Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia

Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental... 10.7603/s40930-015-0006-6 Multi-Dimensional Responsible R Asia-Pacific Journal of I ural Tourism Capacity (RR nnovation in Hospitality and TC) Framewor Tourism k: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and M APJIHT Vanagement M ol. 4 No. 1 Model for M arch 2015 pp alaysia . 93-109 ISSN 2289-1471 Review Paper Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Vikneswaran Nair, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Badaruddin Mohamed Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Lo May Chiun Universiti Sarawak Malaysia, Malaysia © The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by Taylor’s Press. Abstract: Malaysia is regarded as a heaven for ecotourism and natural resources. Nonetheless, the very concept of ecotourism is confused with massive “greenwashing” that is destroying many pristine destinations especially in the rural settings. Various tourism models emphasising on the environment have been developed in the past in Malaysia with no holistic understanding of their impact to the natural environment. With this challenge in mind, this paper aims to understand and propose an environmental model that is able to balance the natural and economic environment in line with Malaysia’s Economic Transformation Programme where rural tourism is expected to alleviate from a low-yield to a high-yield economy. This will be achieved by developing suitable indicators to make the rural tourism business model sustainable. The first three years of the five year research (2011-2016) were involved in developing the fundamental aspects of the study, with emphasis on the establishment of baseline data and carrying out situational analyses at the ten selected study areas to help develop the indicators. The final two years will evaluate the performance of these sites using the developed indicators. Hence, this fundamental study is necessary to understand the various dimensions that are essential in investigating the relationships between different tourism models and how they are closely linked to the local economies and environments in key “natural” destinations in Malaysia. Keywords: Rural tourism, responsible tourism, sustainable tourism, environment management, multi-dimensional Correspondence: Vikneswaran Nair, Taylor’s University. Email: vicky.nair@taylors.edu.my APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 94 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Suggested citation: Nair, V., Mohamed, B. & Lo, M.C. (2015). Multi-dimensional responsible rural tourism capacity (RRTC) framework: A proposed environmental responsibility and management model for Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism , 4(1), 93-109. Introduction Intense development of tourism across the globe including Asia has resulted in considerable impact to the natural world. According to reports from DEAT (2003), these effects vary from the visual developmental impact of resort and hotel complexes, to air and noise pollution, resulting from augmented traffic, contamination of water supplies and loss of natural habitats. Tourism has to a certain extent played a role in destroying the natural environment (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005). This situation is alarming as tourism establishments that fail to protect their environmental surroundings will lose the very attractions on which the establishment most depend on for their livelihood. This includes clean air, safe water and beautiful surroundings. Thus, any tourism establishment operating in a fragile nature-based ecosystem has a particular responsibility towards its natural environment in terms of ensuring the management and conservation of ecologically-sensitive land, habitat and biodiversity. Most tourism establishments that embrace good environmental practices inevitably contribute to the quality of their surroundings (DEAT, 2003; Hua & Walla, 2005; Leea, Hsub, Hanc & Kimd, 2010), hence improving the experience for guests and the living standards of local communities. By managing well waste and water treatment, an establishment can create a safer environment for its employees and the surrounding local communities as this reduces illness and enhances the quality of life. Furthermore, good environmental practices translate into direct cost savings by reducing energy and water bills as well as sewage treatment and waste disposal costs (Priego, Najera & Font, 2011; Duim & Marwijk, 2006; Todd & Williams, 1996). In terms of the bottom line, good environmental practices make perfect economic sense (Nair, 2010a). Hence, tourism industries globally have shown interest in becoming “green”. According to Nair (2003, 2010a), over the past years, the tourism industry’s interest in appearing to be “sustainable” or “green” has increased exponentially. If managed well, tourism is a profitable business, yet the industry is stressing the environment and the local communities in terms of social impact (Andereck et al., 2005). Subsequently, more and more responsible tourists across the globe are demanding for a “green-vacation” (Duim & Marwijk, 2006). Thus, it raises the question if the evolution of the tourism industry has reached the tipping point that is stressing the environment. Can we still consider “eco-tourism” and “green-tourism” APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 95 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia to be sustainable or responsible? Hence, what does “responsible tourism” really mean in the context of a rural setting? How can it be measured and credibly demonstrated in order to build tourist confidence, promote efficiency and high yield as well as fight false claims (greenwashing) in an eco-rich country like Malaysia? With this challenge in mind, this paper aims to understand and propose an environmental model that is able to balance the natural and economic dimensions in line with Malaysia’s Economic Transformation Programme (PEMANDU, 2010) where rural tourism is expected to alleviate the economy from a low-yield to a high- yield. Clear indicators and measurement for effective control and result-driven tools can be developed to ensure that the model is financially feasible, provides benefits beyond the pockets of the shareholders, sustainable and is effectively informing and educating both the local community and the tourists. Literature Review Rural Development in Malaysia Tourism has played a key role in rural development across the globe (Pakurar & Olah, 2008; Konyves, 2001), including Malaysia. The Ministry of Rural and Regional Development of Malaysia classifies rural areas as an area having less than 10,000 people (Jaafar, 2004). Rural tourism was introduced as a new form of tourism during the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996 – 2000) (EPU, 1996). This development plan emphasised the national rural development agenda in creating employment opportunities, increasing income levels and reducing poverty among rural people who comprised 37% of the total population. Rural tourism has indeed contributed significantly in terms of income generation to the country. In 2011, US$5 million was generated from the homestay programme, which is among the most popular rural tourism offerings in Malaysia (“Tourism for growth”, 2012). The rural tourism products in Malaysia include homestays, eco or nature tourism, agro-tourism, cultural and heritage-based tourism. Among these, the homestay programmes have been a success. To date, there are a total of approximately 159 villages with 3,424 homestays licensed under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Malaysia, spread all over the country in every state (Tourism Malaysia, 2012). According to Borneo Press (“Homestay tourism.....”, 2012), the homestay programme which surpassed its target of 23% occupancy rate, had thus far achieved more than 32% since it was introduced in 1995. In 2012, the total number of tourists who chose homestays increased by 55% in the first six months of the year compared to 2011. The total homestay programme revenue between January and June 2012 was RM8,710,526 million, which is an increase of 45.2% compared to the same period in 2011 (“Homestay tourism.....”, 2012). In 2012, the revenue from the homestay programme increased by 26.78% to APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 96 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun RM15.7 mil in 2011 (“Land of the hornbills….”, 2013). The report further showed that during the same period, tourist participation in the programme also increased by 29.8% to 254,981 people. In terms of tourist arrivals, the programme saw an increase of 21.6% – from 161,561 tourists in 2009 to 196,472 in 2010. Green Tourism and Responsible Tourism Pleumarom (1995) reported that green tourism is the fastest growing sub-sector of the tourism industry. Today, two decades later, green tourism is still the catchphrase for all tourism businesses. Similarly, eco-tourism is the fastest growing form of tourism in Malaysia, currently making up about 10% of the country’s tourism revenue (Kaur, 2010). Nonetheless, there are well-grounded apprehensions that greenwashing is instead slowly overshadowing the fragile eco-tourism industry (Yanarella, Levine & Lancaster, 2009; Friedman, 2008; Greer & Bruno, 1997). Even the concept of responsible tourism still appears to be lacking in adequate scientific fundamentals, and may not be a viable solution to the global environmental problem if not executed well. In principle, responsible tourism simply means vacations that care about local communities and culture as well as wildlife and environmental conservation (Nair, 2010a). This is particularly important where the focus of the tourism sector and activities is the fragile natural environment. Making this fragile natural environment sustainable is a challenge for the industry. Only by underpinning the sustainable environmental practices with responsible tourism development (DEAT, 2002) can the industry truly face its challenges. Hence, the process of integrating responsible tourism business with environmental management can be done from conceptualisation to decommissioning in the project life cycle. Subsequently, tourism enterprises can be committed to responsible tourism by being selective in purchasing decisions, i.e. by only supporting responsible suppliers and producers and simultaneously, educating clients on their responsible purchasing policy. In short, the environment is a major dimension that needs to be considered throughout tourism planning and development for responsible tourism. ICRT and GTA (2006) highlighted the principles of environmental management by incorporating the following: (a) identifying environmental problems and threats related to existing tourism developments and (b) assessing alternative strategies and evaluating or quantifying their likely environmental impact. Further to this, the number of studies focussing on the environmental dimension in responsible tourism has increased over the past few years. These studies were scoped based on drivers and barriers (Raviv, Becken & Hughey, 2013); governance (Hall, 2012); implementation plan (Brookes, Altinay & Ringham, 2014); new theories and concepts (Taillon, 2012; Raman, 2014); cost effect (Sirima & Ladslaus, 2012); tourist perception and APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 97 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia attitude (Subramanian & Madasamy, 2013; Fatin, Amirah & Khairani, 2014); and tourist behaviour (Stanford, 2014). Nonetheless, there are limited studies on the monitoring mechanism for responsible rural tourism destination that focuses on the efficient and effective management of the environment. The lack of a monitoring mechanism may result in major environmental disasters as witnessed in the many landslides that have taken place in eco-sensitive tourist destinations in Malaysia (Hong & Chan, 2010; “Heavy rains….”, 2014; “Landslides reported…..”, 2014). In Malaysia, the overuse of the terminology associated with the prefix “eco”, which denotes “being green” or “environmental friendly”, may not necessarily mean being “hip”, “cool” and “friendly” to the environment. Many unscrupulous tourism enterprises merely pay lip service to environmentalism and use it as a marketing and public relations tool (Greer & Bruno, 1997). Nonetheless, with more and more tourists being well-informed of what they can expect from responsible travel, the trend is slowly changing where the market has to respond to these eco-tourists’ expectations or face closure. Redefining Sustainable Tourism and Development Models Over the last century, nations around the globe fuelled their economic growth using their abundant natural resources (Duim & Markwijk, 2006). Tourism development was no different. Many developing nations bulldozed their way to growth and development at a pace where natural regeneration/recovery was not possible. No thought was put into the consequences of overconsumption or overexploitation of the natural resources that attracted tourists to visit in the first place. Nonetheless, it is critical to understand the environmental impacts that are changing the way the tourism industry functions. Tourism resources are depleting, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is indeed going up (Nair, 2010a). All of this requires rethinking on the various models of sustainable development that should have worked in theory but has failed in reality. After the failed United Nations Climate Change Summits in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, and subsequently in Cancun, Mexico (in 2010) (Nair, 2010b), and the Durban, South Africa summit (in 2011), we have to face the following reality as outlined by Chambers, Simmons & Wackernagel (2000) a decade ago: (1) Mankind must halt the decline in biodiversity and learn to leave in harmony with other species; (2) Mankind must eliminate poverty and inequality whilst providing an acceptable quality of life for all; (3) Mankind must feed the global population predicted to double its size at the turn of this century; and (4) Mankind must harness sufficient energy to power global economies without damaging the environment. Under the umbrella term of “sustainable development”, these four big questions raised by Chambers are still relevant today. As further added by Goore (2000), APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 98 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun living beyond the ecological means will surely lead to the degradation of homes and suffering of human well-being. Over the decade, many scholars have tried in vain to measure the ecological and environmental impact due to intense development. Datschefski (1999) outlined “Six S’s of Sustainability to Save the World” (Figure 1). SCALE SOLAR SYCLIC The scale of the human The power source of the Or “Cyclic”. If economy must not future is the sun we do not recycle exceed the capacity of our wastes, we will the biosphere deplete our resources and accumulate our pollution SHARED SAFE SEXY Or “Equity”. Nature’s No activity should No one wants to live in wealth should be shared compromise the health a world without fun! rather than hoarded by of all living organisms a minority Figure 1. Six S’s to Save the World The 1970s model developed by Ehrlich and Holdren (as cited in Chertow, 2001) introduced the IPAT Model (Figure 2). Figure 2. IPAT MODEL This model outlines the relationship between environmental impact, number of consumers, affluence (or level of consumption) and technological efficiency in delivering a particular product/service, where consumption is the product of affluence and technology. In short, the amount of fuel used to travel a certain distance depends on both the mode of transport and the efficiency of that form of travel. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 99 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Many aspects of the human quality of life are also a function of this consumption as indicated in Figure 3 by Chambers et al. (2000). Figure 3. Human Quality of Life is a function of Consumption Many models of sustainable development tend to focus on the economy being treated as the sole priority “bottom line” in the belief that the society and environment exist to serve the economy rather than the other way around (Figure 4a). On the contrary, the “Russian Dolls” model of sustainability (O’Riordan, 1998), places the economy in a more supportive position with social and environmental factors taking more leading roles (Figure 4b). This model upholds the basic principle that all economic activities should be geared towards social progress and that this must be achieved within environmental limits. (a) The Traditional model versus, (b) the Russian Dolls model Figure 4. Environment, society & economy APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 100 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun In short, sustainability is basically the capacity to endure. This is important for achieving quality of life. All progress and development including tourism can only be sustainable if the current state can be understood. Subsequently, the direction to move is decided based upon the previous audit and how a mechanism to indicate the success is measured and monitored closely. Figure 5 represents four possible situations in achieving quality of life within the means of nature. Figure 5. Quality of life versus natural capital For tourism development, Zone A is depicted when tourism development projects are kept off-limits to the local community. It may be ecologically sustainable but it is unlikely to be socially sustainable. Zone B, on the other hand, is where poverty results in further degradation. Excessive deforestation will lead to the loss of groundwater supplies that communities rely on. This is evident in many developing nations that are exploiting local communities and their natural habitats. Many rich nations fall in Zone C whereby a high standard of living is achieved but the natural capital and environment are degraded. Malaysia needs to manage its tourism industry carefully to avoid falling into the much dreaded Zone C. Finally, Zone D is the equilibrium where high quality of life is achieved with tourism development that does not degrade the natural environment. In summary, successful sustainable tourism development can happen in any move from Zone A, B or C towards Zone D. Hence, the equilibrium Zone D basically ensures that the scale of the economy does not exceed the scale of biosphere. A similar evaluation was carried out by Colladosa APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 101 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia and Duaneb’s study in 1999. Hence, the carrying capacity and limit of acceptable change becomes critical in balancing the quality of life and natural capital. Having a tool to measure the overall use of nature and people’s impact on the environment will be useful in gauging the impact of tourism development on mankind (Nair, 2003). Based on these aspirations, the ecological footprint was introduced. Despite all the well-thought models of sustainability and high ideals since 1992, the world has actually regressed in terms of sustainable development. There are many challenges facing developing countries in moving their economies to more environment-friendly ones. As highlighted by UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2010 (UNEP, 2010): It is easy to mouth the words sustainable development, but to make it happen, we have to be prepared to make major changes - in our lifestyles, our economic models, our social organization and our political life. All economic activities have some form of impact on the surrounding environment. Uncontrolled use of finite resources will result in total extinction of ecosystems, flora and fauna. Hence, despite the various evolution of sustainable models across the globe as well as mounting investment and awareness in environmental protection, pressure on ecosystems and natural resources continue to increase rapidly. The indiscriminate exploitation of nature by humans especially in the largest industry of the world, tourism, has reached every corner of the natural world. Intense tourism development has indeed brought massive benefits to human welfare. However, the upshot of this growing human domination of the planet is that there is now no ecosystem that is free from pervasive human influence. Change is vital if our future generations are to experience the environment as we do today. Developing a Local Framework Developing a holistic environmental model committed to the conservation of biodiversity and natural heritage, responsible use of natural resources, as well as the prevention of pollution and waste, is essential for an effective local model. The new responsible framework will ensure the optimal use of resources and simultaneously, maintain the balanced ecological processes that can help conserve natural heritage. The fundamental indicators that will be extracted from the current practices will track changes in key environmental components of the tourism industry, report the achievements of sustainability goals and measure environmental impacts of the tourism industry over time. These indicators will provide a snapshot of the impacts of the tourism industry on the environment and the industry’s response to environmental issues. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 102 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun The proposed model is segmented into two subprogrammes – Responsible Tourism Framework (RTF) and Carrying Capacity Framework (CCF). These two frameworks address the three pillars of sustainable development - the economy, social and the environment (Figure 6). Figure 6. General project framework For the first subprogramme, the study sought to develop the fundamental knowledge in understanding economic, social and environmental responsibilities, their indicators and models in rural tourism destinations selected as case studies. All stakeholder perspectives are investigated using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Based on this fundamental knowledge, a tourism barometer to assess and monitor the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of rural tourism destinations using an integrated decision support system is structured. The new responsible model will ensure the optimal use of resources and simultaneously, maintain balanced ecological processes that can help in the conservation of natural heritage. The fundamental indicators that will be extracted from the current practices will track changes in key economic, social and environmental components of the tourism industry, report the achievements of the sustainability goals and measure the impacts of the tourism industry over time. Thus, the environmental dimensions play an integral role for both the RTF and CCF as outlined in Figure 7. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 103 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Figure 7. General conceptual framework of project Thus, this framework will be able to tackle the following research questions: (1) What are the stakeholders’ perspectives on environmental responsibility in rural tourism destinations? (2) What are the environmentally-responsible indicators for rural tourism destinations? (3) What are the environmentally-responsible impacts of rural tourism destinations? and (4) How to monitor and manage the environmental responsibility of rural tourism destinations? There are a range of methods and analysis for collecting information about outcome systems. Outcome systems are any systems used for identifying outcomes, measuring them and holding relevant parties accountable for their achievement (Duignan, 2003). There are a range of methods for collecting information and monitoring at different phases of the project. The research design to accomplish environmental responsibility and management framework comprises of 3 phases: (1) The Intelligent phase; (2) Design phase; and (3) Choice phase (Figure 8). Figure 8. Three (3) phases of the environmental responsibility framework APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 104 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun 1. Phase 1: The Intelligent phase. In this phase, the decision-making problem is identified based on stakeholders’ perspectives and literature review. Some of the tasks that would be carried out in this phase include: (a) Conducting search and scanning procedures; (b) Identifying problems; (c) Determining the ownership of the problem; and (d) Presenting the problem statement. Information gathering for this phase would be done through extant literature search and inductive research techniques to elicit information from the ground. The inductive research will include workshops, focus groups, in-depth interviews (to investigate the why and how of decision making) and Delphi approach. A thematic analysis using N-Vivo would be carried out to understand stakeholders’ perspectives on the environmental responsibilities of rural tourism. 2. Phase 2: Design phase. In this phase, the alternatives are identified and criteria are established. The following are the required tasks in this phase: (a) Identify alternatives (have an initial list and later revise the list. Here the various environmental responsibilities for rural tourism options are identified); (b) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) would be used for benchmarking and developing a robust performance index for environmental responsibilities of rural tourism; (c) DEA is generated from the data set of observed operative units, Decision Making Units (DMU) (tourism stakeholders that are involved in businesses, government agencies and non-governmental organizations). The performance index and benchmarking of the environmental responsibilities for rural tourism can be computed through the DEA analysis. The sets of indicators for tracking environmental responsibility are identified and selected based on the analysis above. The selected indicators will be used to index and measure the environmental responsibility of all stakeholders. The indicators used will be classified according to the three levels of priority – low, medium and high. 3. Phase 3: The Choice phase. In this phase, all the possible alternatives identified would be evaluated. The evaluation would be based on the decision analysis model selected. In this research, the multi-criteria decision approach would be used to carry out the evaluation. The following are the initial tasks identified for this phase: (a) An exploratory factor analysis will be carried out to develop scales for environmental responsibilities for rural tourism; (b) Self-administered questionnaires will be distributed based on the scales developed; (c) A confirmatory factor analysis would be conducted to confirm the validity of the developed scales; (d) The evaluation would be based on the structural equation model (SEM) developed based on the multi-criteria decision framework; (e) SEM will be used to establish environmental responsibilities for rural tourism framework; (f ) The framework derived from the SEM approach is then presented with the validation outcomes. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 105 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Field data collection will be carried out in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. In-depth data collection will be carried out at locations that are selected based on their compliance to the definition of “rural tourism” - rural location, rural culture, rural resources used, rural activities, local resources used and being managed by the local community (Könyves, 2001; Pakurar & Olah, 2008). Site selection is also done according to the various levels of development, types of ecosystem, tourist type/number and management authority who is responsible for overseeing the rural tourism site. The following 10 sites are selected for the in-depth analyses (Table 1). Table 1.Ten study sites Site Type of ecosystem 1. Bario, Kelabit Highlands, Sarawak. Montane, terrestrial 2. Lower Kinabatangan River, Sandakan Terrestrial, primary forest (Sukau, Bilit, Batu Puteh etc.), Sabah 3. Taman Negara, Pahang Terrestrial, primary rainforest 4. Setiu Wetland, Terengganu Mangrove, secondary forest 5. Gopeng Ecoadventure Corridor (Gopeng Recreation forest Town, Gopeng Homestay, Sg. Kampar Water Rafting, Ulu Geroh Aboriginal Settlement), Perak 6. Pulau Mabul/Sipadan, Sabah Island 7. Pulau Perhentian, Terengganu Island 8. Sg. Kilim Geopark, Langkawi Island 9. Royal Belum Temenggor, Perak Terrestrial, primary rainforest 10. Kuala Selangor, Selangor (Kuala Selangor Mangrove, terrestial, secondary forest Firefly, Kuala Selangor Nature Park) An analytical framework will be developed using various models to assess and monitor the performance of each site. The data created here will be used in developing the tourism barometer which will then produce the necessary input for the integrated management system for managing the multi-dimensional responsible rural tourism capacity framework. Significance of the Study In line with Malaysia’s goal to achieve high-income-nation status by 2020 (PEMANDU, 2010), the Tourism Transformation Plan 2020 with 12 New Key Economic Areas (NKEA) in the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), has a bullish target of achieving 36 million tourist arrivals and RM168 billion (US$48 billion) in tourism receipt by 2020. By then, it is projected that tourism will be the most important income contributor for the nation. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 106 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Hence, the development of a sustainable rural tourism is dependent on fulfilling the objectives of all stakeholders in the system. The proposed framework will be able to balance the natural and economic environments. The three main outcomes that are projected from this study are as follows: (1) Fundamental knowledge on rural tourism that will be collected through the various models and indicators that can be used to measure responsible tourism and carrying capacity; (2) A rural tourism performance index that will be developed based on the sustainability dimensions of economic, sociocultural and environment; and (3) A framework for a national integrated management system for responsible rural tourism capacity. Thus, the interrelationships among the stakeholders will be identified since each stakeholder’s needs may be different from others. Thus, it is imperative to have a holistic understanding of the impact of rural tourism development plans on key natural destinations especially small-medium enterprises that make up 75% of the tourism industry in Malaysia. Thus, this proposed study is essential if the tourism industry in Malaysia is to move towards high yield. Acknowledgement This research was funded by Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia under Long Term Research Grant Scheme (LRGS) Programme 2011, Reference No.: JPT.S (BPKI)2000/09/01/015Jld.4(67). Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. References Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. & Vogt, C.A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. Brookes, M., Altinay, L., & Ringham, K. (2014). Successful implementation of responsible business practice. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 77–84. doi:10.1108/ whatt-10-2013-0044 Chambers, N., Simmons, C. & Wackernagel (2000). Sharing nature’s interest: Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London, UK : Earthscan Publication Ltd. Chertow, M.R. (2001). The IPAT equation and its variants. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4), 13–31. Colladosa, C. & Duaneb, T.P . (1999). Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economics, 30(3), 441–460. Datschefski. E. (1999). Bio-thinking international. Retrieved from http://www.biothinking. com. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 107 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (2002). National responsible tourism development guidelines for South Africa: Provisional guidelines. South Africa: DEAT Publications. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (2003). Responsible tourism handbook: A guide to good practice for tourism operators. South Africa: DEAT Publications. Duignan, P. (2003). Approaches and terminology in programme and policy evaluation. In N. Lunt, C. Davidson & K. McKegg (Eds.), Evaluating policy and practice. Auckland: Pearson Education. Duim, R.V.D. & Marwijk, R.V. (2006). The implementation of an environmental management system for Dutch tour operators: An actor-network perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 449–472. Economic Planning Unit (EPU). (1996). Seventh Malaysia Plan: 1996-2000. KL : Prime Minister’s Department. Fatin, H., Amirah, A., & Khairani, N. (2014). Determinants of tourist perception towards responsible tourism: A study at Malacca world heritage site. S.M. Radzi, M.F.S. Bakhtiar, Z. Mohi, M.S. Mohd Zahari, N, Sumarjan, Chik, C.T. & F.I. Anuar (Eds.), Theory and practices in hospitality and tourism research (pp. 269-273). Oxford: CRC Press Friedman, T. (2008). Hot, flat, and crowded: Why we need a green revolution and how it can renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus Goore, A. (2000). Earth in the balance. London, UK: Earthscan Publication Ltd. Greer, J. & Bruno, K. (1997). Greenwash: The reality behind corporate environmentalism . New York : Apex Press. Hall, C. M. (2012). Governance and responsible tourism. In Leslie, D. (Ed.), Responsible tourism: concepts, theory and practice (pp. 107-118). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Heavy rains cause mud flood in Camerons, one dead. (2014, November 2). The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/11/06/Mud-flood-camerons/ Homestay tourism – a burgeoning sector in attracting more tourists. (2012, September 23). Borneo Press. Retrieved from http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/09/23/homestay- tourism-a-burgeoning-sector-in-attracting-more-tourists/ Hong, C.W. & Chan, N.W. (2010). The potentials, threats and challenges in sustainable development of Penang National Park. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 11(2), 95–109. Hua, W. & Walla, G. (2005). Environmental management, environmental image and the competitive tourist attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 617–635. International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) and Gauteng Tourism Authority (GTA). (2006). Gauteng tourism responsible-tourism manual. Johannesburg, South Africa: Gauteng Tourism Authority Publications. Jaafar, J. (2004). Emerging trends of urbanisation in Malaysia. Journal of the Department of Statistics Malaysia, 1, 43-54. Kaur, E. (2010). Marine park eco-tourism in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://ecomalaysia.org/ node/13. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 108 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Könyves, E. (2001). The role of rural tourism in Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok: County rural development (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Debrecen, Hungary. Land of the hornbills yet to soar. (2013, February 15). New Straits Times. Retrieved from http:// www2.nst.com.my/nation/general/cover-story-land-of-the-hornbills-yet-to-soar-1.218237 Landslides reported in Cameron Highlands. (2014, December 23). The Rakyat Post. Retrieved from http://www.therakyatpost.com/newRaks/2014/12/23/landslides-reported-cameron- highlands Leea, J.S., Hsub, L.T., Hanc, H. & Kimd, Y. (2010). Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 901–914. Nair, V. (2010a). Greening tourism: Moving towards responsible tourism. IMPAK: Quarterly DOE Update on Environment, Development & Sustainability, 2, pp. 12-13. Nair, V. (2010b). From Copenhagen to Cancun: A new climate deal reached! IMPAK: Quarterly DOE Update on Environment, Development and Sustainability, p. 4. Nair, V., Daud, M., Badaie, M.Z. & Mohd, A. (2003). ASP approach in ecotourism rating expert system. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 11(1), 119–133. O’Riordan (1998). Indicators for sustainable development. Proceedings of the European Commission (Environment and Climate Programme) Advanced Study Course, 5th – 12th July 1997, Delft, The Netherlands. Pakurar, M., & Olah, J. (2008). Definition of rural tourism and its characteristics in the Northern Great Plain Region. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Fascicula: Ecotoxicologie, Zootehnie şi Tehnologii de Industrie Alimentară, 7, 255–260. Performance Management and Development Unit (PEMANDU) (2010). Economic Transformation Programme: A road map for Malaysia. KL: PM’s Office. Pleumarom, A. (1995). Eco-tourism or eco-terrorism? Environmental Justice Networker, 6. Priego, M.J.B., Najera, J.J. & Font, X. (2011). Environmental management decision-making in certified hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 361–381. Raman, S. (2014). Responsible innovation: from concept to practice. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 329–331. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.971682 Raviv, C., Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Exploring values, drivers, and barriers as antecedents of implementing responsible tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. doi:10.1177/1096348013491607. Sirima, A. & Ladslaus, M. (2012). Unlocking opportunities for displaced communities: Can tourism offset conservation costs? Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1), 65–84. Stanford, D. (2014). Responsible tourist behaviour. Tourism Management, 43, 4–5. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.006 Subramanian, Y.R. & Madasamy, J. (2013). A structural model of stakeholders’ attitude towards rural tourism development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 145–169. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 109 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Taillon, J. M. (2012). Responsible hospitality: Theory and practice. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1282–1284. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.01.012 Tourism for growth. (2012, April 22). The Star , pp.29-30. Tourism Malaysia (2012). Malaysia’s homestay programme wins the UNWTO 2012 Ulysses Awards. KL: Tourism Malaysia. Todd, S.E. & Williams, P.W. (1996). From white to green: A proposed environmental management system framework for ski areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(3), 147– United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2010). Ban calls for a green economy as crucial for a sustainable future. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/newscentre Yanarella, E.J., Levine, R.S. & Lancaster, R.W. (2009). Green versus sustainability. Sustainability, 2(5), 296–302. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism (APJIHT) Springer Journals

Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/multi-dimensional-responsible-rural-tourism-capacity-rrtc-framework-a-3WeQI6Rj7b

References (45)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 by Center for Research and Innovation in Tourism, Hospitality and Food Studies (CRiT), School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
Subject
Humanities / Arts; Humanities, general
eISSN
2289-1471
DOI
10.7603/s40930-015-0006-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

10.7603/s40930-015-0006-6 Multi-Dimensional Responsible R Asia-Pacific Journal of I ural Tourism Capacity (RR nnovation in Hospitality and TC) Framewor Tourism k: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and M APJIHT Vanagement M ol. 4 No. 1 Model for M arch 2015 pp alaysia . 93-109 ISSN 2289-1471 Review Paper Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Vikneswaran Nair, Taylor’s University, Malaysia Badaruddin Mohamed Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Lo May Chiun Universiti Sarawak Malaysia, Malaysia © The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by Taylor’s Press. Abstract: Malaysia is regarded as a heaven for ecotourism and natural resources. Nonetheless, the very concept of ecotourism is confused with massive “greenwashing” that is destroying many pristine destinations especially in the rural settings. Various tourism models emphasising on the environment have been developed in the past in Malaysia with no holistic understanding of their impact to the natural environment. With this challenge in mind, this paper aims to understand and propose an environmental model that is able to balance the natural and economic environment in line with Malaysia’s Economic Transformation Programme where rural tourism is expected to alleviate from a low-yield to a high-yield economy. This will be achieved by developing suitable indicators to make the rural tourism business model sustainable. The first three years of the five year research (2011-2016) were involved in developing the fundamental aspects of the study, with emphasis on the establishment of baseline data and carrying out situational analyses at the ten selected study areas to help develop the indicators. The final two years will evaluate the performance of these sites using the developed indicators. Hence, this fundamental study is necessary to understand the various dimensions that are essential in investigating the relationships between different tourism models and how they are closely linked to the local economies and environments in key “natural” destinations in Malaysia. Keywords: Rural tourism, responsible tourism, sustainable tourism, environment management, multi-dimensional Correspondence: Vikneswaran Nair, Taylor’s University. Email: vicky.nair@taylors.edu.my APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 94 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Suggested citation: Nair, V., Mohamed, B. & Lo, M.C. (2015). Multi-dimensional responsible rural tourism capacity (RRTC) framework: A proposed environmental responsibility and management model for Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism , 4(1), 93-109. Introduction Intense development of tourism across the globe including Asia has resulted in considerable impact to the natural world. According to reports from DEAT (2003), these effects vary from the visual developmental impact of resort and hotel complexes, to air and noise pollution, resulting from augmented traffic, contamination of water supplies and loss of natural habitats. Tourism has to a certain extent played a role in destroying the natural environment (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf & Vogt, 2005). This situation is alarming as tourism establishments that fail to protect their environmental surroundings will lose the very attractions on which the establishment most depend on for their livelihood. This includes clean air, safe water and beautiful surroundings. Thus, any tourism establishment operating in a fragile nature-based ecosystem has a particular responsibility towards its natural environment in terms of ensuring the management and conservation of ecologically-sensitive land, habitat and biodiversity. Most tourism establishments that embrace good environmental practices inevitably contribute to the quality of their surroundings (DEAT, 2003; Hua & Walla, 2005; Leea, Hsub, Hanc & Kimd, 2010), hence improving the experience for guests and the living standards of local communities. By managing well waste and water treatment, an establishment can create a safer environment for its employees and the surrounding local communities as this reduces illness and enhances the quality of life. Furthermore, good environmental practices translate into direct cost savings by reducing energy and water bills as well as sewage treatment and waste disposal costs (Priego, Najera & Font, 2011; Duim & Marwijk, 2006; Todd & Williams, 1996). In terms of the bottom line, good environmental practices make perfect economic sense (Nair, 2010a). Hence, tourism industries globally have shown interest in becoming “green”. According to Nair (2003, 2010a), over the past years, the tourism industry’s interest in appearing to be “sustainable” or “green” has increased exponentially. If managed well, tourism is a profitable business, yet the industry is stressing the environment and the local communities in terms of social impact (Andereck et al., 2005). Subsequently, more and more responsible tourists across the globe are demanding for a “green-vacation” (Duim & Marwijk, 2006). Thus, it raises the question if the evolution of the tourism industry has reached the tipping point that is stressing the environment. Can we still consider “eco-tourism” and “green-tourism” APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 95 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia to be sustainable or responsible? Hence, what does “responsible tourism” really mean in the context of a rural setting? How can it be measured and credibly demonstrated in order to build tourist confidence, promote efficiency and high yield as well as fight false claims (greenwashing) in an eco-rich country like Malaysia? With this challenge in mind, this paper aims to understand and propose an environmental model that is able to balance the natural and economic dimensions in line with Malaysia’s Economic Transformation Programme (PEMANDU, 2010) where rural tourism is expected to alleviate the economy from a low-yield to a high- yield. Clear indicators and measurement for effective control and result-driven tools can be developed to ensure that the model is financially feasible, provides benefits beyond the pockets of the shareholders, sustainable and is effectively informing and educating both the local community and the tourists. Literature Review Rural Development in Malaysia Tourism has played a key role in rural development across the globe (Pakurar & Olah, 2008; Konyves, 2001), including Malaysia. The Ministry of Rural and Regional Development of Malaysia classifies rural areas as an area having less than 10,000 people (Jaafar, 2004). Rural tourism was introduced as a new form of tourism during the Seventh Malaysia Plan (1996 – 2000) (EPU, 1996). This development plan emphasised the national rural development agenda in creating employment opportunities, increasing income levels and reducing poverty among rural people who comprised 37% of the total population. Rural tourism has indeed contributed significantly in terms of income generation to the country. In 2011, US$5 million was generated from the homestay programme, which is among the most popular rural tourism offerings in Malaysia (“Tourism for growth”, 2012). The rural tourism products in Malaysia include homestays, eco or nature tourism, agro-tourism, cultural and heritage-based tourism. Among these, the homestay programmes have been a success. To date, there are a total of approximately 159 villages with 3,424 homestays licensed under the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Malaysia, spread all over the country in every state (Tourism Malaysia, 2012). According to Borneo Press (“Homestay tourism.....”, 2012), the homestay programme which surpassed its target of 23% occupancy rate, had thus far achieved more than 32% since it was introduced in 1995. In 2012, the total number of tourists who chose homestays increased by 55% in the first six months of the year compared to 2011. The total homestay programme revenue between January and June 2012 was RM8,710,526 million, which is an increase of 45.2% compared to the same period in 2011 (“Homestay tourism.....”, 2012). In 2012, the revenue from the homestay programme increased by 26.78% to APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 96 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun RM15.7 mil in 2011 (“Land of the hornbills….”, 2013). The report further showed that during the same period, tourist participation in the programme also increased by 29.8% to 254,981 people. In terms of tourist arrivals, the programme saw an increase of 21.6% – from 161,561 tourists in 2009 to 196,472 in 2010. Green Tourism and Responsible Tourism Pleumarom (1995) reported that green tourism is the fastest growing sub-sector of the tourism industry. Today, two decades later, green tourism is still the catchphrase for all tourism businesses. Similarly, eco-tourism is the fastest growing form of tourism in Malaysia, currently making up about 10% of the country’s tourism revenue (Kaur, 2010). Nonetheless, there are well-grounded apprehensions that greenwashing is instead slowly overshadowing the fragile eco-tourism industry (Yanarella, Levine & Lancaster, 2009; Friedman, 2008; Greer & Bruno, 1997). Even the concept of responsible tourism still appears to be lacking in adequate scientific fundamentals, and may not be a viable solution to the global environmental problem if not executed well. In principle, responsible tourism simply means vacations that care about local communities and culture as well as wildlife and environmental conservation (Nair, 2010a). This is particularly important where the focus of the tourism sector and activities is the fragile natural environment. Making this fragile natural environment sustainable is a challenge for the industry. Only by underpinning the sustainable environmental practices with responsible tourism development (DEAT, 2002) can the industry truly face its challenges. Hence, the process of integrating responsible tourism business with environmental management can be done from conceptualisation to decommissioning in the project life cycle. Subsequently, tourism enterprises can be committed to responsible tourism by being selective in purchasing decisions, i.e. by only supporting responsible suppliers and producers and simultaneously, educating clients on their responsible purchasing policy. In short, the environment is a major dimension that needs to be considered throughout tourism planning and development for responsible tourism. ICRT and GTA (2006) highlighted the principles of environmental management by incorporating the following: (a) identifying environmental problems and threats related to existing tourism developments and (b) assessing alternative strategies and evaluating or quantifying their likely environmental impact. Further to this, the number of studies focussing on the environmental dimension in responsible tourism has increased over the past few years. These studies were scoped based on drivers and barriers (Raviv, Becken & Hughey, 2013); governance (Hall, 2012); implementation plan (Brookes, Altinay & Ringham, 2014); new theories and concepts (Taillon, 2012; Raman, 2014); cost effect (Sirima & Ladslaus, 2012); tourist perception and APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 97 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia attitude (Subramanian & Madasamy, 2013; Fatin, Amirah & Khairani, 2014); and tourist behaviour (Stanford, 2014). Nonetheless, there are limited studies on the monitoring mechanism for responsible rural tourism destination that focuses on the efficient and effective management of the environment. The lack of a monitoring mechanism may result in major environmental disasters as witnessed in the many landslides that have taken place in eco-sensitive tourist destinations in Malaysia (Hong & Chan, 2010; “Heavy rains….”, 2014; “Landslides reported…..”, 2014). In Malaysia, the overuse of the terminology associated with the prefix “eco”, which denotes “being green” or “environmental friendly”, may not necessarily mean being “hip”, “cool” and “friendly” to the environment. Many unscrupulous tourism enterprises merely pay lip service to environmentalism and use it as a marketing and public relations tool (Greer & Bruno, 1997). Nonetheless, with more and more tourists being well-informed of what they can expect from responsible travel, the trend is slowly changing where the market has to respond to these eco-tourists’ expectations or face closure. Redefining Sustainable Tourism and Development Models Over the last century, nations around the globe fuelled their economic growth using their abundant natural resources (Duim & Markwijk, 2006). Tourism development was no different. Many developing nations bulldozed their way to growth and development at a pace where natural regeneration/recovery was not possible. No thought was put into the consequences of overconsumption or overexploitation of the natural resources that attracted tourists to visit in the first place. Nonetheless, it is critical to understand the environmental impacts that are changing the way the tourism industry functions. Tourism resources are depleting, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is indeed going up (Nair, 2010a). All of this requires rethinking on the various models of sustainable development that should have worked in theory but has failed in reality. After the failed United Nations Climate Change Summits in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, and subsequently in Cancun, Mexico (in 2010) (Nair, 2010b), and the Durban, South Africa summit (in 2011), we have to face the following reality as outlined by Chambers, Simmons & Wackernagel (2000) a decade ago: (1) Mankind must halt the decline in biodiversity and learn to leave in harmony with other species; (2) Mankind must eliminate poverty and inequality whilst providing an acceptable quality of life for all; (3) Mankind must feed the global population predicted to double its size at the turn of this century; and (4) Mankind must harness sufficient energy to power global economies without damaging the environment. Under the umbrella term of “sustainable development”, these four big questions raised by Chambers are still relevant today. As further added by Goore (2000), APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 98 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun living beyond the ecological means will surely lead to the degradation of homes and suffering of human well-being. Over the decade, many scholars have tried in vain to measure the ecological and environmental impact due to intense development. Datschefski (1999) outlined “Six S’s of Sustainability to Save the World” (Figure 1). SCALE SOLAR SYCLIC The scale of the human The power source of the Or “Cyclic”. If economy must not future is the sun we do not recycle exceed the capacity of our wastes, we will the biosphere deplete our resources and accumulate our pollution SHARED SAFE SEXY Or “Equity”. Nature’s No activity should No one wants to live in wealth should be shared compromise the health a world without fun! rather than hoarded by of all living organisms a minority Figure 1. Six S’s to Save the World The 1970s model developed by Ehrlich and Holdren (as cited in Chertow, 2001) introduced the IPAT Model (Figure 2). Figure 2. IPAT MODEL This model outlines the relationship between environmental impact, number of consumers, affluence (or level of consumption) and technological efficiency in delivering a particular product/service, where consumption is the product of affluence and technology. In short, the amount of fuel used to travel a certain distance depends on both the mode of transport and the efficiency of that form of travel. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 99 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Many aspects of the human quality of life are also a function of this consumption as indicated in Figure 3 by Chambers et al. (2000). Figure 3. Human Quality of Life is a function of Consumption Many models of sustainable development tend to focus on the economy being treated as the sole priority “bottom line” in the belief that the society and environment exist to serve the economy rather than the other way around (Figure 4a). On the contrary, the “Russian Dolls” model of sustainability (O’Riordan, 1998), places the economy in a more supportive position with social and environmental factors taking more leading roles (Figure 4b). This model upholds the basic principle that all economic activities should be geared towards social progress and that this must be achieved within environmental limits. (a) The Traditional model versus, (b) the Russian Dolls model Figure 4. Environment, society & economy APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 100 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun In short, sustainability is basically the capacity to endure. This is important for achieving quality of life. All progress and development including tourism can only be sustainable if the current state can be understood. Subsequently, the direction to move is decided based upon the previous audit and how a mechanism to indicate the success is measured and monitored closely. Figure 5 represents four possible situations in achieving quality of life within the means of nature. Figure 5. Quality of life versus natural capital For tourism development, Zone A is depicted when tourism development projects are kept off-limits to the local community. It may be ecologically sustainable but it is unlikely to be socially sustainable. Zone B, on the other hand, is where poverty results in further degradation. Excessive deforestation will lead to the loss of groundwater supplies that communities rely on. This is evident in many developing nations that are exploiting local communities and their natural habitats. Many rich nations fall in Zone C whereby a high standard of living is achieved but the natural capital and environment are degraded. Malaysia needs to manage its tourism industry carefully to avoid falling into the much dreaded Zone C. Finally, Zone D is the equilibrium where high quality of life is achieved with tourism development that does not degrade the natural environment. In summary, successful sustainable tourism development can happen in any move from Zone A, B or C towards Zone D. Hence, the equilibrium Zone D basically ensures that the scale of the economy does not exceed the scale of biosphere. A similar evaluation was carried out by Colladosa APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 101 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia and Duaneb’s study in 1999. Hence, the carrying capacity and limit of acceptable change becomes critical in balancing the quality of life and natural capital. Having a tool to measure the overall use of nature and people’s impact on the environment will be useful in gauging the impact of tourism development on mankind (Nair, 2003). Based on these aspirations, the ecological footprint was introduced. Despite all the well-thought models of sustainability and high ideals since 1992, the world has actually regressed in terms of sustainable development. There are many challenges facing developing countries in moving their economies to more environment-friendly ones. As highlighted by UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2010 (UNEP, 2010): It is easy to mouth the words sustainable development, but to make it happen, we have to be prepared to make major changes - in our lifestyles, our economic models, our social organization and our political life. All economic activities have some form of impact on the surrounding environment. Uncontrolled use of finite resources will result in total extinction of ecosystems, flora and fauna. Hence, despite the various evolution of sustainable models across the globe as well as mounting investment and awareness in environmental protection, pressure on ecosystems and natural resources continue to increase rapidly. The indiscriminate exploitation of nature by humans especially in the largest industry of the world, tourism, has reached every corner of the natural world. Intense tourism development has indeed brought massive benefits to human welfare. However, the upshot of this growing human domination of the planet is that there is now no ecosystem that is free from pervasive human influence. Change is vital if our future generations are to experience the environment as we do today. Developing a Local Framework Developing a holistic environmental model committed to the conservation of biodiversity and natural heritage, responsible use of natural resources, as well as the prevention of pollution and waste, is essential for an effective local model. The new responsible framework will ensure the optimal use of resources and simultaneously, maintain the balanced ecological processes that can help conserve natural heritage. The fundamental indicators that will be extracted from the current practices will track changes in key environmental components of the tourism industry, report the achievements of sustainability goals and measure environmental impacts of the tourism industry over time. These indicators will provide a snapshot of the impacts of the tourism industry on the environment and the industry’s response to environmental issues. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 102 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun The proposed model is segmented into two subprogrammes – Responsible Tourism Framework (RTF) and Carrying Capacity Framework (CCF). These two frameworks address the three pillars of sustainable development - the economy, social and the environment (Figure 6). Figure 6. General project framework For the first subprogramme, the study sought to develop the fundamental knowledge in understanding economic, social and environmental responsibilities, their indicators and models in rural tourism destinations selected as case studies. All stakeholder perspectives are investigated using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Based on this fundamental knowledge, a tourism barometer to assess and monitor the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts of rural tourism destinations using an integrated decision support system is structured. The new responsible model will ensure the optimal use of resources and simultaneously, maintain balanced ecological processes that can help in the conservation of natural heritage. The fundamental indicators that will be extracted from the current practices will track changes in key economic, social and environmental components of the tourism industry, report the achievements of the sustainability goals and measure the impacts of the tourism industry over time. Thus, the environmental dimensions play an integral role for both the RTF and CCF as outlined in Figure 7. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 103 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Figure 7. General conceptual framework of project Thus, this framework will be able to tackle the following research questions: (1) What are the stakeholders’ perspectives on environmental responsibility in rural tourism destinations? (2) What are the environmentally-responsible indicators for rural tourism destinations? (3) What are the environmentally-responsible impacts of rural tourism destinations? and (4) How to monitor and manage the environmental responsibility of rural tourism destinations? There are a range of methods and analysis for collecting information about outcome systems. Outcome systems are any systems used for identifying outcomes, measuring them and holding relevant parties accountable for their achievement (Duignan, 2003). There are a range of methods for collecting information and monitoring at different phases of the project. The research design to accomplish environmental responsibility and management framework comprises of 3 phases: (1) The Intelligent phase; (2) Design phase; and (3) Choice phase (Figure 8). Figure 8. Three (3) phases of the environmental responsibility framework APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 104 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun 1. Phase 1: The Intelligent phase. In this phase, the decision-making problem is identified based on stakeholders’ perspectives and literature review. Some of the tasks that would be carried out in this phase include: (a) Conducting search and scanning procedures; (b) Identifying problems; (c) Determining the ownership of the problem; and (d) Presenting the problem statement. Information gathering for this phase would be done through extant literature search and inductive research techniques to elicit information from the ground. The inductive research will include workshops, focus groups, in-depth interviews (to investigate the why and how of decision making) and Delphi approach. A thematic analysis using N-Vivo would be carried out to understand stakeholders’ perspectives on the environmental responsibilities of rural tourism. 2. Phase 2: Design phase. In this phase, the alternatives are identified and criteria are established. The following are the required tasks in this phase: (a) Identify alternatives (have an initial list and later revise the list. Here the various environmental responsibilities for rural tourism options are identified); (b) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) would be used for benchmarking and developing a robust performance index for environmental responsibilities of rural tourism; (c) DEA is generated from the data set of observed operative units, Decision Making Units (DMU) (tourism stakeholders that are involved in businesses, government agencies and non-governmental organizations). The performance index and benchmarking of the environmental responsibilities for rural tourism can be computed through the DEA analysis. The sets of indicators for tracking environmental responsibility are identified and selected based on the analysis above. The selected indicators will be used to index and measure the environmental responsibility of all stakeholders. The indicators used will be classified according to the three levels of priority – low, medium and high. 3. Phase 3: The Choice phase. In this phase, all the possible alternatives identified would be evaluated. The evaluation would be based on the decision analysis model selected. In this research, the multi-criteria decision approach would be used to carry out the evaluation. The following are the initial tasks identified for this phase: (a) An exploratory factor analysis will be carried out to develop scales for environmental responsibilities for rural tourism; (b) Self-administered questionnaires will be distributed based on the scales developed; (c) A confirmatory factor analysis would be conducted to confirm the validity of the developed scales; (d) The evaluation would be based on the structural equation model (SEM) developed based on the multi-criteria decision framework; (e) SEM will be used to establish environmental responsibilities for rural tourism framework; (f ) The framework derived from the SEM approach is then presented with the validation outcomes. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 105 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Field data collection will be carried out in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. In-depth data collection will be carried out at locations that are selected based on their compliance to the definition of “rural tourism” - rural location, rural culture, rural resources used, rural activities, local resources used and being managed by the local community (Könyves, 2001; Pakurar & Olah, 2008). Site selection is also done according to the various levels of development, types of ecosystem, tourist type/number and management authority who is responsible for overseeing the rural tourism site. The following 10 sites are selected for the in-depth analyses (Table 1). Table 1.Ten study sites Site Type of ecosystem 1. Bario, Kelabit Highlands, Sarawak. Montane, terrestrial 2. Lower Kinabatangan River, Sandakan Terrestrial, primary forest (Sukau, Bilit, Batu Puteh etc.), Sabah 3. Taman Negara, Pahang Terrestrial, primary rainforest 4. Setiu Wetland, Terengganu Mangrove, secondary forest 5. Gopeng Ecoadventure Corridor (Gopeng Recreation forest Town, Gopeng Homestay, Sg. Kampar Water Rafting, Ulu Geroh Aboriginal Settlement), Perak 6. Pulau Mabul/Sipadan, Sabah Island 7. Pulau Perhentian, Terengganu Island 8. Sg. Kilim Geopark, Langkawi Island 9. Royal Belum Temenggor, Perak Terrestrial, primary rainforest 10. Kuala Selangor, Selangor (Kuala Selangor Mangrove, terrestial, secondary forest Firefly, Kuala Selangor Nature Park) An analytical framework will be developed using various models to assess and monitor the performance of each site. The data created here will be used in developing the tourism barometer which will then produce the necessary input for the integrated management system for managing the multi-dimensional responsible rural tourism capacity framework. Significance of the Study In line with Malaysia’s goal to achieve high-income-nation status by 2020 (PEMANDU, 2010), the Tourism Transformation Plan 2020 with 12 New Key Economic Areas (NKEA) in the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), has a bullish target of achieving 36 million tourist arrivals and RM168 billion (US$48 billion) in tourism receipt by 2020. By then, it is projected that tourism will be the most important income contributor for the nation. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 106 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Hence, the development of a sustainable rural tourism is dependent on fulfilling the objectives of all stakeholders in the system. The proposed framework will be able to balance the natural and economic environments. The three main outcomes that are projected from this study are as follows: (1) Fundamental knowledge on rural tourism that will be collected through the various models and indicators that can be used to measure responsible tourism and carrying capacity; (2) A rural tourism performance index that will be developed based on the sustainability dimensions of economic, sociocultural and environment; and (3) A framework for a national integrated management system for responsible rural tourism capacity. Thus, the interrelationships among the stakeholders will be identified since each stakeholder’s needs may be different from others. Thus, it is imperative to have a holistic understanding of the impact of rural tourism development plans on key natural destinations especially small-medium enterprises that make up 75% of the tourism industry in Malaysia. Thus, this proposed study is essential if the tourism industry in Malaysia is to move towards high yield. Acknowledgement This research was funded by Ministry of Education (MOE), Malaysia under Long Term Research Grant Scheme (LRGS) Programme 2011, Reference No.: JPT.S (BPKI)2000/09/01/015Jld.4(67). Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. References Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. & Vogt, C.A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. Brookes, M., Altinay, L., & Ringham, K. (2014). Successful implementation of responsible business practice. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 77–84. doi:10.1108/ whatt-10-2013-0044 Chambers, N., Simmons, C. & Wackernagel (2000). Sharing nature’s interest: Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London, UK : Earthscan Publication Ltd. Chertow, M.R. (2001). The IPAT equation and its variants. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4), 13–31. Colladosa, C. & Duaneb, T.P . (1999). Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological Economics, 30(3), 441–460. Datschefski. E. (1999). Bio-thinking international. Retrieved from http://www.biothinking. com. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 107 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (2002). National responsible tourism development guidelines for South Africa: Provisional guidelines. South Africa: DEAT Publications. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). (2003). Responsible tourism handbook: A guide to good practice for tourism operators. South Africa: DEAT Publications. Duignan, P. (2003). Approaches and terminology in programme and policy evaluation. In N. Lunt, C. Davidson & K. McKegg (Eds.), Evaluating policy and practice. Auckland: Pearson Education. Duim, R.V.D. & Marwijk, R.V. (2006). The implementation of an environmental management system for Dutch tour operators: An actor-network perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 449–472. Economic Planning Unit (EPU). (1996). Seventh Malaysia Plan: 1996-2000. KL : Prime Minister’s Department. Fatin, H., Amirah, A., & Khairani, N. (2014). Determinants of tourist perception towards responsible tourism: A study at Malacca world heritage site. S.M. Radzi, M.F.S. Bakhtiar, Z. Mohi, M.S. Mohd Zahari, N, Sumarjan, Chik, C.T. & F.I. Anuar (Eds.), Theory and practices in hospitality and tourism research (pp. 269-273). Oxford: CRC Press Friedman, T. (2008). Hot, flat, and crowded: Why we need a green revolution and how it can renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus Goore, A. (2000). Earth in the balance. London, UK: Earthscan Publication Ltd. Greer, J. & Bruno, K. (1997). Greenwash: The reality behind corporate environmentalism . New York : Apex Press. Hall, C. M. (2012). Governance and responsible tourism. In Leslie, D. (Ed.), Responsible tourism: concepts, theory and practice (pp. 107-118). Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Heavy rains cause mud flood in Camerons, one dead. (2014, November 2). The Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/11/06/Mud-flood-camerons/ Homestay tourism – a burgeoning sector in attracting more tourists. (2012, September 23). Borneo Press. Retrieved from http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/09/23/homestay- tourism-a-burgeoning-sector-in-attracting-more-tourists/ Hong, C.W. & Chan, N.W. (2010). The potentials, threats and challenges in sustainable development of Penang National Park. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 11(2), 95–109. Hua, W. & Walla, G. (2005). Environmental management, environmental image and the competitive tourist attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 617–635. International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) and Gauteng Tourism Authority (GTA). (2006). Gauteng tourism responsible-tourism manual. Johannesburg, South Africa: Gauteng Tourism Authority Publications. Jaafar, J. (2004). Emerging trends of urbanisation in Malaysia. Journal of the Department of Statistics Malaysia, 1, 43-54. Kaur, E. (2010). Marine park eco-tourism in Malaysia. Retrieved from http://ecomalaysia.org/ node/13. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 108 Vikneswaran Nair, Badaruddin Mohamed & Lo May Chiun Könyves, E. (2001). The role of rural tourism in Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok: County rural development (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Debrecen, Hungary. Land of the hornbills yet to soar. (2013, February 15). New Straits Times. Retrieved from http:// www2.nst.com.my/nation/general/cover-story-land-of-the-hornbills-yet-to-soar-1.218237 Landslides reported in Cameron Highlands. (2014, December 23). The Rakyat Post. Retrieved from http://www.therakyatpost.com/newRaks/2014/12/23/landslides-reported-cameron- highlands Leea, J.S., Hsub, L.T., Hanc, H. & Kimd, Y. (2010). Understanding how consumers view green hotels: how a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 901–914. Nair, V. (2010a). Greening tourism: Moving towards responsible tourism. IMPAK: Quarterly DOE Update on Environment, Development & Sustainability, 2, pp. 12-13. Nair, V. (2010b). From Copenhagen to Cancun: A new climate deal reached! IMPAK: Quarterly DOE Update on Environment, Development and Sustainability, p. 4. Nair, V., Daud, M., Badaie, M.Z. & Mohd, A. (2003). ASP approach in ecotourism rating expert system. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 11(1), 119–133. O’Riordan (1998). Indicators for sustainable development. Proceedings of the European Commission (Environment and Climate Programme) Advanced Study Course, 5th – 12th July 1997, Delft, The Netherlands. Pakurar, M., & Olah, J. (2008). Definition of rural tourism and its characteristics in the Northern Great Plain Region. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, Fascicula: Ecotoxicologie, Zootehnie şi Tehnologii de Industrie Alimentară, 7, 255–260. Performance Management and Development Unit (PEMANDU) (2010). Economic Transformation Programme: A road map for Malaysia. KL: PM’s Office. Pleumarom, A. (1995). Eco-tourism or eco-terrorism? Environmental Justice Networker, 6. Priego, M.J.B., Najera, J.J. & Font, X. (2011). Environmental management decision-making in certified hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 361–381. Raman, S. (2014). Responsible innovation: from concept to practice. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3), 329–331. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.971682 Raviv, C., Becken, S., & Hughey, K. F. D. (2013). Exploring values, drivers, and barriers as antecedents of implementing responsible tourism. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. doi:10.1177/1096348013491607. Sirima, A. & Ladslaus, M. (2012). Unlocking opportunities for displaced communities: Can tourism offset conservation costs? Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1), 65–84. Stanford, D. (2014). Responsible tourist behaviour. Tourism Management, 43, 4–5. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.006 Subramanian, Y.R. & Madasamy, J. (2013). A structural model of stakeholders’ attitude towards rural tourism development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2), 145–169. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015 109 Multi-Dimensional Responsible Rural Tourism Capacity (RRTC) Framework: A Proposed Environmental Responsibility and Management Model for Malaysia Taillon, J. M. (2012). Responsible hospitality: Theory and practice. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1282–1284. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.01.012 Tourism for growth. (2012, April 22). The Star , pp.29-30. Tourism Malaysia (2012). Malaysia’s homestay programme wins the UNWTO 2012 Ulysses Awards. KL: Tourism Malaysia. Todd, S.E. & Williams, P.W. (1996). From white to green: A proposed environmental management system framework for ski areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(3), 147– United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2010). Ban calls for a green economy as crucial for a sustainable future. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/newscentre Yanarella, E.J., Levine, R.S. & Lancaster, R.W. (2009). Green versus sustainability. Sustainability, 2(5), 296–302. APJIHT Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2015

Journal

Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism (APJIHT)Springer Journals

Published: Oct 13, 2015

There are no references for this article.