plate boundary between the Eurasian and
Philippines Sea Plates on the East”. Therefore, Malaysia feels the impact of earthquakes originating
from these areas. For example, Sumatran earthquakes have shaken parts of the west coast peninsular
Malaysia (Hawkes et al 2007). According to Bernama (2011a) there are also weak earthquakes that
originate from within the nation itself. The Meteorological Department of Malaysia (2013) has
detected earthquakes around Bukit Tinggi in the centre of Peninsular Malaysia and in the Ranau,
Sandakan, Semporna and Sadakan regions in Sabah.
Multiple housing units that are built in direct contact with the ground with reinforced concrete
structure are moderately vulnerable to seismic events. The walls are not designed to sustain seismic
46
forces but the structure and the roof can, due to the design method and adequate rigidity (Adnan et al
2012). According to Adnan et al (1999) three story reinforced concrete structures (which include all
landed house) would not be affected by seismic events. Adnan et al (2012) explain in their research
that updates to the building regulations to include measures to limit earthquake damage have not been
implemented because the existing construction standard ensures structures are built with adequate
rigidity.
Malaysia also suffers from ongoing coastal erosion and the North-western coastline of Peninsular
Malaysia is susceptible to tsunamis (Hawkes et al 2007). The Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 resulted
in 74 people killed and over 8000 were displaced. Some coastal housing areas were damaged or
destroyed and had to be relocated. Redevelopment programs by the government of Malaysia are still
ongoing and many heavily damaged or destroyed settlements have been relocated to more modern and
planned developments inland. The Malaysian Meteorological Department has also warned that the
coastlines of Sabah and Sarawak are susceptible to tsunamis that could occur when earthquakes
happen in the western part of the coastal regions of Sulawesi Island of Indonesia and the Philippines.
Shortage of land for housing developments means that residential properties from landed houses to
apartments and condominiums have been built on steep hill slopes in most cities in Malaysia (Ismail
2010). The term ―landed houses‖ in Malaysia means dwellings which are located on separate parcels
of land, for example, terraced houses and bungalows. This trend is particularly alarming in Kuala
Lumpur and Georgetown where land costs are very high. According to DBKL (2010) comprehensive
geotechnical, geology, geomorphology and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) research report
compliance with special technical conditions, slope monitoring during construction and slope
maintenance after construction are required to build housing on slopes of more than 25º. The
regulation was implemented in 1994 after the ―Highland Towers‖ tragedy in a Kuala Lumpur suburb
when one of the apartment blocks collapsed, killing 48 people after 10 days of continuous rainfall
which triggered a massive landslide, destabilising the building (Aini et al 2001).
In December 2008 a major landslide happened nearby at Bukit Antarabangsa (near Highland Towers)
destroying many residential buildings and killing four people (The Star Team, 2008). In May 2011 a
landslide tragedy that shocked the nation destroyed an orphanage in Hulu Langat, killing 15 children
and one of their minders (Star Publication (M) Bhd, 2011). Bernama (2011b) reported that the
building was constructed before 2000 on privately owned agricultural land which was beyond the
jurisdiction of the building regulations restricting developments on steep slopes and the jurisdiction of
the local municipal council. In the national land code (Act 56 of 1965), small commercial buildings or
residential buildings occupying not more than 20% of the whole area or two hectares, whichever is the
lesser, of privately owned agricultural lands can be constructed without building permits and
47
approvals (Legal Research Board, 2003a, p. 113). However Ching et al (2011) and Zainuddin & Ngah
(2011) stated in their research that the Malaysian government has called for all state governments to
inspect all developments on all types of lands to prevent such a tragedy happening again.
3.2.3 Environmental Stresses and Pressures
The Human Development Index (HDI) score for Malaysia has consistently risen from 1980 to 2012
by 1.2% annually from 0.563 to 0.769 and is ranked 64 among 169 nations, with a gross national
income (GNI) per capita of USD $13,676 (UNDP, 2013). The increase in the HDI is a result of
substantial urban development in Malaysia. There are two major positive impacts of urban
development, one being large investment in facilities and infrastructure to support the burgeoning
urban population and, secondly, vast improvements in the provision of education and healthcare
(Ismail 2011).
In 2009, Malaysia produced 7.1 metric tons per capita which was a sharp rise from 3.11 metric tons
Carbon Dioxide in 1990 (UNDP 2013) which was probably due to the rapid industrialisation that took
place during that period (Hoijer 2010). However the Department of Statistics Malaysia (2012)
revealed that the total amount of forested area which consists of permanent reserved forest, state land,
wildlife reserve and other reserves remains high at 1,832 million hectares, which is 55.8% of the
Malaysian landmass. This is due to the awareness of all relevant parties of the need to maintain forest
cover to absorb CO2 . The UNDP (2012) estimated that this represented 3,510 Mt CO2 of carbon
stock in forest biomass in 2012. Malaysia is one of 34 countries out of 177 which have more than
1000 Mt of carbon stock in forest biomass. Nevertheless, this does not mean that forests in Malaysia
are not under pressure from logging and plantation development.
Rak et al (2013) documented unsustainable logging practice in Malaysia and that it was not the only
problem in maintaining the amount of green area in Malaysia. Malaysian forests are also suffering
from rapid deforestation, illegal removal of forest products and encroachment. The article further
explained that the deforestation rate is accelerating faster than in any other tropical country. Data from
the Department of Statistics Malaysia (2013) reveal that between 1990 and 2010, Malaysia lost 8.6%
or 1,920,000 hectares of its forest cover. Rak et al (2011) also stated that logging on this scale releases
a significant amount of carbon into the atmosphere, both directly and indirectly. The author further
highlighted that most of the carbon in the forest is stored and maintained in the trees, while collateral
damage to other trees and disturbance to the soil releases much carbon into the atmosphere. This can
lead to complete clearance of certain areas, leaving them dry and susceptible to erosion and fire. The
latter releases a large amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Rak
et al 2011). The logging problem in Malaysia is not only limited to carbon emissions. Logging also
48
threatens the rich biodiversity of the area, and the livelihood of the indigenous people living in the
forest.
In addition, oil palm plantations have been expanding in size due to growing international demand.
According to Norwana et al (2013), Malaysia and Indonesia‘s combined output of palm oil
contributed almost 87% of world production in 2012 and 91% of the world export market.
The air pollutant index in Malaysia (API) fluctuated between a good 40 in Kuala Lumpur in February
2013 to an unhealthy 186 in June in the same year, primarily due to human activities (Department of
Statistics Malaysia 2013). The API is an estimation of the intensity of air pollutants such as carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter
(PM10) and is monitored at 51 stations throughout the country (Department of Statistics Malaysia
2013). In 2013 the haze effecting Malaysia has been the worst since 1955 with the API hitting 172 on
19 June 2013 (Malaysia Department of Environment, 2013). On 23 June 2013, the state of Johor
declared a State of Emergency due to the index spiking to 746 at 7 a.m leaving the town in virtual
shutdown (Channel News Asia 2013, The Star Malaysia 2013).
Clean water in Malaysia is supplied in all states by rivers, dams and aquifers for consumer
consumption. However, the Department of Statistics Malaysia (2009) recorded that the number of
clean rivers decreased from 76 in 2008 to 70 in 2009 also due to human activities. The number of
slightly polluted rivers also increased in 2009 to 4. According to a Department of Statistics of
Malaysia report (2009), rivers which were slightly polluted and polluted in 2009 were mainly effected
by oil spills, effluent from livestock and agricultural activities, solid waste disposal, untreated sewage
and disposal of domestic waste and runoff water from agricultural activities containing hazardous
chemicals.
3.2.4 Encouraging Sustainable Building
There are a several benefits of designing sustainable building in Malaysia. For example the solar
elevation changes from approximately 88º on March 20 to 60º on December 21 every year in
Malaysia (only a 28º change in total per year) as compared to a maximum range of solar elevation
change of 48º for Sydney (Salehudin et al 2011b, Darus et al 2009) making it easy for developers and
designers to locate windows and size the eaves of roofs for adequate shading besides being able to
locate photovoltaic or solar hot water systems.
In Malaysia timber products for building materials are mostly certified by the Forest Stewardship
council (FSC) and the Malaysian Timber Council (MTC). However, according to MTC (2013), Chen
49
et al (2010) and Islam & Siwar (2009) most of these products are intended for overseas markets.
Alternative building materials such as rubber, wood, rattan, oil palm trunks and bamboo, which are
abundantly cultivated and used for other purposes in Malaysia, should be used for construction as
well. Although containing large amounts of embodied energy, sand, gravel and lime for producing
cement and concrete are locally produced. Low environmental impact ―autoclave aerated concrete‖
(AAA) blocks are manufactured in Malaysia.
From a different angle, the Malaysian government also provided initiatives such as funding through
the SURIA 1000 project to spur the local solar PV industry (CIDB 2006). The Malaysian federal
government is supporting two construction waste management and quality programs which are being
implemented through the Construction Industry Board of Malaysia (CIBD). One is the ―Industrial
Building System‖ (IBS) and the second is the ―Quality Assessment System for Building Construction
Work‖ (QLASIC) Both are intended to help the construction industry to reduce construction waste.
Shaari (2003) explained that IBS was introduced in 1998 with a focus on industrialised building. It
encourages developers to use modular building components and prefabrication on or off construction
sites or in factories to increase construction efficiency while reducing construction waste, time and
labour costs. In 2006, QLASIC was initiated to promote quality workmanship in all architectural
works, mechanical and electrical works, external works and structural works with the intended
benefits of the safety and comfort of building occupants and building aesthetics in mind (CIDB 2006).
The Department of Standards Malaysia (2007) established a ―Code of Practice on Energy Efficiency
and Use of Renewable Energy for Non-Residential Buildings‖ to give direction for more efficient use
of energy including the use of renewable energy in new and existing non-residential buildings. This
standard has been applied together with the ―Uniform Building By-Law‖ (UBBL) of Malaysia which
oversees the implementation of building standards to ensure the safety of buildings.
3.3 Tourism
Tourism is conventionally described in the business world either in terms of the activities of
visitors/tourists or of businesses supplying visitors/tourists in either demand side or supply side terms
(WTO 1995). In 1991, at the World Tourism Organisation Conference in Canada, the demand side
definition and concept of tourism was accepted as the appropriate approach. The United Nation World
Tourism Organisation (1995) defined tourism as the activities of individuals or persons staying or
travelling in places outside their usual routine and environment, travel for leisure, business and
recreational purposes for not more than one year. This description recognizes tourism as involving a
wide range of activities and goes beyond the common interpretation of tourism as being limited to
holiday activity only. Theobald (2005) explained that tourism is an activity which, in some form or
50
another, mankind has undertaken for a very long time. Conversely, according to Theobald (2005)
research suggests that tourism activities have been recognized as important social and economic
phenomena only recently. International scholars agree that the tourism industry‘s effects are
increasingly being felt both at the local level and through its impacts on national economies (Haedrich
et al 2001). The importance of tourism and its widespread effects were recognized at the World
Conference on Tourism, held in Manila in 1980. The Manila declaration on World Tourism was
established in that conference which clearly stated that:
“Tourism is considered an activity essential to the life of nations because of its effect on the social,
cultural, education and economic sectors of national societies and on their international relations”.
(Manila Declaration on World Tourism 1980)
Studies undertaken by the World Tourism Organisation (2012) reveal that the tourism industry brings
in large amounts of income in payment for goods and services, accounting for 30% of the world‘s
exports of services and 6% of overall exports of goods and services for the year 2012. The 2012
World Tourism Highlights report (UNWTO 2012) points out that tourism also creates opportunities
for employment in the service sector of the economy, especially developing countries. These service
industries include the accommodation industry, the entertainment industry (for example music venues,
theatres and amusement parks) and shopping mall and transportation services such as taxicabs, cruise
ships and airlines (UNWTO 2012).
3.4 Tourism in Malaysia
Tourism is rapidly becoming one of the most important sources of income in many countries. Tourism
globally is a growing industry. The strong and sustained rise of tourism activity over the past few
decades is one of the most remarkable social, economic and cultural phenomena for many developing
nations including Malaysia. Tourism in Malaysia is the second largest contributor to the economy and
continues to grow both in scale and scope. Concerning scale, Malaysia‘s efforts in developing and
promoting its tourism products have produced impressive results. In 2012, there were 25.3 million
international tourist arrivals (Table 3-1) with total receipts of RM60.6 billion (USD 15 billion). This
figure was far above receipts a decade ago, when Malaysia received only 7 million tourists in 1999
(Ministry of Tourism and Culture Malaysia 2013) (see Table 3-2). These figures represent an increase
of 6% in tourist arrivals and increase of 7.6% in revenue compared with 2011 (Ministry of Tourism
Malaysia 2013).
51
Rank Country UNWTO International International Change Change
Region tourist tourist (2011 to (2010 to
arrivals arrivals 2012) 2011)
(2012) (2011)
1 France Europe 83.0 million 81.6 million +1.8% +5.0%
2 United North America 67.0 million 62.7 million +6.8% +4.9%
States
3 China Asia 57.7 million 57.6 million +0.3% +3.4%
4 Spain Europe 57.7 million 56.2 million +2.7% +6.6%
5 Italy Europe 46.4 million 46.1 million +0.5% +5.7%
6 Turkey Europe 35.7 million 34.7 million +3.0% +10.5%
7 Germany Europe 30.4 million 28.4 million +7.3% +5.5%
8 United Europe 29.3 million 29.3 million -0.1% +3.6%
Kingdom
9 Russia Europe 25.7 million 22.7 million +13.4% +11.9%
10 Malaysia Asia 25.0 million 24.7 million +1.3% +0.6%
Table 3-1 Most-visited countries by international tourist arrivals (WTO 2013)
TOURIST ARRIVALS & RECEIPTS TO MALAYSIA
YEAR ARRIVALS RECEIPTS (RM)

2012 25.03 MILLION 60.6 BILLION
Table 3-2 Malaysian tourist arrivals and receipts 1998-2012 (Ministry of Tourism and Culture
2013)
52
70
60
50
40 TOURIST ARRIVALS
(MILLION)
30
TOURIST RECEIPTS (RM
BILLION)
20
10
Figure 3-6: International tourist arrival receipts (Ministry of tourism and Culture 2013)
3.4.1 Benefits Derived From Tourism
Researchers internationally have long taken a critical look at the concept of tourism with community
participation and benefits (Ryan & Montgomery 1994, Simmons 1994, Braman 2001, Tores &
Momsen 2004). Tourism scholars generally agree that active community participation in the tourism
development process will benefit not only the local community but also the national economy.
Rapid tourism development has raised the awareness of many policy makers in governments of the
importance of tourism as an instrument to improve local community economic development (Wang et
al 2010). The concept remains widely popular among developing countries (Snyder & Sulle 2011,
Latkova & Vogt 2011, Farsani et al 2011, Reimann et al 2011). However, due to political, economic
and socio-cultural conditions there are significant differences between western societies and
developing nations (Zeng & Ryan 2010). Researchers internationally (Simmons 1994, Timothy 1999,
Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2001, Simpson 2008) have made significant contributions to studies
about community involvement in tourism development in developed countries. For example, Tosun
(2005) stated that community participation in the tourism development process has emerged and been
refined in the context of developed nations. Practical community involvement in tourism development
in developing nations seems not to have been considered in detail by researchers.
53
Salazar (2012) listed three main benefits from tourism development, one of which includes
community participation. Tourism development with community participation can contribute to rural
development – a benefit that especially applies in remote areas. For example, it can create direct
employment opportunities as well as increase income levels and reduce the level of poverty in rural
communities. Tourism development with community involvement will add value to national tourism
through diversification of tourism products, increasing economic profits. The benefits derived from
the use of natural resources and facilities for tourism can prompt the community to use these valuable
resources in a sustainable way.
Realizing the potential of community participation in tourism, the Rural Tourism Master Plan was
formulated in Malaysia in 2001 (Hamzah 2004). In the 9th Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 the
government‘s focus is on the development of rural communities through strategies such as reducing
income imbalances between rural and urban areas and between the less developed and more
developed states (Marzuki 2010). To achieve that agenda, the Malaysian government has identified
rural tourism, especially through community participation, as a catalyst for rural community
development. One of the forms of local community development that has been promoted by the
Malaysian government is the resort and hotel community initiatives programme organized by
accommodation owners in rural areas throughout the country.
Tourism‘s economic importance has also led the Malaysian government to give greater emphasis to
national policy and planning. In 2010 the Malaysian government launched a new economic
programme called the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). It is part of the national
economic plan which aims to elevate the country to developed nation status by 2020, targeting a
Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of USD 15,000 (PEMANDU 2012). The report further
explained that the target for 2020 will be achieved through the implementation of 12 National Key
Economic Areas (NKEAs), representing economic sectors which account for a significant
contribution to GNI (PEMANDU 2012). The Malaysian government has identified tourism as one of
the NKEAs as part of the government policy to diversify Malaysian income and reduce dependence
on exports (ETP 2011). Consequently, according to research by Rahmana et al (2013) revenue from
tourism increased significantly in the year 2012 to RM 37.4 billion and the tourism industry had
become one of the largest contributors to the Malaysian GNI (ETP 2013).
54
The growth in tourism has opened up new employment opportunities across diverse industries such as
handicrafts, transport, food and beverages, retail and accommodation (Richardson & Butler 2013). To
support research done by Salehudin et al (2013a) discovered that the structure of the local economy
has gradually been transformed through tourism development in two particular tourism areas in
Malaysia, Langkawi (North Peninsula Malaysia) and Kota Kinabalu (on the Island of Borneo) (Figure
3.2).The transformation has been from agriculture to tourism.
Figure 3-7: Two of the main tourism areas in Malaysia: Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu
(www.malaysia-maps.com)
The number of local communities participating in the tourism business and jobs which have been
generated by the multiplier effect, has rapidly increased each year after tourism was initiated in Kota
Kinabalu and Langkawi, From Salehudin et al (2013a) interviews with the Langkawi Development
authority (LADA), it appears that in Langkawi, nearly 35% of the working population were involved
in the tourism sector (including accommodation, wholesale and retail sectors) 21% in social services
and less than 15% were employed in the agriculture sector compared to 1987 when the majority of
Langkawi people worked in agriculture and fisheries (Figure 3-3). Growth in tourism accommodation
has also produced more local employment opportunities, with the percentage of Kota Kinabalu‘s
workforce employed in accommodation facilities increasing from 4.6% in 2006 to 6.1% in 2011
(Salehudin et al 2013a). Furthermore, a total of 56,000 jobs were created in 2012 and the Ministry of
Tourism Malaysia (2013) hopes to increase it to 100,000 in 2013. To date, tourism and local trade
constitute 28% of Malaysia‘s workforce distribution (Figure 3-4).
55
Society economy
Agriculture and fisheries
1987
Society economy
Local entrepreneurship &
 Declaration of Langkawi as a duty free island tourism
 Growth of infrastructure and basic facilities
2007
Society economy
Ecotourism & knowledge
based tourism
 Development of Langkawi Geopark
 Sustainable development
 Improvement of local community well being
Figure 3-8: Processes of socio-economic development in Langkawi (Ahmad et al 2013)
The Government of Malaysia (ETP 2010) has also set a target of 36 million tourist arrivals with a
revenue of RM168 (USD52.8) billion by the year 2020 (ETP 2013). The nation‘s tourism industry
also aspires to contribute RM103.6 (USD32.6) billion to GNI and create half a million new job
opportunities by 2020 (The Star 2013).
Currently there is a trend for building large, four stars resorts in the South East Asia region (Lee
2010). In order to draw more high-yield tourists, a rating of four and five star quality resorts is crucial
(Omar 2013). Malaysia has around 63,000 four star and five star resort rooms and by 2020 the
Malaysian government plans to build more resorts with 37,000 four star and five star rooms to attract
high-yield tourists.
Malaysia's Workforce Distribution

GOVERMENT
9%
28% 10% SERVICES
MANUFACTURING AND
CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
16% 37%
TOURISM AND LOCAL
TRADE
Figure 3-9: Malaysia’s workforce distribution 2012 (Kelly Inc. 2012)
56
3.4.2 Threats Due to Tourism Development
Tourism must be appropriately managed to ensure detrimental impacts on tourism areas are
minimised although tourism is important for the generation of income (Jonsson 2000). The incredible
expansion of the Malaysian tourism industry has left operators ill-equipped to handle the influx of
tourists and the inevitable negative impacts on the environment (WWF Malaysia 2012).
According to Musa (2000) threats from tourism development are both direct and indirect (see Figure
3-5). Although a booming tourism industry potentially supports and provide benefits to local
communities, irresponsible coastal resort development could ruin the delicate ecosystems upon which
tourism partly depends, thus destroying tourism in the long run (Lee 2010).
Siltation and sediment from land clearing and construction of tourism facilities such as
accommodation, marinas, airports and entertainment centres, nutrient enrichment from sewage and
fertilisers used on golf courses as well as oil and hydrocarbon pollution from boats and cruise ships
are widespread and long term indirect impacts. Research done by WWF Malaysia (2005) suggests that
the impacts of unplanned and ad hoc development for tourist facilities in most Marine Park Islands, as
well as inadequate sewerage and solid waste disposal facilities, are also a major concern.
Perderson et al (2005) and Lee (2010) explained in their research that a conflict of interest exists
between a government that is keen to increase development for economic growth and the potential for
irreparable damage to ecosystems. The majority of the Malaysian public does not support
environmental causes due to lack of education and information on the long term effects of
environmental degradation (Lee 2010).
To date (Ministry of Tourism 2013), there are efforts by local government and NGOs to educate the
public about the importance of protecting the environment and respecting wild species, but even when
attention is brought to issues such as the harvesting of eggs from endangered sea turtles (Hall & Page
2012), the process of changing cultural behaviour is difficult and time consuming. WWF Malaysia in
2005 outlines the impacts of tourism development in Malaysia (see Figure 3-5).
57
Inappropriate
Costal
Development
Over
Harvasting of
Lack of
Marine
Awareness
Resources
for Food
Oil and The

Beach
Hydrocarbon impacts of
Pollution Erosion
tourism
Solid Waste Sewage

Litter Pollution
Nutrien Input
From
Fertilisers
and
Detergents
Figure 3-10: The impacts of tourism development (modified from WWF Malaysia 2005)
Lee (2010) further notes in her research that the challenge presented to government and conservation
agencies is to prepare regulations to protect natural resources despite the current low level of public
support. However regulations usually discourage investors who are interested in developing resorts.
Other instruments should be developed to strike a balance which enforces responsible development
which can help protect the environment of tourism areas over the long term (Salehudin et al 2011a).
3.5 The Need for Sustainable Tourism
Kamarudin et al (2013) and WWF Malaysia (2005) stated that inappropriate planned tourism can also
contribute to the degradation of the environment. The researchers also noted that since the tourism
industry depends mostly on the well-being of the environment, it would be detrimental to the tourism
industry to degrade it (Kamaruddin 2013). Most tourist attractions in Malaysia lie in the country‘s
natural and unspoilt environments, clean unpolluted waters and healthy marine ecosystems, notably
coral reefs.
Bhuiyan et al (2013) explained that the negative impacts of tourism development can lead to a decline
in the quality of the environment as a whole and the ecosystem functions on which the tourism
industry depends. The negative effects of environmental degradation due to tourism development are
felt not only on ecosystems but also on local communities. For example, a significant portion of
58
Malaysians are still working in fishing and agriculture, both of which will be adversely affected by
declining quality of marine life and other resources.
To address this issue, tourism developments need to be controlled and managed holistically. Tourism
planners, developers, operators and local communities as well as local authorities and the federal
government need to work hand in hand in order to minimise the negative impacts of tourism
development.
Although Lim (2009) highlights tourism‘s role as a means of raising revenue, developers and
investors have forgotten that inappropriately planned tourism not only has dire environmental
consequences, but can also lead to a decrease in tourist arrivals. It may also increase the financial
burden to mitigate environmental destruction in order to revive the tourism industry. Bhuiyan (2012)
Kamarul Arifin et al (2013) and Lee (2010) stress that it is essential to preserve environmental
resources through proper planning, management and operation, while simultaneously maximising
positive socio-economic benefits to the national and local communities.
Many developing countries including Malaysia (ETP 2010) have made tourism a priority in their
national development policies and are trying to increase tourism‘s contribution to poverty reduction.
In order to achieve that target the WTO (2013) suggested that the tourism sector develop in a
sustainable manner and enhance the beneficial aspects of local socio-economic impacts. UNWTO
(2013) also underlines the need for tourism to be very carefully planned and managed in developing
countries:
 Tourism is a significant and growing contribution to climate change, currently accounting for
around 5% of global CO2 emissions, mainly generated by transport, the removal of forest and
also by the operation of tourism facilities mainly accommodation such as resorts and hotels.
Local pollution of land and water from poor treatment of solid and liquid waste by tourism
businesses and from the activities of tourists can be a problem in some areas.
 Accommodation business especially resorts and hotels are often major users of non-renewable
and precious resources, such as land energy and water. In some areas a resort may consume
many times more water per person than the local community with which it competes for
supply.
 Poorly sited tourism development and inappropriate activities can be very damaging to
biodiversity in sensitive areas. Negatives impacts to cultural heritage sites can also occur
where there is poor visitor management.
59
 Tourism can have negative impacts on local society through restricting access to land and
resources and leading to an increase in crime and threats to social and cultural traditions and
values.
 While tourism is well placed to generate accessible jobs, poor working conditions are
sometimes found in the sector.
In order to reduce the impacts of tourism development governments need to establish and implement
clear policies on the control management of the sector, in conjunction with all tourism stakeholders.
3.6 Achieving Sustainable Tourism
The current use of the term ―sustainable tourism‖ is the result of the growing awareness of the global
links between mounting environmental problems, economic issues and social responsibility. The
concept of sustainable tourism development should be seen as an adaptive paradigm, a part of the
main concept of development and sustainable development, and it must focus on contributing to the
objectives of sustainable development in general.
Blancas et al (2010) and Day & Cai (2012), describe the minimum requirements for sustainable
tourism development. It should:
 Provide socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders and local communities, and reduce
inequality and absolute poverty in local tourist destinations by providing stable employment,
income earning opportunities and social services to local people.
 Protect and conserve the socio-cultural authenticity of local communities, respect and
preserve their cultural heritage, built and living traditions.
 Help to conserve the local environment and biodiversity, maintain ecological processes and
make use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development.
Day & Cai (2012) also, stated that sustainability is not an absolute concept and different stakeholders
have a variety of perspectives on what constitutes appropriate action. Cernat & Gourdon (2007), note
that sustainable tourism is a vision to be reached rather than a specific type of product.
Mclaren (2003) in defining sustainable tourism, explained that it is important to qualify the emphasis
on tourism‘s economic contribution by highlighting its other positive impacts as well which includes
60
social aspects such as individual wellbeing, fostering cross cultural understanding, facilitating
learning contribution to culture protection and environmental aspects, for example fostering
environmental protection and promoting energy conservation (Figure 3-6).
Paramount role of governance

and community organization
Emphasizes benefits to society (public good)
Socialised: driven by social
needs & concerns Protection of environment
Sustainable
Diversified, specialized and Tourism Tourism to be used for multitude of benefits
flexible in its variations
Deliver benefits to the larger community
Fostered by environmental
policies
Supported by local
communities
Figure 3-11: Sustainable Tourism (Desbiolles derived from McLaren definition 2006)
3.6.1 The Principles of Sustainable Tourism
The United Nation World Tourism Organisation (2013) has defined sustainable tourism as:
“Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental
impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities”.
(pp.17)
According to Sustainable tourism for development guidebook: enhancing capacities for sustainable
tourism for development in developing countries (WTO 2013), the tourism sector in developing
countries should embrace the principles of sustainable tourism and focus on the achievement of
sustainable development goals. WTO (2013) also explained that sustainable tourism should not be
regarded as a separate element of tourism, as a set of niche products, but rather as a condition of the
tourism industry as a whole (Figure 3-7).
61
Sustainable Tourism
Ensure Viable
Optimal Use of Respect the Socio- Tourism Policy
Long Term
Environmental Cultural and Governance
Economic
Resources Authenticity Structure
Operations
Prvide socio-economic
Conserve the built and The position of tourism
Key element in tourism benefits to all
living culture heritage in development policies
development stakeholders that are
and traditional values and programmes
fairly distributed
Consider the presence

Provide stable
Contribute to inter- of sturctures and
Maintaining essential employment and
culture understanding mechanisms for
ecological prcesses income-earning
and tolenrance engaging public, private
opportunities
and third stakeholders
Provide social services

Helping to conserve
to host communities
natural heritage and
and contributing to
biodiversity .
poverty alleviation.
Figure 3-12 - The principles of sustainable tourism (modified UNWTO 2013)
62
More specifically UNWTO and UNEP identified 12 aims for sustainable tourism which are set out in
Table 3-3.
No Aims Description
1. Economic viability To ensure the viability and competitiveness of tourism destinations and enterprises,
so that they are able to continue to prosper and deliver benefits in the long term.
2. Local prosperity To maximize the contribution of tourism to the prosperity of the host destination,
including the proportion of visitor spending that is retained locally.
3. Employment quality To strengthen the number and quality of local jobs created and supported by
tourism, including the level of pay, condition of service and availability to all
without discrimination by gender, race, disability or in other ways.
4. Social equity To seek a widespread distribution of economic and social benefits from tourism
throughout the recipient community, including improving opportunities, income and
services available to the poor.
5. Visitor fulfilment To provide safe, satisfying and fulfilling experience for visitors, available to all
without discrimination by gender race, disability or in other ways.
6. Local control To engage and empower local communities in planning and decision making about
the management and future development of tourism in their area, in consultation
with other stakeholders.
7. Community wellbeing To maintain and strengthen the quality of life in local communities, including social
structures and access to resources, amenities and life support systems, avoiding any
form of social degradation or exploitation.
8. Cultural richness To respect and enhance the historic heritage, authentic culture, traditions and
distinctiveness of host communities
9. Physical integrity To maintain and enhance the quality of landscapes, both urban and rural, and avoid
the physical and visual degradation of the environment.
10. Biology diversity To support the conservation of natural areas, habitats and wildlife, and avoid
damage to them.
11. Resource efficiency To minimize the use of scarce and non-renewable resources in the development and
operation of tourism facilities and services.
12. Environmental purity To minimize the pollution of air, water and land and the generation of waste by
tourism enterprises and visitors.
Table 3-3 12 Aims for sustainable tourism (UNWTO, 2013)
3.6.2 Key Issues for Sustainable Tourism
From many years of experience in working on the sustainable development of the tourism sector,
UNWTO has identified five pillars (Figure 3-8) in sustainable tourism. Each of the sustainable
tourism pillars is strongly related to the aims of sustainable tourism (Table 3-4) established by
UNWTO (2013) and UNEP (2005).
63
Tourism policy
and governance
Concerns the recognition of tourism in

sustainable development policies and the
presence and implementation of a clear
tourism strategy to embraces sustainability
principles. It looks at tourism governance
structure including tourism ministries and Economic
institution and how they relate to other areas performance,
of government that affect its sustainability investment and
and performance. competitiveness
The pillars consider the business and

investment environment and the
position of trade liberalisation in the
tourism sector, including the
Employment, consequences for the local economy,
decent work and small businesses and sustainability in
human capital general.
The role of tourism as a generator of

employment is a key aspect of its
contribution to sustainable
Pillars of
development. This pillar
concerned partly with the planning
is
Poverty
sustainable
of human resources to meet the
needs of the sector and partly with
reduction and
social inclusion
tourism
the quality of job provided,
including conditions of employment.
The pillar focuses on the contribution

of tourism to poverty reduction. It
considers a strategic approach to pro-
poor tourism at destination level,
employing techniques such as value
chain analysis. It considers specific
initiatives to gain more benefit for the
Sustainability of
poor such as developing community
the natural and
based initiatives and securing
cultural
collateral benefits from tourism.
environment
Considering policies and actions to

conserve the asset base, to manage
tourism in sensitive areas and secure
benefits from it. Specific attention is
paid to mitigate and adaptation of the
tourism sector to climate change and
the use of mechanisms to improve the
sustainability of tourism development
and operations and to monitor
impacts is assessed.
Figure 3-13: Five key pillars of sustainable tourism (modified from UNWTO 2013)
64
It is important for sustainable tourism developers to recognise the relation between sustainable
tourism principles and pillars in order for them to undertake tourism projects that provide benefits for
the local community, local and national economy and enhance social aspects of the local people.
Sustainable Tourism Pillars and Sub-Pillars Aims for Sustainable Tourism
1. Tourism policy and governance All the 12 aims (See Table 3-3)
1.1 The position of tourism in development

policies and programmes
1.2 Tourism policy and regulatory framework
1.3 Tourism governance and institutional setup
2. Economic performance, investment and 1. Economy viability

competitiveness 2. Local prosperity
3. Visitor fulfilment
2.1 Measuring tourism and is contribution to the
economy
2.2 Trade, investment and the business
environment
2.3 Brand, marketing and product positioning
2.4 Resilience, security and risk management
3. Employment, decent work and human 3. Employment quality

capital
3.1 Human resources planning and working

conditions
3.2 Skills assessment and the provision of
training
4. Poverty reduction and social inclusion 2. Local prosperity

4.Social equity
4.1 an integrated approach to poverty reduction 6. Local control
through tourism 7. Community wellbeing
4.2 strengthening pro-poor tourism initiatives
4.3 The inclusion of disadvantaged groups in the
tourism sector
4.4 The prevention of negative social impacts
5. Sustainability of the natural and cultural

environment
5.1 Relating tourism to natural and cultural 8. Cultural richness
heritage 9. Physical Integrity
5.2 Focus on climate change 10. Biological diversity
5.3 enhancing sustainability of tourism 11. Resource efficiency
development and operations 12. Environmental purity
5.4 Measuring and monitoring tourism impacts
Table 3-4: Relating the five pillars to the 12 aims for sustainable tourism (WTO 2013)
65
3.7 Sustainable Tourism in Malaysia
Malaysia is a developing country suffering from the common global problems of inefficient use of
energy and increasing pollution. The challenges faced by Malaysia are complicated because
developing countries need to meet increasing energy demands for their economic growth while at the
same time dealing with climate change (Koh & Lim 2010). However, concerns regarding the
environment and sustainable development have grown recently in Malaysia. As a result, Malaysia has
established new plans to address economic, environmental and social issues in an integrated way,
alongside non-governmental organizations (PEMANDU 2010).
The Malaysian government realizes that sustainable tourism is one of the critical areas that have
always been ignored by developers in the country (Ahmad 2011). Many tourist attractions have been
provided by the government and private developers around Malaysia but maintenance of these
attractions has not been emphasized. For example, Bukit Cerakah in Selangor, includes some of the
nation‘s most beautiful natural attractions. However, the area has been ignored and has become an
eyesore (Nabihah 2010). As a result of such problems, the government recognizes that there is a need
for Malaysia to develop tourism destinations in a sustainable way.
In Malaysia‘s new national economic plan, the government encourages all tourism stakeholders to
incorporate elements of sustainability in every development to ensure growth will be achieved in a
sustainable manner, through initiatives such as efficient use of resources, engaging with the local
community and conserving the Malaysian environment (PEMANDU 2010).
As a result Malaysia needs to improve the environmental and economic performance of new and
existing tourism facility buildings (Marzuki et al 2011). Furthermore, to make sustainable tourism
easier to implement, Malaysia will need to use technical services and resources for determining the
sustainability of tourism facilities based on an appropriate sustainability rating systems.
3.8 Resort Development
A resort is a place used for relaxation or recreation, attracting visitors for vacations and/or tourism
(seaside/beach/ski) (Nagle 1999). In research done by Omar et al (2013) they explained that resort
development in Malaysia has evolved in four main stages which are exploration, involvement,
development and consolidation. The transformation from one stage to another has been heavily
supported by government, the private sector and local initiatives (Omar et al 2013). Resort
development in Malaysia can be depicted as in Figure 3-9 and described as follows:
66
Exploration stage (1890s to 1969)
Involvement stage (1970 to 1985)
Development stage (1986 to 2001)
Consiladation stage (2002 - Present)
Figure 3-14: Resort Development in Malaysia (derived from Omar et al 2013)
Exploration phase (1890s to 1969)
According to Rahman (2005) visitors first arrived in Malaysia in the 1890s when a British merchant
offered the use of his private bungalow as an incentive to encourage tourists to visit the country. The
first group of international tourists were attracted by the country‘s unique natural features. According
to the research (Rahaman 2005) most of the visitors were adventurous and nature-loving tourists.
Other research by Azaruddin (1994) noted that few travellers from Europe and South Asia chose to
take a vacation in Malaysia in 1950s, highlighting privacy reasons. Azaruddin (1994) also suggested
this may have been because public facilities during that time were non-existent. Tourists used the
locals‘ facilities and the degree of contact between tourists and residents was very high. However, Ng
et al (1999) revealed that after Tioman Island (one of Malaysia‘s famous tourist areas) was selected as
the site for the classic musical film ―South Pacific‖ in 1958, the country inevitably started to lure a
bigger share of the international tourist market.
Involvement stage (1970 to 1985)
Hamzah & Hampton (2013) explained that the number of tourists has increased significantly
following word-of-mouth promotion by tourists themselves and endorsement by Time Magazine when
it rated Tioman and Langkawi Island of Malaysia as one of the world‘s most beautiful islands. The
growing number of visitors encouraged locals to build basic facilities primarily for tourists. In the
early 1970s, significant numbers of budget lodges were constructed and operated by locals. Most of
the accommodation facilities were simple low cost and low impact in design for the tourists. Most
businesses were small and family oriented. Contact between locals and tourists was common. The
Malaysian government was pressed to develop infrastructure to support an increasing number of
visitors as more locals became involved in the tourism industry. According to GOM (1971), the
Malaysian government initiated a number of tourism projects in order to compliment tourism
67
activities carried out by the private sector. These projects included accommodation, transport and
recreational needs.
Development stage (1986 – 2001)
During this period Malaysia started to receive outside investment to build large and international
standard resorts in 1986, mostly in Penang, the northern part of Malaysia and Port Dickson in the
southern part of Malaysia. The Malaysian government granted tax incentives to lodging as well as
non-accommodation projects in order to spur private participation in accommodation provision. The
government also built airports and jetties near tourism areas and around the country to promote the
inflow of tourists by air and sea. Tourist developments in Malaysia also provided a better quality of
life for people in many rural areas in the form of facilities like clinics, police stations, banks,
administrative buildings and internet connections. Most of these were developed with support from
the government.
Consolidation stage (2002 – Present)
In this phase tourism in Malaysia has become a major part of the economy. Many tourism areas such
as Labuan, Langkawi and Tioman Island were given duty-free status in 2002 and mass tourism
became the ruling ethos (Rahman, 2005). Marketing and advertising efforts were further widened
(Omar 2013) and most of the older resorts underwent refurbishment to adopt new concepts such as
boutique styles, and resorts were renamed as part of a branding campaign (Omar 2013).
3.9 Challenges to Sustainable Resort Development in Malaysia
A number of challenges and barriers to sustainable resort development in Malaysia were highlighted
in recent research by Salehudin et al (2013a).
a) Priority of local and national economy
This challenge is connected strongly with political governance. Prioritising the economy over
environmental concerns and social responsibility by government can create negative impacts on the
Malaysian tourism industry. Due to national policies for tourism that are specifically designed to
promote and foster the tourism industry for economic benefit, a negative attitude has developed
towards developers and tourism operators based on belief that accommodation facilities for tourism
existed simply for profit and as such contribute to national economic growth. Respondents to survey
research conducted by Salehudin et al (2013a) suggested that tourism destinations in Malaysia have
68
developed their product based on an economic focus. Respondents also noted that significant
numbers of resort and hotel developments in Malaysia had exploited resources without understanding
their impact on the environment and local community. This is due to the late development of tourism
in Malaysia compared to well established South East Asia destinations such as Thailand and
Indonesia. Some respondents consider many destinations in Malaysia are copies of development in
Thailand and Indonesia. This pattern of tourism development in Malaysia has not changed since the
tourism boom in South East Asia in the 1990s, with continued attempts by resort and hotel developers
to make their product competitive with other South East Asia destinations.
Local governments and developers justify this approach by asserting that new resort and hotel
development projects are vital to prevent a destination‘s decline and to maintain competitiveness. As
with the case of Langkawi Island and Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, although the concept of luxury and
mass resort and hotel destinations is appealing, up-scale resorts and hotels often only succeed in terms
of serving their guests (Salehudin et al 2013a). For example, the research stated that on Langkawi
Island, energy and water consumption by tourists is normally considerably higher than that of the
local residents. A local resident consumes an average of 31% less water and 52 % less energy per day
compared to average tourist consumption. One of the reasons for the significant difference in
consumption is because Malaysian resort and hotel facilities have diversified into activities such as
golf and theme parks to attract more upscale tourists and to increase their profit margins.
Environmental and social impacts on the local community can be considerable but these externalities
are not accounted for.
b) The lack of infrastructure to support sustainable tourism development
Resort and hotel developers in Malaysia face a significant number of issues in developing sustainable
tourism accommodation. Salehudin et al (2013a) observe that there are insufficient technologies and
skilled people to develop sustainable resorts and hotels in Malaysia. For example most of the low
environmental impact construction materials like recycled timber and lightweight bamboo frames are
being imported from foreign countries. Furthermore, technologies such as low flow plumbing
systems, water recycling systems, solar energy and wind turbine technology need to be imported from
other countries at considerable cost. The research also noted that this situation would increase overall
development costs compared to conventional resort and hotel development.
This research also revealed that luxury resorts in Malaysia (especially in Langkawi and Kota
Kinabalu) sent their workers to undergo training in a developed country to learn about sustainable
management practices, or employed foreign workers to help the company to develop and practice
sustainability (Salehudin et al 2013a). Some resorts and hotels also trained their marketing and sales
69
personnel to specifically focus on and understand sustainable tourism principles. However, small and
medium size resorts and hotels in Malaysia cannot afford to spent significant amounts of money to
train their workers and use green technology in their practices.
Operators of tourism accommodation facilities also felt that there is inadequate infrastructure to
support sustainable practices, for instance, technology to recycle waste. On Langkawi Island paper
and plastic can be recycled if collected in sufficient amounts for the recycling centre run by local
residents. However, most of the facilities on the Island did not recycle glass and metal, due to the high
cost of transporting it to the mainland of Malaysia where it can be handled. One of the resorts also
observed that they separate their garbage but sometimes it all ends up in the same landfill site.
c) Sustainable development policy focus
Most policies relating to sustainable resorts and hotels in Malaysia are for new or developing facilities
rather than for developed or mature tourism accommodation facilities. Most tourism stakeholders
assume that only early planning at the design stage in the development of new tourism facilities can
incorporate issues of environmental, cultural, social and local economic empowerment (Salehudin et
al 2013a) However, it is the mature mass tourism destinations which actually attract the greatest
number of visitors and sustainability should be viewed as a way to regenerate and improve stagnant or
decreasing tourism numbers. The research suggested that to overcome decreasing tourism numbers,
legislation to introduce sustainability standards not only for new development but also for existing
tourism facilities, would help to improve competitiveness in the local tourism industry (Salehudin et
al 2013a)
d) Structure of the public administration system
Another challenge identified by the research is a lack of coordination between government bodies.
65% of respondents identified this as a barrier, and one of the main factors affecting implementation
of sustainable tourism policy. Malaysia maintains a network of local government officials who are
centrally appointed and closely linked to locally elected bodies. In this system of management, power
is devolved to subordinated small local units. However, the Federal Government always retains
sovereignty and the right to determine the degree of autonomy for every local unit. Furthermore
federal government is more powerful, especially on monetary. In other words, they (federal
government) control on matters pertaining to land development and project approval. Local
governments are mostly not permitted to develop independently. Tourism experts have recognized
this problem, and have identified a need for local governments to develop their own sustainability
policies and programs for tourism facilities to meet local sustainability goals. Every tourism
70
destination has its unique economic, environmental, cultural, technological, ecological and social
conditions so it is necessary to devise a policy that is pertinent to a development‘s specific aims and
which addresses local conditions.
In order for sustainable resort and hotel development to succeed, sustainability has to be adopted as a
common agenda that entails close collaboration between all relevant parties. This clearly was not the
situation at the time of the research fieldwork. The respondents in this research agreed that
participation by tourism stakeholders such as different tiers of government, the private sector, local
community and NGOs is important in the process of making sustainable policies and plans. However,
in Malaysia, NGOs are often excluded from policy development and its implementation. Survey
respondents said it is possibly because they rarely place economic interests as primary and have more
focus towards social responsibility and environmental protection and conservation. The economic
interests of regional or central government can sometimes clash with local desires which usually try to
limit tourism’s impacts on the local environment and local people. Therefore there is a need for a
collaborative effort from all tourism stakeholders to develop appropriate sustainable tourism plans and
policies.
e) Lack of awareness
The research (Salehudin et al 2013a) agreed that one of the main problems in developing sustainable
tourism in a developing country like Malaysia is there are no obvious driving factors for developers
and resort operators to adopt sustainable practices. Resort developers feel that the implementation of
sustainable principles in their practices is difficult and will increase their operational cost. According
to a Ministry of Tourism respondent, asking resort operators to adopt the recommendations of
international sustainable assessment systems is not easy. This is because of lack of infrastructure, an
expensive assessment process, limited social awareness of sustainable development, a poor
understanding of why sustainability is needed or failure to support all aspects of the triple bottom line.
For example, although the benefits of energy-efficient products and practices were understood by
many operators since their use led to smaller energy bills, resort operators stated that they also faced
the dilemma between implementing environmental protection strategies and providing high quality
services and comfort for resort and hotel guests.
3.10 Resort Development in Malaysia and the Need for a Sustainable Rating Tool
In Malaysia tourism is a major source of income and continues to grow both in scale and scope.
Concerning scale, the nation is one of the fastest-growing tourism areas in the world (WTO 2013).
Regarding scope, the nation is experiencing changes in the types of tourism. Long-haul international
71
tourism from Europe and Australasia is now running alongside growing regional tourism from both
the East Asian industrializing economies and other ASEAN countries (Lee 2010). Tourism from all
three categories is increasingly concentrated along the coasts and in the islands of Malaysia. Whilst
governments and investors plan huge multi-billion dollar integrated developments such as Langkawi
International Beach Resort across the country, hundreds of small-scale coastal resort destinations have
emerged. These have grown - often outside the formal government tourism planning frameworks – to
cater for backpackers and independent travellers. Islands are particularly attractive to tourists with
many examples including the Southern islands (Loganathan & Ibrahim 2007); the Pangkor islands of
Perak (Hampton 2009); and Malaysia‘s Perhentian islands (Darus et al 2009).
The main attraction of tourism in Malaysia is the coastal region. Increasing the rate of development in
the eastern states through encouraging growth of the tourism industry is one way to ensure more
uniform economic growth within the nation and to maintain competitiveness (PEMANDU 2010). The
eastern coastline of Malaysia includes some of the most pristine beaches, and the coral reefs that offer
world-class diving due to the rich biodiversity of marine life in the region. Such biological assets have
the potential to support a thriving tourism industry which is particularly important in eastern Malaysia
where there is a recognized need to develop industries to provide jobs and income.
Currently the job market in eastern Malaysia is more agriculture-based which often results in high
intra-national migration of people towards the cities in western Malaysia. Malaysia has recognized the
growing income disparity between the rural areas of Eastern and Western Malaysia a manifested by
greater poverty rates. A buoyant tourism industry could help solve many of the social issues
springing from poverty. Presently there is a trend to build large, four-star coastal resorts in the south-
east Asia region. In order to attract tourists, Malaysia needs to build resorts of similar calibre to have a
competitive advantage over destinations in Thailand, Indonesia or the Philippines (Hampton, 2009).
However, although a booming tourism industry would support the economy, irresponsible resort
development could ruin the delicate ecosystems, which is detrimental for tourism in the long term.
As with other sectors of the economy, concern has been expressed about environmental problems
associated with tourism and pressure is growing to ensure ecologically sustainable forms of tourism
development. In recent years, this concern has increased significantly, manifesting itself in anti-tourist
development sentiment in some sections of the community (Lee 2010). Unless potential threats can be
identified and eliminated, tourism could compromise the environment that is attractive to tourists and
on which the industry depends. The Malaysian Government shares this concern and has recognized
the need for the tourism industry to plan and operate in ways which seek to conserve the
environmental resource base while allowing sustainable growth and development (PEMANDU 2010).
72
Undeniably resort development in Malaysia has the potential to create negative ecological
consequences that could ruin or alter the environmental resources of host destinations (Simpson,
1999). In the light of this issue and the need to maintain the balance between social and economic
development in this region, appropriate management and planning are essential to create healthy
tourism development. One consequence is that recommendations for regulating a sustainable tourism
assessment system for Malaysia are being put forward by tourism and construction stakeholders
(Amin, 2012).
73
Chapter 4 – Review of Existing Rating Tools
4.1 Introduction
In the process of developing a new sustainability rating tool, existing assessment systems and
rating tools have to be examined in order to establish the philosophical underpinnings of the
new rating method and the associated attributes needed to rate Malaysian buildings
effectively. This chapter aims to compare the international assessment tools available for use
in resort development. Two types of tools, green building rating tools and sustainable tourism
assessment systems, are evaluated by critically analysing their potential for the holistic
assessment of resorts in Malaysia. The chapter considers the strengths, weaknesses and site
specific applicability of these existing tools. The findings of this chapter will serve as a guide
for the researcher to develop a rating tool that best suits the Malaysian context.
4.2 Green Building vs. Sustainable Building
The diversity of the terms coupled with the opportunistic nature of many parties that claim
that their building technologies and building features authenticate a green building or
sustainable building have created an apparent confusion in the building industry (Rashid et al
2010). UNEP SBCI (2009) provide a clear information on how to differentiate sustainable
buildings and green buildings (Figure 4-1).
4.2.1 Sustainable Buildings
Sustainable buildings may be defined as buildings which strive for integral quality including
economic, social and environmental performance in a broad way (John et al 2004). The
UNEP-FI/SBCI‘S Financial & Sustainability Metrics Report project identified the main
objectives for sustainable buildings;
 Resource Efficiency;
 Energy Efficiency (including greenhouse gas emissions reduction);
 Pollution Prevention (including indoor air quality and noise abatement);
 Low Environmental Impact
74
 Local Culture and Social Considerations
 Economic Considerations
Sustainable building involves considering the whole life of buildings, taking environmental
quality, functional quality and future values into account (Rashid et al 2011, John et al 2004).
Sustainable building design includes therefore the thoughtful integration of architecture with
electrical, mechanical and structural engineering resources. In addition to express concern for
the traditional aesthetics of massing, orientation, proportion, scale, texture, shadow and light,
the design team needs to be concerned with long-term costs: environmental, economic and
human. Buildings contribute to the quality of life much more than we realise (John et al
2004).
Figure 4-1: Building performance goal defined by scope of issues considered (UNEP
2009)
4.2.2 Green Building
According to United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), green building is the process
of developing structures and using practices that are environmentally responsible and resource-
efficient throughout a building's life-cycle from sitting through to design, construction, operation,
75
maintenance and deconstruction (USEPA 2013). The agency further explained that this practice
expands and complements the classical building design concerns of utility, durability, and comfort
(USEPA 2013).
Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health
and the natural environment by (USEPA 2013) by:
· Efficiently using energy, water, and other resources

· Protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity
· Reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation
For example, green buildings may incorporate environmentally responsible materials in their
construction (e.g., reused, recycled-content, or made from renewable resources); create healthy indoor
environments with minimal pollutants (e.g., reduced product emissions); and/or feature landscaping
that reduces water usage (e.g., by using native plants that survive without extra watering) (USEPA
2013). The essential difference between a green and a sustainable building is that green buildings are
mostly designed to reduce the environmental impacts of buildings. Sustainable
buildings are designed and developed not only to produce environmentally responsible buildings but
also to emphasize the connections of the building with the socio-economic aspects of sustainability.
4.3 Genesis of Building Rating Tools / Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems
The tourism industry as whole was traditionally seen as embracing activities with few, if any, negative
impacts. However, the potential for adverse effects is increasingly being recognized. A considerable
amount of literature already deals with the negative impacts of tourism in Malaysia, such as Teh &
Cabanban (2007) Lee (2010), Kumar & Kunasekaran (2011), Marzuki (2010), Abdullah (2002) and
You (2007). However, a key question remains largely unanswered: which instruments are likely to
enable more sustainable management of tourism resort development?
Since the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, greenhouse gases and ozone depletion have
become household words. In the early 1990s, green building ratings began to be developed in
industrialised nations such as the UK (BREEAM 1990) and later the USA (LEED 1996) (Leach et al
1996). This was the result of a realization that buildings and the built environment contribute
significantly to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and thus buildings needed to be designed more
carefully to reduce their negative impacts on the environment.
76
The demand for sustainable buildings and development with minimal negative environmental impact
is increasing (Ali & Nsirat 2011). This is due to the current situation such as rising energy costs and
growing environmental concerns among governments and the public. Recent studies indicate that the
environmental and human health benefits of sustainable buildings have been widely recognized by
developers and architects (Kwong 2010, Heerwagen & Zagreus 2005, Lutzkendorf & Lorenz 2005).
In the tourism industry, many academics, community groups, governments, non government
organizations (NGOs) and international organizations have attempted to convert their theoretical
intentions in relation to sustainable development into practice (Dief & Font 2009). Sustainability
assessment systems are gaining currency in developing countries as an incentive-based alternative to
concerns over costly, inflexible and seldom-enforced mandatory regulations.
A significant number of developed nations and international organizations have introduced

assessment systems to help the tourism industry to achieve sustainable tourism. Sasidharan et al
(2007) found that using sustainability assessment systems in the tourism facilities development
process helps to reduce negative impacts (3.4.2 Threats Due to Tourism Development) which
conventional practices are unlikely to address. In addition, sustainable tourism assessment systems
can produce long term financial benefits for the facility‘s owner, tourists and the local community (Ko
2010).
A sustainability assessment system for resort development in Malaysia would be highly important for
tourism development. The potential for an assessment system to maintain and even enhance the
physical environmental attributes of tourism enterprises and foster environmentally sensitive business
operations among such enterprises would make the concept particularly appealing to Malaysia. The
potential of sustainability assessment can be achieved successfully if the assessment system can be
applied to the local context (Chapter 3). The combination of local elements and existing criteria in
international assessment systems will provide a more comprehensive assessment and allow the best
possible decision making process.
A growing number of assessment tools have been developed by government bodies, non-
governmental organization (NGO), tourism associations and researchers worldwide. Most of the work
has focused on tools that can be used to rate the quality of resort development. This chapter explores
the potential of green building rating tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems for delivering
more sustainable resort developments in Malaysia. The main objectives of this chapter are to examine
the role and limitations of existing assessment systems in ascertaining resort sustainability in
Malaysia.
77
4.4 Sustainable Building Rating Tools and Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems
Information is critical for making the right decisions in the development process. For example,
tourism industry stakeholders prefer to build developments that can both provide benefits to the
environment and comfortable, safe and hygienic experiences for tourists. However, these aspects are
not easy to identify and provide. Some of the information is too technical and may not be fully
understood by the various stakeholders. Furthermore, in some cases the cost of getting the information
to enable comparison between buildings is too high and most tourism operators especially in
developing countries cannot afford it (Jarvis et al 2010, Perez-Lombard 2008). One purpose of
assessment systems for buildings at tourism destinations is to provide a path to channel the relevant
information to interested parties. Assessment systems and rating tools are useful for revealing the
quality of a resort development and facilitating the screening process in the design stage (Schianetz et
al 2009).
According to Al-Waer et al (2008), the various parties in the building development process interpret
building performance differently according to their particular interests. For example, in the tourism
industry a resort owner may wish their building to perform well from a financial point of view, while
the tourist may be concerned about comfort, health, indoor air quality and safety issues. Using a single
method to evaluate a resort‘s environmental performance and to satisfy all these needs is not a simple
task. Therefore a comprehensive resort assessment must include all the various requirements of the
different parties involved in the development (Ko 2005).
Resort developments have significant impacts on the natural, built, social and economic environments
(Prideaux 2000). Resort development is expected to increase in Malaysia in parallel with new
government policies and plans for the future and to accommodate tourist growth projections (Hamid
et al 2011).
Tourism development regulations often fail to consider the overall impacts of tourism facilities and
buildings because they deal more with economic benefits and government policy. Furthermore,
regulations usually do not address design and construction issues, specifically in resort development
(Lee 2010). Tourism experts have recognized this problem, and have identified a need for the tourism
industry to adopt policies and programs for tourism facilities to meet environmental and sustainability
goals (Richins & Scarinci 2010). Internationally, especially in developed nations, plans for building
development are often based on rating tools or assessment systems. These are tools used to evaluate or
rate how developments, neighbourhoods, groups and individual buildings address social,
environmental and economic matters compared to conventional practice (Al-Waer 2008, Ding 2008,
San-Jose et al 2007).
78
Most existing assessment systems have similar roots, and some are expanding and getting worldwide
recognition (Cole, 2005). Assessment systems can support sustainable policies and plans by providing
resort development stakeholders with ways to measure the sustainability of their buildings (Retzlaff
2008). However, there are important substantive differences between sustainable tourism assessment
systems used to rate the operational phase of resort developments and green building rating tools to
evaluate the design and construction phase. Moreover, there is little information to guide tourism
facility developers in choosing between them (Blancas et al 2010). This current research will also
compare the assessment tools available internationally for rating resort development. Two types of
tools, green building rating tools (LEED, Green Mark and GBI Malaysia) and sustainable tourism
assessment systems (EarthCheck, Green Globe and CST) will be evaluated. The research will
consider their strengths, weaknesses and site specific applicability. The findings will guide the
researcher in developing a framework for a Malaysian sustainable resort rating tool that best suits
local contexts.
4.5 Overview of Green Building Rating Tools
The aim of building rating tools is to establish standards for green buildings by evaluating
performance against environmental and sustainability criteria (Fowler & Rauch 2006). Building
assessment systems usually comprise a checklist of criteria or elements. Some of the criteria may be
optional. According to Fowler & Rauch (2006), different point values assigned to each criterion
effectively weight them to account for their differing importance in relation to sustainability issues.
Building rating tools often use a scoring system to assign a ranking, such as platinum, gold, silver or
bronze. The concept of rating tools to evaluate the sustainability and environmental impacts of
building development is not new and comprehensive efforts have been made in developed nations to
include different types of buildings. Building rating tools in recent years have begun to include
assessments at neighbourhood and community scale rather than focusing solely on building
technology and design (Retzlaff 2008). However, there is much debate on which sustainability
indicators are appropriate for evaluating single buildings or single development projects (Lutzendorf
& Lorenz 2006, Norris 2006).
A range of tools based on different local characteristics and interests are currently applied to
environmental assessment of the built environment. There are two categories of building assessment
systems (Reijinders & Van Roekel 1999) covering qualitative tools based on scores and criteria, and
quantitative tools using life cycle analysis (LCA) with measurable input and output data. With a
relatively wide coverage of environmental characteristics, the qualitative tools include SBTool,
CASBEE, BREEAM, LEED, LOTUS (Vietnam) and the Green Building Index Malaysia (GBI
79
Malaysia). Qualitative tools for example LOTUS (Vietnam) is a set of green building rating tools
developed by the Vietnam Green Building Council (VGBC) specifically for the Vietnamese
built environment, launched in 2010. They were developed based on established international
green building rating tools such as Green Star, Green Mark, GBI (Malaysia) and also LEED.
Quantitative tools based on building characteristics have been applied extensively on various building
types, for example EcoEffect, EnvironmentLoad Profile (ELP), Eco-Quantum and BEAT 2000.
Several building performance assessment schemes have been applied in Malaysia. These schemes
include LEED, Green Mark and GBI (Malaysia). These three rating systems are considered the most
relevant for the purpose of this research.
4.5.1 LEED
LEED was set up by the USGBC (US Green Building Council) and launched in 1998 to improve the
way that the construction industry addressed sustainability by providing a simple and easy to use
label. The LEED system has been updated and reviewed, the latest version (project version 4) being
issued in 2013. The structure of LEED is organized around ‗inputs‘, as represented in Figure 4-1. The
elements are categorized into six main in aspects: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and
atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality and innovation and design process
(Fowler & Ranch 2006). Under each category, there is a list of specified elements that are embraced
by the overall assessment. For example under the water efficiency category, the assessment focuses
on landscaping water use reduction, indoor use reduction and wastewater strategies.
LEED
Sustainable Energy & Water Innovation & Indoor Material &

Site Atmosphere Efficiency Design Process Environment Resources
Figure 4-2: LEED Assessment criteria
80
LEED assessment criteria Indicators
1. Sustainable Site  Construction activity pollution prevention

 Site selection
 Development density and community connectivity
 Brownfield redevelopment
 Alternative transportation – public transportation
access
 Alternative transportation – bicycle storage and
changing rooms
 Alternative transportation – low emitting and fuel-
efficient vehicles
 Alternative transportation – parking capacity
 Site development – protect or restore habitat
 Site development – maximum open space
 Stormwater design – quality control
 Stormwater design – quantity control
 Heat island effect – non - roof
 Heat island effect – roof
 Light pollution reduction
2. Water Efficiency  Water use reduction
 Water efficient landscaping
 Innovative wastewater technologies
 Water use reduction
3. Energy and Atmosphere  Fundamental commissioning of building energy

systems
 Minimum energy performance
 Fundamental refrigerant management
 Optimize energy performance
 On-site renewable energy
 Enhanced commissioning
 Enhanced refrigerant management
 Measurement and verification
 Green power
4. Material & Resources  Storage and collection of recyclables

 Building reuse – Maintain exiting walls, floors and
roof
 Building reuse – maintain interior non-structural
elements
81
 Construction waste management
 Material reuse
 Recycle content
 Regional materials
 Rapidly renewable materials
 Certified wood
5. Indoor Environment Quality  Minimum indoor air quality performance

 Environment tobacco smoke (ETS) control
 Increased ventilation
 Construction IAQ management plan – during
construction
 Construction IAQ management plan – before
occupancy
 Low-emitting materials – adhesives and sealants
 Low-emitting materials – paints and coatings
 Low-emitting materials – flooring systems
 Low emitting materials – composite wood and
agrifiber products
 Indoor chemical and pollutant source control
 Controllability of systems – lighting
 Controllability of systems – thermal comfort
 Thermal comfort – design
 Thermal comfort – verification
 Daylight and views – daylight
 Daylight and views – views
6. Innovation and Design Process  Innovation in design

 LEED accredited professional
Table 4-1: LEED rating criteria and indicators (LEED 2013)
4.5.2 BCA Green Mark
The Green Mark scheme developed by the Singapore Building and Construction Authority
was launched in January 2005 as an initiative to promote a sustainable environment and raise
environmental awareness among developers, designers and builders during project
conceptualization and design, as well as during construction (Hashim et al 2008). The BCA
Green Mark framework and assessment criteria are illustrated in Figure 4-2 below.
82
Green Mark
Award
Pre-requisite
Requirements
Energy Related Other Green

Requirements Requirements
minimm 30 points minimum 20 points
Part 3 - Part 4 - Indoor

Part 1 - Energy Part 2 - Water Part 5 - Other
Environmental Environmental
Efficiency Efficency Green Features
Protection Quality
Figure 4-3: BCA Green Mark assessment criteria
Elective Requirements for Energy Improvement

(a combination of the following items to meet 30 points)
Part 1 – Energy Efficiency o Thermal performance of building
envelope – ETTV
o Air-condition system
o Building envelope – design/Thermal
Parameter
o Natural Ventilation / Mechanical
ventilation
o Day lighting
o Artificial lighting
o Ventilation in car parks
o Ventilation in common Areas
o Lifts and escalators
o Energy efficient practices & features
o Renewable energy
Elective Requirement from Other Areas
(Combination of the following items to meet 20 points)
Part 2 – Water Efficiency o Water efficient fittings
o Water usage and leak detection
o Irrigation system and landscaping
o Water consumption of cooling towers
Part 3 – Environmental Protection o Sustainable construction
o Sustainable products
o Greenery provision
o Environmental management practice
o Green transport
o Refrigerants
o Stormwater management
o Recycle
Part 4 – Indoor environmental Quality o Thermal comfort
o Noise level
o Indoor air pollutants
o Indoor air quality (IAQ) management
o High frequency ballasts
Part 5 – Other Green Features o Green features and innovations
Table 4-2: BCA Green Mark assessment criteria
83
4.5.3 GBI Malaysia
Green Building Index Malaysia was developed by Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM), and
the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM). It is a profession-driven
initiative to lead the Malaysian property industry towards becoming more environmentally
responsible. It is intended to promote sustainability in the built environment and raise
awareness among developers, architects, engineers, planners, designers, contractors and the
public about environmental issues (Banani 2013). The rating system will provide an
opportunity for developers to design and construct green buildings that can deliver energy
savings, water savings, a healthier indoor environment, better connectivity to public transport
and the adoption of recycling and greenery for their project (Zulkipli 2013, Rahardjati 2011).
Buildings are awarded the GBI Malaysia rating based on six key criteria, as illustrated in
Figure 4-3.
Energy Efficiency
Material & Resources
Innovation
GBI MALAYSIA
Water Efficiency
Indoor Environmental Quality
Sustainable Site Planing &

Management
Figure 4.4: GBI Malaysia assessment criteria
84
Assessment Criteria Indicators
Energy Efficiency o Minimum EE performance (mandatory compliance)

o Advanced EE performance
o Renewable energy
o External lighting and control
o Internet connectivity
o Sustainable maintenance and building user manual
(BUM)
Indoor Environmental Quality o Air quality
o Minimum indoor air quality performance
o Volatile organic compounds minimisation
o Formaldehyde minimisation
o Lighting, visual and acoustic comfort
o Day lighting
o External views
o Sound insulation
o Evaluation
o Post occupancy evaluation
Sustainable Site Planning & Management o Site Planning
o Site selection & planning
o Rehabilitation of brownﬁeld sites OR re-
development
o Existing buildings
o Community connectivity
o Construction Management
o Earthworks – construction activity
Pollution control
o QLASSIC – quality assessment system
For building
o Construction work
o Workers‘ site amenities
o IBS – industrialised building system
o Transportation
o Public transportation access
o Dedicated cycling network
o Design
o Stormwater design – quantity and quality
control
o Heat island effect – greenscape and
water bodies
o Heat island Effect – hardscape
o Heat island effect – roof
o Composting
Material & Resources o Reused & recycled materials
o Materials reuse and selection
o Recycled content materials
o Sustainable resources
o Regional materials
o Sustainable timber
o Waste management
o Storage and collection of recyclables
Water Efficiency o Water harvesting & recycling

o Rainwater harvesting
o Waste water recycling
Increased efficiency o Water efficiency irrigation and landscaping

o Water efficient fittings
Innovation o Innovation in design and environmental
Design initiatives
o Green building index facilitators
Table 4.3: GBI Malaysia assessment criteria and indicators
85
4.6 An Overview of Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems
Tourism industry stakeholders and tourists have been concerned about environmental and
other negative impacts of tourism on host countries. Considerable work has gone into
developing systems to measure tourism performance. Experts in the tourism industry have
been developing assessment systems to evaluate how successful tourism development is with
regards to balancing energy; built environment and natural ecology, taking into account both
the social and technological aspects of projects (Spencer 2013). Evaluation systems, eco-
labelling schemes, awards and certification are currently being utilized as instruments by the
tourism industry in developed nations for protecting the environment (Morgan 1999).
The tourism industry has the potential to produce negative impacts on host countries (Lee
2010). According to Min et al (2001) the assessment system concept would be highly
beneficial to developing nations to enable their tourism industries to improve environmental
performance by adopting effective and tangible environmental management techniques.
Furthermore, the use of assessment systems would support the tourism industries of
developing countries in marketing their services to high spending, environmentally conscious
developed-nation tourists. Such tourists are not inclined to be satisfied with conventional
tourism which only promotes beautiful destinations without considering proper
environmental management (Haaland & Aas 2010).
Tourism in developing countries has resulted in depletion, degradation and in some cases
total destruction of natural resources essential to local economies (Pickering & Hill 2007,
Baker 1997 & Shackly 1996). In Malaysia, stakeholders may consider the adoption of
assessment systems as a viable option to curb tourism‘s negative impacts. The development
of assessment tools in the tourism industry is not new in developed nations and some
countries already have their own system, for example Green Globe, Earth Check and CST
discussed below (Bowman 2011).
The concept of developing an assessment system to evaluate how well a development meets
the sustainability principles for tourism destinations is new in developing countries, however,
and needs considerable work in developing countries like Malaysia in order to include a
range of strategies for resort development. These assessment systems provide comprehensive
criteria for their regions, provide operational resort development evaluation and use
86
measurable criteria to identify how well sustainability principles are integrated (Bowen
2011).
Developed countries such as Australia, United States of America and United Kingdom are
more aware about pollution issues and environmental degradation than developing countries
like Malaysia. They have attained significant progress in environmental management in their
tourism sectors through developing sustainable assessment systems and sustainable practices
(Ali & Nsirat 2011). On the other hand developing nations are unlikely to have addressed
many of the key aspects required for sustainability. Dealing with sustainability objectives is
therefore likely to be a main agenda item in developing nations.
There is a growing number of sustainability assessment systems developed for the tourism
sector worldwide. These assessment systems have been developed by various institutions and
for different purposes. The emerging role of tourism assessment systems requires discussion
of both the structure and the context of the different systems.
4.6.1 Green Globe
Green Globe is a private company based in California with partners in 83 countries

worldwide. Green Globe Certification maintains a global network of independent auditors
who provide third party inspection and validation. The Green Globe Standard is a structured
assessment of the sustainability performance of travel and tourism businesses and their
supply chain partners. Green Globe covers a wide range of sectors of the tourism industry,
including accommodation (hotels and resorts), airlines, airports, attractions, convention
centres, ecotourism, restaurants, transportation and vineyards (Green Globe 2013). The
standard assessment criteria cover the following areas:
 Sustainable Management
 Social and Economic
 Cultural Heritage
 Environment
87
4.6.2 EarthCheck
EarthCheck is an independent company operating its own benchmarking and certification

standard which has been founded to offer certification to businesses throughout the tourism
industry internationally (EarthCheck 2013). EarthCheck is owned by EC3Global based in
Brisbane, Australia, developed by the not-for-profit sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research
Centre and used by more than 1000 organizations in over 60 countries in the tourism business
around the world. It provides a means to independently calculate Scope One, Two and Three
greenhouse gas emissions and improve operational efficiencies. EarthCheck reports are verified
by an international network of independent auditors. The sectors of the tourism market covered
by the scheme are accommodation, nature/wildlife reserves, restaurants, tourist attractions,
conference centres, and other tourism service providers. There are five main assessment criteria
within EarthCheck:
 Energy Saving
 Water Saving
 Waste Stream Saving
 Community Commitment and Contribution
 Paper, Cleaning and Pesticide Products
4.6.3 Certification for Sustainable Tourism: CST
The Certification for Sustainable Tourism Program - CST - is a product of the Costa Rican
Tourism Board. The CST was designed to differentiate businesses in the tourism sector based
on the degree to which they comply with a sustainability model of natural, cultural and social
resource management. CST is regulated by the Costa Rican National Accreditation
Commission and to this effect, four fundamental aspects are evaluated:
 Physical-Biological Parameters
o environment protection initiatives
 Infrastructure and Services
o evaluates management policies and operational systems
 Service Management
o sustainability management
88
 External Client
o the extent to which the company invites the client to be an active contributor
to the company‘s sustainable initiatives
 Socio-Economic Environment
o evaluates the identification and interaction of the establishment with the
adjacent communities
4.6.4 Comparison of Sustainable Tourism Assessment Systems
There are common concerns between these three tourism assessment systems, such as
emphasizing energy and water efficiency and both indoor and outdoor environmental quality.
At the same time each assessment/certification system has its own emphases according to the
local context: for example, CST considers energy, water and waste management as one item
in the assessment categories and gives them an overall score. On the other hand, EarthCheck
valuates these elements as individual items and awards more substantial credits. Although all
four systems rate energy efficiency highly, (it forms more than 20% of the total credits for
each system) each system treats the assessment categories differently depending on the
context of its country of origin. For example, Green Globe ranks environmental impacts very
highly with more than 50% of the total credits available devoted to this category. It is a
system designed for developed nations like the USA, so Green Globe places the environment
at the centre of its concerns. On the other hand, tourism sustainability assessment systems
suitable for developing nations will need to give greater weight to economic and social
development (Table 4-4).
EarthCheck and Green Globe use software based assessment and on site third party
assessment measurement based on accepted energy and environmental principles. The
EarthCheck framework consists of the following six major categories: energy, emissions,
water, waste, community involvement, paper use, cleaning and pesticide use. Green Globe
focuses on four main areas: sustainable management, socio-economic, cultural heritage and
environment.
CST uses an evaluation questionnaire developed specifically for accommodation facilities

operators. The questionnaire for hotel and resort establishments consists of 153 questions,
89
divided into 20 descriptors grouped into four categories: physical-biological environment,
infrastructure and services, external clients and socio-economic environment. Each question
reflects a positive condition in terms of sustainability, so the evaluation seeks to determine
what percentage of these positive conditions is being met in a particular company.
Assessment method Origin Characteristics
Green Globe (Green Globe 2013) United States of America (1994)  Evaluates sustainability of
travel and tourism
business performance
 Covers operation and
management
 Web-based evaluation
process and third party
evaluation on site
EarthCheck (EarthCheck 2013) Australia (1999)  Operational assessment

for tourism
accommodation, tourism
activities, administration
offices for tourism
activities, cruise vessels,
display & retail,
restaurants and spas,
vehicles & visitor centres.
 Uses third party audit and
online assessment
Certification for Sustainable Costa Rica  CST - is regulated by the

tourism: CST (CST 2013) Costa Rican National
Accreditation
Commission and consists
of a scale of 5 "levels" of
sustainable tourism
achievement
 Uses a purpose-design
questionnaire to evaluate
the level of sustainability
of business in the tourism
sector.
 Seeks to categorize and
certify each tourism
company according to the
degree to which its
operations comply with a
model of sustainability.
Table 4-4: Key characteristics of sustainable tourism assessment systems
90
4.7 Comparisons of Different Schemes
As the assessment systems been developed in different parts of the world, their objectives
diverge and include specific elements to suit their own purposes. In this section, the six
assessment systems reviewed above are compared and their similarities and differences are
discussed (Table 4.5). The analysis is based on the assessment criteria, stages of building
being assessed, nature of the assessment, assessment methodology and weighting factors.
Table 4-5 provides a summary.
Criteria LEED Green GBI Green EarthCheck CST

Mark (Malaysia) Globe
Nature of Voluntary X X X X X X
assessment
Mandatory
Building Residential X X X
group
Non residential X X X X X X
New buildings X X X X
Existing X X X X X X
buildings
Stages of Planning X X X X
building
being Design X X X X
assessed Construction X X X X
Operation X X X X
Scope of Social X X X
Assessment Environmental X X X X X X
Economic X X X X X X
Governance X X X
Nature of 3rd party X X X X X X
assessment evaluation
Software X X X X X X
evaluation
Questionnaire X
analysis
Weighting Equal category X
factors weights
Different X X X X
category
weights
Weighted by X
panel
Table 4-5: Comparison of the features of different schemes
91
4.7.1 Nature and Purposes of Assessment
All six systems reviewed here (Table 4.5) are voluntary and they serve different purposes.
LEED, GreenMark and GBI Malaysia are green building rating systems, while Green Globe,
EarthCheck and CST are sustainable tourism certification systems. Moreover, unlike the
three building rating tools, Green Globe, EarthCheck and CST focus specifically on tourism
facilities, including resort buildings, and aim to provide balanced sustainability assessments.
Conversely green building rating systems are designed to cover as many buildings types as
possible within limited resources and time frames.
4.7.2 Target Building Group
The three green building rating systems cover almost all building types in America (LEED),
Singapore (GreenMark) and Malaysia (GBI Malaysia). However, Green Globe, EarthCheck
and CST only assess tourism-related buildings. Moreover most of the parameters measured
under sustainable tourism assessment systems cater for existing development only. It is noted
that the objective of the sustainable tourism assessment systems is to function as operational
tools to give guidance to tourism operators as to what constitutes sustainable tourism. In
contrast, green building rating tools are intended to classify the design and construction of
buildings regarding environment, health and safety conditions. The building rating tools are
tailored to various types of buildings and the three reviewed here include a specific focus on
office and residential buildings.
4.7.3 Scope of Assessment
Among the six schemes, the coverage of Green Globe has the widest scope of assessment for
resort development. It covers sustainable management, social, economic, cultural heritage
and environmental aspects. The GBI Malaysia, GreenMark and LEED schemes emphasize
energy efficiency, indoor environment quality, design and site planning. The scope of CST
and Earthcheck comprises resource use and waste output, enhanced design and operational
efficiencies, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
4.7.4 Stages of Building Being Assessed
LEED, GreenMark and GBI Malaysia focus their assessment on the design and construction
phases. The ratings span planning, design, construction, commissioning, operations,
92
maintenance and management stages. The sustainability tourism assessment systems capture
important aspects of tourism development such as local community empowerment and local
culture conservation. EarthCheck and CST evaluate environmental, societal and local
community impacts on tourism development and are confined to the operational stage of the
tourism facilities; only Green Globe encompasses the design and construction stages of
tourism facility development.
4.7.5 Weighting Factors
Weighting represents the relative importance of a building factor in the overall assessment.
There are no weightings included in LEED since credits are uniformly worth one point and
where there are multiple performance levels each level is worth one point. As there are no
weightings, the value of each category is purely dependant on the number of points available.
The lack of category weightings combined with the checklist approach that LEED uses to
evaluate the impact of material use generally increases the weighting of the materials sections
in LEED compared to the other tools in this study. In LEED the materials section is worth
nearly 20% of the final score. In both GreenMark and GBI Malaysia it is worth only a small
proportion of the overall final score, which more closely reflects the relationship between the
embodied and operational energy of a building.
The factor weightings for GreenMark and GBI Malaysia are varied and inherent. In the
GreenMark assessment system, points are awarded for incorporating environmentally
responsible features, which exceed normal practice. GBI Malaysia rates buildings according
to six independent criteria, each of which is assigned a different weight, with a total score of
50 required to achieve certification. For all three sustainable tourism assessment systems the
weightings are varied.
4.7.6 Nature of Assessment
For LEED, the project team compiles the documentation required for the assessment so a
trained assessor is not required, although there is a credit available for appointing a LEED
Accredited Professional as part of the design team. Once the project team has compiled all
the documentation it is submitted to the USGBC who review the evidence and calculate the
score. Assessment is completed either online, or as hard copy.
93
For Green Mark, there are four main stages of the certification process which is application,
pre-assessment, actual assessment and verification. A pre-assessment audit is conducted to
give the project team a better understanding of the criteria and evaluation of the certification
level sought. The assessment process includes design and documentation to verify if the
building project meets:
(i) The intent of the criteria and certification level, and

(ii) The pre-requisite requirements for BCA Green Mark rating where applicable.
Letters of award showing the BCA Green Mark rating are issued at this stage. In the
verification stage energy modelling against the reference model is to be carried out to
ascertain the energy savings, and the verification certificate will then be issued.
For GBI Malaysia there are three main stages in the certification process: application and
registration, design assessment and completion and verification assessment (CVA). In the
first stage the applicant submits the application details. In the design assessment stage the
GBI certifier will then undertake the design assessment process. This may involve a
presentation by the applicant and their project design team or by the GBI evaluator. The GBI
certifier will upon completion, table the assessment report to the GBI assessment panel to
register and award the certification. The GBI score sheet will then be issued to show the
scores achieved. Upon completion of the project, the applicant should submit for the CVA.
The final GBI award is issued by the GBI accreditation panel upon completion of this CVA
assessment.
For the Earthcheck tourism assessment system, every year factual operational data is
submitted for comparative sector benchmarking. Those wishing to undertake certification
must first submit to a third party independent audit with an approved EarthCheck partner and
once the auditor's report has been received confirming full compliance with EarthCheck
standards, the applicant receives the relevant level of certification.
The Green Globe certification process includes appointing a third party auditor to work with
clients on-site. The auditor is selected by the client from Green Globe‘s international network
to provide assistance and perform an independent evaluation upon completion of the
certification process.
94
To support evaluation of the level of sustainability of tourism businesses CST has developed
an evaluation questionnaire. The CST standard includes four fields to which the applicant
company must respond: physical-biological environment, infrastructure and services, external
client satisfaction and socio-economic criteria. These four general areas are divided into
descriptors that represent sources of positive/negative impacts generated by the tourism
facility‘s activities. For each general descriptor a set of categorization questions is designed
to evaluate the facility‘s performance.
4.8 Towards a Sustainable Tourism Rating Tool for Malaysia
Based on the above analysis, it is proposed that a Malaysian sustainable tourism assessment
system should incorporate existing criteria from international systems where they are
appropriate. They should also include elements which are rarely found in international
assessment systems which are important because they acknowledge the local context and
relevant government policies, as set out below.
4.8.1 Adoption of Alternative Energy Sources
Government strategies to achieve its economic transformation program include among others
the diversification of alternative energy sources and technologies, maximizing use of
indigenous energy resources and minimizing negative environmental impact in any
development. The Tenth Malaysian Plan (2011-2015) focuses on renewable technology as a
significant contributor to meeting total energy demand as well as representing better
utilization of existing energy sources (Ahmad et al 2011). Malaysia as a tropical nation must
harness more of its potential, especially from the sun and hydroelectric. The country is
blessed with these resources all year round, and could turn them into energy through
application of appropriate technologies. Moreover, research by Darus et al (2009) found that
the potential of solar and wind energy and possible integration of other form of renewable
energy can be achieved successfully in Malaysia.
95
4.8.2. Manipulation of Passive Building Design Elements to Improve Environmental
Sustainability for the Resort Industry
Most resort and hotel developments in Malaysia were built near beaches or highland areas
because these are the main attractions for tourists visiting Malaysia. According to Ikeda,
2009, two ideal building locations to take advantage of natural ventilation are:
(i) Locations which receive land and sea breezes, and

(ii) Locations which receive prevailing winds in valleys, normally found in hilly areas.
At a seaside location during the daytime the land heats more rapidly than the sea. It is
possible to integrate passive building design to take advantage of this phenomenon. It would
help curb the current trend of reliance on energy-dependent ventilation and/or cooling
mechanisms for achieving good indoor air quality in resorts, which can be costly and may
still be insufficient. For that reason, any plan to minimize energy consumption needed to
achieve good IAQ conditions in resorts must exist alongside a plan to naturally and passively
improve overall IAQ.
Furthermore, studies in the Southeast Asian region have shown that the use of day lighting
can reduce overall energy consumption by 20% and also reduce the sensible heat load on air
conditioning for hotel and resort buildings (Hopkirk, 1994). Lighting energy consumption in
Malaysia is about 25–35% of the total energy supplied to buildings. Incorporating passive
building design to provide natural light can be implemented in Malaysian resorts because
Malaysia receives significant natural daylight.
4.8.3. Using Traditional / Local Materials in Resort Design
The use of local materials has given Malaysia some wonderful natural benefits because these
materials require little processing or transport and cost little. These include renewable
resources such as trees and some non-renewable resources such as rocks and sand which are
in abundant supply. One of the advantages of building with local materials is that they seem
to fit perfectly with a sense of place. Good quality local materials can often be found in the
vicinity of planned resorts and can be used in the development process. Use of local materials
96
will make the resort building more aesthetically acceptable and also should provide the same
mechanical strength and ability to withstand the effects of climatic conditions (Medina 2005).
Using local materials in the development process will also provide economic benefits to local
communities (Medina 2005).
4.8.4. Cultural Adaptation
Tourists come to Malaysia for two main reasons - culture and landscape. It is important to
protect these two elements in order to maintain international competitiveness. Most
international tourism assessment systems do consider preservation of local culture as an
element in the evaluation criteria.
However, these assessment systems do not match the local context of Malaysia and tourists‘
expectations in relation to the local culture. For example cultural traditions regarding nature
appreciation differ between Malaysia and the west, affecting eco-tourism behaviour, tour
operation management and infrastructure design (King et al 1993, Cartier 1996, Henderson
2003, Khan 2013).
Social-cultural implications of over development of the cultural landscape and heritage sites,
shifting attitudes of local society and erosion of cultural identity are likely to be down-played
by the development process as well as existing assessment tools. In the latter case, it is
primarily due to the methodological complications associated with measuring socio-cultural
impacts and resolving them (Sasidharan et al, 2002).
4.8.5. Design, Site Selection and Construction Phase Evaluation
Most international tourism sustainability assessment systems only incorporate criteria for the
operational phase and existing buildings, while in Malaysia more than 60% of the resorts are
new developments (Lee, 2010). Furthermore, under the government‘s new economic program
(PEMANDU, 2011) many more resorts will built by 2020 in order to enhance the Malaysian
economy. However, most existing international assessment systems do not consider site
selection, design or the construction process in their assessment criteria. It is important for
Malaysian resort development to include these early stages in the evaluation as well to
97
provide a more holistic approach to match the Malaysian local context and align with new
government policies.
4.9 Summary
A sustainability assessment system for resort development in Malaysia would be highly

beneficial for tourism development. The potential for an assessment system to maintain and
even enhance the physical environmental attributes of tourism enterprises and foster
environmentally sensitive business operations among such enterprises, would make the
concept particularly appealing to Malaysia. Furthermore, assessment systems can help
maximize beneficial social and economic impacts, rather than merely concentrating on the
more conventional approach of minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
Existing sustainability assessment systems examined in this paper have their limitations
because they were developed in different countries with different cultures, climates and
tourism problems. These reduce the effectiveness and usefulness of the assessment tools in
the Malaysian context. Most international assessment systems concentrate on site specific
environmental impact assessment, rather than ―triple bottom line‖ or ―quadruple bottom-line‖
sustainability assessment, and are not easily adaptable to other nations, especially developing
nations. None of the systems have yet tackled the problem of adaptation to different social,
economic and technological environments and conditions. There is a strong likelihood that
the potential of sustainability assessment can be realized if development of the assessment
system is informed by the local context.
98
Chapter 5 – Research Methodology
5.1 Introduction
This Chapter presents in detail research methodology used in this research. The chapter will also
justify the overall methodology chosen for this research.
5.2 Sequential Mixed-mode Research Strategy
The review of current building rating systems in Chapter 4 also reveals that hierarchical layers are
used to structure all these systems. They usually comprise two weighted layers: individual criteria (or
rating categories) and individual indicators. Each indicator includes several measures, which are used
to assign points to the indicator. The weighted indicators are aggregated to assessment criteria, and
further aggregated to an overall score. The overall score is often given a certain grade to denote the
performance of a particular building or development. An example of a criterion, indicators and
measures is shown in Table 5-1.
Criterion Indicators Measures

Waste and Pollution  Waste reduction and A solid waste management
plan is implemented, with
management strategy
quantitative goals to
minimize waste that is not
reused or recycled.
 Pollution reduction The business implements
practices to reduce pollution
practices from noise, light, runoff,
erosion, ozone-depleting
compounds and air and soil
contaminants.
 Construction waste Acknowledge steps to
reduce construction waste
reduction strategies
 Recycling Acknowledge provisions to

encourage recycling
encouragement
provision
Table 5-1: Example of criteria and indicators
Figure 5-3 shows the hierarchical structure of the sustainable resort rating tool considered in this
research. The twelve sustainable resort rating tool criteria proposed in this research are based on
sustainability core values.
99
Measures Indicators Criteria
Measure 1a1
Indicator 1a
Measure 1a2
Criterion 1
Measure 1b1
Indicator 1b
Measure 1b2
Overall Score
Measure 2a1
Indicator 2a
Measure 2a2
Criterion 2
Measure 2b1
Indicator 2b
Measure 2b2
Figure 5-1: Hierarchical structure of the sustainable rating system
Assessment criteria consist of a number of individual indicators that serve as the detail to translate
general resort sustainability principles into the local context. Each individual indicator also includes
several measures so that performance can be evaluated. Weights will be given to criteria and
indicators in order to reach an overall rating score (see Section 5.5).
The majority of existing green building rating tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems were
developed using qualitative research techniques that gathered data from small groups of individuals
based on their experience, knowledge and interest. Ismail & Prasad (2011) suggested that there is a
distinct lack of quantitative data to certify and to support these qualitatively induced findings through
wider stakeholder or industrial community surveys. Due to limitations within individual research
methods and the complexities of the present research, both qualitative and quantitative methods are
proposed (Morse & Niehaus 2009) and discussed below.
100
For this research, qualitative research techniques are used to extract opinions about the development
of a framework for a sustainable resort rating tool, rating methodologies, performance indicators and
categories. In order to determine the importance or ―weight‖ of the indicators, quantitative research
methods were also employed.
During the early stage of this research, a number of qualitative and quantitative research methods
were considered in order to answer all three research questions:
Research Q1 & Q2:

Research Q1 & Q2:
2. Conduct interview with green
1. Conduct literature review to
building rating tool developer and
understand the concept of
sustainable tourism assessment
sustainability, Malaysian context,
system developer to understand the
existing rating tool frameworks and
process that would be needed to
their underlying concepts.
develop a sustainable rating tool.
Research Q2 & Q3: Research Q1 & Q2:
4. Conduct a survey of Malaysian 3. Conduct semi-structured interviews with sustainable

sustainable tourism stakeholders resort experts to determine criteria and indicators.
(local practitioners & academics) to
validate and determine weights for
each criterion and indicators.
Research Q2 & Q3:

Research Q2 & Q3:
6. Test rating framework on local
5. Formulate rating framework based on findings from case studies.
steps 2, 3 and 4.
Research Q3:
7. Present conclusions
Figure 5-2: Overview of Research Methodology
101
Research Question 1 (Q1):
Are current sustainable tourism assessment systems and green building rating tools capable of
adequately addressing the sustainability of Malaysian resort developments on their own?

How to develop a new generation rating tool for Malaysia sustainable resort development?

Can the new generation rating tool adequately evaluate the sustainability of Malaysian tourism resort
development?
The main aim of this research is to demonstrate the process of creating a new sustainable resort
development rating framework specifically for a developing country such as Malaysia. Therefore,
research methods such as focus groups, interviews involving a panel of local sustainable resort
development experts and questionnaire surveys involving sustainable tourism stakeholders were
considered and planned. The overall structure of the methodological approach is shown in Figure 5-1.
5.3 Developing a Sustainable Resort Development Rating Framework
The discussion in Chapter 4 indicates that international rating tools such as LEED and Green Globe,
are unlikely to be applicable or compatible with the specific features and conditions in Malaysia, and
the current version of the Malaysian green building rating system cannot effectively evaluate the
sustainability performance of tourism resorts.
The core part of a rating system involves identification of assessment categories, individual indicators
and measures. In practice they usually identified and validated through a ―focused exercise either
using a public hearing, public consultation process or working with representatives of major
stakeholders from government, NGOs, the private sector and academia‖ (Hardi et al 2012).
According to Rao & Rogers (2006) and Liu et al (2006), initial indicators identified from the above
method will be examined against the local context to ensure the selection of the most appropriate
indicators and the allocation of suitable weights. The examination is often conducted by groups of
local researchers and practitioners. During the examination, any indicators that are absent in the initial
indicator set can also be added. Examples of such a process include De Ridder (2007) and Cui et al
(2004).
102
Similarly, the methods used in this research to develop a framework for a Malaysian sustainable resort
rating tool involve four main stages (Figure 5-2). First, based on the interview with sustainable resort
development experts, an initial model set of criteria and indicators is generated. Second, the initial
criteria and indicators are examined by groups of local sustainable tourism practitioners and
academics (sustainable tourism stakeholders). Third, based on the survey results, assessment
indicators and the related weights for each of the criteria and indicators are developed. Finally, the
proposed framework for the assessment of resort sustainability in Malaysia is tested using existing
resorts as case studies in order to validate the practicality of the framework.
5.3.1 Structuring the Sustainable Resort Rating Tool
Charlot-Valdieu & Outrequin (2003) suggest that the point of departure for any sustainability
approach must follow the universal principles rooted in the Brundland definition. Chapter 2 of this
thesis identified four sustainability core values based on the Brundland Report.
Step One:
Identifying initial indicators based on
the interview with local experts
Step Two:
Initial indicators examined by
local practitioners and researchers
Step Three:
Determining criteria and indicator
related weights
Step Four:
Validate framework with local
case studies
Figure 5-3: Steps of developing the framework for the sustainable resort rating tool
103
The research started with interviews with developers of assessment systems and building rating tools
in order to understand the process that would be needed to develop a sustainability rating tool. Then,
structured interviews were chosen as one of the main data collection methods to determine criteria and
indicators for a rating tool applicable to sustainable resort development. From interviews with
sustainable resort development experts the research proposed twelve sustainability criteria and 51
indicators that interpreted the core sustainability values and guided this research in a practical way to
apply sustainability to resort development. Figure 5.3 shows the steps of developing a framework for
a resort sustainability rating tool.
5.4 The Initial Set of Indicators
5.4.1 Indicators
The initial set of indicators in this research refers to a list of details for criteria that are extracted from
interviews with sustainable resort development experts. It is a common method that develops locally
relevant indicators by learning from the experience of local experts.
Initial indicator sets extracted from interviews with local experts have been used to select
sustainability assessment indicators in other research. For example Ali & Nsirat (2010) derived 40
individual indicators for evaluation of green buildings in Jordan from local experts‘ interviews. Zhou
et al (2006) established 30 indicators for China‘s urban life quality by using a single round expert
interview.
5.4.2 Developing the Initial Set of Indicators and Their Measures
In this research, an initial set of 51 indictors is compiled based on interviews with sustainable resort
development experts. It covers all the common issues identified in Section 3.5.2 and many more
issues that are not addressed in other sustainable rating tools but judged by the author to be included
for the stakeholder survey.
The 51 indicators are classified into the twelve sustainability criteria. In order to evaluate the
performance of an indicator, each indicator consists of one to several measures (in total there are 70
measures, see Chapter 7). Measurement usually involves the use of benchmarks. However, there are
no existing benchmarks in Malaysia for many of the indicators proposed. This research has
recognized the difficulty of establishing such a suite of benchmarks since it is systematic work
typically requiring many rounds of large scale participation by various stakeholders covering the
104
public services sector, building sector, research sector and general public. For this research measures
are extracted from the literature review, existing tourism indicator measures developed by WTO
(2013) and also existing sustainable building rating tools. Using internationally established measures
and refining them for local circumstances has been used to select sustainability measures
internationally. For example Dijka & Zhang (2005) derived measures for evaluation of China‘s urban
sustainability from a sustainability indicators and measures database of 387 indicators through
consultations with local experts using a pre-recorded questionnaire.
5.5 Weighting System
As explained in Chapter 4, most of the tourism sustainability assessment systems and building rating
tools, including Green Globe and GBI, have considered the establishment of a weighting mechanism.
Weighting is applied to each criterion score for this research. This balances the inherent weighting
that occurs through the number of points available in any rating criterion (Wallace 2013). Generally,
when all claimed credits within each category are assessed, a percentage score is calculated and rating
tool weighting factors are applied (Wallace 2013). Some rating tools have also established a ‗formal
and hierarchical‘ weighting mechanism. Others are designed as ‗flat rate‘ rating tools with no formal
and comprehensive weighting factors involved. For example, there is no formal weighting technique
in LEED. However, the number of available credit points assigned to each of the assessment criteria
in LEED actually reflects the variations in importance between different assessment categories and
assessment indicators.
Weighting
Weighting
Figure 5-4: Weighting structure for the proposed rating framework
105
Cole (1999) suggested that, ―weighting is mechanism by which a very large number of performance
criteria are reduced to a small and more manageable number and (a score) is critical part of the
output module”(pp.232). A weighting instrument can help to regulate the measured values of
different development sustainability criteria and indicators used in the sustainable resort rating tool.
This means a formal and hierarchical weighting technique (Figure 5-4) is considered necessary in the
proposed rating framework. Weighting factors are applied to each of the criteria and the individual
indicators. Thus, there are two levels of weighting in the proposed rating framework (Figure 5-4).
5.5.1 Weighting the Criteria and Indicators
There are several techniques usually used for placing weights in sustainability and green building
rating systems. Liu et al (2006) for example describe three common methods used for establishing
weights in building rating tools:-
i. The most common technique is to let a panel of industry professionals discuss and then vote
for weights for sustainable building topics. Green Mark is one of the internationally
established rating tools that used this method (Liu et al 2006).
ii. The second technique is to rank the sustainability issues or topics on a semantic scale, for
example from unimportant to very important, and seek consensus on a broad base. The
BREEAM rating tool was developed in this way by canvassing a wide range of sustainability
experts (Deakin et al 2002, Liu 2005).
iii. The third method is to establish weights following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
The AHP is mathematical decision making technique that involves structuring multiple choice
criteria into a hierarchy and assessing the relative importance of each factor by pairwise
comparison of all factors (Ali & Ngasirat 2010). The Swedish Eco Effect and Jordanian green
building rating tool SABA established weighting systems using the AHP method (Deng et al
2011, Liu et al 2006).
Research at the Center for Built Environment at the University of Gavle (Deng 2010, Liu et al 2006)
compared the above three weighting methods. Wallhagen (2010) reveals that “the individual results
differed depending on the scale used and as a whole there was little accordance in the answers”
(pp.102). Regarding the AHP technique it was concluded that “almost 50% of the answers turned out
to be unacceptably inconsistent according to the AHP inconsistency test”(pp.102).The study also
showed that “just rating on a semantic scale was the least distinct but probably gave most reliable
results” (Deng et al 2010, Wallhagen et al 2008, Liu et al 2006).
106
The technique adopted in this research to identify the relative importance of the criteria and individual
indicators is the same as used in developing BREEAM. It ranks the sustainability issues or topics on a
semantic scale from unimportant to very important. The scalar technique avoids the potential
problems of AHP. Most questions in the survey instruments required the respondents to rate their
answers on a Likert scale of 1-5, from ―very important‖ ―important‖ ―neither important nor
unimportant‖ ―unimportant‖ and ―very unimportant‖. The results can be analyzed to reflect the
perceptions of the respondents on the weights of a particular criterion and indicators.
5.6 Qualitative Methods
There are two main interview elements for this research: interviews with a green building rating tool
developer and a sustainable tourism assessment system developer to understand the process of
developing an assessment system; and interviews with sustainable resort development experts to
determine the initial set of variables to inform the quantitative survey phase.
5.6.1 Interview with Rating Tool Developers
In order to understand the overall process of creating building rating tools, this research interviewed a
building rating tool developer and a sustainable tourism assessment system developer. Data from
these interviews was then used to develop a questionnaire for interviews with sustainable resort
development experts to determine the characteristic categories and indicators for a framework for a
sustainable resort rating tool for Malaysia.
5.6.1.1 Data Collection Procedure
Individual interviews were considered a convenient way to collect the relevant information. The
interviews involved two rating tool developers in Australia and Vietnam. The two interviewees have
more than 5 years experience working in sustainable development and sustainable tourism
development.
5.6.2 Interview with Sustainable Resort Development Experts
Currently there are no accepted local data on developing sustainable resort rating tools in Malaysia
and South East Asian countries generally. According to Ali & Nsirat (2010) qualitative research is
able to extract relevant information and facts from individuals with relevant experience and
107
knowledge where national data is non-existent. One of the methods used for this research to gather
data is conducting semi-structured interviews.
5.6.2.1 Research Sampling
The idea of ‗sample‘ is linked to that of ‗population‘. Population refers to all cases (Robson 1993 pp.
135). A sample is ―a set of respondents selected from a larger population for the purpose of a survey‖
(Salant and Dillman, 1994 pp.53). Proper sampling can reflect the perception of a particular
population.
Probability samples and non-probability samples are the most common two sampling techniques used
in most survey research (Robson 1993 pp.136). Probability sampling is referred to as representative
sampling. Statistical inference about the population can be made from the responses of the sample.
Probability sampling involves identification of a population of interest, and then taking a random
sample as representative of the population. According to Pratt & Loizos (1992 pp.61) the main
characteristics of probability sampling are: an entire listing of the population to be studied, and a
random sampling.
Robson (1993 pp.140) explained that non-probability sampling refers to any sampling plan where it is
not possible to ensure any person (or other unit) has an equal chance to be included in the sample. The
fundamental characteristic of non-probability sampling is that subjective judgments are needed in
selection of the sample from the populations of interest. It is also possible to acquire adequate
information about the population of interest from non-probability samples, but not on statistical
grounds (Pratt & Loizos 1992 pp.61).
It involves choosing the most convenient persons to act as respondents. In most research, it would be
ideal to test the entire population, but in most cases, the population is just too large such that it is
impossible to include every individual (Castillo 2009). A convenience sample is the one obtained
when people who are willing to complete the survey are also available when needed (Castillo 2009
pp.29).
In many research projects, convenience sampling is the only technique available (Fowler 2009 pp.23).
Ideally this research would sample a population that is concerned with every aspect of tourism
sustainability from developers, architects, engineers, academics and government employees.
However, it would be impossible to put together a name list of all these stakeholders from which to
draw a probability sample (even the total number is unclear). Thus, using a convenience sampling
technique to investigate the key groups of stakeholders is the only practical way for this study.
108
5.6.2.2 Sampling for the Interviews with Sustainable Resort Development Experts
As noted above, it is impossible to investigate each stakeholder group by random sampling. There is a
need to identify the key group of stakeholders that have the greatest influence on tourism
sustainability.
The research involved 44 respondents who are professionals in sustainable tourism development in
Malaysia:
i. Fifteen respondents (34%) have more than five years experience in sustainable development
research or on sustainability projects and;
ii. The remaining 66% (29 respondents) have from two to five years.
Among the 44 respondents the researcher identified;
i. Seven individuals for interviewing who have direct experience designing, building and
operating sustainable resorts in Malaysia. Their perceptions based on personal experience
and knowledge was invaluable. These subjective data could only be gained using qualitative
research methods.
ii. In addition to the resort owners were 12 individuals who were active in consulting, designing
and advocating sustainable resort development and sustainability projects. These individuals
were also added to the list of interview respondents.
iii. The research also identified 17 academics specializing in sustainable tourism and sustainable
development generally. They have done research and are involved in developing sustainable
tourism facilities in Malaysia, so were also interviewed.
iv. Eight respondents working with the Malaysian government, who have experience in
supervising and managing development of tourism facilities in Malaysia, were also part of
this interview process.
109
Semi-structured Interviewees Respondent Number
Sustainable development professionals 12
Academics 17
Sustainable resort practitioners 7
Government employees 8
Total 44
Table 5-2: Interview participant numbers
5.6.2.3 Data Collection Procedure for the Interviews with Sustainable Resort Development
Experts
According to Salant & Dillman (1994), there are four main interview methods that are widely used:
mail interview, telephone interview, face to face interview and drop-off interview. Which method is
best for a particular survey depends not only on budget, number of researchers involved, time
constraints, but how the specific study topic and population are dealt with (Salant & Dillman 1994
pp.35).
According to the nature of the interviews in this research, face to face interview seems to be the most
suitable method for investigating the sustainable resort development experts because according to
Barbie (1995):
i. Face to face interviews typically attain higher response rates than do other methods.
ii. Discussion expected in an interview can be a valuable way of quickly establishing some basic
common ground and reach some consensus.
iii. It is a good way to address the complex questions in this interview.
iv. The number of the expected participants is manageable.
Respondents were initially contacted via email with information about this study without revealing
any of the questions to avoid any errors or biases. Once the respondents replied with consent, they
were contacted via telephone and appointments were arranged for personal interview.
110
The main aim of these interviews is to highlight the opinions of sustainable resort development
experts (Kvale 1996). The interviews provided views from many different angles compared with the
available literature and they are used as the basis for establishing the uniqueness of the research to
Malaysia with the experiences recorded in the literature from other countries.
Semi-structured interviews were more useful than structured interviews at gaining these data.
According to Gilham (2000) semi-structured interviews use specified questions but the interview
could then probe to seek clarification beyond given answers. Probes are questions designed to gain
clarification to responses in interview questions. Gilham (2000) and Kvale (1996) stated that
structured interviews were more rigid and did not allow the research to probe for more information
based on the responses to earlier questions. Gilham (2000) and Kvale (1996) also stated that
structured interviews were more applicable when formal engagement and interactions were needed.
On the other hand, semi-structured interviews could create a more relaxed atmosphere and could
reveal more information (Gilham 2000). Other social science researchers (Barbie 1998, Krueger &
Casey 2000, Kvale 1996) also explained that semi-structured interviews could be used to acquire
more research data through informal and spontaneous probes, leading to more appealing and valuable
information. This was particularly evident when a significant number of the respondents shared some
of their experiences and thoughts about specific issues that affected them the most during the
interviews.
Chapter 4 indicates that sustainable tourism assessment systems and green building rating systems,
such as LEED, Green Mark and GBI (Malaysia) (Green Building Rating) and EarthCheck, Green
Globe and CST are unlikely to be applicable or compatible with the specific conditions in Malaysia,
and the current version of Malaysian Green Building Index (building rating systems) cannot
effectively evaluate sustainability performance for tourism facilities.
According to Wu (2010) the core part of a rating system involves identification of assessment criteria
and individual indicators. In practice, they are usually identified and validated through a ―focused
exercise either using a public hearing/public consultation process or working with representatives of
Selected stakeholders (Experts) from government, NGOs, the private sector, academia and the
general public‖ (Hardi and Pinter 1995:3).
After the basis for this research was determined through literature review the researcher set out to plan
and organise the intended data collection method. At all times the research realised that the Aim of
this research was to demonstrate a development method for a new generation Sustainable Tourism
Rating System for Malaysia.
111
The interviewees chosen for this research were not randomly chosen from a pool of people. They
were chosen because they were the most knowledgeable about the topic (Sustainable tourism and
Sustainable Development) and have direct experience in designing, building and operating
sustainable resorts.. This idea are discussed in the book by Salant & Dillman (1994, p.8).
On the Contrary, choosing respondents randomly from a group of people would be

inappropriate since expert opinions were being solicited. Not everyone in Malaysian tourism
industry could answer all questions as outlined in Chapter 6. Nevertheless randomly selected
interviews could be still be engage but findings might not be as valuable.
5.6.2.4 Constructing the Interview Questions for the Interviews with Sustainable Resort
Development Experts
Based on the literature and on knowledge gained from interviews with developers of sustainable
tourism assessment systems and green building rating tools, a set of 22 questions were developed with
possible probes. This practice organizes the interviews and helps the researcher to think ahead of the
questions and probe for other relevant information (Babbie 1998). In order to keep participants from
drifting too far from the topic, the questions and probes for the semi-structured interviews acted as
prompts for the interviewer. All questions included in the interview are presented in Appendix B and
the results are presented in Chapter 6.
5.6.2.5 Interview Transcripts
The interviews with local stakeholders were conducted in a semi structured manner as
explained earlier. The analysis of interview transcripts revealed two layers of findings:
i) The straightforward ―Yes‖ or ―No‖ answers for 15 main questions in section 1 of

the interviews.
ii) The second layer of findings of the interview questionnaire contains questions
about categories and indicators that need to be included in the framework for the
sustainable resort development assessment system.
The second part of the interview analysis determined the actual sustainability issues in
specific local conditions that need to be considered in developing tourism facilities, following
the recommendations given by Strauss and Corbin (1998) for performing a content analysis.
112
Using NVivo software for qualitative analysis, the interviewees‘ responses to the semi-
structured interview questions were selected and grouped electronically following the method
suggested by the software handbook (Fonteyn & Wu, 2005). The questions were based on
literature review and prior expert interviews with developers of an existing sustainable
tourism assessment system (EarthCheck) in Australia and green building rating tool
(LOTUS) in Vietnam.
5.7 Quantitative Method
As stated earlier in this chapter, a quantitative research method was needed to add more weight to the
overall research findings from the qualitative research used initially. This is because the data gathered
from the semi-structured interviews with local sustainable resort development experts cannot be
generalized to represent the views of a wider community. In contrast to semi-structured interview
methods, many questions could be forwarded to the larger tourism industry and Malaysian built
environment stakeholders in order to create a consensus and establish an agreement on related issues
in developing a rating tool for sustainable resort development.
5.7.1 Sampling for the Survey with Sustainable Resort Development Stakeholders
The questionnaire was delivered to a group of respondents from different fields such as architecture,
environment (local authorities and the Department of Environment, Malaysia), renewable energy and
energy efficiency, tourism and urban and regional planning.
Convenience sampling was employed to select respondents from different fields. This technique can
be used in both qualitative and quantitative research. Kemper et al (2000) defined this technique as
reliable because the research sample comes from knowledgeable and experienced people.
The survey respondents were classified into five main groups as shown in Table 5-4. These
classifications are important because the overall results in section 2 through section 3 are defined by
views of different groups of respondents.
113
Survey Respondents Frequency
Built Environment Professional 11
Built Environment Academic 14
Tourism Industry Professional 9
Tourism Industry Academic 13
Government 7
Total 54
Table 5-3: The survey respondents
5.7.2 Data Collection Procedure for the Survey with Sustainable Resort Development
Stakeholders
Individual and group meetings that were employed in this survey are considered as a suitable way to
gather data from several people (Patton 2005, Pope et al 2000). This technique allows each respondent
to respond to questions, ask questions and exchange comments according to interviewee experiences
and points of view (Rubin & Babbie 2011). The survey instrument uses the following structure:
i. The first part of the questionnaire defines respondents‘ job classification

ii. The second part defines criteria weights
iii. The third part defines the indicator weights
In each part the participant has to rank measures according to their importance in contributing to a
sustainable resort assessment tool for Malaysia. By using this technique, the researcher can identify
the main criteria and indicators of the assessment system and their weightings. According to Patton
(2005) this technique of data collection is useful for this study because it will explain the results and
examine what people think, how they think and why they think that way, as the researcher meets the
respondents face to face and discusses the proposed assessment system with them.
The interviews took place wherever and whenever was suitable for the participant, after she or he
agreed to be interviewed. During the interview process, the researcher established clear roles on how
to answer the questions.
114
5.7.3 Constructing the Questionnaire for the Survey with Sustainable Resort Development
Stakeholders
According to Gillham (2000) and Kvale (1996) the survey questionnaire is the most feasible research
method for gathering information from a large number of people. The questionnaire survey is one of
the instruments used to determine attitude and orientations (Barbie 1995). According to Salant &
Dillman (1994 pp.80), “this tool is also one of the best tools available to estimate characteristics,
behavior or opinions of particular populations”. Salant & Dillman also explained that this is a good
way of describing a proportion of some population which has a particular attribute or opinion. If the
desired information is not available from a secondary source, then this type of instrument is an
acceptable method for obtaining information. Furthermore, most social science researchers, who focus
on collecting original data to describe a significant number of people, always use this type of
technique because of the consistency achieved in the results. (Barbie 1995).
Based on the review of current sustainable tourism assessment systems, building rating tools and also
the semi-structured interviews with local sustainable resort development stakeholders, preliminary
assessment criteria and indicators were established. The initial set of criteria and indicators are then
evaluated by local stakeholders through the questionnaire. Data gathered from the stakeholders‘
survey are then used to establish the final assessment criteria and indicators and the relative weight for
each of the indicators.
In developing the questionnaire for this research, two types of questions were considered: open ended
questions and structured questions. According to Gillham (2000), open ended questions do not
provide choices from which to select an answer. Instead, interviewees must formulate their answer in
their own words. In contrast, structured questions can be answered quickly but they do not provide
chances for respondents who wish to give an answer outside the options (Boynton & Greenhalgh
2004, Salant & Dillman 1994).
For this research, structured questions were primarily used in the survey questionnaire (Appendix D),
due to the objective of the survey which is to validate criteria and indicators that were developed by
local experts in the semi-structured interview phase. All structured questions were presented with a
Likert scale of 1-5, from very important to very unimportant.
Before the stakeholder survey started respondents firstly were asked to read the cover letter with
UNSW logo, ethics approval and also the brief description on the front page of the questionnaire.
Both documents provided information on the purpose of the study and why they should be part of the
115
survey. This helped respondents to establish an overall understanding of the survey and its aims. As
emphasized by Salant and Dillman (1994), the cover letter was carefully worded and checked three
times by the researcher‘s supervisors in order to avoid ‗leading‘ the interviewees in favor of the
researcher‘s preconceptions. The cover letter and the brief description also contained:
i. An invitation to Malaysian sustainable development and sustainable tourism stakeholders to

participate in the survey;
ii. A confidentiality agreement outlined by the University of New South Wales;
iii. The criteria for participant selection in this survey;
iv. Background information about the research;
v. Description of the sustainability concept and sustainable development;
vi. Description of the quadruple bottom-line concept; and
vii. The affiliations of the researcher.
Respondents needed to determine the importance of each of the twelve rating criteria before they
considered individual indicators.
new development rating system for sustainable resorts, rather than creating a complete and finalized
Non-parametric analyses were appropriate for this research rather than parametric analysis because
the data is not required to fit a normal distribution (Clarke et al 2003, Kelly 2003).
According to Velleman (1993) data that is often ordinal, meaning it does not rely on numbers, but
rather a ranking or order of sorts. For this research a five-point Likert scale was used in several
sections of the questionnaire to gather the respondents‘ perspectives (Glasgow et al 2005, Arsham
2006).
116
Clarke et al (2003) stated that Non-parametric data analyses have significant admiration due to their
ease of use. This type of analyses can be used without the standard deviation, sample size, estimation
or mean of any other related parameters when none of that information is available.
5.8 The Case Study as a Validation Method
Validation and evaluation of rating criteria, indicators and assessment methodology, is important to
ensure indicator accuracy, reliability and sensitivity (Ali & Nsairat 2010). In this research it was done
using the case study research method.
Scholz et al (2008) stated that validity is clearly one of the most challenging concerns for any study,
particularly in qualitative research because there is no controlled repetition under the same constrains
as postulated in the theory of statistical hypothesis testing. Many types and facets of validity have
been defined by different researchers. Generally, validity confirms the correlation between the
―reality‖ of the research findings and the descriptive recommendations, evaluations and statements
made by research respondents (Scholz & Tietje 2002). Therefore, Godel (1999) explained that
validation always refers to a reference framework or metalevel, which verifies what is considered as
true, valid or good and, respectively as false, invalid or deficient results.
Silverman (2011), Gomm et al (2000) and Stake (1995) explained that when a researcher plans to
investigate critical issues using different methods such as qualitative interviews and quantitative
surveys or plans to answer the main research questions using different techniques, for example expert
interviews, case study is a way of assessing the aspect of convergent validity. This is an effective
technique to validate research data (from interviews or survey) in mixed-method research.
5.6.2 Selection of Case Studies
For this research, five resorts were chosen to validate the applicability of the rating tool. Three resorts
are characterized as sustainable, based on their achievements and awards in international
competitions. They were also recommended by the Ministry of Tourism, Malaysia and the Sustainable
Resort and Hotel Association, Asia Pacific. The balance consists of typical resorts in Malaysia where
sustainability principles and practices are not their priority. The three sustainable Malaysian resorts
fit the characteristics of sustainable resort as outlined in Chapter 2, and their development processes
and operations have been adequately documented. Two of the resorts are also used for educational
purposes to spread the knowledge of not just sustainable design and construction but also of operating
sustainably, as attested by their owners and developers (Case Studies 2 and 3). These three resorts are
117
the first sustainable resorts in Malaysia and other private developers have begun to replicate some of
their ideas.
5.6.3 Data Collection Procedure for Case Study Method
The data sources used to assign points to the category measures included:
i. The development report from the resort developer to the local authority
ii. Site observation
iii. Interview with:

 The resort owners
 Developers,
 Consultants,
 Contractors,
 Architects and
 Local people around the resort areas
For pre-construction conditions and information on development reports, data from interviews with
consultants, contractors and architects were used. For the operational phase conditions and practices,
site observations and interviews with operators, owners and local people were conducted to
investigate the measures for each rating tool category.
5.7 Research Ethics
Since all research data were gathered from people outside of the university campus at UNSW, a
research ethics approval was sought from the UNSW Faculty of Built Environment research ethics
committee. All relevant documents were submitted for consideration and an approval obtained to seek
information from groups of people in Malaysia was given. A copy of the approval letter is included in
Appendix C.
The approval letter gives the researcher permission to request data from individuals through
interviews and the distribution of questionnaires to potential respondents.
118
5.9 Summary
Based on the literature, international green building rating systems cannot be applied to sustainable
resort development in Malaysia and the existing Malaysian rating tool GBI (Malaysia) cannot address
sustainable resort development as a whole. Consequently, a sustainable resort development rating
system needs to be developed for Malaysia. Similar to other systems, the proposed sustainable resort
development rating system consists of three layers, including assessment criteria, indicators and
measures. The development of the resort rating system involves four steps:
i. Identification of an initial set of indicators from the existing sustainability assessment systems
and semi structured interviews with local experts;
ii. The initial indicators are then examined by local stakeholders; and
iii. Determining criteria and indicator related weights
iv. Validation of the survey results with local case studies
Chapter 5 has presented in detail the actual research strategy that was followed by the researcher with
the results to be presented in Chapters 6, 7 and 8. The main objective of laying out the research
technique so carefully is to enable other researchers with similar objectives of setting up contextual
sustainable resort development or sustainable tourism development rating methods to replicate the
tasks conducted for this study.
However, the study method could be further developed to incorporate larger sustainability expert
samples for semi-structured interviews or include a survey that involves a larger number of
sustainable tourism development experts and sustainable built environments experts, and more local
case studies with extensive financial and organizational assistance and permissible time frame. This
particular study, however, did not have the opportunity of these elements as explained in the
conclusions in chapter 9.
In the next chapter, the results from the semi-structured interviews with local experts are described in
detail. Chapter 7 will analyse the survey results with sustainable resort development stakeholders and
apply the finalized rating system to the five case studies in Chapter 8.
119
Chapter 6 – Qualitative Data Analysis and Findings
6.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the first phase in the development of the framework for a resort sustainability
assessment tool for Malaysia. It includes results from interviews with a green building rating tool
developer and a sustainable tourism assessment system developer to understand about the process of
developing a sustainability rating tool. The chapter also interviews sustainable resort development
experts to determine the initial set of variables that will inform the quantitative survey with
sustainable resort development stakeholders in the following phase of the research (Figure 6-1). The
steps included the transcription of interviews which was later regularised for inclusion in this
scholarly thesis.
Figure 6-1 Qualitative data analysis and findings framework
120
6.2 Interviews with Rating Tool Developers
The researcher interviewed a building rating tool developer and a sustainable tourism assessment
system developer. Data from these interviews was then used to develop a questionnaire for interviews
with local stakeholders to determine the characteristics, categories and indicators for a framework for
a sustainable resort rating tool for Malaysia.
6.2.1 Green Building Rating Tool Developer (LOTUS)
The aims of the LOTUS rating tools is to guide Vietnam‘s construction industry towards efficient use
of natural resources, to promote and introduce low environmental impact practices with local
stakeholders and establish standards and benchmarks specific to Vietnam.
To account for different building types and functions, the VGBC developed three green building
rating tools; LOTUS residential (LOTUS R), LOTUS Non-Residential (LOTUS NR) and LOTUS
Building in Operation (LOTUS BIO). According to the interviewee LOTUS rating tools have been
developed through in depth study with local construction industry experts and built environment
academics, giving particular attention to Vietnam‘s economic and natural characteristics. LOTUS was
also developed based on local standards and policy.
The main reason for developing green building rating systems is because this is amongst the most
effective means of encouraging building developers to build low environmental impact buildings
(World Green Building Council 2006). The LOTUS developer supported this idea by saying that:
“The system provides a systematic framework for measuring building performance enabling building
industry stakeholders to compare their performance with other buildings.” (LOTUS Developer 2011)
Cole (2010) stated that a combination of regulatory approaches and building rating systems has been
one of the most important instruments to improve building performance in the last several years. The
LOTUS developer also confirmed that building rating tools have enabled significant improvements in
building environmental performance to be gained over the last several years:
“Green building rating tools have directly influenced the performance of the construction industry.
Examples can be seen in most of the nations around the world, for example CASBEE in Japan, Green
Star in Australia, BREEAM in the UK and LEED in the US.” (LOTUS Developer 2011)
121
Consistent with the findings in Chapters 3 and 4, the problem of local criteria and indicators for
sustainable rating tools was also highlighted in this interview. The LOTUS rating tool developer
provided some insight into this matter:
“There is a need to develop destination (local) level sustainability criteria and indicators based on
local context, local policy relevancy and climate. To ensure green building rating tool applicability to
specific location, regionally specific criteria and indicators need to be established by local experts.
Such practice provides opportunities to understand regionally specific issues which are important for
setting up a regional rating system.” (LOTUS Developer 2011)
Green building rating tools have emerged in recent years as instruments to evaluate the performance
of buildings across a broad range of green considerations beyond established performance criteria
such as energy. Criteria are one of the important elements needed to develop a framework for
sustainable resort development that adds meaning and function to an overall assessment system.
Usually each rating tool or assessment system criterion is accompanied by a set of related indicators.
According to Glaumann et al (2011), indicators provide specific details for an assessment system.
There is a need to develop a standard method which can rate or assess economic, social, governance
and environmental characteristics of resort development. It is apparent most international green
building rating tools evaluate building performance by counting the number of ‗green measures‘ that
are incorporated under each criterion.
“Generally green building rating tools comprise a list of items organized into criteria such as energy,
site development, indoor environment quality and water, some of which may be optional. Each
criterion is assigned a point value, and users must obtain a certain number of points. Ultimately, a
building receives a total score to reflect its performance. Building performance is represented by
scores it earns from the accomplishment of the requirements given by the assessment criteria.”
(LOTUS Developer 2011)
There are ten main criteria in the current LOTUS green building rating tools. They are Energy, Water,
Material, Ecology, Waste and Pollution, Health and Comfort, Adaptation and Mitigation, Community,
Management and Innovation. Each of them comprises a number of assessment indicators covering the
environmental impacts of a development project. According to the interviewee, criteria and indicators
for LOTUS rating tools play an important role in assessing the environment performance of building
development:
122
“In order to score, the project need to meet the requirements of the benchmarks designated. Where a
building development performance benchmark has been achieved the number of available LOTUS
credits can be awarded.” (LOTUS Developer 2011)
6.2.2 Interview with Sustainable Tourism Assessment System Developer
The second interview was with a developer of EarthCheck, an internationally recognised Australian
tourism certification programme that developed out of Agenda 21. The organization applies the
principles of environmental and economic sustainability to communities and hotel management
groups:
“The main objective of this program is to help the tourism industry to achieve sustainable tourism
development at a range of levels from global to local and encourage and facilitate compliance with
national and regional legislation.”
The EarthCheck programme is open to all travel and tourism industry sectors and sizes and types of
operations, including companies and communities. EarthCheck has five main programmes for tourism
industry – Assessed, Certified Company, Sustainable design, Green products and Community – which
provide comprehensive coverage of the tourism and travel industry.
“EarthCheck seeks to provide the tourism and travel industry with an assessment system that reacts
directly to the main environmental problems facing the tourism areas, including overuse of energy
and freshwater resources, impact on biodiversity, production of solid and biological waste and social
issues.”
EarthCheck can also provide significant benefits to the tourism industry in terms of economic and
environmental aspects to resort owners. According to the EarthCheck developer:
“EarthCheck targets the achievement of considerable cost saving through an integrated and
systematic approach to help the resort and hotel operators to reduce energy consumption, lower the
amount of potable water consumption and decrease waste generation.”
“In keeping with the EarthCheck principles, tourism products will be required to demonstrate
environmental performance according to the sustainability principles based on Agenda 21. Upon
evaluation, tourism products must demonstrate continuous improvement.”
123
The EarthCheck assessment system developer also shared the same sentiments as Ko (2005) in
declaring that sustainable tourism rating tools or assessment systems must be contextualised to
adequately and fairly rate sustainable tourism products in Malaysia.
“In order to encourage tourism corporations in the local tourism industry and to create a realistic,
achievable programme of action that is flexible enough to suit a specific tourism location, EarthCheck
was developed by considering local culture, local social condition and political climate of the
nation.”
6.3 Analysis of Interview Transcripts
The interview data formed the empirical dataset for the research. Data were analysed in NVivo 9
using open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998) (Figure 6-2). NVivo 9 open coding data analysis
conceptualizes large amounts of data into smaller, more manageable pieces (Figure 1). The data from
the first interviews with local stakeholders were broken down in first phase data analysis into discrete
incidents, ideas, events and acts (phenomena). Any phenomenon related to a criterion of a framework
for a resort assessment system and mentioned by more than one person was labelled as a concept.
Phenomena
Data 1
Incidents
Data 2 Sustainability
Idea Concepts Groups Dimensions
Data 3
Events
Data 4
Acts
Figure 6-2: NVivo 9 using open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998)
The concepts (criteria) that emerged were further analysed into distinct groups. In a following analysis
step data from the second interviews (interviews with local sustainable resort
124
Most existing
rating tools do
not recognise Community
social indicators Support for
commitment
Interview 1 adequately, for local Economics
example and entrepreneurs
contribution of contribution
development to
local community
Resort Economic
support local
development needs
to create an entreprenuer
economic value Community Economics
with efficient commitment &
Interview 2 buildings that use contribution Local
local materials, employment
support small and Scoial
medium industries Material
and employ local resource &
people. Local meterial
cycle
Figure 6-3: Example from research data (semi-structured interview) NVivo 9 using open coding
(Strauss and Corbin 1998)
125
development experts), were added, broken down into pieces, labelled and grouped. In this phase,
similar or new concepts (criteria) and groups (indicators) could emerge. Next new data were again
added, labelled and so on until all the interview data were analysed and split into concepts and
groups. Attributing concepts to groups was thoroughly verified by the researcher to ensure a logical
and objective classification, which must give insight into the criteria and indicators of the framework.
The data structure with concepts and indicators was further structured by assigning the concepts to the
four main sustainability dimensions in order to create a holistic sustainable assessment framework.
The degree of sustainability of a particular resort development depends on the performance of each
criterion which consists of a number of indicators.
6.4 Results from Interviews with Sustainable Resort Development Experts
For this research the semi structured interview method was conducted (July 2011 – November 2011)
as explained in detail in chapter 5. The interview transcripts reveal two types of findings:
i. Firstly, the frequency of the straightforward ―Yes‖ or ―No‖ answers for 16 main probing
questions in Section A of the interviews;
ii. Secondly, the frequency of responses in Section B containing a further eight questions were
also counted in order to determine the criteria and indicators for a framework for the
sustainable resort rating tool for Malaysia.
The comparison between the responses to questions in Section A of the interviews was made to
highlight differences between those who had direct experience in developing and operating
sustainable resorts and those who advocated or taught sustainability in buildings and tourism to
others.
However, these findings could not be generalised across the whole sustainable building and
sustainable tourism industry stakeholders in Malaysia, thus the survey (Chapter 7) was needed to
validate and add more weight to the interview findings. Table 6-1 outlines the frequencies of ―yes‘
and ―No‖ responses given during the interviews.
126
Sustainable Academics Sustainable Resort Government
Development (Built environment Practitioner (Policy maker /
Professional and Tourism) (Owner/operator/builder) tourism
(Architect, development
engineer, planner) department/
environmental
department)
SECTION A
Question 1 – Are you familiar with the concept of sustainability?

Yes 12 17 7 8
No 0 0 0 0
Question 2 – Are you familiar with the concept of sustainable development?

Yes 12 17 5 4
No 0 0 2 4
Question 3 – Are you familiar with the concept of sustainable tourism?

Yes 7 11 6 5
No 5 6 1 3
Question 4 – Are you familiar with ‘triple-bottom-line’ concept?

Yes 12 17 5 8
No 0 0 2 0
Question 5 – Are you familiar with ‘quadruple bottom-line’ concept

Yes 9 10 2 3
No 3 7 5 5
Question 6 – Have you been involved in planning / designing / construction / commissioning of sustainable resort or
hotels?
Yes 7 3 7 3
No 5 14 0 5
Question 7 - Have you conducted project or research related to sustainable tourism facilities development?
Yes 2 10 2 2
No 10 7 5 6
Question 8 – Have you conducted research relating to sustainability?

Yes 7 17 2 6
No 5 0 5 2
Question 9 - Have you published academic / research paper/s relating to sustainable resort development?
Yes 2 10 2 2
No 10 7 5 6
Question 10 – Resort should be rated using quadruple-bottom-line concept?

Yes 9 10 2 3
No 3 7 5 5
Question 11– Assessment system for resort development should be developed by local stakeholders and experts?
Yes 10 17 7 8
No 2 0 0 0
Question 12 – Resort should be rated using checklist of standard?

Yes 8 15 6 7
No 4 2 1 1
Question 13 – Resort can be rated at any stages of life?

Yes 12 17 6 6
No 0 0 1 2
Question 14 - Have you been involved in developing any sustainable assessment system (building rating tool or
127
sustainable tourism assessment system?
Yes 3 5 1 1
No 9 12 6 7
.
Question 15 – have you ever used any tools / assessment systems in your work?
Yes 8 10 2 2
No 4 6 5 6
Question 16 - are you trained to use any of these tools / assessment systems?
Yes 3 5 1 1
No 9 12 6 7
Table 6-1: Descriptive statistics of answers to questions in Section A of interview
Closer investigation revealed response themes that were consistent among all interviewees which
were:
 Sustainability and sustainable tourism development issues
 Environment
 Social
 Economic
 Governance
The following sub-sections will highlight some of the important points from each of these themes.
6.4.1 Sustainability and Sustainable Tourism Issues
From Table 6-1 it was obvious that all experts that participated in this research were well-versed in
the concepts of sustainability (Questions 1,2,3,4 and 5) Most responses were consistent with
definitions of sustainability defined by the Brundtland Commission (1987), Pearce and Turner (1993)
and Lele (1991) which were explained in Chapter 2 and the triple bottom-line concept explained by
Blair et al (2004). This definition focuses on what Wackernagel & Yount (2000) stated to be the
―socio-economic‖ and ―ecological imperatives‖ of sustainability.
During the interview process, the interviewees explained their understanding of the sustainability
concept:
“The built environment should contribute to the socio-economic and ecological imperatives of
sustainable tourism development. Sustainable rating tools or assessment systems need to be designed
to measure tourism facilities‟ performance in terms of sustainability” (Built environment academic)
128
Consistent with the views of Gibberd (2005) and the explanation given in Chapter 4 that most rating
tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems internationally only focus on environmental issues,
one respondent highlighted that a change of course was needed to steer away from rating tools and
assessment systems that only focus on environmental issues and certain phases in the development
process.
This research in particular has adopted the ―Sustainable‖ stance especially because resorts could
provide positive movement towards the economic and social aspects of tourism development (Miller
et al 2009). An interviewee made his understanding clear by declaring:
“Most green building rating tools have focused on residential buildings and office buildings. The
sustainable resort assessment rating tool should have a specific focus and aim to capture social and
economic impacts of tourism development.” (Sustainable development consultant).
The use of criteria and indicators of sustainable development have been recognized by researchers and
built environment professionals as important instruments for measuring the status of sustainability in
development (Parguel et al 2011). One of the interviewees confirmed this :
“Development of criteria and indicators for sustainable resort development can lead to greater
understanding of the complex interaction between long-term sustainable tourism activities in
Malaysia as it also relates to social development, environmental protection and biodiversity
conservation.” (Ministry of Tourism, Malaysia)
Developing sustainable tourism facilities has a strong connection with creating a sustainable tourism
industry. Sustainable tourism which contains social, economic, cultural and ecological dimensions
need to be assessed, which implies a specific assessment system or rating tool that can assess all
sustainability dimensions (Berzeker et al 2011, Blancas et al 2011, Hernandez 2011). One interviewee
stated that:
“Developers of sustainability assessment systems need to make sure the assessment system they
develop is multidisciplinary, covering all aspects of social, environmental, ecological, cultural,
economic, institutional, and governance factors affecting sustainable tourism development in
Malaysia.” (Built environment academic)
Another issue with rating sustainable tourism facilities such as resorts is that the owners and builders
were not keen in having their creations scrutinised by others for various reasons. Concern raised by
Ismail and Prasad (2010) about the standards in existing tourism sustainability rating schemes when
129
used in other countries, was brought up in the interview process. This is consistent with the work of
Wadawi et al (2011) who highlighted that most of the sustainable resort owners in South East Asia
were not keen to rate their resort because most assessment systems in the tourism industry are not
developed based on local context, the focus of their criteria and indicators being more on western
countries. An interviewee highlighted this issue:
“We can always rate our products and services but can rating tools rate them accurately? Most of the
assessment systems that are being use in the tourism industry have been developed by developed
nations.” (Sustainable resort owner)
Localisation has been an important procedure in terms of sustainability (Ismail & Prasad 2010).
Although the underlying theoretical basis of sustainability is universal, the implementation has to be
localised as explained by Blancas et al (2011) and Bhattacharya & Kumari (2004).
6.4.2 Environment
According to Ko (2005) the environmental principle of sustainable tourism development includes

practices that can help to reduce the negative impacts of development to environments and create
community commitment to maintain ecological processes. During the interviews respondents
highlighted this situation:
“Resort development should also engage with local community in order to manage, maintain and
enhance natural assets, protecting flora and fauna, minimising loss of habitat and biodiversity,
achieving responsible utilisation of resources in order that local tourism areas continue to attract
visitors.” (Tourism academic)
Ecosystems provide services and visual and psychological attraction which is essential to tourism
development. In short ecosystems provide tourism activities with great locations to attract tourists and
also supply materials, food and energy (Gosling 2012). However, tourism activities have contributed
to an increase in negative impacts to the local environment, which has made the implementation of
safeguarding strategies imperative (Lee 2010). This was aptly stated by one of the respondents during
his interview:
“Resort development should be fully compatible with environmental protection and conservation
goals and should help minimise environmental impacts through providing environmental protection
techniques during the construction and operation phases.” (Built environment academic)
130
Changes to the physical environment from resort development include land conversion for buildings,
excessive water use, physical degradation of coastal areas, erosion caused by resort infrastructure
development, deforestation of mangroves for construction, alteration of coastal wetlands, and lake and
marine pollution (Buchan 2000, Prideaux 2009, Ramessur 2002, Wong 2003, Latkova & Vogt 2012).
According to the interviewees:
“The degradation of the areas by intensive and uncontrolled construction of resorts is the most
serious impact that tourism has on environment and natural resources in Malaysia. Because of that
there is a need for developers and builders to implement low impact construction and sensitive site
management techniques during construction and during operations.” (Sustainable development
consultant)
Energy use in resort developments is normally disproportionately greater than that typically
associated with other similar sized buildings (Kelly & Williams 2007). In addition to direct uses of
energy in air-conditioning, cleaning, cooking and other material and disposing of waste (Ventriglia &
Morales 2013, Becken et al 2003 & Bode et al 2003), a substantial quantity of energy is also required
to construct buildings, infrastructure and other facilities for resort development (Deng & Burnett
2000, Becken et al 2001, Chan & Lam 2003). During the interview respondents explained:
“Resort development also generates significant energy demands because they have energy intensive
facilities. A sustainability rating tool or assessment system should give significant credits to resort
developments that provide techniques for reducing their energy use” (Sustainable resort architect)
A sustainability framework for resort development should also focus on incremental improvements
designed to produce buildings with low negative impacts on the environment and reduce pollution to
tourism areas (Todd et al 2002). One interviewee pointed out that:
“A framework for sustainable resort development should include four environmental sustainability
indicators that address total consumption of energy, land, water, greenhouse gas emissions as well as
addressing the climate change issue.” (Sustainable development consultant)
6.4.3 Economic Issues
A significant number of scholars globally have long taken a critical look at the concept of sustainable
tourism with community participation (Ryan & Montgomery 1994, Simmons 1994, Goodwin &
Santilli 2009, Strade & Hells 2001). One of the interview respondents stated that:
131
“Tourism scholars generally agree that active community participation in the tourism development
process will benefit not only the local community but also the national economy.” (Tourism
Academic)
According to Salehudin et al (2013) rapid tourism development has raised the awareness of many
policy makers and local governments of the usefulness of tourism as a local community economic
improvement device. The economic dimension for sustainable resort development needs to include a
strong, viable and sustainable economy. It should integrate all sustainable tourism factors, support and
contribute positively to local stakeholders and the local community and at the same time create a
vibrant and distinctive attraction for visitors to experience (Richins 2009). Another interviewee
expressed the view that a strong and diversified local economy is important to create sustainable
tourism:
“The sustainable resort development framework needs to ensure that resort development can have a
positive impact on the economy of an area by being designed, constructed and managed to stimulate
and support the local community.” (Sustainable tourism academic)
According to Scheyvens (1999) sustainable tourism needs to involve and empower local small and
medium industries in order to provide economic benefits to the local community. Cash earned needs
to be shared between many households in the tourism areas so that it can be used to improve their
quality of life. The nature of the tourism industry with its large underbelly of small and medium
industries means that any approach that excludes the small industries risks misrepresenting the value
of sustainable tourism development. Nevertheless local products are important and must be promoted
and used by resort operators, as reflected by a sustainable development consultant in the interview:
“Local products such as food, souvenirs, decorations, arts and cultural activities need to be
supported by resort operators and owners in the operation phase of resort development to empower
the local community.” (Sustainable development consultant)
Manyara and Jones (2007) found that community involvement in tourism can be a tool to empower
rural communities and help eradicate poverty. Furthermore, tourism activities that are designed and
implemented through community participation may also cause fewer negative effects and less
disruption of rural cultures (Font et al 2010).
“Tourism development with community involvement will add value to national tourism through
diversification of tourism products and increasing economic profits.” (Ministry of Tourism Malaysia)
132
6.4.4 Social
The social aspect of sustainable development refers to a situation in which a community‘s sense of
cohesion and integrity has been confirmed or strengthened by tourism development (Scheyvens
1999). According to one of the interviewees:
“Social empowerment is perhaps most clearly a result of sustainable tourism products when profits
from the tourism development and activities are used to improve the local community and tourists feel
comfortable during their visit.” (Sustainable tourism academic)
Gossling & Hall (2005) found that changes to society and culture induced by tourism are complex and
their subjective nature makes it difficult to assess and evaluate them. Developing sustainable tourism
facilities includes contributing to a vibrant and creative local community that continually cultivates,
enhances and celebrates its diverse and unique cultural tradition which can help tourism destinations
strengthen community identity and which is a growing attraction for tourists. One of the respondents
from the interview highlighted there is a beneficial interdependence in resort development to enhance
and help in improving local culture and customs:
“Resort development should celebrate and promote local culture such as local architecture,
traditional crafts, religious rituals, tradition ethnic rites and festivals all this will provide benefits to
the local community and conserve their local culture.” (Tourism academic)
Realizing the potential of community participation in tourism, the Rural Tourism Master Plan was
formulated in 2001. In the 9th Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 the government‘s focus was on the
development of rural communities through strategies such as to reducing income imbalances between
rural and urban areas and between the less developed and more developed states. One of the tourism
academics shared the same belief as she noted:
“The Malaysian government has identified rural tourism, especially through community
participation, as a catalyst for rural community development. One of the forms of local community
programme that has been promoted by the Malaysian government is a resort and hotel community
development initiatives programme organized by accommodation owners in the rural areas
throughout the country. Therefore it is important for resort development to support the government
program in order to empower the local community” (Sustainable tourism academic)
From the interviews with tourism experts, this research identified important assessment criteria to
establish the extent and type of impact a resort can have on the local community. One of the criteria is
133
that resort development must actively support education and training initiatives for local communities.
Research by Salehudin et al 2013 found that some resorts in Malaysia run programs with local
communities to restore and conserve the local environment.
“A sustainability framework for resort development should provide points for resorts that have
special programs to educate and provide training for local people.” (Sustainability consultant)
One of the areas that need to be considered in developing a sustainability framework for resorts is the
employment of locals as opposed to non-locals in the design, construction and operation phases
(Miller 2001). The interviews suggest that resort development can have a positive impact on the local
community by employing local people to stimulate and support a local and diversified economy:
“One of the government‟s aims in developing tourism areas like Langkawi Island and Kota Kinabalu
is to address the low employment and income levels of the local community. The local authorities in
both locations stress that resorts and tourism accommodation must give priority to hiring local people
and for them to fill as many vacant positions as possible.” (Ministry of Tourism)
6.4.5 Governance
Increasing concern for sustainability in the tourism industry marked the movement from conventional
tourism to sustainable tourism development. Resorts are being called upon to take responsibility for
the ways in which their construction and operations impact local society and the local environment in
which they operate. This involves applying sustainability principles to the ways in which they conduct
their resort development and operations.
The principle of sustainable development in an anticipatory governance framework, embraces a

strategic and long–term view of the resort‘s future and the involvement of its stakeholders and is
known as quadruple bottom-line sustainability (Engelbrecht 2011).
“In order to maintain the sustainability of tourism facilities, resorts need to incorporate good
governance in the process of creating a sustainable resort as well as maintaining the focus on
environment, social and economic aspects in order to achieve sustainable practice.” (Sustainable
tourism academic)
Previously the governance approach was primarily code-based, requiring tourism businesses and
companies to implement the practice of sustainability reporting and not necessarily the overall
concept of sustainable tourism (Beaumont & Dredge 2010). Although the triple bottom-line approach
134
has became a widely accepted practice in tourism industry, there is evidence from previous research
(Kerimoglu & Ciraci 2008, Ozturk & Eraydin 2010, Alipour et al 2011, Dinga et al 2011, Bramwell &
Lane 2011) that sustainable tourism in developing nations needs to include governance as another
dimension in developing sustainable tourism products. One of the interviewees states clearly that:
“The quadruple bottom-line implies that sustainable tourism development moves beyond current
conceptions of sustainable practices and embraces the substance and value of the concept itself,
creating a new way of perceiving tourism operations – its purpose, methods and its impacts.”
(Sustainable development academic)
The responsibility for sustainable tourism development in Malaysia is shared by various types of
stakeholders. Domestic and foreign businesses, public authorities‘ at all governmental levels, visitors
and local communities are all stakeholders in the tourism governance structure and have impacts on
the sustainability performance of the Malaysian tourism industry. One of the sustainable development
consultants in Malaysia said:
“Sustainable tourism governance is the process by which tourism stakeholders collectively solve
problems and meet community needs.”(Sustainable development consultant)
According to research by Alipour et al (2011) the problems of accountability, transparency, roles and
responsibility, sense of priority, coordination, integration and local participation are common barriers
to implementing and evaluating sustainability. There is a need for an important dimension for the
framework arising from this study to position governance not as a metaphor but as a practical
approach toward a movement for sustainable tourism development. Resort operators and owners need
to be able to provide leadership and put in place systems of governance to coordinate resort
development and operation issues and ensure that sustainable policies facilitate resort practices, at
very least at the broad strategic policy level.
“Sustainable governance in the resort development process and operation is basically about effective
leadership. Leaders are required to identify clear sustainability strategies, provide direction, rise up
to the challenge and establish the ethics and values that will influence the implementation of
sustainability principles.” (Sustainable development consultant)
To evaluate the effectiveness of governance for resort development, parameters of good local tourism
governance need to be derived by local experts (Dredge & Beaumont 2010). Some of the interview
respondents were aware of this situation, noting that:
135
“Parameters that need to be included in a rating tool in order to evaluate the governance dimension,
are transparency and accountability in implementing sustainability principles in the process of resort
development.”(Sustainable tourism academic);
“Clear sustainable vision and leadership, the acceptance and embrace of local culture in the process
of resort development and operation.” (Sustainable development consultant);
“Tourism facilities should also share sustainability knowledge they have with other local
stakeholders, learning and sharing expertise with the local community.” (Sustainable tourism
academic);
“Have clear roles and responsibilities for participants in implementing sustainability practices and
ensure there are clear operational structures and processes for creating a sustainable environment
for the tourism industry.”(Sustainable development academic); and
“Creating a positive culture, good communication strategy and engagement with the local community
in delivering sustainability for the tourism area.”(Sustainable tourism academic)
One of the most important issues is to reconceptualise resort operators‘ roles through a new policy
framework and cooperative governance that enables, rather than prescribes a path towards sustainable
tourism practices.
Beaumont & Dredge (2010) emphasised the need to adequately fund sustainability planning and
policy formulation. Responsibilities should be linked to accountability and funding. Adequate funding
and cost allocation is an attempt to ensure that the costs and benefits associated with sustainable
development and operation of resorts are borne by the appropriate parties. Funding and allocation can
be used to encourage changes in behaviour and can help to control external costs such as damage to
the environment and also to encourage resorts to attain economic goals in a cost effective manner
(Duxbury & Dickinson 2007).
“The success of the sustainability agenda is reliant on monitoring the allocation of funding, ensuring
that there are clear outcomes for economic, environmental and social programs and practices that
have potential to create a sustainable resort.” (Sustainable tourism academic)
136
6.4.6 Criteria for Sustainable Resort Development for Malaysia
Based on the interviews with local stakeholders this research suggests a number of key criteria that
need to be included in developing a sustainability assessment system for resort development:
6.4.6.1 Energy Efficiency
Fast tourism growth has improved the quality of tourism facilities but it has also led to rapidly
increasing energy demand. The industry is expected to continue growing with tourist arrivals rising
from 25 million in 2010 to 36 million in 2020. The sustainability assessment system will require a
minimum level of energy consumption even with the use of natural ventilation and harvesting natural
lighting, adopting the best practice in building technology including use of renewable energy,
monitoring utility bills, commissioning and regular maintenance, as well as the installation of energy
efficient equipment for HVAC, lighting and water heaters for example. Technology that can increase
access to prevailing winds in Malaysia, whilst reducing the building's exposure to the powerful sun,
will further aid inherent passive cooling strategies.
6.4.6.2 Water Conservation
Water quality and supply is a growing problem. Water is precious and in many regions an
increasingly scarce resource with many countries facing moderate or severe water shortages,
including Malaysia. The water criterion in the sustainability assessment system should address the
reduction of potable water consumption in the major areas of a resort‘s demand, for example
landscape irrigation, guest amenity and fire systems, and should support demand reduction by
measuring water consumption and encouraging the use of recycling and rainwater harvesting. This
criterion should also give credit for water efficiency technologies, for instance water-saving fittings in
resort design. As clean water becomes less available its price will surely increase, so a water-efficient
building will not only ensure constant operation but also save money.
6.4.6.3 Material Resources and Cycles
The extraction, processing, use and disposal of any construction material can have adverse effects on
the environment. With rapid tourism development, construction sites are emerging in many sensitive
areas in Malaysia, for example beaches and highland areas. The materials criterion addresses
construction materials and strategies which minimise their negative environmental impacts. The core
credits of the material category include strategies to reduce the amount of virgin natural resources
used, resort development which promotes the use of low-energy materials and resort development that
137
reduces the amount of construction waste. The material category will also give credits for reuse of
building materials and structures, consumption of recycled materials and materials from sustainable
sources.
6.4.6.4 Site Development and Ecology
Malaysian tourism and its associated economic growth is raising the general standard of living but it
also poses a threat to ecosystems. As virgin land quickly turns into construction sites, habitats and
species are disappearing. To reduce the impact of development on the natural environment,
construction projects should avoid areas of high ecological value and preserve or create habitats
whenever possible.
The site and ecology category encourages the preservation of natural environments through careful
construction and planning, for example by minimising the disturbance caused by construction
activities and introducing local species. This category also encourages strategies, technologies and
development that contribute to the support of biodiversity conservation, including supporting natural
protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value.
6.4.6.6 Waste and Pollution
The waste and pollution category encourages strategies and technologies which reduce potential waste
streams and recycling what is not reusable. Minimising the generation of a wide range of wastes and
pollutants is a critical factor in sustainable tourism operations. Core credits should be given for good
management procedures and systematic reuse and recycling programmes that help reduce negative
environmental impacts.
The waste and pollution category also addresses point source pollution from the development to the
atmosphere, watercourses and local ecosystems. In addition credits will be given to businesses that
have greenhouse gas emission management practices which will help reduce global warming, promote
energy independence from foreign non-renewable sources, and may substantially reduce operational
costs.
6.4.6.7 IEQ and Comfort
The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) category addresses the overall improvement of the indoor
environment. It focuses on four different aspects: indoor air quality; visual comfort; noise reduction
and thermal comfort. Core credits are provided for passive cooling strategies, the application of air
138
filtration, adequate control of air temperature, blocking excessive solar gains to prevent buildings
from overheating and promoting natural ventilation. The category also encourages the use of low
volatile organic compound materials and low environmental impact chemicals including pesticides,
paints, and swimming pool disinfectants and cleaning materials.
6.4.6.8 Resilience (Adaptation and Mitigation)
The principles of sustainable resort development should encourage technologies and design strategies
to strengthen resort buildings‘ resilience to natural disasters and minimise their contribution to the
impacts of climate change. This category will also need to provide credits for strategies to reduce
building damage from natural disasters and ensure the safety of occupants. Under the sustainable
resort assessment system, points will also need to be awarded for approaches that alleviate the impacts
of climate change by reducing the rate of storm water run-off, the heat island effect and the use of
fossil fuels for transport throughout the life of the resort.
6.4.6.9 Contribution and Commitment to the Local Community
The community development category should include strategies to maximise the benefits for the local
community and minimise any negative impacts. This category will require resort developers to
undertake public consultation on the nature of the development, to conduct a heritage survey and to
comply with Malaysia‘s legislation. Resorts offer the means for local small and medium entrepreneurs
to develop and sell sustainable products that are based on the area‘s nature, history and culture
(including food and drink, crafts, performance arts, agricultural products, etc.). The assessment
system also needs to encourage resort buildings which are situated close to existing basic services and
employ local residents. This will help to increase the connectivity between the facilities and the local
area. Furthermore, it will reduce the ecological footprint since there will be fewer greenhouse
emissions from transport.
6.4.6.10 Sustainable Maintenance and Management
This category will address strategies and performance levels of the resort development from the
design stage through construction, operation, maintenance and renovation. Core credits will be given
for a long-term sustainability management system that is suitable to its circumstances and scale, and
that considers environmental, socio-cultural, quality, health and safety issues. Credit will be given for
contractually binding commissioning clauses and targeted continuous preventative maintenance
programs to ensure optimal performance of all resort equipment. This will decrease the risk of
breakdown, as well as increasing the life span of the resort itself. Credit will also be given to the resort
139
operators who have well written sustainability plans and strategies which define and clearly
communicate organizational goals as they relate to the facility‘s economic, environmental, and social
performance. The main objective of the sustainability management plan for resort development is to
guide decision-making, management, and the daily operations of the resort in a sustainable manner.
6.4.6.11 Cultural and Heritage Conservation
This category requires that the development of the resort contributes to the protection of local
historically, archeologically, culturally and spiritually important properties and sites. Credit will be
given where the resort uses elements of local art, architecture, or cultural heritage in its operations,
design, decoration, food, or shop, while respecting the intellectual property rights of local
communities. This category also rewards collaboration with local residents and preservation groups to
ensure that tourism-related activities do not damage sites or prevent local people from visiting or
using them.
6.4.6.12 Governance
This assessment system will also evaluate good governance in the development of sustainable resorts.
It will provide a strong platform not only for the integrated sustainable resort development process
itself but for the overall implementation of sustainable tourism development initiatives.
6.5 Discussion of Findings
6.5.1 Balancing the Quadruple Bottom-line
The literature review undertaken at the beginning of the research clarified a series of constraints faced
when assessing resorts for sustainability. These constraints included the absence of holistic rating
tools that allowed balanced consideration of the many different dimensions of a sustainable resort
(Chapter 4). Without appropriate tools, sustainability evaluation tends to emphasise environmental
issues (see Chapter 4) rather than adopting a balanced approach to the ―Quadruple bottom line‖.
Therefore, the holistic and systematic design of the framework for a tool that can assess resort
sustainability aims to reduce the probability that significant relationships or linkages would be
neglected. This has been explained in Chapter 4.
140
The primary output of this research is a new framework for rating resort sustainability that regards the
economic, environmental, governance and social themes of development with equal importance. The
framework addresses the Malaysian local context in which resorts are operated and developed.
Criteria are different from one region to another, and they depend mainly on the local context. In the
proposed system twelve criteria were addressed: site development, material resources and cycles,
energy efficiency, water efficiency, indoor air quality, culture and heritage, community commitment
and contribution, sustainable maintenance and management, waste and pollution, economics,
resilience and governance.
6.6 Summary
In this chapter, the early phase of the development process of a sustainability assessment system for
resort development in Malaysia was described. The assessment criteria and indicators for the
assessment system were developed with the help of stakeholder interviews with Malaysian tourism
industry experts from industry and academic. A key aspect of the research is the application of the
sustainability in the resort development process. This concept can be implemented in the local tourism
industry with the help of the sustainability assessment system. According to the expert panel, in order
to have a comprehensive sustainability assessment system, a total of 51 elements need to be
implemented in the resort development and operation process (Table 6.2).
Assessment Assessment Indicators

Criteria
Site development  Site landscaping

 Site selection
 Low impact construction and site techniques
 Bioclimatic Architectural Design
 Conserving biodiversity, ecosystems and landscapes
Material resources and  Use of recycled building material
cycles  Low environmental impact processed products
 Regional/local materials
 Renewable materials
Energy efficiency  Natural lighting
 Natural ventilation
 Renewable energy
 Energy efficient practices
 Staff training and incentives to promote energy efficiency
Water efficiency  Water efficient practices
 Water recycling
 Innovative water reduction technologies
 Staff training and incentives to promote energy efficiency
141
Indoor environment quality  Customer satisfaction
 Health and safety
 Chemical pollutants
 Acoustic and noise control
 Thermal comfort
 Visual comfort
 Barrier free design
 Fire detection and protection mechanisms
Culture and heritage  Incorporation of local culture
conservation  Protection of sites
 Respect for local cultures and historic locations
 Education and information about local culture
Community commitment  Support for local entrepreneurs
and contribution  Local employment
 Community development
 Respect for local communities
Sustainable maintenance  Adoption of sustainable practice
and management  Implement a sustainability management system
 Legal Compliance
Waste and pollution  Waste reduction and management strategy
 Reducing pollution
 Construction waste reduction strategies
 Recycling encouragement provision
Resilience (adaptation and  Flood resistance
mitigation)  Disaster resilience adaptation and mitigation strategies
 Climate change impact
Finance and Economics  Construction cost
 East of Maintenance
 Support local economy
 Efficiency of use (Energy, Water, Waste Management)
Governance  Adaptive management
 Full cost allocation
 Participation
Table 6.2: Assessment criteria and indicators of the assessment tool
142
Chapter 7 – Quantitative Data Analysis and Findings
7.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented the analysis of the interview transcripts. In this chapter, all findings
from the quantitative research are presented in detail. In this chapter the rating framework for
sustainable resorts will be developed, for application to the case study resorts in Chapter 8.
The review of building rating systems and sustainable tourism assessment systems in Chapter 4
indicates that the international systems cannot be applied to Malaysian tourism resort facilities
without modification and that the Malaysian building rating system (Green Building Index Malaysia),
cannot adequately address resort sustainability. Chapter 4 also argues that a tourism facilities specific
rating tool will be more suitable if it reflects the resort‘s particular functions and diverse conditions.
Therefore, a locally specific rating tool needs to be generated if sustainable resorts are to be developed
in Malaysia.
The methods used to develop the rating system are described in Chapter 5. The preliminary system
has in total 12 criteria and 52 indicators. The proposed sustainable resort development rating system is
structured with three layers: assessment criteria, indicators and measures respectively.
7.2 Analysis of Data
The main issue that needed the most attention during the development of the questionnaire was the
choice of measurement for each question. The choice of measure or scale determines the type of data
analysis that can be conducted for this research (Agresti 2002 and Kelly et al 2003).
new development rating system for sustainable resorts, rather than creating a complete and finalised
as an interim product, requiring refinement. Thus, non-parametric analyses were appropriate for this
research rather than parametric analysis (Clarke 2003, Kelly et al 2003) and a five-point Likert scale
was used in several sections of the questionnaire to gather the respondents‘ perspectives (Glasgow et
al 2005, Arsham 2006).
143
7.3 Findings from the Survey
7.3.1 Results from Section 1 of the Questionnaire
In Section 1 of the questionnaire participants were asked to identify their professional classification.
As noted in Chapter 5, the survey respondents are classified into five main groups (see Table 5-4):
i. The first group comprises 11 building industry experts;
ii. The second group has 14 respondents and represents the views of the built environment
academics;
iii. The tourism industry professional group has 9 respondents;
iv. There are 15 respondents from tourism industry academics; and
v. There are 5 respondents from the government group.
These classifications are important because the overall results in Section 2 through Section 3 are
defined by the views of different groups of respondents.
The SPSS calculation function is used to count the maximum, minimum and mean values and
standard deviations for each of the data groups.
7.4.2 Results from Section 2 of the Questionnaire
The results from this sub-chapter until the end of this chapter serve to present the tentative weight for
the criteria and indicators listed in each quadruple bottom line group (Figure 7.1). This process was
needed to determine which quadruple bottom line criterion was more important than others for the
future finalisation of this new rating framework.
Question 2 asked the respondents to enter the perceived importance of each criterion with numbers
from 0 to any number as long as the total weight for all sub-groups amounted to 100. This was later
converted to percentages in the form of adjusted weights that were derived from the mean for each
question. All means were ranked accordingly and it was found that site development ranked as the
most important criterion. The participants had the opportunity to browse through the questionnaire
before completing it. Indicators and measures in this group helped the respondents to identify their
importance with regard to the quadruple bottom line criteria.
144
• Governance • Site development
• Sustainable maintennace • Waste management
and management • Water
• Resilience • Energy
• Community commitment
and participation
Governance Environemt
Social
Economic
Conditions
• Economics
• Contribution and • Cultural heritage
commitment to local conservation
community • Indoor environment quality
• Material resources and • Community commitment
cycles and participation
Figure 7.1: The twelve (12) criteria of the sustainability diagram as adopted for this research
No. Selected Criteria Mean Adjusted Rank No. Of

Weight (%) Indicators
1 Site development 12.02 12.06 1 5
2 Material resources and material cycle 5.31 5.33 11 4
3 Energy efficiency 8.07 8.1 8 5
4 Water efficiency 7.09 7.12 9 4
5 Indoor environment quality 10.20 10.24 2 8
6 Culture and heritage 9.15 9.18 5 4
7 Community commitment and contribution 10.03 10.06 3 4
8 Sustainable maintenance and management 8.27 8.3 6 3
9 Waste and pollution 7.08 7.11 10 4
10 Finance and economics 5.11 5.13 12 4
11 Resilience (adaptation and mitigation) 9.14 9.17 4 3
12 Governance 8.16 8.19 7 3
Total 99.63 100 52
Table 7-1: Descriptive statistics for Question 2 - criteria weights and criteria ranks
In total there are 52 indicators which are spread unevenly among the twelve quadruple bottom-line
groups representing the sustainable resort development framework as indicated in Table 7-2. These
145
indicators were gathered from interviews with sustainable resort development experts. The indicators
were categorised based on their intentions and requirements. For example, indicators which are
clearly created to evaluate environmental performance (i.e conserving biodiversity, ecosystems and
landscape) are grouped in section 3(a). Similarly, indicators which are purely created to evaluate local
community empowerment initiatives (social bottom-line) or evaluate cost saving (economic bottom-
line) are grouped in 3(g) and 3(j) sub-categories respectively.
Criteria Weights (%)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 7.2: The twelve criteria weights
7.4.3 Results for the A - Site Development Criterion
All results from section 3(a) to section 3(l) of the questionnaire (see Appendix D) are presented in
reference to the mean for each indicator, the derivation of the adjusted weight and universal weight
for each indicator and the statistical differences between the respondent groups.
In the questionnaire, the researcher had asked the respondents to rate the importance of these
indicators against a five point Likert scale in order to determine the weight for each indicator in the
criterion. On the five point Likert scale ranging from ―very unimportant‖ to ―very important‖, most
respondents chose either ―very important‖ or ―important‖ for all indicators in section 3(a) – Site
Development criterion.
146
No. Indicators Performance Measures
1. Site landscaping  The business uses native species for landscaping and
restoration, and takes measures to avoid the introduction of
invasive alien species.
 Softscape (vegetated) area covers a minimum of 40% of the
site area.
2. Site selection  Site is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas
3. Low impact  Sustainable construction practices and materials are adopted

construction and that are not harmful to the environment.
site techniques  Locally appropriate principles of sustainable construction

and design are applied, while respecting the natural and
cultural surroundings.
4. Bioclimatic  Design strategy with minimal contact to ground
Architectural  Utilization of green roof with indigenous plants.
Design  Acknowledge the need for the design to minimize earth

works and destruction of existing flora and fauna
5. Conserving  The business contributes to the support of biodiversity
biodiversity, conservation, including supporting natural protected areas
ecosystems and and areas of high biodiversity value
landscapes
Table 7-2: Indicators for the site development criterion
For the site development criterion, indicator A-3 – ―Low impact construction techniques‖ was rated
the most important criterion by 85.19% respondents with 59.26% of them considering it to be ―very
important‖. This was not surprising since low impact construction and site techniques could be
considered as the main indicator for any established green building rating tool and their use could
contribute greatly to the status of a sustainable building (Table 7-4).
No Indicators (Site Development Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

Criterion ) (%)
A1 Site landscaping 2 5 4.22 21.10
A2 Site selection 3 5 3.69 18.45
A3 Low impact construction and site 3 5 4.44 22.20

techniques
147
A4 Bioclimatic architectural design 2 5 3.63 18.15
A5 Conserving biodiversity, ecosystems and 3 5 4.02 20.10

landscapes
Total 20 100.00
N=54
Table 7-3: Weight for each indicator in the site development criterion
To determine the weight of each indicator, the mean for all indicators for the criterion were added and
the adjusted weight was calculated as the percentage of the individual mean against the total mean of
the criterion. Mckillup (2006) stated that, the mean for each variable in a survey can be used as the
basis for variable weight calculation because it represents the average response of all respondents in
the survey or a consensus.
Aw(%) = µ / M X (100 %)
Whereby,
Aw = Adjusted weight (%)
µ = Mean of indicator
M = Total mean in category
7.4.4 Results from – B - Material Resources and Material Cycles criterion
The highest scoring indicator in this criterion is Indicator B2 ―low environmental impact materials/
processed products‖ with 98.14% of respondents indicating that it was ―important‖ or better. The next
highest scoring indicator was B3 – ―Regional / Local Material‖ which 90.74% respondents thought
was either ―important‖ or ―very important‖. The importance of this indicator was consistent with the
importance accorded to Indicator A-3 – ―low impact construction and site techniques‖. All other
individual indicators scored between ―very important‖ and ―unimportant‖. The weight assigned to the
indicators within the criterion can be seen in Table 7-5.
148
1. Use of recycled building  The resort uses recycled building materials in
material construction of resort buildings
2. Low environmental impact  Materials from sustainable sources are used (for example
materials/ processed products wood from sustainably managed forests)
3. Regional/local materials  Building materials, components and systems found

locally or regionally are used, saving energy and
resources in transportation to the project site.
4. Renewable Materials  The resort uses salvaged, refurbished or remanufactured
materials: includes saving a material from disposal and
renovating, repairing, restoring or generally improving
the appearance, performance, quality, functionality or
value of a product.
Table 7-4 Indicators for Material resources and material cycle’s criterion
No Indicators (Material resources and Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

cycles) (%)
B1 Used of recycled building material 3 5 3.94 23.75
B2 Low environmental impact 3 5 4.33 26.15

materials/processed products
B3 Regional / local material 3 5 4.22 25.48
B4 Renewable materials 2 5 4.07 24.57
Total 16.56 100

N=54
Table 7-5: Weight for each indicator in the material resource and material cycles criterion
7.4.5 Results from – C- Energy Efficiency Criterion
Eight indicators are addressed within this criterion. They are shown in Table 7-7.
149
1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to optimize the use of
effective day lighting to reduce energy use for artificial
lighting.
 Energy efficient lighting is used to minimize energy
consumption from lighting usage while maintaining
appropriate lighting levels
2. Natural ventilation  The resort incorporates energy efficient design to
encourage indoor air movement to remove heat.
3. Renewable energy  Renewable technologies are used for resort operations

(e.g., solar, wind, micro-hydro and/or bio-mass).
4. Energy efficient practices  Energy consumption is measured, sources indicated, and

measures to decrease overall consumption are adopted,
and the use of renewable energy is encouraged.
5. Staff training and incentives to  Staff are effectively trained and provided with incentives
promote energy efficiency to implement energy efficient programme.
Table 7-6: Indicators for energy efficiency criterion
No Indicators (Energy efficiency criterion) Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

(%)
C1 Natural lighting 2 5 4.00 19.97
C2 Natural ventilation 2 5 3.83 18.77
C3 Renewable energy 2 5 3.76 19.12
C4 Energy efficient practices 2 5 3.98 19.87
C5 Staff training and incentives to promote 3 5 4.46 22.26

energy efficiency
Total 20.03 100
N=54
Table 7-7: Weights for each indicator in the energy efficiency criterion
150
94.44% of the survey respondents thought that it is important to have staff training and incentives to
promote energy efficiency (Indicator C5). This is because the respondents understood that resort staff
are crucial to enabling the resort to operate sustainably. The weight assigned to each of the indicators
can be seen in Table 7-8. Accordingly staff training and incentives to promote energy efficiency have
the highest weight of 22.26%, followed by natural lighting with 19.97%. The natural ventilation
indicator has the lowest weight of 18.77%.
7.4.6 Results from– D - Water Efficiency Criterion
The indicators in the water efficiency criterion are shown in Table 7-9. More than 92% respondents
ranked three of four indicators in this category as ―important‖ or better. The best ranked indicator at
94.44% of votes was Indicator D3 - ―Innovative water reduction technologies‖ and the two second
best at 92.60% of votes each were Indicators D2 – ―Water recycling‖ and D4 – ―Staff training and
incentives to promote water efficiency‖.

1. Water efficient practices  Sub-metering is installed for major water uses such as
irrigation, cooling tower and amenities to monitor water
consumption.
2. Water recycling  Sufficient recycled water capacity is provided for
flushing, irrigation, and cooling tower make up water (if
installed).
 Recycled water and water efficient practices are applied
for landscaping and for other non potable uses.
3. Innovative water reduction  Water-efficient fittings, fixtures and innovative
technologies technologies are used to reduce resort water consumption.
4. Staff training and incentives to  Staff are effectively trained and provided with incentives
promote water efficiency to implement water efficiency programs.
Table 7-8: Indicators for water efficiency criterion
Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators within this criterion are shown in
Table 7-10, below.
151
No Indicators (Water efficiency criterion) Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight
(%)
D1 Water efficient practices 2 5 3.94 23.04
D2 Water recycling 3 5 4.37 25.55
D3 Innovative water reduction technologies 3 5 4.31 25.33
D4 Staff training and incentives to promote 3 5 4.48 26.20

water efficiency
Total 17.10 100
N=54
Table 7-9: Weight for each indicator in the water efficiency category
7.4.7 Results from – E - the Indoor Environmental Quality Criterion
There are eight individual indicators within this criterion as shown in Table 7-11. The majority of
respondents ranked all indicators in this criterion as ―important‖ or better. 96.30% respondents ranked
Indicator E2 – ―Health and Safety‖ of the resort (e.g. safety and security of resort surroundings for
tourists and workers) as ―important‖ or better. This was because they understood that health and
safety is one of the key elements that will attract tourists to holiday resorts in developing countries.
1. Customer satisfaction  Customer satisfaction is measured and corrective action
taken where appropriate.
2. Health and safety  Safety and security of surrounding areas is ensured.

 Compliance with Occupational, Health and Safety
regulations for workers.
3. Chemical pollutants  Airborne contaminants from indoor sources are minimized
to promote a healthy indoor environment.
 Low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints certified by
an approved Malaysian certification body are used.
 Low emission adhesives certified by an approved
Malaysian certification body are used.
4. Acoustics and noise control  Guest spaces are designed to minimize ambient sound level
(walls of accommodation buildings must be able to insulate
noise up to 80dBA or better)
152
5. Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning systems are designed to allow for cooling
load variation due to fluctuations in ambient air
temperature to ensure consistent indoor conditions for
thermal comfort.
6. Visual comfort  Adequate light (natural and artificial) is provided for the
particular task
 Buildings are designed to avoid glare
7. Barrier free design  Include design strategies to reduce mobility barriers for
handicapped or aged persons and infants
8. Fire detection and protection  Include fire detection and protection mechanisms in the
mechanisms resort for safety of tourists and their belongings
Table 7-10: Indicators for indoor environmental quality criterion

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 7-12
No Indicators (IEQ criterion) Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

(%)
E1 Customer satisfaction 2 5 4.30 12.53
E2 Health and safety 3 5 4.48 13.04
E3 Chemical pollutants 2 5 4.24 12.35
E4 Acoustics and noise control 2 5 4.02 11.71
E5 Thermal comfort 3 5 4.44 12.93
E6 Visual comfort 3 5 4.17 12.14
E7 Barrier free design 3 5 4.22 12.29
E8 Fire detection and protection mechanisms 3 5 4.35 12.67

.
Total 34.33 100
N=54
Table 7-11: Weight for each indicator in the indoor environment quality criterion
153
7.4.8 Results from – F - Culture and Heritage Conservation Criterion
There are four indicators addressed within this criterion: (1) Incorporation of local culture, (2)
Protection of sites, (3) Respect for local cultures and historic locations, and (4) Education and
information about local culture. The criterion involves the assessment of resort initiatives to support
local culture through the construction and operation of the resort. Descriptive statistics of the relative
importance of the indicators within the category can be seen in Table 7-14. In general, all indicators
are given scores between ―neutral‖ and ―very important‖.
No. Indicators Measures
1. Incorporation of local culture  The business uses elements of local art, architecture or
. cultural heritage in its operations, design, decoration,
food and/or shops, while respecting the intellectual
property rights of the local communities
2. Protection of sites  The business contributes to the protection of local
historical, archeological, culturally and spiritually
important properties and sites, and does not impede
access to them by local residents.
3. Respect for local cultures and  Locally appropriate principles of sustainable construction
historic locations and design are employed, while respecting the natural and
4. Education and information about  Information and education about local culture and
local culture heritage are provided to tourists.
Table 7-12: Indicators for culture and heritage conservation criterion
No Indicators Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

(%)
F1 Incorporation of local culture 3 5 4.34 25.62
F2 Protection of sites 3 5 4.11 24.26
F3 Respect for local cultures and historic 3 5 4.49 26.98

locations
F4 Education and information about local culture 3 5 4.00 23.61
Total 16.94 100

N=54
Table 7-13: Weight for each indicator in the culture and heritage conservation criterion
154
7.4.9 Results from – G- Contribution and Commitment to Local Community Criterion
There are four indicators addressed in the ―Contribution and commitment to local community‖ (see
Table 7-15) criterion: (1) Support local entrepreneurs; (2) Local employment; (3) Community
development; and (4) Respect local communities. This criterion involves assessing the ability of resort
operators and developers‘ initiatives to empower the local community during the development and
operation phases of the resort.

1. Support local entrepreneurs  The business offers the means for local small
entrepreneurs to develop and sell sustainable products
that are based on the area‘s nature, history and culture
(including food and drink, crafts, performance arts,
agricultural products, etc.).
2. Local employment  Local residents are employed.
 The tourism operation establishes a long-term stable
labour relationship while enhancing the local authentic
character of the tourism service and product.
3. Community development  The business actively supports initiatives for social and
infrastructure community development including among
others, education, health, and sanitation.
4. Respect local communities  A code of conduct for activities in local communities is
developed with the consent of and in collaboration with
the community.
 The traditions and property of local populations are
respected and preserved.
Table 7-14: Indicators for contribution and commitment to local community criterion
The descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 7-16. The
Indicator G2 - ―Local employment‖ is given the highest mean score of 4.33, followed by Indicator
G4-―Respect local communities‖ and G1-―Support local entrepreneurs‖ with 4.26 and 4.19
respectively. The indicator G3 ―Community development‖ is slightly lower than other indicators in
this category with 4.29.
Local experts give very high emphasis to the criterion ―Community commitment and contribution in
the resort development process‖. This is because the Malaysian government stresses that one of the
155
main reasons for developing tourism areas is to empower and give benefits to the local community
and help the nation to achieve a high income economy in 2020.

(%)
G1 Support local entrepreneurs 3 5 4.19 24.94
G2 Local employment 3 5 4.33 25.77
G3 Community development 1 5 4.02 23.9
G4 Respect local communities 3 5 4.26 25.36
Total 16.8 100

N=54
Table 7-15: Weight for each indicator in the contribution and commitment to local community
criterion
7.4.10 Results from – H - Sustainable Maintenance and Management Criterion
Three indicators are addressed within this criterion. They are shown in Table 7-17.

1. Adoption of sustainable practices  Locally appropriate principles of sustainable
construction and design are employed, while
respecting the natural and cultural surroundings.
2. Implement a sustainability  A long-term sustainability management system is
management system implemented that is suitable to its context and scale,
and that considers environmental, sociocultural,
quality, health and safety issues.
3. Legal compliance  The business is in compliance with all relevant
international and local legislation and regulations
(including, among others, health, safety, labor, and
environmental aspects).
Table 7-16: Indicators for sustainable maintenance and management criterion
156
Similar to the indicators in the Contribution and commitment to local community criterion, the
majority of respondents indicated that all indicators in ―Sustainable maintenance and management‖
were either ―important‖ or ―very important‖. Among them Indicator H3-―Legal compliance‖ was
voted ―important‖ or better by 94.12% of respondents with 37.03% regarding it as ―very important.‖
This indicator is also listed in other sustainable tourism assessment systems (for example, Green
Globe and CST) (see Table 7-18).

(%)
H1 Adoption of sustainable practices 3 5 4.35 34.14
H2 Implementation of sustainability 3 5 4.13 32.41

management system
H3 Legal compliance 3 5 4.26 33.44
Total 12.74 100
Table 7-17: Weight for each indicator in the Sustainable maintenance and management
criterion
87.04% of the respondents also thought that it is important for resort operators to adopt sustainable
elements in their practices (Indicator H1). 77.78% of survey respondents also stated that a long term
sustainability plan and system for resort development and operations is important to achieve
sustainability status (Indicator H2).
7.4.11 Results from – I - the Waste and Pollution Criterion
Three indicators are addressed within this criterion. They are shown in Table 7-19. It was evident
from the survey results that 90.74% of respondents thought that Indicator I2-―Reducing pollution‖
was ―important‖ or better. This indicator was also present in other building rating tools and
sustainable tourism assessment systems, for example GBI-Malaysia and Green Globe. The second
highest ranked indicator at 88.89% of votes was Indicator I4-―Encourage provision of recycling
facilities‖. This indicates that the respondents understood the importance of making resort owners and
operators separate the rubbish for recycling and composting. It was also interesting to find that the
respondents thought that Indicator I3-―Construction waste reduction strategies” - was nearly as
157
important as Indicator I4. This indicates that Indicator I3 should be highlighted to reduce the overall
waste in the process of resort development. The weight of each indicator was calculated and is shown
in Table 7-20.

1. Waste reduction and management  A solid waste management plan is implemented,
strategy with quantitative goals to minimize waste that is not
reused or recycled.
2. Reducing pollution  The business implements practices to reduce

pollution from noise, light, runoff, erosion, ozone-
depleting compounds and air and soil contaminants.
3. Construction waste reduction  Acknowledge steps to reduce construction waste
strategies
4. Recycling encouragement provision  Acknowledge provisions to encourage recycling
Table 7-18: Indicators for waste and pollution criterion
No Indicators (Waste and pollution) Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight

(%)
I1 Waste reduction and management strategy 3 5 4.09 23.86
I2 Reducing pollution 3 5 4.52 26.37
I3 Construction waste reduction strategy 3 5 4.31 24.15
I4 Recycling encouragement provision 3 5 4.22 25.62
Total 17.14 100

N=54
Table 7-19: Weight for each indicator in the waste and pollution criterion
7.4.12 Results from – J - the Finance and Economics Criterion
Four indicators are addressed in this criterion: (1) Construction cost; (2) Ease of maintenance; (3)
Support for local economy; and (4) Efficiency of use. Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 7-21.
158
From the survey, it was evident that the vast majority of respondents (94.45) agreed that Indicator J2-
―Ease of Maintenance‖ was ―important‖ or better.

1. Construction cost  Construction costs are lower than in conventional
construction, or as a whole, are within a project-defined
percentage of the overall budget.
2. Ease of maintenance  Maintenance costs are lower than in conventional
. maintenance, or as a whole, are within a project-defined
 Resort buildings must be able to be maintained with
minimum financial resources over time.
3. Support for local economy  Local building materials and local components, fittings and
furniture are used.
 Locally produced goods and services are provided, including
food and drink, crafts, performance arts, agricultural
products.
4. Efficiency of use The resort is cost efficient with respect to:

 Energy consumption cost per month
 Water consumption cost per month
 Waste management/disposal cost per month.
Table 7-20: Indicators for finance and economics criterion

(%)
J1 Construction cost 2 5 3.59 19.05
J2 East of maintenance 2 5 4.46 26.07

.
J3 Support local economy 2 5 4.37 25.54
J4 Efficiency of use 2 5 4.69 27.41
Total 17.11 100

N=54
Table 7-21: Weight for each indicator in the finance and economics criterion
159
Descriptive statistics of weights for each indicator in the Finance and Economics criterion can be seen
in Table 7-22. The issue of efficiency of use (energy, water and waste) is given the second highest
score. Respondents also give high emphasis to local economic development issues. More than 90% of
respondents thought that Indicator J3-―Support local economy‖ was ―important‖ or better.
7.4.13 Results from – K - Resilience Criterion
Three indicators are addressed within this criterion. They are shown in Table 7-23.

1. Flood resistance  Building design resists current highest flood level.
 Building design resists predicted highest flood
level in next 50 years.
2. Disaster resilience adaptation  The building design incorporates structural / non-

and mitigation strategies structural / building services elements which
support resilience in the event of natural disaster,
for example strong wind protection or drought
resistance.
3. Climate change impact  Greenhouse gas emissions from all sources

controlled by the business are measured, and
procedures are implemented to reduce and offset
them to minimize climate change impacts.
Table 7-22: Indicators for resilience (adaptation and mitigation) criterion
The highest scoring indicator in the criterion, ―Resilience (adaptation and mitigation)‖ was Indicator
K3 – ―climate change impact‖ with a score of 34.69%. It was evident that the respondents agreed that
greenhouse gas emissions from all sources should be controlled and reduced in order to protect the
environment. The indicator of flood resistance is given the second highest score of 32.99% followed
by Indicator K2 – ―Disaster resilience adaptation and mitigation strategies‖ with 32.32%. It is
observed that the score margins between different indicators in section 3(k) are relatively low. The
highest score is only 0.32 points greater than the lowest, less than 10%.
160
No Indicators Resilience (adaptation and Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight
mitigation) criterion (%)
K1 Flood resistance 3 5 4.46 32.99
K2 Disaster resilience adaptation and 3 5 4.37 32.32
mitigation strategies
K3 Climate change impact 3 5 4.69 34.69
Total 13.52 100
N=54
Table 7-23: Weight for each indicator in the resilience (adaptation and mitigation) criterion
7.4.14 Results from – L - the Governance Criterion

Three indicators are addressed in this criterion: (1) Adaptive management; (2) Full cost allocation;
and (3) Participation (Figure 7-25). Descriptive statistics of the weight for each indicator in the
Governance criterion can be seen in Table 7-26. Indicator L2 - ―Full cost allocation‖ is given the
highest score of 30.40%. The next best scoring indicator was Indicator L3 – ―Participation‖ with
30.11% adjusted weight. The majority (75.93%) of respondents voted Indicator L3 ―important‖ or
better. The response indicates that respondents agreed that resort owners and operators should engage
other stakeholders in formulating and implementing decisions concerning sustainability

1. Adaptive management  The resort operator continuously gathers and integrates
appropriate ecological, social and economic information
with the goal of adaptive improvement.
2. Full cost allocation  The entire internal and external cost and benefits, including
social and ecological, of alternative decisions concerning
the use of environmental resources and environmental
protection strategies are identified and allocated by the
resort owners / operators
3. Participation  The resort owners / operators engage stakeholders in
formulating and implementing decisions concerning
environmental protection strategies. Stakeholders‘
awareness and participation contributes to credible,
accepted rules that identify and assign the corresponding
responsibilities appropriately.
Table 7-24: Indicators for governance criterion
161
No Indicators (Material resources and Min Max Mean Adjusted Weight
Cycles) (%)
L1 Adaptive management 3 5 3.87 28.62
L2 Full cost allocation 2 5 4.11 30.40
L3 Participation 2 5 4.07 30.10
Total 13.52 100

N=54
Table 7-25: Weight for each indicator in the governance criterion
7.5.1 The Resulting Framework for Developing a Resort Sustainability Rating Tool
The whole process of developing a new rating framework can be summarised in a diagram as
shown in Figure 7.3. This methodology maps the order of events that took place in this
research that will eventually lead to the creation of the sustainable resort development rating
tool itself. There are five main stages to this framework:
A. Stage 1 : The review of relevant literature and existing rating tools and
assessment systems that relate to resort development.
B. Stage 2 : The identification of suitable indicators, suitable structure and

suitable rating methods using qualitative research methods.
C. Stage 3 : The validation of the chosen rating structure and the determination of
weights for each indicator using quantitative research method
D. Stage 4 : The formulation of the sustainability rating framework and the

refinement process for application in the field.
162
E. Stage 5 : The validation of the sustainability rating framework for Malaysian resorts
using existing case studies.
The arrows in the framework diagram show the flow of processes, noting that certain
processes have to be repeated for various reasons. For instance, Stage 1 has to be revisited to
match the findings from qualitative interviews. Similarly, if either of the qualitative or
quantitative research methods used in Stage 3 produces insufficient results due to inadequate
sampling techniques or insufficient participants, then Stage 2 has to be repeated to identify
new research methods. Stage 3 of this framework is flexible and alternative research methods
can be used to achieve better results. In all, this framework is self-explanatory and could be
replicated by other researchers as intended by this research.
7.5.2 Comparison among Other Green Building Rating Tools and Sustainable Tourism
Assessment Systems
The concept of developing an assessment system or a tool to evaluate the operation of buildings
and tourism facilities in relation to how well these facilities meet sustainable principles is new in
developing nations like Malaysia. Much work and effort needs to be done and assessment
systems or rating tools need to be more comprehensive and include different types of buildings.
Green building rating tools such as LEED, Green Mark and GBI (Malaysia) and sustainable
tourism assessment systems, for example EarthCheck, Green Globe and CST, as explained earlier
in this research (Chapter 4), are being used in the tourism industry to rate sustainability for
tourism facilities (Green building rating tool for design and construction and sustainable tourism
assessment systems for operation phase) (Sub - chapter 4.5 and Sub-chapter 4.6). They provide
criteria for their regions, provide a whole building evaluation rather than an evaluation of an
individual design features, and use measureable systems to reveal how much the building
incorporates sustainability principles.
Developed countries such as Japan, Canada and Australia are more conscious about
environmental issues and pollution problems produced by the tourism industry than developing
nations (Chapter 3). They have achieved considerable progress in sustainable tourism
management through developing sustainability practices and rating tools, while developing
countries, on the other hand are unlikely to have progressed towards the many aspects needed for
163
sustainability in the tourism industry. Addressing sustainable development objectives is therefore
likely to be a priority in developing countries.
The resort sustainability rating tool framework developed in this research uses a checklist and
percentages such as GreenMark and Green Star (Australia), but it is different from these systems.
It has twelve major criteria that are similar to those of some green building rating tools and
sustainable tourism assessment systems (Chapter 4). However, community commitment and
contribution are not major factors in other systems, but for this study those criteria contribute
10.06% (Adjusted Weight – Table 7.1) to the total percentage.
The criteria and indicators were suggested by sustainable tourism experts in Malaysia from their
experiences (Chapter 6). Although there are similarities at the criteria level between other rating
tools and the framework developed in this research, there are differences in the weighting of each
category (Table 7-1). In particular some indicators and parameters were added and others were
omitted, depending on the local context of the Malaysian tourism industry and these were ranked
according to their importance as represented through their weights (Table 7-1).
The green building rating tools internationally mostly focus on environmental aspects and mainly
on residential and commercial buildings (Sub-chapter 4.5), while tourism sustainability
assessment systems focus mainly on the operation of tourism facilities (Sub-Chapter 4.6). The
intent of this sustainability rating tool framework is to focus on resort development in Malaysia
and evaluate buildings from a life cycle perspective, including pre-design, design and operation.
Moreover, the rating tool framework suggested in this research aims to produce a comprehensive
rating tool which addresses the key quadruple bottom-line sustainable tourism principles
suggested by the WTO (Berzekar et al 2012) (Chapter 3).
7.5 Summary
This chapter has developed a locally specific framework for a sustainable resort rating tool for
development in the Malaysian context. It has presented the findings from the survey conducted in
Malaysia with sustainable tourism stakeholders. Key findings from all sections in the questionnaire
were highlighted such as the initial model set of indicators, which was derived from the interviews
with local sustainable resort development experts.
The survey results present twelve criteria and 51 indicators that are considered suitable for evaluating
sustainable resort development in Malaysia. Based on the quadruple-bottom-line model (Spiller 2005;
164
Elkington, 2008), the survey respondents agreed that the most important criterion is 3A – ―Site
development‖ because the impact on tourism development is the main sustainable tourism and
development stakeholders concern (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). On the other hand economic
implication of resort development not the main concern of tourism and sustainable development
experts in Malaysia therefore, the least important criterion in this rating tool is 3J – ―finance and
economics‖ (Chapter 3). The survey also found that most respondents supported (as ―very important‖
or ―important‖) all indicators which were presented to them.
A set of weighting coefficients was also established for the rating framework. Weights are assigned to
each criterion and individual indicators based on the opinions derived from the sustainable resort
development stakeholder surveys.
From the stakeholders survey this research has:
i. Validated the indicators
ii. Established weights for each criterion
iii. Established weight for each indicator
Information from this chapter will be used in the next chapter to apply this system to the five local
case studies.
Variation adjusted weight for all criteria are seemingly small in tables 7.4-7.26. The main objective of
this research is to demonstrate the process which is entailed in developing a new development rating
system for sustainable resorts rather than creating a complete and finalised scheme that could be
used immediately.
165
Review local environment, social Review Malaysian tourism
and economic conditions industry and sustainable resort
development in Malaysia
Review existing rating tools and

tourism sustainability assessment
systems
Semi-structured interview with

existing rating tool developers on how
to develop their rating tools
Semi-structured interview with

Malaysian sustainable tourism experts
to identify criteria and indicators
Quantitative research method: validate Quantitative research method:

rating structure, the suitability of establish indicator weights, validate
indicators, and identify other choices of metrics
indicators
Formulate the rating method
Refine the tested rating method
Case study research method:

Test the new rating method on
local case studies
Release the new sustainability

rating tool for resort development
Figure 7-3: Framework to develop the resort sustainability rating tool
166
Site Development Criterion
Adjusted Weight (%) Rank
Low impact construction and 22.20 1

site techniques
Site landscaping 21.10 2
Conserving biodiversity, 20.10 3

ecosystems and landscapes
Site selection 18.45 4
Bioclimatic architectural design 18.15 5
Material Resources and Material Cycles criterion

Low environmental impact 26.15 1

materials/processed products
Regional / local material 25.48 2
Renewable materials 24.57 3
Used of recycled building 23.75 4

material
Energy Efficiency Criterion
Staff training and incentives to 22.26 1

promote energy efficiency
Natural lighting 19.97 2
Energy efficient practices 19.87 3
Renewable energy 19.12 4
Natural ventilation 18.77 5
167
Water Efficiency Criterion
Staff training and incentives to 26.20 1
promote water efficiency
Water recycling 25.55 2
Water efficient practices 23.04 3
Innovative water reduction 25.33 4

technologies
Indoor Environmental Quality Criterion
Health and safety 13.04 1
Thermal comfort 12.93 2
Fire detection and protection 12.67 3
mechanisms
Customer satisfaction 12.53 4
Chemical pollutants 12.35 5
Barrier free design 12.29 6
Visual comfort 12.14 7
Acoustics and noise control 11.71 8
Culture and Heritage Conservation Criterion

Respect for local cultures and 26.98 1
historic locations
Incorporation of local culture 25.62 2
Protection of sites 24.26 3
Education and information about 23.61 4

local culture
168
G- Contribution and Commitment to Local Community Criterion
Local employment 25.77 1
Respect local communities 25.36 2
Support local entrepreneurs 24.94 3
Community development 23.9 4
H - Sustainable Maintenance and Management Criterion
Adoption of sustainable 34.14 1

practices
Legal compliance 33.44 2
Implementation of sustainability 32.41 3

management system
H - Sustainable Maintenance and Management Criterion
Adoption of sustainable 34.14 1

practices
Legal compliance 33.44 2
Implementation of sustainability 32.41 3

management system
I - the Waste and Pollution Criterion
Reducing pollution 26.37 1
Recycling encouragement 25.62 2

provision
Construction waste reduction 24.15 3
strategy
Waste reduction and 23.86 4
management strategy
169
J - the Finance and Economics Criterion
Efficiency of use 27.41 1
East of maintenance 26.07 2

.
Support local economy 25.54 3
Construction cost 19.05 4
K - Resilience Criterion
Climate change impact 34.69 1
Flood resistance 32.99 2
Disaster resilience adaptation 32.32 3

and mitigation strategies
J - the Governance Criterion
Disaster resilience adaptation 30.40 1

and mitigation strategies
Climate change impact 30.10 2
Flood resistance 28.62 3
Table 7-26: Indicators Ranking
170
Chapter 8 – Validation of Results using Case Studies
8.1 Introduction
The previous chapter developed a tentative framework for sustainable resort development for
Malaysia. The rating framework consists of 12 criteria and 52 indicators. In this chapter the
development rating tool is tested against a set of case studies consisting of five existing conventional
resorts to determine whether the rating framework developed can be applied in the Malaysian context.
An Excel spreadsheet was developed which incorporates the rating tool framework criteria, indicators,
measures and their weighting coefficients. The sustainability rating tool is a criterion-based
assessment instrument that is defined as a system of assigning point values to a selected number of
assessment criteria on a certain scale (Ali & Nsairat 2009, CASBEE 2012, CEPAS 2012, LEED
2012).
8.2 Scoring the Case Studies
The overall score of a case study is determined as follows:
i. Calculating each indicator score:
 The credits for each individual indictor are dependent on the number of measures. For
example, if there are two available measures within an indicator, 1 point are assigned
to each measure. Generally, there is one measure per indicator, ie one point per
indicator;
ii. Applying a weighting to each indicator:
 The score of each indicator will be then multiplied against the corresponding weight
to provide the weighted score available for that particular indicator;
iii. Calculating each criterion score:
 The scores of each of the indicators within a sustainability criterion are then added
together to give the score for the criterion;
iv. Applying a weighting to each criterion:
171
 The score for each criterion is then multiplied against the corresponding weight of the
criterion to provide the weighted score available for that particular criterion;
v. Adding all weighted criteria scores together:
 The overall score for the case study is obtained by adding all weighted category score
together.
8.3 Rating Scale
Four performance levels are applied: Very sustainable (100%-80%), Sustainable (79-60%), Average
(50%-60%) and Not sustainable (<50%). The performance levels for the level of sustainability were
based on the analyses of building rating systems such as LEED, GBI-Malaysia and sustainable
tourism assessment systems such as Green Globe and CSI.
8.4 Case Studies
For this research, five resorts were chosen to validate the applicability of the rating tool (Figure 8-1).
Three resorts are characterized as sustainable, based on their achievements and awards in international
competitions. The other two are typical resorts in Malaysia where sustainability practices and
principle are not their priority. The three sustainable Malaysian resorts fit the characteristics of such a
resort as outlined in Chapter 3 and their development process and operation have been documented.
Two of the resorts are also used for educational purposes to spread the knowledge of not just
sustainable design and construction but also of operating sustainably, as attested by their owners and
developers (Case Studies 2 and 3). These three resorts are the first three sustainable resorts in
Malaysia and other private developers have begun to replicate some of their ideas.
172
3 5
1 4
Figure 8-1: Case studies location (adaptation form www.turky-visit.com)
8.4.1 Case Study 1: Kedah
This resort was constructed on a large piece of land within the boundaries of Langkawi Island in the
northern state of Kedah, Malaysia. It was purposely designed and built to benefit from increasing
tourist demand. The design of the resort‘s facades was based on local architectural features and
elements. The most challenging part of the development process was to design and built the resort
within the fragile natural environment of Langkawi Bay, with 8000 year old fringing coral and 10
million year old rainforest surrounding the site.
173
8.4.1: 1 Site Development Criterion – A
No. Indicators Measures Initiatives Scores

A1. Site landscaping  The business uses native species The resort also includes areas for environmental protection and
for landscaping and restoration, conservation, for example of landscaped areas that are retained in their
and takes measures to avoid the natural state. 2 x 21.10%
introduction of invasive alien 2
species.
= 21.10%
 Softscape (vegetated) area Building and infrastructure coverage of the site is only about 50%, which
covers a minimum of 40% of provides extensive opportunities for environmental replenishment and
the site area minimizes disturbance of native flora and fauna.
A2. Site selection  Site is not located on any Case Study 1 resort is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas. 18.45%
ecologically sensitive areas.
A3. Low impact  Sustainable construction This resort implemented reactive management action during construction to
construction and practices and materials are reduce negative environmental impacts. This was achieved using a
site techniques adopted that are not harmful to sustainability consultant, implementation of the EIA and local authority
the environment. regulations. 2 x 22.30
 Locally appropriate principles of The developers worked with local contractors who had sufficient experience 2
sustainable construction and to implement sustainable construction and site management practices.
design are applied, while = 22.30%
respecting the natural and
A4. Bioclimatic  Design strategy with minimal _
architectural contact to ground.
design  Utilisation of green roof with _ 1 x18.15%
indigenous plants. 3
 Design to minimize earth works Accommodation buildings of the resort are aligned to enhance views and
and devastation to existing flora access to passive climate techniques, i.e. tree shading and capturing = 6.05%
and fauna. prevailing sea breezes through good micro-climatic orientation and built
environment efficiency.
A5. Conserving  The business contributes to the The resort elevates its efforts to coral rescue and rehabilitation, and has built
biodiversity, support of biodiversity a Coral Nursery in Langkawi to facilitate these objectives. Guests can = 20.10%
ecosystems and conservation, including participate in the unique and inspiring activity of growing new coral which,
landscapes supporting natural protected after 12 months of nurturing, will be returned to the sea at Datai Bay where
areas and areas of high they will bloom and blossom as part of a healthy new coral colony.
biodiversity value.
Total score 88%
155
8.4.1: 2 Material Resources and Material Cycles Criterion –B

1. Use of recycled  The resort uses recycled building _ 0
building materials in construction of resort
material buildings.
2. Low  Materials from sustainable sources The resort construction techniques feature local hardwood from a certified 26.15%
environmental are used (for example wood from local supplier that had been verified under the Rainforest Alliance's
impact sustainably managed forests). Verification of Legal Origin (VLO) program. VLO expands upon this
materials/ basic level of verification by confirming that timber harvesting practices
processed comply with a broader range of forestry-related laws and regulations
products which address environmental, social and operational requirements.
3. Regional/local  Building materials, components, The interior of the accommodation and restaurant buildings features local 25.48%
materials and systems found locally or materials.
regionally are used, saving energy
and resources in transportation to
the project site.
4. Renewable  The resort uses salvaged, _ 0
materials refurbished, or remanufactured
materials: includes saving a
material from disposal and
renovating, repairing, restoring or
generally improving the
appearance, performance, quality,
functionality or value of a
product.
Total 51.63%
156
8.4.1: 3 Energy Efficiency – C

C1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to The resort has been designed to allow maximum natural light in 19.97%
optimize the use of effective day accommodation areas to reduce the use of artificial lighting.
lighting to reduce energy use for
artificial lighting.
C2. Natural  The resort incorporates energy A mixed mode control system in accommodation buildings is to be used to 18.77%
ventilation efficient design to encourage allow selection of either natural ventilation with ceiling fan assistance or
indoor air movement to remove air conditioning
heat.
C3. Renewable  Renewable technologies are used _ 0
energy for resort operation.
C4. Energy efficient  Energy consumption is measured, Automatic timers are installed on public areas and building lights; a 19.87%
practices sources indicated, and measures computerised Building Management System is in place to control air-
to decrease overall consumption conditioning (HVAC) and lighting throughout the facility. Notices are
are adopted, and the use of provided to encourage guests to conserve energy. Efficient lighting
renewable energy is encouraged. systems, such as low mercury fittings with photo sensors and carefully
positioned external lights, are specified.
C5 Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and Training programmes are provided to increase staff and guest awareness of 22.26%
incentives to provided with incentives to energy conservation.
promote energy implement energy efficiency
efficiency programs.
Total 80.87%
157
8.4.1:4 Water Efficiency – D
D1. Water efficient practices  Sub-metering is _
installed for major 1 X 23.04%
water uses such as 2
irrigation, cooling
tower and amenities to = 11.52%
monitor water
consumption.
 Water efficient fixtures The resort installed water conservation fixtures such as water saving ―push‖
are used to minimize valves, shower heads and low flush systems.
water consumption.
D2. Water recycling  Sufficient recycled The resort recycles their gray water as the resort has sufficient space to
water capacity is construct water treatment plants. The treatment plants have enabled huge
provided for flushing, cost savings. 2 x 25.55%
irrigation, and cooling 2
tower make up water (if = 25.55%
installed).
 Non potable uses. Recycled grey water from the water treatment plant is used for cleaning the
Recycled water and resort surrounds, toilet flushing and landscape irrigation, becoming cost
water efficient practices neutral in just two months.
are applied for
landscaping and for
other
D3. Innovative water  Water-efficient fittings, -
reduction technologies fixtures and innovative =0%
technologies are used to
reduce resort domestic
water consumption.
D4. Staff training and  Staff are effectively Resort staff are effectively trained and provided with incentives to = 26.20%
incentives to promote trained and provided implement energy efficiency programs.
energy efficiency with incentives to
implement energy
Total 88.6%
158
8.4.1: 5 Indoor environment quality category indicators – E

E1. Customer satisfaction  Customer satisfaction is Every customer is encouraged to give feedback to the resort operator to = 12.53%
measured and improve indoor environmental quality.
corrective action taken
where appropriate.
E2. Health and safety  Safety and security of Trained hotel staff are responsible and accountable for looking after the = 13.04%
surrounding areas is security and well-being of guests and visitors. Comprehensive security
ensured. audits are conducted regularly in this resort.
 Compliance with Compliance with OH&S regulations for workers.
Occupational, Health
and Safety (OSH)
regulations for workers.
E3. Chemical pollutants  Airborne contaminants -
from indoor sources are = 2 x 12.35%
minimised to promote a 3
healthy indoor
environment. = 8.32
 Low volatile organic The resort utilizes low volatile organic compounds (VOC) products. For
compounds (VOC) example the resort used low-VOC paints and coatings that are as efficacious
paints certified by as conventional paints but emit significantly fewer harmful off-gases.
approved Malaysian
certification body are
used.
 Low emission Used low emission interior material adhesives certified by an approved
adhesives certified by Malaysian certification body.
approved Malaysian
certification body are
used.
E4. Acoustic and noise  Guest spaces are The resort rooms are designed to minimize ambient sound levels. = 11.71%
control designed with good
ambient sound level
(walls of
accommodation
buildings must be able
to insulate noise up to
80dBA or better).
159
E5. Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning The use of air conditioning has been limited through the creation of
systems are designed to comfortable naturally ventilated areas such as the restaurants and reception = 12.93%
allow for cooling load buildings. The accommodation buildings for the resort ensure the location of
variation due to windows and doors enables natural cross ventilation to all room interiors,
fluctuations in ambient providing natural cooling and sufficient fresh air intake in rooms.
air temperature to
ensure consistent indoor
conditions for thermal
comfort.
E6. Visual comfort  Adequate light is Use of natural light to minimise artificial lighting in all guest rooms and 1 x 12.14%
provided for the restaurant areas, along with appropriate colour schemes on exterior walls to 2
particular task (natural reflect heat.
and artificial). = 6.07%
 Buildings are designed _
to avoid glare.
E7. Barrier free design  Acknowledge presence The resort design provides a ―Barrier-Free‖ environment for guests. = 12.29%
of any design strategies
to reduce mobility
barriers for special need
persons, aged and
infants.
E8. Fire detection and  Acknowledge the Fire/Life/Safety Officers have been appointed at the resort whose
protection mechanism presence of any type of responsibility is to be vigilant about resort fire/life/safety systems. The = 12.67%
. fire detection and resort has smoke detectors and fire alarms.
protection mechanism
in the resort for safety
of tourists and their
belongings.
Total 89.56%
160
8.4.1:6 Culture and Heritage Conservation – F

F1. Incorporation of local  The business uses elements The design of the resort reflects the local environment with regard to the = 25.62%
culture of local art, architecture or materials, texture, space coordination, planning and scale. The choice of
. cultural heritage in its local timbers such as resak (Shorea spp.) and kempas (Koompassia spp.) is
operations, design, elegantly developed in accordance with the design concept and creativity of
decoration, food and/or Malay vernacular architecture.
shops, while respecting the
intellectual property rights
of local communities.
F2. Protection of sites  The business contributes to _ =0
the protection of local
historical, archeologically,
culturally, and spiritually
important properties and
sites, and does not impede
access to them by local
residents.
F3. Respect for local  Locally appropriate The resort initiated programs to support local crafts and craftsmen. Special = 26.98%
cultures and historic principles of sustainable support is given to local artists by providing exhibition space and
locations construction and design are performance space at the resort compound to promote local arts and culture.
employed, while respecting
the natural and cultural
surroundings.
F4. Education and  Information and education Information and educational tours about local culture and heritage are = 23.61%
information about about local culture and provided to tourists by the resort staff.
local culture heritage is provided to
tourists.
Total 76.21
161
8.4.1.7 Contribution and Commitment to Local Community – G

G1. Support local  The business offers the means for The resort has provided business opportunities for local entrepreneurs = 24.94%
entrepreneurs local small entrepreneurs to develop by recommending the packages of local tourist guides and encouraging
and sell sustainable products that are guests to visit the handicraft factory and buy local art works.
based on the area‘s nature, history,
and culture (including food and
drink, crafts, performance arts,
G2. Local  Local residents are employed. 81% of the people employed at the resort are locals = 25.77%
employment  The tourism operation establishes a Locals are also able to sell food and accommodation to the workers.
long-term stable labour relationship
while enhancing the local authentic
character of the tourism service and
product.
G3. Community  The business actively supports The resort also runs a programme called gotong-royong, a voluntary = 23.90%
development initiatives for social and service activity to inspire and assist local communities to ‗clean up, fix
infrastructure community up and conserve the local environment‘. This programme includes
development including, among initiatives ranging from energy and water conservation, tree planting,
others, education, health, and sustainable waste management and recycling.
sanitation.
G4. Respect local  A code of conduct for activities in The resort collaborates with local people on how to promote and = 25.36%
communities local communities is developed with educate tourists about local culture and protect the local environment.
the consent of and in collaboration
with the community.
 The traditions and property of local The resort has initiated a coral conservation project on the island,
populations are respected and involving guests, which includes two initiatives. One is reef clearing
preserved. (removing dead coral as well as manmade debris that has been caught
on the reef). The second is reef walking (educational tours with a
marine biologist and naturalist for guests to learn about coral habitats
and develop an understanding of the fragility of the eco-system). The
project includes a coral nursery and rehabilitation centre for rescued
and damaged coral. The centre also educates tourists about the the
process of protecting and growing new coral.
Total 100%
162
8.4.1:8 Sustainable Maintenance and Management – H
H1. Adoption of sustainable  Locally appropriate The resort implemented a sustainability management plan during = 34.14 %
practices principles of sustainable construction. It was also used as a major guide for the operation of the
construction and design are resort.
employed, while respecting
the natural and cultural
surroundings.
H2. Implement a  A long-term sustainability Long term monitoring of areas such as solid waste disposal, water and = 32.41 %
Sustainability management system is energy conservation, flora and fauna conservation and local community
Management System implemented that is suitable development.
to its context and scale, and
that considers
environmental, socio-
cultural, quality, health and
safety issues.
H3. Legal compliance  The business is in The business is in compliance with all relevant international and local = 33.44 %
compliance with all relevant legislation and regulations (including, among others, health, safety,
international and local labour, and environmental laws).
legislation and regulations
(including, among others,
health, safety, labor, and
Total 100%
163
8.4.1: 9 Waste and Pollution Indicators – I
I1. Waste reduction and  A solid waste management plan is Purchasing products and goods that use less packaging; = 23.86%
management strategy implemented, with quantitative goals preference to products and packaging that can be recycled or are
to minimize waste that is not reused made from recycled products, and buying cleansers that do not
or recycled. contain hazardous ingredients.
I2. Reducing pollution  The business implements practices to Biodegradable or non toxic cleaning products are used in the = 26.37%
reduce pollution from noise, light, resort to reduce pollution.
runoff, erosion, ozone-depleting
contaminants.
I3. Construction waste  Acknowledge steps to reduce During the construction process, most of the reusable waste = 24.15%
reduction strategies construction waste. materials were sent to appropriate sites for reuse and recyclable
resources were redirected back into the manufacturing process.
I4 Recycling  Acknowledge provisions to To reduce waste sent to landfill, the northern resort has set up a = 25.62%
encouragement encourage recycling. recycling room with separate compartments for paper, glass,
provision aluminium and plastic for collection by certified commercial
waste recyclers.
Total 100%
164
8.4.1: 10 Economics – J

J1. Construction cost  Construction costs are lower than =0
conventional construction or as a _
whole, are within a project-defined
J2. Ease of maintenance  Maintenance costs are lower than _
conventional maintenance or as a
J3. Support local economy  Local building materials and local Local building materials and local components, fittings and = 25.54%
components, fittings and furniture are furniture are used that are bought from local suppliers. The
used. interior of the accommodation and restaurant buildings features
local hardwood which demonstrates utilization of building
materials obtained from local natural resources.
 Locally produced goods and services Locals were also able to sell food and accommodation to the
are provided, including food and workers.
agricultural products.
J4 Efficiency of use The resort is cost efficient with respect to: _ 2 X 27.41%
 Energy consumption cost per month; 3
 Water consumption cost per month. The resort recycles their gray water as they had sufficient space to = 18.27%
construct water treatment plants. The treatment plants have
enabled huge cost savings, particularly for the northern resort.
Recycled grey water from the latter treatment plant is used for
cleaning the resort surrounds, toilet flushing and landscape
irrigation, achieving a return on investment in just two months.
 Waste management/disposal cost per The resort has a drinking water bottling facility that uses glass
month. bottles to minimize plastic bottle waste which save money.
Waste generated from maintenance activities are treated in strict

accordance with the nature and type of waste.
Planned maintenance of equipment, furniture, buildings and

infrastructure will help the resort to reduce operation cost.
Total 43.81%
165
8.4.1.11 Resilience (Adaptation and Mitigation) – K
K1. Flood resistance  Building design resists current The climate adaptation measure by the resort developer was to 32.99%
highest flood level. construct the resort buildings based on a pre-construction study
done by the design team. The study aimed to protect the resort
 Building design resists predicted from typical Malaysian environmental problems such as strong
highest flood level in next 50 years. winds, high temperatures, drought and flood.
K2. Disaster resilience  The building design incorporates The accommodation buildings for the resort were built in an area 32.32%
adaptation and mitigation structural / non-structural elements not exposed strong winds. To prevent damage to resort buildings
strategies which support resilience in the event from sea level rise and storm surge, the resort was built three
of natural disaster, for example strong meters above mean sea level. Other adaptation measures to
wind protection or drought resistance. minimise erosion and the risk of storm surge were planting trees
around the resort area and building a seawall along the beach.
K3. Climate change impact  Greenhouse gas emissions from all Greenhouse gas emissions from all sources controlled by the 34.69%
sources controlled by the business are business are measured, and procedures are implemented to reduce
measured, and procedures are and offset them to minimize climate change impacts.
implemented to reduce and offset
them to minimize climate change
impacts.
Total 100%
166
8.4.1.12 Governance – L
I1. Adaptive management  The resort operator continuously The resort operator continuously gathers and integrates = 28.62%
gathers and integrates appropriate information to improve their sustainability practices.
ecological, social and economic
information with the goal of adaptive
improvement.
I2. Full cost allocation  The entire internal and external coast The resort provides a specific budget allocation for sustainability = 30.40%
and benefits, including social and practices and environmental protection every year.
ecological, of alternative decisions
concerning the use of environmental
resources and environmental
protection strategies are identified
and allocated by the resort owner or
operators.
I3. Participation  The resort owners / operators engage Invite experts to advise on how to reduce negative environmental = 30.10%
stakeholders in formulating and impacts such as protecting marine life.
implementing decisions concerning
environmental protection strategies.
Stakeholders‘ awareness and
participation contributes to credible,
accepted rules that identify and assign
the corresponding responsibilities
appropriately.
Total 100%
167
No. Criteria Indicator Adjusted Scores
Score Weight
(%)
1 Site development 88.00 12.06 10.61
2 Material resources and cycle 51.63 5.33 2.75
3 Energy efficiency 80.87 8.1 6.55
4 Water efficiency 88.60 7.12 6.31
5 Indoor environment quality 89.56 10.24 9.17
6 Culture and heritage 76.21 9.18 6.99
7 Community commitment and contribution 100.00 10.06 10.06
8 Sustainable maintenance and management 100.00 8.3 8.3
9 Waste and pollution 100.00 7.11 7.11
10 Economics 43.8 5.13 2.25
11 Resilience (adaptation and mitigation) 100.00 9.17 9.17
12 Governance 100.00 8.19 8.19
Final case study score 87.43%
Table 8-1: Case study 1 final scores
8.4.2 Case Study 2: Perak
This resort is located in Perak (one of the states in peninsular Malaysia). Most of the planning and
development of the resort has concentrated on the need to co-exist with the existing environment in
order to achieve sustainable development. The overall process of developing the resort took into
account the sitting and orientation of accommodation buildings, waste management and disposal, pest
management, environmental education for tourists and workers, community involvement and energy
and water supply
168

A1. Site landscaping The business uses native species for Local indigenous plants and fruit trees are being grown around the southern = 21.10%
landscaping and restoration, and takes resort. The aim of this program is to raise awareness among tourists and the
measures to avoid the introduction of local community of the essential role played by these habitats in the existing
invasive alien species. ecosystem.
Softscape (vegetated) area covers a The resort replanted native plants and trees around the resort buildings to
minimum of 40% of the site area. blend in aesthetically with the surroundings as well as to provide shade from
the sun and filter noise.
A2. Site selection Site is not located on any ecologically Site is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas. = 18.45%
sensitive areas
A3. Low impact Sustainable construction practices and Several international sustainable design consultants provided advice on the = 22.20%
construction and materials are adopted that are not harmful process of design and construction.
site techniques to the environment.
The development process also followed an extensive EIA and the design
team revised the sitting of buildings to reduce possible negative impacts.
Locally appropriate principles of The resort‘s development planning and building design concepts, as well as
sustainable construction and design are construction management, were influenced by a unique mix of Malay local
applied, while respecting the natural and traditions. Their interpretation was driven by collaboration between the
cultural surroundings. developer and local leaders
A4. Bioclimatic Design strategy with minimal contact to Given the warm and humid climate throughout the year in Malaysia, the 1 x 18.15%
architectural ground. resort‘s water villas buildings are built on stilts and rest on the bank of the 3
design hot springs, which allows the free circulation of air under the buildings.
Visitors are able to view the habitats of the tropical jungle and natural cliffs = 6.05
from their accommodation.
Utilisation of green roof with indigenous _
plants.
Design to minimize earth works and
devastation to existing flora and fauna.
A5. Conserving The business contributes to the support of The resort uses low profile buildings and a site development coverage of = 20.10%
biodiversity, biodiversity conservation, including less than 40%, resulting in significant permeability and providing extensive
ecosystems and supporting natural protected areas and opportunities for biodiversity replenishment. Selection and reintroduction of
landscapes areas of high biodiversity value. indigenous species helped maintain the existing gene pool.
Total score 87.9%
169
8.4.2: 2 Material Resources and Material Cycles – B
B1. Use of recycled  The resort uses recycled building Materials used in construction include recycled plastic for lumber, = 23.75%
building materials in construction of resort recycled steel nails, salvaged wood scraps and room accessories made of
material buildings recycled paper made by local community.
B2. Low  Materials from sustainable sources The roofing is a highly adapted local construction of palm leaf thatching = 26.15%
environmental are used (for example wood from (without destroying or cutting down the trees) which is a very popular
impact sustainably managed forests technique for traditional houses in the northern part of Malaysia, utilising
materials/ local resources.
processed
products
B3. Regional/local  Building materials, components, The accommodation buildings and main reception building use local = 25.48%
materials and systems found locally or timbers for the main structural elements, the flooring and roofing
regionally are used, saving energy structural systems. Lightweight local hardwoods, for example Kapur
and resources in transportation to (Dryobalanops spp.) and Nyahtoh (Palaquium spp.) are frequently used
the project site. for secondary accommodation buildings, structural elements such as
rafters and joists as well as window frames and interior finishes.
B4. Renewable  The resort uses salvaged, - = 0%

renovating, repairing, restoring or
generally improving the
product.
Total 75.38%
170

C1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to Designed to allow maximum natural lighting in the common areas such as = 19.97 %
optimize the use of effective day restaurants, reception, spa and accommodation areas.
C2. Natural  The resort incorporates energy The resort‘s water villa accommodation buildings are built on stilts and = 18.77 %
ventilation efficient design to encourage rest on the bank of the hot springs, which allows the free circulation of air
indoor air movement to remove under the buildings.
heat.
The design of the accommodation buildings for the resort ensures the
location of windows and doors enables natural cross ventilation to all room
interiors, providing natural cooling and sufficient fresh air intake in rooms.
The resort also uses natural ventilation in the lobby area and restaurants.
C3. Renewable  Renewable technologies are used Solar power is used for outdoor lighting (mostly for landscape lighting and = 19.12 %
energy for resort operation Staff are road lighting), and a total of 12.6% of all energy consumed by the resort
effectively trained and provided comes from renewable energy sources such as hydro power from the
with incentives to implement national electricity provider, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB).
energy efficiency programs (e.g.,
solar, wind, micro-hydro, and/or
bio-mass).
C4. Energy efficient  Energy consumption is measured, The resort has installed 11-13w compact fluorescent lights. These last up = 19.87 %
practices sources indicated, and measures to five times longer and are more efficient than conventional light bulbs.
to decrease overall consumption Limiting the use of air conditioning through the creation of comfortable
are adopted, and the use of and naturally ventilated outdoor areas also reduces conventional power
renewable energy is encouraged. consumption.
C5 Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and Training programmes to increase staff and guest awareness regarding = 22.26%
incentives to provided with incentives to energy conservation.
Total 100%
171
8.4.2.4 Water Efficiency – D

D1. Water efficient  Sub-metering is installed for Visitors who stay at the resort are encouraged to monitor their water and = 23.04 %
practices major water uses such as energy usage via a digital panel system, and are rewarded with prizes such
irrigation, cooling tower and as a discount on their next stay if their usage level is below the benchmark
amenities to monitor water set by the resort owner
consumption.
 Water efficient fixtures is used
to minimize water consumption
D2. Water recycling  Sufficient recycled water Recycled grey water is collected and used for cleaning the resort = 25.55 %
capacity is provided for surroundings, toilet flushing and landscape irrigation. Irrigation of natural
flushing, irrigation, and cooling vegetation and landscaped areas involves the use of recycled water.
tower make up water (if
installed). Recycled water and
water efficient practices are
applied for landscaping and for
other non potable uses.
D3. Innovative water  Water-efficient fittings, fixtures Water conservation achieved with water saving ―push‖ valves, shower = 25.33 %
reduction and innovative technologies are heads and low flush systems.
technologies used to reduce resort domestic
water consumption.

D4. Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and Training programmes to increase staff and guest awareness regarding water = 26.20 %
incentives to provided with incentives to conservation.
promote water implement energy efficiency
Total 100%
172
8.4.2: 5 Indoor Environment Quality Indicators – E

E1. Customer  Customer satisfaction is The resort measures customer satisfaction and corrective action is taken = 12.53%
satisfaction measured and corrective action where appropriate.
E2. Health and safety  Safety and security of Security staff participate in workshops to ensure they are thoroughly trained = 13.04%
surrounding areas is ensured. to deal with emergencies of all types. Rigorous security and safety
assessments and reviews occur and advanced security technologies are
applied to ensure security, such as integrated surveillance systems, advanced
lock and access control systems, and sophisticated asset protection tools.
 Compliance with Occupational, The resort health and safety policy complies with OH&S regulations for
Health and Safety (OSH) workers.
regulations for workers
E3. Chemical  Airborne contaminants from There is minimal use of chemicals and pesticides; a ―no bleach‖ policy; = 12.35%
pollutants indoor sources are minimised to automated filling of cleaning chemicals in the laundry and utilization of
promote a healthy indoor biodegradable detergents as much as possible.
environment.
 Low volatile organic Low VOC paints certified by approved Malaysian certification body.
compounds (VOC) paints
certified by approved Malaysian
certification body are used.
E4. Acoustic and  Guest spaces are designed with Guest accommodation was designed to minimize ambient sound level. = 11.71%
noise control good ambient sound level (walls
of accommodation buildings
must be able to insulate noise up
to 80dBA or better)
173
E5.
Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning systems are The resort provides appropriate glazing to wall ratios, as well as deep roof = 13.93%
designed to allow for cooling overhangs and shading to windows, to reduce heat from sunlight in most of
load variation due to their buildings.
fluctuations in ambient air
temperature to ensure consistent
indoor conditions for thermal
comfort.
E6.
Visual comfort  Adequate light is provided for Initiatives include use of natural light to minimise artificial lighting in all = 12.14%
the particular task (natural and guest rooms and restaurant areas.
artificial)
 Buildings are designed to avoid
glare
E7.
Barrier free  Acknowledge presence of any The resort uses design strategies to reduce mobility barriers for people with = 12.29%
design design strategies to reduce special needs, aged persons and infants by providing parking spaces, ramps,
mobility barriers disabled lifts, special rooms and designs to ensure the safety of children.
persons, aged and infants.
E8. = 12.67%
Fire detection  Acknowledge the presence of The evacuation routes are checked every day to make sure they are clear and
and protection any type of fire detection and that the fire equipment works properly. All team members take part in
mechanism protection mechanism in the practical fire and evacuation drills at least twice a year. The resort is
. resort for safety of tourists and equipped with sprinklers, automatic fire alarms, emergency lighting, smoke
their belongings. and heat detectors, and has well-established fire procedures.
Total 100%
174
8.4.2.6 Culture and Heritage Conservation – F

F1. Incorporation of  The business uses elements of A strong commitment to preserving and sharing the traditional culture and = 25.62%
local culture local art, architecture or cultural arts of Malaysia and the community of Malays, Chinese and Indians led to
. heritage in its operations, the construction of a traditional restaurant, spa and cultural information area
design, decoration, food and/or where guests can enjoy authentic local products. Art is incorporated into
shops, while respecting the many areas of the resort, for example room accessories made by local
intellectual property rights of people, and guests are encouraged to learn about the traditional arts through
local communities regular tours.
F2. Protection of  The business contributes to the Special care is taken to protect and replant forests around the site area. = 24.26%
sites protection of local historical,
archaeological, culturally, and
spiritually important properties
and sites, and does not impede
residents.
F3. Respect for local  Locally appropriate principles of The resort‘s development planning and building design concepts, as well as = 26.98%
cultures and sustainable construction and construction management, were influenced by a unique mix of local
historic locations design are employed, while traditions. Whilst contemporary in nature, the resort‘s use of local
respecting the natural and traditional natural materials - including timber and coral stone - respects
cultural surroundings. local architectural character and practices.
F4. Education and  Information and education about Information and education about local culture and heritage is provided to = 23.61%
information local culture and heritage is tourists through the tour and information centre in the resort area.
about local provided to tourists.
culture
Total 100%
175

G1. Support local  The business offers the means The resort spa uses natural products which are made from local natural plant = 24.94 %
entrepreneurs for local small entrepreneurs to ingredients by local people and packaged with recyclable materials.
develop and sell sustainable Accommodation room accessories are made in the local communities.
products that are based on the
area‘s nature, history, and
culture (including food and
G2. Local  Local residents are employed. 70% of the people employed at the resort are locals = 25.77 %
employment
 The tourism operation 100% of food in the resorts is sourced locally, as this is one of the
establishes a long-term stable approaches taken to support the local community.
labour relationship while
enhancing the local authentic
character of the tourism service
and product.
G3. Community  The business actively supports Staff and guests are educated on how to make their stay at the resort have = 23.90%
development initiatives for social and less negative impact on the surroundings through targeted sustainability
infrastructure community programs. The resort operator communicates to guests and staff the
development including, among sustainability actions that they can use to reduce their environmental
others, education, health, and footprint. These include waste management, reducing energy and water
sanitation. consumption, and reusing and recycling products.
G4. Respect local  A code of conduct for activities Resort operators collaborate with local people on how to promote and = 25.36%
communities in local communities is educate tourists about local culture and protecting the local environment.
developed with the consent of
and in collaboration with the
community.
 The traditions and property of The resort initiated programmes to grow indigenous plants and fruit trees
local populations are respected around the resort areas. The aim is to raise awareness among tourists and the
and preserved local community of the essential role played by these species in the existing
ecosystem.
Total 100.00
176
8.4.2.8 Sustainable Maintenance and Management – H
H1. Adoption of  Locally appropriate principles The resort has a management team to take responsibility for sustainability = 34.14 %
sustainable of sustainable construction and issues.
practices design are employed, while
H2. Implement a  A long-term sustainability Long term management philosophy and the policy of the resort focuses on = 32.41 %
sustainability management system is key performance criteria such as indoor environment quality, waste
management implemented that is suitable to reduction, reuse and recycling, environmental training for staff, and water
system its context and scale, and that and energy management.
considers environmental, socio-
safety issues.
H3. Legal  The business is in compliance The business is in compliance with all relevant international and local = 33.44 %
compliance with all relevant international legislation and regulations (including, among others, health, safety, labour,
and local legislation and and environmental laws).
regulations (including, among
others, health, safety, labour,
and environmental aspects).
Total 100.00%
177
8.4.2.9 Waste and Pollution Indicators – I

I1. Waste reduction  A solid waste management plan The resort has also implemented a green procurement policy to help reduce = 23.86%
and management is implemented, with the amount of waste sent to landfill and decrease operational environmental
strategy quantitative goals to minimize impacts.
waste that is not reused or
recycled.
I2. Reducing  The business implements Most of the resort‘s interior accessories and furniture are made by local = 26.37%
pollution practices to reduce pollution people. Acquiring 95% of all raw materials for seating and décor from local
from noise, light, runoff, vendors has reduced fuel use, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
erosion, ozone-depleting associated with transporting these products.
contaminants.
I3. Construction  Acknowledge steps to reduce Reductions in the amount of construction waste generated and disposed = 24.15%
waste reduction construction waste during the construction of the resort, were achieved through implementation
strategies of a comprehensive on-site 'Construction Waste Management Plan' that
included recycling and close monitoring.
I4 Recycling  Acknowledge provisions to The resort‘s initiatives to reduce waste include waste separation and = 25.62%
encouragement encourage recycling recycling food waste. There is an onsite composting facility where garden
provision waste is composted to create natural fertilizer for the garden and a number
of recycling stations around the resort for plastic, paper and general waste.
Total 100.00%
178
8.4.2.10 Economics – J

J1. Construction  Construction costs are lower _ =0%
cost than conventional construction
or as a whole, are within a
project-defined percentage of
the overall budget.
J2. East of  Maintenance costs are lower _ =0%
maintenance than conventional maintenance
. or as a whole, are within a
the overall budget.
 Resort buildings must be able to _
maintain with minimum
financial resources over time.
J3. Support local  Local building materials and The design, construction and operation of the project involved local = 25.54%
economy local components, fittings and inhabitants, many of whom have worked on the development. Moreover,
furniture are used. individual buildings for the resort incorporate traditional Malay architecture
and use various local materials.
 Locally produced goods and 100% of food is sourced locally in the resorts, an approach which supports
services are provided, including the local community.
food and drink, crafts,
performance arts, agricultural
products.
J4 Efficiency of use The resort is cost efficient with The building has been designed to allow maximum natural lighting in the = 27.41%
respect to: pre-function areas, further reducing the demand for artificial lighting and
 Energy consumption cost per reducing the energy bill compared to conventional resorts.
month
 Water consumption cost per Fabricated aqua locks to improve water savings in existing shower heads
month provide 33% savings with zero complaints from guests. The aqua locks have
also been used in the resort restaurants and the hotel kitchen reducing the
water flow from 35-40 to 15 litres per minute, a 37.5% saving.
 Waste management/disposal Food waste is recycled into biofuel by a contractor, promoting resource
cost per month recovery while reducing waste. This activity has generated savings for the
resort, as evidenced by reduced trips to landfill.
Total 52.95%
179

K1. Flood resistance  Building design resists current Building design resists predicted highest flood level in next 50 years. = 32.99%
highest flood level
 Building design resists predicted
highest flood level in next 50
years
K2. Disaster  The building design To reduce operational emissions the resort is addressing sustainable design = 32.32%
resilience incorporates structural / non- and construction. This is being achieved by educating hotel development
adaptation and structural elements which partners to design, site, and construct resort buildings and amenities
mitigation support resilience in the event of following internationally recognized green building standards and based on
strategies natural disaster, for example study of the local context including natural disasters. Site clearance was
strong wind protection or minimal during construction to reduce damage to existing vegetation and
drought resistance. the local environment.
K3. Climate change  Greenhouse gas emissions from The resort provides electric buggies for resort guests to help reduce fossil = 34.69%
impact all sources controlled by the fuel related emissions from on-site vehicles. The construction of the resort
business are measured, and used materials that were sourced locally to reduce carbon footprint in terms
procedures are implemented to of transporting materials to the site.
reduce and offset them to
minimize climate change
impacts.
Total 100.00%
180
8.4.2: 12 Governance – L

L1. Adaptive  The resort operator continuously Reduction in the environmental impact of resort activities on site through = 28.62%
management gathers and integrates reactive management actions during resort operation. This was achieved
appropriate ecological, social through ongoing evaluation and subsequent feedback with the local
and economic information with authority, local community and resort guests.
the goal of adaptive
improvement.
L2. Full cost  The entire internal and external Resort invests 10% of profits every year to create programmes to protect the = 30.40%
allocation coast and benefits, including local environment.
social and ecological, of
alternative decisions concerning
the use of environmental
protection strategies are
identified and allocated by the
resort owner or operators.
L3. Participation  The resort owners / operators The resort owner has worked with a local consultant who had sufficient = 30.10%
engage stakeholders in experience to implement sustainability in site management practices.
formulating and implementing
decisions concerning
environmental protection
strategies. Stakeholders‘
awareness and participation
contributes to credible, accepted
rules that identify and assign the
corresponding responsibilities
appropriately.
Total 100
181
No. Criteria Indicator Adjusted Score
Score Weight (%)
1 Site development 87.90 12.06 10.06
2 Material resources and cycle 75.38 5.33 4.02
3 Energy efficiency 100.00 8.1 8.1
4 Water efficiency 100.00 7.12 7.12
5 Indoor environment quality 100.00 10.24 10.24
6 Culture and heritage 100.00 9.18 9.18
7 Community commitment and 100.00 10.06 10.06

contribution
8 Sustainable maintenance and 100.00 8.3 8.3

management.
9 Waste and pollution 100.00 7.11 7.11
10 Finance and Economics 52.95 5.13 2.72
11 Resilience (adaptation and mitigation) 100 9.17 9.17
12 Governance 100 8.19 8.19
Table 8-2: Case study 2 final score
8.4.3 Case study 3: Sabah 1
Case study 3 resort is located on Gaya Island and is perched over a pristine coral reef hugging a lush
rainforest off the coast of Borneo. 95 % of the island is composed of national parks and contains 40%
of all wildlife native to Borneo. The developer and owner of the resort do not take its supreme setting
for granted. One of the main focuses of this resort development is to create a reflective consciousness
towards the local marine environment. The resort has its own on-site marine research centre as one of
the resort initiatives in contributing towards local ecology and sustainability.
182
A1. Site landscaping  The business uses native species The aim of landscaping in this resort is for microclimate control and = 21.10%
for landscaping and restoration, planting for efficient maintenance. To achieve that the design team has
and takes measures to avoid the chosen to reintroduce and replant native species, thereby helping to maintain
introduction of invasive alien the existing gene pool. No exotic plants are to be introduced.
species.
 Softscape (vegetated) area The site has a low building and infrastructure coverage area (less than 40%).
covers a minimum of 40% of The low development to site ratio provides the opportunity to achieve siting
the site area. gains such as a high degree of privacy and minimal disturbance of native
vegetation.
A2. Site selection  Site is not located on any The resort site development gave due consideration to the issues of location = 18.45%
ecologically sensitive areas and availability of le resources in the Malaysian construction industry.
According to the architect site selection was made with careful attention
paid to reducing possible negative impacts and disruption to the beach and
the national marine park around the resort.
A3. Low impact  Sustainable construction The environmental plan and proposal for the project included? a well = 22.20%
construction and practices and materials are structured and comprehensive EIA. The EIA provided an impact assessment
site techniques adopted that are not harmful to checklist, guidance and positive responses to issues which led to an
the environment. improved construction strategy and overall design structure to reduce
disturbance to the environment.
 Locally appropriate principles of Because of the developer‘s commitment to sustainability, the design team
sustainable construction and understood the benefits of local timber construction for the resort buildings.
design are applied, while
A4. Bioclimatic  Design strategy with minimal Accommodation buildings are built on stilts and built along the beach, 1 X 18.15%
architectural contact to ground. which reduces contact with the ground and help to reduce disturbance to the 3
design overall ecosystem.
183
 Utilisation of green roof with _ = 6.05%
indigenous plants.
 Design to minimize earth works

and devastation to existing flora
and fauna.
A5. Conserving  The business contributes to the The resort has a substantial focus on environmental conservation, mainly on = 20.10%
biodiversity, support of biodiversity marine ecology. This resort has its own marine ecology research centre
ecosystems and conservation, including which aims to enhance excellence in marine ecological research while
landscapes supporting natural protected creating awareness amongst the local community and resort guests. The
areas and areas of high resort takes its responsibility to marine conservation seriously, pledging and
biodiversity value. implementing low environmental impact practices.
Under their giant clam restocking programme, the research centre is

involved in breeding this endangered species. A reef regeneration
programme encourages resort guests and the local community to be part of
re-establishing corals back into the reef. This initiative is designed to
encourage tourists and the community to understand the importance of
protecting marine environments.
Total score 87.90%
184
8.4.3: 2 Material Resources and Cycles – B
1. Use of recycled  The resort uses recycled Some of the accommodation rooms‘ furniture and resort products such as = 23.75%
building material building materials in cabinetry, reception counter and hangers are made from 100% recycled
construction of resort buildings materials like bamboo and timber.
2. Low  Materials from sustainable The resort uses certified wood recommended by local green building experts = 26.15%
environmental sources are used (for example to ensure that it has been grown and harvested with due regard for the
impact materials/ wood from sustainably managed environment.
processed forests
products
3. Regional/local  Building materials, components, This resort uses local timber material which is the most common building = 25.48%
materials and systems found locally or material in vernacular architecture construction.
regionally are used, saving
energy and resources in
transportation to the project site.
4. Renewable  The resort uses salvaged, _ = 0%
materials refurbished, or
remanufactured materials:
includes saving a material from
disposal and renovating,
repairing, restoring or generally
improving the appearance,
performance, quality,
product.
Total 75.38%
185
8.4.3: 3 Energy Efficiency - C
No. Indicators Measures initiatives scores

C1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to Appropriate openings and glazing to wall area ratios provide natural light to = 19.97%
optimize the use of effective day resort buildings. Use of natural light minimises use of artificial lighting in
lighting to reduce energy use for all habitable rooms and covered areas, along with appropriate colour
artificial lighting. schemes on walls to reflect heat.
C2. Natural  The resort incorporates energy The resort was built based on design for the tropical climate of the island, = 18.77%
ventilation efficient design to encourage particularly noting orientation, limiting the use of air conditioning through
indoor air movement to remove the creation of naturally ventilated outdoor areas such as a restaurant and
heat. spa. The resort also provides deep roof overhangs and shading to windows,
to reduce heat from sunlight and provide adequate openings for natural
ventilation.
C3. Renewable  Renewable technologies are Uses solar energy to provide hot water and to save conventional energy. = 19.12%
energy used for resort operation Staff
are effectively trained and
provided with incentives to
implement energy efficiency
programs (e.g., solar, wind,
micro-hydro, and/or bio-mass).
C4. Energy efficient  Energy consumption is The resort uses energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs. The light- = 19.87%
practices measured, sources indicated, emitting diodes (LED) have even lower power consumption than
and measures to decrease conventional lighting and less negative impacts on the environment when
overall consumption are disposed of Other initiatives include reducing the time delay on room key
adopted, and the use of cards that turn off lighting when guests exit the room and installing
renewable energy is encouraged. automatic timers on public and building lights.
C5 Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and The resort operator communicates to guests and staff sustainability oriented = 22.26%
incentives to provided with incentives to actions that they can use to reduce their environmental footprint. These
promote energy implement energy efficiency include waste management, reducing energy and water consumption, and
efficiency programs. reusing and recycling products.
Total 100%
186
8.4.3: 4 Water Efficiency – D
No. Indicators Measures initiatives Scores
D1. Water efficient  Sub-metering is installed for Reducing laundry requirements by giving guests the option to have their = 23.04%
practices major water uses such as linen changed on alternate days. Guest preferences are retained in the
irrigation, cooling tower and hotel‘s records and are implemented automatically on their next visit
amenities to monitor water
consumption.
 Water efficient fixtures is used
to minimize water consumption
D2. Water recycling  Sufficient recycled water Rainwater harvested from roof areas is stored in rainwater tanks to be used = 25.55%
capacity is provided for for flushing, irrigation and a cooling tower. Gardening water for the resort
flushing, irrigation etc. Recycled does not use any domestic water system and drip irrigation helps to reduce
water and water efficient water consumption. Irrigation of natural vegetation and landscaped areas
practices are applied for uses recycled water.
landscaping and for other non
potable uses.
D3. Innovative water  Water-efficient fittings, fixtures Low/dual flush toilets, low flow tap fittings and low flow shower fittings = 25.33%
reduction and innovative technologies are were installed throughout the resort during construction. Individual sensor
technologies used to reduce resort domestic urinals and flush toilets were installed, improving water conservation.
water consumption.
D4. Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and The resort‘s main means to immediately reduce water consumption without = 26.20%
incentives to provided with incentives to capital outlay involves educating staff. Following re-training, policies were
promote water implement energy efficiency implemented to ensure that leaks are checked on a weekly basis and
efficiency programs. maintenance staff members are immediately notified if any repairs are
required.
Total 100%
187
8.4.3: 5 Indoor Environment Quality Category Indicators – E
E1. Customer  Customer satisfaction is Customer satisfaction is measured through feedback forms and emails sent 12.53%
satisfaction measured and corrective action to customers after their stay at the resort. Corrective action is taken where
taken where appropriate. appropriate.
E2. Health and safety  Safety and security of The resort employs a professional safety team with impressive safety and 13.04%
surrounding areas is ensured. security backgrounds to make sure that all residents, employees and visitor
are safe. Safety & Security Officers are also trained and certified to respond
to most medical emergencies that may arise at the hotel.
 Compliance with Occupational, The resort management team conducts safety, health and environmental
Health and Safety (OSH) training programmes to create awareness and instil consciousness and sound
regulations for workers practices within its workforce. The resort also has an official
Environmental, Health and Safety policy in order to create a low
environmental impact workplace and a healthy and safe workplace for all
employees.
E3. Chemical  Airborne contaminants from It is the resort‘s policy to use biodegradable chemical products for all its 2 x 12.35%
pollutants indoor sources are minimised to cleaning activities such as cleaning of toilets, carpets, glass and washing of 3
promote a healthy indoor floors in public and private areas.
environment. = 8.23%
 Low volatile organic The resort‘s Engineering Department only uses low VOC paints when
compounds (VOC) paints painting.
 Low emission adhesives _

188
E4. Acoustic and  Guest spaces are designed with _ = 0%
to 80dBA or better)
E5. Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning systems are One of the resort‘s initiatives to reduce conducted heat is using building = 12.93%
designed to allow for cooling materials with low thermal transmittance value. The resort building also
load variation due to provides cross ventilation to all room interiors especially in accommodation
fluctuations in ambient air rooms, providing natural cooling and sufficient fresh air intake in rooms to
temperature to ensure consistent minimize CO2levels.
comfort.
E6. Visual comfort  Adequate light is provided for The building has been designed to allow maximum natural lighting in most = 12.16%
the particular task (natural and of the public areas such as reception areas and restaurants.
artificial)
 Buildings are designed to avoid All buildings are designed with appropriate overhangs to avoid glare.
glare
E7. Barrier free  Acknowledge presence of any The resort provides full wheelchair access to bedrooms and toilets = 12.29%
design design strategies to reduce
mobility barriers for special
need persons, aged and infants.
E8. Fire detection  Acknowledge the presence of The resort is equipped with a fire protection system including sensitive = 12.67%
and protection any type of fire detection and smoke detectors, an automated sprinkler system and public address speakers
mechanism protection mechanism in the throughout all guest rooms and public areas.
. resort for safety of tourists and
their belongings
Total 83.85%
189
8.4.3: 6 Culture and Heritage Conservation – F
F1. Incorporation of  The business uses elements of The resort works with the local community as part of a social involvement = 25.62%
local culture local art, architecture or cultural programme by offering local customs through cultural shows and the
. heritage in its operations, regional cuisine featured in the resort restaurants.
design, decoration, food and/or
intellectual property rights of
local communities
F2. Protection of  The business contributes to the _ =0%
residents.
F3. Respect for local  Locally appropriate principles of The design philosophy and construction management for this resort were = 26.98%
cultures and sustainable construction and influenced by a distinctive mix of Sabah culture and local traditions. The
historic locations design are employed, while interpretation of building design was driven by collaboration between local
respecting the natural and building experts (traditional house construction and design) and an
cultural surroundings. acclaimed Malaysia-based architectural firm.
F4. Education and  Information and education about The resort creates awareness about local culture to guests through = 23.61%
information local culture and heritage is programmes such as cultural tours.
culture
Total 76.21%
190
8.4.3: 7 Contribution and Commitment to Local Community – G

G1. Support local  The business offers the means 100% locally sourced food and beverages are purchased where possible in a 24.94%
entrepreneurs for local small entrepreneurs to bid to keep food miles low and support regional growers. Most of the
develop and sell sustainable building materials are sourced locally. For example the resort uses light
products that are based on the local hardwoods from a local building material supplier. It has frequently
area‘s nature, history, and used those woods for secondary accommodation buildings, structural
culture (including food and elements such as rafters and joists as well as window frames and interior.
G2. Local  Local residents are employed. The resort employs more than 80% local people 25.77%
employment  The tourism operation A local civil, building and labour contractor undertook the major
establishes a long-term stable construction works; this generated more than 200 temporary employment
labour relationship while positions for the local community during construction phase.
and product.
G3. Community  The business actively supports The resort staff received formal training on sustainability issues. Training 23.9%
development initiatives for social and and workshops focus on environmental practices to help employees improve
infrastructure community their performance. The resort runs a programme called gotong-royong, a
development including, among voluntary service activity to inspire and assist local communities to fix up
others, education, health, and and conserve the local environment. This programme includes carrying out
sanitation. initiatives ranging from energy and water conservation, tree planting,
sustainable waste management and recycling.
G4. Respect local  A code of conduct for activities The resort operators collaborate with local people on how to promote and 25.36%
communities in local communities is educate tourists about local culture and protect the local environment.
community.
 The traditions and property of A reef regeneration programme encourages resort guests and the local
local populations are respected community to be part of re-establishing corals back into the reef. This
and preserved initiative is designed to encourage tourists and the community to understand
the importance of protecting marine environments.
Total 100%
191
8.4.3: 8 Sustainable Maintenance and Management – H
H1. Adoption of  Locally appropriate principles of The resort owners developed a partnership with local sustainable consultant 34.14%
sustainable sustainable construction and and supplier during construction and design phase to demonstrate
practices design are employed, while commitment towards sustainability and reduce environmental impact of the
respecting the natural and resort development.
H2. Implement a  A long-term sustainability The resort established a sustainable task force to develop and execute 32.41%
Sustainability management system is sustainable practices.
Management implemented that is suitable to
System its context and scale, and that
safety issues.
H3. Legal  The business is in compliance The business is in compliance with all relevant international and local 33.44%
Compliance with all relevant international legislation and regulations (including, among others, health, safety, labour,
and local legislation and and environmental aspects).
Total 100.00
192
I1. Waste reduction and  A solid waste The resort seeks to reduce the volume of solid waste it generates by 23.86%
management strategy management plan is implementing a sustainable purchasing policy. For example the resort
implemented, with purchases supplies in bulk which are then stored in reusable steel containers.
quantitative goals to Suppliers use baskets to deliver goods rather than boxes and vegetables are
minimize waste that is no longer wrapped in paper. The resort gives preference to goods and
not reused or recycled. packaging that can be recycled or are made from recycled products.
I2. Reducing pollution  The business The resort works with local government and local people to reduce beach 26.37%
implements practices to and water pollution around the resort area. This includes activities such as
reduce pollution from educating local people on how to protect the sea, water and local
noise, light, runoff, environment.
erosion, ozone-
depleting compounds
and air and soil
contaminants.
I3. Construction waste  Acknowledge steps to The resort implemented site waste management plans during the 24.15%
reduction strategies reduce construction construction phase which included waste prevention targets and a system of
waste transferring waste to use as recycled materials on other construction sites.
I4 Recycling encouragement  Acknowledge All rubbish is properly sorted and sent to recycling companies. Organic 25.62%
provision provisions to encourage waste is composted and used for fertilizing the gardens.
recycling
Total 100%
193
8.4.3: 10 Economics – J

J1. Construction cost  Construction costs are _ = 0%
lower than conventional
construction or as a whole,
are within a project-defined
percentage of the overall
budget.
J2. East of maintenance  Maintenance costs are _ = 0%
. lower than conventional
maintenance or as a whole,
are within a project-defined
percentage of the overall
budget.
 Resort buildings must be _
able to maintain with
minimum financial
resources over time.
J3. Support local economy  Local building materials Most of the building materials are sourced locally. = 25.54%
and local components,
fittings and furniture are
used.
 Locally produced goods Locally produced goods and services are provided, including food and
and services are provided, drink, crafts, performance arts and agricultural products.
including food and drink,
crafts, performance arts,
J4 Efficiency of use  Energy consumption cost _ 2 X 27.41%
per month 3
 Water consumption cost per Electronic sensors are installed on all taps and urinals in the public and = 18.27%
month back areas to reduce water wastage.
 Waste Sustainable purchasing reduces costs compared with conventional resorts
management/disposal cost in terms of waste management and disposal. Recycling program for
per month organic waste reduces cost and trips to landfill.
Total 43.81%
194

I1. Adaptive management  The resort operator The owner believes it is important to have a clear plan and long term = 28.62%
continuously gathers and strategy for sustainability, so that the principles of sustainability are
integrates appropriate placed on the main agenda and at the forefront of resort development and
ecological, social and operation.
economic information with
improvement.
I2. Full cost allocation  The entire internal and The entire internal and external costs and benefits, including social and = 30.40%
external coast and benefits, ecological, of alternative decisions concerning the use of environmental
including social and resources and protection strategies are identified and allocated by the
ecological, of alternative resort owner or operators.
decisions concerning the use
of environmental resources
and environmental
identified and allocated by
the resort owner or operators
I3. Participation  The resort owners / _ =0%

operators engage
stakeholders in formulating
and implementing decisions
concerning environmental
protection strategies.
participation contributes to
credible, accepted rules that
identify and assign the
corresponding
responsibilities
appropriately.
Total 59.02%
195
score Weight (%)
1 Site Development 87.9 12.06 10.6
2 Material Resources and cycle 75.38 5.33 4.02
3 Energy Efficiency 100 8.10 8.1
4 Water Efficiency 100 7.12 7.12
5 Indoor Environment Quality 83.85 10.24 8.59
6 Culture and Heritage 76.21 9.18 7.00
7 Community Commitment and 100 10.06 10.06

Contribution
8 Sustainable maintenance and 100 8.3 8.3
management
9 Waste and Pollution 100 7.11 7.11
10 Economics 43.81 5.13 2.25
11 Resilience (Adaptation and Mitigation) 100.00 9.17 9.17
12 Governance 59.00 8.19 4.83
8.4.4 Case Study 4: Kedah 2
Case study 4 is set on the south-western part of the island of Langkawi. Case study 4 is just 5 minutes
walking distance from the airport and 3 minutes walking distance to the Mahsuri International
Exhibition Centre. Other facilities and services provided by hotel are spa, secluded private beach, kids
club, convenient Shop, karaoke lounge, fitness centre, seminar and conference facilities.
196
8.4.4: 1 Site Development – A

A1. Site landscaping  The business uses native species Native and adaptive landscape palette which allows for a reduction in the 1 x 21.10
for landscaping and restoration, amount of irrigation necessary. 2
and takes measures to avoid the
introduction of invasive alien = 10.55%
species.
 Softscape (vegetated) area _
covers a minimum of 40% of
the site area.
A2. Site selection  Site is not located on any Case study 1 resort is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas. = 18.45%
ecologically sensitive areas
A3. Low impact  Sustainable construction Using local timber in construction. = 22.20%
construction and practices and materials are
site techniques adopted that are not harmful to
the environment.
 Locally appropriate principles of Resort buildings offer adaptation of Malaysian local vernacular timber
sustainable construction and architecture.
A4. Bioclimatic  Design strategy with minimal _ = 0%
Design  Utilisation of green roof with _
indigenous plants.
 Design to minimize earth works _
and fauna.
A5. Conserving  The business contributes to the _ = 0%
Biodiversity, support of biodiversity
Ecosystems and conservation, including
Landscapes supporting natural protected
areas and areas of high
biodiversity value.
Total 51.20%
197
8.4.4: 2 Material Resources and Material Cycles – B
1. Use of recycled  The resort uses recycled _ = 0%

building material building materials in
construction of resort buildings
2. Low  Materials from sustainable _ = 0%

environmental sources are used (for example
impact materials/ wood from sustainably managed
processed forests
products
3. Regional/local  Building materials, components, Using local timber in the construction of resort buildings. = 25.48%
materials and systems found locally or
4. Renewable  The resort uses salvaged, _ = 0%
renovating, repairing, restoring
or generally improving the
appearance, performance,
quality, functionality or value of
a product..
Total 25.48%
198
C1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to The building has been designed to allow maximum natural lighting in the = 19.97%
optimize the use of effective day restaurant and reception areas, further reducing the demand for artificial
lighting to reduce energy use for lighting.
C2. Natural  The resort incorporates energy Restaurant building and reception area for this resort are completely =18.77%
ventilation efficient design to encourage naturally ventilated with no HVAC system installed.
indoor air movement to remove
heat.
C3. Renewable  Renewable technologies are _ =0%

energy used for resort operation.
C4. Energy efficient  Energy consumption is _ =0%

practices measured, sources indicated,
and measures to decrease
overall consumption are
adopted, and the use of
renewable energy is encouraged.
C5 Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and _ =0%

incentives to provided with incentives to
Total 38.74%
199
8.4.5: 5 Indoor Environment Quality Category Indicators – E
E1. Customer  Customer satisfaction is Every customer is encouraged to give feedback to the resort operator to = 12.53%
satisfaction measured and corrective action improve the indoor environment quality.
E2. Health and safety  Safety and security of 24 hour closed circuit television recording (CCTV) and observation for all = 13.04%
surrounding areas is ensured. key areas of the hotel by trained security teams. Rigorous inspection and
auditing monthly of all security, fire, lift and emergency facilities
 Compliance with Occupational, Compliance with Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) regulations for
Health and Safety (OSH) workers
E3. Chemical  Airborne contaminants from _ 1 x 12.35

pollutants indoor sources are minimised to 3
promote a healthy indoor
environment. = 4.12%
 Low volatile organic Low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints certified by approved
compounds (VOC) paints Malaysian certification body are used for all buildings in the resort.
 Low emission adhesives _

200
E4. Acoustic and  Guest spaces are designed with _ =0%
to 80dBA or better)
E5. Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning systems are Air-conditioning systems are designed to allow for cooling load variation = 12.93%
designed to allow for cooling due to fluctuations in ambient air temperature to ensure consistent indoor
load variation due to conditions for thermal comfort.
comfort.
E6. Visual comfort  Adequate light is provided for Adequate light is provided for the particular task (natural and artificial). 1 x 12.14
the particular task (natural and 2
artificial) = 6.07%
 Buildings are designed to avoid _

glare
E7. Barrier free  Acknowledge presence of any The resort design provides ―Barrier-Free‖ environment for guests. = 12.29%
E8. Fire detection  Acknowledge the presence of Emergency fire training and workshops for all staff to ensure efficient and = 12.67%
and protection any type of fire detection and effective responses to all situations. All areas have fire alarms and the resort
mechanism protection mechanism in the provides emergency manual for all hotel guests.
their belongings
Total 73.65%
201
8.4.4: 6 Culture and Heritage Conservation – F
F1. Incorporation of  The business uses elements of The design of the resort reflects the local architecture. The resort‘s = 26.62%
local culture local art, architecture or cultural restaurant offers local cuisine 100% organic and local produce.
. heritage in its operations,
local communities
residents.
F3. Respect for local  Locally appropriate principles of _ =0%
cultures and sustainable construction and
historic locations design are employed, while
F4. Education and  Information and education about Information about local culture and heritage is provided to tourists by the = 23.61%
information local culture and heritage is resort staff.
culture
Total 50.23%
202
8.4.4: 7 Contribution and Commitment to Local Community – G

G1. Support local  The business offers the means The resort has provided business opportunities for local entrepreneurs by = 24.94%
Entrepreneurs for local small entrepreneurs to purchasing building materials during construction and 100% local produce
develop and sell sustainable ingredients for the resort restaurant.
G2. Local  Local residents are employed. The resort employs more than 80% local people 1 X 25.77
employment  The tourism operation _ 2
establishes a long-term stable
labour relationship while = 12.89%
and product.
G3. Community  The business actively supports _ =0%
development initiatives for social and
infrastructure community
development including, among
others, education, health, and
sanitation.
G4. Respect local  A code of conduct for activities _ =0%
communities in local communities is
community.
 The traditions and property of _
local populations are respected
and preserved
Total 37.83%
203
8.4.4: 8 Sustainable Maintenance and Management – H
H1. Adoption of  Locally appropriate principles of _ = 0%

sustainable sustainable construction and
H2. Implement a  A long-term sustainability _ = 0%

sustainability management system is
management implemented that is suitable to
system its context and scale, and that
safety issues.
H3. Legal  The business is in compliance The business is in compliance with all relevant international and local = 33.44%
compliance with all relevant international legislation and regulations (including, among others, health, safety, labor,
others, health, safety, labor, and
Total 33.44%
204
I1. Waste reduction  A solid waste management plan _ =0%

and management is implemented, with
strategy quantitative goals to minimize
recycled.
I2. Reducing  The business implements Use of low environmental impact chemicals in housekeeping and kitchen. = 26.37%
pollution practices to reduce pollution
from noise, light, runoff,
contaminants.
I3. Construction  Acknowledge steps to reduce _ =0%

waste reduction construction waste
strategies
I4 Recycling  Acknowledge provisions to Green recycling room with separate compartments for paper, glass, = 25.62%
encouragement encourage recycling aluminium and plastic.
provision
Total 51.99%
205
8.4.4:10 Economics – J
J1. Construction  Construction costs are lower =0%

cost than conventional construction _
the overall budget.
J2. East of  Maintenance costs are lower _ =0%
Maintenance than conventional maintenance
the overall budget.
J3. Support local  Local building materials and Local building materials are used. 25.54 %
economy local components, fittings and
furniture are used.
 Locally produced goods and Locally produced goods and services are provided, including food and
services are provided, including drink.
products.
J4 Efficiency of use The resort is cost efficient with _ =0%
respect to:
 Energy consumption cost per
month
 Water consumption cost per _
month
 Waste management/disposal _
cost per month
Total 25.54%
206
8.4.4: 11 Resilience (Adaptation and Mitigation) – K
K1. Flood resistance  Building design resists current The climate adaptation measure by the resort developer was to construct the = 32.99%
highest flood level resort buildings based on a pre-construction study done by the design team.
The study aimed to protect the resort from typical Malaysian environmental
 Building design resists predicted problems such as strong winds, high temperatures, drought and flood.
highest flood level in next 50
years
K2. Disaster  The building design _ =0%
resilience incorporates structural / non-
adaptation and structural elements which
mitigation support resilience in the event of
strategies natural disaster, for example
strong wind protection or
drought resistance.
K3. Climate change  Greenhouse gas emissions from _ =0%
impact all sources controlled by the
business are measured, and
procedures are implemented to
impacts.
Total = 32.99%
207
I1. Adaptive  The resort operator continuously _

management gathers and integrates =0%
appropriate ecological, social
and economic information with
improvement.
I2. Full cost  The entire internal and external _ =0%

allocation coast and benefits, including
resort owner or operators
I3. Participation  The resort owners / operators =0%

engage stakeholders in _
appropriately.
Total 0%
208
score Weight (%)
3 Energy Efficiency 38.74 8.1 3.13
4 Water Efficiency 11.52 7.12 0.82
7 Community Commitment and 37.83 10.06 3.81

Contribution
management
9 Waste and Pollution 51.99 7.11 3.70
10 Economics 25.54 5.13 1.31
12 Governance 0 8.19 0
Final case study score 38.26
8.4.5 Case study 5: Sabah 2
The case study 5 resort, situated on a 5 kilometre long beach 40 minutes from Kota Kinabalu and the
resort is famous for its diverse and colourful range of food and beverage outlets. Boasting a full-
range of resort features and facilities in its rooms and chalets, the resort facilities includes 111 air-
conditioned rooms, 5 restaurants & bars, swim-up bar, conference facilities and swimming pool.
209
8.4.5.1 Site Development – A

A1. Site landscaping  The business uses native species In order to minimise irrigation the resort plants local species, for example 1 x 21.10
for landscaping and restoration, Gardenia carinata and Murraya paniculata are used. 2
and takes measures to avoid the
introduction of invasive alien = 10.55 %
species.
 Softscape (vegetated) area _
covers a minimum of 40% of
the site area.
A2. Site selection  Site is not located on any Case study 5 resort is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas. = 18.45%
ecologically sensitive areas
A3. Low impact  Sustainable construction _ =0%
construction and practices and materials are
site techniques adopted that are not harmful to
the environment.
 Locally appropriate principles of _
sustainable construction and
A4. Bioclimatic  Design strategy with minimal _ =0%
design  Utilisation of green roof with _
indigenous plants.
 Design to minimize earth works _
and fauna
A5. Conserving  The business contributes to the _ =0%
biodiversity, support of biodiversity
ecosystems and conservation, including
landscapes supporting natural protected
areas and areas of high
biodiversity value.
Total score 29.00%
210
8.4.5.2 Material Resources and Cycles – B
No. Indicators Measures initiatives scores

1. Use of recycled  The resort uses recycled _ =0%
building material building materials in
construction of resort buildings
2. Low  Materials from sustainable _ =0%

environmental sources are used (for example
impact materials/ wood from sustainably managed
processed forests
products
3. Regional/local  Building materials, components, Most of the interior accessories are made by local people. = 25.48%
materials and systems found locally or
4. Renewable  The resort uses salvaged, _ =0%

renovating, repairing, restoring
or generally improving the
appearance, performance,
quality, functionality or value of
a product.
Total 25.48%
211
8.4.5.3 Energy Efficiency – C
C1. Natural lighting  Resort buildings are designed to The resort has been designed to allow maximum natural lighting in common = 19.97 %
optimize the use of effective day areas to reduce the use of artificial lighting.
C2. Natural  The resort incorporates energy _ =0%

ventilation efficient design to encourage
indoor air movement to remove
heat.
C3. Renewable  Renewable technologies are _ =0%

energy used for resort operation.
C4. Energy efficient  Energy consumption is Day-lighting dimming controls for restaurants, reception area, conference = 19.87 %
practices measured, sources indicated, room and restaurants. Energy efficient light bulbs are used throughout the
and measures to decrease resort. Resort staff are encouraged not to leave computers and other
overall consumption are electronic devices on or on standby mode. Staff travel inside the resort is
adopted, and the use of either on foot, bike or battery powered buggy.
renewable energy is encouraged.
C5 Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and _ =0%

Total 62.10%
212
8.4.5.4 Water Efficiency – D
D1. Water efficient  Water efficient fixtures is used Low-flow shower heads. Guest linen & towel reuse program to reduce = 23.04 %
practices to minimize water consumption water use for cleaning. Uses low flush volumes.
D2. Water recycling  Sufficient recycled water _ 1 x 25.55

capacity is provided for 2
flushing, and cooling tower = 12.77%
make up water (if installed).
 Recycled water and water Collecting rain water to use for landscape irrigation.
efficient practices are applied
for landscaping and for other
non potable uses.
D3. Innovative water  Water-efficient fittings, fixtures _ = 0%
reduction and innovative technologies are
technologies used to reduce resort domestic
water consumption.
D4. Staff training and  Staff are effectively trained and _ = 0%
promote water implement energy efficiency
Total 35.81%
213
8.4.5.5 Indoor Environment Quality Category Indicators – E
E1. Customer  Customer satisfaction is Every customer is encouraged to give feedback to the resort operator to = 12.53 %
satisfaction measured and corrective action improve the indoor environment quality.
E2. Health and safety  Safety and security of Emergency and safety manuals are provided in every room in the resort. = 13.04
surrounding areas is ensured. Staff awareness programme for hotel security.
 Compliance with Occupational, Complying with Malaysian public and occupational safety and health
Health and Safety (OSH) legislation.
E3. Chemical  Airborne contaminants from _ 2 x 12.35%

pollutants indoor sources are minimised to 3
promote a healthy indoor
environment. = 8.23
 Low volatile organic The resort utilizes all low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints.
compounds (VOC) paints
 Low emission adhesives Uses low emission interior material adhesives certified by approved
certified by approved Malaysian Malaysian certification body
E4. Acoustic and  Guest spaces are designed with The resort rooms are designed with good ambient sound level. = 11.71%
to 80dBA or better)
214
E5. Thermal comfort  Air-conditioning systems are _ =0%
designed to allow for cooling
load variation due to
comfort.
E6. Visual comfort  Adequate light is provided for Use of natural light to minimise artificial lighting in public areas. 1 X 12.14
the particular task (natural and 2
artificial)
= 6.07%
 Buildings are designed to avoid _
glare
E7. Barrier free  Acknowledge presence of any The resort design provides ―Barrier-Free‖ environment for guests. = 12.29%
E8. Fire detection  Acknowledge the presence of The resort has smoke detectors and fire alarms in every guest room. Regular = 12.67%
and protection any type of fire detection and audits from health, safety and fire departments. Daily patrol of the resort fire
mechanism protection mechanism in the evacuation signage and routes.
their belongings.
Total 76.54%
215
8.4.5.6 Culture Heritage Conservation – F
F1. Incorporation of  The business uses elements of The resort restaurant features local cuisine and has cultural performances = 25.62 %
local culture local art, architecture or cultural every week.
. heritage in its operations,
local communities
residents.
F3. Respect for local  Locally appropriate principles of _ =0%
cultures and sustainable construction and
historic locations design are employed, while
F4. Education and  Information and education about Information and education tour about local culture and heritage is provided = 23.61 %
information local culture and heritage is to tourists by the resort staff.
culture
Total 49.23%
216
G1. Support local  The business offers the means _ =0%

entrepreneurs for local small entrepreneurs to
develop and sell sustainable
G2. Local  Local residents are employed. The resort employs more than 81% local people. 1 x 25.77
employment  The tourism operation _ 2
establishes a long-term stable
labour relationship while = 12.89%
and product.
G3. Community  The business actively supports Resort makes regular donations to local disadvantaged communities. The = 23.9%
development initiatives for social and case study resort works closely with the local authority to select families
infrastructure community living in disadvantaged situations to give monetary support and provide
development including, among employment as well.
others, education, health, and
sanitation.
G4. Respect local  A code of conduct for activities _. =0%
communities in local communities is
community.
 The traditions and property of _
local populations are respected
and preserved
Total 36.79%
217
8.4.5.8 Sustainable Maintenance and Management – H
H1. Adoption of  Locally appropriate principles _ =0%

sustainable of sustainable construction and
H2. Implement a  A long-term sustainability _ =0%

Sustainability management system is
Management implemented that is suitable to
System its context and scale, and that
safety issues.
H3. Legal  The business is in compliance The business is in compliance with all relevant international and local = 33.44%
Compliance with all relevant international legislation and regulations (including, among others, health, safety, labor,
Total 33.44%
218
8.4.5.9 Waste and pollution indicators – I
I1. Waste reduction  A solid waste management plan All paper products such as serviettes, toilet tissues and printing paper are = 23.86
and management is implemented, with sourced from recycled material and low environmental impact sources.
strategy quantitative goals to minimize
recycled.
I2. Reducing  The business implements _ =0

Pollution practices to reduce pollution
from noise, light, runoff,
contaminants.
I3. Construction  Acknowledge steps to reduce _ =0

waste reduction construction waste
strategies
I4 Recycling  Acknowledge provisions to Recycle bins are provided. Office papers and printer cartridges are recycled = 25.62
encouragement encourage recycling at all restaurants, Recycling of table clothes, bed linen and towels at end of
provision their useful life.
Total 49.48%
219
8.4.5.10 Economics – J

J1. Construction  Construction costs are lower _
cost than conventional construction _
the overall budget.
J2. East of  Maintenance costs are lower _ _
maintenance than conventional maintenance
the overall budget.
J3. Support local  Local building materials and 1 x 25.54
economy local components, fittings and 2
furniture are used.
 Locally produced goods and Locally purchased organic food products from local people. = 12.77 %
services are provided, including
products.
J4 Efficiency of use The resort is cost efficient with _ _
respect to:
 Energy consumption cost per
month
 Water consumption cost per _
month
 Waste management/disposal _
cost per month
Total 12.77%
220
K1. Flood resistance  Building design resists current Building design resists current highest flood level. 32.99%
highest flood level. Building
design resists predicted highest
flood level in next 50 years
K2. Disaster  The building design _ 0%

resilience incorporates structural / non-
adaptation and structural elements which
mitigation support resilience in the event of
strategies natural disaster, for example
strong wind protection or
drought resistance.
K3. Climate change  Greenhouse gas emissions from _ 0%

impact all sources controlled by the
business are measured, and
procedures are implemented to
impacts.
Total 32.99%
221
8.4.5.12 Governance – L

I1. Adaptive  The resort operator continuously _ = 0%
management gathers and integrates
appropriate ecological, social
and economic information with
improvement.
I2. Full cost  The entire internal and external _ = 0%

allocation coast and benefits, including
resort owner or operators
I3. Participation  The resort owners / operators _ = 0%

engage stakeholders in
appropriately.
Total 0%
222
score Weight (%)
3 Energy Efficiency 62.10 8.1 5.03
4 Water Efficiency 35.81 7.12 2.55
7 Community Commitment and 36.79 10.06 3.70
Contribution
management
9 Waste and Pollution 49.48 7.11 3.52
10 Economics 12.77 5.13 0.66
12 Governance 0 8.19 0
8.5.1 to the Case Studies
This research has developed a regionally relevant resort sustainability rating tool framework for
Malaysia. It has three hierarchical levels which are criteria, indicators and measures. An initial set of
model indicators, derived from semi-structured interviews with sustainable tourism experts, was
examined by local sustainable resort stakeholders in Malaysia with regard to the local context. The
stakeholder survey results indicate that twelve criteria, 52 indicators and measures were considered
suitable for evaluating tourism resort sustainability in Malaysia
A set of weighting coefficients was also established for this system. Weights are assigned to each of
the criteria and individual indicators based on the opinion derived from the stakeholder surveys. With
this organized structure, the level of sustainability of the case studies can be ascertained by
multiplying the scores with the weights allocated to the assessment levels.
Case study sustainability profiles are illustrated in this chapter, which reflect distance to sustainability
based on the overall scores (maximum score is 100 for the rating tool). The scores present overall
sustainability performance for each case study, as well as report resorts‘ performance against each
sustainability criterion. The application of the rating system to the case studies indicates that Case
Study 2 is the most sustainable resort compared to the other four case studies. This is because the aim
223
of the owner of the resort was to build a sustainable resort. By developing a sustainability rating tool
for Malaysian resorts and then testing it successfully against selected case studies resort developers,
operators and stakeholders have a guideline and benchmark for developing sustainable resorts in the
future.
With regard to the economic elements of the framework, the sustainability rating tool acknowledges
the need to wield the ‗profit carrot‘ rather than the ‗regulatory stick‘ (Lee 2010), in order to catalyse
change. Therefore the rating tool will guide resort operators and developers on how environmentally
responsible activities could also be economically beneficial. For example, Case Studies 1 and 2
indicated that installing energy efficient light bulbs would not only decrease the amount of carbon
dioxide produced by 70% but would also decrease the electricity bill by almost 40% per year.
Environmental evaluation techniques within the rating tool encourage owners and managers to
conserve and protect a resort‘s natural environment. Data developed in this research will be used
to rate resorts in Malaysia. The environmental section of the rating tool will highlight the value of
holistic analysis to understand initiatives made in reducing energy and water consumption, waste
management and site development techniques. For example, resorts need to be able to point to
declines in waste production in response to recycling initiatives introduced.
The holistic design of the rating framework for Malaysian resorts not only allows linkages to be
forged between the environmental and economic elements of sustainable resorts, but also explore
social and governance implications. For example, measuring the level of employment of local people
could be used to ascertain the extent to which a specific tourism enterprise alleviated poverty locally.
The social and cultural evaluation section of the tool not only addresses issues that could be identified
from tourism resorts‘ initiatives but also from local community perceptions of the development and
operation of resorts (Lankford & Howard 1994, Font 2002, Srikaya 2010). The rating framework not
only rates issues regarding the social and cultural impacts of tourism, but also the economic and
environmental impacts on the local community (Community Commitment and Contribution Criterion
and Economic Criterion). For example the tourism business offers the means for local small
entrepreneurs to develop and sell sustainable products that are based on the area‘s nature, history, and
culture (including food and drink, crafts, performance arts, agricultural products, etc.) for community
commitment and contribution criterion and Local building materials and local components, fittings
and furniture are used for Economic Criterion. Evaluating local participation of tourism resort
development was a fundamental aspect of assessing tourism sustainability (Ko 2012). Ko (2012) also
illustrated the need for tourism enterprises to identify local needs and assess how benefits that might
224
accrue from resort development were perceived, if they could be mutually beneficial and if
sustainable relationships between stakeholders could be developed.
8.6 Summary
8.6.1 The Sustainability Scores of Case Studies
No. Indicators Categories Score Scores Scores Score Scores

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5
1 Site development 10.61 10.06 10.60 6.17 3.50
2 Material resources and cycle 2.75 4.02 4.02 1.36 1.36
3 Energy efficiency 6.55 8.1 8.1 3.13 5.03
4 Water efficiency 6.31 7.12 7.12 0.82 2.55
5 Indoor environment quality 9.17 10.24 8.59 7.54 7.84
6 Culture and heritage 6.99 9.18 7.00 4.61 4.52
7 Community commitment and 10.06 10.06 10.06 3.81 3.70
contribution
8 Sustainable maintenance and 8.3 8.3 8.3 2.78 2.78
management
9 Waste and pollution 7.11 7.11 7.11 3.70 3.52
10 Economics 2.25 2.72 2.25 1.31 0.66
11 Resilience (adaptation and 9.17 9.17 9.17 3.03 3.03
mitigation)
12 Governance 8.19 8.19 4.83 0 0
Overall Case Studies Sustainability Scores 87.43% 94.27% 87.15% 38.26% 38.49%
Table 8-6: Overall Case Studies Sustainability Scores
As shown in Table 8-6 above, case study 2 has an overall sustainability score of 94.18% which is
slightly higher than case studies 1 and 3, which score 87.43% and 87.55% respectively. Case study 1
performs better in the categories of Site development, Indoor environment quality and Culture and
heritage. Since the three case studies were built with the aim of producing sustainable resorts, it is
hardly surprising that the scores are high. Furthermore case study 1 won an international sustainable
resort award for 2011 and Asian best Green hotel in 2010. Case study 2 won best Asian sustainable
resort/hotel in 2012. Case study 3 ranks 2nd in international sustainable spa resorts in 2012 and won
awards for the best eco-tourism resort 2010-2012.
As discussed in Chapter 4 rating tools are all developed for internal comparison between buildings or
developments scored under the same instruments, rather than comparisons of buildings appraised
under different systems. It should be noted vastly different results could be obtained if different
225
building assessment systems are applied to the same resorts. For example, using Green Building Index
(GBI) Malaysia may give different result. This is because the criteria and their weights vary across
building assessment systems. It is important to stress again; the purpose of this research is to
demonstrate a way to develop a new sustainable resort development rating system rather than to create
a complete and finalised scheme that could be used immediately.
226
Chapter 9 – Conclusion
9.1 Introduction
This chapter summarises the key findings from this research which have been described and discussed
in previous chapters. This chapter also identifies the limitations of the research and proposes some
associated research areas that can be explored to strengthen the framework for a sustainable resort
development rating tool for Malaysia.
9.2 Recapitulations
This research set out to investigate a suitable method to develop a rating tool for sustainable resort
development for Malaysia. This study is significant for the Malaysian tourism industry because
existing building rating tools or sustainable tourism assessment systems do not rate tourism facilities,
especially resort buildings, fairly and most international assessment systems concentrate on site
specific environmental impact assessment, rather than ―triple bottom line‖ or ―quadruple bottom-line‖
(QBL) sustainability assessment (as reported in Section 4.8). Furthermore, international rating tools
are not easily adaptable to other nations, especially developing nations. None of the existing systems
have yet tackled the problem of adaptation to different social, economic and technological
environments and conditions (as reported in Section 4.9). Major changes to sustainability indicators
and their metrics are needed for usage in Malaysia. Therefore a research question was asked at the
beginning of this project:
Q1: Are current sustainable tourism assessment systems or green building rating tools capable of
adequately addressing the sustainability of Malaysian resort development on their own?
Q2: How to develop a new generation rating tool for Malaysian sustainable resort development?
Q3: Can the new generation rating tool adequately evaluate the sustainability of Malaysian tourism
resort development?
To answer these questions the researcher organised a series of processes that were followed to
examine the context of the study. This examination reveals the necessary knowledge needed to form
the foundation of this new rating tool. These processes were summarised into a set of research stages
as outlined below:
227
•To investigate the adaptability of existing rating tools
•Chapter 2: Review the concept of sustainability woldwide and its
application in Malaysia.
•Chapter 3: Investigate and compare sustainable tourism and sustainable
resort concepts.
Q1 •Chapter 4: Review existing rating tools and assessment systems

internationally.
•To examine the methods used to develop existing rating tools

•Chapter 4: Examine the method used to develop existing rating tools.
•Chapter 5: Search for suitable research methodology and justify
selection.
Q2 •Chapter 6: Learn from existing rating tools developers on how to

develop rating tools.
• To develop a rating tool that adequately evaluates the

sustainability of Malaysian tourism resort development
• Chapter 6: Gather and analyse the ideas and perceptions of sustainable resort
development experts on sustainable resort rating tools and their assessment.
• Chapter 7: Get consensus on the weight of rating tool criteria and indicators.
Q3 • Chapter 8: To validate the rating framework using existing Malaysian

sustainable resorts.
Figure 9-1: Processes for developing a sustainable rating tool for Malaysian resorts
This list of research questions has successfully guided the research, with results indicating that the
data collection methods used have produced results which were anticipated by the researcher and are
consistent with findings from the literature and existing rating tools and assessment systems.
9.3 Summary of Literature Review Findings
The first two questions of this research outlined the need for specific information about rating tools
and the ensuing rating methodologies and their conformity with QBL. It was found that
1. Sustainability is an all-encompassing concept that has been adapted to the tourism industry,
creating sustainable tourism development.
228
2. Sustainable tourism can reduce negative impacts in the process of tourism development and
should be promoted.
3. The QBL of sustainability is a well-accepted concept suggested by the United Nations World
Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) and has been used as a basis for developing the
sustainability rating tool for Malaysian resort development.
4. Most green building rating tools focus on the environmental assessment of buildings and most
rate the design and construction phases of building development only.
5. Most sustainable tourism assessment systems focus their assessment on the operational phase
and have been developed for specific locations with different climates and local culture
considerations.
6. Existing green building rating tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems are not
adequate at addressing sustainability issues, especially social and economic aspects.
7. Some criteria and indicators of existing green building rating tools are universal and general
for most types of buildings, but aero inappropriate to rate resort buildings. For example GBI
Malaysia provides significant amount of credit for buildings to be built near public transport.
This is not relevant for resort buildings in Malaysia because most tourism areas in Malaysia
are not located within city boundaries.
8. Some indicators are more contextually specific and either need major changes for adaptation
or are not suitable for use in different contexts. According to literature findings every tourism
area has its own specific tourism centric problems (see Chapter 3).
9. Some existing rating tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems were developed
through the use of public forums (focus groups), private expert discourses (focus groups or
Delphi method) and organisational members‘ surveys (questionnaire surveys).
9.4 Review of research methodology and lessons learnt
Through literature review the basis for the study was established and the researcher set out to plan and
organise the intended data collection technique.
9.4.1 Collecting Data to assess Sustainable Resorts
The specific factors contained within the environmental, economic, governance and social elements of
the rating tool were based on semi-structured interviews with tourism experts and tourism
stakeholders‘ questionnaire surveys. It was coupled with an appreciation of contemporary literature
that was relevant to sustainable tourism and validated with local case studies. The development
techniques used to assess resort sustainability factors were adapted from existing robust approaches
identified within the literature. The framework contains sustainability elements that were developed
229
based on both qualitative and quantitative techniques (Chapter 5). Reliability and validity of the rating
tool framework were enhanced through the triangulation of data. The evidence was validated using
case study observation.
9.4.1.1 Collection of data using semi structured interviews
In order to capture the ideas from a group of individuals who were qualified to give responses to
specific questions pertaining to sustainable tourism development in Malaysia, the researcher
investigated interview techniques. As explained in detail in Chapter 5, conducting semi-structured
interviews represented an ideal method to collect data from sustainable resort development experts
(Adam 2008). Therefore, soliciting their views and perceptions on a resort sustainability rating tool
was suitable and effective. The findings from the interviews are presented in detail in Chapter 6.
9.4.1.2 Issues with Interviews
There were three main issues with regard to the semi-structured interviews with sustainable resort
development experts. First, the participants chosen for this research were not randomly chosen from a
pool of people. They were chosen because they were the most knowledgeable (Salant & Dillman 1994
pp. 8) and had significant experience in development and operation of sustainable resorts.
Choosing respondents randomly from tourism industry stakeholders would be inappropriate since
sustainable resort expert opinions were being solicited. Not everyone from the tourism industry could
answer all questions as outlined in Chapter 6. Nevertheless, randomly selected interviews could still
be engaged in future research but the findings might not be as valuable.
Secondly, semi-structured interviews could not be used to collect ideas on a large set of data such as
the choices of measures for indicators. This is because interviews have to be kept relatively short (less
than one hour) to make sure participants do not lose interest (Morgan 1998 pp.42).
Thirdly, the transcriptions of interview responses require a lot of time and careful attention. This
research did not have an ethics approval for recording verbal responses using any type of recorder.
However, because drafts of interview transcripts were already available immediately after the
interview sessions, the researcher was able to complete the transcription process more quickly. If
recording tools were used instead, the researcher could procrastinate and choose to transcribe
interviews much later than appropriate. Some interesting details about the interviews could have been
forgotten by then.
230
9.4.1.3 Summary from Qualitative Data Analysis
In order to further understand how to develop a rating tool and to answer research questions two and
three, the researcher successfully conducted a series of semi-structured interviews involving rating
tool developers and a group of individuals who have direct experiences of sustainable building and
sustainable tourism. The key findings are as follows:
1. Interview with rating tool developers:

a. Rating tools have been developed through in depth study with local construction
industry experts and built environment academics‘ advice with particular attention to
specific location, economic and natural characteristics.
b. Rating tools and sustainable assessment systems have also been developed based on
local standards and policies.
c. The main reason for developing rating tools is because this is amongst the most
effective means of encouraging building developers to build low environmental
impact buildings.
d. There is a need to develop destination (local) level sustainability criteria and
indicators based on local context in order to make rating tools applicable to a specific
location and this needs to be established by local experts.
e. Generally green building rating tools and sustainable tourism assessment systems
comprise a list of items organized into criteria such as energy, site development and
water. Each criterion is usually accompanied by a set of related indicators. Indicators
provide specific details or measures for an assessment system.
2. Interview with local sustainable building and sustainable tourism experts:

a. It is difficult to balance the QBL of sustainability in developing countries as
economic sustainability has been seen as the most important.
b. Social sustainability is the least considered sustainability bottom line.
c. Local technologies, local building materials and local architectural design need to be
included in order to produce sustainable buildings.
d. Malaysia is a suitable place to build and operate sustainable buildings due to the
predictable weather and sun trajectory.
e. A rating tool for Malaysian sustainable resorts can be used to evaluate resort
development at all stages of the resort lifetime.
f. The rating tool has to be properly developed and researched before being released for
implementation.
g. It has to be shown that it is economically viable to build and run a sustainable resort.
231
h. Rating indicators and criteria must be developed by local experts.
Overall, the semi-structured interviews formed a preliminary data collection method for developing a
new rating tool for sustainable resorts in Malaysia. Semi-structured interviews were a useful tool in
soliciting personal experiences of specific individuals who have built and operated sustainable resorts.
Through the interviews, insights into their efforts, lives, hurdles and joys were gathered and could be
used as guidelines or tips to build and operate sustainable resorts in Malaysia successfully. The
interviews also provided a valuable line of friendship between the interviewees and the researcher
which could be beneficial for future research and collaborations.
9.4.2.1 Collection of Data Using Questionnaire Survey
Chapter 5 describes the reasons for conducting tourism stakeholder surveys for this study. It also
explains in detail the sampling method used. Chapter 7 presents the key findings from these surveys.
The data analysis was also straightforward; the methods have been clearly defined by many authors
such as Allen & Bennet (2008) and Kumar & Phrommathed (2005).. The use of SPSS software helped
to organise results accordingly and could also be used to infer correlations, regressions, significance
of variables and so on.
9.4.2.2 Issues with questionnaire surveys
There are concerns that could be associated with the survey conducted for this research. Firstly, it is
arguable that more sampling errors could have happened since only individuals who have been
involved in sustainable tourism activities were included in the survey population. Other individuals
who might have valuable experience and knowledge in tourism development but who were not
actively involved in certain organisations (for example academics, Ministry of Tourism Malaysia,
Malaysian Tourism Board) could have been inadvertently ignored.
In order to improve the sampling method, all resort stakeholders who can be contacted using emails
and other forms of electronic communication and via conventional communication methods such as
telephone, posted mail and face to face appointments, have to be included in future surveys. A greater
number of sustainable tourism experts, associated organisations and government officials who are
involved in sustainable tourism development also have to be identified. A proper random sampling
method could then be used to give equal chance for everyone to included (Scheaffer et al pp.77). This
way a more legitimate consensus could be created in determining the weights of indicators which are
important in measuring the effectiveness of sustainable resorts.
232
9.4.2.3 Summary of Quantitative Analysis
In order to further answer questions two and three for developing a rating tool for sustainable resorts
in Malaysia, a questionnaire survey was conducted. The main objective of this survey was to assign
weights to rating tool criteria and indicators.
It was found that the ‗site development‘ criterion is the most important criteria and the ‗economic‘
criterion is the least important. Survey respondents agreed that the most important criterion is 3A –
―Site development‖ because the impact on tourism development is the stakeholders‘ greatest concern
Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). On the other hand the economic implications of resort development does
not concern tourism and sustainability development experts in Malaysia therefore, it has the least
important criterion in this rating tool, 3J – ―finance and economics‖ (Chapter 3).
It was also possible to determine the weight of each indicator contained in all twelve QBL categories.
However, more surveys involving qualified experts are needed to establish suitable metrics for those
indicators. Another concern was that the weights could be derived differently using questionnaire
response formats other than the used ―Likert‖ response format, which is an ordinal scale that does not
provide actual and tangible numerical values. The researcher has instead proposed the use of an index
that equates to 1 to 100 to mathematically justify the weights of each indicator.
In all, the survey was useful at establishing the framework for sustainability rating tool for Malaysian
resorts. The theoretical basis for this method was defined through the analyses of survey responses
and further enriched by the establishment of the QBL criteria weights and their respective indicators‘
weights.
9.5 Summary of Case Study Analysis
To answer research question three the sustainable resort development rating tool categories and
indicators were tested against existing Malaysian resorts. This method acted as a validation instrument
for the findings in the previous (Qualitative and Quantitative findings) chapter in order to determine
whether the rating framework developed can be applied in the Malaysian context.
From five case studies, three case studies get high scores, as the focus of the owners of the resorts was
to develop sustainable resorts. Two case studies score low reflecting the fact that they were not
developed with sustainability as their main priority. Therefore the results of this section validate that a
rating tool generated from this research can adequately evaluate resorts in Malaysia from a
sustainability perspective.
233
9.6 Limitations of the Research
There were several factors that limited this study, from organisational limitations to financial and data
collection management issues. However manpower was probably the largest hurdle that the researcher
had to overcome. Nevertheless, this study is a PhD research. Therefore the data collection methods
had to be tailored to suit available resources. This was the main reason why the survey was conducted
in two main tourism areas in Malaysia, which are Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu and the Malaysian
capital city Kuala Lumpur.
Another limitation was the availability of sustainable development experts and sample size due to the
small and the not so easily distinguishable Malaysian sustainable development stakeholder
population. However, although these limitations have affected the workability of the new framework
for a sustainable resort development rating tool for Malaysia in this research, with adequate resources
and distinguishable samples the new framework can be put into practice in its entirety in future
studies for other contexts.
new development rating system for sustainable resorts, rather than creating a complete and finalised
9.7 Contribution to Knowledge
9.7.1 New Framework for a Sustainability Rating Tool
Current rating tools or sustainable tourism assessment systems, such as LEED, Green Mark,
EarthCheck and Green Globe cannot adequately evaluate resort sustainability. The most significant
contribution of this research lies in meeting its aims. The proposed assessment framework allows a
fuller measurement of tourism resort sustainability. This research has created a framework for a new
generation sustainability rating tool. It is specifically targeted at resort development in developing
countries and is based on the strengths of each evaluation system (that is, green building rating and
tourism assessment). It provides a more holistic assessment approach which includes paying careful
attention to the local context of Malaysia. Testing this framework in the case studies proves that the
framework developed from this research can be applied in the Malaysian context.
234
9.7.2 Identifying Priority Areas for Future Improvement
Rating tools for sustainable resort development can present an opportunity not only for new
development but also for existing resort development, and can help resort developers and operators to
identify the weak points of a particular resort‘s development and seek possible solutions for
improvement. They also can pinpoint the priority areas for such improvement. For example the rating
framework identified the energy efficiency category as a weak point for case studies 4 and 5. By using
a rating tool a resort operator can determine what needs to be done in order to make their resort
sustainable.
In addition, the framework is helpful in evaluating different scenarios for improvement. For example,
lack of community commitment is identified as weak point for case study 4. In order to improve its
social sustainability, local community empowerment initiatives need to be initiated. Possible solutions
may include:
a) Employ more local people
b) Promote local products and
c) Ensure that resort operators collaborate with local people on how to promote and educate
tourists about local culture and protect the local environment.
Thus, using the framework can help resort operators not only identify the weak points of the resorts
but also be aware of the environmental consequences generated by different improvement scenarios.
9.7.3 Assisting the Planning and Design Process
As noted in Chapter 4, current rating tools are often used as planning and design tools because they
provide a set of organized criteria that developers and designers can follow (Cole 2005). However,
they cannot provide designers and developers with information about the actual tourism centric
problems and the actual environmental impact from resort development.
The proposed assessment system framework can be used to improve the tourism resort design quality
at an early stage and facilitate comparison between design solutions. In the case of the Malaysian
tourism industry, the tourism resort rating tool can be used to evaluate the original resort design and
then generate a sustainability profile.
By considering all criteria and indictors from the sustainable resort rating tool, a trade-off between
conflicting interests could be made such as between the demands of providing comfort for resort
guests and the need for reducing embodied energy, resource consumption and carbon emissions.
235
9.7.4 Improving Resort Management
Potentially the assessment framework can be used as an instrument for educational and management
purposes. In the case of Malaysian sustainable resorts, resort operators can evaluate the sustainability
performance at any stage of the resort development. The rating tool presents the sustainability status
for the whole resort performance and provides other resort operators and future resort developers with
information that links to tourism sustainability, which finally leads to a change of attitude and lifestyle
because they can adopt the benchmarks established by sustainable resorts.
The framework can also be used to compare sustainable resorts in Malaysia. Some sustainable resorts
may have better sustainability performance in term of energy efficiency or site development. Some
may have lower scores on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy. With better
documentation and understanding of a sustainable resort development‘s unique characteristics, resort
developers and operators can propose individual solutions for different sustainable resorts.
9.7.5 Developing a Rating Systems for Sustainable Resorts Development
This research proposes a framework for a sustainable resort development rating tool, which comprises
three layers including twelve categories, 52 indicators and 71 measures. The twelve sustainability
criteria are developed on the basis of the four sustainability core values (economic, environment,
social and governance) in the context of tourism development. They reflect the quadruple bottom-line
sustainability values as well as the threads of current tourism practice in the sustainable arena. These
categories were used in this research as the rating tool‘s main instrument to rate resorts in Malaysia
and were validated by a group of sustainable tourism and development local experts and academics.
This research uses an initial set of indicators, which is derived from the semi-structured interviews
with sustainable tourism local experts and review of existing sustainability rating tools. The initial
indicators are then adapted through a survey of local stakeholders and academics in order to generate
regionally suitable indicators and corresponding weights.
Considering there is no effective or specific rating system relating to sustainable resort development
for developing countries, South East Asia region and Malaysia, this research provides a set of
organised assessment categories and individual indicators for a sustainable resort rating tool. These
categories and indicators can also be applied with minor adaptations to other developing countries
especially for the South East Asia Region.
236
9.8 Recommendation for Future Research
Despite revelations from this study, there are still few research areas that could strengthen the need for
sustainable rating tool for Malaysian resorts which are localised. This is due to the fact that not all
local data are available to populate the new rating method. For example, the carbon footprint of local
materials, the preferred construction technique and justification and the acceptable architectural
language that could represent Malaysian sustainable tourism resorts.
A small number of sustainable resorts have been built in Malaysia but the lessons learnt from them are
unavailable. There has been no research that has monitored these sustainable resorts; also no research
has been done to monitor the sustainability of other tourism facilities such as airports, marinas and
theme parks which are in fact the main components of the Malaysian tourism industry. Research on
the sustainability of tourism facilities development is in dire need of exploring use of local
technologies, architectural design wisdom and impacts to the environment and local community. A
similar validation research could look into the carbon footprint of tourism facilities development
which could be expanded to map out the carbon footprint of the Malaysian tourism industry. This
would enable the customisation of sustainable rating tool based on the type of facility and location of
the facility.
9.9 Recommendation for Future Sustainable Rating Tool Development
In order to develop a new sustainable rating tool for any developing country, the development
methodology as in section 9.3 could be followed and the findings can be strengthened by adhering to
a set of guidelines which is based on the findings from this research, as set out below:
1. Provide ample financial, organisational and management resources.

2. Identify all sustainable tourism development stakeholders.
3. Conduct random sampling of stakeholders for accurate results (stratified sampling is not
required as findings could still be homogenous)
4. Engage the sample using all possible means from conventional postal surveys to telephone
surveys and internet surveys.
5. Use interviews or focus groups to justify survey findings based on the knowledge and
experience of qualified experts.
6. Use survey response formats other than the ―Likert‖ response format to numerically establish
the weights for indicators.
237
9.7 Summary
This research suggests a number of recommendations for the development of tourism sustainability
rating tools in general:
 Developing such a rating framework should be based on previous research and the technical
knowledge of tourism experts.
 Local tourism experts and stakeholders should be key participants in this process, as the
development of rating tools requires collaboration.
 Local tourism sustainability strategies and goals should be addressed as a major aim.
 A tourism sustainability assessment framework should suit the local context of the country;
depending on its culture, issues, players, practices and institutions.
 It is essential for each country to design its own indicators in its own way to serve its shared
goals and to solve its own tourism centric problems.
 Countries should learn from previous established work and ideas and they should use the
work of experts as inputs to their discussion.
238
Criteria LEED Green GBI Green EarthCheck CST Findings
Mark (Malaysia) Globe
Nature of Voluntary X X X X X X -
assessment
Mandatory -
Building Residential X X X
group
Non X X X X X X X
residential
New buildings X X X X X
Existing X X X X X X X
buildings
Stages of Planning X X X X X
building
being Design X X X X X
assessed Construction X X X X X
Operation X X X X X
Scope of Social X X X X
Environmental X X X X X X X
Assessment
Economic X X X X X X X
Governance X X X X
Nature of 3rd party X X X X X X -
assessment evaluation
Software X X X X X X -
evaluation
Questionnaire X -
analysis
Weighting Equal X X
factors category
weights
Different X X X X
category
weights
Weighted by X
panel
Table 9-1: Comparison of the features of different schemes and research findings
239
References
Abdullah, J. & Gilbert, D., (2002). A study of the impact of the expectation of a holiday on an
individual's sense of well-being. Journal of Vacation Marketing,8(4), 352-361.
Adnan, A., Rahman, A. B. A., Tiong, P. L. Y., & Mirasa, A. K. (2012). Seismic Performance of Low-
ductility Precast Wall Structure with Base Isolation. International Journal of Engineering-
Transactions B: Applications, 26(2), 153.
Ahmad, M. Z., Ibrahim, J. A., & Zakaria, N. (2011). Inap Desa sebagai Satu Agen Pembangunan
Sosioekonomi Komuniti: Menelusuri Perspektif Pelajar-Pelajar Pengurusan Pelancongan
UUM.
Ahmad, S., Kadir, M. Z. A. A., & Shafie, S. (2011). Current perspective of the renewable energy
development in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(2), 897-904.
Agenda 21: United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, United Nations' Preparatory Committee, New York (1992).
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (Vol. 359). John Wiley & Sons.
Aini, M. S., Fakhru‘l‐Razi, A., & Daud, M. (2001). Evolution of emergency management in
Malaysia. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,9(1), 46-53.
Al-Amin, A. Q., Jaafar, A. H., Azam, M. N., Kari, F., & Agil, S. O. S. (2013). Climate change issues
and Malaysian initiatives. In Climate Change Governance, pp. 141-151. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Ali, H. H., & Al Nsairat, S. F. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries–Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053-1064
Alipour, H., Vaziri, R. K., & Ligay, E. (2011). Governance as catalyst to sustainable tourism
development: Evidence from North Cyprus. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(5), p32.
Allan, G. & Bennett, E. (2008). Data Analysis in social science. Journal of Art and Sciences
(1796217X),3(4).
240
AlWaer, H., Sibley, M., & Lewis, J. (2008). Different stakeholder perceptions of sustainability
assessment. Architectural Science Review, 51(1), 48-59.
Alyami, Saleh H., & Yacine, Rezgui. (2012). Sustainable building assessment tool development
approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5, 52-62.
Aminu, M., Ludin, A. N. B. M., Matori, A. N., Yusof, K. W., Dano, L. U., & Chandio, I. A. (2012).
A spatial decision support system (SDSS) for sustainable tourism planning in Johor Ramsar
sites, Malaysia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 1-12.
Archibald. K., & Naughton-Treves. L. (2001) ―Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in
western Uganda: early efforts to identify and reward local communities‖ Environmental
Conservation, 28, pp. 135–149
Armstrong, P., Segal, N., & Davis, B. (2006). Corporate governance in South Africa. Handbook on
international corporate governance, 210-31.
Ariffin, M., & Moten, S. (2009). The Impact of Tropical Cyclones in the Western Pacific Ocean and
South China Sea on the Rainfall in Malaysia. Research Publication No, 5.
Arsham, H. (2002). Questionnaire design and surveys sampling. SySurvey: The Online Survey Tool.
Azaruddin, O. (1994). Tourist industry in Tioman Island. Malaysian Journal of Tropical

Geography, 25(2), 59-67.
Babbie, Earl. (1998). Survey Research Method (2nd). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Baker, J. E. (1997). Trophy hunting as a sustainable use of wildlife resources in southern and eastern
Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(4), 306-321.
Banani, R., Vahdati, S. D. M., & Elmualim, A. (2013). A sustainable assessment method for non-
residential buildings in Saudi Arabia: Development of Criteria.
Barzekar, G., Aziz, A., Mariapan, M., Mohd Hasmadi, I., & Hosseni, S. M. (2011). Delphi technique
241
for generating criteria and indicators in monitoring ecotourism sustainability in Northern
forests of Iran: Case study on Dohezar and Sehezar Watersheds. Folia Forestalia Polonica,
series A, 53(2), 130-141.
Balendra, T., Tan, K. H., & Kong, S. K. (1999). Vulnerability of reinforced concrete frames
in low seismic region, when designed according to BS 8110.Earthquake engineering &
structural dynamics, 28(11), 1361-1381.
Bax, N., Carlton, J. T., Mathews‐Amos, A., Haedrich, R. L., Howarth, F. G., Purcell, J. E., ... & Gray,
A. (2001). The control of biological invasions in the world's oceans. Conservation
Biology, 15(5), 1234-1246.
Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: A comparison of three network
approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7-28.
Becken, S., Simmons, D. G., & Frampton, C. (2003). Energy use associated with different travel
choices. Tourism Management, 24(3), 267-277.
Bentivegna, Vicenzo, P. S. Brandon, and Patrizia Lombardi,. (2004). eds. Evaluation of the built
environment for sustainability. Taylor & Francis.
Bernama. (2009a, 3 January). Floods Hit Kelantan Again. The Star online. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com.my/search.aspx?q=3%20January%202009%20Floods%20Hit%20Kel
antan%20Again
Bernama. (2011a, 3 January). Weak earthquake in southeast of Ranau. NSTOnline. Retrieved from
http://www.met.gov.my/images/pdf/gft_pdf/23-6-2011%20sabah%20bi%20%5B1%5D.pdf
Bernama. (2011b, 24 June). Rumah anak yatim akan diroboh jika tidak selamat – chor, Berita Harian
Online. Retrived from
http://www.bharian.com.my/articles/Rumahanakyatimakandirobohjikatidakselamat_Chor/Arti
cle/pos_html
Bode, S., Hapke, J. and Zisler, S. (2003) Need and options for a regenerative energy supply
in holiday facilities. Tourism Management 24, 257–66.
242
Bowman, K. S. (2011). Sustainable tourism certification and state capacity: keep it local, simple, and
fuzzy. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 269-281.
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004). Hands-on guide to questionnaire research: Selecting,
designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 328(7451),
1312.
Bhattacharya, M., Bhattacharya, P., & Patra, B. (2011). SWOT Analysis of Ecotourism in the
Sundarbans, West Bengal, India.
Bhattacharya, P., & Kumari, S. (2004, August). Application of criteria and indicator for sustainable
ecotourism: Scenario under Globalization. In Abstract and Paper Submitted for the IASCP Bi-
Annual Conference on “The Commons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risk and
Opportunities” at Oaxaca, Mexico from (pp. 9-14).
Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Siwar, C., & Ismail, S. M. (2013). Socio-economic Impacts of Home Stay
Accommodations in Malaysia: A Study on Home Stay Operators in Terengganu State. Asian
Social Science, 9(3), 42.
Blair, J., Fisher, M., Prasad, D., Judd, B., Soebarto, V., Hyde, R., et al. (2003). Affordability
and Sustainability Outcomes of 'Greenfield' Suburban Development and Master-Planned
Communities - A Case Study Approach Using Triple Bottom Line Assessment. Melbourne:
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
Blancas, F. J., González, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Pérez, F. (2010a). The assessment of sustainable
tourism: Application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecological indicators, 10(2), 484-492.
Blancas, F. J., González, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Pérez, F. (2010b). The assessment of
sustainable tourism: Application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecological indicators, 10(2),
484-492.
Brandon, P., & Lombardi, P. (2010). Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment.
John Wiley & Sons.
Braman, S., & Amazonia, F. A. (2001). Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism TROPIC Ecological
Adventures-Ecuador.
243
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2012). Towards innovation in sustainable tourism research. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 1-7.
Buchan, K. C. (2000). The Bahamas. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41(1), 94-111.
Cambell, E., & Hood, I. (2006) ―Assessment of Tools for Rating the Performance of Existing
buildings: Areport on the options.‖ Consultant report for greater Vancover Regional District.‖
GVRD, Vancover, BC, Canada.
Castillo, J. J. (2009). Convenience sampling. Retrieved June, 27, 2010.
CASBEE. (2012). http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/. Retrieved June, 2013.
Carson, Rachel. (1963). Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton
Cartier, C. L. (1996). Conserving the built environment and generating heritage tourism in Peninsular
Malaysia. Tourism Recreation Research, 21(1), 45-53.
CEPAS. (2012). http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/index_CEPAS.html. Retrived June 2013.
Chan, W. W., & Lam, J. C. (2002). Prediction of pollutant emission through electricity consumption
by the hotel industry in Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(4),
381-391
Chan, K., Pringle, R. M., Ranganathan, J. A. I., Boggs, C. L., Chan, Y. L., Ehrlich, P. R., &
Macmynowski, D. P. (2007). When agendas collide: Human welfare and biological
conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 59-68.
Charlot–Valdieu, C., & Outrequin, P. (2003). Sustainable development integration in specifications

for non built elements. HQE²R Deliverable, 20.
Chen, J., Innes, J. L., & Tikina, A. (2010). Private cost-benefits of voluntary forest product
certification. International Forestry Review, 12(1), 1-12.
Ching, C. W., Abu Bakar, A. Z., & Puah, C. (2011). Proposed emergency incident management using
Extreme Project Management. In Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS),
1-6, IEEE.
244
CIDB. (2006). Construction Industry Standard. Kuala Lumpur: Construction Industry Development
Board Malaysia
Clark, T. G., Bradburn, M. J., Love, S. B., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Survival analysis part II:
multivariate data analysis–an introduction to concepts and methods. British journal of
cancer, 89(3), 431.
Coccossis, H. (1996). Tourism and Sustainability: Perspective and implications, in: G.K Priestly, J.
Arrwel Edwards and H.Coccosssis (Eds.) Sustainable Tourism? Europena Experiences, pp. 1-
21. Oxford: CAB international.
Cohen, B., Smith, B., & Mitchell, R. (2008). Toward a sustainable conceptualization of dependent
variables in entrepreneurship research.Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 107-
119.
Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and

roles. Building Research & Information, 33(5), 455-467.
Cole, R. J. (2010). Environmental assessment: shifting scales. Designing high-density cities for social
and environmental sustainability, 273-282.
Collier, Alan., & Susan, Harraway. The New Zealand tourism industry. Pearson Education, 2006.
Cui Y. J., Hens L., Zhu Y.G., and Zhao J.Z. (2004), Environmental sustainability Index of Shangdong
Province, China, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 11,
3, pp. 227-233
Daly, H. E., & Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2002). Steady-state economics: avoiding uneconomic

growth. Handbook of environmental and resource economics, 635-642.
Daly, H.E. (1996). Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press,
Boston.
Darus, Z., Hashim, N. A., Manan, S. N. A., Rahman, M. A. A., Maulud, K. N. A., & Karim, O. A.
245
(2009). The development of hybrid integrated renewable energy system (wind and solar) for
sustainable living at Perhentian Island, Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(4),
557-563.
Day, J., & Cai, L. (2012). Environmental and energy-related challenges to sustainable tourism in the
United States and China. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology, 19(5), 379-388.
DBKL ( 2010). Garis Panduan Perancangan Pembangunan di Kawasan Bukit dan Cerun bagi Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, 2010. Kuala Lumpur.
Deakin, M., Huovila, P., Rao, S., Sunikka, M., & Vreeker, R. (2002). The assessment of sustainable
urban development. Building Research & Information, 30(2), 95-108.
Deng, W. (2011a). A New Framework for Performance Assessment Based on China‟s Small
Residential District (Doctoral dissertation, The University of New South Wales).
Deng, W., Prasad, D. K., & Osmond, P. W. (2011b). Application of ―streamlined‖ material input per
service unit concept to small residential districts in China.Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 15(6), 967-979.
Deng, S. M., & Burnett, J. (2000). A study of energy performance of hotel buildings in Hong
Kong. Energy and Buildings, 31(1), 7-12.
Desai, P. (2002). Methods beyond interviewing in qualitative market research (Vol. 3). Sage.
De Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., & Von Raggamby, A. (2007). A framework for tool
selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. Journal of
environmental assessment policy and management,9(04), 423-441.
Devuyst, Dimitri., Luc, Hens., & Walter, De Lannoy., (2001). eds. How green is the city?:
sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments. Columbia
University Press.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2013). http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
Department of Environment Malaysia. (2013). http://apims.doe.gov.my/apims/hourly3.php
246
Department of Standard Malaysia. (2013). http://www.scribd.com/doc/61827656/MS1525-2007-
Code-of-Practice-on-Energy-Efficiency-and-Use-of-Renewable-Energy-for-Non-Residential-
Buildings-First-Revision
Dief, M. E., & Font, X. (2010). The determinants of hotels' marketing managers' green marketing
behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 157-174.
Dijka, M. P. and Zhang M. S., (2005), Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers, evidence
from four medium-sized Chinese cities, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, pp.
667– 688.
Ding, G. K. (2008). Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of

environmental management, 86(3), 451-464.
Dinga, E. M. I. L., Ionescu, C. O. R. N. E. L., & Padurean, E. L. E. N. A. (2011). Concept of

sustainability–a logical approach. In Proc. 1th Int. WSEAS Conf. on Tourism and Economic
Development (pp. 458-463).
Dresner, Simon. (2008). The principles of sustainability. Earthscan.
Duxbury, J., & Dickinson, S. (2007). Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: in the
context of coastal disasters. Ecological Economics,63(2), 319-330.
Dyllick, Thomas, & Kai, Hockerts. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.
EarthCheck. (2013). http://www.earthcheck.org/
Elisa Campbell Consulting (2006). Assessment of tools for rating the performance of existing
buildings: A report on the options.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the suitable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable development. California management review, 36(2), 90-100.
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century
business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51.
247
Engelbrecht, M. (2011, November). Towards the Quadruple Bottom Line: Corporate Governance and
Sustainability in the 21st Century–A South African Perspective. In Finance and Corporate
Governance Conference.
Erkuş-Öztürk, H., & Eraydın, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable tourism
development: Collaborative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism
region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113-124.
ESCAP. (2006). The Plan of Action for Sustainable Tourism Development in Asia and the Pacific
Phase II (PASTA 2006-2012) and Regional Action Programme. Bangkok: Economic and
Social Commission for Asian and the Pacific.
ETP. (2010). http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2006). Governing local sustainability. Journal of
environmental planning and management, 49(6), 849-867.
Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2011). Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for
socio‐economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 13(1), 68-81.
Fink, A. (Ed.). (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
Flugge, R. D. (2012). The Effect of Senior Management Behaviours on Sustainable Development

Performance.
Font, Xavier. (2002). Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and
prospects. Tourism management, 23(3), 197-205.
Fonteyn, M., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2005). Using qualitative evaluation in a feasibility study to improve
and refine a complementary therapy intervention prior to subsequent
research. Complementary therapies in clinical practice, 11(4), 247-252.
Fowler, F. J. (Ed.). (2009). Survey research methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
Fowler, K. M., & Rauch, E. M. (2006). Sustainable building rating systems summary (No. PNNL-
248
15858). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US).
GBI (Malaysia). (2013). http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/
Gibberd J. 2005. Assessing sustainable buildings in developing countries – the sustainable building
assessment tool (SBAT) and the sustainable building lifecycle (SBL). Proceedings of World
Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo. 1605–1612.
Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World
Development, 33(2), 273-284.
Gilham ., B. (2000).Case Study Research Methods. Continuum, London.
Glasgow, R. E., Toobert, D. J., Barrera, M., & Strycker, L. A. (2005). The Chronic Illness Resources
Survey: cross-validation and sensitivity to intervention. Health Education Research, 20(4),
402-409.
Malmqvist, T., Glaumann, M., Svenfelt, Å., Carlson, P. O., Erlandsson, M., Andersson, J., ... &
Malmström, T. G. (2011). A Swedish environmental rating tool for buildings. Energy, 36(4),
1893-1899.
Gleeson, B., Dodson, J., & Spiller, M. (2010). Metropolitan governance for the Australian city: The
case for reform. Issues Paper, 12, 1.
Goodwin, H. J. (1998). Tourism, Conservation and Sustainable Development: Case Studies from Asia
and Africa-7786iied (No. 12). IIED.
Gosling, S. N. (2012). The likelihood and potential impact of future change in the large-scale climate-
earth system on ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy.
Goss, A. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Extractive Industries: The Role of
Finance. Governance Ecosystems: CSR in the Latin American Mining Sector, 187.
Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success. ICRT Occasional
Paper, 11(1), 37.
Gössling, S., & Hall, M. C. (Eds.). (2005). Tourism and global environmental change: Ecological,
economic, social and political interrelationships. Routledge.
249
Guo-Fu, X. U. A. N., LULin, Z. J. H., & Xiao-Zhong, Y. A. N. G. (2002). Residents' Perception of
Tourism Impacts in Coast Resorts——The Case Study of Haikou and Sanya Cities, Hainan
Province [J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica,6, 017.
Green Globe. (2013). http://greenglobe.com/
Haaland, H., & Aas, Ø. (2010). Eco‐tourism Certification–Does it Make a Difference? A Comparison
of Systems from Australia, Costa Rica and Sweden.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 10(3), 375-385.
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2012). Tourism in South and Southeast Asia. Routledge.
Hamid, M. A., Ismail, N., Fuza, Z. I. M., Ahmad, K. N., & Awang, K. W. (2012). Sustainable tourism
development practices of MICE venue provider in East Coast Region, Peninsula
Malaysia. Current Issues in Hospitality and Tourism: Research and Innovations, 87.
Hamzah, A., & Hampton, M. P. (2013). Resilience and non-linear change in island tourism. Tourism
Geographies, 15(1), 43-67.
Hashim, Nor Atikah. (2008) Development of rating system for sustainable building in
Malaysia. WSEAS Environmental problems and development.
Hawkes, A. D., Bird, M., Cowie, S., Grundy-Warr, C., Horton, B. P., Shau Hwai, A. T., ... & Aik, L.
W. (2007). Sediments deposited by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami along the Malaysia–
Thailand Peninsula. Marine Geology,242(1), 169-190.
Hampton, M. (2009). ‗Small is Beautiful But is it Practical?‘Small-Scale Coastal Tourism and

Economic Development in South-East Asia.
Hamzah, A. (2004, January). Policy and planning of the tourism industry in Malaysia. In Proceedings
from The 6th. ADRF General Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hardi P. and Pinter L. (1995), Models and methods of measuring sustainable development
performance, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Ont.
Harrison, David. (2007). Towards developing a framework for analysing tourism phenomena: A
250
discussion. Current issues in tourism, 10(1) , 61-86.
Heerwagen, J. U. D. I. T. H., & Zagreus, L. (2005). The human factors of sustainable building design:
post occupancy evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center.
HENDERSON, J. C. (2003). Tourism promotion and identity in Malaysia.Tourism Culture &

Communication, 4(2), 71-81.
Hernandez, P., & Kenny, P. (2011). Development of a methodology for life cycle building energy
ratings. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3779-3788.
Höijer, B. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate
change. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 717-731.
ICLEI, (International Council for Local Environment Initiatives). (1996). Local Agenda
21 Planning Guide. Toronto: ICLEI.
Inskeep, E., & Kallenberger, M. (1992). An integrated approach to resort development. World
Tourism Organization.
Ismail, M. A. (2011). A Framework for the Development of a New Generation Green Home Rating
Method for Malaysia.
Islam, R., Siwar, C., & Ehsan, D. (2010). Trade and environment in the forestry sector: Towards
sustainable forest management. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 1-17.
IUCN, U. WWF, 1980: World Conservation Strategy. World Conservation Union, United Nations
Environment Programme, Word Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
Jarvis, N., Weeden, C., & Simcock, N. (2010). The benefits and challenges of sustainable tourism
certification: a case study of the green tourism business scheme in the west of
England. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17(1), 83-93.
John, G., Clements-Croome, D., & Jeronimidis, G. (2005). Sustainable building solutions: a review of
lessons from the natural world. Building and Environment,40(3), 319-328.
Jonsson, D. (2002). An inventory of coral reefs in the Langkawi archipelago, Malaysia: assessment
251
and impact study of sedimentation. Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Animal Ecology,
Uppsala University, Sweden.
Kamarudin, K. H., Mohamed, B., & Bahauddin, A. (2013). Local stakeholders participation in
developing sustainable community based rural tourism (CBRT): the case of three villages in
the East Coast of Malaysia. In Proceedings of International Conference on Tourism
Development,'Building the future of tourism', Penang, Malaysia, 4-5 February 2013. 31-41
KamalulAriffin, N. S., Khalid, S. N. A., & Wahid, N. A. (2013). The barriers to the adoption of
environmental management practices in the hotel industry: a study of Malaysian
hotels. Business Strategy Series, 14(4), 106-117.
Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from
theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1), 12-30.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social
science research. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 273-296.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Research as design. Educational researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
Kelly, J., & Williams, P. W. (2007). Modelling tourism destination energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions: Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(1), 67-90.
Kerimoglu, E., & Ciraci, H. (2008). Sustainable tourism development and a governance model for
Frig Valley. AZ: ITI Journal for Faculty of Architecture, 5(2), 22–43. Retrieved from http://
www.az.itu.edu.tr/az5no2web/05kerimogluciraci0502.pdf
Khan, A. H., Haque, A., & Rahman, M. S. (2013). What Makes Tourists Satisfied? An Empirical
Study on Malaysian Islamic Tourist Destination. Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, 14(12), 1631-1637.
Khavul, S., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). Harnessing innovation for change: sustainability and poverty in
developing countries. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 285-306.
King, V. T., Hitchcock, M., & Parnwell, M. J. G. (1993). Tourism and culture in Malaysia. Tourism in
South-East Asia., 99-116.
252
Koh, S. L., & Lim, Y. S. (2010). Meeting energy demand in a developing economy without damaging
the environment—A case study in Sabah, Malaysia, from technical, environmental and
economic perspectives. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4719-4728.
Ko, T.G. (2010). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a conceptual

approach. Tourism Management, 26, 431-445.
Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage.
Kumar, S. S. G., & Kunasekaran, R. (2012). Tourism as a poverty eradication tool for rural areas in
Selangor, Malaysia. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 12(7).
Kumar, S., & Phrommathed, P. (2005). Research methodology (pp. 43-50). Springer US.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
Kwong, B. (2010). Quantifying the benefits of sustainable buildings. Engineering Management

Review, IEEE, 38(2), 88-94.
Látková, P., & Vogt, C. A. (2012). Residents‘ attitudes toward existing and future tourism
development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research,51(1), 50-67.
Leach, S., Doggart, J., & Attenborough, M. P. (1990). BREEAM 1/90: an environmental assessment
for new office designs. Garston: Building Research Establishment.
Lee, A.L. (2010). Coastal Development in Malaysia: a review of policy use in the pre- construction
and post-construction phase. Ocean and Coastal Management, 6(10).
Legal Research Board (2003a). National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations as at 15th Agust
2003. Petaling Jaya: International Law Book Services.
Lele, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World development, 19(6), 607-621.
Lim, C. C., & Cooper, C. (2009). Beyond sustainability: optimising island tourism
development. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1), 89-103.
253
Lin, H.T., Sun, C.Y., Lin, Y.J., Chen, C.J., & Shih, J.Y. (2006). Good to be Green: Green Building
Promotion Policy in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior, Architecture and
Building Research Institute.
Liu, Sam., Jeou, shyan Horng., Hu, Monica., Chih, Chris., & Han, Liang. (2013). Development and
Validation of the Low-Carbon Literacy Scale among Practitioners in the Taiwanese Tourism
Industry. Tourism Management, 35, 255-262.
Liu, G. J. (2010). Will parental influences affect career choice?: Evidence from hospitality and
tourism management students in China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 22(1), 82-102.
Liu, Y., Prasad, D., Li, J., & Liu, J. (2006). Developing regionally specific environmental building
tools for China. Building Research and Information, 34(4), 372–386
Lisa, Ruhanen. (2004). Strategic planning for local tourism destinations: an analysis of tourism plans,
Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 1(3), 239-253.
Loganathan, N., & Ibrahim, Y. (2010). Forecasting International Tourism Demand in Malaysia using
Box Jenkins Sarima Application. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 3(2), 50-60.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography, 117-
132.
Lützkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D. (2005). Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings
through property performance assessment. Building Research & Information, 33(3), 212-234.
Malaysia Meteorological Department 2013 http://www.met.gov.my/index.php?option=com

content&task=view&id=741&Itemid=949&lang=english
Malmqvist, T., & Glaumann, M. (2009). Environmental efficiency in residential buildings–A

simplified communication approach. Building and Environment,44(5), 937-947.
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) (2007), 628–644
254
Marcotullio, P. J., A. K. Braimoh, & T. Onishi. 2008. The impact of urbanization on soils. In Land
use and soil resources, edited by A. K. Braimoh and P. L. G. Vlek. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Marzuki, A., Hussin, A. A., Mohamed, B., Othman, A. G., & Puad, A. (2011). Assessment of nature-
based tourism in South Kelantan, Malaysia. Tourismos: an International Multidisciplinary
Journal of Tourism, 6(1), 281-295.
Marzuki, A. (2010). Tourism Development in Malaysia. A Review on Federal Government

Policies. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 8(17), 85-97.
Masau, Patrick & Prideaux, Bruce. (2010). Sustainable Tourism: A role for Kenya‘s Hotel industry.
Current Issues in Tourism, 6(3), 197-208.
McGranahan, D. A. (1999). Natural amenities drive rural population change.
McGranahan, G. (2007). Urban environments, wealth and health: shifting burdens and possible
responses in low and middle-income nations (Vol. 1). IIED.
McLaren, D. (2003). Rethinking tourism and ecotravel. Kumarian Press.
McKillup, S. (2006). Statistics explained: an introductory guide for life scientists. Cambridge
University Press.
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. Hartland:
Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: global collapse or a
sustainable future. Earthscan Publications Ltd..
Meadows, Donella H, Meadows, Dennis L, Randers, Jorgen & Behrens III, William W. (1972). The
limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome‟s project on the predicament of mankind.
London: Earth Island Limited.
Miller, N. G., Pogue, D., Gough, Q. D., & Davis, S. M. (2009). Green buildings and productivity. The
Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1(1), 65-89.
255
Min, X. Z., & CHENG Guo Dong, Z. Z. Q. (2001). Measuring sustainable development with the
ecological footprint method——take Zhangye prefecture as an example [J]. Acta Ecologica
Sinica, 9, 012.
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. (2013).Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (Kementerian Pelancongan

Malaysia). (2013). From http://www.motour.gov.my/.
Ministry of Tourism (2012). Demand for sustainable tourism. [Online],

Available:http://www.sustainabletourism.net/resources.html [04 April 2012].
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. (2009). Encountering the outflow of trained and educated national
talents in the tourism industry. Paper presented at the 75h UNWTO International Conference
on Tourism Statistics 2009, Bali, Indonesia.
Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (1996). Chapter One Sustainable Development and
Cities. Sustainability: The Environment and Urbanization, 23.
Morgan, R. (1999). A novel, user-based rating system for tourist beaches. Tourism
management, 20(4), 393-410.
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures (Vol. 4). Left
Coast Pr.
Moten, S., & Ariffin, M. (2009). The Impact of Tropical Cyclones in the Western Pacific Ocean and
South China Sea on the Rainfall in Malaysia. Malaysian Meteorological Department.
Musa, G. (2000). Tourism in Malaysia. Tourism in South and Southeast Asia, 144-156.
Muhibudin, M., & Mohamed, B. (2012). Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism Development:
Comparative on Methods and Applications. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable
Development, 4(8), 11-18.
MTC. (2013). Annual report 2012. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Timber Council.
Garrett Nagle (1999). Tourism, Leisure and Recreation. Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0-17-444705-1.
256
Nolmark, H. (2007). Re-thinking Sustainable Urban Development in an Era of Globalisation,
Resource Constraints and Climate Change-The Mistra Difference.Salford: Centre for
Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures, University of Salford.
Norris, G. (2006). Social impacts in product life cycles. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 11(1), 97–104.
Norwana, A. D., Kanjappan, R., Chin, M., Schoneveld, G. C., Potter, L., & Andriani, R. (2013). The
local impacts of oil palm expansion in Malaysia; An assessment based on a case study in
Sabah State. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Working Paper, 78, 1-17.
O‘ Donavan, G., 2003. A board Culture of corporate governance. International Journal of Corporate
Governance, Volume 6, Issue 3.
Omar, S. I., Othman, A. G., & Mohamed, B. (2013). Evolution of beach resorts in Tioman Island,
Malaysia. In The Proceedings of 1st World Conference on Hospitality, Tourism and Event
Research and International Convention and Expo Summit 2013, Bangkok, Thailand, 25th-
28th May 2013. (pp. 416-428). International Program in Hotel and Tourism Management,
Siam University.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of. InProc. R. Soc. London
Ser. B (Vol. 274, p. 1931).
Erkuş-Öztürk, H., & Eraydın, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable tourism
development: Collaborative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism
region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113-124.
Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter
‗greenwashing‘: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business
Ethics, 102(1), 15-28.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable
development: an indicator of ―weak‖ sustainability. Ecological economics, 8(2), 103-108.
Pedersen, J. D., Beck, S., Johansen, H. B., & Jensen, H. B. (2005). Capacity development in
257
integrated coastal zone management: Some lessons learned from Malaysia. Coastal
Management, 33(4), 353-372.
PEMANDU (2010). http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/Tourism-@-Tourism.aspx
Perez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., González, R., & Maestre, I. R. (2009). A review of benchmarking, rating
and labelling concepts within the framework of building energy certification schemes. Energy
and Buildings, 41(3), 272-278.
Pickering, C. M., & Hill, W. (2007). Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant biodiversity and
vegetation in protected areas in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4), 791-
800.
Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability
assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20-28.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative
data. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7227), 114
Pogge, T. (2012). Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015
Agenda. Available at SSRN 2046985.
Pratt, B., & Loizos, P. (1992). Choosing research methods: data collection for development
workers (No. 7). Oxfam.
Prideaux, B. (2009). Resort destinations: Evolution, management and development. Routledge.
Pugh, C. (1996). Chapter Five Sustainability and Sustainable Cities.Sustainability: The Environment
and Urbanization, 135.
Pugh, C. (2000). Sustainable urban development: Some millennial reflections on theory and
application. Sustainable Cities İn Developing Countries: Theory And Practice At The
Millennium. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London.
Rahardjati, R., Khamidi, M. F., & Idrus, A. (2011). Green Building Rating System: The need of
Material Resources Criteria in Green Building Assessment.
258
Rahmana, Dayang Hummida Abang Abdul, A. M. Dayang-Affizzahb, and Salbiah Edmanc. (2013).
Impact of Tourist Arrival in Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. World
Research Conference,
Rahman, S. A. (2012). Preservation of Malay Culture and Heritage Tourism at Bukit Chandan, Kuala
Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. Researching Coastal and Resort Destination Management:
Cultures and Histories of Tourism.
Rak, A. E., Said, I., Mohamed, M., & Abas, A. (2011). Effect of Logging Activities on Water Quality
and Benthic macroinvertebrate Assemblages of Madek River Basin, Kluang, Johor,
Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 15(2).
Ramessur, R. (2002). Anthropogenic-driven changes with focus on the coastal zone of Mauritius,
south-western Indian Ocean. Regional Environmental Change, 3(1-3), 99-106.
Rao, N. H., & Rogers, P. P. (2006). Assessment of agricultural sustainability.CURRENT SCIENCE-

BANGALORE-, 91(4), 439.
Rashid, F. A., Fahanim, I., Azzam, M., & Prasad, D. (2010). Conceptual Shift from Green Homes to
Sustainable Homes: Case Studies from Malaysia. In 44th Annual Conference of the
Architectural Science Association, ANZAScA.
Rashid, F. A., Ismail, M. A., & Prasad, D. (2011). Quantifying the Sustainable Building Criteria
Based on Case Studies from Malaysia.
Rashid, A. K. A., Darus, Z. M., Hashim, N. A., Omar, Z., & Saruwono, M. (2008). Toward planning
and development of sustainable campus: University Kebangsaan Malaysia Strategy.
Rashid, Y. R., Sulaiman, M. S., Aziz, A., Selamat, H., Yani, A. H. M., & Kandar, M. Z. (2011).
Greening government's office buildings: PWD Malaysia experiences. Procedia
Engineering, 21, 1056-1060.
Robson C. (1993), Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioners-
researchers, Blackwell Publishers
Rogerson, J. M. (2012). Market segmentation and the changing budget hotel industry in urban South
259
Africa. Urbani izziv, (24 (2), 112-123.
Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D., & Dougill, A. J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and
applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 406-
418.
Reijinders L, van Roekel A. (1999). Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental
improvement of buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production 7, 221-5
Reimann, M., Lamp, M. L., & Palang, H. (2011). Tourism impacts and local communities in Estonian
national parks. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11(sup1), 87-99.
Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems: a framework and comparison for
planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 505-519.
Richardson, S., & Butler, G. (2012). Attitudes of Malaysian tourism and hospitality students' towards
a career in the industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 262-276.
Richins, H. (2009). Environmental, cultural, economic and socio-community sustainability: a

framework for sustainable tourism in resort destinations.Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 11(4), 785-800.
Richins, H., & Scarinci, J. (2009). Climate change and sustainable practices: A case study of the
resort industry in Florida.
Robson C. (1993) Real World Research. A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner–
Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Rogers, M., & Ryan, R. (2001). The triple bottom line for sustainable community development. Local
Environment, 6(3), 279-289.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2011). Essential research methods for social work. Cengage Learning.
Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in
community responsive tourism. Tourism Management,15(5), 358-369.
Sassi, P. (2006). Strategies for sustainable architecture. Taylor & Francis.
260
Salazar, N. B. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9-22.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey (pp. 54-5). New York: Wiley.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., (2011a). A critical review of environmental
assessment/certification tools for resort development in Malaysia‘ World sustainable Building
Conference 2011, Helsinki, Findland.
Salehudin, M. S., Prasad, D. and Osmond, P., (2011b). Sustainable assessment system criteria and
indicators for resort development for developing countries: The case of Malaysia Asia-Pacific
sustainable tourism conference. Singapore, June 14-17.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P., 2012 ‗Sustainable resort development: Malaysian Case
Studies‘ Journal of Tourism Management 2012.
Salehudin, M.S., Prasad, D.K & Osmond, P. (2013).A Field Survey of Local Community
Empowerment Initiatives at Selected Resort in Malaysia’ International Journal of Arts
and sciences. Volume 06, Number 01 ISSN: 1944-6934
San-José, J. T., Garrucho, I., Losada, R., & Cuadrado, J. (2007). A proposal for environmental
indicators towards industrial building sustainable assessment. The International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(2), 160-173.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities.Tourism

management, 20(2), 245-249.
Schianetz, K., Jones, T., Kavanagh, L., Walker, P. A., Lockington, D., & Wood, D. (2009). The
practicalities of a Learning Tourism Destination: a case study of the Ningaloo
Coast. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(6), 567-581.
Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (Eds.). (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative
and qualitative knowledge. Sage.
Shackley, M. L. (1996). Wildlife tourism. CengageBrain. com.
261
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.
Simmons, D. G. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2),

98-108.
Simpson, M. C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives—A conceptual oxymoron?. Tourism

Management, 29(1), 1-18.
Siti-Nabiha, A. K., George, R. A., Wahid, N. A., Amran, A., Abustan, I., & Mahadi, R. (2011). A
field survey of environmental initiatives at selected resorts in Malaysia. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 12(T&H)), 56-63.
Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work?. The
Indiana Business Review, 86(1), 4-8.
Smith, K. A. & Holmes, K., (2009). Managing volunteers in tourism: Attractions, destinations and
events. Routledge.
Smith, Jeffrey. (2012). Three generation of International tourist resort in Mexico. Geographische
Rundschau International Edition, 5(1), 4-10.
Spencer, R. (2012). Development tourism: lessons from Cuba. Ashgate Publishing.
Spiller, M. (2005). Special report: rebuilding our metropolitan planning institutions. Australian
Planner, 42(3), 14-15.
Snyder, K. A., & Sulle, E. B. (2011). Tourism in Maasai communities: a chance to improve
livelihoods?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(8), 935-951.
Star Publication (M) Bhd. BhD. (2006, 21 December). Segamat and Kota Tinggi folks stranded by
floods, The Star Onlibe. Retrived from
hhttp://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/12/21/nation/20061221072623&sec=nation
Star Publication (M) Bhd. (2011, 21 May). Killer Landslide hits Hulu Langat orphanage, The Star
Online. Retrieved from
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/5/21/nation/20110521165352&sec=nation
262
Teh, L., & Cabanban, A. S. (2007). Planning for sustainable tourism in southern Pulau Banggi: An
assessment of biophysical conditions and their implications for future tourism
development. Journal of environmental management, 85(4), 999-1008.
Teriman, Suharto., Yigitcanlar, Tan., & Mayere, Severine. (2009). Sustainable urban development: a
quadruple bottom line assessment framework. In: The Second Infrastructure Theme
Postgraduate Conference: Conference Proceedings, 26 March 2009, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane.
The Star Team. (2008, 6 December). Massive landslide at Bukit Antarabangsa (update 13), The Star
Online. Retrived from
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/6/nation/20081206081039&sec=nation
Theobald, W. F. (Ed.). (2005). Global tourism. Routledge.
Timothy, D. J. (1999). Participatory planning a view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of tourism

research, 26(2), 371-391.
Torres, R., & Momsen, J. H. (2004). Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to
achieve pro-poor tourism objectives. Progress in Development Studies, 4(4), 294-318.
Todd, J. A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G. (2001). Comparative assessment of
environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Building
Research & Information, 29(5), 324-335.
Tosun, C., & Fyall, A. (2005). Making tourism sustainable: prospects and pitfalls. Environmentalism
in Turkey: between democracy and development, 249-262.
Toth, R. (2002). Exploring the concepts underlying certification. In M. Honey (Ed.), Ecotourism &
certification: setting standards in practice, 73-102. Washington: Island Press
Turner, R. K., & Pearce, D. W. (1990). The ethical foundations of sustainable economic development.
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Turton, S. M. (2005). Managing environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in rainforests of the
wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area.Geographical Research, 43(2), 140-151.
263
Medina, L. K. (2005). Ecotourism and certification: confronting the principles and pragmatics
of socially responsible tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(3), 281-295.
UNDP. (2013). http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home.html
UNEP. (2013). GREEN, T. U. I. Greening Universities Toolkit.
United Nation Population Division .(2011). http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/
United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) WEHAB Framework

Papers,www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/wehab_papers.html
UNEP SBCI. 2009. Guidelines on Education Policy for Sustainable Built Environments. Retrieve on
January 25, 2013, from
http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/UNEPSBCI_EducationPolicyGuidelines_2010.pdf
UNWTO. 2010. Live the deal – New travel and tourism climate initiative launched in Copenhagen
Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.forimmediaterelease.net/pm/3137.html Media
Release
UNWTO. (2012).World Tourism Highlights report . Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.
USEPA. (2013). http://www.epa.gov/
Ventriglia, B., & Rios-Morales, R. (2013). The Shift toward Sustainability in the Travel Trade
Industry. In Sustainability in Tourism (pp. 103-122). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
V. Sasidharan, E. Sirakaya, D. Kerstetter. (2002). Developing countries and tourism ecolabels.

Tourism Management, 23 (2) (2002), pp. 161–174
Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (2000). Footprints for sustainability: the next steps. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 2(1), 23-44.
Wadawi, J. K., Bresler, N. C., & Herbst, F. J. (2011). An assessment of hotel product quality in Kenya
as a basis for building destination competitiveness.Tourism Analysis, 16(2), 121-135.
264
Wallace, P. (2013). GBCA performance rating tool released. Waste Management and
Environment, 24(10), 37.
Wallhagen, M. (2010). Environmental Assessment of Buildings and the influence on architectural

design (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).
Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M., & Westerberg, U. (2008). What is a" green" building according to
different assessment tools?. In Proceedings of the 2008 World Sustainable Building
Conference. Vol. 2 (pp. 2618-2625).
WECD. (1987). Report of the World Commission on the Environment and the Development: Our
Common Future: United Nations.
Williamson, T. J., Radford, A. D., & Bennetts, H. (2003). Understanding sustainable architecture.
Spon Press.
Wong, P. P. (2003). Where have all the beaches gone? Coastal erosion in the tropics. Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(1), 111-132.
World Green Building Council. (2006). http://www.worldgbc.org/?id=86
World Tourism Conference, Manila (1980).
WTO. (2013). Annual report 2012. Madrid: United Nation World Tourism Organisation.
WTTC. (1996). AGENDA 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry towards Environmentally
Sustainable Development. London: the World Travel & Tourism Council.
WWF-Malaysia. Better management practices (BMPs); 2005. Available at:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bmpfinal.pdf (downloaded 11th July 2013).
You-xing, X. I. A. O. (2006). An Analysis on the Mechanism of Tourism Impacts [J]. Tourism

Science, 6, 004.
Zainudin, Faiza, & Ngah, Nazura. (2011, 25 May). Bagunan di tapak pertanian mesti patuhi garis
panduan, Berita Harian Online. Retrived from
http://www.bharian.com.my/bharian/articles/pantaumenyeluruh PM/Article/index.html
265
Zeng, B., & Ryan, C. (2012). Assisting the poor in China through tourism development: A review of
research. Tourism Management, 33(2), 239-248.
Zhang, H., Uwasu, M., Hara, K., & Yabar, H. (2010). Land Use Change Patterns and Sustainable
Urban Development in China. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 9(1),
131-138.
Zhao, C., Fu, G., Liu, X., & Fu, F. (2011). Urban planning indicators, morphology and climate
indicators: A case study for a north-south transect of Beijing, China. Building and
Environment, 46(5), 1174-1183.
Zhou, J. F., Zeng, G. M., Jiao, S., Yang, F., Zhu, H., Li, Q., & Tang, L. (2005). On uncertainties of
indicating system for eco-environmental evaluation of residential communities [J]. Journal of
Safety and Environment, 2, 005.
Zulkepli, M. B., Jibril, J. D. A., & Bin Sipan, I. (2013). Conceptual Framework for Green Affordable
Home in Malaysia. Advanced Materials Research, 689, 86-89.
266
Appendix A
CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABLE RESORT AND HOTEL

DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA
Muhamad S. Salehudin
University of New south Wales
International Islamic University Malaysia
Z32627362@student.unsw.edu.au
Deo K. Prasad
University of New South Wales
d.prasad@unsw.edu.au
Paul W. Osmond
University of New South Wales
p.osmond@unsw.edu.au
267
Abstract
Tourism is one of Malaysia‘s major sources of income and continues to grow both in scale
and scope. Concerning scale, the country recorded 23 millions arrivals in 2011 and
contributes to RM58 billion (USD 18.8 billion) in tourism receipts. The strong and significant
rise of tourism development over the past few decades is one of the most remarkable social,
economic and cultural phenomena in Malaysia. Consequently, the tourism industry has
experienced increased scrutiny in regard to social, economic, environmental and local
cultural impacts. Efforts are being made to achieve more sustainable forms of tourism
development. Research done internationally have shown that using sustainable principles in
the process of resort and hotel development can produce significant benefits that are not
likely to result from standard or conventional practices. In light of this situation this research
tries to analysis the challenges to implement sustainable tourism development in the tourism
accommodation sector in Malaysia. Using qualitative data obtained from interviews, analysis
of previous research works and observation, the paper discusses the main challenges facing
the tourism accommodation sector in Malaysia. The article concludes with recommendations
for addressing these challenges.
Keywords: sustainable tourism, sustainable resort, tourism development
268
Introduction
Tourism is one of the Malaysia‘s largest industries. According to the Ministry of Tourism Malaysia
(2012), income generated by inbound tourism including passenger transportation exceeded RM 50
Billion (USD10.8Billion) in 2012. Also tourism represented an estimated 6.7% of direct contribution
to the national economy in 2012. It is forecast to rise by 4.0% in 2013, and by 4.6% pa, from 2013 to
MYR90.7Bn in 2022 (World Travel & Tourism Council 2012). In 2012, the contribution of
Malaysia‘s tourism industry to local employment was 12.9% of total employment and is expected to
rise by 2.8% pa in 2022. Despite this positive continued growth, there is increasing concern about the
sustainability of the tourism industry. This paper examines the challenges facing the sustainability of
the tourism industry with a particular focus on resort and hotel developments in Malaysia and
proposes an approach for addressing the challenges.
The current use of the term ‗sustainable tourism‘ is the result of the growing awareness of the global
links between mounting environmental problems, economic issues and social responsibility. The
concept of sustainable tourism development should be seen as an adaptive paradigm, a part of the
main concept of development and sustainable development, and it must focus on contributing to the
objectives of sustainable development in general.
Blancas et al (2010) and Day & Cai (2012), describe basic sustainable tourism development which
should:
 Provide socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders and local communities, and reduce
inequality and absolute poverty in local tourist destinations by providing stable employment,
income earning opportunities and social services to local people.
 Protect and conserve the socio-cultural authenticity of local communities, respect and
preserve their cultural heritage, built and living traditions.
 Help to conserve the local environment and biodiversity, maintain ecological processes and
make use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development.
In the research done by Day & Cai (2012), they stated that sustainability is not an absolute concept
and different stakeholders have a variety of perspectives on what constitutes appropriate action.
269
Cernat & Gourdon (2007) note that sustainable tourism is the vision to be reached rather than a
specific product type.
There is increasing consensus that all tourism stakeholders play a role towards achieving
sustainability. This includes tourism accommodation facilities which may contribute by responding
positively to sustainability issues. This article will focus on sustainable resort and hotel development
issues; particularly those are environment-related. The complexity of tourism accommodation facility
development requires examination of these sustainability issues from a variety of perspectives.
Furthermore, the principle of sustainable resort and hotel development appears to have been
established by developed countries without taking into account conditions in the developing world.
Most of the research and guidelines fail to provide a conceptual instrument for plan and strategy
formulation to achieve sustainable resort and hotel development in those countries.
The main objective of this article is to analyse challenges to sustainable resort and hotel development
in the context of Malaysia. There is a need to examine these challenges and their impacts and show
how this relates to the achievement of more sustainable tourism industry, especially for developing
nations like Malaysia. In addition, by outlining and understanding barriers to achievement of
successful sustainable resort and hotel development, this research aims to provide important lessons
for local tourism stakeholders.
Methodology
The methodology for this research entailed a multi-dimensional approach with a combination of
qualitative research strategies including a literature review, expert interviews, as well as in-depth
observation of selected case studies of Malaysian resorts and hotels. The research aims to identify
challenges and barriers in developing sustainable resorts and hotels in Malaysia.
The research process began with a review of the academic literature to identify possible barriers and
challenges in implementing sustainable practices in the tourism industry.
The second phase was designed to accumulate data to achieve the research objective. From the review
of tourism and sustainable development literature a questionnaire was formulated to inform an in-
depth expert interview session. 23 respondents were surveyed about their views and perspectives on
challenges to implementing sustainable resort and hotel development in Malaysia. This process helped
to understand more accurately the issues and realities of developing sustainable tourism in Malaysia,
particularly in the context of resort and hotel development. The respondents belonged to one of four
groups:
270
a. Tourism and sustainable development academics who had written about sustainable tourism
development and sustainable tourism development in Malaysia.
b. Government bodies (Ministry of Tourism Malaysia, Local Authorities, Government technical

experts, and researchers).
c. NGOs (related to tourism and sustainable development)
d. Resort and hotel operators identified as implementers in the case studies.
Once the primary research was completed, the barriers identified in developing sustainable tourism
were examined in two Malaysian tourism coastal destinations, Langkawi Island and Kota Kinabalu.
The data analysis followed the process suggested by Dodds (2007). The data were analysed using
comparative methods which allowed the researchers to identify similar phases, relationships between
variables, themes and differences between categories.
Results
From the in-depth interviews and observation of case studies in Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu,
challenges and barriers were then cross referenced with those identified from the literature study to
determine similarities.
Priority of local and national economy
This challenge is connected strongly to political governance. Prioritising the economy over
environmental concerns and social responsibility by government can creates negative impacts on the
Malaysian tourism industry. Due to national policies for tourism that are specifically designed to
promote and foster the tourism industry for economic benefit, a negative attitude has developed
towards developers and tourism operators that accommodation facilities for tourism exist simply for
profit and as such contribute to national economic growth. During the survey process, respondents
said that tourism destinations in Malaysia have developed their product base with an economic focus,
and significant numbers of resort and hotel developments in Malaysia have exploited resources
without understanding the impact on the environment and local community. This is due to the late
development of tourism in Malaysia compared to well established South East Asia destinations such
as Thailand and Indonesia. Some respondents consider many destinations in Malaysia are actually
copied from what Thailand and Indonesia have. This pattern of tourism development in Malaysia has
271
not changed since the tourism boom in South East Asia in the 1990s, with continued attempts by
resort and hotel developers to make their product competitive with other South East Asia destinations.
Local governments and developers justify this approach by asserting that new resort and hotel
development projects are vital to prevent a destination‘s decline and to maintain competitiveness. As
with the case of Langkawi Island and Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, though the concept of luxury and mass
resort and hotel destinations is appealing, up-scale resorts and hotels often only succeed in terms of
serving their guests. For example one of the respondents from the interview session stated that from
his research done in Langkawi Island, he found that energy and water consumption by tourists is
normally considerably higher than that of local residents. A local resident consumes an average 31%
less water a day compared to average tourist consumption, and in terms of energy, local people
consumes 52% less a day compared to average tourist consumption. One of the reasons this happens
is because Malaysian resort and hotel facilities have diversified into activities such as golf and theme
parks to attract more upscale tourists and to increase their profit margins, although the environmental
impacts and social impacts on the local community can be considerable.
The lack of infrastructure to support sustainable tourism development
Resort and hotel developers in Malaysia face a significant number of issues in developing sustainable
tourism accommodation. From the interview session with hoteliers, they felt that there are insufficient
technologies and skilled people to develop sustainable resorts and hotels in Malaysia. For example
one interviewee pointed out that most of the low environmental impact construction materials like
recycled timber and lightweight bamboo frames are being imported from foreign countries.
Furthermore, technologies such as low flow plumbing systems, water recycling systems, solar energy
and wind turbine technology need to be imported from other countries and the cost of transporting the
technology to Malaysia are expensive. The interviewee (a developer) also stated that this situation will
increase overall development costs compared to conventional resort and hotel development. Besides
that, the resort‘s or hotel‘s managers need to be sent to other countries to undergo training courses in
sustainable or clean technologies. This research also identified that luxury resorts and hotels in
Malaysia (Langkawi and Kota Kinabalu) sent their workers to undergo training in a developed
country to learn about sustainable management practices, or employed foreign workers to help the
company to develop and practice sustainability. Some resorts and hotels also trained their marketing
and sales personnel to specifically focus on and understand sustainable tourism principles. However,
small and medium size resorts and hotels in Malaysia cannot afford to spent significant amounts of
money to train their workers and use green technology in their practices.
272
Tourism accommodation facility operators also felt that there is inadequate infrastructure to support
sustainable practices. For instance technology to recycle waste; on Langkawi Island paper and plastic
can be recycled if collected in sufficient amounts for the recycling centre run by local residents.
However most of the facilities on the Island did not recycle glass and metal (from case study
observation), due to the high cost because metal and glass wastes need to be transported to the
mainland of Malaysia. Recycling plans for these items can only be found in the south of the peninsula.
Thus metal and glass from Langkawi Island has to be transported to these destinations before it can be
recycled. One of the resorts also observed that they separate their garbage but sometimes it all ends up
in the same dump site.
Sustainable development policy focus
Most policies relating to sustainable resorts and hotels in Malaysia are for new or developing facilities
rather than for developed or mature tourism accommodation facilities. From the interview session
with local tourism experts they stated that most tourism stakeholders assume that only early planning
at the design stage in the development of new tourism facilities can incorporate issues of
environmental, cultural, social and local economic empowerment. However, it is the mature mass
tourism destinations which actually attract the greatest number of visitors. Many of these established
destinations already receive significant numbers of tourists, and sustainability should be viewed as a
way to regenerate and improve stagnant or decreasing tourism numbers. The experts suggested that to
overcome decreasing tourism numbers, legislation of sustainable policy or standards not only for new
development but also for existing tourism facilities would help to improve the local tourism industry.
Structure of the public administration system
Another challenge identified by the research is a lack of coordination between government bodies.
65% of respondents identified this as a barrier, and one of the main factors affecting implementation
of sustainable tourism policy. Malaysia maintains a network of local government officials who are
centrally appointed and closely linked to locally elected bodies. In this system of management power
is devolved to subordinated small local units; however federal government always retains sovereignty
and the right to determine the degree of autonomy for every local unit. Local governments mostly are
not permitted to develop independently. Tourism experts have recognized this problem, and have
identified a need for local governments to develop their own sustainable policies and programs for
tourism facilities to meet specific environmental and local sustainability goals. The reason is because
every tourism destination has its unique economic, environmental, cultural, technological, ecological
and social conditions. Hence, it is necessary to devise a policy that is pertinent to its specific purposes
and addresses local conditions.
273
In order for sustainable resort and hotel development to succeed, sustainability has to be adopted as a
common agenda that entails close collaboration from all relevant parties. This clearly was not the
situation at the time of the research fieldwork. The respondents in this research agreed that
participation by tourism stakeholders such as different levels of public agencies, the private sector,
local community and NGOs is important in the process of making sustainable policies and plans.
However, in Malaysia NGOs are often excluded from policy development and implementation, the
respondents said it is possibly because they rarely place economic interests as primary and have more
focus towards social responsibility and environmental protection and conservation. The economic
interests of regional or central government can sometimes clash with local desires which usually try to
limit tourism‘s impacts on the local environment and local people. Therefore there is a need for a
collaborative effort from all tourism stakeholders to develop appropriate sustainable tourism plans and
policies.
Lack of awareness
Interview respondents agreed that one of the main problems in developing sustainable tourism in a
developing country like Malaysia is there were no obvious driving factors for developers and resort
operators to adopt sustainable practices. Resort and hotel developers feel that the implementation of
sustainable principle in their practices is difficult and will increase their operational cost. According to
a Ministry of Tourism respondent, asking resort and hotel operators to adopt the recommendations of
international sustainable assessment systems is not easy. This is because of lack of infrastructure,
expensive assessment process, limited social awareness of sustainable development, a poor
understanding of why sustainability is needed or failure to support all aspects of the triple bottom line.
For example although the benefits of energy-efficient products and practices were understood by
many operators due to smaller energy bills, resort operators stated that they also faced the dilemma
between implementing environmental protection strategies and providing high quality services and
comfort for resort and hotel guests.
Barriers due to lack of awareness can also be detected from general responses of resort and hotel staff
regarding efforts to integrate sustainable measures into their work. Resort owners said that staff often
have different perspectives towards sustainability because they think implementation will always
involve additional duties and workloads. One example of such attitudes was the local empowerment
initiatives plan by one of the case study resorts in Kota Kinabalu. The employees were asked to
voluntarily get involved in the effort of teaching and helping the local community to protect their
local beach, but not many staff actually turned up on the programme day, causing the event to be
postponed until a later date. This situation shows how difficult it can be to involve the staff in a
274
sustainability effort. The resort owner also said that events like this cannot take off without some
form of reward for the staff to motivate the workers to come because they do not really understand
why they have to do the extra work. The general lack of awareness and also lack of sustainability
education in the school curriculum and information through the media have been identified as the
causes of poor attitudes among local people.
Conclusion
The findings of this research indicate that instilling sustainability in resort and hotel developments in a
developing country like Malaysia may prove to be a challenging and difficult process. Without the
introduction of strong development methods and strategies, and without understanding and addressing
the various challenges that have been discussed in this research, it may a daunting task to make
tourism accommodation facilities more accountable towards the environment, address social benefits
and local economic development.
For a developing country like Malaysia a top down approach is one of the most effective drivers for
resort and hotel developments to adopt sustainable elements in their practices. Furthermore,
accommodation facility developers‘ and owners‘ inclinations towards sustainability may depend on
other drivers such as regulatory pressure from government and the local community, social pressure,
negative impacts on the environment from the development process and demand from tourists. The
economic conditions need to be conducive to further motivate the Malaysian tourism industry to be
sustainable.
From this research it can be concluded that the pressure for economic growth results in economic
factors having priority over social and environmental concerns. Incorporating different stakeholders
(government agencies, resort developers, local community and NGOs) in the resort and hotel
development process of was seen as one of the best solutions forward for all triple bottom line factors
(social, environmental and economic).
A high level of collaboration and awareness among tourism operators can become easier to achieve
through strong support from government. This approach has been rather successful in other
developing nations like Costa Rica and Brazil, although this may reflect the importance of sustainable
tourism in countries that attract more sustainability conscious visitors. But there is also a requirement
for a significant major shift in sustainable tourism policy implementation in those countries. For
instance they have implemented progressive programs to conserve energy and reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. These are admirable goals developed within the tourism destinations themselves.
275
The ability of tourism facilities to adopt and implement sustainable tourism principles is dependent on
the capacity of entities at different levels. While tourism destinations must be proactive in developing
new technologies and methods to reduce the negative impacts of tourism development, the whole
tourism industry must support behavioural change that leads to positive sustainable outcomes because
technology is only one of the contributing factors. Sustainable tourism development requires changes
in personal attitudes and behaviours among tourism stakeholders, as well as changes in management
behaviours within tourism businesses. Implementing such change will require a detailed
understanding of individual behaviours of tourism actors, and organizations within specific cultural
contexts. Therefore, one major challenge for the Malaysian tourism industry is to increase the
intellectual capital required and educate local people to address the new changes in tourism
development. Nevertheless, improving the overall sustainability of the tourism system in a developing
country like Malaysia will provide significant benefits to the country in term of the economy, the
environment and welfare of the local community.
References
Blancas, F.J. Gonzalez, M., Oyola, M.L., Perez, F. (2010), ―The Assessment of Sustainable Tourism:
Application to Spanish Coastal Destinations,‖ Ecological Indicators, 10, pp.484-492
Cernat, L. & Gourdon, J., (2007), Developing the sustainable tourism benchmarking tool. United
Nations, New York.
Day, J. & Cai, L (2012), ―Environmental and Energy Related Challenges to Sustainable Tourism in
the United States and China,‖ Internationa Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,
Vol.19, No 5, October 2012, 379-388.
Dodds, R. (2007), ―Sustainable Tourism & Policy Implementaion: Lessons From The Case Of Calvia,
Spain,‖ Currenct Issues in Tourism, Vol.1, No.1, pp.46-66.
Ministry of Tourism (2012). Demand for sustainable tourism. [Online],

Available:http://www.sustainabletourism.net/resources.html [04 April 2012].
World Travel & Tourism Council (2012). Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2012. [Online],
Available: http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/world2012.pdf . [14January 2013]
276
APPENDIX B
Questions Question Details and Explanation (where appropriate)
SECTION A
Q1 Are you familiar with the concept of sustainability?
This question was used to find out whether the respondents were familiar with the sustainability term,
understood it and were able to explain about sustainability.
Q2 Are you familiar with the concept of sustainable development?
It also important to understand respondents‘ views and comments about sustainable development according
to their knowledge and experiences.
Q3 Are you familiar with the concept of sustainable tourism?
Similarly, it was also important to invoke respondents‘ views about sustainable tourism.
Q4 Are you familiar with the „triple bottom-line concept‟?
This question was used to ensure that the interview respondents were aware of and understood the triple
bottom-line concept of sustainability.
Q5 Are you familiar with the „quadruple bottom-line‟ concept?
This question was used to ensure that the interview respondents were aware of and understood the quadruple
bottom-line concept of sustainability.
Q6 Have you been involved in planning, designing, constructing and commissioning of sustainable resorts or
tourism facilities?
This question sought information on all projects that the respondents were involved with and their roles.
Probes 6.1) Could you please name and describe the sustainable resorts.
Q7 Have you conducted research or been involved in projects related to sustainable tourism facilities
development or sustainable resort development?
It was also important to know if the respondents had done any research or project work on sustainable
tourism or sustainable resort development.
Q8 Have you conducted research relating to sustainability?
It was also important to know if the respondents had done any research on sustainability.
Q9 Have you published academic / research papers relating to sustainable resort development?
It important to know if the respondents had published on sustainable tourism development.
Q10 Resort should be rated using quadruple bottom-line concepts?
Probes 10.1) If YES - would you think that the quadruple bottom-line concept is appropriate on which to base a
rating system to rate sustainable resort development in Malaysia?
10.2) If No – would you think that other interpretations of sustainability concept to rate Malaysian resort
development were more appropriate.
Q11 Assessment system for resort development should be developed by local stakeholders and experts?
It was important for the interviewer to know respondents‘ views as this discussion was critical in the
development of a localized sustainable rating method.
Probes 11.1) If YES – why do you think that is important?
11.2) If NO – Why do you think it is not important?
Q12 Resorts should be rated using standardized checklist?
The interviewer had to understand if the respondents agreed that sustainable resorts should be rated as
standardized checklist. This was to determine if the respondents were more receptive to a sustainability
rating tool that evaluated buildings using criteria and indicators.
277
Probes 12.1) If YES – would you think it is a suitable rating methodology
12.2) If NO – Would you think any other rating methodology would be suitable for evaluating Malaysian
sustainable resorts?
Q13 Resorts can be rated at any stage of the life cycle?
The interviewer needs to know the best times to rate sustainable resorts in Malaysia according to the
experience and knowledge of the respondents. This information is needed to position a new rating method
effectively in the design, construction or operation phases because they all require different indicators.
Probes 13.1) When do you think is the best time to rate sustainability of resorts?
13.2) When do you think is the worst time to rate the sustainability of resorts in Malaysia?
13.3) Should sustainable resorts be rated periodically over their lifetime?
Q14 Have you been involved in developing sustainability assessment or building rating systems?
It was important for the interviewer to identify if the respondents were involved in the development of any
existing rating tools or sustainability assessment systems and if they had comments on their development
techniques.
Probes 14.1) Which assessment system or rating tool?
14.2) What was your role in its development?
14.3) What were the techniques used in its development?
Q15 Have you ever used any of the sustainability assessment systems or building rating tools in your work?
This question was to confirm that the respondents were familiar with existing sustainability assessment
systems or building rating tools and understood their characteristics and processes.
Probes 15.1) Could you please name and describe them and explain the process of assessment or building rating
briefly according to your experience with them?
Q16 Are you trained to use any of these assessment systems or rating tools?
This question was to ask if the respondents had any formal training or were certified to use any of
assessment systems or rating tools.
SECTION B
Q17 What do you think are the main drivers for sustainable building?
For example government regulation, client demand, environmental conditions, international trends.
This question was to ask respondents what they felt were the main drivers for sustainable building
Q18 What do you believe are the environmental criteria that need to be included in sustainable resort rating
tools?
It was important for researcher to identify environmental criteria for sustainable resort development rating
tools.
Q19 What do you believe are the social criteria that need to be included in sustainable resort rating tools?
It was important for researcher to identify social criteria for sustainable resort development rating tools.
Q20 What do you believe are the economic criteria that need to be included in sustainable resort rating tools?
It was important for researcher to identify economic criteria for sustainable resort development rating tools.
Q22 What do you believe are the governance criteria that need to be included in sustainable resort rating tools?
It was important for researcher to identify governance criteria for sustainable resort development rating tools.
Q23 What are the main barriers to developing sustainable resorts in Malaysia?
It was interesting to identify if the respondents were familiar with the barriers to creating sustainable resort
development in Malaysia.
Q24 What information do you require in regards to sustainable resort development in Malaysia?
278
This question was used to determine if there was agreement on the information required to develop a
comprehensive sustainable resort rating tool for Malaysia.
279
F AC U L T Y O F T H E
B U I L T E N V I R O NM E N T
H U M AN R E SE AR C H E T H I C S
AD V I SO R Y P A NE L
Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel

Date: 5 December 2011
Applicant Name: Muhamad Salehudin
Faculty of the Built Environment
Re: A framework for sustainable resorts assessment tool for Malaysia
Reference Number: 115137
Investigator: Muhamad Salehudin
At its meeting of 28 November 2011 the Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel
was satisfied that this project, is of minimal ethical impact and meets the requirements as set out in
the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research*. Please see the accompanying
minutes from the panels meeting for notes regarding your research.
Having taken into account the advice of the Panel, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) has
approved the project to proceed.
Your Head of School/Unit/Centre will be informed of this decision. This approval is valid for 12
months from the date of the meeting.
Yours sincerely
Russell Lowe
Panel Convenor
Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel
Cc: Head, School of the Built Environment
280
APPENDIX D
PROJECT INFORMATION STATEMENT
Date: 20/05/2012
Project Title: A framework for sustainable resorts assessment tool for Malaysia
Approval No: 115137
Participant selection and purpose of study
You are invited to participate in a study to develop a framework for sustainable resorts assessment
tool for Malaysia. Studies about the sustainable tourism assessments tools are often found in the
literature, but none of the studies focus on specific local context in south East Asia countries. This
project will provide analysis for developing a framework for sustainable resort development in
Malaysia.
As part of his PhD research, the author has found the building rating systems are limited to building
site and design and do not address the social and economic context adequately. However,
sustainable tourism assessment systems cannot address the early phase of the development of
resort projects. By integrating criteria from different assessment methodological frameworks, which is
sustainable building tools and sustainable tourism assessment certification systems, this research
builds on the strengths of each and provides a more holistic assessment approach to enable careful
attention to the local context.
You were selected as participant in this study either because you are an expert in sustainable building
practices or sustainable tourism development.
Description of study
The core intention of this interview and survey is to gather responses from knowledgeable Malaysian
sustainable building industry and sustainable tourism stakeholders such as you in order to determine
the appropriateness and importance of a list of sustainable resort building indicators and their metrics,
which were gathered from a substantial literature review of the research subject and interviews with
local tourism stakeholders. The survey of these indicators is based on the understanding of the
concept and careful consideration of Malaysian socio-economic conditions.
This survey will both take approximately 20-40 minutes to complete. Your participation in this
research is vital to determine the viability of sustainable resorts in Malaysia and their effectiveness in
facilitating sustainable tourism. In order to promote discourse, participants are asked to convey their
personal views regarding the indicators, their metrics or any other views regarding this research.
281
Confidentiality and disclosure of information
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will
remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission, or except as required by law. If
you give us your permission, I plan to include the results in my PhD thesis and also publish the result
in future conference proceedings or journal papers.
Your consent
Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with The University
of New South Wales or other participating organisations. If you decide to participate, you are free to
withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice by completing the
statement below and returning this entire form to Muhamad Syafiq Salehudin email to
z3262736@student.unsw.edu.au
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask Muhamad Syafiq Salehudin at +61(2)93854648 or
email to z3262736@student.unsw.edu.au. If you have any additional questions later, Prof Deo
Prasad at +61(2)93854868 or email at d.prasad@unsw.edu.au and Paul Osmond at
p.osmond@unsw.edu.au will be happy to answer them.
Muhamad Syafiq Salehudin
REVOCATION OF CONSENT. Project Title: A framework for sustainable resorts assessment tool for
Malaysia
(Please send this entire form to the above address.)
I hereby wish to withdraw my consent to participate in this research project. I understand that such
withdrawal will not jeopardise my relationship with The University of New South Wales, other
participating organisations or other professionals.
…………………………… …………………………… …………………..…………
Signature Please PRINT name Date
282
Please complete all sections thank you
Section 1
Stakeholder Classification
Age: ___
Please indicate your job classification (please tick one only)
o Built Environment Professional

o Built Environment Academic
o Tourism Industry Professional
o Tourism Industry Academic
o Government
Section 2
A. Assessment Categories for a sustainable resort development tool for Malaysia
Please specify a weight value for each category by writing a number in each box to rate the
importance of each of the issues. Each category MUST have a value between 0 and 100
Criteria
1. Site Development
The site development category addresses the project‘s impact on its immediate
ecosystem by encouraging preservation and restoration of flora and fauna. This
category also encourages strategies, technologies and development that contribute
to the support of biodiversity conservation, including supporting natural protected
areas and areas of high biodiversity value.
2. Material resources and cycles
The material category addresses construction materials and strategies which
minimise their negative environmental impacts. The material category will also
give credits for reuse of building materials and structures, consumption of
recycled materials and materials from sustainable sources.
3. Energy Efficiency
The sustainability assessment system will require a minimum level of energy
consumption through the use of natural ventilation, harvesting natural lighting,
and adopting the best practice in building technology including use of renewable
energy, monitoring utility bills, commissioning and regular maintenance, as well
as the installation of energy efficient equipment (HVAC, lighting water heater
etc). Strategies and technology that can increase the opportunity to access
prevailing winds in Malaysia, whilst reducing the building's exposure to the
powerful sun, will further aid inherent passive cooling strategies.
4. Water efficiency
This category addresses the reduction of potable water consumption in the major
areas of a resort’s demand, for example landscape irrigation, guest amenity and
fire systems and should support demand reduction by measuring water
consumption and encouraging the use of recycled and rain water.
5. Indoor environment quality
Focuses on four different aspects: indoor air quality; visual comfort; noise
reduction and thermal comfort. Core credits are provided for passive cooling
strategies, adequate control of air temperature, and blocking excessive solar gains
to prevent the resort building from overheating and promoting natural ventilation.
The category also encourages the use of low volatile organic compound materials
and low environment impact chemicals including pesticides, paints, swimming
pool disinfectants and cleaning materials.
6. Culture and heritage
This category focuses on resort development which contributes to the protection
of local historically, archeologically, culturally and spiritually important
283
properties and sites, and does not impede access to them by local residents. The
resort uses elements of local art, architecture, or cultural heritage in its operations,
design, decoration, food, or shops; while respecting the intellectual property
rights of local communities. Collaboration with local residents and preservation
bodies ensures that tourism-related activities do not damage sites or prevent local
people from visiting or using them.
7. Community commitment and contribution
The resort offers the means for local small and medium entrepreneurs to develop
and sell sustainable products that are based on the area’s nature, history, and
culture (including food and drink, crafts, performance arts, agricultural products,
etc.). The assessment system will also encourage resort buildings which are
situated close to basic services and employ local residents. This will help to
increase the connectivity between the facilities and the local area. Furthermore, it
will reduce the ecological footprint due to less greenhouse emissions from
transport.
8. Sustainable maintenance and management
This category will address strategies and performance levels of the resort
development from the design stage through construction, operation, maintenance
and renovation. Core credits will be given for a long-term sustainability
management system that is suitable to its circumstances and scale, and that
considers environmental, socio-cultural, quality, health, and safety issues.
9. Waste and pollution
The waste and pollution category encourages strategies and technologies which
reduce potential waste streams, reusing what cannot be avoided and recycling
what is not reusable.
10. Economics
This category acknowledges that buildings can have a positive impact on the
economy of an area by being designed, constructed and managed to stimulate and
support a local, diversified economy, in addition to minimising or eliminating
adverse economic effects.
11. Resilience (adaptation and mitigation)
The sustainable resort development assessment system should encourage
technologies and design strategies to strengthen resort buildings’ resilience to
natural disasters and minimise their contribution to the impacts of climate change.
This category will also need to provide credits for strategies to reduce building
damage from natural disasters and ensure the safety of occupants.
12. Governance
This assessment system will also evaluate good governance in the development of
sustainable resorts. The governance category will also provide a strong platform
not only for the integrated sustainable resort development process itself but also
for the overall implementation of sustainable tourism development initiatives.
Section 3
Detailed indicators identified from existing assessment systems are regrouped under the twelve (12)
general criteria listed in Section 2 above. Please determine which issues should be included in the
sustainable resort development assessment system for Malaysia by rating the importance of each of
the indicators included under each category, based on your knowledge of sustainable development
and/or sustainable tourism in Malaysia.
Weight of Indicators
a. Site Development
Indicators Very important Important Neither important Unimportant Very unimportant

nor unimportant
1. Site Landscaping
 The business uses native species for landscaping and
restoration, and takes measures to avoid the
introduction of invasive alien species.
 Softscape (vegetated) area covers a minimum of 40%
of the site area.
2. Site Selection
 Site is not located on any ecologically sensitive areas
3. Low impact construction

and site techniques
284
 Recycled materials are used and construction
practices and materials are adopted that are not
harmful to the environment.
 Locally appropriate principles of sustainable
construction and design are applied, while respecting
the natural and cultural surroundings.
4. Bioclimatic Architectural
Design
 Design strategy with minimal contact to ground.
 Utilisation of green roof with indigenous plants .
 Acknowledge design to minimizing earth works and
devastation to existing flora and fauna.
5. Conserving Biodiversity,
Ecosystems and Landscapes
 The business contributes to the support of biodiversity
conservation, including supporting natural protected
areas and areas of high biodiversity value.
b. Material Resources and Cycles
Indicators Very important important Neither unimportant Very

important nor unimportant
unimportant
1. Use of recycled building material
 The resort uses recycled building
materials in construction of resort
buildings
2. Low environmental impact
materials/ processed products
 Materials from sustainable sources
are used (for example wood from
sustainably managed forests)
3. Regional/local materials
 Building materials, components, and
systems found locally or regionally are
used, saving energy and resources in
4. Renewable Materials
 The resort uses salvaged,
refurbished, or remanufactured
materials: includes saving a material
from disposal and renovating, repairing,
restoring or generally improving the
functionality or value of a product.
c. Energy Efficiency
Indicators Very important important Neither important unimportant Very unimportant

nor unimportant
1. Natural lighting
 Resort buildings are designed to optimize the use of
effective day lighting to reduce energy use for artificial
lighting.
 Energy efficient lighting is used to minimize
energy consumption from lighting usage while
maintaining appropriate lighting levels
2. Natural ventilation
 The resort incorporates energy efficient design to
encourage indoor air movement to remove heat.
3. Renewable energy
 Renewable technologies are used for resort
operations (e.g., solar, wind, micro-hydro, and/or
bio-mass).
4. Energy efficient practices
 Energy consumption is measured, sources indicated,
and measures to decrease overall consumption are
adopted, and the use of renewable energy is
encouraged.
5. Staff training and
incentives to promote
energy efficiency
 Staff are effectively trained and provided with
incentives to implement energy efficiency programs.
285
d. Water Efficiency
nor unimportant
1. Water efficient practices
 Sub-metering is installed for major water uses such
as irrigation, cooling tower and amenities to monitor
water consumption.
 Water efficient fixtures is used to minimize water
consumption
2. Water Recycling
 Sufficient recycled water capacity is provided for
flushing, irrigation, and cooling tower make up water
(if installed).
 Recycled water and water efficient practices are
applied for landscaping and for other non potable
uses.
3. Innovative water reduction technologies
 Water-efficient fittings, fixtures and innovative
technologies are used to reduce resort domestic water
consumption.
4. Staff training and incentives to promote
water efficiency
 Staff are effectively trained and provided
with incentives to implement energy
e. Indoor Environment Quality

nor unimportant
1. Customer Satisfaction
 Customer satisfaction is measured and corrective action
2. Health and Safety
 Safety and security of surrounding areas is ensured.
3. Chemical Pollutants
 Airborne contaminants from indoor sources are
minimised to promote a healthy indoor environment.
 Low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints certified
by approved Malaysian certification body are used.
 Low emission adhesives certified by approved Malaysian
4. Acoustic and noise control
 Guest spaces are designed with good ambient sound level
(walls of accommodation buildings must be able to
insulate noise up to 80dBA or better)
5. Thermal comfort
 Air-conditioning systems are designed to allow for
cooling load variation due to fluctuations in ambient air
temperature to ensure consistent indoor conditions for
thermal comfort.
6. Visual comfort
 Adequate light is provided for the particular task (natural
and artificial)
 Buildings are designed to avoid glare
7. Barrier free design
 Acknowledge presence of any design strategies to reduce
mobility barriers for special need persons, aged and
infants.
8. Fire Detection and protection
mechanism
Acknowledge the presence of any type of fire detection and protection
mechanism in the resort for safety of tourists and their belongings.
f. Cultural Heritage Conservation

nor unimportant
1. Incorporation of local culture
 The business uses elements of local art, architecture or
cultural heritage in its operations, design, decoration,
food and/or shops, while respecting the intellectual
property rights of local communities.
2. Protection of Sites
 The business contributes to the protection of local
historical, archeological, culturally, and spiritually
important properties and sites, and does not impede
access to them by local residents.
3. Respect for local cultures and
historic locations
 Locally appropriate principles of sustainable
construction and design are employed, while respecting
286
the natural and cultural surroundings.
4. Education and information

about local culture
 Information and education about local culture and
heritage is provided to tourists.
g. Contribution and commitment to local community

nor unimportant
1. Support Local Entrepreneurs
 The business offers the means for local small
entrepreneurs to develop and sell sustainable
products that are based on the area‘s nature,
history, and culture (including food and drink,
crafts, performance arts, agricultural products,
etc.).
2. Local Employment
 Local residents are employed.
 The tourism operation establishes a long-term
stable labour relationship while enhancing the
local authentic character of the tourism service
and product.
3. Community Development
 The business actively supports initiatives for
social and infrastructure community
development including, among others,
education, health, and sanitation.
4. Respect local communities
 A code of conduct for activities in local
communities is developed with the consent of
and in collaboration with the community.
 The traditions and property of local populations
are respected and preserved.
h. Sustainable maintenance and management
Indicators Very important important Neither important nor unimportant Very unimportant
unimportant
1. Adoption of sustainable practices
 Locally appropriate principles of
sustainable construction and design
are employed, while respecting the
natural and cultural surroundings.
2. Implement a Sustainability
Management System
 A long-term sustainability
management system is implemented
that is suitable to its context and scale,
and that considers environmental,
sociocultural, quality, health and
safety issues.
3. Legal Compliance
 The business is in compliance with all
relevant international and local
legislation and regulations (including,
among others, health, safety, labor,
i. Waste and pollution
unimportant
1. Waste reduction and management
strategy
 A solid waste management plan is
implemented, with quantitative goals
to minimize waste that is not reused or
recycled.
2. Reducing Pollution
 The business implements practices to
reduce pollution from noise, light,
runoff, erosion, ozone-depleting
contaminants.
3. Construction waste reduction
strategies
287
 Acknowledge steps to reduce
construction waste
4. Recycling encouragement
provision
 Acknowledge provisions to
encourage recycling
j. Economics
unimportant
1. Construction cost
 Construction costs are lower than
conventional construction or as a
2. East of Maintenance
 Maintenance costs are lower than
conventional maintenance or as a
3. Support local economy
 Local building materials and local
components, fittings and furniture are
used.
 Locally produced goods and services
are provided, including food and
4. Efficiency of use
The resort is cost efficient with respect to:
 Energy consumption cost per month
 Water consumption cost per month
 Waste management/disposal cost per
month
K. Resilience (Adaptation and mitigation)
unimportant
1. Flood resistance
 Building design resists current highest
flood level
 Building design resists predicted
highest flood level in next 50 years
2. Disaster resilience adaptation and

mitigation strategies
 The building design incorporates
structural / non-structural elements
which support resilience in the event
of natural disaster, for example strong
wind protection or drought resistance.
3. Climate Change Impact
 Greenhouse gas emissions from all
sources controlled by the business are
measured, and procedures are
implemented to reduce and offset
them to minimize climate change
impacts.
l. Governance
unimportant
1. Adaptive management
 The resort operator continuously
gathers and integrates appropriate
ecological, social and economic
information with the goal of adaptive
improvement.
2. Full cost allocation

 The entire internal and external coast
288
and benefits, including social and
ecological, of alternative decisions
concerning the use of environmental
protection strategies are identified and
allocated by the resort owner or
operators
3. Participation
 The resort owners / operators engage
stakeholders in formulating and
implementing decisions concerning
environmental protection strategies.
participation contributes to credible,
accepted rules that identify and assign
the corresponding responsibilities
appropriately.
Comments
Thank you for completing this survey form
Please save this completed form, attach it to an email and send it to
Z3262736@student.unsw.edu.au
289

Public Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Sustainable Resorts in Developing

Countries: A Proposed New Generation Rating

Muhamad Syafiq Salehudin

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Faculty of Built Environment, the University of New South Wales

A commonly accepted approach to mitigate negative environmental, social and economic

Chapter 1 – Outline of Thesis

Chapter 3 – Tourism, Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Resort Development

Chapter 4 – Review of Existing Rating Tools

Chapter 5 – Research Methodology

6.1 Introduction 102

Chapter 7 – Quantitative data analysis and findings

7.1 Introduction 125

Chapter 8 – Validation of Results using Case Studies

8.1 Introduction 153

9.1 Introduction 226

Figure 1-1: Research process * 9

Table 3-1: Most-visited countries by international tourist arrivals (WTO 2013) 34

AAA Autoclave aerated concrete

1.2 Research Rationale

1.3 Research Gaps

1.4 Research Aim

1.7 Research Objective

1. To investigate the adaptability of existing rating tools

2. To examine the methods used to develop existing rating tools

1.6 Outline of the Research Methodology

1.7 Thesis Structure

Stage 2 - Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Stage 3 - Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

Stage 4 - Case studies

Figure 1-1: Research process

2.2 The Sustainability Concept

Figure 2-1: The Three Spheres of Sustainability (University of Michigan 2002)

 To achieve a state of environmental sustainability, a framework or process is needed. Certain

3.2 The Malaysian context

3.2.1 The climate

Figure 3-3: Distribution of Annual Rainfall (Moten 2007)

3.2.3 Environmental Stresses and Pressures

3.2.4 Encouraging Sustainable Building

3.4 Tourism in Malaysia

2 United North America 67.0 million 62.7 million +6.8% +4.9%

4 Spain Europe 57.7 million 56.2 million +2.7% +6.6%

5 Italy Europe 46.4 million 46.1 million +0.5% +5.7%

6 Turkey Europe 35.7 million 34.7 million +3.0% +10.5%

7 Germany Europe 30.4 million 28.4 million +7.3% +5.5%

8 United Europe 29.3 million 29.3 million -0.1% +3.6%

10 Malaysia Asia 25.0 million 24.7 million +1.3% +0.6%

Table 3-1 Most-visited countries by international tourist arrivals (WTO 2013)

TOURIST ARRIVALS & RECEIPTS TO MALAYSIA

YEAR ARRIVALS RECEIPTS (RM)

3.4.1 Benefits Derived From Tourism

Figure 3-8: Processes of socio-economic development in Langkawi (Ahmad et al 2013)

Malaysia's Workforce Distribution

Figure 3-9: Malaysia’s workforce distribution 2012 (Kelly Inc. 2012)

Oil and The

Solid Waste Sewage

3.5 The Need for Sustainable Tourism

3.6 Achieving Sustainable Tourism

Paramount role of governance

3.6.1 The Principles of Sustainable Tourism

Consider the presence

Provide social services