Journal of Business and Social Development ISSN: 2289-2915 Volume 6 Number 1, March 2018: 70-83 © Penerbit UMT

ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (EKOPELANCONGAN DI TAMAN NEGARA PULAU PINANG: PERSPEKTIF PEMEGANG TARUH TERHADAP ISU-ISU ALAM SEKITAR)

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

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

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

Introduction total international travel (CI, 2015) and with Ecotourism is a form of “responsible travel to an estimated annual growth rate of five percent natural areas that conserve the environment, worldwide (Das, 2011). It is imperative to note sustains the well-being of the local people, and the impacts it poses to the natural areas it resides involves interpretation and education” (TIES, in. Any modification on the area may cause 2015). Ecotourism makes up about 20% of changes and disturbance to the dynamicity of the natural environment. Buckley (2004) noted

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

063.indd 70 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 71

that the modifications from ecotourism activities enjoying the scenery and its wild plants may pose both positive and negative impacts and animals, as well as any existing on the natural environment. Some positive cultural manifestations (both past and environmental impacts of ecotourism include present) found in the areas” direct benefits to conserve the natural resources (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998) (Walpole, Goodwin, & Ward, 2001) and protect Ecotourism is a subset of nature-based the area from other forms of activities with tourism and it tries to adopt sustainable more adverse environmental impacts such as development practices in its operation. logging, farming, aquaculture and poaching According to The International Ecotourism (Frost, 2004). On the other hand, negative Society (TIES) (2015), ecotourism is more impacts on the natural areas may be due to than just visitation to natural areas as it tries to the over exploitation of a natural resources disseminate education and interpretation among or excessive number of visitors, exceeding its visitors and staff. TIES (2015) also provides the carrying capacity of the area (Ramadhon eight principles to be adopted by those involved et al., 2014). The negative impacts include in ecotourism. They are: (i) minimize physical, destruction of plant and wildlife habitats; soil social, behavioral, and psychological impacts, and dune erosion; soil compaction; disruption of (ii) build environmental and cultural awareness soil stability; alteration of geological regimes; and respect, (iii) provide positive experiences disruption of nutrient cycles; and reduction in for both visitors and hosts, (iv) provide direct biodiversity (Chin et al., 2000). financial benefits for conservation, (v) generate Over the years, since the word “ecotourism” financial benefits for both the local people was first introduced in the early 1980s, many and private industry, (vi) deliver memorable stakeholders showed great interest in this new interpretative experiences to visitors that help form of tourism industry. These stakeholders raise sensitivity to host countries’ political, comprised various entities such as national environmental, and social climates (vii) design, governments, tourists, non-governmental construct and operate low-impact facilities and organizations, tourism enterprises, conservation (viii) recognize the rights and spiritual beliefs groups, researchers and academicians. This of the Indigenous People in the community paper focuses on investigating the four different and work in partnership with them to create stakeholders’ views on environmental issues empowerment. caused by ecotourism in Penang National Park Ecotourism is a niche market of tourism (PNP). The four stakeholders identified in this that caters for those who seek solace in study are (1) management authorities (2) visitors undisturbed natural areas. Emerged within the (3) tour guides, and (4) local communities. womb of the environmental movement in the By doing so, this study seeks to identify the 1970s and 1980s, ecotourism is fast gaining emerging environmental issues based on its popularity as it draws massive influx of multi-stakeholders’ perspective using in-depth tourists to ecotourism sites around the world interviews with the stakeholders. (Honey, 2002). Ecotourism also anticipates more active contribution to the sustainability of Literature Review eco-attractions. Ecotourism is sometimes used Ecotourism was first coined by Ceballos- interchangeably with sustainable tourism but the Lascurain in 1988. In his words, ecotourism Mohonk Agreement (2000) has distinguished refers to: between the two by setting standard characteristics. Sustainable tourism can be “Tourism that involves traveling incorporated into any and all types of tourism, to relatively undisturbed or while ecotourism only refers to travel that occurs uncontaminated areas with the specific in natural, often undeveloped locales, focusing objective of studying, admiring, and

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

063.indd 71 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 72

on environmental and/or cultural awareness and The nation has seen a growing interest in promotes conservation (Chua, 2008). the trend of visiting protected areas as reported Globally, ecotourism industry is seen as through studies done in Pahang National Park an impetus for economic growth contributing (Shuib & Abidin, 2002), Mulu National Park more than USD 470 billion per year in revenues (Hazebroek & Morshidi, 2002), Kinabalu worldwide (Hoshaw, 2010) resulting in many National Park (Ghazali & Sirat, 2011) and Penang countries all over the world to jump on the National Park (Sato et al., 2013). However, the bandwagon. Malaysia is not excluded as tendency of most of the studies was to focus Malaysia owns ideal characteristics to become on one stakeholder group in examining their one of the best ecotourism destinations in perception on a particular area. According to Gee the world. Malaysia, located on the green & Fayos-Sola (1997), impacts can be perceived belt with tropical climate, 24 national parks differently by different community members as and 4.68 million hectares of forest reserves well as interested and affected stakeholders. In (NRE, 2013), is ranked at the 12th place in order to involve all stakeholders in the planning megadiverse country in the world (Tourism and management of ecotourism especially in Malaysia, 2009). The bountiful flora and terms of minimizing environmental impacts, fauna with beautiful landscapes and unique an understanding of their collective perception ecosystems serve as a platform for promoting is necessary. Various stakeholders’ inputs on ecotourism. The government’s seriousness in ecotourism development, management and promoting ecotourism could be seen when the planning may lead to a better comprehensive National Ecotourism Plan was introduced in ecotourism standard and achieve sustainability 1996, followed by the subsequent National (Byrd, 2007). Ecotourism Plan (2016-2025) to better assist With the high influx of tourists visiting ecotourism development in the country. Besides natural areas, it is imperative to eliminate or that, ecotourism was also highlighted in the reduce any negative environmental impacts Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) where the it might pose. According to Gossling (2002), government spent RM14.2 million (USD3.8 negative environmental impacts from million) on 20 ecotourism projects in Malaysia. ecotourism activities or developments can be In 2015, the government took a major leap in divided into both direct and indirect physical an effort to promote tourism by introducing and psychological impacts. Some of the forecast the National Ecotourism Plan 2016-2025. visitor impacts or environmental issues when Apart from governmental bodies working developing ecotourism in an area include on ecotourism, other Malaysian ecotourism vegetation removal, animal disturbance, clearing stakeholders such as travel trade professionals, of habitats, soil compaction, soil erosion, academia, institutions and individuals has littering, increased demand for fresh water, formed Malaysian Ecotourism Association pollution, changes in wildlife behavior and fire (MEA) in 2007 as a platform for the development (Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002). Therefore, of the Malaysian ecotourism industry. Leading any successful ecotourism must integrate the Malaysian naturalists has also joined together perspectives of the stakeholders in order to and formed Ecotourism and Conservation ensure sustainable visitor use, necessitating the Society (ECOMY) in 2015, a Non-Governmental effective management of natural areas for visitor Organization (NGO) spearheading conservation enjoyment and at the same time protecting the in sustainable ecotourism. These continuous natural environment. efforts in developing sustainable ecotourism have been recognized globally and Malaysia Stakeholder Analysis was awarded “Best Eco-Vacation” at the 5th National Geographic Traveler Awards in 2015 Stakeholder is defined as “any group or (Elite, 2016). individual who can affect or is affected by the

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

063.indd 72 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 73

achievement of an organization’s objectives” believed that it is important to know the diverse (Freeman, 1984). Donaldson and Preston stakeholders and their complex interactions to (1995) added to Freeman’s definition, stating eventually involve them in the management and that the stakeholder must have a legitimate planning. Byrd (2007) and Sautter and Leisen interest in the organization. There were seven (1999) concurred and further argued that the broad categories of stakeholder provided by relationships between stakeholders are always Freeman (1984): owners, employees, suppliers, evolving and complex, depending on area, time, customers, the financial community, activist resources and leadership. The need to identify groups and the government. However, Clarkson stakeholders is important as failure to identify (1995) further classified these stakeholder into their interest (even by neglecting one single two group according to their power or influence; stakeholder group) may result in the failure primary and secondary stakeholders. Primary of the entire process (Clarkson, 1995). Hardy stakeholders are the ones whose participation and Beeton (2001) believed that stakeholder in any corporation is vital and without primary analysis seems a logical method of identifying stakeholders, an organization or corporation will the multiple subjective opinions of those with a not survive. They include investors, employees, stake in tourism; and for planning it in a way to customers, and suppliers. On the other hand, avoid any costs associated with poor planning secondary stakeholders are those who influence and management and the resultant conflicts. or affect, or are influenced or affected by, the Consequently, stakeholder identification corporation but are not engaged in transactions and involvement have been recognised as a with the corporation and not essential for its key step towards achieving partnerships and survival (Clarkson, 1995). collaboration within tourism (Bramwell and Stakeholder analysis, according to Lane, 1999; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Selin 1999). Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000), is “an approach, a tool or set of tools for generating Research Methodology knowledge about actors- individuals and This study examined four main stakeholders’ organizations- so as to understand their behavior, (management authorities, tour guides, local intentions, interrelations and interests; and for communities and tourists) perceptions towards assessing the influence and resources they bring environmental issues in Penang National Park to bear on decision-making or implementation (PNP). In-depth interviews were conducted for process”. It is a process of identifying key two months to enquire about their perception on stakeholders, an assessment of their interests the impacts of ecotourism affecting PNP. Their and the ways in which those key stakeholders responses were collected and analyzed using are affected by riskiness and viability (Allen stakeholder analysis and Kilvington, 2001). Their engagement and inclusion in decision-making processes from the initial stages makes them feel empowered Study Area and represents their ability to resolve issues Penang National Park (PNP) is located on the or influence decision-makers (Friedman and northwest of Penang Island with coordinates Mason, 2005). 5.4620° N, 100.1900° E. The park covers about Even though stakeholder analysis comes 1,265 hectares making up 0.04 percent of the from the fields of policy, management and project islands size. PNP was gazetted as Malaysia’s implementation, the analysis have long been National Park in April 2003, making it the adopted in tourism planning and management. smallest to date. Before this, PNP was designated Byrd and Gustke (2007) believed that identifying as a Permanent Forest Reserve under the the stakeholders and understanding their Forestry Ordinance 1928 and was managed by interests that motivate them are one of the first the Penang Forestry Department. Even though steps in achieving sustainable tourism. They also it was regarded as a forest reserve, Chan et al.

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

063.indd 73 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 74

(2003) revealed that logging activities were 500 percent increase in the number of visitors carried out between the late 1910s and the late from 2004 until 2016, with a steady increase of 1930s. Despite previous logging activities, there international visitors. Most of the international are currently about some 72 hectares of virgin tourists come from England, Germany, France, jungle reserve left in the PNP and these areas Australia and China. However, there was a were left untouched. slight drop in the number of visitors’ arrivals in PNP is rich in terms of ecosystems 2005 due to the 2004 tsunami which affected with coastal hill, meromictic lake, wetlands, most areas in the northern region of Penang. mangroves, mudflats, coral reefs and turtle nesting beaches (DWNP, 2008). In terms of Methodology fauna, the PNP is home to at least 25 species of Semi-structured in-depth interview was used mammals, 53 species of butterflies, 46 species as the primary method of data collection in of birds (including a significant number of this study. It allows rich data to be collected migrants) and a considerable variety of marine whilst enabling the researcher to respond to life in the adjacent seas (including sea anemones, answers and verify responses (Jennings, 2004). corals, molluscs, crustaceans, schinoderms and The data collection methods were designed sea turtles). There are also many species of land not to restrict the interview process but rather and sea snakes, the python being most commonly encourage openness and build a level of trust found. Other fauna that have been sighted in the between the researcher and the respondent. One PNP include the common tree shrew (Tupaia of the limitations of qualitative research is the glis), slow loris (Nycticebus coucang), flying total time involved in data collection, analysis lemur (Gynocephalus veriegatus), sea otters, and interpretation. Babbie (1998) explains pangolin or scaly ant-eater, leopard cat and civet that qualitative research involves more time in cat (Hong and Chan, 2010). PNP is also unique order to examine holistically and aggregately in terms of its micro-climate. Chan et al. (2003) subjects’ interactions, reactions and activities. revealed that the tree and their canopies through In-depth interviews were chosen for the current their evapotranspiration process has caused research work because more and wider range PNP to be much cooler compared to the city of of information could be elicited. Furthermore, Georgetown, Penang even at mid-day (noon). skilled interviewers can gather information Since being gazetted in 2003, PNP has seen a that may be left out through a survey or other tremendous increase in the number of tourists techniques. Thus, the main role of the in-depth visiting the area. Table 1 shows more than interviewer is to explore the respondents’ Table 1: Malaysian and International Tourists Arrivals to PNP, 2004-2016 Year Malaysian Visitors International Visitors Total 2004 16830 4938 21768 2005 9238 3309 12547 2006 22982 4502 27484 2007 25137 6163 31300 2008 44982 10780 55762 2009 53156 16511 69667 2010 64049 22615 86664 2011 60168 28275 88443 2012 72419 35857 108276 2013 74734 40461 115195 2014 75331 51503 126834 2015 90651 57936 148587 2016 83114 64726 147840 Source: PNP, Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), 2017

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

063.indd 74 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 75

points of view, feelings and perspectives. Such Before the interview began, permissions interviews have been used to obtain systematic were sought from the stakeholders for their descriptions of interviewees’ experiences. On the consent to be interviewed. The interviews other hand, a disadvantage of this technique is were then audio-taped to ensure accuracy that it involves personal interaction; sometimes and no information was missed out. All the interviewees feel uncomfortable sharing feelings stakeholders were interviewed face-to-face with a person he or she has just met. for a duration of 15 minutes to one hour. The The four stakeholders chosen for this study stakeholders were asked to identify and talk are the local communities, tour guides, visitors more on environmental issues relating to PNP. and management authorities. Management The information gathered from the interviews authorities in this study refer to authorities from were transcribed and analyzed using thematic the Department of Wildlife and National Parks analysis. Thematic analysis was chosen due to (DWNP) and the Department of Fisheries. The its flexibility and ability to be applied in a wide findings of each interviews on the stakeholders range of theoretical frameworks and research were summarized into Table 2. Interviews with interests (Clarke & Braun, 2013). Four dominant the visitors were conducted at the entry/exit themes were identified in this study and will be point upon the completion of their activities in discussed further in the following chapter. PNP, while interview with other stakeholders were based on purposeful sampling. Purposeful Findings and Discussion sampling, according to Patton (2002), allows For a better understanding, this study chose to information-rich cases to be chosen from foreground the stakeholders’ voices by including which the researcher can learn about the issues direct quotations in the body of the narrative. central to the purpose of the research. Patton This reflects the value recorded to these voices (2002) also argues that purposeful rather than and the importance of the contextualized nature random sampling, ensures that variations within of this research. The findings are grouped the phenomena and increases the validity of according to the emerged issues drawn from the the answers received from the respondents. interviews. Purposive sampling method does not dictate the number of respondents needed (Creswell & Clark, 2007) as data collection will stop Littering and Garbage Management when data saturation is reached, where no new Littering was found to be the main emerging evidence or category emerge (Charmz, 2000). problem gathered from stakeholders’ interview This sampling method was chosen for the study sessions. This is clearly evident from the as it is convenient to the researcher who can use following statements: own judgment in the selecting respondents that Rubbish on Monkey Beach is the worst. can best provide the information needed for the Many tourists come to the area for study. BBQ lunch and not for the sole purpose Table 2: Stakeholders’ interview data of enjoying the nature itself. They just want to enjoy seafood BBQ and leave Code Stakeholder Numbers their rubbish especially water bottles V1-V8 Local visitor 8 behind [V6] V9-V14 International visitor 6 The people here do not adhere to the M1-M4 Management authorities 4 notice by PERHILITAN. Take only L1-L4 Local communities 4 photos, leave only footprints. During T1-T3 Tour guides 3 my hike, I saw many plastic bottles Total 25 along the trail. There are also a lot of cigarette butts at the beach- at the

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

063.indd 75 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 76

camp sites… The worst I think is in here. But in recent times, less rubbish had been Monkey Beach [V11] collected. They regarded that many young There are not enough rubbish bins, Malaysian nowadays have higher environmental maybe that is why they simply throw awareness and management authorities too had anywhere they like [V10] made a good effort in maintaining the area. These statements were supported by all tour On the other hand, Pantai Kerachut is guides and management authorities, proving less lively and the main attraction here are that littering is the main concern in PNP. A tour the beautiful beach and Turtle Conservation guide even claimed witnessing many of his and Education Centre. Many of the visitors clients (visitors) throwing water bottles or food and locals interviewed would prefer Pantai wrappers while hiking without feeling guilty Kerachut compared to Monkey Beach as it is about it. He also agreed that Monkey Beach is more peaceful and they can enjoy the scenery the worst affected area as many visitors came of a beautiful meromictic lake before reaching straight from hotels to have barbeque in the Pantai Kerachut. The uniqueness of the area, area without going through the nature walk in however did not stop the littering issue. The PNP. They did not read the sign boards at the management authority revealed that: entry points nor experience nature during their We caan help to clean the visible rubbish hike. According to the management authorities thrown on the beach or the camping and tour guides, the main reason for Monkey sites in Pantai Kerachut. However, it is Beach (also known as Teluk Duyung) to be the unseen rubbish which is the main polluted with rubbish is due to various outdoor problem here. Most of the campers will activities organized by hotels and private dig a hole and throw their rubbish in companies. These include barbeque sessions, and cover it with sand. When the turtles jet skiing, banana boat rides and the use of all- come ashore to dig up holes to lay their terrain vehicle (ATV) around the area. Besides eggs, the buried rubbish will emerge, that, more outdoor activities are organized here thus disturbing the nesting site [V2] compared to other parts of the park as Monkey Most visitors thought that burying Beach is privately owned and not managed by the rubbish is the best way to minimize any management authorities. environmental impacts of their tourism activities In addition to this, a tour guide mentioned in the area, but it actually creates another that the locals too had picnic in the area could problem for turtle conservation especially in not be bothered to take out their rubbish. They Pantai Kerachut. Bringing out the rubbish from just threw their rubbish anywhere they liked. PNP is another problem for the management. He implied that many local visitors still have When rubbish had been collected in large plastic very low environmental awareness compared to bags, the management authorities did not have foreigners especially Japanese tourists. Japanese enough manpower to carry them out. Instead, tourists have high environmental awareness and they needed to hire boats to carry out the rubbish this could be seen from an old Japanese couple from PNP. This would incur money and add up who always entered the park bringing their own to maintenance cost. plastic bags to collect rubbish on their hike [T1]. Studies on other Malaysian national parks The author managed to interview the Japanese by Chin et al. (2000) in Bako National Park, couple [V7 & V8] who have stayed in Penang for Yong (1990) and Zaiton (2013) in Taman Negara 35 years and visited PNP 305 times. Regarding National Park have also shown that littering is local visitors littering in PNP, the Japanese a common problem often created by visitors. visitors painted a different picture. They claimed Littering could be found in popular places such that they used to bring out 2-3 bundles of plastic as the walking trail, river banks, camp sites bags filled with rubbish during their early visits and canopy walkways. According to a study

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

063.indd 76 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 77

by Neo et al. (2016), the main reason why PNP is a park for everybody. It is many Malaysians throw rubbish or littering is free. So everybody need to take the convenience rather than obligation to manifest. responsibility to take care of the For them, it is much easier to simply throw environment for future generation [V1] rubbish anywhere rather than practice proper Nevertheless, four visitors (two locals rubbish disposal. A local visitor also lamented and two international) did not see littering that “there are not enough rubbish bins along as the main problem in the area. In fact, they the trail and we can only find rubbish bins at the concertedly replied that PNP is beautiful and beach” [V5]. This may lead to littering and over very clean. spillage of rubbish around the bins. Chung et al., (2012) stressed that waste spillage impairs the Monkeys visual aesthetic quality while Chin et al. (2000) Two local residents who were interviewed added that waste spillage lowers the tourist mentioned that monkeys were a nuisance in the experience. area. They reported that: Another problem in PNP is the Monkeys will come to our windows to anthropogenic marine debris or better known snatch food. So we have to close our as marine litter. All management authorities windows especially for us staying at lamented that marine debris is one of the most this flat, very near to PNP [L2] difficult challenges in managing the parks. According to a tour guide with more than 10 We see monkeys always searching for years of experience in PNP, during high tides, food at the garbage dumps [L3] the shores were sometimes strewn with marine Monkeys were also spotted foraging for litter especially plastic. He added that: food at plastics bags collection areas by the There were occasions when the management authorities in PNP. shorelines were covered with papers It is actually our fault. Human fault. and oranges. Some religious rituals We encroached into their area (habitat) practice throwing these items out to and some of the tourists used to feed the sea for matchmaking purposes. the monkeys. They become dependent However, they should have a on humans for easy food and some mechanism to collect the items later. If even snatch from tourists [T2] not, it will float and get washed ashore. This definitely will impair visual According to Orams (2002), deliberate and aecstatic value of the area [V2] long-term provision of food to wildlife has been shown to alter their natural behaviour patterns Studies done by Martinez-Ribes et and population levels. It has also resulted in the al. (2007), Santos et al. (2005, 2009) and dependency of animals on humans to provide Thiel et al. (2013) revealed that most of the food and their habituation to human contact. anthropogenic marine debris usually came from Usui et al. (2014) recommends that park rangers nearby sources; shore-based (beach users doing should take action by prohibiting tourists from activities) and nearshore activities (artisanal feeding the monkeys. In the case of PNP, it is fishery and aquaculture). The same scenario hard for the rangers or tour guides to monitor could be seen in PNP as most of the litter comes the behavior of the tourists feeding the monkeys from nearby sources. In this case, PNP is just found, as they could be almost everywhere in a small part of Penang island and the debris PNP. Signboards prohibiting direct feeding may originate from both Penang island and the to monkeys can be seen at the entry/exit point mainland. It is imperative to curb this problem but obeying the rules and regulation is much as the management authority mentioned that: dependent on individuals’.

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

063.indd 77 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 78

In contrast, most of the stakeholders shopping complexes in Penang). Easier believed that monkeys in PNP are the star and air-conditioned [T2] attraction of the area. This is clearly showed in Nevertheless, the management authorities the following statements: claimed that they would just remove the fallen We love monkeys. I love to take their trees from the trail and leave the residue for pictures [V3] natural recycling process. Without the monkeys, this area will be quiet [V4] Entrance Fee Monkeys are one of the attractions in In ccomparison to findings by Zaiton et al., this area. It won’t disturb you if you (2013), all PNP local visitors did not agree to the don’t disturb them. They are harmless idea of imposing an entrance fee. They believed [M2] that there were no special activities held which would require them to pay. Furthermore, they However, the management authorities and believed that by imposing an entrance fee, the travel guides would advise visitors not to feed number of visitors would decline. Visitors might the monkeys and be extra vigilant when eating in be attracted other attractive places in Penang. an open area or under a tree. They cautioned that Their statements are as follows: monkeys might just snatch the food especially if they see it in a plastic bag. [T1, T2 and M1] PNP is a natural area. So there is no need to pay. The government can help Fallen Trees in maintaining the area [V2] All the interviewed visitors, except for three I’m against paying an entrance fee. lamented on the fallen trees blocking the trails. We would like to encourage people to come to the park to enjoy nature. The management should cut the fallen If we impose some entrance fee, then trees into small pieces to make it easier they will have a second thought. If they for us to hike the trail [V5] come, they have to spend some money, The fallen trees make it hard for us to it will discourage them [V4] walk and may be dangerous [V2] However, the visitor added that it is Fallen trees are obstacles for hikers acceptable to impose a small amount of [V9 and V10] entrance fee if the money would be allocated for maintenance of camping sites. In comparison to this, the management authorities and tour guides claimed that the When asked how much they were willing to fallen trees serve as some sort of additional pay if the management were to impose charges, adventure for true nature hikers. Some trees in they agreed to RM2.00 to RM3.00 per entry. On the forests do fall due to wind, heavy rain or the other hand, all international visitors agreed natural circumstances. They rebutted that: that some entrance fee should be imposed and they were willing to pay RM10.00 per entry. A We believed that fallen trees along the visitor form China suggested that students and trail provide a real natural trail in real the elderly should be exempted as they do not forest. If the trail is paved and tarred, have any source of income. Nevertheless, a tour there is nothing more natural about guide [V1] revealed that if the management PNP [M1] authorities were to impose more than RM10.00, If they find fallen trees as an obstacle this will encourage more tourists to enter PNP for them, they should just have walked through other alternative ways and sometimes in KOMTAR or Gurney Mall (popular enter through illegal entry points such as from their hotels via boats. Furthermore, since PNP is

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

063.indd 78 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 79

mostly surrounded by sea, boats could just come they can provide secure, accessible visitation in and out without being checked at the entry opportunities. points. On the contrary, findings from a study done by Kaffashi et al., (2015) suggested that Recommendation and Conclusion an admission fee of MYR10 could be charged with a condition that there must be some This study utilized stakeholder analysis in improvement in the management of PNP. It is identifying environmental issues from the indeed a management challenge for PNP since it perspective of four PNP stakeholders. The results is situated near the sea. Hence, according to one of the study revealed that littering was the main of the park officials, it is quite costly to maintain environmental issue found in this area. From the especially in providing good electricity supply stakeholders’ point of view, littering in the area as PNP is located near the sea corroding the could be the result of limited garbage receptacles electrical wiring at a faster rate. and low environmental awareness amongst the local visitors. The results of this study can According to a tourist guide, “there is a dire contribute to better-informed decisions by park need for the management to generate income managers and regional planners. First, education in order to manage the park. The facilities, and sharing responsibility are the key steps to without proper maintenance will degrade with tackle this problem. Practical and effective time. Most of the facilities are already not in anti-littering strategies should be formulated good shape and without enough budget from and enforced to eliminate this disturbing and the federal government and if there is no source unproductive behavior. Before the visitors enter of income, facilities cannot be maintained well. PNP, they should be provided with a form for Income from entrance fee might help to upgrade them to declare all items they would bring into the facilities. It could also act as a deterrent to the park. Visitors will be required to fill in the those who care less about the environment from checklist and submit the form. Upon exiting the entering the park” [T2]. park, the management staff would then check the Currently, there is no entrance fee charged list to make sure all declared items are brought by the PNP management authorities. For out of the park. The checklist can be downloaded Taman Negara National Park, the management through online application via smartphone made charged RM1.00 per entry and imposed other available through Google Play. It will be much licenses such as fishing license (RM10.00), easier and eco-friendly (paperless document). camera license (RM5.00) and camping fee Second, in order to reduce littering (RM1.00 per day). Meanwhile in Sarawak, of disposable plastic food containers and there are many categories for entrance fees plastic water bottles, the management could (as published in Sarawak Forest Department’s enforce a “no-disposable plastic/polystyrene website). The entrance fees imposed for visiting food containers in the park” policy. Usually, national parks there are RM10.00 for locals the visitors would not bother much with cheap and RM20.00 for foreigners. Children above containers and would just simply throw away 6 years but less than 18 years old are charged randomly unless the container is an expansive RM3.00 for locals and RM7.00 for foreigners. one or belongs to them. Therefore, visitors will Children aged 6 years and below are allowed only be allowed to bring in food and beverages to enter for free. These charges can be a source in proper food containers and water tumblers. of revenue for the management authorities to For those who still bring food in plastic bags upgrade their facilities and be less dependent or plastic bottles, the management could sell or on allocation from the federal government. As rent out food containers to visitors where they Hearne and Santos (2005) mentioned, entrance would then transfer their food into the containers fees and tourist expenditure provide financial and take with them into the park. This will also incentives to national park and communities so

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

063.indd 79 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 80

help the management authorities to have some Penang National Park, visitors and local revenues for maintaining the park. communities in the study area for their precious Finally, the burden in taking care of the time and invaluable inputs towards making this cleanliness of PNP should be shared among all study possible. the visitor, tour operators and other stakeholders. Those entering PNP will be allowed to capture References and post online any pictures of littering Allen, W. & Kilvington, M. (2001). Manaaki activities in action. The management could set Whenua Landcare Research. Landcare up a website to publish photos or videos of those Research. Retrieved 10 July 2007 www. litter bugs caught red-handed. This form of landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/ public shaming could as is a powerful weapon to stakeholders.asp eliminate littering behavior, impart knowledge and environmental awareness. This could also Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of SocialResearch make them to think twice before littering. (3rd Ed). London: Thompson Wadsworth Learning. In conclusion, ecotourism in national parks, without doubt brings socio-economic benefits to Buckley, R. (2004). Impacts Positive and the local communities by creating employment Negative: Links Between Ecotourism opportunities and increasing income levels. and Environment. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Ecotourism activities in PNP has also helped Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. to provide a platform for healthy living, Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI increase environmental awareness and a better Publishing. appreciation of nature. Proper planning and Byrd, E. (2007). Stakeholders in Sustainable management is needed to ensure the vitality of Tourism Development and their Roles: this area. It is recommended for the management Applying Stakeholder Theory to Sustainable authorities to impose an entrance fee to the Tourism Development. Tourism Review, maximum RM5.00 to local visitors and 62(2): 6–13. RM10.00 to international visitors as a favorable Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996). Tourism, step to better manage the area with the revenue Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The collected to upgrade the facilities provided in State of Nature-based Tourism Around the PNP. It will also help to deter those with ill- World and Guidelines for Its Development. intention or careless about the environment Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: from entering PNP. Safeguarding the natural International Union for Conservation of resources is a must to maintain sustainability of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). PNP. Chan, N. W., Ismail, Wan Ruslan & Ibrahim, Abdul Latif. (2003). The Geography, Acknowledgements Climate and Hydrology of Pantai Acheh Forest Reserve. In C. L. K. (Ed.), Pantai The authors would like to thank KDU Penang Acheh Forest Reserve: The Case for a University College for funding this research State Park (pp. 38–54). Penang: Penerbit paper through KDU UC Conference Funding Universiti Sains Malaysia. 2017. The authors would also like to extend gratitude to the Department of Wildlife and Chin, C. L. M., A., Moore S., & J., Wallington National Parks (DWNP), Penang National Park T. (2000). Ecotourism in Bako National and Penang Fisheries Department for granting Park, Borneo: Visitors’ Perspectives permission to conduct interviews and get on Environmental Impacts and their information on their respective departments. Management. Journal of Sustainable Further gratitude goes to the tour guides of Tourism, 8(1): 20–35.

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

063.indd 80 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 81

Chua, L. S. L. (2008). Agarwood (Aquilaria Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: malaccensis) in Malaysia. Retrieved from A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/ Friedman, M. T. & Mason, D. S. (2005). cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/ Stakeholder Management and the Public Links-Documentos/Casos%20de%20 Subsidisation of Nashville’s Coliseum. Estudio/Trees/WG1%20CS3.pdf Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1): 93–118. CI. (2015). A Practical Guide to Good Gee, C.Y., & Fayos-Sola, E. (1997). International Practice for Tropical Forest-based Tours. Tourism: A Global Perspective. Madrid: Conservation International (CI), Rainforest World Trade Organization. Alliance & United Nations Environment Ghazali, S., & Sirat, M. (2011). Global Programme. Ecotourism and Local Communities in Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2013) Teaching Thematic Rural Areas. Penang: Penerbit Universiti Analysis: Over-coming Challenges and Sains Malaysia. Developing Strategies for Effective Gossling, S. (2002). Global Environmental Learning. The Psychologist, 26(2): 120– Consequences of Tourism. Global 123. Environmental Change, 12: 283–302. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Hazebroek, H. P., & Morshidi, A. K. A. Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating (2002). A guide to Gunung Mulu National Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Park: A world heritage site in Sarawak, Management Review, 20(1): 92–117. Malaysian Borneo. In K. M. Wong (Ed.). Das, S. (2011). Ecotourism, Sustainable Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: Natural History Development and the Indian State. EPW, Publications (Borneo). XLVI(37). Hearne, R. R., & Santos, C. A. (2005). Tourist Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The and Local Preferences toward Ecotourism Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Development in the Maya Biosphere Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Academy of Management Review, 20(1): Development and Sustainability, 7: 303–318. 65–91. Honey, M. (2002). Ecotourism and Certification: DWNP. (2008). Department of Wildlife and Setting Standards in Practice. Washington National Parks. www.wildlife.gov.my [2 DC: Island Press. Jun 2008]. Hoshaw, Lindsey. (2010). The world’s best DWNP. (2017). Department of Wildlife and green vacations. http://www.forbes.com/ National Parks. 2010/04/28/sustainable-adventure-travel- Frost, W. (2004). Rainforest. In R. Buckley (Ed.), technology-ecotech-ecotourism.html Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism (pp. Jamieson, W., & Jamal, T. (1997). Tourism 193–204). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Planning and Destination Management. Publishing. In C. Gee & E. Fayos-Sola (Eds.), Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, International Tourism: A Global C. D. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Perspective (Vol. 321–337). Madrid, Spain: Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning World Tourism Organization. and Management. Cambridge: IUCN Jennings, G. R. (2004). Interviewing: A Focus Publications Services Unit. on Qualitative Techniques. In B. W. Elite. (September 2016). Diplomat: Malaysia Richie (Ed.), Tourism Research Methods: on the Move. August-September 2016. Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. http://www.eliteplusmagazine.com/home/ 99–118). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI content/356/3 Publishing.

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

063.indd 81 3/27/18 3:19 PM Azreen Rozainee Abdullah et al. 82

Kaffashi, S., Radam A., Shamsudin M. N., Yacob Sato, T., Hong, C. W., Masazumi, A. O., M. R. & Nordin, N. H. (2015). Ecological Mohamed, B., & Chan, N. W. (2013). Conservation, Ecotourism, and Sustainable Kajian Perbandingan Isu dan Cabaran Management: The Case of Penang National Ekopelancongan di Taman Negara Pulau Park. Forests, 6: 2345–2370; doi:10.3390/ Pinang dan Taman Kinabalu, Malaysia. f6072345. Paper Presented at the Prosiding Seminar Kruger, O. (2005). The Role of Ecotourism in Serantau Ke-2 Pengurusan Persekitaran di Conservation: Panacea or Pandora`s Box? Alam Melayu, Pekanbaru, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14: 579– Santos, I. R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner- 600. Kersanach, M., & Fillmann, G. (2005). Lindberg, K. (2001). Economic Impact. The Influence of Socio-economic Characteristics Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, 5(23): 363– of Beach Users on Litter Generation. Ocean 377. Coast Management, 48: 742–752. Martinez-Ribes, L., Basterretxea, G., Palmer, Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., & Tintore, J. (2007). Origin and M. & Ivar do Sul, J. A. (2009). Marine Abundance of Beach Debris in the Balearic Debris Contamination Along Undeveloped Islands. Sci. Mar., 71: 305–314. Tropical Beaches from Northeast Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess., 148: 455–462. Neo, S. M., Choong, W. W., & R., Ahamad. (2016). Environmental Awareness and Shuib, A., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2002). Criteria and Behaviour Index for Malaysia. Procedia - Indicators of A Sustainable Development Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222: 668– of Ecotourism Resources: An Application 675. of the Delphi technique. Borneo Review, 13(1): 73–90. NRE. (2013). Kawasan Berhutan. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Sindiga, I. (1999). Tourism and African website. http://smanre.mygeoportal.gov. Development: Change and Challenge of my/smanre/hutan/kwsn_hutan.php Tourism in Kenya. Aldershot: Ashgate. Ong, H. P. (2016). Ecotourism in UNESCO World TIES. (2015). The International Ecotourism Heritage Sites: Uplifting Communities, Society website. http://www.ecotourism. Opportunities and Economies. TEAM org/what-is-ecotourism Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(1): Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, 77–79. J.F., M.M. Rivadeneira, & Vásquez, N. Orams, M. B. (2000). Feeding Wildlife as a (2013). Anthropogenic Marine Debris in Tourism Attraction: A Review of Issues the Coastal Environment: A Multi-year and Impacts. Tourism Management, 23: Comparison Between Coastal Waters and 281–293. Local Shores. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 71: 307–316. Orams, M. B. (2001). Types of Ecotourism. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.). The Encyclopedia Tourism Malaysia. (2009). Annual Tourism of Ecotourism (pp. 23–36). Wallingford: Statistical Report. Tourism Key Performance CABI Publishing. Indicators. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Tourism. Ramadhon, A., Yulianda, F., Bengen, D., & Adrianto, L. (2014). Sustainable Tourism UNEP. (2015). Conservation International, Based on Carrying Capacity and Ecological Rainforest Alliance, UNEP. A Practical Footprint at Sapeken Archipelago, Guide to Good Practice for Tropical Forest- Indonesia. International Journal of Based Tours. Ecosystem, 4(4): 190–196. DOI: 10.5923/j. http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/sites/default/ ije.20140404.05. files/publication/pdf/good_practice.pdf

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

063.indd 82 3/27/18 3:19 PM ECOTOURISM IN PENANG NATIONAL PARK: A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE 83

Usui, R., Sheeran, L. K., Li, J. H., Sun, L., Analysis. Health Policy and Planning, Wang, X., J.Pritchard, A., DuVall-Lash, A. 15(3): 338–345. S. & Wagner, R.S. (2014). Park Rangers’ Walpole, M. J., Goodwin, J. J., & R.Ward, K. Behaviors and Their Effects on Tourists G. (2001). Pricing Policy for Tourism in and Tibetan Macaques (Macaca thibetana) Protected Areas: Lessons from Komodo at Mt. Huangshan, China. Animals, 4: 546– National Park, Indonesia. Conservation 561. doi: 10.3390/ani4030546 Biology, 15: 218–227. Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to Do (or Not to Do)… A stakeholder

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

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