ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI …jbsd.umt.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2018/03/6.1.7.pdf · primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are the ones

ISSN: 2289-2915© Penerbit UMT

Journal of Business and Social Development Volume 6(1) 2018: 70-83

Journal of Business and Social Development Volume 6 Number 1, March 2018: 70-83

ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

(EKOPELANCONGAN DI TAMAN NEGARA PULAU PINANG: PERSPEKTIF PEMEGANG TARUH TERHADAP ISU-ISU ALAM SEKITAR)

AZREEN ROZAINEE ABDULLAH*1, CHAN NGAI WENG2 AND IRFAN AFIF ABDUL FATAH3

1School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts, KDU Penang University College, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. 2School of Humanities. 3Centre for Knowledge, Communication & Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract: Ecotourism in protected areas usually strive for conservation, educational and minimal visitor impacts. Located in the fast-paced developing island of northern Malaysia, Penang National Park (PNP) serves as an ideal ecotourism site for both domestic and international visitors. However, the increasing number of visitors and improper environmental management strategies cause detrimental impacts on the sensitive ecosystems in the area. Hence, this study was designed to identify the environmental issues based on the perspectives of four main stakeholders; management authorities, local communities, tour guides and visitors. Data were collected from the four stakeholders using semi-structured in-depth interviews and stakeholder analysis was used to analyze the stakeholders’ perceptions. The main problem found was the rampant littering by visitors. Other problems include insufficient garbage bins, lack of environmental awareness, feeding wild monkeys, fallen trees and lack of maintenance revenue due to no entrance fee. This paper concludes with recommendations for the management authorities to manage the visitors in a sustainable manner in order to ensure the long term sustainable development of the ecotourism sites particularly in national parks.

Keywords: Ecotourism, stakeholder, visitor impact, protected area, Malaysia.

Abstrak: Ekopelancongan di kawasan perlindungan biasanya bertujuan untuk pemuliharaan, pendidikan dan meminimakan impak pengunjung. Terletak di pulau yang sedang berkembang pesat di utara Semenanjung Malaysia, Taman Negara Pulau Pinang (PNP) berfungsi sebagai tapak ekopelancongan yang ideal untuk pengunjung domestik dan antarabangsa. Walau bagaimanapun, peningkatan bilangan pengunjung dan strategi pengurusan alam sekitar yang kurang mampan boleh mengakibatkan kesan negatif terhadap ekosistem yang sensitif di kawasan tersebut. Oleh itu, kajian ini direka untuk mengenalpasti isu-isu terhadap alam sekitar berdasarkan perspektif empat pemegang taruh utama; pihak pengurusan, komuniti tempatan, pemandu pelancong dan pengunjung. Hasil kajian telah dikumpulkan menggunakan wawancara semi-stuktur yang mendalam dan persepsi pemegang taruh dianalisis menggunakan kaedah analisis pihak berkepentingan. Masalah utama yang ditemui adalah disebabkan oleh pembuangan sampah merata-rata secara berleluasa oleh pengunjung. Masalah lain adalah termasuk tong sampah yang tidak mencukupi, kurang kesedaran alam sekitar, pemberian makanan kepada monyet-monyet liar, pokok tumbang dan kurangnya sumber kewangan untuk penyelenggaraan kerana tiada kutipan masuk. Kesimpulan hasil kajian ini mencadangkan agar kawasan-kawasan ekopelancongan menguruskan pelawat dengan cara yang lebih mampan untuk memastikan kelestarian pembangunan ekopelancongan jangka panjang khususnya di taman-taman negara.

Kata kunci: Ekopelancongan, pemegang taruh, kesan pengunjung, kawasan perlindungan, Malaysia.

IntroductionEcotourism is a form of “responsible travel to natural areas that conserve the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education” (TIES, 2015). Ecotourism makes up about 20% of

total international travel (CI, 2015) and with an estimated annual growth rate of five percent worldwide (Das, 2011). It is imperative to note the impacts it poses to the natural areas it resides in. Any modification on the area may cause changes and disturbance to the dynamicity of the natural environment. Buckley (2004) noted

063.indd 70 3/27/18 3:19 PM

ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 71


that the modifications from ecotourism activities may pose both positive and negative impacts on the natural environment. Some positive environmental impacts of ecotourism include direct benefits to conserve the natural resources (Walpole, Goodwin, & Ward, 2001) and protect the area from other forms of activities with more adverse environmental impacts such as logging, farming, aquaculture and poaching (Frost, 2004). On the other hand, negative impacts on the natural areas may be due to the over exploitation of a natural resources or excessive number of visitors, exceeding the carrying capacity of the area (Ramadhon et al., 2014). The negative impacts include destruction of plant and wildlife habitats; soil and dune erosion; soil compaction; disruption of soil stability; alteration of geological regimes; disruption of nutrient cycles; and reduction in biodiversity (Chin et al., 2000).

Over the years, since the word “ecotourism” was first introduced in the early 1980s, many stakeholders showed great interest in this new form of tourism industry. These stakeholders comprised various entities such as national governments, tourists, non-governmental organizations, tourism enterprises, conservation groups, researchers and academicians. This paper focuses on investigating the four different stakeholders’ views on environmental issues caused by ecotourism in Penang National Park (PNP). The four stakeholders identified in this study are (1) management authorities (2) visitors (3) tour guides, and (4) local communities. By doing so, this study seeks to identify the emerging environmental issues based on multi-stakeholders’ perspective using in-depth interviews with the stakeholders.

Literature ReviewEcotourism was first coined by Ceballos-Lascurain in 1988. In his words, ecotourism refers to:

“Tourism that involves traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and

enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in the areas”

(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998)

Ecotourism is a subset of nature-based tourism and it tries to adopt sustainable development practices in its operation. According to The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) (2015), ecotourism is more than just visitation to natural areas as it tries to disseminate education and interpretation among its visitors and staff. TIES (2015) also provides eight principles to be adopted by those involved in ecotourism. They are: (i) minimize physical, social, behavioral, and psychological impacts, (ii) build environmental and cultural awareness and respect, (iii) provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts, (iv) provide direct financial benefits for conservation, (v) generate financial benefits for both the local people and private industry, (vi) deliver memorable interpretative experiences to visitors that help raise sensitivity to host countries’ political, environmental, and social climates (vii) design, construct and operate low-impact facilities and (viii) recognize the rights and spiritual beliefs of the Indigenous People in the community and work in partnership with them to create empowerment.

Ecotourism is a niche market of tourism that caters for those who seek solace in undisturbed natural areas. Emerged within the womb of the environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s, ecotourism is fast gaining its popularity as it draws massive influx of tourists to ecotourism sites around the world (Honey, 2002). Ecotourism also anticipates more active contribution to the sustainability of eco-attractions. Ecotourism is sometimes used interchangeably with sustainable tourism but the Mohonk Agreement (2000) has distinguished between the two by setting standard characteristics. Sustainable tourism can be incorporated into any and all types of tourism, while ecotourism only refers to travel that occurs in natural, often undeveloped locales, focusing

063.indd 71 3/27/18 3:19 PM

Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 72


on environmental and/or cultural awareness and promotes conservation (Chua, 2008).

Globally, ecotourism industry is seen as an impetus for economic growth contributing more than USD 470 billion per year in revenues worldwide (Hoshaw, 2010) resulting in many countries all over the world to jump on the bandwagon. Malaysia is not excluded as Malaysia owns ideal characteristics to become one of the best ecotourism destinations in the world. Malaysia, located on the green belt with tropical climate, 24 national parks and 4.68 million hectares of forest reserves (NRE, 2013), is ranked at the 12th place in megadiverse country in the world (Tourism Malaysia, 2009). The bountiful flora and fauna with beautiful landscapes and unique ecosystems serve as a platform for promoting ecotourism. The government’s seriousness in promoting ecotourism could be seen when the National Ecotourism Plan was introduced in 1996, followed by the subsequent National Ecotourism Plan (2016-2025) to better assist ecotourism development in the country. Besides that, ecotourism was also highlighted in the Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) where the government spent RM14.2 million (USD3.8 million) on 20 ecotourism projects in Malaysia. In 2015, the government took a major leap in an effort to promote tourism by introducing the National Ecotourism Plan 2016-2025. Apart from governmental bodies working on ecotourism, other Malaysian ecotourism stakeholders such as travel trade professionals, academia, institutions and individuals has formed Malaysian Ecotourism Association (MEA) in 2007 as a platform for the development of the Malaysian ecotourism industry. Leading Malaysian naturalists has also joined together and formed Ecotourism and Conservation Society (ECOMY) in 2015, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) spearheading conservation in sustainable ecotourism. These continuous efforts in developing sustainable ecotourism have been recognized globally and Malaysia was awarded “Best Eco-Vacation” at the 5th National Geographic Traveler Awards in 2015 (Elite, 2016).

The nation has seen a growing interest in the trend of visiting protected areas as reported through studies done in Pahang National Park (Shuib & Abidin, 2002), Mulu National Park (Hazebroek & Morshidi, 2002), Kinabalu National Park (Ghazali & Sirat, 2011) and Penang National Park (Sato et al., 2013). However, the tendency of most of the studies was to focus on one stakeholder group in examining their perception on a particular area. According to Gee & Fayos-Sola (1997), impacts can be perceived differently by different community members as well as interested and affected stakeholders. In order to involve all stakeholders in the planning and management of ecotourism especially in terms of minimizing environmental impacts, an understanding of their collective perception is necessary. Various stakeholders’ inputs on ecotourism development, management and planning may lead to a better comprehensive ecotourism standard and achieve sustainability (Byrd, 2007).

With the high influx of tourists visiting natural areas, it is imperative to eliminate or reduce any negative environmental impacts it might pose. According to Gossling (2002), negative environmental impacts from ecotourism activities or developments can be divided into both direct and indirect physical and psychological impacts. Some of the forecast visitor impacts or environmental issues when developing ecotourism in an area include vegetation removal, animal disturbance, clearing of habitats, soil compaction, soil erosion, littering, increased demand for fresh water, pollution, changes in wildlife behavior and fire (Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002). Therefore, any successful ecotourism must integrate the perspectives of the stakeholders in order to ensure sustainable visitor use, necessitating the effective management of natural areas for visitor enjoyment and at the same time protecting the natural environment.

Stakeholder AnalysisStakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

063.indd 72 3/27/18 3:19 PM



achievement of an organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984). Donaldson and Preston (1995) added to Freeman’s definition, stating that the stakeholder must have a legitimate interest in the organization. There were seven broad categories of stakeholder provided by Freeman (1984): owners, employees, suppliers, customers, the financial community, activist groups and the government. However, Clarkson (1995) further classified these stakeholder into two group according to their power or influence; primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are the ones whose participation in any corporation is vital and without primary stakeholders, an organization or corporation will not survive. They include investors, employees, customers, and suppliers. On the other hand, secondary stakeholders are those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the corporation but are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and not essential for its survival (Clarkson, 1995).

Stakeholder analysis, according to Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000), is “an approach, a tool or set of tools for generating knowledge about actors- individuals and organizations- so as to understand their behavior, intentions, interrelations and interests; and for assessing the influence and resources they bring to bear on decision-making or implementation process”. It is a process of identifying key stakeholders, an assessment of their interests and the ways in which those key stakeholders are affected by riskiness and viability (Allen and Kilvington, 2001). Their engagement and inclusion in decision-making processes from the initial stages makes them feel empowered and represents their ability to resolve issues or influence decision-makers (Friedman and Mason, 2005).

Even though stakeholder analysis comes from the fields of policy, management and project implementation, the analysis have long been adopted in tourism planning and management. Byrd and Gustke (2007) believed that identifying the stakeholders and understanding their interests that motivate them are one of the first steps in achieving sustainable tourism. They also

believed that it is important to know the diverse stakeholders and their complex interactions to eventually involve them in the management and planning. Byrd (2007) and Sautter and Leisen (1999) concurred and further argued that the relationships between stakeholders are always evolving and complex, depending on area, time, resources and leadership. The need to identify stakeholders is important as failure to identify their interest (even by neglecting one single stakeholder group) may result in the failure of the entire process (Clarkson, 1995). Hardy and Beeton (2001) believed that stakeholder analysis seems a logical method of identifying the multiple subjective opinions of those with a stake in tourism; and for planning it in a way to avoid any costs associated with poor planning and management and the resultant conflicts. Consequently, stakeholder identification and involvement have been recognised as a key step towards achieving partnerships and collaboration within tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 1999; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Selin 1999).

Research Methodology This study examined four main stakeholders’ (management authorities, tour guides, local communities and tourists) perceptions towards environmental issues in Penang National Park (PNP). In-depth interviews were conducted for two months to enquire about their perception on the impacts of ecotourism affecting PNP. Their responses were collected and analyzed using stakeholder analysis

Study AreaPenang National Park (PNP) is located on the northwest of Penang Island with coordinates 5.4620° N, 100.1900° E. The park covers about 1,265 hectares making up 0.04 percent of the islands size. PNP was gazetted as Malaysia’s National Park in April 2003, making it the smallest to date. Before this, PNP was designated as a Permanent Forest Reserve under the Forestry Ordinance 1928 and was managed by the Penang Forestry Department. Even though it was regarded as a forest reserve, Chan et al.

063.indd 73 3/27/18 3:19 PM



(2003) revealed that logging activities were carried out between the late 1910s and the late 1930s. Despite previous logging activities, there are currently about some 72 hectares of virgin jungle reserve left in the PNP and these areas were left untouched.

PNP is rich in terms of ecosystems with coastal hill, meromictic lake, wetlands, mangroves, mudflats, coral reefs and turtle nesting beaches (DWNP, 2008). In terms of fauna, the PNP is home to at least 25 species of mammals, 53 species of butterflies, 46 species of birds (including a significant number of migrants) and a considerable variety of marine life in the adjacent seas (including sea anemones, corals, molluscs, crustaceans, schinoderms and sea turtles). There are also many species of land and sea snakes, the python being most commonly found. Other fauna that have been sighted in the PNP include the common tree shrew (Tupaia glis), slow loris (Nycticebus coucang), flying lemur (Gynocephalus veriegatus), sea otters, pangolin or scaly ant-eater, leopard cat and civet cat (Hong and Chan, 2010). PNP is also unique in terms of its micro-climate. Chan et al. (2003) revealed that the tree and their canopies through their evapotranspiration process has caused PNP to be much cooler compared to the city of Georgetown, Penang even at mid-day (noon).

Since being gazetted in 2003, PNP has seen a tremendous increase in the number of tourists visiting the area. Table 1 shows more than

500 percent increase in the number of visitors from 2004 until 2016, with a steady increase of international visitors. Most of the international tourists come from England, Germany, France, Australia and China. However, there was a slight drop in the number of visitors’ arrivals in 2005 due to the 2004 tsunami which affected most areas in the northern region of Penang.

MethodologySemi-structured in-depth interview was used as the primary method of data collection in this study. It allows rich data to be collected whilst enabling the researcher to respond to answers and verify responses (Jennings, 2004). The data collection methods were designed not to restrict the interview process but rather encourage openness and build a level of trust between the researcher and the respondent. One of the limitations of qualitative research is the total time involved in data collection, analysis and interpretation. Babbie (1998) explains that qualitative research involves more time in order to examine holistically and aggregately subjects’ interactions, reactions and activities. In-depth interviews were chosen for the current research work because more and wider range of information could be elicited. Furthermore, skilled interviewers can gather information that may be left out through a survey or other techniques. Thus, the main role of the in-depth interviewer is to explore the respondents’

Table 1: Malaysian and International Tourists Arrivals to PNP, 2004-2016Year Malaysian Visitors International Visitors Total2004 16830 4938 217682005 9238 3309 125472006 22982 4502 274842007 25137 6163 313002008 44982 10780 557622009 53156 16511 696672010 64049 22615 866642011 60168 28275 884432012 72419 35857 1082762013 74734 40461 1151952014 75331 51503 1268342015 90651 57936 1485872016 83114 64726 147840Source: PNP, Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), 2017

063.indd 74 3/27/18 3:19 PM



points of view, feelings and perspectives. Such interviews have been used to obtain systematic descriptions of interviewees’ experiences. On the other hand, a disadvantage of this technique is that it involves personal interaction; sometimes interviewees feel uncomfortable sharing feelings with a person he or she has just met.

The four stakeholders chosen for this study are the local communities, tour guides, visitors and management authorities. Management authorities in this study refer to authorities from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) and the Department of Fisheries. The findings of each interviews on the stakeholders were summarized into Table 2. Interviews with the visitors were conducted at the entry/exit point upon the completion of their activities in PNP, while interview with other stakeholders were based on purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling, according to Patton (2002), allows information-rich cases to be chosen from which the researcher can learn about the issues central to the purpose of the research. Patton (2002) also argues that purposeful rather than random sampling, ensures that variations within the phenomena and increases the validity of the answers received from the respondents. Purposive sampling method does not dictate the number of respondents needed (Creswell & Clark, 2007) as data collection will stop when data saturation is reached, where no new evidence or category emerge (Charmz, 2000). This sampling method was chosen for the study as it is convenient to the researcher who can use own judgment in the selecting respondents that can best provide the information needed for the study.

Table 2: Stakeholders’ interview dataCode Stakeholder Numbers

V1-V8 Local visitor 8 V9-V14 International visitor 6M1-M4 Management authorities 4L1-L4 Local communities 4T1-T3 Tour guides 3

Total 25

Before the interview began, permissions were sought from the stakeholders for their consent to be interviewed. The interviews were then audio-taped to ensure accuracy and no information was missed out. All the stakeholders were interviewed face-to-face for a duration of 15 minutes to one hour. The stakeholders were asked to identify and talk more on environmental issues relating to PNP. The information gathered from the interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was chosen due to its flexibility and ability to be applied in a wide range of theoretical frameworks and research interests (Clarke & Braun, 2013). Four dominant themes were identified in this study and will be discussed further in the following chapter.

Findings and DiscussionFor a better understanding, this study chose to foreground the stakeholders’ voices by including direct quotations in the body of the narrative. This reflects the value recorded to these voices and the importance of the contextualized nature of this research. The findings are grouped according to the emerged issues drawn from the interviews.

Littering and Garbage ManagementLittering was found to be the main emerging problem gathered from stakeholders’ interview sessions. This is clearly evident from the following statements:

Rubbish on Monkey Beach is the worst. Many tourists come to the area for BBQ lunch and not for the sole purpose of enjoying the nature itself. They just want to enjoy seafood BBQ and leave their rubbish especially water bottles behind [V6]

The people here do not adhere to the notice by PERHILITAN. Take only photos, leave only footprints. During my hike, I saw many plastic bottles along the trail. There are also a lot of cigarette butts at the beach- at the

063.indd 75 3/27/18 3:19 PM



camp sites… The worst I think is in Monkey Beach [V11]

There are not enough rubbish bins, maybe that is why they simply throw anywhere they like [V10]

These statements were supported by all tour guides and management authorities, proving that littering is the main concern in PNP. A tour guide even claimed witnessing many of his clients (visitors) throwing water bottles or food wrappers while hiking without feeling guilty about it. He also agreed that Monkey Beach is the worst affected area as many visitors came straight from hotels to have barbeque in the area without going through the nature walk in PNP. They did not read the sign boards at the entry points nor experience nature during their hike. According to the management authorities and tour guides, the main reason for Monkey Beach (also known as Teluk Duyung) to be polluted with rubbish is due to various outdoor activities organized by hotels and private companies. These include barbeque sessions, jet skiing, banana boat rides and the use of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) around the area. Besides that, more outdoor activities are organized here compared to other parts of the park as Monkey Beach is privately owned and not managed by any management authorities.

In addition to this, a tour guide mentioned that the locals too had picnic in the area could not be bothered to take out their rubbish. They just threw their rubbish anywhere they liked. He implied that many local visitors still have very low environmental awareness compared to foreigners especially Japanese tourists. Japanese tourists have high environmental awareness and this could be seen from an old Japanese couple who always entered the park bringing their own plastic bags to collect rubbish on their hike [T1]. The author managed to interview the Japanese couple [V7 & V8] who have stayed in Penang for 35 years and visited PNP 305 times. Regarding local visitors littering in PNP, the Japanese visitors painted a different picture. They claimed that they used to bring out 2-3 bundles of plastic bags filled with rubbish during their early visits

here. But in recent times, less rubbish had been collected. They regarded that many young Malaysian nowadays have higher environmental awareness and management authorities too had made a good effort in maintaining the area.

On the other hand, Pantai Kerachut is less lively and the main attraction here are the beautiful beach and Turtle Conservation and Education Centre. Many of the visitors and locals interviewed would prefer Pantai Kerachut compared to Monkey Beach as it is more peaceful and they can enjoy the scenery of a beautiful meromictic lake before reaching Pantai Kerachut. The uniqueness of the area, however did not stop the littering issue. The management authority revealed that:

We caan help to clean the visible rubbish thrown on the beach or the camping sites in Pantai Kerachut. However, it is the unseen rubbish which is the main problem here. Most of the campers will dig a hole and throw their rubbish in and cover it with sand. When the turtles come ashore to dig up holes to lay their eggs, the buried rubbish will emerge, thus disturbing the nesting site [V2]

Most visitors thought that burying the rubbish is the best way to minimize environmental impacts of their tourism activities in the area, but it actually creates another problem for turtle conservation especially in Pantai Kerachut. Bringing out the rubbish from PNP is another problem for the management. When rubbish had been collected in large plastic bags, the management authorities did not have enough manpower to carry them out. Instead, they needed to hire boats to carry out the rubbish from PNP. This would incur money and add up to maintenance cost.

Studies on other Malaysian national parks by Chin et al. (2000) in Bako National Park, Yong (1990) and Zaiton (2013) in Taman Negara National Park have also shown that littering is a common problem often created by visitors. Littering could be found in popular places such as the walking trail, river banks, camp sites and canopy walkways. According to a study

063.indd 76 3/27/18 3:19 PM



by Neo et al. (2016), the main reason why many Malaysians throw rubbish or littering is convenience rather than obligation to manifest. For them, it is much easier to simply throw rubbish anywhere rather than practice proper rubbish disposal. A local visitor also lamented that “there are not enough rubbish bins along the trail and we can only find rubbish bins at the beach” [V5]. This may lead to littering and over spillage of rubbish around the bins. Chung et al., (2012) stressed that waste spillage impairs the visual aesthetic quality while Chin et al. (2000) added that waste spillage lowers the tourist experience.

Another problem in PNP is the anthropogenic marine debris or better known as marine litter. All management authorities lamented that marine debris is one of the most difficult challenges in managing the parks. According to a tour guide with more than 10 years of experience in PNP, during high tides, the shores were sometimes strewn with marine litter especially plastic. He added that:

There were occasions when the shorelines were covered with papers and oranges. Some religious rituals practice throwing these items out to the sea for matchmaking purposes. However, they should have a mechanism to collect the items later. If not, it will float and get washed ashore. This definitely will impair visual aecstatic value of the area [V2]

Studies done by Martinez-Ribes et al. (2007), Santos et al. (2005, 2009) and Thiel et al. (2013) revealed that most of the anthropogenic marine debris usually came from nearby sources; shore-based (beach users doing activities) and nearshore activities (artisanal fishery and aquaculture). The same scenario could be seen in PNP as most of the litter comes from nearby sources. In this case, PNP is just a small part of Penang island and the debris may originate from both Penang island and the mainland. It is imperative to curb this problem as the management authority mentioned that:

PNP is a park for everybody. It is free. So everybody need to take the responsibility to take care of the environment for future generation [V1]

Nevertheless, four visitors (two locals and two international) did not see littering as the main problem in the area. In fact, they concertedly replied that PNP is beautiful and very clean.

MonkeysTwo local residents who were interviewed mentioned that monkeys were a nuisance in the area. They reported that:

Monkeys will come to our windows to snatch food. So we have to close our windows especially for us staying at this flat, very near to PNP [L2]

We see monkeys always searching for food at the garbage dumps [L3]

Monkeys were also spotted foraging for food at plastics bags collection areas by the management authorities in PNP.

It is actually our fault. Human fault. We encroached into their area (habitat) and some of the tourists used to feed the monkeys. They become dependent on humans for easy food and some even snatch from tourists [T2]

According to Orams (2002), deliberate and long-term provision of food to wildlife has been shown to alter their natural behaviour patterns and population levels. It has also resulted in the dependency of animals on humans to provide food and their habituation to human contact. Usui et al. (2014) recommends that park rangers should take action by prohibiting tourists from feeding the monkeys. In the case of PNP, it is hard for the rangers or tour guides to monitor the behavior of the tourists feeding the monkeys found, as they could be almost everywhere in PNP. Signboards prohibiting direct feeding to monkeys can be seen at the entry/exit point but obeying the rules and regulation is much dependent on individuals’.

063.indd 77 3/27/18 3:19 PM



In contrast, most of the stakeholders believed that monkeys in PNP are the star attraction of the area. This is clearly showed in the following statements:

We love monkeys. I love to take their pictures [V3]

Without the monkeys, this area will be quiet [V4]

Monkeys are one of the attractions in this area. It won’t disturb you if you don’t disturb them. They are harmless [M2]

However, the management authorities and travel guides would advise visitors not to feed the monkeys and be extra vigilant when eating in an open area or under a tree. They cautioned that monkeys might just snatch the food especially if they see it in a plastic bag. [T1, T2 and M1]

Fallen TreesAll the interviewed visitors, except for three lamented on the fallen trees blocking the trails.

The management should cut the fallen trees into small pieces to make it easier for us to hike the trail [V5]

The fallen trees make it hard for us to walk and may be dangerous [V2]

Fallen trees are obstacles for hikers [V9 and V10]

In comparison to this, the management authorities and tour guides claimed that the fallen trees serve as some sort of additional adventure for true nature hikers. Some trees in the forests do fall due to wind, heavy rain or natural circumstances. They rebutted that:

We believed that fallen trees along the trail provide a real natural trail in real forest. If the trail is paved and tarred, there is nothing more natural about PNP [M1]

If they find fallen trees as an obstacle for them, they should just have walked in KOMTAR or Gurney Mall (popular

shopping complexes in Penang). Easier and air-conditioned [T2]

Nevertheless, the management authorities claimed that they would just remove the fallen trees from the trail and leave the residue for natural recycling process.

Entrance FeeIn ccomparison to findings by Zaiton et al., (2013), all PNP local visitors did not agree to the idea of imposing an entrance fee. They believed that there were no special activities held which would require them to pay. Furthermore, they believed that by imposing an entrance fee, the number of visitors would decline. Visitors might be attracted other attractive places in Penang. Their statements are as follows:

PNP is a natural area. So there is no need to pay. The government can help in maintaining the area [V2]

I’m against paying an entrance fee. We would like to encourage people to come to the park to enjoy nature. If we impose some entrance fee, then they will have a second thought. If they come, they have to spend some money, it will discourage them [V4]

However, the visitor added that it is acceptable to impose a small amount of entrance fee if the money would be allocated for maintenance of camping sites.

When asked how much they were willing to pay if the management were to impose charges, they agreed to RM2.00 to RM3.00 per entry. On the other hand, all international visitors agreed that some entrance fee should be imposed and they were willing to pay RM10.00 per entry. A visitor form China suggested that students and the elderly should be exempted as they do not have any source of income. Nevertheless, a tour guide [V1] revealed that if the management authorities were to impose more than RM10.00, this will encourage more tourists to enter PNP through other alternative ways and sometimes enter through illegal entry points such as from their hotels via boats. Furthermore, since PNP is

063.indd 78 3/27/18 3:19 PM



mostly surrounded by sea, boats could just come in and out without being checked at the entry points. On the contrary, findings from a study done by Kaffashi et al., (2015) suggested that an admission fee of MYR10 could be charged with a condition that there must be some improvement in the management of PNP. It is indeed a management challenge for PNP since it is situated near the sea. Hence, according to one of the park officials, it is quite costly to maintain especially in providing good electricity supply as PNP is located near the sea corroding the electrical wiring at a faster rate.

According to a tourist guide, “there is a dire need for the management to generate income in order to manage the park. The facilities, without proper maintenance will degrade with time. Most of the facilities are already not in good shape and without enough budget from the federal government and if there is no source of income, facilities cannot be maintained well. Income from entrance fee might help to upgrade the facilities. It could also act as a deterrent to those who care less about the environment from entering the park” [T2].

Currently, there is no entrance fee charged by the PNP management authorities. For Taman Negara National Park, the management charged RM1.00 per entry and imposed other licenses such as fishing license (RM10.00), camera license (RM5.00) and camping fee (RM1.00 per day). Meanwhile in Sarawak, there are many categories for entrance fees (as published in Sarawak Forest Department’s website). The entrance fees imposed for visiting national parks there are RM10.00 for locals and RM20.00 for foreigners. Children above 6 years but less than 18 years old are charged RM3.00 for locals and RM7.00 for foreigners. Children aged 6 years and below are allowed to enter for free. These charges can be a source of revenue for the management authorities to upgrade their facilities and be less dependent on allocation from the federal government. As Hearne and Santos (2005) mentioned, entrance fees and tourist expenditure provide financial incentives to national park and communities so

they can provide secure, accessible visitation opportunities.

Recommendation and ConclusionThis study utilized stakeholder analysis in identifying environmental issues from the perspective of four PNP stakeholders. The results of the study revealed that littering was the main environmental issue found in this area. From the stakeholders’ point of view, littering in the area could be the result of limited garbage receptacles and low environmental awareness amongst the local visitors. The results of this study can contribute to better-informed decisions by park managers and regional planners. First, education and sharing responsibility are the key steps to tackle this problem. Practical and effective anti-littering strategies should be formulated and enforced to eliminate this disturbing and unproductive behavior. Before the visitors enter PNP, they should be provided with a form for them to declare all items they would bring into the park. Visitors will be required to fill in the checklist and submit the form. Upon exiting the park, the management staff would then check the list to make sure all declared items are brought out of the park. The checklist can be downloaded through online application via smartphone made available through Google Play. It will be much easier and eco-friendly (paperless document).

Second, in order to reduce littering of disposable plastic food containers and plastic water bottles, the management could enforce a “no-disposable plastic/polystyrene food containers in the park” policy. Usually, the visitors would not bother much with cheap containers and would just simply throw away randomly unless the container is an expansive one or belongs to them. Therefore, visitors will only be allowed to bring in food and beverages in proper food containers and water tumblers. For those who still bring food in plastic bags or plastic bottles, the management could sell or rent out food containers to visitors where they would then transfer their food into the containers and take with them into the park. This will also

063.indd 79 3/27/18 3:19 PM



help the management authorities to have some revenues for maintaining the park.

Finally, the burden in taking care of the cleanliness of PNP should be shared among all the visitor, tour operators and other stakeholders. Those entering PNP will be allowed to capture and post online any pictures of littering activities in action. The management could set up a website to publish photos or videos of those litter bugs caught red-handed. This form of public shaming could as is a powerful weapon to eliminate littering behavior, impart knowledge and environmental awareness. This could also make them to think twice before littering.

In conclusion, ecotourism in national parks, without doubt brings socio-economic benefits to the local communities by creating employment opportunities and increasing income levels. Ecotourism activities in PNP has also helped to provide a platform for healthy living, increase environmental awareness and a better appreciation of nature. Proper planning and management is needed to ensure the vitality of this area. It is recommended for the management authorities to impose an entrance fee to the maximum RM5.00 to local visitors and RM10.00 to international visitors as a favorable step to better manage the area with the revenue collected to upgrade the facilities provided in PNP. It will also help to deter those with ill-intention or careless about the environment from entering PNP. Safeguarding the natural resources is a must to maintain sustainability of PNP.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank KDU Penang University College for funding this research paper through KDU UC Conference Funding 2017. The authors would also like to extend gratitude to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), Penang National Park and Penang Fisheries Department for granting permission to conduct interviews and get information on their respective departments. Further gratitude goes to the tour guides of

Penang National Park, visitors and local communities in the study area for their precious time and invaluable inputs towards making this study possible.

ReferencesAllen, W. & Kilvington, M. (2001). Manaaki

Whenua Landcare Research. Landcare Research. Retrieved 10 July 2007 www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/stakeholders.asp

Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of SocialResearch (3rd Ed). London: Thompson Wadsworth Learning.

Buckley, R. (2004). Impacts Positive and Negative: Links Between Ecotourism and Environment. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.

Byrd, E. (2007). Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and their Roles: Applying Stakeholder Theory to Sustainable Tourism Development. Tourism Review, 62(2): 6–13.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The State of Nature-based Tourism Around the World and Guidelines for Its Development. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

Chan, N. W., Ismail, Wan Ruslan & Ibrahim, Abdul Latif. (2003). The Geography, Climate and Hydrology of Pantai Acheh Forest Reserve. In C. L. K. (Ed.), Pantai Acheh Forest Reserve: The Case for a State Park (pp. 38–54). Penang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Chin, C. L. M., A., Moore S., & J., Wallington T. (2000). Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo: Visitors’ Perspectives on Environmental Impacts and their Management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1): 20–35.

063.indd 80 3/27/18 3:19 PM



Chua, L. S. L. (2008). Agarwood (Aquilaria malaccensis) in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/Links-Documentos/Casos%20de%20Estudio/Trees/WG1%20CS3.pdf

CI. (2015). A Practical Guide to Good Practice for Tropical Forest-based Tours. Conservation International (CI), Rainforest Alliance & United Nations Environment Programme.

Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2013) Teaching Thematic Analysis: Over-coming Challenges and Developing Strategies for Effective Learning. The Psychologist, 26(2): 120–123.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.

Das, S. (2011). Ecotourism, Sustainable Development and the Indian State. EPW, XLVI(37).

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.

DWNP. (2008). Department of Wildlife and National Parks. www.wildlife.gov.my [2 Jun 2008].

DWNP. (2017). Department of Wildlife and National Parks.

Frost, W. (2004). Rainforest. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism (pp. 193–204). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. Cambridge: IUCN Publications Services Unit.

Elite. (September 2016). Diplomat: Malaysia on the Move. August-September 2016. http://www.eliteplusmagazine.com/home/content/356/3

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. T. & Mason, D. S. (2005). Stakeholder Management and the Public Subsidisation of Nashville’s Coliseum. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1): 93–118.

Gee, C.Y., & Fayos-Sola, E. (1997). International Tourism: A Global Perspective. Madrid: World Trade Organization.

Ghazali, S., & Sirat, M. (2011). Global Ecotourism and Local Communities in Rural Areas. Penang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Gossling, S. (2002). Global Environmental Consequences of Tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12: 283–302.

Hazebroek, H. P., & Morshidi, A. K. A. (2002). A guide to Gunung Mulu National Park: A world heritage site in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. In K. M. Wong (Ed.). Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: Natural History Publications (Borneo).

Hearne, R. R., & Santos, C. A. (2005). Tourist and Local Preferences toward Ecotourism Development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7: 303–318.

Honey, M. (2002). Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington DC: Island Press.

Hoshaw, Lindsey. (2010). The world’s best green vacations. http://www.forbes.com/ 2010/04/28/sustainable-adventure-travel-technology-ecotech-ecotourism.html

Jamieson, W., & Jamal, T. (1997). Tourism Planning and Destination Management. In C. Gee & E. Fayos-Sola (Eds.), International Tourism: A Global Perspective (Vol. 321–337). Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.

Jennings, G. R. (2004). Interviewing: A Focus on Qualitative Techniques. In B. W. Richie (Ed.), Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 99–118). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.

063.indd 81 3/27/18 3:19 PM



Kaffashi, S., Radam A., Shamsudin M. N., Yacob M. R. & Nordin, N. H. (2015). Ecological Conservation, Ecotourism, and Sustainable Management: The Case of Penang National Park. Forests, 6: 2345–2370; doi:10.3390/f6072345.

Kruger, O. (2005). The Role of Ecotourism in Conservation: Panacea or Pandora`s Box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14: 579–600.

Lindberg, K. (2001). Economic Impact. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, 5(23): 363–377.

Martinez-Ribes, L., Basterretxea, G., Palmer, M., & Tintore, J. (2007). Origin and Abundance of Beach Debris in the Balearic Islands. Sci. Mar., 71: 305–314.

Neo, S. M., Choong, W. W., & R., Ahamad. (2016). Environmental Awareness and Behaviour Index for Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222: 668–675.

NRE. (2013). Kawasan Berhutan. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment website. http://smanre.mygeoportal.gov.my/smanre/hutan/kwsn_hutan.php

Ong, H. P. (2016). Ecotourism in UNESCO World Heritage Sites: Uplifting Communities, Opportunities and Economies. TEAM Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(1): 77–79.

Orams, M. B. (2000). Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction: A Review of Issues and Impacts. Tourism Management, 23: 281–293.

Orams, M. B. (2001). Types of Ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 23–36). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Ramadhon, A., Yulianda, F., Bengen, D., & Adrianto, L. (2014). Sustainable Tourism Based on Carrying Capacity and Ecological Footprint at Sapeken Archipelago, Indonesia. International Journal of Ecosystem, 4(4): 190–196. DOI: 10.5923/j.ije.20140404.05.

Sato, T., Hong, C. W., Masazumi, A. O., Mohamed, B., & Chan, N. W. (2013). Kajian Perbandingan Isu dan Cabaran Ekopelancongan di Taman Negara Pulau Pinang dan Taman Kinabalu, Malaysia. Paper Presented at the Prosiding Seminar Serantau Ke-2 Pengurusan Persekitaran di Alam Melayu, Pekanbaru, Indonesia.

Santos, I. R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., & Fillmann, G. (2005). Influence of Socio-economic Characteristics of Beach Users on Litter Generation. Ocean Coast Management, 48: 742–752.

Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner-Kersanach, M. & Ivar do Sul, J. A. (2009). Marine Debris Contamination Along Undeveloped Tropical Beaches from Northeast Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess., 148: 455–462.

Shuib, A., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2002). Criteria and Indicators of A Sustainable Development of Ecotourism Resources: An Application of the Delphi technique. Borneo Review, 13(1): 73–90.

Sindiga, I. (1999). Tourism and African Development: Change and Challenge of Tourism in Kenya. Aldershot: Ashgate.

TIES. (2015). The International Ecotourism Society website. http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism

Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J.F., M.M. Rivadeneira, & Vásquez, N. (2013). Anthropogenic Marine Debris in the Coastal Environment: A Multi-year Comparison Between Coastal Waters and Local Shores. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 71: 307–316.

Tourism Malaysia. (2009). Annual Tourism Statistical Report. Tourism Key Performance Indicators. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Tourism.

UNEP. (2015). Conservation International, Rainforest Alliance, UNEP. A Practical Guide to Good Practice for Tropical Forest-Based Tours.

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdf/good_practice.pdf

063.indd 82 3/27/18 3:19 PM



Usui, R., Sheeran, L. K., Li, J. H., Sun, L., Wang, X., J.Pritchard, A., DuVall-Lash, A. S. & Wagner, R.S. (2014). Park Rangers’ Behaviors and Their Effects on Tourists and Tibetan Macaques (Macaca thibetana) at Mt. Huangshan, China. Animals, 4: 546–561. doi: 10.3390/ani4030546

Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to Do (or Not to Do)… A stakeholder

Analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3): 338–345.

Walpole, M. J., Goodwin, J. J., & R.Ward, K. G. (2001). Pricing Policy for Tourism in Protected Areas: Lessons from Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 15: 218–227.

063.indd 83 3/27/18 3:19 PM

Documents

ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI …jbsd.umt.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2018/03/6.1.7.pdf · primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are the ones