Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Towards Sustainable Community
Development: A Case Study of Homestay
Tourism in Sabah
Oi Yee Wong (1255635)
2014
This dissertation is submitted as part of a MA degree in Tourism Environment and Development
at King’s College London
Student ID: 1255635
Page 1 of 66
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
MA/MSc DISSERTATION
I, Oi Yee Wong
hereby declare (a) that this Dissertation is my own original
work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein;
(b) that it has been specially prepared for a degree of the
University of London; and (c) that it does not contain any
material that has been or will be submitted to the Examiners of
this or any other university, or any material that has been or
will be submitted for any other examination.
This Dissertation is 11,204 words.
Signed:
Date:
Student ID: 1255635
Page 2 of 66
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude my supervisor Dr. Ruth Craggs
for her invaluable advices and guidance not just for this dissertation study but
throughout the year of my MA.
A sincere thank you to the members of the community in Kampung Bilit, Lobong-
lobong and Kiau Taburi for participating in this research and my host families who
welcomed me to their world during my stay in the month of June and July. Their
hospitality has made this experience precious and memorable.
I am also truly grateful to my family especially my parents who has constantly
supported me throughout this research. Special thank you to my cousin Wong Kar
Yuen for her companion and tiredless patience in carrying out fieldwork with me,
without whom I would not have been able to do my research.
Finally, I wish to thank all my fellow MA peers for their invaluable support throughout
this year.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 3 of 66
Abstract
This dissertation aims to examine homestay tourism, a form of community-based
widely promoted by policy makers to rural villages in Malaysia as a strategy for
sustainable community development. The basis for this research stems from the
growing recognition within development rhetoric of the place of alternative tourism as
a tool for development in many developing countries, along with the formation of Pro-
poor Tourism (PPT) approach. However, homestay tourism remains underexplored
particularly there is already a general lack of research focusing on developing
countries such as Malaysia. Utilising a Sustainable Livelihood Approach and a multi-
ethnographic method, this paper examined the impacts of the development of
homestay tourism on the indigenous communities of three villages in rural Sabah.
Whilst the potentials exist for economic development and empowerment, this
dissertation highlighted the complexities, uncertainties and unequal power relations
of these processes.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 4 of 66
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 8
1.2 Structure of this paper .................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................. 10
2.1 Tourism as development ........................................................................................... 10
2.2 Participation and empowerment through community-based tourism ................. 12
2.3 Criticisms and spaces of power of community participation ................................ 13
2.4 Why Pro-poor tourism? .............................................................................................. 16
2.5 Sustainable livelihood approach as an analytical framework .............................. 18
Chapter 3 Objectives, Methodology and Research Design ................................ 19
3.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Research methods ...................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Dilemmas, Challenges and Positionality ................................................................. 24
Chapter 4 Research Location ................................................................................ 26
4.2 Bilit ................................................................................................................................. 26
4.3 Lobong-lobong & Kiau Taburi ................................................................................... 28
Chapter 5 Findings and Discussion ..................................................................... 29
5.1 How is homestay tourism organised? ...................................................................... 29
5.2 Situation in each village ............................................................................................. 32
5.3 The villagers’ perception of Homestay tourism- “We like tourism” ...................... 34
5.3.1 Economic significance ......................................................................................... 34
5.3.2 Sense of achievement ......................................................................................... 36
5.3.3 Hospitality .............................................................................................................. 36
5.3.4 Cultural pride and heritage preservation .......................................................... 37
5.4 Limitations and challenges of Home stay Tourism ................................................ 38
5.4.1 Lack of finance and exclusion of the poor ....................................................... 38
5.4.2 Lack of infrastructure ........................................................................................... 40
Student ID: 1255635
Page 5 of 66
5.4.3 Dependence on political networks and Clientelism ........................................ 41
5.4.4 Broader alternative visions of development and conflicts ............................. 45
Chapter 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 49
Appendix A: Ethics Screening, Confirmation of Ethical Approval, Risk
Assessment Form .................................................................................................. 52
Appendix B: List of Respondents ......................................................................... 56
Appendix C: List of Homestays in Sabah ............................................................ 58
Student ID: 1255635
Page 6 of 66
List of Maps, Tables Figures and Photos
Page Number
Map 1: Map of Study Area: Sabah……………………………………………………….26
Map 2: Location of Bilit Village……………………………………………………………27
Map 3: Location of Lobong- lobong Village and Kiau Taburi Village…………………28
List of Tables
Table 1: Fieldwork Schedule……………………………………………………………...20
Table 2: Role of key actors in Homestay Tourism………………………………….31-32
Table 3: Summary of Homestay tourism rhetoric and contestations…………………50
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework…………………………………………19
Figure 2: Registration Process of Homestay Tourism…………………………………30
Figure 3: Homestay Tourism Management Structure………………………………….31
List of Photos
Photo 1: Program homestay Malaysia sign……………………………………………..29
Photo 2: Grocery store opened by homestay operator………………………………...35
Photo 3: Orchid nursery pioneered by homestay operator…………………...............35
Photo 4: Road condition in Lobong-lobong……………………………………………..40
Photo 5: Road condition and land slide hazard area in Kiau Taburi………………….40
Photo 6:1Malaysia Futsal Court in Bilit…………………………………………………..42
Photo 7: 1Malaysia grocery store in Bilit………………………………………………...42
Photo 8: Culture and Heritage centre in Bilit……………………………………………43
Photo 9: Newly refurbished primary school in Bilit……………………………………..43
Photo 10: Plant nursery of community-based tree planting project in Bilit…………..48
Student ID: 1255635
Page 7 of 66
List of Abbreviations
UNWTO United Nation World Tourism Organisation
WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council
CBT Community-Based Tourism
LDC Least Developed Country
AT Alternative Tourism
PPT Pro-poor Tourism
DFID Department for International Development
SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach
STB Sabah Tourism Board
EPU Economic Planning Unit
KEPKAS Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Student ID: 1255635
Page 8 of 66
Chapter 1 Introduction
The tourism industry has been widely perceived as one of the world’s most
prominent engine for economic development. Particularly in developing countries,
high growth rates in international tourist arrivals and contributions towards GDP have
stimulated interest in promoting tourism as a means of development (UNWTO, 2013;
WTTC, 2013). Tourism has become an important source of employment,
infrastructure development and means to help improve the livelihoods of local
communities. Unsurprisingly, many developing countries have recognised tourism as
a catalyst for socio-economic development in rural areas. Community-based tourism
(CBT) development in rural areas are assumed to contribute to equalising economic
opportunities, improving local livelihoods and to preventing rural communities from
moving to overcrowded cities (Harun, et al., 2012).
Since 1995, the Malaysian government has recognised the potentials of
homestay tourism as a development tool and has widely promoted homestays in
rural villages throughout Malaysia. Under the National Plan for Rural Development
and Rural Tourism Master Plan, Malaysia’s homestay programme is aimed to
encourage the participation of rural communities in the tourism sector (Ismail, 2012).
By taking advantage of the existing natural resources, cultural and heritage assets,
homestay tourism is perceived to be an ideal strategy to generate income for the
rural poor, and in turn compliments the government’s agenda to eradicate poverty. At
the same time, the initiative serves an effective tool for the conservation of the
natural and cultural heritage of the country. Under the 9th and 10th Malaysia Plan,
the federal and state governments approved allocation of approximately RM3.3
million in order to assist the growth and expansion of homestay initiatives in
participating villages (Borneo Post, 2012).
Due to the increasing interest amongst policy makers and tourism stakeholders in
investing on community-based home stay tourism projects, it is particularly important
for research to provide a firm foundation for a deeper understanding of this form of
alternative tourism, whilst also highlighting both its positive and its negative aspects.
There is already a general lack of literature and critical analysis within the research
studies of Homestay Tourism (Harun et al. 2012; Kontogeorgopoulos et al. 2013).
Student ID: 1255635
Page 9 of 66
Thus, this dissertation study seeks to address this literature gap. By carrying a
comparative case study of three homestay villages in rural Sabah, Malaysia, this
dissertation aims to
Gain an understanding of the nature of local community participation in
homestays
Critically evaluate the impacts of Homestay tourism on people’s livelihood at a
local level
Explore the local autonomy within homestays programmes and its power
relations
Contribute empirical data to the understanding of the politics and possible
implications of community based tourism and sustainable development at a
grassroots level
1.2 Structure of this paper
This dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter two will explore literature
around changing discourses in tourism development. Following by an examination of
key concepts including community empowerment and participation, power relations,
pro-poor tourism and sustainable livelihoods which informs the analysis of homestay
tourism as a development tool in this case study. Chapter 3 will include a reflection
of the methodology and limitations of this study. An overview of the research location
will be outlined in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will present the findings and discussion of
this study, followed by a concluding remark in Chapter 6.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 10 of 66
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Tourism as development
The role of tourism as a potential means for development is not a new
phenomenon. In earlier studies in the 1970s, academic approaches to tourism
included what might be described as the ‘development’ stream (Telfer, 2009).
Focusing on less-developed countries (LDCs), sociologist de Kadt (1979) recognised
tourism’s potentials in creating employment, developing backward linkages with
agriculture and other economic sectors, providing opportunities for women and
young people, encouraging entrepreneurship and improving the well-being of the
poor through provision of infrastructure, training and education.
Although focuses were not primarily on poverty reduction, it has been
highlighted that ‘development thinking’ during that era asserts a growing “realisation
that growth alone may not suffice to overcome poverty within a reasonable time, and
that the distribution of the material benefits of development among the poorest
countries and poorest population groups within individual countries requires special
attention” (de Kadt, 1979c: xii).
From the 1980s onwards, tourism literature has broadened across a wide
range of academic interests and disciplines. Significantly, a shift in development
thinking towards sustainability has challenged simplistic models of modernisation
and underdevelopment with an increased emphasis on people’s well-being
(Mowforth and Munt, 2009). With the release of Our Common Future in 1987 and
Agenda 21 in 1992, the vision of sustainable development has been put forward. As
a result, the industry as well as academic studies have witnessed a growing interest
in new forms of tourisms such as sustainable tourism, community-based tourism,
ecotourism, volunteer tourism and pro-poor tourism in order to achieve sustainable
development. This is linked with the growing concern with the negative impacts
resulting from mainstream mass tourism, including high leakages and minimal
benefits to host residents (Brohman, 1996; Mbaiwa 2005), unequal north-south
power relations (Mowforth and Munt, 2009), erosion of local culture, exploitation
Student ID: 1255635
Page 11 of 66
(Beddoe 2001, Ryan and Hall, 2001; Beddoe, 2004; Brown and Hall, 2008), and
environmental degradation (Gossling, 2002; Christ et al., 2003).
While these different forms of tourism vary in their approaches, most of them
overlap with each other. Similarly, alternative tourism (AT) works towards the aims of
the three pillars of sustainability, namely economic development, social justice and
the environment (Keyser, 2002). There is a recurring theme in many discussions on
AT (Smith and Eadington, 1992; Scheyvens, 2002; Sharpley, 2009; Telfer and
Sharpley, 2008; UNEP and UNWTO, 2005). Firstly, it stresses environmental
sustainability, which applies to tourism which minimise damages to the environment
and promotes responsible management of local resources. Secondly, AT is people-
centred, focuses on local empowerment by supporting the involvement of local
communities in the management of tourism products or attractions. These are
deemed as having less negative socio-cultural impacts and a greater acceptance by
locals in comparison to conventional forms of tourism. Finally, alternative strategies
emphasise on cultural sustainability, as it encourages cross-cultural understanding
between tourists and host communities through education and tourism encounters.
However, the concept of sustainable development along with its application to
tourism has its limitations and flaws. Despite the attractiveness of the concept, which
suggests a new philosophy and approach to an old issue, critics point out that the
elusiveness of the concept has led to the abuse of the term (Butler 1990, 1992;
Brohman, 1996). The extent to which the concept of ‘sustainability’ can be applied
and measured in practice is often difficult (Stabler, 1997; Mowforth and Munt, 2009).
More often than not, efforts to make the industry more sustainable appear to be a
‘marketing ploy’ by tourism businesses (Mycoo, 2006; Lansing and De Vries, 2007;
Liu, 2003).
Some scholars have argued that alternative tourism lacks the potential to
replace or reduce the impacts of conventional tourism (Honey, 1999; Liu, 2003). It is
also recognised that these new forms of tourism also have negative effects of their
own. At worst, they may lead to mass tourism (Weaver, 2001; Chok and Jim
Macbeth, 2007). Thus, within the sustainable tourism literature, increasing attention
has been placed on both positive and negative impacts of alternative tourism on host
communities in the developing world. This study aims to contribute to the literature
Student ID: 1255635
Page 12 of 66
by focusing on the state of Sabah in Malaysia as an existing case studies have
mainly focused on Africa (Brennan and Allen, 2001; Spencely and Goodwin, 2007;
Mahony and van Zyl, 2002; Duffy, 2002; Rogerson, 2006; Sebele, 2010) and some
small island developing states (Briguglio, Butler and Harrison, 1996; Scheyvens and
Momsen, 2008).
While alternative tourism provides prospects and potentials to sustainable
development, the foregoing critical tourism literature highlights the complexities and
uncertainties of these processes (Mowforth and Munt, 2009). In the following section
of this literature review, we look into the literature specifically focusing on
community-based tourism and pro-poor tourism. Key concepts such as community
participation, empowerment, and power relations will be explored throughout these
discussions.
2.2 Participation and empowerment through community-based tourism
In recent decades, involvement and participation of local communities has
been regarded as a central focus of sustainable tourism development (Murphy,
1985; Richards and Hall, 2000; Tosun, 2000; Stronza and Gordillo, 2008;
Scheyvens, 2002). Such emphasis echoes the bottom-up, people-centred approach
in development, which has been regarded as inherently positive for change
(Chambers, 1994). Tosun (2000), for instance, suggested that community
participation may potentially serve as a tool to readjust the balance of power
between local communities and external stakeholders in order to prevent
manipulation of a community in the development process.
Thus, CBT aims to ensure that members of local communities are
empowered to have a high degree of control and ownership over the forms of
tourism taking place in their respective communities (Notzke, 1999; Scheyvens,
2002; Zeppel, 2006; Simpson, 2008). This contrasts with most tourism ventures
which are controlled wholly by outside operators whose primary motive is to make a
profit. When CBT are controlled by local people, several benefits may be apparent.
Based partly on the work of Friedmann (1992), Scheyvens (1999) has provided a
Student ID: 1255635
Page 13 of 66
useful summary of the signs and benefits of economic, psychological, social and
political forms of empowerment.
Economic empowerment is important because it enables host residents to be
rewarded with a significant proportion of the financial benefits from tourism.
Psychological empowerment refers to enhancement of self-esteem and pride in local
cultures, traditional knowledge, and natural resources (Scheyvens, 1999). Increase
in confidence leads members to seek out further education and training
opportunities. Access to economic opportunities may lead to an increase in status for
usually low-status residents, such as women and youths. Social empowerment
contributes to maintaining the cohesion of a community and has the potential to build
cooperatives and enhanced community development initiatives such as health and
education. Finally, signs of political empowerment include providing a
representational democracy platform where local communities can voice their
opinions and raise concerns, and in turn achieve greater control over development
initiatives in their localities (Ibid.).
2.3 Criticisms and spaces of power of community participation
Too often in development discourse, there is an idealisation of ‘communities’.
As argued by Cleaver (2001, 46), “development practitioners excel in perpetuating
the myth that communities are capable of anything, that all that is required is
sufficient mobilization (through institutions) and the latent capacities of the
community will be unleashed in the interests of development”. This may seem an
overstatement, however, it points directly to the naivety of participation as a panacea
for all social ills in the underlying structures of power (Cooke and Kothari, 2009).
While the needs and interests of host communities are emphasised, critics
have pointed out that genuine community involvement and empowerment in the
development of tourism are often challenging to achieve particularly in developing
countries (Stabler, 1997; Tosun, 2000, 2006). According to Tosun (2006) model of
community participation in the context of tourism, ideally community involvement
should take the form of spontaneous participation which provides full managerial
Student ID: 1255635
Page 14 of 66
responsibility and authority to locals. However, in reality, the forms of participation
that are likely to take place in developing countries are coercive and induced,
relational instead of participatory (Honey 1999; Scheyvens 1999; Duffy, 2002; Liu,
2003).
A major limitation in participatory development discourse is the failure to
recognise that local communities are not some kind of homogenous group but
contain deep divisions of class, status and power (Cleaver, 1994). Inadequate
understanding of the internal dynamics amongst different groups or individuals may
hide the biases that favour those with more power, and in turn create internal
conflicts and unrealistic expectations (Reed, 1997; Weaver, 1998; Tosun, 2000;
Brennan and Allen, 2001; Blackstock, 2005). As stated by critics, it is often difficult to
see how the wishes of local people and communities could ever be sufficiently
unified to offer a practical guide to tourism development (Harrison, 1996; Butler and
Hinch, 2007). This may explain why real public participation rarely happens to poor
and marginalised groups (Tosun, 2000).
Power relations are not only evident at a local level. In tourism development,
there are a wide range of stakeholders who have the right and ability to make
changes to the tourism system and influence the processes and consequences of
development (Verbole, 2000). These stakeholders include the host community, the
government, private sector companies, donor agencies and the tourists themselves.
In order to achieve positive change, equitable partnership between local
communities and external stakeholders is required (Scheyvens, 1999; Sofield, 2003).
However, in reality, these stakeholders are informed with different perceptions and
conflicting interests over tourism development and most importantly a varying extent
of power (ibid.). As a result, in countries where social, political and economic
inequalities are widespread, CBT could act to reinforce the traditional top-down and
bureaucratic approach to development practices, thereby limiting local autonomy
(Hall, 1994; Tosun, 2000, 2006; Smith and Duffy, 2003; Butcher, 2007).
Besides the operational and structural inequalities listed above, cultural
limitations are also highlighted as a barrier to community participation in developing
countries (Tosun, 2000). These include high levels of illiteracy, and lack of financial
resources or capabilities to compete in the tourism market (ibid.). Furthermore, Telfer
Student ID: 1255635
Page 15 of 66
and Sharpley (2008) note that the implementation of community-based tourism may
be hindered by other large scale tourist businesses in a relatively small community.
These limitations may have resulted in the difficulty of CBT achieving long term
success and profitability in developing countries (Scmiechen and Boyle, 2007;
Mowforth and Munt, 2009). Given these various challenges, CBT should not be
regarded as a one-size-fit all mechanism to development.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 16 of 66
2.4 Why Pro-poor tourism?
Poverty is multidimensional in nature, not only does it mean insufficient
income and human development, it also includes the vulnerability of the poor to
changing circumstances, a lack of voice, power and representation (Zhao and
Ritchie, 2007; Scheyvens, 2011). Due to its complexities, a critique of the
relationship between tourism and poverty alleviation remains marginal in academic
studies and in practice (Harrison, 2008; Zhao and Ritchie, 2007). By the end of
1990s, the term ‘pro-poor tourism’ (PPT) was coined when a group of development
practitioners began to explore the possibilities of applying poverty elimination goals
to tourism. This is in line with the adoption of the Millenium Development goals in
2000, with a growing explicit focus on poverty alleviation in development policies and
academic studies.
As defined by Ashley et al. (2001, 2), PPT refers to “tourism that generates
net benefits for the poor”. It is not a ‘niche’ but an overall approach aiming to unlock
opportunities for the poor. Advocates of PPT have highlighted four aspects of
tourism which make it a potential economic sector capable of facilitating pro-poor
growth. These include high potential linkages, offering labour-intensive and small-
scale opportunities, potential in poorer countries and the ability to build tourism on
cultural and natural assets (Deloitte and Touche et al., 1999). Detractors highlight
leakages, negative impacts on the poor, displacement and socio-cultural disruption
(ibid.). Focusing on a sustainable livelihoods approach, a range of livelihood
concerns of the poor need to be taken into account including not only economic but
also social, environmental and cultural costs and benefits (Scheyyvens, 2007).
However, critics have highlighted that PPT is conceptually blurred, and thus
could imply any form of tourism, including the mainstream (Harrison, 2008; Chok and
Macbeth, 2007). Due to its commercial orientation, a complex multitude of factors
need to be taken into account in order to ensure pro-poor growth. These range from
favourable geographical location, security of land tenure (PPT Partnership, 2004),
supportive policy frameworks and point of intervention in tourism cycles (Ashley et
al., 1999; DFID, 1999; Roe and Uquhuart, 2004). Nevertheless, these factors place
considerable demands on local capacities and, in their absence, PPT could lead to
Student ID: 1255635
Page 17 of 66
high levels of dependency on external input and intervention (Chok and Macbeth,
2007).
As highlighted by scholars, development is very much about power and
control where questions of who benefits and who loses reflect the contested nature
of tourism and development (Hall, 2007; Telfer, 2009). Failing to reorganise the
power structure means unequal socio-economic relations continue to perpetuate
through PPT (Schilcher, 2007; Harrison, 2008). For example, in a case study of PPT
in Brazil, Blake et al. (2008) found that the benefits of tourism are disproportionately
distributed amongst households whereby the higher income households are more
prone to reap more benefits than others. Indeed, many scholars have written about
the difficulties of channelling benefits of pro-poor initiatives to the poorest (Cleverdon
and Kalish, 2000; Deloitte & Touche et al., 1999; Mitchell and Ashley, 2007).
Therefore, pro-poor tourism is not a tool for eliminating nor necessarily alleviating
absolute poverty, but rather is principally a measure for making some sections of
poorer communities ‘better off’ (Mowforth and Munt, 2009).
Student ID: 1255635
Page 18 of 66
2.5 Sustainable livelihood approach as an analytical framework
In existing tourism literature, several scholars have used the sustainable
livelihoods approach (SLA) to analyse the change in rural livelihoods induced by
tourism development (Kgathi et al. 2007; Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2010; Tao and Wall,
2009). It is suggested that a sustainable livelihoods approach is useful in
understanding the changes in the livelihoods and well-being of the host residents
and to identify what events and influences were significant in producing new values
and priorities in the livelihoods of locals (DFID, 1999). Focusing on livelihood
security, the paradigm recognises that it is necessary to begin by focusing on
people, with the resources they currently control, and the knowledge and skills that
they already have (Chambers, 1988 cited in Tao, 2009). This contrasts with narrow
assessments of local benefits focusing only on jobs and cash income.
The most commonly cited definition of sustainable livelihood is one by Robert
Chambers and Gordon Conway’s (1992) who asserts that,
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and
access) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable when
it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next
generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and
global levels and in the short and long term.”
Central to the academic conceptualisation of sustainable livelihoods is
capability, equity and sustainability (Chambers and Conway, 1992), which
constitutes a means as well as an ends towards sustainable livelihoods. By
identifying the links between inputs, outputs and flows of livelihood resources, actors,
and trends in the social environment, the researcher may gain some insights into
“whether tourism, in what form, and through what institutional processes and
organizational structures, might strengthen or weaken local livelihood assets,
contribute to or undermine livelihood outcomes and alter the vulnerability context”
(Tao, 2006, 33). In addition, Scoones (2009) highlighted that emphasis should be
placed on the analysis of power and everyday politics in various aspects of SLA.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 19 of 66
This dissertation will draw on these conceptualisations and frameworks to not
only explore whether tourism can enhance the lives of local communities but also in
identifying a wide range of impacts that matter to them (Figure 1). The
consequences of development of homestay tourism will be examined, ranging from
livelihoods before and during the introduction in the past to the present and emerging
trends and issues. However, it is important to highlight that due to the limited time
frame, SLA has been adapted to be practiced flexibly as a guide to analysis instead
of a comprehensive examination of the different elements included in the framework.
Figure 1. Sustainable livelihoods framework
ASSETS
Natural, financial, human and social capital
STRATEGIES AND
ACTIVITIES
OUTCOMES
Wellbeing, income, empowerment, health, reduced vulnerability
Used
for Generate
External influences: Policies, institutions and vulnerability context
People with priorities and
preferences
Reinvested in
Source: Mbaiwa and Stronza (2010)
Student ID: 1255635
Page 20 of 66
Chapter 3 Objectives, Methodology and Research Design
3.1 Data Collection
Research data for this study was gathered over a four week fieldwork period
in the state of Sabah, Malaysia between June and July 2014. During this time, two
weeks were spent collecting primary data from three villages, while gathering
secondary data and carrying out further group discussions in Kota Kinabalu, the
capital city of Sabah. Table 1 below demonstrates the schedule of this field work.
Table 1: Fieldwork Schedule
Time Location/ District Data collection
Week 1 Kota Kinabalu Gather homestay policy document and
tourism brochures from local tourism
office
Gather policy reports, case studies,
statistical information from Tourism
authority and Institute of Development
Studies, Sabah
Week 2 Kinabatangan Field visit to Bilit village
Week 3 Kota Belud Field visits to Lobong- lobong village and
Kiau Taburi village
Week 4 Kota Kinabalu Gather secondary data
Additional interview and group discussion
with homestay operators and
coordinators
An inductive qualitative methodology is deemed most appropriate in order to
effectively gather data for a critical interpretative study. During my stay in the
different villages, I participated in tourism activities organized by the homestay
Student ID: 1255635
Page 21 of 66
coordinator and tour guide, such as wildlife observation, trekking and touring the
villages. Besides these, I also took the opportunity to take part in some everyday
activities with my host family members such as sending children off to school with
my host mother, learning how to plant the paddy, cooking, and watching the inter-
village football match in Bilit. My constant presence and involvement with the local
people, which the ethnographic method use entails, has provided me with valuable
insights on the richness and complexities of peoples’ everyday lives (Hoggart et al.,
2002). Moreover, it often provides the opportunity to engage in spontaneous group
discussions and off-record encounters during these processes.
3.2 Sampling
Community selection
Bilit village and Lobong-lobong were selected on the basis of their
involvement in the homestay program. These two villages are amongst the 15
homestay programmes registered under the Ministry of Tourism. Field visits to Kiau
Taburi on the other hand were not initially planned due to its inaccessibility as it is
not officially registered. However, with the introduction and assistance of the
homestay coordinator in Lobong-lobong, I was able to gain access to this village. All
three village differ in many ways, as discovered throughout this case study, which in
turn serves as a useful comparative analysis. As suggested by Hine (2000, 60), the
“ethnographer might still start from a particular place, but would be encouraged to
follow connections which were made meaningful from that setting. The ethnographic
sensitivity would focus on the ways in which particular place were made meaningful
and visible. Ethnography in this strategy becomes as much as a process of following
connections as it is a period of inhabitance”.
Respondent selection
In terms of the sample framework, purposive sampling was used to select
participants based on their suitability for the specific research topic (Longhurst,
2003). Initial contacts with villagers who were involved in homestay tourism were
introduced through the coordinator of the homestay. This influential gatekeeper has
significant authority in the community and introduced me to the village head, several
homestay operators, tour guides and some villagers in a personal tour of the village.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 22 of 66
Once initial contacts had been established, snowball sampling was adopted to
identify other respondents. However, snowballing can be problematic as it may be
subject to “self-selection bias” (Baxter and Eyles, 1997, 513). Consequently, the
recruitment of informants from different backgrounds would be challenging.
In an attempt to reduce this bias, I approached a diversified group of the
community including those who are not involved in the homestays in a random
manner through participating in various social activities in the village. These
combined strategies and a gatekeeper approach have proved to be useful in
securing a sufficient number of research participants from a potentially inaccessible
population, in a limited amount of time (Salganik and Heckathorn, 2014). Although
the sample may not be representative of the whole population, in this study it may
not be considered as a weakness. Instead, it is regarded as a choice as the
emphasis of a qualitative study is not to generalize a population but to explore
meanings in specific contexts (Robinson, 1998).
3.3 Research methods
17 in-depth interviews were carried out with villagers focusing on life histories,
livelihood strategies, perceptions of homestays and their impacts (see Appendix B,
Table 1 for a list of interview respondents). These interviews ranged from 30 minutes
to 80 minutes in length and are recorded upon permission of the participant. As the
interviews were designed as semi-structured and open-ended, respondents can
openly engage with different themes (Kitchin and Tate, 2013). This flexibility allows
the researcher to gain valuable insights into the villagers’ personal accounts of
significant experiences or perceptions as determined by themselves and in their own
words. Although such a format generates much data which may not be relevant to
the research questions, the flow of the interview progresses naturally and openly
(Baxter and Eyles, 1997). In addition, an interview session with a government officer
from the local tourism office was organized in order to gain information on the
management and planning processes of homestay tourism.
Seven group discussions were organized spontaneously in the villages for
open discussions about tourism, its development and how things were changing, or
Student ID: 1255635
Page 23 of 66
not (see Appendix B for a list of group discussion participants). Although questions
were raised by the researcher as a moderator, similar to the format used in
interviews, discussions were flexible and open to engagement with a wide range of
subjects that matter to the participants. During an unexpected event in Kota
Kinabalu, I was introduced by my host families to several homestay participants from
other homestay initiatives who had gathered in the capital city for an election of
committee members in the Sabah Homestay Association. This allowed me to carry
out an additional group discussion that facilitated my understanding of common
issues dealt with by homestay initiatives and an insight into critical issues such as
power and politics.
The “synergistic effect” appears to be the key difference and main strength of
group discussions in comparison with other methods (Cameron, 2010, 153) as
participants can react and debate the perspectives of other members of the group
(Bedford and Burgess, 2001). Moreover, group discussions may potentially break
down the power relationship between the researcher and the researched (ibid.). This
method appears to be useful due to the above aspects and has facilitated an
effective collaborative process of knowledge production.
While some limitations exist, particularly the influence of dominant individuals
who may potentially increase the bias of results, the researchers have been made
aware of these issues (Hopkins, 2007b). Nevertheless, these dynamics observed in
group discussions may provide a ‘snapshot’ of the social structure or power relations
which may exist within different groups of people or individuals (Delyser et al. 2010).
These observations in turn became a valuable insight on which the researcher can
reflect.
In addition to participant observation, the research design has been
complimented by “site mapping” the physical environment around the study area
through photography and sketches (Daldeniz and Hampton, 2012, 511). This is
found to be useful in analysing the physical changes resulting from tourism or
development in general. Other than that, field notes and sketches of important and
interesting observations were taken throughout this fieldwork. Constant reflections
on the derived data and observation prompts the researcher to reason over “what
might have been going on, why that might be the case and how this might be further
Student ID: 1255635
Page 24 of 66
investigated” (Cloke at al., 2004, 199). Thus, utilising a combination of ethnographic
methods has allowed ‘thick description’ and interpretation of the research
phenomenon (Cloke et al., 2004).
3.4 Data analysis
Interviews and group discussions were translated from Malay to English and
transcribed on return to Kota Kinabalu. This facilitated reengagement with the
findings. The research does not aim to test a hypothesis or a theory. Instead, a
grounded theoretical approach was adopted whereby the data gathered was
unfolded, discovered and analysed throughout the process as well as being critically
evaluated when the data collection was completed (Charmaz, 2003). After
transcription, the data was categorised into site-specific subcategories, labelled,
organised into visual presentations and analysed individually to highlight key points.
An on-going process of shifting and sorting data was conducted to identify and clarify
emerging themes, relationships and conflicting ideas (Cloke et al. 2014; Crang,
2001).
3.5 Dilemmas, Challenges and Positionality
At times, the requirement of presenting consent forms to participants led to a
sense of insecurity. This was significantly challenging at the beginning phase of this
research. However, after gaining quick approval from the College Research Ethics
Committee for an option for participants to provide verbal consent instead of signing
a consent form, this concern was alleviated. Nevertheless, before conducting any
research, it was made sure that all participants fully understand the information sheet
that clearly outlined the research objectives and the interviewee’s rights to
confidentiality and anonymity in adherence with the college guidelines.
Scrutinising the positionality of the researcher requires recognising different
aspects of identity such as race, class, gender and age and the personal experience
of the research (Jackson, 1993; Hopkins, 2007) which may influence the type of
Student ID: 1255635
Page 25 of 66
information the researcher collects and the way it is interpreted (Mullings, 1999).
Under the eyes of the local people, I soon became aware of the complexities of my
identity and positionality. Although this appears to be less problematic when
considering my identity as a local Sabahan, this does not imply that one could be
accepted or perceived as an ‘insider’ solely for this reason. In some situations, being
an ‘urbaner’, a Chinese, and a young student studying abroad has influenced the
way I was perceived and accepted by the villagers. Furthermore, it is important to
highlight that my identity as a tourist may have affected the outcome of the
interviews. For example, homestay operators and tour guides may have been more
prone to revealing biased responses in order to maintain a positive impression. This
refers to what Robson (2002, 310) calls “social desirability response bias”. Thus, the
researcher has to be attentive and careful when phrasing questions and analysing
responses as there is a concern of power relations.
Nevertheless, I was able to negotiate my positionality by possessing some
similarities, including being able to interact in Bahasa Melayu (Malay), having similar
experiences, such as voting in the recent general election, and having some
knowledge of local culture and politics. All of these factors contributed to an “alliance
formation” and establishing rapport with the local villagers, drawing upon our shared
experiences and attributes (Harvey, 1996, 360).
Student ID: 1255635
Page 26 of 66
Chapter 4 Research Location
This study was conducted in Sabah, one of Malaysia’s 13 states (Figure 2).
Separated from Peninsular Malaysia by the South China Sea, Sabah occupies the
north east region of the Borneo Island, sharing terrestrial borders with the Malaysian
state of Sarawak and Indonesian Kalimantan. The capital city of Sabah, Kota
Kinabalu serves as the main port of entry for domestic and international flight
linkages. Sabah has long been promoted as an eco-nature based destination,
featuring its scenic natural environment, abundant rainforest and wildlife. Moreover,
the population of the state consist of 30 ethnic groups which plays an important role
in cultural tourism (STB, 2014). A combination of both these components are the key
features of the state’s tourism sector. With increasing growth of tourism, it is now
Sabah’s third highest contributor to the state’s economy after agriculture and
manufacturing. In 2013, Sabah recorded arrivals of 3.38 million visitors with receipts
over RM6.36 billion (STB, 2013a). Despite the strong growth as seen by the positive
trends on tourism growth statistics, poverty is widespread in the state of Sabah with
poverty rates at 19.4% in 2012, making it the poorest state in Malaysia (EPU, 2013).
Map 1: Map of Sabah showing location of KK, Lower Kinabatangan River and foothills of Mt. Kinabalu
Image Source: Adapted from impressions.com.my (2014)
Student ID: 1255635
Page 27 of 66
4.2 Bilit
Bilit village is a small village located along the Kinabatangan River (Figure.2,
and Figure. 3), between Sukau village and Batu Putih village. It is around 130 km
from Sandakan town, which takes approximately 3 hours by road to reach the
village. The village has a population of approximately 200 people and are mainly
from Orang Sungei ethic group. Out of the 104 villages in the Kinabatangan district,
4 villages including Bilit are experience an increasing growth in ecotourism due to its
large concentration of wildlife including Prosboscis monkeys, Bornean Pygmy
elephants, orang-utans, macaques, crocodiles and a wide range of tropical birds.
Image Source: Adapted from Harun, 2013
Map 2: Location of Bilit Village
Student ID: 1255635
Page 28 of 66
4.3 Lobong-lobong & Kiau Taburi
Lobong-lobong and Kiau Taburi are neighbouring villages located at the foot
of Mt. Kinabalu in the district of Kota Belud, Sabah, Malaysia (Figure 2 and Figure 4).
The people in these villages are from the Dusun ethic group. The natural attraction of
this area include waterfall, clean river and scenic views of Mt. Kinabalu. Its close
distance to Kinabalu National Park makes it a homestay destination for tourists.
Mt. Kinabalu
Kinabalu
Park
Lobong
Lobong
Kiau
Taburi
Map 3: Location of Lobong-lobong and Kiau Taburi village
Image source: Adapted from google.maps
Student ID: 1255635
Page 29 of 66
Chapter 5 Findings and Discussion
This chapter will first start with the context of how homestay tourism is
organised in Sabah and an overview of the situation at each of the research sites.
5.2 will present the perceptions of homestays from the perspectives of local villagers.
Following that, limitations and wider emerging issues surrounding homestay
development will be discussed.
5.1 How is homestay tourism organised?
The Sabah Homestay programme is a community-owned tourism initiative
that was established and coordinated by the Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Environment (KEPKAS) in 2002. It is an extension of Malaysia homestay programme
initiated by the national tourism ministry in 1995. Under this program, tourists will live
in the homes of local host families to experience village culture daily life and natural
attractions nearby. In order to receive government certification, participating families
has to undergo a process of registration (Figure 5). Firstly, villagers has to meet the
homestay standards set out by the Ministry of Tourism Malaysia. Besides needing to
meet these criteria, official homestay operators must provide a range of village
tourism products and activities with competitive prices and international standard as
defined by policy makers. After passing inspections by authorities, basic training
courses will be provided to participants in order to have an initial understanding of
homestays. Upon completion, certification will be granted to communities of a
minimum 10 participating families and will be given a sign with “Program Homestay
Malaysia” logo to be placed in places visible to tourist (Photo 1).
‘
Photo 1: “Program Homestay
Malaysia” sign
Student ID: 1255635
Page 30 of 66
Figure 2: Registration process of homestay tourism
Failed
Passed
Source: Translated from Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (no date)
Currently in Sabah, there are 15 registered homestay programmes located in
different indigenous villages throughout the rural areas in Sabah (see. Appendix C
for a list of homestays and indigenous communities). The organisation of homestay
tourism operates at three levels: national; state; and local with intermediaries in
between. Figure 3 illustrates the management structure of homestay tourism while
Table 2 briefly describes the role of each of the key actors in homestay tourism.
Application
Ministry of Tourism through state level tourism
authority will review the suitability according to the
guidelines laid down by the ministry
Home
inspection
Homestay Registration
Basic Homestay Course
Reinspection after
home refurbishment
1. Ministry of Health 2. Tourism Malaysia 3. Village Security and
Development Committees 4. State homestay association
Operation of Homestay
Student ID: 1255635
Page 31 of 66
Figure 3: Homestay Tourism Management Structure
Source: Derived from IR2; IR13; IR17; IR18; Ministry of Tourism, no date a; Tharsis, 2012
Table 2: Role of key actors in homestay tourism
Stakeholder Description or Role
Ministry of Tourism
Malaysia
Formulate national tourism policy, standards and
criteria of homestay, allocation of funds, provision of
infrastructure, cooperation with other national level
government authorities
KEPKAS Review and implementation of policies in accordance to
national level agenda, marketing and promotion of
homestay tourism, provide training, funding and
advisory support to homestay participants
NGO
Private
Sector
Student ID: 1255635
Page 32 of 66
Sabah Homestay
Association
Representative and monitoring body of all homestays in
Sabah.
Homestay coordinator Marketing and coordinating homestays; mediator
between local community & external stakeholders such
as government authorities and NGOs & private sector
(depending on each homestay)
Village level Homestay
Committee
Comprise of homestay operators i.e. home owners, tour
guides and driver
Operates and manage homestay accommodation,
activities, natural and cultural attractions at a grassroots
level
Source: Derived from IR2; IR13; IR17; IR18; Ministry of Tourism, no date a; Tharsis, 2012
5.2 Situation in each village
Bilit
According to the villagers, tourism first started in the late 90s when small
groups of tourists led by a private tour operator known as ‘Uncle Tan Jungle Camp’
would drop by the village for a meal. Tourists usually visit the village for
approximately one to two hours for a meal and a cultural dance at one specific house
at the village. During their visit, tourists would wander around the villages, look at the
houses, take photographs and leave again. In the subsequent year, home stays
started but limited to the home of the village head. At that time, the general villagers
of Bilit were passive participants, unpaid actors on a stage, gazed at by tourists with
minimal interactions and no benefits. As one homestay operator comments,
“Before 2003, the son in law of the village head was the coordinator and tourists only
went to his home. They would bring tourists to walk around the village and introduce
to the villagers.. but not stay in our house, just kenal-kenal (introduce)” (IR12)
Student ID: 1255635
Page 33 of 66
In the context of Bilit, the initiative was open for participation by other villagers
in 2002, when homestay program and conservation started being actively promoted
at a national level. The project was developed by a local NGO, WWF and supported
by the State Ministry of Tourism. During that time, campaigns and talks were
conducted to introduce the idea of community-based tourism for development and
conservation to the villagers. This is in line with the growth of private eco-tourism
development in the village and its surrounding lower Kinabatangan area.
Lobong- lobong
In lobong-lobong, homestay tourism was first introduced into the village by its
present coordinator who migrated to the capital city to work as a government
employee. Due to his connections with the ministry and access to information, he
came across information regarding homestay initiatives. Realising the potential of his
home village as a potential ecotourism destination, he submitted official request to
the ministry for talks about home stay to be given in the village. In 2007, Tanak
Nabalu homestay was initiated but up till today, growth has been slow.
Kiau Taburi
In contrary to Bilit and Lobong-lobong, home stays in Kiau Taburi village was
pioneered by villagers themselves. Since 2000s, home stays were promoted to
tourists by word of mouth via villagers who worked in Sabah Park as park rangers
and guide. However, villagers operate without certification from the ministry. For
several years, members of the community has attempt to apply for certification
however process was delayed due to several reasons include incompliance of
standards, limited political network and lack of information.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 34 of 66
5.3 The villagers’ perception of Homestay tourism- “We like tourism”
Results indicate that community members are generally positive toward the
initiative in the community and wish to see it develop further. This is due to its
economic importance, hospitality of the villagers, sense of pride and achievement
and the valorisation of indigenous culture and traditions.
5.3.1 Economic significance
Due to the lack of access to land, basic infrastructure and technologies, the
agrarian lifestyle in all three villages are significantly difficult. In the recent decade,
villagers have increasingly shifted away from their agrarian livelihoods. In Bilit,
livelihoods were predominantly based on fishing, agricultural activities and the
collection of forest products. Due to the remoteness of villages along Kinabatangan
River, before tourism development, there were not many alternative livelihood
options available for villagers. With the growth of ecotourism in this area, tourism has
now become one of the key livelihoods strategies for the locals of Bilit. Most
respondents claimed that they were happy and satisfied with the rural economic
opportunity available for them through both tourism employment and homestays.
Participation in homestay program has led to increase in household income with a
typical arrangement of a member of the family working as homestay operator while
others work in eco-lodges or tourism establishments in the surrounding area.
In the case of Lobong-lobong and Kiau Taburi, a majority of the villagers are
farmers. As these two villages are closer to major towns and the capital city, more
employment opportunities were available to them. Thus, migration is one of the main
livelihood strategies in these villages. For those who have permanent jobs, the
villagers continue to carry out farming activities for household consumption. For
those who are unemployed, running small-scale rubber plantations or farming is their
main source of income. Other than rubber, main agriculture produce in this area
include paddy, ginger, vegetables and pineapple. For the home stay operators,
coordinator and tour guides, homestay tourism acts as an additional source of
income as most of the operators either take on other forms of employment or cash
Student ID: 1255635
Page 35 of 66
crop agriculture activities. With the sharp fall in the price of rubber in the recent
years, income from home stay tourism has contributed positively to livelihood
sustainability because it reduces vulnerability to stress and shocks (Ellis, 1999).
For some home stay operators, tourism development has provided a gate way
for entrepreneurial activities (Cole, 2006). In an interview with a home stay operator,
home stay tourism has inspired her to provide ancillary services to tourists for extra
income. These include providing laundry service, renting boots and selling leech
socks to tourists. In addition, the increased income from home stays has allowed her
to open a small grocery store at her home (IR11; Photo 2). Similar findings were
found in Lobong- lobong where tourism development has stimulated entrepreneurial
spirit amongst some home stay operators (IR 14; IR 15; GD2; GD4; Photo 3).
Photo 2 (left): Grocery store opened
by homestay operator
Photo 3 (right): Orchid nursery pioneered
by homestay operator
Student ID: 1255635
Page 36 of 66
5.3.2 Sense of achievement
With more than 10 years of experience in the home stay business, the
participants of home stay in Bilit were proud of their achievement as they became
better qualified and the products and services reached the tourism industry’s
minimum standards. Increased income from homestay tourism is particularly valued
by homestay participants in Bilit. One reason is the increased opportunity for their
children to move to urban areas for further education. It is believed with the
knowledge gained from further studies, their children would bring pride and respect
to the family in the future. In a group discussion with several homestay operators in
Bilit, the word “ketinggalan (lagging behind)” was often used to describe people of
their generation (GD1). This is because their ‘difficult agrarian lifestyle’ in the past
and the remoteness of the village has restricted a majority of the villagers to gain
higher education (GD1; IR2; IR12).
Furthermore, as a result of tourism development in the village, there are
increasing numbers of people in the community who can speak in English through
self-learning. It is noted that one’s status can be raised if they are able to speak in
different languages and have many ‘tourist friends’ (IR1; IR2; IR3; IR8; IR13; IR14;
IR15; IR16; IR17). For instance, in a conversation with a tour guide of the homestay,
he expressed a great sense of pride to be able to speak not only in English but also
imitating different accents and colloquialisms of his ‘foreign friends’ (IR3).
5.3.3 Hospitality
All respondents of this study expressed that they enjoy having guests and see
tourism as an extension to their ‘budaya mesra (friendly culture)’. Community
members of lobong- lobong and Kiau Taburi are used to hosting friends and relatives
and ‘rumah terbuka’ (open house) during festive seasons and celebrations such as
Hari Raya Aidilfitri (Islamic New Year), Christmas and Pesta Kaamatan (Harvest
Festival). Local people claim to like tourists, not bored with tourists, to want more
Student ID: 1255635
Page 37 of 66
tourists and wish to strengthen and extend their hospitality to tourists that in turn
make life livelier.
5.3.4 Cultural pride and heritage preservation
The liking of tourists is linked to a sense of cultural pride. Findings of this case
study reflect that tourism does not necessarily lead to deterioration of cultural
traditions of the community. Similar to the case study by Cole (2008) of CBT in
Indonesia, the idea that locals could exchange ideas and knowledge with people
from other cultural backgrounds was positively perceived.
Regardless of tourism, villagers perceive that their lifestyle will modernise in
time and this is viewed as an improvement to their quality of life. Nevertheless,
villagers are keen to preserve their local heritage. Particularly for the Dusun
community in lobong-lobong and Kiau Toburi, traditions such as sumazau (native
cultural dance), traditional music, making tapai (rice wine) are still widely practiced
and valued by the community (GD2; GD7). These distinct features of ethic culture
are valued as they viewed as a symbol of identity. The villagers expressed that
through tourism they can share their traditions to visitors so that it can be known to
the world (GD1; GD2; GD3; GD4; GD7; GD8). At the same time, they believe that
tourism can be a catalyst in the valorisation and preservation indigenous culture and
heritage. As remarked by a community member,
“In sabah many indigenous culture and history are not written or recorded. Actually
we are also worried that our heritage will be lost in time. But tourism will help. It will
strengthen our cultural values amongst younger generation and the government will
also see the importance of preserving indigenous cultures.” (GD2)
These findings show that homestay tourism has contributed directly to what
Scheyvens (1999) highlighted as psychological empowerment with signs of cultural
esteem, pride and cultural identity.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 38 of 66
5.4 Limitations and challenges of Home stay Tourism
Despite the positive perceptions of homestay tourism, the research study has
also highlighted several challenges of community-based tourism. These limitations
will be examined below.
5.4.1 Lack of finance and exclusion of the poor
Throughout the process of data collection, access to funding was highlighted
repetitively as the main challenge for homestay tourism (IR1; IR2; IR3; IR13; IR16;
IR17; GD4; GD5; GD7; GD8). This is because like other forms of tourism, as an
economic activity, homestays must compete effectively in the tourism marketplace,
and access to the market and ability to compete will depend on a number of
fundamental factors common to all forms of tourism (Pearce, 1997; Ritchie and
Crouch, 2003). As indicated by Mowforth and Munt (2009, 345), such factors include,
geography (the desirability of the place and its accessibility), the level of
understanding and knowledge of the tourism sector, level of disposable resources
and access to decision making.
For home stay tourism, it’s perceived critical success factors lies in the
diversification of tourism products and services in order to increase the
attractiveness of the homestay and to accommodate a broader base of visitors for
longer stays. However, due to the limited income grossed from homestays, the
capacity of communities to compete with other homestays in Sabah is limited without
external support. This is certainly the case for both homestays in Lobong-lobong and
Kiau Taburi which did not receive any support from NGOs or the government.
Despite the rhetoric of homestay tourism as a poverty reduction strategy in
Sabah, in reality such programme has excluded the participation of poorer families
(Chok and Macbeth, 2007; Harrison, 2008). Due to the high requirements set out by
the ministry to comply, families who are unable to afford refurbishment their homes
are excluded from the program (IR5; IR6; IR9; IR10; GD2; GD4) . Findings indicated
that home stays are limited to those better-off households with steady income from
cash crop agriculture or employment. Others that remain dependence on
subsistence agriculture and forest resources or households that have few
Student ID: 1255635
Page 39 of 66
opportunities for income regenerating activities usually do not own much surplus
income to participate in homestays.
In the past, an initial funding of RM5000 were allocated to participating
families for the purpose of upgrading toilet facilities in their homes (Ibrahim and
Razzaq, 2009). According to the existing homestay participants, this incentive had
effectively reduced financial barriers to participation. However, following the policy
change made by the new tourism minister, this fund has been replaced with credit
loan thus restricting opportunities for poorer families to participate. Particularly for
villagers that are already facing financial difficulties caused by the drop in the price of
rubber, taking out a new loan may only increase the household’s financial burden.
Other than that, it is noted those who do not fit in easily defined boundaries
may be excluded from the vision of participation (Williams, 2004). For example, a
woman who had returned to the village after years of migration to larger cities for
work mentioned that her family was never given the opportunity to participate, as she
believes that her family was not readily accepted by other villagers (IR4). Similar
situations is evident in interviews with migrants in Bilit (IR4; IR7; IR9; IR10). A clear
dichotomy is often described between “them”- villagers who were included in
homestay programmes, reaping benefits such as water tanks built by volunteer
tourists, receiving donor aid, better houses and higher income, and “us”- villagers
who are typically poorer and excluded from any community initiatives (IR4; IR5; IR6;
IR7; IR9; IR10). As argued by Hall (2007), while distributive justice is regarded as a
desired outcome, it is not an explicit objective of PPT. Therefore home stay tourism
development may exacerbate inequality rather than tackling poverty.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 40 of 66
5.4.2 Lack of infrastructure
Accessibility is one of the most common challenges faced by villagers in many
rural areas of Sabah. In Lobong-lobong and Kiau Taburi, roads are made of dirt and
gravel and are at significantly poor state. Although such road may be accessible by
four-wheel drive, it had nevertheless become the major cause of tourists’
dissatisfaction. In Lobong- lobong for instance, the main road is approximately 6km
from the village. In GD4, homestay operators highlighted that several groups of
tourists in the past have refused to continue their journey to the village due to the
bumpy roads (Photo 4). Furthermore, as the roads are situated at the edge of the
hill, it can be dangerous when the roads turn muddy during rainy seasons. The
situation is worse in Kampung Kiau, not only are the conditions of the roads poor;
road access to the village carries risks of land slide (Photo 5; GD7; Daily Express,
2012).
Infrastructure plays an important role in the desirability and accessibility of the
place. With the scale of homestay programs, local communities lack the base of
resources or technical expertise required for the development of infrastructure such
as asphalt roads or preventive measures for landslides. Thus, without assistance
from a higher authority such as the provincial or central government, infrastructure
development is hampered by the villages’ limited human, physical and financial
resources (Tosun, 2000; Blackstock, 2005;).
Photo 4: Road conditions in Lobong-lobong Photo 5: Road conditions and land slide hazard
area in Kiau Taburi
Student ID: 1255635
Page 41 of 66
According to the villagers in these two villages, the need for improvement to
their roads has been raised to the government for more than 15 years, but no
concrete actions have been done to date (IR13; GD4; GD7). While the policy
documents of homestay tourism development highlights the ministry of tourism
Malaysia works closely in collaboration with other ministries including Ministry of
Rural and Regional Development, in reality these decisions and processes are highly
centralised and complex. Due to these difficulties, control over growth and viability of
homestay tourism is difficult to achieve.
5.4.3 Dependence on political networks and Clientelism
As far as access to funding is concerned, inequalities lie in the strong
dependence on political networks. A contested issue raised by respondents in
several group discussions is the large amount of funding and government supportive
policy that goes into one particular homestay, namely Misompuru Homestay (MH)
(GD4; GD7; GD8). Although the exact amounts of funds allocated to the homestay
was unclear, respondents claimed that due to the political networks that comes with
the role of president in Sabah Homestay Association, there is a significant difference
in terms of tourism infrastructure and cooperative opportunities available in
comparison to other homestays. For instance, since 2012, government-owned
airlines MASwings has collaborated with Misompuru by promoting homestays as part
of the airlines adventure tourism packages (Borneopost, 2012b). Consequently,
there is a large gap between the profits grossed by each homestays. In the year
2012, tourist arrivals in Misompuru homestay numbered 5741, with a gross income
of more than RM 1.56 million, while tourist arrivals in Lobong- lobong was only 338
and RM44,010 in income (STB, 2013b). Thus, it is evident that homestay villages
which do not have connections with political elites are usually not in the position to
compete with those that are well-connected, well-funded and have access to
planning and business intelligence (Tosun, 2000).
NGOs on the other hand are often regarded as neutral providers of
community support as they are not directly representative of government interest and
Student ID: 1255635
Page 42 of 66
their non-profit status (Scheyvens, 2002). However, in this case, funding and support
NGOs relies on pre-determined agenda such as conservation or wildlife protection
(Cater, 2008; Duffy, 2006; 2008). As a consequence of favouring homestays with
wildlife, homestays such as Lobong-lobong and Kiau Taburi has been placed in a
weak position to compete for external support.
Through a comparison between all three villages in this case study, further
insights of the subjection of development to manipulation and power brokering have
been revealed. In the recent decade, a range of public infrastructure development
was clearly evident in Bilit. These include construction of new roads, refurbishment
of jetty, new kindergarten, refurbished primary school (Photo 9), new surau (prayer
rooms for muslim), 1Malaysia grocery store (Photo 7), 1Malaysia Futsal Court (Photo
6) and a heritage centre specifically for homestay tourism purposes (Photo 8). In
many conversations with local villagers (anonymous), it has been highlighted that
clientelist relations is clearly linked to the idea of development. As one asserts, “we
are lucky. As long as we support BN [dominant political party in Malaysia], we will be
taken care of”.
Photo 6 (left): 1Malaysia Futsal Court
Photo 7 (right): 1Malaysia grocery store
Student ID: 1255635
Page 43 of 66
In fact, since the 1990s, the ruling party of Malaysia Barisan National (BN)
has practiced what Welsh (2013, 141) calls “developmentalism”, which means
promises of better services and targeted government-funded infrastructure-
development projects in exchange of votes. From 2009, such approach has included
a more personalised market exchange between government and voters - or in the
Prime Minister Najib Razak’s own words “You help me, I help you”. Under the reign
of Najib, a variety of measures under the rubric of “1-Malaysia” (purportedly an
umbrella initiative to bolster “national unity irrespective of race or religious belief”)
has been introduced including individual cash hand-outs, stationery or schoolbook
vouchers, 1Malaysia laptops, 1Malaysia smartphone etc. These incentives were
coupled with pay increases to civil servants, direct hand-outs to schools and local
community groups, and funds to NGOs linked to 1Malaysia that would lobby on
behalf of the government prior to the actual election campaign.
Bilit being one of the villages which privileges from the system perceived that
the government has been supportive and good to them. However, these politics of
privilege prevents the realisation of citizen rights and limits the capacity for effective
and autonomous political participation (Schneider and Zuniga-Hamlin 2005). At a
wider scale, it may also impede equal development opportunities which is certainly
the case for Lobong- lobong and Kiau Taburi. In contrast to locals in Bilit, community
members of these two villages view the government as unresponsive and corrupt.
They believe that the main reason of the ignorance by the government is due to their
Photo 8: Culture and Heritage centre in Bilit Photo 9: Newly refurbished Primary school in Bilit
Student ID: 1255635
Page 44 of 66
support for an opposition party in the recent 13th general election on the 5th of May
2013 (IR14; IR15; GD4; GD5; GD7). The villagers highlighted that not only does the
government disregards the welfare of the local community for many years, they were
also exposed to scandals involving huge sums of misappropriate funds and abuses
of power by political elites at all levels of the government by their relatives and
friends who migrated to urban areas for work or education and via the internet.
A common topic derived from the critical voices of the villagers is ‘the paradox
of Sabah- rich in resources but poorest state’, in which issues of poor governance
and inequalities were viewed as the key factors of underdevelopment (GD4). The
local people argued that good governance would require institutional change.
However, due to the authoritarian structure of Malaysian government, those who are
considered ‘reformed-minded’ is likely face significant constraints when challenging
the status quo (Heryanto and Mandal, 2003; Welsh, 2013; Volpi and Cavatorta,
2013). This may explain why these villages fail to acquire government support and
infrastructure which in turn undermine the capacity of local people to ensure
destination competitiveness as discussed in 4.2.2.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 45 of 66
5.4.4 Broader alternative visions of development and conflicts
With the expanding growth of tourism in Kinabalu Park area, locals in Lobong-
lobong are increasingly insecure about their rights to their home land with an on-
going proposal of an ‘eco-city’ around their village land. Owing to the lack of official
information, it is speculated in the media and amongst some villagers that an eco-
city will be built along the foothills of Mount Kinabalu that is likely to affect more than
twenty villages (Borneopost, 2014). This RM15 billion project is proposed to include
various facilities including a cable car system, monorail and integrated transport
around a man-made lake, hotels, private housing, university, hospital and a golf
course (Kinabalu Today, 2014).
As villagers are unsure about their land rights and are usually not consulted
before any development projects, they fear that their village land could be taken
away at any point. In a group discussion, a community member expressed that
insecurities were heightened when a helicopter was flying around the surroundings
of the village sometime during this study, as he comments,
“they said they are here to take photos. They say its for tourism. but we are
suspicious. We don’t know what their real motives are, maybe they want our land to
build that eco-city… not many places here are flat land”. (GD5)
Moreover, some respondents were aware of previous cases of village
resettlement due to large scale development project in their surrounding areas. The
vulnerability and perception of power of government is evident in several comments
by villagers (GD5).
“if the government wants your land, they can take it no matter what. You see the
army camp in KB [Kota Belud], it used to be a village. People stay there. But now,
don’t know where they move to”
“Tambatuon [a village near lobong-lobong] also, agriculture is just fine. They have
gravity water like us but the government insist to build a dam…yes they have
homestay also. But so what... now they bising-bising (make noise) but I don’t think it
will make a difference.”
Student ID: 1255635
Page 46 of 66
According to Doolittle (2005, 2007), every action of the state of Sabah
associated with land and natural resources, from the colonial period to the post-
colonial period, has eroded native customary rights. In fact, in the current Land
Acquisition Ordinance- Sabah Cap 69 (Sabah State Government, 2011, 5), it is
stated that “If the Yang di-Pertua Negeri (Head of State) considers that any land
should be acquired for a public purpose he may cause a declaration to that effect to
be made in the manner provided by this section and the declaration shall be
conclusive evidence that the land to which it relates is required for a public purpose”.
This means that land can be acquired by any person or corporation for any purpose
be it mining, residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes,
which in the opinion of the state authority is beneficial to the economic development
of the state. Furthermore, a pre-acquisition hearing is not required, so owners may
be deprived of their land with no fair explanation of why the land is being taken from
(IDS, 1991 cited in Doolittle, 2005). Hence, it is not surprising that many natives
including those who own native title to their land do not feel secure, given that their
lands are not exempted from compulsory acquisition by the state.
While homestay tourism derived from a morally induced concept of
community well-being, the prevailing broader vision of development in Malaysia
relegates people below the primacy of profit and economic growth (Sharpley and
Tefler, 2002). This is also evident in Bilit where a significant gap was found between
national environmental policies which favour ecotourism for conservation and local
well-being and what actually happens in practice, as the government and businesses
remains in favour of rapid palm oil exploitation (Cleary and Eaton, 1992).
In the face of increased income opportunities from ecotourism around the
lower Kinabatangan River, it may be argued that a lower dependency on agriculture
as a source of income could imply a lower pressure on forest resources. However,
such notion should not be taken for granted as tourism can be vulnerable to
environment deterioration mediated by socio-political pressures outside the control of
the tourism industry (Mieckowski, 1995), keeping in mind that the interactions
between tourism stakeholders, policy makers, planners and the environment are
often complex (Sharply and Telfer, 2002).
Student ID: 1255635
Page 47 of 66
Although ecotourism development has contributed to increased environmental
awareness amongst villagers in Bilit, most local people do not perceive that the
negative environmental impacts in lower Kinabatangan area is caused by tourism
development or small scale agriculture activities in the village (IR1; IR2; IR3; IR5;
IR12; GD1). Instead, the villagers believe that the main reason of environmental
changes is due to the rapidly expanding palm oil plantations along lower
Kinabatangan area. Such views coincide with WWF who advocated for sustainable
forest resource management in the Kinabatangan area. As noted in their website
(WWF, 2004), there are three stages where the palm oil estate development process
contributes to pollution and environmental degradation. Firstly, the land clearing
phase causes destruction to the flora and fauna in the rainforest and can lead to
increased surface erosion. Secondly, the plantation of palm oil involves the usage of
large amount of fertilisers and pesticides that contributes pollution of the surrounding
river and lakes. Thirdly, during the processing stage, organic and solid effluents from
factories are largely dumped into rivers that in turn causes serious water pollution
(ibid.).
As a consequence, the everyday life of the local people is significantly
affected by the impact of large scale palm oil plantation. As villagers comment,
“of course we are worried when we see this kind of activity…. it is right next to the
river bank and there is no buffer area.” (IR2)
“Whatever pesticides or poison the plantation uses to maintain their oil palms could
end up in the river and we fish and use the river water to wash” (IR12)
Despite feeling powerless to have any influence in this regard, most
participants of homestay tourism were reluctant to take any actions to express their
concerns (IR2; IR3; IR12; GD1). Firstly, due to their dependence on the government
for infrastructure needed to sustain homestay tourism or tourism development in
general, they do not wish to cause any disagreements with government authorities.
Secondly, there is a conflict of interest for some villagers who benefits from the
community-based tree planting initiative sponsored by large-scale palm oil
corporations. During one of the group discussions, a community member described
Student ID: 1255635
Page 48 of 66
how he and some members of the homestay initiative are dependent on the extra
income derived from the tree planting project by selling seedlings or small trees to
homestay visitors to be planted in the forest (Photo 10). Despite realising the
negative impacts from palm oil, he views it as a trade-off for the crucial need for
external assistance. However, at the same time, the sustainability of ecotourism itself
in the long term can be questioned (GD1).
Photo 10: Plant nursery of community-based tree planting project in Bilit
Based on the above findings, the rhetoric of community-based tourism which
emphasises on empowerment, rights and autonomy can certainly be questioned
(Stabler, 1997; Tosun, 2000). The extensive claims attached to the development of
homestay tourism supposedly for the benefit of the communities and for
conservation, may act as a “Trojan Horse” to mask the problematic power relations
and the production of new sets of winners and losers underpinning these initiatives
(Rahnema, 1992; 125; Duffy, 2008).
Student ID: 1255635
Page 49 of 66
Chapter 6 Conclusion
This dissertation has aimed to examine homestay tourism as a development
tool in Sabah. By providing a study at a micro-level, it has revealed homestays’
positive impacts as perceived by the communities as well as weakness at a broader
macro-level. In overall, there is little doubt to say that homestay tourism in all three
villages in this case study does play a significant role in the economic development
aspirations for communities that participated in homestay tourism. Results show that
homestay complements existing economic opportunities and encourage
entrepreneurship. Thus, it appears to be an effective way to diversify livelihood
strategies which in turn reduces financial vulnerability (Ellis, 1999).
While critics have regarded the commodification of indigenous culture as “a
kind of institutionalised racism that celebrates primitiveness” (Mowforth and Munt,
1998, 270), Cole (2008) points out that it may also be recognised as a process of
empowerment. This research supports findings from previous studies which shows
that acculturation may not necessary lead to resentment or deterioration (Adams,
1997; Erb, 1998; Cole, 2006; Cole, 2008). Instead, homestay programmes has
fostered self-esteem and cultural pride amongst villagers as it become a catalyst in
the valorisation of the Dusun and Orang Sungei indigenous culture and the
affirmation of local identity.
While these benefits forms valuable aspects of economic, social and
psychological empowerment, in themselves, may not further participation and
poverty alleviation (Tosun, 2000). As summarised in Table 3, there is a significant
gap found between rhetoric claimed in homestay policy and the prevailing
contestations found in the villages in this case study.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 50 of 66
Table 3: Summary of homestay tourism rhetoric and contestations
Rhetoric of Homestay Tourism Contestations in this case study
Provide economic opportunities
for the rural communities in Sabah
Promotes conservation
Poverty reduction
Promotes sustainable
development
Unequal opportunities for
communities
Exclusion of the poor
Political nature: dependence on
political networks and clientalism
Top-down and limited local
autonomy
Prevailing mainstream philosophy
underpinning broader vision of
development which promotes
growth over people’s well-being
New power dynamics
New sets of winners and losers
Although local communities are given the chance to manage products and
activities for homestays, decision making process of the development of tourism
remains largely top-down and heavily depends on political networks. As a result,
development impact of homestay tourism vary widely within and between
communities. At a local level, due to financial barriers and inter-village level power
dynamics, homestay has excluded the poorer segments of the community. Such
findings agrees to earlier critiques which suggested that a widening gap can be
created through PPT between the richer and poorer households (Chok and Macbeth,
2007; Mowforth and Munt, 2009).
This research also shows that the development of tourism or development in
general can be subjected to clientalism and power-brokering. As local communities
usually lack capacities to ensure destination competitiveness, in the absence of
equal opportunities to government and NGO assistance, villages which are not
Student ID: 1255635
Page 51 of 66
politically connected including Lobong- lobong and Kiau Taburi has been alienated.
As for Bilit village, despite the success in the growth of homestay tourism, this case
study has revealed that the villagers are dependent on a patron-client relationship
with the government and external stakeholders. This can in turn serve to prevent the
realisation of citizen rights and mask imbalanced power relations underpinning these
engagements. Finally, lies in the heart of the contestations is the prevailing broader
vision of development in Malaysia which relegates people below the primacy of profit
and economic growth. As a consequent, broader issues such as insecurity of land
tenure, pollution and inequalities continue to undermine the sustainability of
homestay tourism as well as the livelihoods of the indigenous communities in Sabah.
In conclusion, the development of homestay tourism is multi-faceted and
inherently political. Although it is perceived as a laudable development tool due to its
morally-induced concept, yet it remains vulnerable to political hijacking. It is apparent
that the issue of underdevelopment is an intricate challenge and linked with unequal
power relations amongst various stakeholders and individuals across different
scales, the resolution of which require a fundamental transformation of the existing
power structure (Schilcher, 2007; Harrison, 2008). Thus, owing to the underlying
unequal socio-political environment in which homestay tourism operates, sustainable
and pro-poor development outcome is likely to be limited and difficult.
Perhaps, it would be more effective if we sought to recognise these limitations
and political messiness while looking to identify and challenge the root cause of
inequality. Due to the time and practical constraints, the researcher was not able to
explore in-depth on the livelihoods of those who are excluded from the homestay
programme (see 5.4.1 Lack of finance and exclusion of the poor). A potential area
for future research is to carry out in-depth livelihood analysis and pro-poor value
chain analysis beyond bounded communities in order to identify opportunities for
change for the poorest and the marginalised.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 52 of 66
Appendix A: Ethics Screening, Confirmation of Ethical Approval, Risk
Assessment Form
Copy of Ethics Screening form
Student ID: 1255635
Page 53 of 66
Ethical Approval notification
Research Ethics Office
King's College London
Rm 5.2 FWB (Waterloo Bridge Wing)
Stamford Street
London
SE1 9NH
23 May 2014
TO: Oi Yee Wong
SUBJECT: Approval of ethics application
Dear Oi Yee,
KCL/13/14-557 - Towards sustainable community development: A case study on Homestay Tourism in
Sabah
I am pleased to inform you that full approval for your project has been granted by the GSSHM Research Ethics Panel. Any specific conditions of approval are laid out at the end of this letter which should be followed in addition to the standard terms and conditions of approval, to be overseen by your Supervisor:
o Ethical approval is granted for a period of one year from 23 May 2014. You will not receive a reminder that your approval is about to lapse so it is your responsibility to apply for an extension prior to the project lapsing if you need one (see below for instructions).
o You should report any untoward events or unforeseen ethical problems arising from the project to the panel Chairman within a week of the occurrence. Information about the panel may be accessed at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx
o If you wish to change your project or request an extension of approval, please complete the Modification Proforma. A signed hard copy of this should be submitted to the Research Ethics Office, along with an electronic version to [email protected] . Please be sure to quote your low risk reference number on all correspondence. Details of how to fill a modification request can be found at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx
o All research should be conducted in accordance with the King’s College London Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf
If you require signed confirmation of your approval please email [email protected] indicating why it is required and the address you would like it to be sent to. Please would you also note that we may, for the purposes of audit, contact you from time to time to ascertain the status of your research. We wish you every success with this work.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 54 of 66
Approval of Modification Request
Research Ethics Office
King's College London
Rm 5.2 FWB (Waterloo Bridge Wing)
Stamford Street
London
SE1 9NH
23 June 2014
TO: WONG, OI YEE
SUBJECT: Approval of Modification Request
Dear Oi Yee,
KCL/13/14-557- TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF HOMESTAY
TOURISM IN SABAH
Thank you for submitting a modification request for the above study. I am writing to confirm approval of this.
The modification is summarised below:
- An option for participant’s to give verbal consent instead of signing a consent form
Approval of this modification is conditional on the following provisos:
- As per the modification request, please do ensure that participants are provided with the Information Sheet at the appropriate time.
- It also seems appropriate that, in the case of both participant observation and interviews, those who are only giving verbal consent should be considered to have elected to remain anonymous (point 5 of the consent form).
If you have any questions regarding this application please contact the Research Ethics Office.
Kind regards,
Rosie Pearson
Research Support Assistant
On behalf of GSSHM REP Reviewer
Student ID: 1255635
Page 55 of 66
Copy of Risk Assessment Form
Student ID: 1255635
Page 56 of 66
Appendix B: List of Respondents
Semi Structured Interviews
Interview Respondent (by
chronological order)
Community Roles
IR1 Bilit Driver/ tour guide
IR2 Bilit Coordinator
IR3 Bilit Tour Guide
IR4 Bilit General Villager/ Newcomer
IR5 Bilit General villager/ high school student
IR6 Bilit General villager/ father works as
fishermen
IR7 Bilit General villager/ immigrant
background/ works in lodge
IR8 Bilit Homestay operator/ opened new
restaurant
IR9 Bilit General villager/ immigrant
background/ works in construction
and agriculture
IR10 Bilit General villager/ immigrant
background/ works in construction
and agriculture
IR11 Bilit Homestay operator/ grocery store
owner
IR12 Bilit Homestay operator
IR13 Lobong Homestay coordinator
IR14 Lobong Daughter of homestay operator
IR15 Lobong Homestay operator/ orchid nursery
owner
IR 16 Kiau Toburi Homestay operator
IR17 Kiau Toburi Homestay coordinator
IR 18 K. K Government officer
Student ID: 1255635
Page 57 of 66
Group Discussions
Group discussions Location Roles of participants
GD1 Bilit Homestay operator and family
members
GD2 Lobong- lobong Six homestay operators
GD3 Lobong- lobong Homestay operator and husband
GD4 Lobong- lobong Five Homestay operators and
coordinator
GD5 Lobong- lobong Two homestay operators and family
members
GD6 Lobong- lobong Students
GD7 Kiau Taburi Homestay operators and
coordinator
GD8 Kota Kinabalu Homestay participants from various
homestays
Student ID: 1255635
Page 58 of 66
Appendix C: List of Homestays in Sabah
Name of
Homestay
Village Location Ethnicity Natural attractions
Misompuru Kg. Minyak Kudat Rungus Rainforest, beaches,
trekking
Taginambur Kg. Taginambur Kota Belud Dusun Rivers, trekking
Melangkap Kg. Melangkap Kota Belud Dusun River, Mountain view,
trekking
Tanak
Nabalu
Kg. Lobong-lobong Kota Belud Dusun Mini mountain kinabalu,
river, trekking, waterfall
Mitabang Kg. Tulung-Mantob Kiulu Dusun River, Rainforest
Walai
Tokou
Kg. Sinisian
Ranau Dusun Mountains, rainforest,
waterfall, cave
Mesilou
Atamis
Kg. Mesilou Ranau Kadazan
Dusun
Mountains, rainforest,
waterfall, cave
Penampan
g Village
Kg. Pogunon Penampang Kadazan River
Koposizon Kg. Gana/ Kg.
Kopimpinan/ Kg. Kinuta/
Kg. Limbahau/ Kg. Biau/
Kg. Limputung/ Kg.
Titimbougon/ Kg.
Timbangan/ Kg. Labak/
Kg. Lakut/ Kg. Papaga
Papar Kadazan Beach, river
Tambunan Kg. Keranaan Tambunan Kadazan
Dusun
Rainforest, mountains
Long Pasia Long Pasia Sipitang Lundayeh Mountains, rainforest,
river
Miso Walai Batu Puteh Kinabatangan Orang
Sungai
Wildlife, river, rainforest
Bilit Bilit Kinabatangan Orang
Sungai
Wildlife, river, Bilit Hill,
rainforest
Balai Kito
Mayu
Sukau Kinabatangan Orang
Sungai
Wildlife, river, cave,
rainforest
Moido
Waloi
Abai Kinabatangan Orang
Sungai
Wildlife, river, cave,
rainforest
Source: Adapted from Sabah Homestay Brochure (2013)
Student ID: 1255635
Page 59 of 66
References
Adams, K. (1997) Touting touristic ‘primadonnas’: Tourism, ethnicity, and national integration in Sulawesi, Indonesia In M. Picard and R. Wood (eds) Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, Honolulu: University Hawaii Press, 150-180 Ashley, C, Roe D, Goodwin H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Report No. 1: Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism Work For The Poor: A review of experience ODI: London Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3246.pdf [Accessed 20.7.2014] Ashley, C., Bennett, O. and Roe, D. (1999) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination Study. London: Deloitte and Touche, International Institute for Environment and Development and Overseas Development Institute Available at http://www.propoortourism.info/documents/SustT1999.pdf [accessed on 21-7-2014] Baxter, J. and Eyles, J (1997) ‘Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography: Establishing “Rigour” in Interview Analysis’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, pp 505-525 Beddoe, C. (2004) Labour standards, social responsibility and tourism, Tourism Concern, UK, [Online], Available from: http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/newcms/uploads/Campaigns/reports/Labour%20Standards%20Report%202004.pdf. [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Beddoe, C., Ryan, C. & Hall, C.M. (2001) The incidence of sexual exploitation of children in tourism, World Tourism Organisation, [Online]. Available from: http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/incidenceexploitation.pdf. [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Bedford, T. and Burgess, J. (2001) The Focus Group Experience In: M. Limb, C. Dwyer (eds.). Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates. London: Arnold. 121-135 Blackstock, K. 2005, "A critical look at community based tourism", Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49. Blake, A., Arbache, J.S., Sinclair, M.T. & Teles, V. (2008). "Tourism and poverty relief", Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), pp. 107-126.
Borneo Post. (2012). Sabah Tourism Ministry urges village to join homestay programme. [online] Available: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/03/26/sabah-tourism-ministry-urges-villages-to-join-homestay-programmme-new/. Last accessed 2nd February 2014. BorneoPost (2014). DAP hopes eco-city not used to revive dam project [Online]. Available: http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/01/14/dap-hopes-eco-city-not-used-to-revive-dam-project/ [Accessed on 1-7-2014]. Brennan, F. & Allen, G. (2001) "Community-based ecotourism, social exclusion and the changing political economy of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa", Tourism and the less developed world: Issues and case studies, pp. 203-221. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wal (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States (pp. 69–89). London: Pinter. Briguglio, L., Butler, R. & Harrison, D. (1996). Sustainable tourism in islands and small states: case studies. London: Pinter Brohman, J. (1996). "New directions in tourism for third world development", Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), pp. 48-70.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 60 of 66
Brown, F. & Hall, D. (2008). "Tourism and development in the global south: The issues", Third World Quarterly, 29(5), pp. 839-849. Butler, R. (1992). Alternative tourism: the thin edge of the wedge In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds). Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the development of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 31–46 Butler, R. and Hinch, T.. (2007). Introduction: Revisiting Common Ground. In: Butler, R. and Hinch, T. Tourism and Indigenous People: Issues and Implications. UK: Elsevier Ltd. 1-10. Butler, R.W. 1990, "Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse?", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 40-45. Cameron, J. (2010) Focusing on the Focus Group in Hay, I. (2010) Qualitative Research Methods In Human Geography, 3rd ed. Canada: Oxford University Press. Ch.8 Chambers, R. (1994) Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. IDS working paper no. 2. Brighton: IDS. Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS. Charmaz, K. (2003) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods In Strategies of qualitative inquiry. London: Sage Chok, S., Macbeth, J. & Warren, C. (2007) "Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: a critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’and implications for sustainability", Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 144-165. Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S. & Sweeting, J. (2003), Tourism and biodiversity: Mapping tourism's global footprint, Conservation International (CI), Washington [pdf.] Available at: http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/-Tourism%20and%20Biodiversity_%20Mapping%20Tourism's%20Global%20Footprint-2003649.pdf [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Cleary, M. & Eaton, P. (1992). Borneo: change and development, Oxford University Press, Singapore. Cleaver, F. (2001) Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development In B.Cooke and U.Kothari (eds) Participation: The New Tyranny?, London: Zed Books, pp. 36–55. Cleverdon, R., & Kalish, A. (2000). “Fair trade in tourism”. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 171–187. Cloke, P, Cook I, Crang, P, Goodwin, M, Painter, J & Philo, C (2004) Practising Human Geography London: Sage Cole, S. (2006). "Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism", Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 629-644. Cole, S. (2008) Tourism, Culture and Development: Hopes, Dreams and Realities in East Indonesia, Clevedon: Channel View Publications Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (2001) ‘The Case for Participation as Tyranny’, in B.Cooke and U.Kothari (eds.) Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books: London, pp. 1–15. Crang, M. (2001) Filed Work: Making Sense of Group Interviews. In: M. Limb and C. Dwyer (eds.). Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates. London: Arnold, 215-233 Daldeniz, B. & Hampton, M.P. 2012, "Dive Tourism and Local Communities: Active Participation or Subject to Impacts? Case Studies from Malaysia", International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 507-520.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 61 of 66
De Kadt, E.J. & Mundial, B. 1979, Tourism: passport to development?: perspectives on the social and cultural effects of tourism in developing countries, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Deloitte and Touche et al. (1999) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination Study: A Report to the Department of International development Available at: http://www.propoortourism.info/documents/SustT1999.pdf [accessed 20.7.2014] Delyser, D et al. (2010) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography, London: Sage DFID. (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: Department for International Development Doolittle, A. 2005. Property and Politics in Sabah, Malaysia (North Borneo): A Century of Native Struggles over Land Rights, 1881-1996. University of Washington Press, Nature and Culture Series. Doolittle, A. 2007. “Native Land Tenure, Conservation, and Development in a Pseudo-Democracy: Natural Resource Conflicts in Sabah, Malaysia.” Journal of Peasant Studies 34 (3): 474-497. Duffy, R. 2008, "Neoliberalising nature: global networks and ecotourism development in Madagasgar", Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 327-344. Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan. Duffy, R.(2006) “Global Environmental Governance and the Politics of Ecotourism in Madagascar”, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol.5,128-144. Economic Planning Unit (EPU) (2013). Mean Monthly Gross Household Income by Ethnicity, Strata and State, Malaysia, 1970-2012 [Online]. Available: http://www.epu.gov.my/documents/10124/fec5c411-a97c-491b-b9a5-e28cd227ac95 [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Ellis, F. 1999, Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: evidence and policy implications, Overseas Development Institute, London. [pdf] Available at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2881.pdf [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Erb, M. (1998) Tourism Spaces in Manggarai, Western Flores, Indonesia: The house as a contested place. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 19(2), 177-192 Friedmann, J. 1992, Empowerment: the politics of alternative development. Blackwell: UK Gössling, S. 2002, "Global environmental consequences of tourism", Global Environmental Change, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 283-302. Hall, C.M. 1994, Tourism and politics: policy, power and place. John Wiley & Sons: Chicester.
Hall, M. (2007). Politics, Power and Indigenous Tourism. In: Butler, R. and Hinch, T. Tourism and Indigenous People: Issues and Implications. UK: Elsevier Ltd. 305-318 Harrison, D. (1996) Sustainability and tourism: Reflections from a muddy pool. In L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wal (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States. London: Pinter, 69–89. Harrison, D. 2008, "Pro-poor tourism: A critique", Third World Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 851-868. Harun, H., Hassan, R., Razzaq, and Mustafa, Z. (2012). Building Local Capacities Towards Sustaining Community Based Tourism Development (CBET): Experience From Miso Walai Homestay. In: Regional Conference on Higher Education-
Student ID: 1255635
Page 62 of 66
Community-Industry Engagement, 7-9 May 2012, Kuala Lumpur [pdf] Available: http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/2610/. Last accessed 2 February 2014 Harun, S. 2013, Water quality dynamics in a lowland tropical catchment: the Kinabatangan river, Sabah, Malaysia. , University of Birmingham. Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Heryanto, Ariel, & Mandal, Sumit K., Eds. (2003). Challenging Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: Comparing Indonesia and Malaysia. Routledge: New York Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications Hoggart, K., Lees, L. & Davie, A. (2002) Researching Human Geography, London: Arnold Honey, M. 1999, Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Island Press: Washington Hopkins, P.E (2007b) ‘Thinking critically and creatively about focus group’ Area, 39(4), 528-535 Ibrahim, Y. & Razzaq, A.R.A. 2009, "Homestay program and rural community development in Malaysia", Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 7-24. Impressions.com.my (2014) Sabah Map Available: http://impressions.com.my/sabah/sabahinfo/sabahmap.htm. [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Jackson, P. (1993) Changing ourselves: A geography of position. In, R.J. Johnston, (ed). The Challenge for Geography, A Changing World: A Changing Discipline. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 198-214. Keyser, H. 2002, Tourism development, Oxford University Press: UK Kgathi, D.L., Ngwenya, B.N. & Wilk, J. (2007). “Shocks and rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Development Southern Africa, 24(2), 289-308 Kinabalu Today (2014) RM115 Billion Eco-City for Kota Belud?. Kinabalu Today, Kota Kinabalu. Kitchin, R. & Tate, N. (2013) Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice, Routledge: Oxon Kontogeorgopoulos, N., Churyen, A. & Duangsaeng, V. 2013, "Homestay Tourism and the Commercialization of the Rural Home in Thailand", Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, pp. 1-22. Lansing, P. & Vries, P.D. 2007, "Sustainable Tourism: Ethical Alternative or Marketing Ploy?", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 77-85. Liu, Z. 2003, "Sustainable tourism development: A critique", Journal of sustainable tourism, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 459-475. Longhurst, R. 2003, Semi-structured interviews and focus groups In N. Clifford, S. French & G. Valentine (eds.) Key Methods in Geography, 2nd edn, Sage: London, pp. 117-132. Mahony, K. & Van Zyl, J. 2002, "The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: three case studies in South Africa", Development Southern Africa, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 83-103. Mbaiwa, J.E. 2005, "Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana", Tourism Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 157-172. Mieczkowski, Z. 1995, Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. University Press of America, Lanham. Milne, S. & Ewing, G. 2004, Community participation in Caribbean tourism In Duval, D. T., Tourism in the Caribbean: trends, development, prospects, Routledge: London, 205-217
Student ID: 1255635
Page 63 of 66
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (no date). Registration Guidelines Homestay Programme Malaysia. Ministry of Tourism, Malaysia Mitchell, J. & Ashley, C. 2007, "Can tourism offer pro-poor pathways to prosperity? Examining evidence on the impact of tourism on poverty.", ODI Briefing Paper, no. 22. [pdf.] Available at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/110.pdf [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Mowforth, M. and I. Munt (1998) Tourism and Sustainability. London: Routledge Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development,
globalisation and new tourism in the Third World, London: Routledge
Mullings, B. (1999) Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum, 30(4), 337-350 Murphy, P.E. 1985, Tourism: A community approach, Routledge: Oxon. Mycoo, M. (2006) Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and green certification: A case study of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 489-511 Notzke, C. 1999, "Indigenous tourism development in the arctic", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 55-76. Pearce, D.G. 1997, "Competitive destination analysis in Southeast Asia", Journal of Travel Research, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 16-24. Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. In: W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. Zed: London, pp.116-131. Reed, M.G. (1997) Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research ,24 (3), 566–591. Richards, G. & Hall, D. 2000, "The community: A sustainable concept in tourism development", Tourism and sustainable community development, vol. 7, pp. 1-13. Ritchie, J. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Wallingford: Cabi Robinson, G. (1998) Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. Chichester: John Wiley Robson, C., (2002) Real World Research, 2nd edition, Blackwell: London Roe, D. & Urquhart, P. 2001, Pro-poor tourism: harnessing the world's largest industry for the world's poor, International Institute of Environment and Development, London. Rogerson, C.M. 2006, "Pro-poor local economic development in South Africa: The role of pro-poor tourism", Local Environment, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 37-60. Sabah State Government Homepage (2011) STATE OF SABAH LAND ACQUISITION ORDINANCE (Sabah Cap. 69) 2011. [Online]. Available: http://sabah.gov.my/phb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/LandAcquisitionOrdinance.pdf [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Sabah Tourism Board (STB) (2013). Sabah : Visitors Arrival by Nationality [Online]. Available: http://www.sabahtourism.com/sites/default/files/visitor-2013.pdf [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Sabah Tourism Board (STB) (2014). People and Culture. [Online]. Available: http://www.sabahhomestay.my/people-culture/ [Accessed on 1-7-2014]. Salganik, M.J. and Heckathorn, D.D (2004). "Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations Using Respondent-Driven Sampling". Sociological Methodology 34 (1): 193–239. Scheyvens, R. & Momsen, J.H. 2008, "Tourism and poverty reduction: issues for small island states", Tourism Geographies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 22-41.
Student ID: 1255635
Page 64 of 66
Scheyvens, R. 1999, "Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities", Tourism management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 245-249. Scheyvens, R. 2002, Tourism for development: Empowering Communities. Harlow: Pearson Education Scheyvens, R. 2007, "Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus", Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 231-254. Scheyvens, R. 2011, Tourism and poverty, Routledge, Oxon. Schilcher, D. 2007, "Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal governance", Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 166-193. Schmiechen, J. & Boyle, A. (2007) Aboriginal tourism research in Australia" in Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications In R. Butler & T. Hinch. (eds.) Tourism and Indigenous People: Issues and implications, Routledge: Oxon, pp. 58-72.
Schneider, A. & Zúniga‐Hamlin, R. 2005, "A strategic approach to rights: lessons from clientelism in Rural Peru", Development Policy Review, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 567-584. Scoones, I. (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171-196. Sebele, L.S. 2010, "Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama rhino sanctuary trust, central district, Botswana", Tourism Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 136-146. Sharpley, R. & Telfer, D.J. 2002, Tourism and development: Concepts and issues, Channel View Publications: Clevedon. Simpson, M.C. 2008, "Community benefit tourism initiatives—A conceptual oxymoron?", Tourism Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-18. Smith, V.L. & Eadington, W.R. 1992, Tourism alternatives: Potentials and problems in the development of tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia Sofield, T. H. B. (2003). Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, Elsevier Science Ltd.: Oxford Spenceley, A. & Goodwin, H. 2007, "Nature-based tourism and poverty alleviation: Impacts of private sector and parastatal enterprises in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa", Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 255-277. Stabler, M.J. 1997, Tourism and sustainability: principles to practice. Cab International, UK. Stronza, A. & Gordillo, J. 2008, "Community views of ecotourism", Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 448-468. Tao, T. C. H. and Wall, G. “Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy”, Tourism Management, 30(1), 90-98 Tao, T.C. 2006, Tourism as a Livelihood Strategy in Indigenous Communities: Case Studies from Taiwan , University of Waterloo. Telfer, D.J. & Sharpley, R. 2008, Tourism and development in the developing world, Routledge: UK Telfer, D.J. 2009, Development studies and tourism In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies, Sage Publications: London, pp. 146-165. Tharsis, C. 2012, Policies, Guidelines, and Potential of Tourism Opportunities in Sabah [Homepage of Ministry of Tourism Malaysia], [Online]. Available: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/uploads/events/Sabah04122012/MOTOUR.pdf [2014, 07/01].
Student ID: 1255635
Page 65 of 66
Tosun, C. (2006) “Expected nature of community participation in tourism development”, Tourism Management, 27(3), 493–504 Tosun, C. 2000, "Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries", Tourism management, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 613-633.
UN World Tourism Organisation. (2013). Tourism Highlights 2013. [pdf] Available: http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_en_hr.pdf . Last accessed 2 February 2014. UNEP&WTO. (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable- A Guide for Policy Makers. [pdf] Available: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0592xPA-TourismPolicyEN.pdf. [Last accessed 2 February 2014] Verbole, A. (2000) “Actors, Discourses and Interfaces of Rural Tourism Development at the local community level in Slovenia: Social and Political dimensions of the Rural Tourism Development Process”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(6), 479-490 Volpi, F. & Cavatorta, F. 2013, Democratization in the Muslim World: Changing Patterns of Authority and Power, Routledge: UK Weaver, D. 1998, The less developed world. CAB INTERNATIONAL: Wallingford. Weaver, D. 2001, "Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality?", The Cornell hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 104-112. Welsh, B. 2013, "Malaysia's Elections: A Step Backward", Journal of Democracy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 136-150. Williams, G. (2004) “Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re)politicisation”, Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 557-578 World Travel Tourism Council (2013) Economic Impact of Travel & Tourism 2013, Annual Update, Summary [pdf] Available: http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/Economic_Impact_of_TT_2013_Annual_Update_-_Summary.pdf Last accessed 2 February 2014. WWF Homepage (2004). The Kinabatangan Catchment - problems and opportunities for change [Online]. Available: http://wwf.panda.org/?12513/The-Kinabatangan-Catchment-problems-and-opportunities-for-change [Accessed on 1-7-2014] Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. Wallingford: CAB International Zhao, W. & Ritchie, J.B. (2007). Tourism and poverty alleviation: An integrative research framework In C. Hall (ed.) Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspective on Tourism and Poverty Reduction, Clevedon: Channel View Publications, pp. 119-143.
