Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.

CUHK-61

Ecotourism in mainland Southeast Asia: Theory and practice

The 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Urban Environments

May 8 to 10, 2013

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Tuan Phong Ly and Thomas Bauer

School of Hotel and Tourism Management

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Hong Kong SAR, China

Corresponding Author: Tuan Phong Ly

Phone: +852 34002325

E-mail: tuan.phong.ly@connect.polyu.hk

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-62

Ecotourism in mainland Southeast Asia: Theory and Practice

T. P. Ly and T. Bauer

Abstracts

Ecotourism has experienced rapid growth because of global concerns regarding sustainability.
However, significant differences are observed between the theory and practice of ecotourism
management, especially in Southeast Asian countries. This study reviews the management of
ecotourism in five countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) by comparing the
theoretical definition with the practical operations in each country. The goal of this study is to
investigate the cause of the gap between the theoretical definition and the practical operation of
ecotourism. This study also addresses critical issues regarding national ecotourism policy and the
practical implementation of ecotourism-based products in each country. This study would be of
interest to national policymakers and researchers to study, plan, and improve their ecotourism
development strategies.

The results suggest that the main reason for the gap in the ecotourism operations of these countries
is the lack of communication and cooperation between policymakers and other tourism stakeholders.
The government is significant in leading ecotourism development, and an official and national
ecotourism strategy is required in planning and operating ecotourism. However, consistency in policy
and the attitude of the government will increase the competitive power of ecotourism. The assistance
of non-government organizations is not a long-term strategy for ecotourism development, and less-
developed countries like Vietnam should attempt to use the resources of its administrative government
system, similar to the Tambon Administrative
Organization of Thailand, to develop a suitable policy for ecotourism management in the long-term.

Keywords Southeast Asian; national ecotourism strategy; community-based ecotourism;

nongovernment organization.

1. Introduction

Ecotourism is a type of sustainable tourism that has experienced rapid growth in the background
of global concern on sustainability (Weaver, 2001). Theoretically, ecotourism has promised to
generate both economic returns and employment for the recipient country while also ensuring the
protection of local environments and cultures. Ecotourism has been observed to help third world
destinations, particularly in the Southeast Asian (SEA) region, find an answer to the classic deadlock:
the need for profit from their tourism resources to earn foreign exchange without destroying those
resources and thus compromising sustainability (Cater, 1993). However, a very real danger exists of

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-63

viewing ecotourism as the universal panacea (Cater, 1993; Orams, 1995). Given the difficulties in
defining ecotourism and in measuring its outcome, the appeal of ecotourism has been increasingly
tarnished (Mastny, 2001). Weaver (2011) and Scott (2011) conclude that the efforts of SEA to achieve
sustainable tourism over the last 15 years have been slow and unimpressive. Furthermore, ecotourism
reportedly faced many of the problems confronted by traditional tourism. For instance, ecotourists
were criticized for consuming similar resources and producing similar wastes (Wall, 1997). Many
scholars criticized ideal statements that affirm ecotourism as a practice that could mitigate all tourism
troubles (Cater, 1993; Dodds & Joppe, 2005; Parnwell, 2009; Wall, 1997; Weaver, 2001). Indeed,
growing evidence has demonstrated the negative effects of ecotourism around the world, which seem
to indicate the nature of its usual business operations (Sirakaya, Sasidharan, & Sonmez, 1999; Wight,
1993) and ‘the difficulty of distinguishing between conventional tourism and ecotourism in Asian
form is recognized’ (Cochrane, 2009, p.255). Generally, significant differences occur between the
theory and practice of ecotourism.

Tourism is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world. Tourism 2020 Vision by the
UNWTO forecasts that international arrivals are expected to reach nearly 1.6 billion by the year 2020.
The SEA region is forecasted to experience record growth at rates of over 6.3% per year between
1995 and 2020, compared with the world average of 4.1%. By 2020, the regional arrival figure is
projected to reach 136 million per annum (UNWTO, 2013). Local governments in developing
countries usually consider tourism as a main mechanism to improve the local economy and the living
standards of inhabitants (Ly, 2008; Tang & Jang, 2009). SEA uses tourism as a stage for the mainstays
of the region’s economic development, especially since the Asian Economic Crisis in 1997. The
natural environment and exotic oriental cultures are two major focal selling points of SEA to tourists.
As Lew (2010) concluded, tourism cannot ignore the long-term nature of sustainability. The
development of sustainable tourism is therefore necessary to address global warming issues and local
economic crises, especially for a developing region such as SEA.

Hitchcock, King, and Parnwell (2009) stated that an expansion of studies on tourism in SEA have
occurred during the past decade. However, the number of studies regarding ecotourism in this region
remains limited (Chon, 2000; Hall & Page, 2000a; Hitchcock et al., 2009; Teo, Chang & Ho, 2001).
Despite the increase of studies on ecotourism in SEA countries, most focus on the newly industrialized
capitalist countries (especially Thailand and Malaysia). Tourism research studies on the new members
of Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), such as Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, are rare
(Hitchcock et al., 2009).

This study reviews the development of ecotourism in five SEA countries, Malaysia, Thailand,
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The review will be based on the comparison between the theory and
practice of ecotourism management in each country. The first objective is to find the cause of the gap
between the theory and practice of ecotourism in the region. The second objective is to address critical
issues regarding National Ecotourism Policy and the practical implementation of ecotourism-based
products in each country.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-64

2. The definition of ecotourism

In the more than two decades since the term ecotourism was first used in the English-speaking
academic field by Romeril (1985), ecotourism has elicited significant attention within the tourism
industry and literature (Weaver, 2005; Weaver & Lawton, 2007), sometimes appearing under the
terms such as natural tourism (Boo, 1990; Ziffer, 1989) or ecological tourism (Ruschmann, 1992).
Considering that ecotourism has been and will continue be important in tourism worldwide, the
United Nations declared 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism (Deng, King & Bauer, 2002;
Maclaren, 2002) and published the first issue of the Journal of Ecotourism in the same year (Weaver,
2005).

Certain important ecotourism definitions represent the leading idea of ecotourism. For example,
the definition of ecotourism by the International Ecotourism Society in 1990 (TIES, 2013) is
‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of
local people.’ The definition adopted by the Ecotourism Australia Association is ‘ecologically
sustainable tourism with a primary focuses on experiencing natural areas that fosters environmental
and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation’ (Ecotourism Australia, 2013). Despite
considerable attention, an internationally agreed upon definition of ecotourism still does not exist
(Deng, et al., 2002; Weaver, 2005). However, according to the conclusions of Blamey (1997; 2001)
as well as Weaver and Lawton (2007), scholars have reached a near-consensus that ecotourism should
satisfy three criteria. These include: (1) the attractions should be primarily nature-based; (2) tourist
interaction with these attractions should focus on learning and education; and (3) experience and
product management should follow principles and practices associated with environmental, socio-
cultural, and economic sustainability ideas. Each criterion leaves sufficient room for interpretation
and allows the industry to consider the appropriate application of each parameter (Weaver & Lawton,
2007). The conclusion of Blamey likely led to the development of different modes of ecotourism. For
example, Weaver (2005) identified both a minimalist and comprehensive mode of ecotourism or a
new theme in the literature characterized by attempts to expand the boundaries of ecotourism beyond
its original pattern in the mid-1980s as a nature-based form of unconventional tourism. These involve
the inclusion of recreational angling as a form of ecotourism (Holland, Ditton, & Graefe, 1998; Zwirn,
Pinsky, & Rahr, 2005); the trophy hunting idea of Novelli, Barnes and Humavindu (2006); or Ryan
and Saward’s (2004) considering the possibility that redesigned zoos are non-captive habitats that
meet the criteria of ecotourism. Miller and Kale (1993) argued that all forms of tourism might be
considered ecotourism, depending on the extent of human responsibility implemented. ‘Ecotourism
can only be achieved when the behavior of destination managers, stakeholders, and tourists is
ecologically, economically, and ethically responsible. Such behavior should adhere to criteria which
have sustainability as their primary objective’ (Deng et al., 2002, p. 424). These previous discussions
show that the definition of ecotourism is important in leading ecotourism. However, the interpretation
and operation of ecotourism by authorities and operators in actual practice is its primary determining
factor. To study the difference between the theory and practice of ecotourism in each country, the
following parts investigate a specific revision to investigate whether SEA, as it is currently structured,
actually achieves the primarily sustainability criteria of ecotourism.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-65

3. Methodology

In order to establish comparability, the countries were selected based on two criteria: (1)
geographical similarity and (2) tourism market comparability. Geographical similarity indicates that
the selected countries have a similar approximated land area and topography. SEA consists of two
geographic regions: mainland SEA and maritime SEA (Hall & Page, 2000b). The five countries in
the maritime area (Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore) do not pass the first
criterion because the focus of this study is the mainland area. The second criterion indicates that the
selected countries should have either a mature or a newly industrial economy with developing tourism
markets. Only five countries satisfy this criterion: Thailand and Malaysia (mature markets), Vietnam,
Laos, and Cambodia (countries with recent economic development). The tourism industry of
Myanmar (Burma), because of its late development compared with other countries in the region, is
not included in this study.

The study process is explained as follows: first, the official definition or theory of ecotourism is
based on the definition of the relevant authority in each country, such as the government, the national
tourism board, or an ecotourism association. Second, how each country operates its ecotourism policy
and ecotourism-products is reviewed based on case studies, official websites, or brochures as well as
blogs from tourists who have participated in ecotourism activities. Finally, this study addresses two
research objectives by drawing lessons learned from ecotourism development in each country.

4. Ecotourism in mainland Southeast Asia: theory and practice

4.1 Ecotourism in Malaysia

The Nation Ecotourism Plan is the result of a study commissioned by the Ministry of Culture, Arts,
and Tourism in 1995 to assist the government in planning the potential development of ecotourism in
Malaysia. It was accepted by the government a year later and remains valid (Ministry of Tourism
Malaysia, 2013; Musa, 2000). Malaysia has adopted the definition of the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) to guide the ecotourism management in the country. For Malaysia, Ecotourism is:

Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to
enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that
promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic
involvement of local populations (National Ecotourism Plan Malaysia- Part 1, 1995, p. 2).

The Plan pointed out ‘Whether or not an activity qualifies to be called ecotourism depends on the way
the activity is carried out, not so much on the type of activity per se.’ (National Ecotourism Plan
Malaysia- Part 1, 1995, p. 3).

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-66

The role of government in leading ecotourism development include planning and coordinating
funds to develop infrastructure in remote areas, sponsoring the cost of technical consultancy work in
particular ecotourism destinations, and bridging joint efforts between various levels of government,
the private sector, and the local communities to implement the ecotourism activities successfully
(Daud, 2002). However, inconsistency in ecotourism policy and planning has delayed the growth of
business. The Seventh and Eighth Malaysia Plans for tourism focused on ecotourism (The Star Online,
2008). However, in the Ninth and Tenth Malaysia Plans, the government increased its ecotourism and
sustainable travel efforts by approving enormous budgets and projects compared with those in the
Eighth Plan. However, the focus of tourism results was on health, education, and MICE tourism
(Marker, Blanco, Lokanathan, & Verma, 2008). Consequently, the government promoted Malaysia
as an ecotourism destination. However, this was conducted inconsistently, which might lead to
confusion for ecotourists.

Ecotourism operators in Malaysia are divided into three main types. However, they do not share a
similar interpretation of the definition of ecotourism. The first type is the community ecotourism
cooperative, such as the Batu Puteh Community Ecotourism Cooperative. This type of ecotourism
operator is set up to promote and develop ecotourism based on Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit in Rio
1991 and the Malaysia Ecotourism Plan in 1995 (MESCOT Initiative, 2013). Unfortunately, a second
type of ecotourism operator exists in Malaysia. As reported by a tourist in Langkawi Island, an
‘ecotourism-based’ guide forced the tourist to feed eagles and pat monitor lizards. According to Dr.
Reza Azmi from Wild Asia, this is exactly the type of tour operator tourists should avoid while
travelling (Holiday in Malaysia, 2009). Locals without appropriate licenses usually run these
operations but still identify themselves as ecotourism operators or imitators without supporting
relevant principles and criteria. The final type of ecotourism operator usually possesses an
international background, usually from developed countries such as the United Kingdom, other
European nations, or Australia. They operate a wide range of ecotourism tours in Malaysia and around
the world, strictly based on sustainable tourism ideas (Adventure Sports Holidays, 2013; Responsible
Travel, 2013).

Lesson learned from Malaysia Ecotourism

The role of the government in leading the development of ecotourism is important, especially in
the initial stage of the ecotourism cluster. However, consistency in policymaking and implementation
is necessary for the development of ecotourism. Frustrated and unstable market segmentation will
lead to a loss of ecotourists in significantly competitive environments. Moreover, with the
participation of international ecotourism-based operators in ecotourism activities, local communities
can learn new ideas regarding the operation of ecotourism. Although tourism revenue would not
totally benefit locals, paying what is due for the learning process is worthwhile. Unfortunately,
currently existing fraudulent home-stays and irresponsible ecotourism-based tour operators in the
market confuses tourists and are negative examples for authentic ecotourism development in Malaysia
(Malaysia.com, 2011).

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-67

The Malaysian tourism industry uses another useful tool to close the gap between the theory and
practice of ecotourism by giving awards to the excellent operators with sustainable
ecotourismproducts (Wild Asia, 2011). Moreover, certain regional and international conferences on
ecotourism development are held, which could help raise awareness on the importance of ecotourism
in industry development, such as The World Ecotourism Conference is a typical example (Discovery
MICE, 2011). The gap between theory and practice of ecotourism remains in Malaysia. However, the
spirit and idea of how to minimize this gap is a worthwhile lesson for most SEA countries. The idea
of Malaysians themselves operating local tourism efforts could result in Malaysia becoming truly
environmental.

4.2 Ecotourism in Thailand

The rapid development of international tourism in Thailand reached a massive scope during the
1980s and 1990s (Cohen, 2001). In the new millennium, the government has realized the potential of
ecotourism for conserving the natural environment. The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) has
promoted ecotourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation and rural development (Hvenegaard &
Dearden, 2002). A temporary ecotourism strategy was proclaimed during 1995 to 1996. The National
Ecotourism Policy was prepared during the 1994 to 1998 period, and was approved and announced
by the Cabinet in 1998 (Leksakundilok, 2004). The following definition of ecotourism has been used
in the National Ecotourism Policy:

Ecotourism is responsible travel in areas containing natural resources that possess endemic
characteristics and cultural or historical resources that are integrated into the area’s ecological
system. Its purpose is to create an awareness among all concerned parties of the need for and the
measures used to conserve ecosystems and as such is oriented towards community participation as
well as the provision of a joint learning experience in sustainable tourism and environment
management. (TISTR, 1997, p.8)

The several defining elements of ecotourism in Thailand are as follows: natural areas are the ideal
destination for ecotourism, education and sustainability are emphasized, ecosystems are conserved,
and the community participates in management. The Thai government also commits the same mistakes
as those of the Malaysian government: they understand the importance of ecotourism as a major form
of sustainable tourism development, but the focus of the Thai government on earning income from
mass tourism has led to inconsistency in policy and planning. The Eighth and Ninth National
Economic and Social Development Plans (NESDP) in 1997-2001 and 2002-2006, respectively, were
the main driving forces and supporting factors for ecotourism development (Leksakundilok, 2004). In
the Tenth NESDP (2007-2011), Thailand aimed to achieve a green and happy society, emphasizing
the resolution of the economic crisis and human resource development issues via the use of sustainable
natural resources and enhancing national competitiveness. However, the theme of the 11th NESDP
(2012-2016) was to build a creative economy, focusing on green and creative production, a sufficient
and moderate society, and a new social contract, in which people must be the center of development
(Government of Thailand Ministry of Interior, 2010). The focus of NESDP in recent years has been

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-68

more economics-based. After the National Ecotourism Action Plan in 2006, no updated plan for
nationwide ecotourism development has been announced in Thailand.

Although policies and plans have been established to guide the development of ecotourism, all
stakeholders tend to interpret ecotourism differently depending on their understanding, comprising
different types of ecotourism-based products in actual practice. Local communities have become a
main component of ecotourism in Thailand. Many actors have promoted the community involvement
trend in ecotourism. The main actors consist of NGOs, private operators, the Tambon Administrative
Organization (TAO), and local communities (Leksakundilok, 2004). TAO, which is the local
government, is important in supporting local communities via tourism development and management.
However, TAOs, which are composed of powerful local executives, do not appear to be interested in
tourism and are sometimes in conflict with community activists. NGOs and local communities
therefore trust informal groups as the true representatives for tourism development instead of TAOs
(Leksakundilok, 2004). Conflicts between stakeholders regarding local community participation lead
to certain types of ecotourism-based products with different features.

Government agencies are the biggest supporter for more than 75 percent of ecotourism-based
products in Thailand communities (Krungthep Turakij, 2001; Pleumarom, 2001). Ecotourism-based
products managed by NGOs are usually benefit local communities and the environment. NGOs
emphasized the empowerment of locals when building ecotourism products. Although NGOs and
private-managed operators account for only a quarter of community-based ecotourism in Thailand,
their impact on ecotourism development should not be underestimated. Many tour operators mix
ecotourism with adventure tourism (such as rafting, safari, jungle tour), soft adventure (kayaking,
canoeing) or community culture tours without relation to nature (tribe visiting, local products
shopping) (Leksakundilok, 2004). This misleading by private-managed operators has affected the
understanding of tourists and some other stakeholders. However, truly responsible tourism operators
exist, some of which were finalists in the Wild Asia Responsible Tourism Awards for 2008. These
include the representative of the luxury and boutique accommodation category, the Six Senses
Hideaway at Phang Nga; as well as that of the budget category, the Faasai Resort and Spa in
Chanthaburi (Wild Asia, 2008).

Lesson learned from Thailand Ecotourism

Thailand essentially remains a mass tourism destination (Hitchcock et al., 2009). Since the
application of the National Ecotourism Policy and National Ecotourism Action Plan in the past
decade, because other forms of tourism (mass tourism) have more support in practice than ecotourism,
different actors usually have dissimilar explanations and understandings of ecotourism. The current
actions of NGOs in community development include empowering the local people in ecotourism
operation, preserving natural and cultural resources, and improving education in daily management.
These are exactly the main ideas of ecotourism defined in Thailand National Ecotourism Policy in
1997 (TISTR, 1997). The NGOs of Thailand seem to be performing the duties of the TAOs

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-69

sufficiently. The power and quantity of NGOs are limited. However, TAOs are in every village in the
Thai territory and would give ecotourism development excessive support if they performed their
duties properly.

Apart from international and professional private-owned ecotourism operators, the Thai tourism
market has had unqualified ecotourism operators that mislead ecotourists and other stakeholders with
their incorrect explanation of the definition of ecotourism. Simultaneously, certain awards given to
the private-owned ecotourism-based operators of responsible locals bring a new hope for the future
development of ecotourism in Thailand. Considering that Thailand is rich with protected area
resources and is the most progressive country in terms of policy and planning for ecotourism
development (Khanal & Babar, 2007), Thailand has potential to be a top ecotourism destination.
However, improvements in its policy will make Thailand even more impressive.

4.3 Ecotourism in Cambodia

The tourism industry in Cambodia has experienced a period of frustrated development before total
peace was set up in 1999. Tourism has been the largest industry since 2009 (U.S. Department of State,
2012). ‘Tourism in Cambodia must first and foremost be cultural tourism’ (Chau, 2000, p.1). While
speedily maximizing the tourist city Angkor as a ‘cash cow’ of development, Cambodia also avoided
turning it into a ‘commercial tourism’ destination (Chau, 2000, p.4). In the framework of Cambodian
tourism development, the term ‘ecotourism’ is relatively new. The first Cambodia Community-Based
Ecotourism Network (CCBEN) was established in 2002 to promote and support community-based
ecotourism (CBET) (Chheang, 2008). Cambodia’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper from 2006 to
2010 included no clear guide on the management of ecotourism or CBET (The Royal Government of
Cambodia, 2005) or even a confirmed official definition of ecotourism. According to Sok (2004), the
government has given minimal attention to ecological protection of tourist sites. The only CBET (or
ecotourism) definition is found on the Ministry of Tourism Cambodia website (2013a) within the
promotion page for CBET in Cambodia:

Community-based ecotourism addresses the well-being of the community and the surrounding
environment. While supporting local communities and improving livelihoods, the natural and cultural
resources of the area are protected and conserved. Ecotourism is a type of sustainable tourism in
which tourists experience, appreciate and enjoy the nature and culture of their destination. The
negative impacts of tourism are minimized while an incentive for conserving natural and cultural
features is provided.

CBET is equivalent to ecotourism in Cambodian tourism. Cambodia has a special mechanism in

tourism development involving private sector participation at the national and sub-regional level in
their tourism marketing board (Cuyvers, Soeng, Plasmans, & Bulcke, 2011; Khanal & Babar, 2007).
This transparent mechanism has brought a new phenomenon to the development of ecotourism in this
country. It also drew out certain kinds of ecotourism-based products that differ from neighboring
countries. This can be observed via ecotourism-based product destinations introduced on the official

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-70

website of the Ministry of Tourism Cambodia, a trustworthy and official national ecotourism
marketing tool (Ministry of Tourism Cambodia, 2013b).

In Cambodia, CBET products are almost entirely managed by NGOs. Governmental departments
rarely join in their planning and management. CBET products normally receive financial and technical
assistance from NGOs, its partners and donors, while the local community is responsible for operating
and owning the products. For example, the Chi Phat CBET site located in Koh Kong province was
established in 2007 by an environmental NGO called Wildlife Alliance. This NGO helps the
community provide certain ecotourism-based services (i.e., home stays, trekking, mountain biking,
boating, and bird-watching tours) and support the protection of the natural and cultural resources of
the region, bring income to villagers, and train them in operations (Wildlife Alliance, 2013).

Lesson learned from Cambodia ecotourism

Due to political reasons, the Cambodian tourism industry began later than that of regionalist
neighboring countries. Cambodia has chosen high quality, cultural tourism as the mainstay of national
tourism development with its special World Heritage site, Angkor Wat (Winter, 2007), which also
serves as a steady source of income. Ecotourism is not yet a concern of the Cambodian government.
However, it is the concern of local and international NGOs.

In 2002, when the CCBEN was first established in Cambodia, it also brought new hope to the
ecotourism development of Cambodia by the private and public cooperation mechanism. This
cooperative mechanism also brought innovative and inclusive information that introduced ecotourism
products in the Ministry of Tourism Cambodia website (Ministry of Tourism Cambodia, 2013b),
which is rarely seen in the national tourism websites of other countries. The funding and assistance of
NGOs in developing ecotourism cannot last long. As part of its long-term plan for CBET, the UNWTO
is assisting Cambodia in formulating an ecotourism development plan (Khanal & Babar, 2007).
Otherwise, this country needs a comprehensive strategy for the formation of a definition of ecotourism
to facilitate the planning and policymaking of ecotourism at a national level. This is a necessary
process that leads to successful ecotourism management.

4.4 Ecotourism in Laos

Located in Indochina, Laos also experienced frustrated development in its history (Schipani, 2002).
With the assistance of international organizations and learning from some of the perceived mistakes
of its Asian neighbors, the Laotian government has come to favor ecotourism development (Hall,
1997). Ecotourism is presently a significant topic in sustainable tourism and is now a top priority for
the Laotian government, especially because this type of tourism is explicitly linked with poverty
alleviation, which is the national target of Laos (UNDP & LNTA, 2006). At present, approximately
80% to 90% of all tourism activity is concentrated around short visits to the cultural centers of

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-71

Vientiane and Luang Prabang. The plan of the Laos tourism industry is to vary the tourism sector by
developing new products and attractions across the country. Central to this aim is the development and
promotion of Laos ecotourism. The National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2010 was
therefore announced to represent the vision and the guiding principles of ecotourism development in
Laos (LNTA, 2005). In this action plan, the definition of ecotourism in Laos is defined as:

Tourism activity in rural and protected areas that minimized negative impacts and is directed towards
the conservation of natural and cultural resources, rural socio-economic development and visitor
understanding of, and appreciation for, the places they are visiting (LNTA, 2005, p. 10).

As stated in the action plan, the development of new ecotourism products, services, and destinations
is a complicated process. Success will demand cooperation and coordination among public and private
sector stakeholders.

Since the Laotian government began promoting ecotourism in the late 1990s (Hall, 1997), the
private sector has joined them mainly by contributing tour operators, eco-accommodation, and
handicrafts products. The private-sector operators are not the mainstream in ecotourism-based
products in Laos, when compared with aid-agencies funds and the public sector. However, they present
positive examples that fit the definition of ecotourism, such as the Green Discovery eco-tour company.
Green Discovery was founded in 2000 as an Australian-Lao joint venture, and is committed to socially
responsible travel and to the preservation of the natural beauty of Laos (Green Discovery, 2013).
However, private-sector operators complain about a lack of visible output and tangible support from
the Laos National Tourism Administration (LNTA) and the weak linkages between tourism
businesses. These concerns have even received a degree of suspicion from the government (Harrison
& Schipani, 2009).

The most renowned project involving aid agencies funded by and continuing cooperation with the
ecotourism-based products of the public sector has been the UNESCO-LNTA Nam Ha Ecotourism
Project (NHEP) in Luang Namtha Province. It retains its status as a role model for subsequent
ecotourism development projects in areas of great cultural and natural richness in Laos (Lyttleton &
Allcock, 2002; Suntikul, Bauer, & Song, 2009). It was recognized for the recent demonstration site of
the National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2010, prepared by LNTA with assistance from
the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV). This highly successful initiative introduced the
concept of ecotourism to Laos and received significant international acclaim and a UNDP award in
recognition of its contribution towards poverty alleviation (LNTA, 2005).

Lesson learned from Laos ecotourism

The Laos tourism industry began in the late 1990s. However, it has become the top source of foreign
exchange and poverty alleviation in the country, with two million tourist arrivals since 2009 (LNTA,
2009). This success is attributed to the comprehensive and updated tourism policy, law, and planning
of the Laos government under the financial and technical assistance of international NGOs. With help

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-72

from aid agencies, especially from the Asia Development Bank and SNV, to develop CBET, Laos
posses certain role models for further ecotourism development, such as the NHEP in Luang Namtha
province, which established a tourism development cluster in a less developed province.

Laos cannot separate itself from the mainstream multi-country tours emerging in the region.
Therefore, apart from the ecotourism development that is being prepared for the future, Laos is
simultaneously developing cultural tourism as its basic support for its national tourism industry. A
successful strategy for ecotourism development must prepare an integrated approach that includes not
only knowledge on how to manage the role of CBET but also an understanding of the role of
mainstream tourism in the country.

4.5 Ecotourism in Vietnam

The American embargo was lifted at the end of 1994, and Vietnam was accepted as a full member
of the ASEAN in 1995 (Cooper, 2000). Vietnam tourism hence turned a new page in its development
history. The tourism decree was announced in 1999. In 2005, the Parliament approved the Tourism
Law to adjust the relationship of tourism in the macro field, which confirmed the importance of tourism
industry in the country (VNAT, 2010). The tourism industry, especially ecotourism, is new for
Vietnam under the doi moi policy compared with other ASEAN countries. In the Tourism Law valid
from 1st of January 2006, the Vietnamese Parliament announced the first official definition of
ecotourism as:
Ecotourism is one form of tourism based on nature, closely related with local culture, with the
community participation to develop sustainability (Vietnam Parliament, 2005, p.3).

However, this definition is only an explanation for certain terms that refer to the tourism
phenomenon that exists in Vietnam. This law did not include any clear ideas or guides on how
ecotourism should be operated or principles to manage this new type of tourism (Vietnam
Parliament, 2005). Moreover, the existing complexities of the juridical system have resulted in
uncooperative ecotourism managerial strategies in Vietnam (Buckley, 2004).

In this undeveloped environment, certain types of ecotourism-based products exist in Vietnam.

Classified based on the ownership of ecotourism sites, two types of ecotourism-based products have
emerged. The first type is the public sector ecotourism-based product, such as national parks and nature
reserve areas. The central government and/or local government (i.e., Provincial People’s Committee
and/or national park management board) normally administer this kind of tourism destination. They
also operate its daily management. The second type is the private sector ecotourism-based product,
such as ecotourism resorts and ecotourism-based theme parks. This new type of ecotourism-based
product originates from private naturalists who are interested in protecting and conserving special flora
and fauna species in their own gardens or natural-related theme parks, which then develop in scope
and improve certain ecotourism-based theme parks to attract ecotourists. Examples include Dam Sen
Park at Ho Chi Minh City (Damsen Park, 2013) and Soc Trang Bat Pagoda (Le et al., 2009). These

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-73

types of ecotourism sites, however, mostly serve constructed tourism activities rather than nature- and
local culture-related tourism activities.

Lesson learned from Vietnam ecotourism

Vietnam’s modern history has been one of constant political change, from French colonization to
the Vietnam/America War and division to reunification, trade embargoes to subsequent reform. All of
these changes have affected tourism development. In search of tourism revenue, the Vietnamese
government has relinquished some aspects of centralized control. Therefore, the local authorities are
highly autonomous. One Vietnam National Administration of Tourism’s document indicates that a
lack of synergy in the planning and investment of different sectors and regions, overlapping powers
of ownership, and authorization procedures would confuse and delay the development of tourism
industry (Suntikul, 2010). Moreover, a roughly defined idea of ecotourism, without detailed guidelines
and principles with regard this new kind of tourism product under the doi moi policy is another barrier
that hinders the development of ecotourism (Vietnam Parliament, 2005).

Since doi moi, the role of government has been changing from being a provider to a regulator
(Buckley, 2004; Elliott, 1997). However, macro-level interventions from the government that plan to
optimize tourism resources are necessary, especially with regard to leading Vietnam ecotourism
development. Without proper ecotourism law or a national ecotourism strategy like in other ASEAN
countries, unqualified ecotourism-based products remain in Vietnam, such as ecotourismbased theme
parks, which are only fabricated tourism activities with related natural-based resources. In Vietnam,
therefore, the tourism industry needs a national ecotourism strategy and law to review management
permissions in different regional levels.

5. Conclusion

Countries without a national ecotourism strategy or planning like Cambodia and Vietnam
undoubtedly require comprehensive frameworks. Although Cambodia does not have any national plan
for ecotourism development, its special transparent private and public cooperation mechanism assists
in significantly improving the management of ecotourism products (Ministry of Tourism Cambodia,
2013b). However, its tourism administration need to empower certain private sector entities like
NGOs, which would not be the case in certain top-down policy driven countries.

Launching a national ecotourism strategy is only the first step. The consistency of policy is required
for ecotourism management, and frustrated and unstable market segmentation will lead to a loss of
tourists in other more competitive areas. Moreover, the attitude of the government in conducting
ecotourism is important. In Thailand, mass tourism has more support than ecotourism, which leads to
different stakeholders having dissimilar explanations and understanding regarding ecotourism
operations. Consequently, this confuses tourism actors and tourists. Consistency in national tourism

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-74

policy is necessary. However, the government cannot ignore mainstream national tourism. Thus, a
successful strategy for ecotourism development must have an integrated approach, which not only
includes knowledge and stability when managing the role of ecotourism but also understanding the
role of mainstream tourism (Harrison & Schipani, 2009).

Using the assistance from the private sector (i.e., NGOs), the development of CBET is inevitable
in less developed countries. However, the improvement of their resources will be the long-term
strategy for sustainability. Conventionally, NGO is arguably a useful stakeholder in CBET
development, because this kind of ecotourism-based product requires considerable technical and
financial resources to support and operate. However, evidence from other studies indicates that NGOs
are not always the best in conducting CBET development because NGOs are not by nature tourism
businesses (Harrison & Schipani, 2009). Additionally, NGOs derive their budgets from their donors
and are thus a limited resource. Therefore, not every country should rely on NGOs to develop
ecotourism in its long-term strategy. They could use the existing and well-networked resources of the
governmental administrative system, such as the TAOs in Thailand or the Social People Group in
Vietnam, which are recognized as the representatives of the local community in tourism development,
especially in CBET (Leksakundilok, 2004).

The gap between the theory and practice of ecotourism exists in every single country in mainland
SEA. The main reason for the operational gap in ecotourism is the lack of communication and
cooperation between policymakers and other tourism stakeholders. Ecotourism development requires
the integrated cooperation between all main beneficiary stakeholders (the governments, the tourism
industry, tourists, and local communities), due to their direct and indirect relationship to the
environment, which may affect the implications of ecotourism (Cochrane, 2009). However, the role
of government in choosing which method the country should follow in tourism development is
significant. Therefore, they are the key to breaking the gap between the theoretical definition and
practical operation of ecotourism.

This study has geographic restrictions in its data collection and analysis. In order to completely
understand ecotourism development in the region, future research should collect first-hand data in
more countries, including the maritime SEA countries.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-75

References

Adventure Sports Holidays. (2013). Malaysia Ecotourism Travel Guide. Retrieved from
http://www.adventuresportsholidays.com/malaysia/ecotourism/.

Blamey, R. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 5, 109-130.

Blamey, R. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp.

5-22). Wallingford: CAB International.

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. Vol. 1. Washington: World Wildlife Fund.

Buckley, R. (2004). Ecotourism planning and destination management in Vietnam. In D. Diamantis

(Ed.), Ecotourism: Management and assessment (pp. 313-322). London: Thomson Learning.

Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism development.
Tourism management, 1993, 85-90.

Chau, S. K. (2000). The APSARA authority plan for tourism. Siem Riep: APSARA.

Chheang, V. (2008). The political economy of tourism in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 13(3), 281-297.

Chon, K. (Ed.). (2000). Tourism in Southeast Asia. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

Cochrane, J. (2009). New directions in Indonesian ecotourism. In M. Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M.

Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia: Challenges and new directions (pp. 254-269).
Honolulu, Hawai‘i: NIAS Press.

Cohen, E. (2001). Thai tourism: Trends and transformations. In E, Cohen (Ed.), Thai Tourism: Hill
tribes, islands and open-ended prostitution (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-28). Bangkok: White Lotus Press,
Studies in Contemporary Thailand No.4.

Cooper, M. (2000). Tourism in Vietnam: Doi Moi and the realities of tourism in the 1990s. In C. M.
Hall & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism in South and Southeast Asia: Issues and cases (pp. 167-177).
Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Cuyvers, L., Soeng, R., Plasmans, J., & Bulcke, D. V. D. (2011). Determinants of foreign direct
investment in Cambodia. Journal of Asian Economics, 22(3), 222-234.

Damsen Park. (2013). History and development. Retrieved from

http://www.damsenpark.com.vn/en/about.

Daud, M. M. (2002). The ecotourism development in Malaysia. In T. Hundloe (Ed.), Linking green
productivity to ecotourism: Experiences in the Asia- Pacific region (pp. 128-133). Queensland:

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-76

University of Queensland.

Deng, J. Y., King, B., & Bauer, T. (2002). Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research. 29(2), 422-438.

Discovery MICE. (2011). The 2nd World Ecotourism Conference, Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.discoverymice.com/WEC2010/world-ecotourism-conference-2010-welcome2.htm.

Dodds, R. & Joppe, M. (2005). CSR in the tourism industry? The status of and potential for
certification, codes of conduct and guidelines. Washington DC: International Finance Corporation.

Ecotourism Australia. (2013). What is ecotourism? Retrieved from

http://www.ecotourism.org.au/index.asp.

Elliott, J. (1997). Tourism: Polities and public sector management. London: Routledge.

Government of Thailand Ministry of Interior. (2010). Strengthening inclusive planning and

economic decision-making for environmentally sustainable pro-poor development: Poverty
Environment Initiative (PEI) framework in Thailand. Bangkok: UNDP and UNEP.

Green Discovery. (2013). Company profile. Retrieved from

http://www.greendiscoverylaos.com/aboutus/companyprofile.html.

Hall, C. M. (1997). Tourism in the Pacific Rim. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley, Longman.

Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2000b). Introduction: Tourism in South and Southeast Asia- region and
context. In C. M. Hall & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism in South and Southeast Asia: Issues and cases
(pp. 3-28). Oxford, UK: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (Eds.). (2000a). Tourism in South and Southeast Asia: Issues and cases.
Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Harrison, D., & Schipani, S. (2009). Tourism in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. In M.
Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia: Challenges and new
directions (pp. 165-188). Honolulu, Hawai‘i: NIAS Press.

Hitchcock, M., King, V. T., & Parnwell, M. (2009). Current issues in Southeast Asian tourism. In M.

Hitchcock, V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 309-313). Honolulu,
Hawai‘i: NIAS Press.

Holiday in Malaysia. (2009). How you could save Langkawi Island through ecotourism. Retrieved
from http://holidaysinmalaysia.org/langkawi-island/how-you-could-save-langkawi-islandthrough-
ecotourism/.

Holland, S., Ditton, R., & Graefe, A. (1998). An ecotourism perspective on billfish fisheries.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-77

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6, 97-116.

Hvenegaard, G. T., & Dearden, P. (2002). Ecotourism in Northern Thailand. Retrieved from
http://archive.idrc.ca/books/reports/1996/15-01e.html.

Khanal, B. R., & Babar, J. T. (2007). Policy brief: Community based ecotourism for sustainable
tourism development in the Mekong Region. Hanoi: CUTS Hanoi Resource Centre.

Krungthep Turakij. (2001, April, 21). A suggestion to opening 500 National Parks and Military areas
in order to promote the ecotourism degree by drawing private sector to join. Krungthep Turakij,
p.1 (in Thai).

Le, H. B., Thai, L. N., Nguyen, T. T. N., Le, H., Thai, V. B., & Vo, D. L. (2009). Ecotourism (2nd
ed.). Hochiminh: Science and Technology Press (in Vietnamese).

Leksakundilok, A. (2004). Community participation in ecotourism development in Thailand

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/668.

Lew, A. (2010). Time as a major barrier to sustainable development. Tourism Geographies, 12(3),
481-483.

LNTA. (2005). National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan 2005-2010: Summary. Vientiane:
LNTA.

LNTA. (2009). 2009 statistical report on tourism in Laos. Vientiane: Planning and Cooperation
Department- Statistics Units.

Ly, T. P. (2008). World Heritage site community tourism management: The critical issues of keeping
residents living in the core zone- case study of Vietnam Phong Nha- Ke Bang National

Park (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Lyttleton, C., & Allcock, A. (2002). Tourism as a tool for development: UNESCO- Lao National
Tourism Authority Nam Ha Ecotourism Project-External review July 6-18, 2002. Vientiane:
NTAL and UNESCO.

Maclaren, F. (2002). The international year of ecotourism in review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
10, 443-448.

Malaysia.com. (2011). Action against fraudulent home stay programmes. Retrieved from
http://www.malaysia.com/news/2011/01/action-to-be-taken-against-fraudulent-home
stayprogrammes/.

Marker, M. A., Blanco, A., Lokanathan, S., & Verma, A. (2008). Ecotourism in Malaysia, project
for PP5279: Clusters and national competitiveness. Malaysia: Lee Kuan Yew School of Public

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-78

Policy.

Mastny, L. (2001). Travelling light: New paths for international tourism. The Worldwatch paper
159.

MESCOT Initiative. (2013). History and background: MESCOT Initiative, Kinabatangan, Sabah,
Malaysian Borneo. Retrieved from http://mescot.org/about_mescot_history.htm.

Miller, M. L., & Kale, B. C. (1993). Coastal and marine ecotourism: A formula for sustainable
development? Trends, 30, 35-41.

Ministry of Tourism Cambodia. (2013a). What is CBET? Retrieved from

http://www.tourismcambodia.org/cbet_sites/index.php?view=what_is#comp.

Ministry of Tourism Cambodia. (2013b). CBET Destinations. Retrieved from

http://www.tourismcambodia.org/cbet_sites/index.php?view=destinations#comp.

Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. (2013). National Ecotourism Plan Malaysia- Part 1. Retriveved from
http://www.motour.gov.my/en/download/viewcategory/34-pelan-eko-
pelancongankebangsaan.html.

Musa, G. (2000). Tourism in Malaysia. In C. M. Hall & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism in South and
Southeast Asia (pp. 144-156). Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Novelli, M., Barnes, J., & Humavindu, M. (2006). The other side of the ecotourism coin:
Consumptive tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5, 62-79.

Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management. 16(1),
3-8.

Parnwell, M. (2009). A political ecology of sustainable tourism in Southeast Asia. In M. Hitchcock,

V. T. King, & M. Parnwell (Eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 239-253). Honolulu, Hawai‘i:
NIAS Press.

Pleumarom, A. (2001). Mekong tourism- Model or mockery? A case study on ‘sustainable tourism’.
Penang: Third World Network.

Responsible Travel. (2013). Travel like a local. Retrieved from

http://www.responsiblevacation.com/.

Romeril, M. (1985). Tourism and the environment: Towards a symbiotic relationship. International
Journal of Environmental Studies, 25, 215-218.

Ruschmann, D. (1992). Ecological tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management, 13, 125-134.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-79

Ryan, C., & Saward, J. (2004). The zoo as ecotourism attraction- Visitor reactions, perceptions and
management implications: The case of Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 12, 245-266.

Schipani, S. (2002). Ecotourism status report: Lao PDR, Vientiane: SNV Lao PDR.

Scott, D. (2011). Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19(1), 17-34.

Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V., & Sonmez, S. (1999). Redefining ecotourism: The need for a
supplyside view. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 168-172.

Sok, H. (2004). Investment policies and human development in Cambodia: Prepared for the Asia
Trade Initiative Project sponsored by United Nations Development Programme: Cambodia
Economic Report 2004. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute.

Suntikul, W. (2010). Tourism and political transition in reform-era Vietnam. In R. Butler & W.
Suntikul (Eds.), Tourism and political change (pp. 133-143). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishing.

Suntikul, W., Bauer, T., & Song, H. (2009). Pro-poor tourism development in Viengxay, Laos:
Current state and future prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 153-168.

Tang, C. H., & Jang, S. C. (2009). The tourism-economy causality in the United States: A
subindustry level examination. Tourism Management, 30, 553-558.

Teo, P., Chang, T. C., & Ho, K. C. (Eds.). (2001). Interconnected worlds: Tourism in Southeast
Asia. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

The Royal Government of Cambodia. (2005). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2006-2010. Phnom
Penh: The Royal Government of Cambodia.

The Star Online. (2008). Eco-tourism projects fall flat. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/3/nation/22228619&sec=nation.

TIES. (2013). What is ecotourism? Retrieved from http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism.

TISTR. (1997). Operational study project to determine ecotourism policy. Summary Report,
Bangkok: Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research submitted to Tourism
Authority of Thailand.

U.S. Department of State. (2012). Background note: Cambodia. Retrieved from

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732.htm.

UNDP., & LNTA. (2006). International tourism: Social-economic impacts in the Lao PDR.

Vientiane: International Trade and Human Development.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

 Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.CUHK-80

UNWTO. (2013). Tourism 2020 Vision. Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html.

Vietnam Parliament. (2005). Tourism Law. Hanoi: Vietnam Parliament.

VNAT. (2010). National Tourism Year of Vietnam. Retrieved from

http://50nam.tourism.gov.vn/home.php?cat=05&itemid=96. (in Vietnamese).

Wall, G. (1997). Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management, 2(4), 9-12. Weaver, D. B.

(2001). Ecotourism. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Weaver, D. B. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 32(2), 439-455.

Weaver, D. B. (2011). Can sustainable tourism survive climate change? Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19 (1), 5-15.

Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism
research. Tourism Management, 28, 1168-1179.

Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), 3-9.

Wild Asia. (2008). Three Thai finalists in Wild Asia’s 2008 Responsible Tourism Awards. Retrieved
from http://www.wildasia.org/main.cfm/library/post/2291.

Wild Asia. (2011). About Wild Asia's Annual Responsible Tourism Awards. Retrieved from
http://www.wildasia.org/main.cfm/RT/About_RT_Awards.

Wildlife Alliance. (2013). Who are we. Retrieved from

http://www.wildlifealliance.org/page/view/2/who-we-are.

Winter, T. (2007). Rethinking tourism in Asia. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 27-44.

Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Washington: Conservation International.

Zwirn, M., Pinsky, M., & Rahr, G. (2005). Angling ecotourism: Issues, guidelines and experience
from Kamchatka. Journal of Ecotourism, 4, 16-31.

IGUTourism.com - copyright: CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)