Stakeholder Collaboration on Conservation of Natural Resources in Lower Kinabatangan Sabah

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION ON CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

MARCELA BINTI PIMID

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA 2018

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION ON CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

MARCELA BINTI PIMID

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

August 2018

DECLARATION

The thesis is submitted for an academic research purpose to fulfil a requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban and Regional Planning at the School of

Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

I declare that the thesis is the results of my own independent work unless stated otherwise. The thesis also has not been submitted for any other degree, and currently it is not being presented for other degree.

______

Marcela Binti Pimid

School of Housing, Building and Planning

Universiti Sains Malaysia

DEDICATIONS

To my dear husband, Kumara Thevan,

My beloved children, Nathanael and Aedan,

My family in Sabah, family in-law, and closest friends,

Who taught me how hard one has to fight to make those dreams a reality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“If I think of research as a journey to reach my final destination, undertaking this study has been a challenging, but a wonderful experience. I would say my previous studies (degree and master in Applied Biology) in the laboratory are entirely quantitative. Therefore, making a leap from a purely laboratory research towards understanding abstract things that cannot be measured quantitatively have been really difficult, but a worthy lesson. More importantly, I have met many wonderful people along the way!” (Researcher’s thought)

My greatest thanksgiving to Almighty God for an unending strength and solitude throughout my PhD journey.

I express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to Dr. Normah Abdul Latip, my main supervisor, for her invaluable guidance, keen interest, and encouragement at various stages of my research. Her scholarly advices and experiences shared (both as a researcher and a mother) have helped me to a great extent to complete my work, while taking care of my own family. I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Associate

Professor Dr. Azizan Marzuki, my co-supervisor, for his timely guidance, enthusiasm, and constructive criticism has contributed immensely to the evolution of my ideas on this project. I extend my thanks to the staff of Housing, Building, and

Planning (USM), particularly madam Normah Ismail, madam Norwahida Ismail, and madam Noraini Rafie for their kind assistance and cooperation throughout my study.

I will be forever grateful to many people for their generous supports and willingness to give freely of their time, especially to those who let me come back again and again with questions. There are too many of these people to list, but gracious souls from various organisations – the Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Environment (KePKAS), the district office of Kinabatangan, Sabah Wildlife

Department, Sabah Forestry Department, Forest Research Centre, Sabah Tourism

Board, Environmental Protection Department, HUTAN Kinabatangan Orangutan

Conservation Programme, KOPEL Ltd, Nestlé Rileaf, Homestay organisation in the

Lower Kinabatangan, as well as the head of villages, village development and security committees, and the local communities of Lower Kinabatangan (especially

Sukau and Batu Puteh villages). Thank you very much for your invaluable insights and abundant technical assistant. Not forgetting those who make my research sampling a more joyful experience.

I offer a special thank to the Ministry of Higher Education for funding my doctorate study (program: MyPhD). It has motivated me to work diligently and fulfil my milestone accordingly.

I am very thankful to my friends, Nadiatul Sarah, Hamizah, and Diana

(School of Housing, Building, and Planning, USM) for the enlightenment, fun, and fruitful friendship we have throughout our research journeys. Not forgetting, an occasional meet up with Aini Hasanah, Melissa Renee, Myra, Lorraine, Marcolate, and Heidi, whom I find reasons to laugh and see life beyond than just doing a research. Thanks to Imelda Tambayang for her kind assistance during my research sampling.

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Kumara Thevan, my husband, for his unending encouragement and warmth love. During my absence in the house, he takes good care of our children and greatly assisting me in doing the house chores. To my lovely children, Nathanael and Aedan – they always find their ways to amuse me! To my family in Sabah (mother, father, and siblings) and family in-law in Penang, you are all the source of my strength, and the accomplishment of this research is made possible with all of your supports and prayers. Thank you very much!

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS...... iv LIST OF TABLES...... xi LIST OF FIGURES...... xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... xvi LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………... xvii ABSTRAK...... xviii ABSTRACT...... xx

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Research background...... 7 1.3 Problem statement...... 11 1.4 Research objectives...... 17 1.5 Research questions...... 18 1.6 Scopes of research...... 18 1.7 Significance of the study...... 19 1.8 Organisation of thesis...... 20

CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction...... 24 2.2 Conservation and ecotourism as one entity...... 24

2.3 Stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism in rural area...... 26

2.3.1 Stakeholder collaboration: contexts and definitions………………… 27

2.3.2 Criteria for stakeholder collaboration...... 28

2.3.3 Barriers influencing the effectiveness of stakeholder collaboration in 30 conservation and ecotourism...... 2.3.4 Implications of community participation on stakeholder 32 collaboration in conservation and ecotourism………………………..

2.3.4(a) Typologies of community participation in decision-making 33 process……………………………………………………… 2.3.4(b) Implications of community participation on stakeholder 35 collaboration………………………………………………

2.4 Theoretical basis of stakeholder collaboration...... 37 2.4.1 Stakeholder theory on conservation and ecotourism………………… 38 2.4.2 Stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism...... 41 2.4.3 Theoretical framework for the current study...... 45

2.4.4 Development of an integrated framework for conservation and 50 ecotourism......

2.4.5 Stakeholder analysis for identifying relevant stakeholders………… 52

2.5 Management of conservation of natural resources in rural areas...... 58 2.5.1 Top-down (command and control) to decentralised 58 management...... 2.5.2 Community-based natural resource management……………………. 59 2.5.3 Integrated approach of conservation: ICDP versus INRM…………... 60 2.5.4 Community-based conservation…………………………………...... 61 2.6 Management of ecotourism in rural areas...... 63

2.6.1 Community-based tourism...... 64 2.6.2 Community-based ecotourism...... 66

2.7 Climate change in relation to conservation and ecotourism...... 69

2.7.1 Climate change: shocks and stressors...... 69

2.7.2 Impacts of climate change...... 70

2.7.3 Current management of climate change...... 71

2.8 Case studies on stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism.. 72

2.8.1 Biodiversity conservation and ecotourism in Myanmar...... 73 2.8.2 Conservation and ecotourism in Hainan, China...... 75 2.8.3 Conservation and ecotourism in protected areas in Brazil...... 77 2.8.4 Conservation and ecotourism in Kenya...... 80 2.8.5 Lessons learnt from four case studies...... 83 2.9 Impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas...... 87 2.9.1 Positive impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas…... 87 2.9.2 Negative impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas….. 88 2.10 Issues of conservation and ecotourism...... 90 2.11 Policies and regulations on conservation and ecotourism...... 93

2.12 Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 97

CHAPTER 3- THE LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

3.1 Introduction...... 98 3.2 Justifications for choosing the Lower Kinabatangan as a research area...... 98 3.3 The background of the Lower Kinabatangan...... 101 3.3.1 Geographic setting...... 101 3.3.2 History of Kinabatangan...... 102 3.3.3 Physical setting...... 105 3.3.4 Demographic background...... 109 3.4 Issues and challenges in the Lower Kinabatangan...... 110 3.4.1 Land fragmentation and habitat loss...... 110 3.4.2 Illegal logging and poaching...... 111 3.4.3 Environmental problems...... 112 3.4.4 Human-wildlife conflict...... 113 3.5 Stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources and 114 ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan...... 3.6 Conservation activities in the Lower Kinabatangan...... 118

3.7 Ecotourism attraction and products in the Lower Kinabatangan...... 123

3.8 Impacts of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan……………………. 126 3.9 Conclusion...... 130

CHAPTER 4- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction...... 131 4.2 Development of research designs...... 134 4.2.1 Concepts and approaches of research...... 134 4.2.2 Link paradigm to data collection and analysis strategies...... 136 4.2.3 Critics over choosing a method that fits the research purposes...... 141 4.3 Analysis of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism...... 143 4.3.1 Stakeholder analysis and mapping…………………………………… 143 4.3.2 Analysis and mapping of stakeholders in Lower Kinabatangan…….. 144 4.4 Mixed method research: concurrent triangulation design...... 147 4.4.1 Rationale for choosing a mixed method study...... 147 4.3.2 Approaches to concurrent mixed method research...... 150

4.3.3 Parsimonious set of mixed method designs…...... 153

4.3.4 Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in a mixed 153 method study………………………………………………………… 4.5 Qualitative methodology...... 158 4.5.1 Preliminary study...... 160 4.5.2 Sampling design of qualitative...... 162 4.5.3 Data collection...... 166 4.5.4 Data analysis...... 167 4.6 Quantitative methodology...... 181 4.6.1 Sampling design...... 182 4.6.2 Questionnaire design...... 185 4.6.3 Preliminary study...... 188 4.6.4 Data collection...... 188 4.6.5 Data analysis...... 189 vii

4.7 Conclusion...... 191

CHAPTER 5- RESULT

5.1 Introduction...... 192

5.2 Response rates, data screening, and reliability test...... 192 5.2.1 Screening of questionnaire data...... 194 5.2.2 Reliability test...... 194 5.3 Socio-demographic background of questionnaire respondents...... 195 5.4 Research findings based on three research questions...... 203

5.4.1 Research question 1...... 203

5.4.1(a) Stakeholder participation in conservation of natural 204 resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan……...

5.4.1(b) The factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in 211 conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan…..

5.4.1(c) Stakeholder management of conservation of natural 217 resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan……...

5.4.1(d) The issues pertaining to the conservation of natural 223 resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan……...

5.4.2 Research question 2...... 235 235 5.4.2(a) The impacts of conservation of natural resources to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan……………………

5.4.2(b) The impacts of ecotourism to the stakeholders in the Lower 238 Kinabatangan………………………………………………

5.4.2(c) The impacts of climate change on conservation, ecotourism, 241 and stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan……………….

5.4.3 Research question 3...... 246

5.4.3(a) Strategies to improve the conservation of natural resources 246 in the Lower Kinabatangan………………………………….

5.4.3(b) Strategies to improve the ecotourism in the Lower 252 Kinabatangan………………………………………………..

viii

5.4.3(c) Strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in managing 255 conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan….. 257 5.5 Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative results...... 265 5.6 Exploratory factor analysis………………………………………………....

5.6.1 Exploratory factor analysis of items of conservation……………… 265 5.6.2 Exploratory factor analysis of items of ecotourism………………….. 268 5.7 Conclusion...... 270

CHAPTER 6- DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

6.1 Introduction...... 272

6.2 The attitudes of local community towards the conservation...... 273

6.3 The communities’ willingness to donate for conservation activities...... 275

6.4 The attitudes of local community towards ecotourism…………………….. 278

6.5 Analysis of stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources 280 and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan......

6.6 Stakeholder mapping in the Lower Kinabatangan…………………………. 293

6.7 Collaborative process and outcomes in the Lower Kinabatangan…………. 296

6.7.1 Collaborative process of conservation and ecotourism……………… 296

6.7.2 Collaborative outcomes of conservation and ecotourism……………. 300 6.8 Integrated framework of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and 303 ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan……………………………………. 6.8.1 Criteria used to structure an integrated framework…………...... 303

6.8.2 Stakeholders’ opinions on improving the collaboration for the future 305 6.8.3 Strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and 307 ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan……………………………… 6.9 Conclusion...... 315

CHAPTER 7- RESEARCH SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………...... 318 7.2 Overview and implications of the study...... 318 7.3 Contributions of the study...... 325 7.3.1 Contribution towards the existing body of knowledge...... 326

7.3.2 Contribution to the society in the rural setting...... 329 7.3.3 Contribution to the economy...... 329

7.3.4 Contribution towards effective stakeholder collaboration in 330 conservation, ecotourism, and climate change...... 7.4 Research limitations...... 331 7.5 Opportunities for future research...... 332 7.6 Final remarks...... 334

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….. 335

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Definitions and concepts of community-based tourism 65

Table 3.1 Statistic of tourist travelling to Kinabatangan in 2009 125 until 2015

Table 4.1 Links between paradigms, methods, and instruments 140

Table 4.2 Interview guide for multiple stakeholders 167

Table 4.3 The codes and descriptions of codes 176

Table 4.4 Charting data into a matrix 179

Table 4.5 Attributes for questionnaire surveys 186

Table 5.1 Response rates for questionnaire surveys 193

Table 5.2 Triangulation of mixed method research using a 258 condensed data convergence matrix

Table 5.3 Factor analysis of respondents’ opinions on current 267 conservation

Table 5.4 Factor analysis of respondents’ opinions on current 269 ecotourism

Table 6.1 Regression analysis on the effects of seven independent 274 variables on the community attitudes towards conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan

Table 6.2 Logistic regression predicting a likelihood of the 276 community’s willingness to donate for conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan

Table 6.3 Regression analysis on the effects of ten independent 278 variables on the community attitudes towards ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Table 6.4 Interest-influence relationships among the stakeholders in 287 the Lower Kinabatangan

Table 6.5 Collaborative process of conservation and ecotourism in 298 the Lower Kinabatangan

Table 6.6 Collaborative outcomes of conservation and ecotourism 302 in the Lower Kinabatangan

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Theoretical framework of stakeholder collaboration on 49 conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 2.2 Three stages of stakeholder analysis comprise of rationale, 57 typology, and methods.

Figure 3.1 The location of Kinabatangan town, Sukau and Batu Puteh 102 villages.

Figure 3.2 Types of land use in the Lower Kinabatangan. The lots 108 represent areas of the LKWS which are disconnected between various types of land use.

Figure 3.3 Systematic relationship among the stakeholders in the 116 Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 4.1 Research approach for examining the collaboration of 132 multiple stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 4.2 Relationships between ontology, epistemology and 134 methodology.

Figure 4.3 Stakeholder analysis and mapping in the Lower 145 Kinabatangan.

Figure 4.4 Basic design of a mixed method research. 154

Figure 4.5 The coding of an interview transcript. 174

Figure 4.6 The application of an analytical framework to each 177 transcript.

Figure 4.7 Interprete the data. 181

Figure 5.1a Frequency analysis of respondents based on gender and 196 age in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.1b Frequency analysis of respondents based on ethnicity and 197 marital status in the Lower Kinabatangan.

xiii

Figure 5.2a Frequency analysis of respondents based on highest 199 education level and occupation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.2b Frequency analysis of respondents based on monthly 200 salary and length of stay in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.3a Frequency analysis of respondents based on reason to stay 202 and land ownership in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.3b Frequency analysis of respondents based on experience 203 with wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.4 The participation of respondents in ecotourism activities. 204

Figure 5.5 The participation of respondents in conservation activities. 206

Figure 5.6 The opinions of respondents on the current management of 209 ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.7 A list of problems that the respondents encounter in 212 ecotourism.

Figure 5.8 A list of problems that the respondents encounter in 214 conservation.

Figure 5.9 Eleven mediums of communication in conservation as 218 reported by the respondents.

Figure 5.10 The opinions of respondents on the current management of 221 the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary.

Figure 5.11 The perspectives of respondents pertaining to seven issues 224 of conservation.

Figure 5.12 The perceived impacts of conservation among the 235 respondents.

Figure 5.13 Perceived impacts of ecotourism among the respondents. 239

Figure 5.14 The opinions of respondents on the climate change in the 242 Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.15 The impacts of climate change on ecotourism in the Lower 243 Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.16 The impacts of climate change on the conservation in the 244 Lower Kinabatangan.

xiv

Figure 5.17 Three attitudinal responses of respondents on 247 conservation.

Figure 5.18 The perspectives of respondents on future development of 248 conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.19 The opinions of respondents on the current trend of 249 conservation and future participation in conservation.

Figure 5.20 The opinions of respondents on the support for 250 conservation and the willingness to donate for conservation.

Figure 5.21 The opinions of respondents on the future management of 251 climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.22 The interests and willingness of respondents to participate 252 in future ecotourism venture.

Figure 5.23 The opinions of respondents on how to improve current 253 ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 6.1 Mapping of key stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. 294

Figure 6.2 An integrated framework to enhance a stakeholder 305 collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CBC Community-based conservation CBET Community-based ecotourism CBNRM Community-based natural resource management CBT Community-based tourism EPD Environment Protection Department HUTAN-KOCP HUTAN Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Programme ICDP Integrated conservation and development program INRM Integrated natural resource management JKKK Jawatankuasa Kemajuan Dan Keselamatan Kampung

KiTA Kinabatangan-corridor of Life Tourism Operators Association KePKAS Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture, And Environment KOPEL Community Ecotourism Cooperative (Koperasi pelancongan) LKWS Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary MMR Mixed method research MP Malaysia plan NEP National Ecotourism Plan TDC Tourism Development Corporation of Malaysia NGOs Non-governmental organisations SBC Sabah conservation strategy SFD Sabah Forestry Department SFM Sustainable forest management SWD Sabah Wildlife Department TIES The International Ecotourism Society UNWTO The World Tourism Organisation WWF World Wide Fund WTD Willingness to donate WTP Willingness to pay

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Consent form for field research Appendix B List of interviewees Appendix C Interview questions (English) Appendix D Interview questions (Malay) Appendix E Questionnaire survey (English) Appendix F Questionnaire survey (Malay)

xvii

KERJASAMA PEMEGANG TARUH DALAM KONSERVASI SUMBER

SEMULA JADI DI HILIR KINABATANGAN SABAH

ABSTRAK

Kegagalan untuk mencapai kelestarian dalam konservasi dan ekopelancongan selalu dikaitkan dengan kegagalan dalam memahami keperluan dan agenda pemegang taruh. Tambahan pula, strategi yang digunakan untuk menyelesaikan isu- isu konservasi dan ekopelancongan sering mengabaikan pendapat komuniti tempatan di luar bandar. Kajian ini berfokus kepada kerjasama pemegang taruh dalam kedua- dua sektor, faktor dan isu yang mempengaruhi kerjasama pemegang taruh dalam konservasi dan ekopelancongan, termasuk kesan perubahan iklim kepada pemegang taruh, ekopelancongan, dan konservasi di Hilir Kinabatangan Sabah. Matlamat kajian dilaksanakan dengan menggunakan kaedah gabungan kuantitatif dan kualitatif.

Untuk kaedah kuantitatif, sebanyak 328 soal selidik yang dikutip dari setiap rumah komuniti tempatan di kampung Sukau dan Batu Puteh di Hilir Kinabatangan. Kaedah kualitatif dilaksanakan melalui pemerhatian dan temuramah kepada pemimpin komuniti, pihak berkuasa tempatan, pertubuhan bukan kerajaan, sektor swasta, ekopelancongan sektor tempatan dan swasta. Analisis kajian menunjukkan lima penemuan penting. Pertama, bilangan komuniti tempatan yang terlibat dalam aktiviti konservasi adalah lebih tinggi berbanding ekopelancongan. Kedua, analisis soal selidik menunjukkan bahawa komuniti tempatan tidak tahu cara untuk melibatkan diri dalam aktiviti konservasi dan ekopelancongan, tetapi analisis temuramah mendedahkan bahawa keuntungan adalah faktor utama yang mempengaruhi penglibatan komuniti dalam kedua-dua sektor. Ketiga, walaupun ada kajian sebelum ini dilaksanakan di kawasan ini, isu-isu seperti konflik antara pemegang taruh,

xviii

konflik hidupan liar dengan manusia, dan pencemaran alam sekitar belum dapat diselesaikan. Analisis kajian membuktikan bahawa isu-isu ini berpunca daripada kurangnya platform untuk menyuarakan masalah mereka berkaitan konservasi dan ekopelancongan secara terbuka, terutamanya komuniti tempatan dan ekopelancongan sektor tempatan. Keempat, sikap komuniti tempatan terhadap konservasi dan ekopelancongan dipengaruhi oleh penglibatan terdahulu dan cadangan untuk memperbaiki ekopelancongan dan konservasi. Tambahan pula, komuniti tempatan yang memandang positif akan cadangan untuk memperbaiki konservasi adalah 4.9 kali lebih rela menderma untuk aktiviti konservasi berbanding mereka yang mempunyai tanggapan negatif. Kelima, hasil kajian ini digunakan untuk membentuk rangka kerja bersepadu berdasarkan pendapat pemegang taruh. Rangka kerja ini menekankan lima aspek penting yang perlu diperbaiki untuk meningkatkan kerjasama pemegang taruh dalam konservasi dan ekopelancongan di Hilir

Kinabatangan iaitu persekitaran, sosial, ekonomi, kerjasama pemegang taruh dalam konservasi dan ekopelancongan (termasuk penyertaan komuniti tempatan), dan perubahan iklim. Rangka kerja ini boleh juga diaplikasikan untuk menyelesaikan isu- isu berkaitan konservasi dan ekopelancongan di kawasan luar bandar lain yang menghadapi masalah yang sama.

xix

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION ON CONSERVATION OF NATURAL

RESOURCES IN LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

ABSTRACT

A failure to achieve a sustainable development of ecotourism and conservation is often related to the failure in addressing varying needs and interests of various stakeholders. Moreover, the strategies use to solve the issues of conservation and ecotourism often excludes the opinions of local communities in rural areas. The present study investigated the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors, factors and issues which influenced stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism, as well as the impacts of climate change on stakeholders, ecotourism and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. The aims were achieved by conducting a concurrent mixed method research using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative method gathered 328 questionnaires from each household of local communities in Sukau and Batu Puteh villages in the Lower Kinabatangan, whereas the qualitative method was conducted using a participant observation and in-depth semi-structured interviews to community leaders, local authorities, non-governmental organisations, private sectors, local and private sector ecotourism. The study highlighted five important findings. First, the number of local communities participated in conservation activities were higher compared to the ecotourism venture. Second, the surveys revealed that the local communities did not know how to participate in both activities of conservation and ecotourism, but the interview analysis showed that profit was the main factor that determined the community involvement in both sector. Third, despite previous studies conducted in this area, persistent issues such as a conflict

among stakeholder, human-wildlife conflict, and environmental pollutions were found unresolved. The findings exhibited that these issues stemmed primarily from the lack of avenue for the stakeholders to express their problems of conservation and ecotourism, especially the local communities and local sector ecotourism. Fourth, the attitudes of local communities towards conservation and ecotourism were both influenced by a previous participation and the suggestions to improve current conservation and ecotourism. Furthermore, the local communities who positively perceived the suggestions to improve the current conservation were over 4.9 times more willing to donate for the conservation activities than those who perceived it negatively. Fifth, the findings were used to develop an integrated framework based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders. In this regard, the framework highlighted five important aspects necessary for enhancing the collaboration of stakeholders in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, namely the environment, social, economy, stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism

(including local community participation), and a climate change. The framework could also be applied to solve the prevalent issues of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in other remote areas which encountered similar problems.

xxi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The current study aims to investigate the collaboration of key stakeholders on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in remote areas, with a specific reference to the Lower Kinabatangan in Sabah, Malaysia. This study focuses on the current management of conservation and ecotourism by various stakeholders, the issues and factors that influence stakeholder collaboration, and substantial impacts of climate change in conservation and ecotourism. The findings from the study are used to formulate an integrated framework to better improve the stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, by strategically addressing the previous and current issues pertaining to these two aspects.

A key challenge in achieving a successful management of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in rural areas is to determine how stakeholders can collaborate efficiently in order to sustain the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism for a long term. A collaborative approach is reported to be effective in addressing issues of conservation and ecotourism through a long term engagement and trust building among various stakeholders (Ratner et al., 2017). Stakeholder collaboration is also crucial for improving the livelihoods of rural community because it empowers community members, generate new ideas, reduce conflicts, increase sharing of responsibilities, and eventually leads to an informed community

(Pasape et al., 2013). In addition, it is important to understand varying needs and interests of various stakeholders so that they could work together to achieve a sustainable development of conservation and ecotourism.

Ecotourism has become a booming industry in many countries, as a drive for economic development and creating more job opportunities for local communities

(Somarriba-Chang & Gunnarsdotter, 2012; Snyman, 2014b). Ecotourism also provides an economic incentive including direct or indirect employment, ecotourism development and promotion to reduce poverty in rural areas (Adeleke, 2015), whereby it is inherently claimed to provide various benefits to local communities, such as job opportunities, supplementary income, a shortcut to fast develop their village’s facilities, and an exchange of cultural experiences (Spiteri & Nepal, 2006;

Adeleke, 2015). Recent researches show the importance to examine the impacts of climate change in relation to conservation of biodiversity, wildlife, human being, and most importantly the role of ecotourism as an adaptation strategy, not only for reducing the local community vulnerability to climate change, but also to act as a poverty-alleviation measure (Adler et al., 2013; Mkiramweni et al., 2016).

Undeniably, in recent managements of the environment and natural resources, it is evident that climate change emerges as a global threat for conservation, but the impacts on local context is understudied (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011).

Nevertheless, there are many issues that jeopardise the genuine purposes of conservation and ecotourism. First, while successful conservation and ecotourism is a continuous outcome of a proper and strategic management, various stakeholders

(e.g. ecotourism operators, local authorities, and local communities) with varying interests complicate the results (Zhou et al., 2014). Therefore, understanding the opinions and perspectives of these stakeholders are crucial in order to enhance the development of conservation and ecotourism in certain areas. Second, the involvement of local community in ecotourism venture is undeniably crucial, but it is meaningless without examining the factors that motivate or discourage them to

continually support and participate in ecotourism venture, as well as in the conservation activities (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Somarriba-Chang &

Gunnarsdotter, 2012).

Third, Stronza (2007) reported that the application of stakeholder collaboration as a strategy to enhance conservation measures yielded mixed results that some local people who gained benefits from ecotourism were motivated to conserve resources, while others extract more resources despite getting incomes by participating in ecotourism activities. Therefore, there is a contradict link between achieving an increased conservation through getting an increased income from ecotourism, and the same author calls for more research regarding factors that influence such dynamic findings. Another scholar noted that local people were motivated to conserve resources by recognising the environment’s aesthetic characteristics and value, not merely based on economic incentives (Fletcher, 2009).

The research title is defined to present an overview of Lower Kinabatangan area. The term stakeholder emerged in the 1960s, defined as “individuals or groups who are affected by the decision-makers’ decisions and actions, and those who have the power to influence their outcomes” (Freeman, 1984, p.46). However, the definition is considered too broad for a practical purpose because ecotourism planner requires a thorough picture of all groups who are involved in all stages of ecotourism development (Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Weitzner & Deutsch, 2015). In the case of conservation, stakeholder means “any individual, group, or institution who has a vested interest in the natural resources of the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities and have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same” (WWF, 2005, p.1).

Stakeholder collaboration means “a process of ensuring that there is interaction of various stakeholders with common or related goals during planning, learning, decision making and empowerment mainly for the sake of enabling smooth management, collectively decision and innovation when tackling challenges, opportunities and plans for current and future well-being of a particular society”

(Pasape et al., 2013, p.2). Other scholar define a collaboration as “a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible, thereby the process leads to a more comprehensive understanding of a problem that enables the participants to find new solutions that no one party could have envisioned or enacted alone” (Roberts, 1991, p.4). In this regard, the collaboration enhances the potential to discover novel and innovative solutions.

Based on these definitions, the study in the Lower Kinabatangan adopts an exclusive definition of stakeholder as people or groups who are directly (and indirectly) involved or affected by the planning, processes, and outcomes of the conservation and ecotourism in this area. Moreover, the current study refers the collaboration as a process through which the stakeholders who see different aspects of a problem (conservation or ecotourism issue) can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions to enable smooth management and collective decision so as to attain a sustainable development of conservation and ecotourism in this area. The Lower Kinabatangan is a rural area and located in the Sabah state (east

Malaysia). It is of important area for conservation because it harbours various species of flora and fauna, especially wildlife that has become a flagship attraction for ecotourism development.

Conservation is defined as the protection and/or sustainable use of species or ecosystem to ensure their long-term survival and viability (Kothari et al., 2000).

Borgström (2015, p.70) defines conservation as “a series of measures required to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the populations of species of wild fauna and flora at a favourable conservation status.” Meanwhile, natural resources refer to biophysical materials which satisfy human needs and provide direct inputs to human well-being such as forests, flora, wildlife, timber, and minerals (Ratner et al., 2017).

People depend largely on natural resources for various purposes. For examples, the people depend on forests for medicinal plants, water catchment, foods, and traditional rituals (Fabricius & Collins, 2007, Ratner et al., 2017).

In addition, conservation requires a continuous effort necessary to safeguard the natural resources while assuring sustainable use of remaining resources.

Conservation provides five significances of a sustainable development, namely its intrinsic values of biodiversity, ecosystem services (e.g. provides clean air and water), amenity and recreational values, the opportunity to use them to yield socioeconomic benefits, and maintenance of intergenerational equity (Coffey &

Major, 2005; Robert et al., 2005; Hussin, 2009). In this regard, the current study adopts a definition of conservation of natural resources as the protection and sustainable use of natural resources (the environment, forests, flora and wildlife) to ensure their long-term viability while at the same time to restore natural habitats in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) defines ecotourism as a

“responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people” (TIES, 1990, p.2). The World Tourism Organisation states that ecotourism generates benefits for host communities, provides alternative

employment and income opportunities for local communities, and increases awareness towards the conservation of natural and cultural assets (UNWTO, 2002).

The definition emphasises three important aspects of ecotourism, known as ecological, social, and economic. The definition of ecotourism is also synonymous with local community involvement, profit sharing, and empowerment through ecotourism and conservation projects (Adeleke, 2015). Likewise, two influential organisations apply similar criteria of ecotourism, namely the United Nations

Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN)

(Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). More importantly, ecotourism acts as an incentive for conservation of natural resources, wildlife, and biodiversity in developing countries, particularly in remote areas (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). This interdependency depicts the symbiotic relationship between ecotourism, conservation, and local indigenous people (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008).

Climate change is defined as a change of climate properties that are identified by changes of mean and variability of its properties, and continue for a longer period due to natural variability and human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, 2007). According to Calgaro et al. (2014), the physical impacts of climate change are categorised into two types, namely shocks (occur suddenly and last for a short period of time) and stressors (happen at a slow pace and take a longer time). In this light, earthquake and landslide are the examples of shocks whereas biodiversity loss and water shortage are stressors. There are broad studies on climate change, but the present study focuses specifically on its impacts on ecotourism, conservation, and stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. Therefore, the present study is written based on the definitions stated herein.

Taken together, the current study focuses on the stakeholder collaboration on natural resources in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. The collaborative approach is examined by understanding the issues and factors that influence stakeholder collaboration, the mechanisms used by the stakeholders to manage the natural resources such as the environment, forests, flora and wildlife, as well as the impacts of conservation and ecotourism to the stakeholders. Moreover, by identifying flaws in the current management of both sectors, the study proposes strategies to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in order to achieve a sustainable development of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

1.2 Research background

Until the 1970s, tourism is undeveloped and remained as an insignificant economy in Malaysia. In 1972, the Tourism Development Corporation of Malaysia

(TDC) is established which serves as a development authority, but it is ineffective due to limited financial allocations (WWF, 1996). Consequently, the development of tourism in Malaysia is lagged behind other Asian countries such as Thailand,

Indonesia, and Singapore during that time. Nevertheless, the tourism is starting to bloom worldwide in the 1980s. The booming tourism is stimulated by an increased investment in new facilities, increased personal income, upgraded international transportation system, and improved communications. The Malaysian government carries out a series of development strategies to stimulate the tourism sector, knowing that it plays a crucial role in economic and social development. For example, the Ministry of Culture, Arts, and Tourism is responsible for planning and coordinating tourism (WWF, 1996), as well as the government’s efforts to introduce tourism as a core subject in local universities and schools (Mohamed, 2002).

The Malaysian government allocates an increased amount of funds for marketing, promotional activities, physical and social infrastructures so as to expand tourism sector. For instance, the expenditures for tourism sector are RM 125.5 million during the Fourth Malaysia Plan (4MP, 1981-1985), RM 132.1 million during the Fifth Malaysia Plan (5MP, 1986-1990), and RM 533.9 million during the

Sixth Malaysia Plan (6MP, 1991-1995). Therefore, the total funding for tourism development has increased significantly from 4MP to 6MP, showing that the tourism sector consistently yields an increased revenue from time to time. During the Visit

Malaysia Year 1990, Malaysia attracts 7.4 million tourists with a net revenue of RM

4.5 billion (WWF, 1996).

Compare to the first cycle of Malaysia Plans (1MP to 5MP), the Seventh

Malaysia Plan (7MP, 1996-2000) focuses on expanding the range of activities, products, and market to enhance foreign exchanges (The Malaysian Economic

Planning Unit, 1996). The Malaysian government also invests a huge amount of money to improve technology related to tourism, such as holiday bookings through internet, promotion in various electronic media, and services-based on automated electronic. The Eighth Malaysia Plan (8MP, 2001-2005) aims for a rapid and sustainable growth of tourism, to improve human resource development in tourism, to enhance communication connectivity, to ensure safety and welfare of tourists, as well as to form strategic alliances and enhance international cooperation (The

Malaysian Economic Planning Unit, 2001). The 8MP allocates RM 295.3 million for beautification and the protection of the environment, as compare to RM 89.2 million in the 7MP. Despite an economic crisis in 1997 and 1998 (8MP), the tourism industry remains strong and steady. During the 8MP, the net revenue of the tourism sector has increased from RM 11.2 billion in 2000 to RM 18.1 billion in 2005.

The Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP, 2006-2010) focuses on promoting cultural and heritage, as well as eco- and agro-tourism, especially in Melaka, Penang, Sabah, and Sarawak (The Malaysian Economic Planning Unit, 2006). The ecotourism is developed based on the National Ecotourism Plan, which includes Homestay programme. The main purpose of the Homestay programme is to enhance the involvement of rural communities in tourism-related activities, thereby providing them supplementary incomes. During the 9MP, the Malaysian government continues to expand infrastructures and communication facilities. The strategies of the 9MP are ensuring a sustainable tourism development and enhancing the development of innovative tourism products and services. For example, extra emphasis is given in ecotourism sector, including the conservation of natural attractions (wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and islands). The importance of ecotourism development is evident with an allocation of RM 652.1 million in the 9MP compare to RM 243.1 million in the 8MP. During 2006 until 2009, the revenue of the tourism sector has increased 67.1 % to RM 53.4 billion, while tourist arrivals increase 43.6 % to 23.6 million.

The Tenth Malaysia Plan (10MP, 2011-2015) aims to attract a larger share of high spend travelers and capture high growth segments (e.g. Rusia, India, China, and

Middle East) (The Malaysian Economic Planning Unit, 2011). Among the key strategies are promoting differentiated strategy for ecotourism, improving existing and new iconic tourism products, cooperation between private sector and public- private partnership. The number of tourist arrivals in 2015 is 25.7 million with a tourism receipt of RM 69.1 billion. The 10MP also places a greater value on environmental assets and ecological resources by managing them in a more sustainable manner. Therefore, the Malaysian government facilitates a greater

participation of local communities in ecotourism activities such as fishermen as guides, biodiversity protection through the compilation of knowledge on biotropical herbs, and self-sustaining conservation. Equally important, the Malaysian government also responds proactively to the climate change that focuses on adaptation and mitigation strategies to reduce its negative impacts.

Therefore, as the Malaysian Plan progressing (1MP to 10MP), it is evident that the Malaysian government places greater values on ecotourism sector, conservation, and encourages the local communities to participate in this sector. An increased amount of expenditure is allocated to beautification and protecting the biodiversity as a crucial asset for both sustainable tourism and ecotourism development. Nevertheless, strategic planning without addressing the actual needs of local communities might lead to a failure in achieving such objectives. In particular, solving issues involving protected areas and local communities without understanding their opinions and problems (e.g. assuming what their issues are and try to solve them, top-down planning and management) eventually discourage them in getting involved in ecotourism and conservation activities (Walters et al., 1999;

Garrod, 2003).

Meanwhile, in the case of climate change, the Malaysian Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment (NRE) is formed in 2004 to better coordinate the complex issue of climate change, apart from dealing with other environmental problems (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia, 2007).

Moreover, Malaysia also adopts a precautionary principle and ‘no regrets’ policy to mitigate climate change. Various government agencies, private sectors, and NGOs also mutually cooperate and promote public awareness to address this issue. Indeed, without proper mitigation, the impacts of climate change are severe such as sea level

rise, repeated flooding, extreme weather, increase public health problems (e.g. dengue, malaria, and diarrhea due to an increased temperature has resulted in an increased of vector capacity), health effects (e.g. heat waves, cardiovascular and respiratory problems), increase trapping of pollutants, and its effect on socioeconomic (e.g. workforce capacity and economic growth). Furthermore, both plants and animals would suffer from changing climatic pressures, in the event of the climate change exceeding their natural ability to adapt, they might succumb to species extinction (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia, 2007).

Despite initiatives undertaken by the government, little is known about its effects in a local context, particularly in an area that is exposed to an alarming threat of climate change.

1.3 Problem statement

The establishment of protected areas in many developing countries serves many purposes, such as ecosystem protections, environmental and landscape conservation, including its roles in social and economic aspects (Somarriba-Chang &

Gunnarsdotter, 2012). For example, it is used for human occupancy in many developing countries, particularly the local indigenous people (Coria & Calfucura,

2012). Protected areas give them a crucial protection, a sense of belonging and essential spaces to continually practicing traditional activities that are now often impossible elsewhere (Ami & Hamzah, 2013). Besides that, it also provides multiple environmental services to human being, for instance, controlling soil erosion, recycling nutrients, and acts as a water catchment system (Somarriba-Chang &

Gunnarsdotter, 2012).

Ironically, just by establishing protected areas in many developing countries does not guarantee their main objective of protecting the nature (Ami & Hamzah, 11

2013). In many cases, the managements of protected areas are associated with social and economic conflicts, mostly due to local people being excluded from decision- making and management, including the reason that different groups have different perspectives pertaining to using and managing the natural resources (Hussain et al.,

2016). Moreover, the local community attitudes towards protected areas are influenced by education, participation, cost and benefits perceived by these people

(Adeleke, 2015). Therefore, previous studies report that managing the protected areas based on the participation of the local community could avoid conflicts (Lewis,

1996; Somarriba-Chang & Gunnarsdotter, 2012). Although the local community is assured of getting benefits from ecotourism activities, this is not always the case. It seems a common problem, whereby the lack of local participation prevails in many developing countries (Somarriba-Chang & Gunnarsdotter, 2012).

The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987, p.15) defines sustainable as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In this regard, the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism are essential elements of a sustainable development. The conservation provides several significances for a sustainable development, namely ecosystem services, amenity and recreational values, and an opportunity to use them for socioeconomic benefits, as well as to maintain intergenerational equity (Coffey & Major, 2005; Robert et al., 2005).

Meanwhile, ecotourism is regarded as one component of sustainable development because it generates long-term benefits to local community, contribute towards conservation of environment and culture, promote intrinsic value of nature, non- consumptive use of natural resources, create an awareness of environmental conservation among stakeholders, as well as foster understanding and collaboration

among stakeholders (Pasape et al., 2013; Snyman, 2014b). Similarly, Manaf et al.

(2018) state that if a development is able to maintain all criteria such as a widespread community engagement, beneﬁts that can be distributed equally to all communities, good management of ecotourism, strong internal and external collaboration, and well-maintained environmental conservation – then it is considered as a sustainable development based on the description provided by the United Nations Environment

Programme (Manaf et al., 2018).

The Lower Kinabatangan Sabah is a significant area for studying the collaboration of various stakeholders in conservation purposes because it provides an ideal and a wide range of habitats for rare and endangered wildlife species. It is one of only two places on earth that harbours ten primate species, including the proboscis monkey, orangutan, and Bornean gibbon (Hai et al., 2001; WWF, 2001). It provides a home for a more than fifty mammal species, including the Sumatran rhinoceros,

Asian elephant, pygmy elephant, as well as at least eight species of hornbill (Hai et al., 2001; WWF, 2001). Moreover, the Kinabatangan river is the longest in Sabah

(560 km), serves as the source of livelihoods and one way of transportation to local indigenous community, known as ‘Orang Sungai’ in this area. The river and the surrounding wetland are a precious breeding ground for a various types of aquatic, especially freshwater fishes, crabs, and prawns (Hai et al., 2001). Equally important, the river is the main supply of daily water for Sandakan district.

There are many studies conducted on conservation and ecotourism in developing countries, especially in rural areas. The studies focus on the impacts of conservation and ecotourism on various stakeholders, the relationship among stakeholders, the issues pertaining to stakeholder collaboration in both aspects, and propose solutions to address the issues (Majail & Webber, 2006; Ancrenaz et al.

2007; Mbaiwa & Stronza 2010; Snyman, 2012; Snyman, 2016). However, what is lacking the most is that the studies do not directly ask the opinions of relevant stakeholders on how to address the issues of conservation and ecotourism, especially the perspectives of local communities who are most affected by the development of both sectors in their areas.

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, a local government and NGOs made many initiatives to increase stakeholders’ awareness on the importance of conservation and ecotourism in rural areas as part of economic and social development, but a weak integration among the stakeholders jeopardised the efforts

(Fletcher, 1996; Hussin, 2009). Other factors such as a poor communication and inefficient management also contribute towards negative outcomes (Fletcher, 1996;

Hai et al. 2001; Latip et al. 2015a). Furthermore, studies of conservation and ecotourism only included two groups of stakeholder (Ghasemi & Hamzah, 2014;

Goh, 2015), or three types of stakeholders such local authority, NGOs, and local community (Latip & Badarulzaman, 2014) or government, industries (oil palm and ecotourism), and local community (Majail & Webber, 2006). Meanwhile, Hussin

(2006) examines more groups of stakeholders such as local community, NGOs, homestay participants, and conservation volunteers. In this light, it is noteworthy that a better understanding of broader groups of affected stakeholders (human or social dimension) enhances conservation and ecotourism measures (Bennett et al. 2017;

Mak et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2017).

In the past, the Lower Kinabatangan is practically covered by forests, but today many forests were cleared to make ways for agricultural and development purposes (Vaz, 1993; WWF, 2001). It causes a huge land fragmentation in this area.

Even worse, 85 % of the Kinabatangan forests have been converted to agricultural

sectors in 2003 (Pang, 2003). Although commercial logging activities have reduced, this area is subjected to many threats, such as land conversion to oil palm plantations, illegal logging, and local villagers are willing to sell or give up their private land to agricultural companies to obtain fast, lucrative incomes. At present, the land in the

Lower Kinabatangan is used predominantly for oil palm plantations (Hai et al., 2001;

Abram & Ancrenaz, 2017). Excessive land conversion which is still occurring to this day leaves the Lower Kinabatangan area even more fragmented (Abram & Ancrenaz,

2017). Consequently, it creates isolated patches of landscape that has a severe impact on the biodiversity and wildlife in this area (WWF, 2007). Land fragmentation is a leading threat to many terrestrial animals, because it causes an increased competition among biodiversity species and more limited resources (Abram & Ancrenaz, 2017).

To manage and continually protect natural resources, the state government of

Sabah has gazetted 26 103 hectares of the Lower Kinabatangan area as a Lower

Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary and places it under the jurisdiction of the Sabah

Wildlife Department (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a).

Nevertheless, there are many threats that influence the integrity of this wildlife sanctuary. Apart from a demand for a fast economic development, varying interests and agenda between various groups (e.g. government, logging and oil palm companies, and local community) have placed the conservation goals at stake (Majail

& Webber, 2006). Since then, various activities are conducted to obtain greater supports from various stakeholders to work through a common vision for conservation, but without understanding underlying causes, it is difficult to develop and implement a strategic action plan.

Previous studies report undesirable effects of climate change towards ecotourism business, especially in protected areas because most attraction rely

heavily on natural landscapes, animals, and archaeological sites which are sensitive to climate change (Calgaro et al., 2014). The negative impacts of climate change discourage tourists’ visit to affected areas, thereby reducing income flow (Calgaro et al., 2014). Other impacts of climate change are damages to public facilities, recurrent drought, and death of livestock (Stucki & Smith, 2011). In the case of conservation, a climate change is linked with the decline of wildlife species such as elephants, rhinoceros, and lions (Casazza et al., 2014). It also exacerbates illegal harvesting of natural resources and illegal poaching due to food scarcity during severe drought

(Aryal et al., 2014; Becken & Wilson, 2016).

Although a climate change is a global concern and its negative effects are unavoidable, many studies argue the understanding of impacts and mitigation at local context (Aryal et al., 2014; Gouldson et al., 2016). A case in point is the Lower

Kinabatangan which harbours a vast (threatened) wildlife species and depleting virgin forests. Notably, although this area offers homestay and cultural experiences, the main attraction in this area is wildlife species (Ghasemi & Hamzah, 2014; Goh,

2015). Due to undesirable weather changes and a prolong drought, many forested areas have become prone to forest burning, but little is known regarding its impacts to stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation, as well as strategies to curb this problem (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011).

Based on the literature review, the gap of study is to gather the perspectives of relevant stakeholders in addressing issues based on their knowledge and capabalities, as well as to understand the reasons of unresolved issues pertaining to the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism. The opinions of key stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan are crucial because they are most affected by the conservation measures and ecotourism development, especially the local

communities. In this regard, the current study focuses on the stakeholder collaboration on the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan as a case study. In order to address this gap, the study will examine the issues and factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration, the impacts of conservation and ecotourism to the stakeholders, and propose strategies to enhance the collaboration so as to ensure a sustainable development of conservation and ecotourism in the future.

1.4 Research objectives

The current study aims to accomplish three objectives:

1) To examine stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation

of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

2) To evaluate the impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism

to stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan.

3) To identify strategies in improving the stakeholder collaboration in achieving

sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

1.5 Research questions

To fulfil the objectives stated above, three research questions are examined in this study:

1) What are the issues and factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in

achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan?

2) What are the impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism to

the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan?

3) How the collaboration among the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan be

improved for the future?

1.6 Scopes of research

The study focuses on the collaboration of key stakeholders involved in the conservation of natural resources, the management of conservation and ecotourism by relevant stakeholders, and key relationships between the stakeholders in a remote area. It identifies the factors that influence stakeholder collaboration, the relationships among key stakeholders, and several pertinent issues encounter by the stakeholders in managing the conservation and ecotourism. Equally important, it also examines the impacts of climate change in relation to the stakeholders, conservation and ecotourism sectors. A research sampling is conducted in the rural area of Sabah known as the Lower Kinabatangan. Therefore, the discussion is illustrated based on a rural setting. In addition, part of this study examines a climate change in relation to conservation and ecotourism, as it is considered an alarming threat to this area.

However, it only covers impacts of climate change in this area.

The fact that conservation and ecotourism development is complex and requires a depth understanding, this study combines quantitative and qualitative 18

methods, precisely a concurrent triangulation of mixed method. A theoretical framework for this study is formulated based on stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration to explain the collaborative roles of key stakeholders in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The perspectives and interests of these stakeholders are further analysed using a stakeholder analysis. The findings from this study are used to formulate an integrated framework for enhancing the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The main constraint in this research is the geographical access to the Lower

Kinabatangan area. Although some villages are well connected with roads (paved and gravel roads), other villages are difficult to reach and need to cross over a huge

Kinabatangan river. In addition to the geographical difficulties, other matters like historical background of ecotourism, inadequate finance, and time constraints are considered thoroughly. Hence, two specific villages of the Lower Kinabatangan are chosen for the research, namely Sukau and Batu Puteh. Nevertheless, these limitations are overcome by applying a census collection of primary data to both villages. The study also applied triangulation techniques to increase the internal validity of research findings.

1.7 Significance of the study

The findings of this study redound to the benefit of a society, considering that ecotourism plays an important role to provide a high-income economy and acts as an incentive to conserve depleting natural resources, biodiversity, and wildlife. The greater demands of expanding ecotourism in many countries justify the needs for more effective approaches in managing conservation and ecotourism, particularly in remote areas. Hence, policy makers, local and private businesspersons that employ the recommended framework derived from this study will be able to improve the 19

collaboration of various stakeholders in managing conservation and ecotourism in rural areas.

It assists local authorities and NGOs to better address pertinent issues of conservation and ecotourism, and helps them in understanding the factors that encourage the involvement of local communities. It also uncovers critical aspects in conservation and ecotourism that helps other researchers to explain similar phenomenon, but warrants further investigation for different research settings.

Overall, it provides a guideline for applying a new perspective for examining the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in remote areas.

1.8 Organisation of thesis

The current study comprises of seven chapters and is organised in the following way:

Chapter 1 briefly introduces the research stances pertaining to the stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism, symbiotic interrelationship between conservation and ecotourism, and the problems pertaining to the stakeholder collaboration on both aspects in remote areas. It describes how a climate change influence the ecotourism, conservation, and stakeholders in the

Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. It also states the research objectives, research questions, and the scope of the study, including the philosophy chosen for this study and its limitations. Additionally, it highlights the significance of the study in relation to knowledge contribution and produces an integrated approach to improve stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in rural areas. The final section explains the organisation of this thesis.

Chapter 2 sets to compare and contrast four developing countries in relation to a stakeholder collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism, issues and factors that influence the collaboration of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism sectors. It discusses the approaches undertaken by relevant stakeholders in managing conservation and ecotourism in rural areas, and how the local communities get involved in both activities. It also explains the philosophy and typology of conservation and ecotourism, and how they are applied in the current study. This chapter includes previous researches of conservation and ecotourism, the issues, and existing solutions employed to solve such problems. It justifies the importance of examining the impacts of climate change to conservation and ecotourism, particularly to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. It describes the perspective undertaken for this study, and shows how the current study is distinguished from the previous studies.

Chapter 3 explains the detailed background of the Lower Kinabatangan, such as demographic, geographical, historical, and physical settings. It also describes the stakeholder involvement in conservation and ecotourism in this area. It further illustrates the changes that occur in the Lower Kinabatangan. This chapter helps to justify the importance of ecotourism as an accelerating economy boost in this area, but at the same time taking a proactive approaches to conserve many endangered wildlife species and their natural habitats. It provides a summary of previous researches conducted in this area, and the extent to which aspects of conservation and ecotourism are remained understudied, including its relevance to the current study.

Chapter 4 outlines the research methodologies undertaken to examine the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan as a case study. The application of a mixed method study is explained thoroughly, including the rationale for choosing such method. Specifically, it elaborates how a concurrent mixed method study is carried out by combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, including using a triangulation starting from the point it formulates the research questions until the data analysis and discussion of research findings. It includes the description of primary and secondary data, the research instruments, and types of data analysis. Qualitative method utilises in-depth semi- structured interviews of six important groups of stakeholders and a participant observation. On the contrary, quantitative method applies a closed-ended questionnaire survey, field notes, published reports, and pamphlets which are gathered throughout the field sampling. It also describes the research paradigm used in this study.

Chapter 5 analyses and discusses the results regarding the involvement of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, particularly their opinions and supports in both sectors. It further identifies the problems associated with stakeholder collaboration and the perceived impacts on the established Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. The views of stakeholders pertaining to the management of conservation and ecotourism are compared and explained in relation to the community involvement in both sectors. The quantitative findings of local communities’ opinions are further enhanced through a triangulation method with the qualitative analyses. The application of the triangulation method is explained thoroughly using four labels, namely confirm, contradict, mixed, and

enhance. Overall, this chapter addresses the three research questions that are raised in the Chapter 1.

Chapter 6 explains the communities’ willingness to donate for conservation using a binary logistic regression. In addition, it elaborates the predictive ability of several independent variables on the attitudes of local communities towards conservation and ecotourism using two series of multiple regressions. It extends the discussion by examining key relationships between the stakeholders using an interest-influence matrix which highlights a beneficial relationship and issues that occur between the stakeholders involved in the conservation and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan. Subsequently, it provides a description of strategy which proposes five aspects that need to be improved in order to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors.

Chapter 7 gives a summary of this study, as well as a discussion on directions for future works. It highlights the main findings and explains several shortcomings encountered throughout the research journey. Based on the findings and limitations, it provides useful suggestions for future studies on conservation and ecotourism, particularly in a remote setting.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 2 focuses on explaining the overall perspective of the research undertaken. It elaborates the fundamental and philosophy of stakeholder collaboration and how it is significantly related to conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in a rural context. It further describes the challenges and opportunities pertaining to conservation and ecotourism, as well as the existing approaches employ to mitigate the problems, while assuring more benefits are distributed to relevant stakeholders. In this case, four case studies of developing countries are compared and discussed in terms of stakeholder collaboration, challenges, and current management of conservation and ecotourism. In addition, it explains the importance of studying the ill-effects of climate change on conservation and ecotourism.

2.2 Conservation and ecotourism as one entity

As sustainability “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987, p.15), conservation is an essential element of a sustainable development (Robert et al., 2005). Recent studies emphasise the integration of conservation objectives into non-environmental sectors and local involvement because conservation alone is unable to secure environmental objectives

(Coffey & Major, 2005; Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Engen & Hausner, 2017). Five significances of conservation towards a sustainable development are its intrinsic values of biodiversity, ecosystem services (e.g. provides clean air and water), 24

amenity and recreational values, the opportunity to use them to yield socioeconomic benefits, and maintenance of intergenerational equity (Coffey & Major, 2005; Robert et al., 2005; Hussin, 2009).

Ecotourism is also one component of sustainable development and it gains a fast momentum in recent years (Pasape et al., 2013). The World Tourism

Organisation states that ecotourism generates benefits for host communities, provides alternative employment and income opportunities for local communities, and increases awareness towards the conservation of natural and cultural assets

(UNWTO, 2002). The key principles of ecotourism are to generate long-term benefits to local community, contribute towards conservation of environment and culture, promote intrinsic value of nature, non-consumptive use of natural resources, create an awareness of environmental conservation among stakeholders, and foster understanding and collaboration among stakeholders (Pasape et al., 2013; Snyman,

2014b).

The link between conservation and ecotourism has been debated for many years. It is because the fundamental functions of ecotourism (e.g. protection of natural areas, production of revenue, and meaningful local participation) to contribute effectively towards a conservation goal is questionable, but the reverse is also true (Ross & Wall, 1999; Fennell & Weaver, 2005). Some scholars reach a consensus that ecotourism and conservation exhibit a symbiotic relationship. In this case, ecotourism destination gains profit from the protection of quality natural resources, whereas the conservation of natural resources is increasingly appreciated because the nature acts as ecotourism attraction (Ross & Wall, 1999; Fennell &

Weaver, 2005; Kiper, 2013; Boley & Green, 2016). Moreover, to encourage a sustainable development, ecotourism must account for the complexity of social,

economic, and environmental aspects such as to generate benefits to local communities, economically viable, and to protect the environment (Abdul Hamid et al., 2013).

The symbiotic link between conservation and ecotourism is portrayed in two ways. First, ecotourism provides economic incentives for conservation and wildlife species, thereby providing a pull factor to attract tourists. Therefore, the tourists are attracted to visit unpolluted natural areas of ecotourism, which eventually increases a demand for a quality protection of these areas (Kiper, 2013; Boley & Green, 2016).

More importantly, the values of natural resources will become more valuable than a proposed estate development (Boley & Green, 2016). The realisation on economic incentive of ecotourism associated with conservation power help to promote a long- term conservation of endangered species and forests (Fennell & Weaver, 2005;

Kiper, 2013). Second, besides economic and environmental implications, this relationship promotes the preservation of traditional lifestyle and cultures of a local community who resides in ecotourism areas (Ross & Wall, 1999; Boley & Green,

2016). Inevitably, a successful link between conservation and ecotourism much relies on striving a balance between ecotourism development and environmental conservation – whereby cumulative profits, a quality of life, and a healthy ecosystem of all affected stakeholders are highly valued over short-term economic gains.

2.3 Stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism in rural area

The section explains the context of collaborative approach, criteria and barriers on stakeholder collaboration, as well as implications of community participation on collaborative approach.

2.3.1 Stakeholder collaboration: context and definitions

Stakeholder collaboration is regarded as “a process of ensuring that there is interaction of various stakeholders with common or related goals during planning, learning, decision making and empowerment mainly for the sake of enabling smooth management, collectively decision and innovation when tackling challenges, opportunities and plans for current and future well-being of a particular society”

(Pasape et al., 2013, p.2). Other scholar define a collaboration as “a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible, thereby the process leads to a more comprehensive understanding of a problem that enables the participants to find new solutions that no one party could have envisioned or enacted alone” (Roberts, 1991, p.4). In this case, the collaboration promotes collective and innovative solutions when solving issues which involve multiple stakeholders.

The terms cooperation and collaboration are frequently used in conservation and ecotourism literature, but they are different within the fields of organisational behaviour, theory, and development (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Contrary to the collaboration, a cooperation means “working together to some end” (Fowler and

Fowler 1964, p.269), but it does not include the complex interpretations and necessary conditions covered by the term collaboration (Jamal & Getz, 1995).

Therefore, when multiple stakeholders are involved in resolving issues of conservation and ecotourism, the focus should be on the collaboration which provides a richer understanding between the organisational and issues they encounter.

A stakeholder collaboration is necessary when investigating various stakeholders with varying needs and interests (Majail & Webber, 2006; Novey,

2015). In the case of conservation and ecotourism venture, a collaborative approach could be applied to address issues such as conflict among stakeholders, human- wildlife conflict, and inefficient management of both sectors (Ancrenaz et al., 2007;

Ratner et al., 2017). Moreover, it is crucial to understand underlying reasons for such issues so as to gain support from all stakeholders to solve problems pertaining to conservation and ecotourism measures.

2.3.2 Criteria for stakeholder collaboration

Previous studies outline several criteria of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism. First, the management of conservation and ecotourism requires an effective collaboration among stakeholders by identifying their needs and interests. An efficient collaboration empowers local community, generate new ideas, reduce conflicts, and increase equal sharing of responsibilities in conservation and ecotourism (Mbaiwa et al., 2011; Pasape et al., 2013). Furthermore, it ensures there is a positive interaction among stakeholders during planning and collective decision- making, while at the same time addressing differences among individual perceptions on ecotourism and conservation, especially among poor rural communities

(Spenceley, 2003; Pasape et al., 2013).

Second, the implication of collaborative approach when stakeholders participate in conservation and ecotourism venture. The outcome of stakeholder collaboration, whether successful or not is much depended on the perceptions and identity of various stakeholders who participate in conservation and ecotourism venture (Majail & Webber, 2006; Novey, 2015). For instance, people that participate in conservation and ecotourism, but represent government and nonprofit agencies 28

view it as successful if certain criteria are met, while local community and private sector regard the collaboration as successful largely based on other criteria (Stone &

Wall, 2004; Novey, 2015). This implies that different stakeholders have varying perspectives on what constitute a successful collaboration (Snyman, 2014a; Su et al.,

2014; Novey, 2015).

Third, it is crucial to understand the roles of different stakeholders before, during, and after participating in conservation and ecotourism because this process depends much on time availability, available resources, and leadership of a particular society. Identifying strategies that foster unified roles among different stakeholders enhance the community involvement and broaden their knowledge (Pasape et al.,

2013; Su et al., 2014). For example, the roles of local government are providing environmental regulation (e.g. security and enforcement), infrastructure, monitor and control impacts, whereas private sector’s roles are promoting ecotourism sites to potential tourists, encourage awareness on conservation, and providing funds for conservation. Fourth, even at a community level, the community is possibly not homogenous. They are varied based on ethnic background, age, historical attachment to the land, cultural and spiritual beliefs on wildlife and natural resources, as well as their acceptance of a market economy (Spenceley, 2003; King & Peralvo, 2010).

Therefore, addressing a heterogeneous community is important to understand the factors that motivate them to engage in conservation and ecotourism activities

(Snyman, 2014b).

Fifth, Savage et al. (2011) state three aspects which influence effective collaboration among stakeholders, namely appreciative linkages, structural features, and processual issues. Two factors that contribute to appreciative linkage are sharing a common sense of mission and perceive stakeholder interdependence. Meanwhile,

the structural features relate to a sharing power via joint decision-making. The processual issues comprises of supportive communication, conflict resolution, and mutual trust based on interpersonal relationship between individuals. More importantly, a stakeholder needs to perceive that they are interdependent, believe that they gain benefits if they join forces, and develop a common definition of the problem which they encounter (Gray, 1989).

2.3.3 Barriers influencing the effectiveness of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism

The barriers associated with the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism are highly related to the components of management system, the perceptions, and attitudes of stakeholders involved in any activity or programme undertaken (Tosun, 2000; Bottrill et al., 2011). Two major constraints of effective collaboration are attributed to conflicts among the stakeholders and a lack of communication among the stakeholders (Latip et al., 2013; Latip et al., 2015a).

When these issues persist between higher level management, subordinates, and local communities (mostly underprivileged), it leads towards dissatisfaction, resentment, and inefficient management of conservation and ecotourism.

In addition, Cullen et al. (2010) report four barriers of collaborative approach which interfere with collaboration outcomes. First, the collaborative approach is contingent on all stakeholders being motivated to participate fully during a planning process. For example, a more powerful stakeholder could be reluctant to participate because they can achieve their objectives through other avenues. Second, even if all stakeholders are motivated to participate, some stakeholders could be more powerful and able to achieve their objectives without considering the interests of less powerful stakeholders. Third, the collaboration may motivate stakeholders to settle for second- 30

best or vague solutions in order to reach agreement. For instance, the drive for consensus may outweigh the need for each stakeholder to meet his or her interests.

Fourth, the collaboration process involve many diverse interest groups. In this case, the barriers could be addressed by providing comprehensive guidelines of collaboration to cater for varying needs and diverse stakeholders.

On the contrary, two main issues cited as the stumbling blocks of effective conservation are the lack of resources available for conservation and inadequate funds (Wilson et al., 2009; Bottrill et al., 2011). In most cases, previous studies report that there are enough action plans and policy, but inadequate budget leads to an incomplete implementation and monitoring of any conservation projects (Bottrill et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2017). In addition, observable changes of biodiversity species and the environment take a longer time (Cronin et al., 2014). Therefore, many conservation projects are influenced by its duration and the ability of a project to monitor changes over time. Limited capacity (human resource) between government staff and community leaders also influence the outcomes of conservation activities or projects (Bottrill et al., 2011). Even worse, the shortage of resources leads towards inconsistent datasets, incomplete project, and prevent further data collection to effectively monitor the progress of existing conservation management.

The obstacles towards effective management of ecotourism are much related to internal (culture, perceptions, and attitudes) and external factors (operational and structural aspects) (Mustapha et al., 2013). The most cited issue that causes an ineffective ecotourism is the impacts of ecotourism to local communities who reside at a particular site, especially in rural areas. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that a large, multinational tour companies control ecotourism market and have little concerns for local socio-cultural and economic conditions (Tosun, 2000;

Mustapha et al., 2013). Therefore, the local communities exert little control or power to compete and manage ecotourism in their areas. Consequently, it causes a resentment and discourages the local communities to support and get engaged in ecotourism venture because local entrepreneurs have less possibility to survive in the long term. Structural limitations such as an elite domination, the lack of financial resources, the attitudes of professional agencies, and the lack of appropriate legal system are the reasons that cause ineffective ecotourism (Tosun, 2000; Paimin et al.,

2014). In addition, operational constraints (e.g. lack of coordination and information) also prevent a successful development of ecotourism in rural areas (Tosun, 2000;

Ushantha & Wijesundara, 2016).

2.3.4 Implications of community participation on stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism

To achieve a successful management of conservation and ecotourism, it requires a strategic collaboration among diverse stakeholders with varying interests and needs (Ratner et al., 2017). There are many aspects that need to be addressed in order to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors such as factors that influence the collaboration, issues (e.g. conflicts and benefit distribution), stakeholders’ roles throughout collaboration process, and the participation of local communities (Waayers et al., 2011). While it is crucial to examine how the collaboration works among interorganisational stakeholders, one major contribution for a successful collaboration is how community participation contributes positively towards the collaboration in order to attain a sustainable conservation and ecotourism

(Manaf et al., 2018). Therefore, the following sections describe the typologies of community participation in a decision-making process and its implications on the collaboration among stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism. 32

2.3.4(a) Typologies of community participation in decision-making process

Across two decades, the top-down management of protected areas is shifted to a more diverse governance by involving a higher degree of participation from a local community (Novey, 2015). Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as an individual or group who can influence or is influenced by decisions and actions, and who has the power to influence outcomes. The stakeholder participation can be grouped into three categories based on the ladder of citizen participation, namely stakeholders who have no input (non-participation), stakeholders who voice their interests, but cannot influence a decision-making (degree of tokenism), and stakeholders who voice their interest and influence decision-making (degree of citizen power) (Arnstein, 1969; Cohen & Uphoff, 1980). In this regard, the ladder of citizen participation by Arnstein (1969) illustrates that the citizens need to be educated prior to their involvement so that they understand their rights and the purposes of participating in decision-making process.

Meanwhile, Brager and Specht’s (1973) typology explain a public participation by assessing the degree of involvement in seven stages of participation process from a low to high degree, namely none, received information, is consulted, advises, plant jointly, has delegated authority, and has control. The typology indicates the participation process starts with an absent participation from a community (none), follows by the community is given information but they cannot ask or provide suggestions (received information), the community is being consulted but in one-way communication (is consulted), then the community can advise the organisation but exerts little control in the decision-making process (advises), and later a plan is jointly developed between the community and organisation (plan jointly). Next, the organisation identifies and presents problems of the plan to the

community for their decision before taking a final consideration (delegate of authority). Finally, the community has a control of the plan after the organisation transfers the responsibility of decision-making to the community (total control).

Further, Pretty (1995) outlines seven levels of community participation in decision-making process of tourism development. The participation process comprises of plantation, manipulative and passive participation, consultation, material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation, and self- mobilisation. In this light, the process starts with all decisions are made by outsiders who are not local community (plantation) to a level where the local communities have power and control over the decision-making (interactive participation and self- mobilisation). Most of decisions are made without the community involvement

(functional participation) while full participation of local community only occurs during interactive participation and self-mobilisation levels.

Tosun (1999) classify community participation into three categories, namely spontaneous participation, induced participation, and coercive participation. In this case, the spontaneous participation is voluntary and base-up without external support wherein the community handle their problems without the assistance of government of other external agencies (Morgan, 1993). It also reflects the degree of community power in Arnstein's (1971) ladder of citizen participation. The induced participation is the most common type of community participation found in developing countries because a government has a central role to initiate participatory action by motivating and training local leaders in a community level (Tosun, 1999).

On the contrary, coercive participation is a compulsory, manipulated, and contrived type of community participation. When compare, the spontaneous participation requires a community to get involved in each stage of decision making,

implementation, sharing benefits, and evaluation. The induced participation describes the participation of community only during implementation and sharing of benefits.

The coercive participation requires the community to be involved solely during implementation, but not necessarily sharing benefits. When all typologies are compared, different interpretations of community participation are appropriate under different circumstances, thereby it should be applied according to site-specific circumstances (Tosun, 1999).

2.3.4(b) Implications of community participation on stakeholder collaboration

Undeniably, a strategic community participation contributes to a successful collaboration among various entities of stakeholders who possess different needs and interests in conservation and ecotourism. The community participation is important because their traditional resource-consumptive are often no longer in line with the conservation of protected areas while the development of ecotourism requires changes in local livelihoods (Su et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). This scenario causes a pressure on community livelihoods and it may discourage them to support conservation measures and ecotourism venture. As such, in order to achieve mutual benefits, it is vital to understand a complex management of multi-stakeholder while creating a positive synergistic collaboration between the stakeholders, ecotourism, and the environment.

A successful involvement of community stimulates collaborative advantages in conservation and ecotourism measures. The collaborative advantages refer to desired synergistic outcomes of collaborative activity (Savage et al., 2011). For instance, the community participation in Nlanggeran Tourism village (Indonesia) has contributed to a successful collaboration in the ecotourism sector. In this case, the community is made as the first and main beneficiaries, thereby encouraging them to 35

participate and collaborate with other stakeholders involve in the ecotourism activities in this area. The stakeholders exhibit an efficient collaboration whereby the local communities receive adequate facilities, support, and technical advices from their government. Furthermore, the collaboration is strengthened through the roles of private agencies who provide assistance in policy-making and finance. Overall, the community displays a direct participation (spontaneous participation; Tosun, 1999) whereby they have the opportunity to directly convey their needs in ecotourism and this type of participation contributes to a greater collaboration among the stakeholders. The community participation and collaboration among the stakeholders contribute to a collective sharing of ecotourism benefits and an efficient management of ecotourism (collaborative advantages) in this area.

Jamal and Getz (2000) emphasised that one of the most important challenges in achieving a successful collaboration is building trust between stakeholders and to recognise there is a shared problem. Further, other scholars report that building trust among community is crucial for a long-term success of collaboration, while making the community aware of the implications of increased government involvement

(Roberts and Simpson, 2000). In this view, both studies show the importance of community participation for a successful collaboration because the first step to establish trust in partnership is to ensure the involvement of local community – wherein a shared learning is structured based on local knowledge (Reed, 2000).

In the context of conservation on natural resources, a community participation is regarded as a critical factor which determines conservation outcomes and stimulates collaboration effort (Waayers et al., 2011). This is because the community involvement in conservation fosters a sense of ownership and they can provide valuable knowledge about local environment and personal experiences about

conservation in their areas (Bodmer et al., 1997). For example, a community participation in the conservation of marine turtle in Western Australia contributes to a successful protection of marine turtle and empowers the collaboration among various stakeholders in this area (Waayers et al., 2011). In this case, the community shows their commitment by volunteering their personal time to participate in morning monitoring programme of the marine turtle. Furthermore, regular social gathering provides an opportunity to build trust between the community and other stakeholders (government officials and private sectors) involve in the turtle conservation, thereby it stimulates a greater collaboration among the stakeholders.

Overall, a successful collaboration in managing conservation and ecotourism requires a participation of local community. This is because the community involvement provides a basis for building trust of partnership and collective sharing of both knowledge and experiences. In addition, it is crucial to address varying needs and interests of various stakeholders so as to avoid conflict among the stakeholders which can interfere with collaboration outcomes.

2.4 Theoretical basis of stakeholder collaboration

Some of the most challenging decisions in conservation and ecotourism stems from the relationship between people and the natural resources (the environment, forest, flora, and wildlife). This is because the attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of different people have a profound effect on whether they are motivated or discouraged to cooperate in any programme of conservation and ecotourism.

Although there is no universally effective way to incorporate stakeholders, many researchers agree that stakeholder collaboration is crucial and has many advantages

(Reed, 2008; Mustapha et al., 2013; Su et al., 2014; Kunjuraman & Hussin, 2017).

Therefore, one big question remains is ‘when stakeholder collaboration is needed?’ Obviously, a minor decision does not require a stakeholder cooperation, but a complex decision with far-reaching impacts warrants strategic stakeholder collaboration. For example, effective collaboration is required when the support of various stakeholders is necessary for the decisions to be successful, when no single group has the resources or expertise to make decisions, and in the event that many parties are affected by the decisions (Kessler, 2004; WWF, 2005; Reed et al., 2009;

Zhou et al., 2014). In this regard, identifying relevant stakeholders and understanding their relationships are necessary and it should be structured based on the principles of stakeholder collaboration and stakeholder theory.

2.4.1 Stakeholder theory on conservation and ecotourism

Recent studies highlight the importance of investigating various stakeholders, particularly local community in conservation and ecotourism planning. Nevertheless, a diverse and heterogeneous community requires a complex process (Khazaei et al.,

2015). A pioneer in a stakeholder view, Freeman (1984, p.46) defines a stakeholder as “individuals or groups who are affected by the decision-makers’ decisions and actions, and those who have the power to influence their outcomes.” Although such definition is often cited and highly influential, it is reported as too broad for practical purposes (Weitzner & Deutsch, 2015). In the context of ecotourism, ecotourism planner requires to have a complete picture of all people or groups who have a stake in the planning, processes, and outcomes of any ecotourism service (Sautter &

Leisen, 1999). On the contrary, in a view of conservation, stakeholder means “any individual, group, or institution who has a vested interest in the natural resources of the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities and have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same” (WWF, 2005, p.1). 38

Therefore, the management of conservation and ecotourism involves a diverse stakeholder and complex process.

The introduction of a stakeholder theory starts with ethics in business, corporate social responsibility, and evolves to a management strategy (Freeman,

1984). Starting from a simple production view involving suppliers, company (or management), and customers, such relationship grows to a managerial view with additional owners and employers involved in the management chain (Freeman,

1984). It occurs due to a separation to ownership and an increasing influence of a workforce. An increased influence from an outside environment has resulted in identifying many other groups outside a company, but is of great importance, such as government, media, competitors, and local community (Freeman, 1984). The early concepts of stakeholder theory focus on volunteerism (an individual adopts a voluntary basis, not forced by others’ pressures or legislative changes) and the rights of all concerned parties.

On the contrary, Donaldson and Preston (1995) state that every legitimate individual or groups who engaged in the activities of a firm do so to acquire benefits.

The same authors propose a theory which is composed of three interrelated but different aspects known as descriptive (describe characteristics and behaviour of an organisation), instrumental (identify the connection between stakeholders or development goals), and normative (interprete the function of moral). In this regard, the stakeholder theory is reported useful in understanding the interests or motives of stakeholders in ecotourism industry (Pasape et al., 2013).

Further, Agle et al. (1999) use three elements such as power, legitimacy, and urgency to describe the extent of managers giving a priority to address competing needs of stakeholder (stakeholder salience). However, the process of a manager

identifying a legitimate stakeholder remains a challenging decision. It is because the needs of all stakeholders are assumed equally important in an ideal situation, but in reality, the managers are compelled to prioritise the different needs of stakeholders due to limited resources (Ackermann & Eden, 2011; Khazaei et al., 2015). Therefore, an ethic of care concept is introduced to tackle a prioritisation issue, wherein the managers are suggested to ensure that a decision will not cause negative effects on the least advantaged groups (Burton & Dunn, 1996; Khazaei et al., 2015). In this way, the ethical concept shifts its focus from the salient stakeholders to a less powerful and vulnerable stakeholder.

The stakeholder theory evolves with the use of social identity as a new element to reflect a heterogeneity and diversity of stakeholders. The traditional method of categorising stakeholders is conducted by cross-mapping traditional stakeholder roles (e.g. government, NGOs, tourists, local community) with social identities such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, and origin (Crane & Ruebottom, 2011).

The heterogeneity of community is also addressed by identifying four concepts of community, namely a community of interest, community of place, community of practice, and virtual advocacy groups (Dunham et al., 2006). Another approach emphasises on a collaborative effort by equally important stakeholders to focus on a specific issue rather than focusing on one organisation and its objectives, thereby this application shifts from an organisation-focused to a stakeholder management

(Roloff, 2008).

Undoubtedly, it is crucial for a company to develop management strategies that are based on the interests and values shared by among stakeholders, not merely on economic interests (Agüera, 2013; Novey, 2015). Besides the values and interests of stakeholders, a company should consider the environment or natural surroundings

in the capacity of a stakeholder. In the case of conservation and ecotourism, an increased body of knowledge shows the importance of recognizing competing needs and roles of various stakeholders involved in both sectors such as private ecotourism operators, local communities, government, and NGOs (Snyman, 2014a; Su et al.,

2014; Novey, 2015; Butler et al., 2016; Romero-Brito et al., 2016; Snyman, 2016).

In view of that, NGOs work together with government to address development issues of conservation and ecotourism in rural areas, but local communities are often excluded from expressing their needs and responsibilities, especially in decision-making (Scheyvens, 1999; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; King &

Nair, 2013a; Su et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). Moreover, the same studies suggest that clarifying relationships among the stakeholders greatly assist in determining their specific interests and responsibilities. Other criteria are equally important such as the environment’s capacity for ecotourism to flourish, management strategies, and effective strategies to empower community involvement in both sectors (Scheyvens, 1999; Su et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016; Snyman, 2016).

2.4.2 Stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism

(Pasape et al., 2013; p.2). While the stakeholder theory focuses on ‘organisation’ for stakeholder relationships, the collaborative approach focuses on ‘collectivity of organisations’ that work together to solve problems which cannot be solved by one organisation acting alone (Waddock, 2002). In this regard, although individual 41

organisations have dissimilar (often conflicting) goals, the focus of collaboration is on the collectivity, not on an individual organisation. Furthermore, the collaboration emphasises interactions within the collectivity of organisations, as well as gather their skills and resources to address business opportunity or threats (Waddock, 2002).

Although the collaborative approach involves a complex process with multiple stakeholders (varying interests and goals), it is proven efficient in solving problems such as land-use conflicts, poverty, economic development, and conservation issues (Savage et al., 2011). In this light, stakeholders need to know how to succeed in collaborative endeavors and understand the necessity of an appreciative element to building collaboration. Therefore, the stakeholders need to perceive that they are interdependent, believe that they would acquire benefits when they join forces, and develop a common definition on problems that they are jointly solving (Gray, 1989). In addition, collaborating partners also need to structure their interaction by developing a collective identity and engage in both cooperative and assertive talk (Lawrence et al., 2002).

Previous studies reported three factors which improve stakeholder collaboration, namely to establish more dialogue between stakeholders, emphasise on oriented policy, and provide the stakeholders with access to information necessary for their collaboration, especially to local communities who are always excluded from decision making (Pasape et al., 2013). On the contrary, other scholars highlighted three factors which can contribute to collaborative advantage or disadvantage, namely appreciative linkage (the extent of shared goals), structural features of collaboration (power differential among partners), and processual issues

(degree of trust among stakeholders and leadership quality) (Gray, 1994; Sink,

1996).

Based on a collaboration theory, a critical concept is an interorganisational domain (Jamal & Getz, 1995). In this regard, the relationship of organisational and environment is characterised by constraints, choice, and competition (Astley, 1984).

Therefore, although the unit of analysis shifts from a firm to a population level, a managerial focus tends to change from devising corporate strategy to analysing and selecting strategies to compete within the constraints of overall industry. However, a missing aspect is a recognisation of increasing interconnectedness of the organisational and environment relationship, thereby it requires a collective and collaborative responses to cope with turbulence (Astley, 1984; Jamal & Getz, 1995).

Furthermore, when encounter with complex troubles which are beyond the capabilities of any organisation to solve singlehandedly, a strategic management process needs to incorporate the perspective of interorganisational domains (Trist,

1983).

Equally important is to understand the process of collaboration. Gray (1989) outlines five key characteristics of the collaboration process, namely (1) stakeholders are independent, (2) solutions emerge by dealing constructively with differences, (3) joint ownership of decisions is involved, (4) the stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the ongoing direction of the domain, and (5) collaboration is an emergent process, where collaborative initiatives can be understood as an "emergent organisational arrangements through which organisations collectively cope with the growing complexity of their environments" (Gray, 1989: 236). Meanwhile, Waddock

(1989) proposes three conditions needed in order for organisations to participate in collaborative efforts: recognition of interdependence, perceptions that significant benefit will result from the collaboration, and recognition of importance of solving issues together.

In comparison to Gray (1989) and Waddock (1989) pertaining to the collaboration process, Logsdon (1991) argues that an organisation needs to begin by considering only two essential factors before joining a collaborative effort for solving pertinent problems, namely the interest or stake of the organisation in the outcome and its perceived interdependence with other groups in dealing with the social problems. However, in ecotourism industry, the perception of benefits to be derived from a collaboration may be a more important precondition than a recognition of the importance of the issue. For instances, an organisation decides that the issue is important, but not as important to the organisation's operations which require priority attention. On the contrary, environmental groups join a collaboration due to the importance of solving issues for a long-term environmental sustainability (potential mutual benefits).

Further, Cullen et al. (2010) proposes important criteria for evaluating collaborative approach among stakeholders which comprises of two elements, namely the process of collaboration and outcomes of collaboration. In this case, the process of collaboration comprises of six criteria, namely (1) inclusive representation, (2) voluntary participation and commitment, (3) equal opportunity and resources, (4) principle negotiation and respect, (5) time limits, and (6) effective process management. Meanwhile, the outcomes of collaboration include six criteria, namely (1) perceived as successful, (2) conflict reduce, (3) knowledge, understanding, and skills, (4) information, (5) second-order effects (the process contributes to changes in behaviours and relationships), and (6) understanding and support on collaborative approach. In this light, Cullen et al. (2010) state the usefulness of applying the criteria to explain a collaborative approach on multiple stakeholders with significant differences in values, cultures, and legal entitlement.

Overall, although a collaboration offer a dynamic and strategic mechanism for solving issues pertaining to diverse stakeholders involvement in various disciplines, its outcomes are complicated by the existence of diverse organisations who often hold widely different viewpoints and strong vested interests.

Consequently, it poses difficulties in achieving a collaborative solution due to the differences in value orientation between the stakeholders (Gray, 1989). Therefore, it is crucial to develop strategic mechanisms of enhancing stakeholder collaboration based on a local context by understanding its interorganisational domains, collaborative issues, stakeholder participation, roles and interest of varying stakeholders.

2.4.3 Theoretical framework for the current study

Conservation issues are complex and affect various stakeholders, especially when the objectives are often in conflict with the development of ecotourism and the needs of local communities in rural areas (Reed, 2008; Abram et al., 2014; Ramírez

& Fennell, 2014). Therefore, it requires the full cooperation of key stakeholders in a local context to address the problems (WWF, 2005; Reed et al., 2009). The present study formulates a theoretical framework based on a stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration to examine stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah.

As explained in the previous section, the stakeholder theory focuses on

‘organisation’ whereas the collaborative approach focuses on a ‘collectivity of organisations.’ In this case, the stakeholder theory provides thorough guidelines to identify key stakeholders involved in the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. It also greatly assists in identifying and comparing the roles, interests, and key relationships of the stakeholders engaged in 45

the conservation and ecotourism activities. This theory is deemed most appropriate when choosing relevant stakeholders because of the necessity to address varying needs of all stakeholders involved in both sectors. In this light, the stakeholders’ needs are assumed equally important in an ideal situation, but in reality, the top management (local authorities) are compelled to prioritise the different needs of stakeholders due to limited resources (Ackermann & Eden, 2011; Khazaei et al.,

2015).

In the case of the Lower Kinabatangan, various stakeholders involve in conservation and ecotourism activities such as local authorities, NGOs, private sectors, ecotourism operators, and local communities (Ancrenaz et al., 2007).

Undeniably, the stakeholders have different interests and roles, but they use same resources for different purposes in this area (Majail & Webber, 2006; Goossens &

Ambu, 2012). For examples, the NGOs (conservationists) focus on activities to protect the forests and wildlife, whereas the ecotourism operators use the wildlife as a flagship attraction for ecotourism business in the Lower Kinabatangan. Meanwhile, the local communities struggle to survive when their traditional ways of living are against with the conservation rules in this area. This phenomenon illustrates the necessity to understand their competing interests and roles pertaining to conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Although the stakeholder theory provides well description on examining stakeholders, their responsibilities and needs, it provides little information on a collaborative approach among the stakeholders (Savage et al., 2011). Therefore, the current study apply a theory of stakeholder collaboration to address this problem.

The collaborative approach is well disscssed and applied in various studies such as planning, healthcare, conservation, and ecotourism development (Pasape et al., 2013;

Ratner et al., 2017). This is because it focuses on the ‘collective of organisations’ in sharing of knowledge, roles, and resources among the stakeholders (Waddock,

2002). Most importantly, it aims to enhance a cooperation and provides innovative solutions when addressing issues which an organisation alone cannot solve

(Waddock, 2002). In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the collaborative approach is used to examine how the stakeholders collaborate in addressing pertinent issues of conservation and ecotourism based on their knowledge and experiences. Overall, the strength of both theories are used as a foundation for improving stakeholder collaboration on managing the conservation and ecotourism in this area.

The current study applies the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and stakeholder collaboration of Gray (1989) and Cullen et al. (2010). The decision is made by considering the diverse stakeholders with varying interests and roles in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Based on Gray (1989), a researcher also considers the foundations of collaborative approach which are interdependency, equal benefits sharing among the stakeholders, a collective sharing of responsibilities, and mutually work to address issues of conservation and ecotourism in this area. First, the stakeholder theory is applied by identifying relevant stakeholders and examining their roles, interests, and key relationships. Second, the collaboration theory is applied to understand collective decisions in managing the conservation and ecotourism, factors that influence the collaboration, and issues encounter by the stakeholders in both sectors. The most important part of this study is understanding how the collaborative approach of various stakeholders enhance the management of conservation and ecotourism in this area.

In addition, the study adopts the principles outline by Cullen et al. (2010) by examining the process and outcomes of collaboration based on the proposed criteria.

The process of collaboration are evaluated based on six criteria, namely inclusive representation, voluntary participation and commitment, equal opportunity and resources, principle negotiation and respect, time limits, and effective process management. Meanwhile, the outcomes of collaboration are assessed based on six criteria, namely perceived as successful, conflict reduce, knowledge (including understanding and skills), information, second-order effects (the process contributes to changes in behaviours and relationships), and support on collaborative approach.

Finally, both concepts of theories (identifying relevant stakeholders and collaborative approach) are integrated to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan (Figure 2.1).

Stakeholder theory

 Identify relevant stakeholders involved in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

 The roles, interests, and key relationships among the stakeholders.

Stakeholder collaboration

 Collective decision-making in managing conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.  Factors influence stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism.  Mutual collaboration when addressing issues of conservation and ecotourism.

Process criteria of collaborative Outcomes criteria of collaborative approach approach

1) Inclusive representation 1) Perceived as successful 2) Voluntary participation and 2) Conflict reduce commitment 3) Knowledge, understanding, and skills

3) Equal opportunity and resources 4) Information 5) Second-order effects 4) Principle negotiation and respect 5) Time limit 6) Understanding and support on 6) Effective process management collaboration collaboration

Integration for enhancing collaborative approach on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism

 Improve stakeholder collaboration to manage the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

 Develop strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism.

Figure 2.1 Theoretical framework of stakeholder collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Source: modified from Freeman (1984), Gray (1989) and Cullen et al. (2010).

2.4.4 Development of an integrated framework for conservation and ecotourism

A framework for managing ecotourism and conservation is deemed effective when it enhances a previous management and positive outcomes outweigh negative impacts. In this case, perhaps the most important question ‘is it working according to the specified objectives?’ This is because an effective conceptual framework is often easy to plan theoretically, but difficult to translate into effective actions in reality.

Therefore, a framework should be practical and develop based on local situations that address specific issues in a particular site or a phenomenon studied. In this light, one way to develop a framework for ecotourism and conservation is through a backcating approach.

The application of backcasting goes back many decades, but recently, it receives more attention and has been used as an emerging tool in improving future studies and sustainable development of several communities in Europe, Canada, and the United States (Newton et al., 2002; Vergragt & Quist, 2011). While forecasting is a process that predicts a future based on a current situation, a backcasting focuses on defining a desirable future and work backward to identify strategies or policies in achieving that goal (Quist & Vergragt, 2006; Quist, 2007; Vergragt & Quist, 2011).

There are three stages of backcasting that can be used to evaluate a sustainable development for a community in remote areas, namely (1) prioritise criteria for a future sustainable community, (2) identifying the main concerns of community pertaining to their environment, social, and economy, and (3) comparing the current state of the community with the sustainable vision (Newton et al., 2002). The same authors stress the strength of the backcasting approach which extends the scope of the community’s thinking on sustainable strategies – because it is not entirely about

an accurate picture of tomorrow, but focus more on better decisions today (Newton et al., 2002).

Backcasting is defined as “generating a desirable future, then looking backwards from that future to the present in order to plan strategically how it could be achieved” (Vergragt & Quist, 2011, p.1). A sustainable future is envisioned in a varying scale ranging from a local to global, and it has become a guideline to various stakeholders, as well as in determining effective approaches to achieve it. In fact, a vision is closely related to utopia (desirable) and dystopia (undesirable) future in the sense that a backcasting greatly assist in avoiding undesirable incidences (Vergragt

& Quist, 2011). More importantly, a major difference between a vision and backcasting is that the latter develop futures and strategies to eventually obtain those visions (Robinson et al., 2011; Vergragt & Quist, 2011).

Nevertheless, the use of backcasting approach in evaluating a stakeholder participation in ecotourism and conservation, particularly in rural areas is little known. The backcasting approach has been used to examine the development of tourism and leisure in France under the constraints of environmental and climate change, particularly the steps required to reach the desired goal (Ceron & Dubois,

2007). Furthermore, it is also used to examine the trade-offs of conservation policies and structure all combinations of processes that materialize a conservation target

(Gordon, 2015).

Mont et al. (2014) highlights the application of the backcasting method in identifying desired visions, defining current issue, and working backwards to identify events that need to take place at different points of time. In this case, the backcasting method addresses a discrepancy between the present day (also the past issues that are still occurring) and desirable futures by identifying when the most drastic and

disruptive changes are needed (Vergragt & Quist, 2011). One of priorities for developing an effective plan to enhance a future management is understanding persistent issues and underlying roots that explain the perspectives and attitudes of stakeholders in ecotourism and conservation, including the extent that previous (still ongoing) management is unable to solve the problems (Mont et al., 2014). In this case, the backcasting approach can be used to generate a desirable future for ecotourism and conservation, then work backwards to examine persistent issues and plan strategically to achieve the goals.

2.4.5 Stakeholder analysis for identifying relevant stakeholders

Stakeholder analysis has become an increasingly popular tool used by policymakers, government, and nongovernmental organisations, and businesses in various fields (e.g. policy and business management, ecotourism, development and natural resource management) (Reed et al., 2009). The application of stakeholder analysis leads to varying definitions and purposes according to a context of research studied. In a business management, a growing concern that stakeholders can affect the success of a firm leads to the establishment of approaches that examine the stakeholders’ interests and influences as factors that either support or threaten the performance of the firm (Ramirez, 1999; Reed et al., 2009). In the case of policy development and natural resource management, a stakeholder analysis is increasingly employed as a tool to empower marginal stakeholders in decision-making processes

(Mumtas & Wichien, 2013; Caniato et al., 2014). A concern also arises that without an appropriate stakeholder analysis, a more powerful stakeholder may override certain underprivileged groups during a decision-making (WWF, 2005; Reed et al.,

2009; Khazaei et al., 2015). As such, depending on the use of stakeholder analysis, it

can either empower or abuse a certain group of stakeholder in any development, including ecotourism and conservation sectors.

A stakeholder analysis of protected area in Tanzania, Australia exhibits a human-environmental system comprising of a local community, park managers,

NGOs, international conservation agencies, tourists, private tourism business, and environmental resources (Mkiramweni et al., 2016). The community livelihood depends much on the environmental resources for water, herbs, housing materials, foods, and medicines. They rely on tourists for direct income and exchange of cultural experiences. The local community depends on a tourism business for job employment and transport services, as well as relying to park managers to provide education, health, transport, and security. In return, the local community contributes to the ecotourism by sharing their traditional lifestyles and cultures.

The park managers lean on the tourism business for income levies and tourists for direct incomes. The environmental resources are central to ecotourism by providing a natural attraction to tourists (e.g. wildlife, natural landscapes, and archaeological sites) and ecological services to all stakeholders here. The revenues generated from the ecotourism are used to support conservation services and the survival of the local community. Therefore, understanding the relationships among key stakeholders greatly assist in the sampling strategy to uncover a complex phenomenon of ecotourism and conservation in this area (WWF, 2005; Mkiramweni et al., 2016).

In the case of conservation, the stakeholder analysis is used to identify key actors and assess their interest to formulate strategies of sustainable management in

Pak Phanang river basin (Thailand) and Liaoning nature reserve (China) (Mumtas &

Wichien, 2013; Zhou et al., 2014). The analysis is used to examine critical factors

such as powers, interests, policies, strength, and weaknesses among relevant stakeholders. In Thailand, the stakeholder analysis categorises the stakeholders based on their importance and influence towards the conservation of land management

(Mumtas & Wichien, 2013). Meanwhile, in the case of China, the analysis reveals unbalance relationships among the stakeholders, and a new strategy is proposed to change stakeholder relationship from opposition to cooperation, as well as to address relentless conflicts among the stakeholders (Zhou et al., 2014). Notably, both cases shed light on the promising use of stakeholder analysis in addressing stakeholder issues and formulating strategic solutions in order to improve stakeholder relationships.

There are three stages of stakeholder analysis, namely its rationale, typology, and methods use to identify, categorise, and examine key relationships between stakeholders. First, three rationales, namely descriptive, normative, and instrumental are often cited in relation to stakeholder theory and analysis (Reed, 2008; Reed et al.,

2009). The first step is using a descriptive approach to describe a relationship between a certain phenomenon and its stakeholders, follows by normative that is used to legitimise a decision through the engagement of key stakeholders (Donaldson

& Preston, 1995; Egels‐Zandén & Sandberg, 2010). An instrumental devotes to understand how policymakers, organisations, and projects can identify and explain the behaviours of certain stakeholders to achieve desired outputs (Donaldson &

Preston, 1995; Reed et al., 2009). The involvement of various stakeholders in ecotourism and conservation sector leads to conflicting interests because they use similar resources for different purposes. For example, local community uses the resources to cater for their daily livelihood, conservationists protect the resources for a future generation, while private sector ecotourism use the resources as a tourist

attraction. Therefore, a sustainable management of ecotourism and natural resources is often debated that it requires a gentle system which facilitates learning and understanding process among the stakeholders in order to reach consensus

(Spenceley, 2003; Reed et al., 2009; Su et al., 2014). In this case, a stakeholder analysis does not create a platform for negotiation, but it can be applied as a tool to contribute towards a learning or negotiation process (Reed et al., 2009).

Second, a stakeholder analysis involves three types of typology, namely identify stakeholder, differentiate and categorise the stakeholder, as well as investigating relationships between the stakeholders (Bryson, 2004; Reed et al.,

2009). Identifying relevant stakeholders require an iterative process whereby additional stakeholder is added as the analysis continues – this answers the question

“who and what really counts?” (Mitchell et al., 1997). The stakeholders are easily identified when the boundaries of a phenomena studied are clearly defined.

However, in most cases, it is impossible to include all stakeholders due to research constraints such as geographical and demographic criteria. Therefore, a line needs to be drawn based on the focus the analysis and on well-founded criteria established by a researcher (Clarke & Clegg, 1998; Reed et al., 2009; Khazaei et al., 2015). The identification of stakeholders is improved by differentiating and categorising the stakeholders based on their interests, influences, and resources. In this case, a stakeholder mapping is an important tool to investigate the relationship between relevant stakeholders by addressing a question ‘who knows what’ and captures the knowledge of different stakeholders across people, time, and locations. Hence, it provides an overview of power and control of relationship among the stakeholders, thereby highlighting whose interests are addressed appropriately (Bryson, 2004;

Reed et al., 2009).

Third, each typology of stakeholder analysis requires appropriate methods for identifying, categorising, and examining relationships between the stakeholders

(Bryson, 2004; Reed et al., 2009). For example, a snowball sampling and semi- structured interviews can be employed to identify stakeholders, interest-influence matrices are used to categorise the stakeholders, whereas knowledge mapping can be used to investigate the relationships between the stakeholders. Nevertheless, some methods can be used for more than one purpose of the typologies. The research methods can be applied either with or without the active participation of stakeholders, provided there is a considerable evidence of documentary reviews or in-depth knowledge of the groups and the phenomenon studied (Reed, 2008; Reed et al., 2009). Furthermore, the level of stakeholder participation may vary from active participation (two-way exchange of information among the stakeholders as equal partners) to passive participation (simply provide information). The schematic diagram of rationale, typology, and methods are illustrated in the Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Three stages of stakeholder analysis comprise of rationale, typology, and methods. Source: Reed et al. (2009).

2.5 Management of conservation in rural areas

The section explains four types management of conservation, namely top- down (command and control) to decentralised management, community-based natural resource management, integrated approach of conservation, and community- based conservation.

2.5.1 Top-down (command and control) to decentralised management

Top-down management (traditional hierarchical) has been criticised over the past few decades because it limits the involvement of middle and lower stakeholders

(Hongslo et al., 2016). A case in point is the material conservation in China.

Conservation is a high priority in China, especially in boosting capital for infrastructure, a considerable investment of resources and large quantities of research outputs for future development (Zhu & Eckfeld, 2016). The cultural heritage institution in China is governed under the central government bureaucracy (State

Administration of Cultural Heritage) which formulates overarching policies, plans, and regulations at the state, provincial, and municipal levels, thereby forming a top- down management system (Zhu & Eckfeld, 2016). In this case, most of decision- making power and resource allocation are held by the ministry at the highest hierarchical level. Compare to Western approaches of a democratic and modern system, the government and academic experts in China are the major drivers of the enormous task in protecting the cultural materials of this country. Consequently, it has limited the diversification of participation in conserving the cultural materials here because most of decision-making depends on a political agenda (Zhu & Eckfeld,

2016).

In addition to the lack of diversified participation in conservation, its material conservation also encounters challenges such as insufficient funds, inadequate specialised knowledge and relevant skills. To encourage the collaboration of various stakeholders in material conservation, a bottom up management is proposed to maximise diversity, wherein the highest hierarchical level is only responsible for managing long-term strategies and benefits of material conservation, while the middle and lower stakeholder hold part of decision-making power (Zhu & Eckfeld,

2016).

2.5.2 Community-based natural resource management

Contrary to a top-down approach of conservation (fortress conservation), a community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is introduced based on the assumption that a local community is better at managing natural resources if they gain benefits from a conservation planning and it is develop based on an existing local structures (Boonzaaier, 2012). Furthermore, the CBNRM integrates ecotourism philosophy by linking core pillars of ecotourism to conservation philosophy (Kiss,

2004; Stone, 2015; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). Therefore, a central concept of

CNRM and ecotourism is a political decentralisation of natural resources that shows the distribution of power and transfer of responsibilities from a central government to rural communities, thereby forming a bottom-up approach that involve all affected stakeholders (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Stone, 2015). As such, the CBNRM and ecotourism is perceived to be able to change the attitudes of local community in managing sustainable natural resources and stimulate remote development (Mbaiwa,

2005a; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). For example, in Botswana (Southern Africa), the introduction of CBET through CBNRM is reported as turning existing problems into

an opportunity for both community economy and the promotion of biodiversity conservation (Stone, 2015).

2.5.3 Integrated approach of conservation: ICDP versus INRM

Integrated Conservation and Development Program (ICDP) is an emerging tool used to link conservation and development (Ojha & Sarker, 2012). It is because a prolonged debate suggests that development activities often overpower conservation activities (Baral et al., 2007). The ICDP emphasises the participation of local communities and fostering effective reconciliation of conflicts over conservation and resource use (Baral et al., 2007; Ojha & Sarker, 2012). The ICDP project in the Annapurna Conservation area (ACA) Nepal shows a significant impact in increasing the number of snow leopard, blue sheep, and musk deer (Ojha &

Sarker, 2012). It is reported that the perceived increase of wildlife population is attributed to the increased level of awareness among the local community (Ojha &

Sarker, 2012). In addition, it also provides benefits to a local community in Nepal.

Therefore, most of the local community in Nepal stated the wildlife is not problematic to their community. However, the effectiveness of ICDP depends much on how different stakeholders hold values and collaborate to accomplish the objectives of biodiversity conservation (Ojha & Sarker, 2012).

On another level, there is a pursuit to integrate environmental objectives into all facets of decision-making, and that the environment alone cannot be treated as an add-on (Coffey & Major, 2005). An indigenous community in Indian Himalaya applies integrated natural resource management (INRM) to integrate local knowledge with the conservation of their environment, as well as to address environmental and socioeconomic issues (Saxena et al., 2001). The INRM approach in Indian Himalaya

is deemed successful when local needs are addressed appropriately and economic benefits are distributed among the community (Saxena et al., 2001).

Victoria state (Australia) uses an INRM to address its environmental problem. This is because a widespread land clearing in the Victoria leads to decreasing biodiversity species, habitat, soil erosion, and dry land salinity (Coffey &

Major, 2005). Several elements of integrating the natural resource management comprise of identifying agreed outcome areas, setting a target of what is to be achieved by fostering a collaboration among stakeholders, structuring an integrated legislative framework, aligning policy with outcomes, improving policy design, investment planning, and continuous knowledge-learning process, as well as conducting an effective monitoring, evaluation, and reporting to improve the integrated natural resource management (Douthwaite et al., 2004; Coffey & Major,

2005; Baral et al., 2007).

2.5.4 Community-based conservation

Community-based conservation (CBC) gains more attention in recent years as a potential tool to enhance community involvement in conservation initiatives. It is broadly defined as the protection of natural resources or biodiversity by, for and with a local community, whereby its core concept is the coexistence of people and nature

(Western & Wright’s, 1994). Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2015) argues that the CBC can be approached in two ways based on the institutional arrangements underpinning conservation programs and expected outcomes, namely (1) people-centered conservation and (2) community-based conservation which relies on the existence of time-tested community-based management practices (based on customary arrangements).

The first approach (people-centered conservation) aims to reconcile the conservation objectives and development by establishing partnership between local communities and external organisations (e.g. government, NGOs, and private sectors). It encompasses a formalised conservation which aims to reward communities for their environmental stewardship and motivate them to involve in the emerging conservation industry. For instance, co-management of conservation initiatives in protected areas, ecotourism projects and community-based reserves

(Armitage 2009; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008).

The second approach emphasises the CBC as a range of livelihood- supporting and natural resource management through a long and adaptive process of trial and error (Berkes, 2009). It relies on an intentional action rather than the result of low demographic and market pressures or unsophisticated technologies (Ruiz-

Mallén et al., 2015). Therefore, the lack of intentional action means that conservation outcomes can vanish as soon as overarching context changes. Based on both approaches, Ruiz-Mallén et al. (2015) further highlights that the CBC should be linked to conservation incentives, environmental justice motivations and their implications for deterring deforestation and enhancing local livelihoods.

Community-based conservation has been applied in a rural Uganda village,

East Africa. Similar to other developing countries, the biodiversity in Uganda is at a risk of extinction due to a rapidly growing human population (Lepp & Holland,

2006). The local communities who reside in neighbouring protected areas have less access to the natural resources required for their daily subsistence, thereby creating tremendous pressures between local consumption and the protection of depleting natural resources (Lepp & Holland, 2006). The communities in Uganda have experienced two types of conservation, namely (1) a conservation is led by the state 62

with minimal involvement of local communities and (2) a conservation is led by the community members with abundant local participation. It is proved that the CBC approach (lead by the community members) generates positive attitudes towards conservation as compared to the state-led conservation. This is because the CBC approach caters for the need of community involvement, control, or ownership of development process (Seixas et al., 2009). Furthermore, local community involvement in the CBC could be empowered through an institutional, financial, and technical support from supporting organisations (government, private sector, and

NGOs) (Seixas et al., 2009; Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2015).

In summary, while previous conservation focuses on a fortress management, more rural areas in developing countries are undertaking a bottom-up approach to gain support of local communities and obtain effective management. For examples, conservation methods such as the CBRNM in Botswana (Africa), ICDP in

Annapurna (Nepal), INRM in Himalaya (India), and the CBC in Uganda (east

Africa). Nevertheless, most of these approaches are considered successful only when local needs are catered appropriately and economic benefits are provided equitably.

In addition, various stakeholders have dissimilar interests and roles pertaining to managing the conservation, thereby there is a need to incorporate a strategic collaboration among stakeholders to enhance conservation measures in rural areas.

2.6 Management of ecotourism in rural areas

Ecotourism is often claimed as a tool to enhance the socioeconomic of local communities in rural areas, a marginal activity that generates funds to finance environmental conservation with minimal impacts on the environment. It offers a new source of income to poor rural people, diversifies their livelihoods, and creates

economic incentives for environmental protection. In this sense, ecotourism is portrayed as a part of sustainable development because it improves local livelihood and promotes the conservation of the environment. As such, one main factor is understanding how the ecotourism in remote areas are managed efficiently to maximise the benefits for the communities. The following paragraphs describe two types of management in rural areas, namely community-based tourism (CBT) and community-based ecotourism (CBET).

2.6.1 Community-based tourism

The concepts of community-based tourism (CBT) are known to focus on a local tourism that prioritise community ownership and management, major benefits distribute among local communities, financially self-sustaining, promoting local culture and environment (WWF, 2001; Mizal et al., 2014). The application of CBT is not new in the tourism industry as it emerges since 1990 (Hussin & Kunjuraman,

2014). The CBT emphasises a direct involvement of a community in any tourism development project that empowers them in economy, social, and politic (Hussin &

Kunjuraman, 2014). To date, various studies state varying definitions and concepts of CBT, but the real essence of CBT is a direct engagement of a local community in every stage of tourism development (Table 2.1).

The application of CBT has become popular in a tourism industry, especially in the rural areas because it delivers extra income to a local household, gives them the confidence to stand on their own feet, and works as an empowerment tool for the local community (Hussin & Kunjuraman, 2014). One example of CBT programmes in rural areas is homestay whereby tourists stay with a house owner and learn about their unique cultures. Ashley et al. (2001) introduces four criteria of a poor

community reaching for a successful CBT, namely their access to markets (social constraints), commercial viability (marketing and strength of destination), policy framework (planning process and government support), and implementation of challenges in the local context (managing costs and expectations and maximising partnership among stakeholders).

Table 2.1 Definitions and concepts of community-based tourism

Authors Definitions and concepts of CBT Tourism is owned and/or managed by communities that is designed to deliver wider community benefit. Communities may own an asset such as lodge but outsource the management to a tourism company. Alternatively, the Dixey (2005) communities may not own the assets on which their tourism enterprise is based (e.g. land, campsite infrastructure inside national parks, national monuments), but are responsible for management and there is an objective of wider community benefit. Goodwin and Santilli Tourism owned and/or managed by communities and (2009) intended to deliver wider community benefit. Generally, a small scale and involves interactions between visitor and host community, particularly suited to rural and Asker et al. (2010) regional areas. CBT is commonly understood to be managed and owned by the community, for the community. It is a form of ‘local’ tourism, favoring local service providers and suppliers and focused on interpreting and communicating the local culture and environment. Tourism in which local residents (often rural, poor and Responsibletravel.com economically marginalised) invite tourists to visit their (2013) communities with the provision of overnight accommodation. Community-driven development aims at giving a voice to the stakeholders, involve them in identifying their own World Bank (2013) needs and ensuing decision making, encourage them to take responsibility, and mobilise the majority of actors in a given community through a participatory process. Source: Tasci et al. (2013)

The CBT programmes target remote, poor, and undeveloped community whereby they are shaped by a traditional economic system (Tasci et al., 2013). It is based on communal-centric wherein it is powered by community participation in developing their community and acquiring benefits, not for individual benefits. Local community who relies on subsistence agriculture for livelihood requires adequate time to revert to new economic activities. Therefore, the development of CBT should exercise existing knowledge of the local community, their traditional lives, existing skills, community attractions, and cultural beliefs (Mohamad & Hamzah, 2013; Goh,

2015). The CBT dwells on environment that offers local lifestyle and natural scenery that often not available in urban areas (Polus & Bidder, 2016). In Malaysia, the CBT

(especially homestay programme) is widely promoted as a tool to increase incomes of rural community and alleviate poverty (Mohamad & Hamzah, 2013; Mizal et al.,

2014). In a broader context, many CBT projects in developing countries are supported financially by international organisations and NGOs, particularly during an early phase for providing local communities with adequate skills and knowledge, building basic tourism facilities, and establishing collaboration (Tasci et al., 2013).

Notably, financial sustainability is always a stumbling block in many CBT projects because inconsistent funds lead towards ineffective management of CBT activities

(Mizal et al., 2014).

2.6.2 Community-based ecotourism

Community-based ecotourism (CBET) is defined in various ways, but it shares common elements, namely it is managed by a local community, they are fully informed of ecotourism process, possess a power to make decisions, and revenues go directly to the community, as well as contributing towards biodiversity conservation

(Stone, 2015; Bulatović & Rajović, 2016). Although some scholars critic the effectiveness of CBET, majority studies give credit to the CBET for positively changing the communities’ perceptions on the use of natural resources and the importance of protecting the environment (Mbaiwa et al., 2011; Manu & Kuuder,

2012; Stone, 2015). The CBET programmes depict two scenarios, both positive and negative impacts. It also illustrates the devolution of power from the central government to community level, whereby a local community learns to be independent in managing and making decisions, and be responsible to protect the environment (Khanal & Babar, 2007; Stone, 2015). On the other hand, several factors like few local people involved, limited revenues, small areas, and competitive tourism business negatively influence the contributions of CBET for community development and biodiversity conservation (Khanal & Babar, 2007; Bulatović &

Rajović, 2016).

On another complex level, the development of CBET is discussed in the context of collaborating with other stakeholders in particular sites. Positively, a collaboration greatly assists a local community in making informed decisions, acquire necessary knowledge and skills in coordinating any CBET programme in their areas. However, collaboration is often portrayed as a function of how CBET affects local livelihoods. More importantly, the CBET sometimes fails to reconcile a diverse stakeholder perspectives, contested settings, and community heterogeneity

(Stone, 2015). This verifies that a local community is not wholly influenced by geographical setting, but also involves emotional, psychological, and interpersonal relationships (Khanal & Babar, 2007; Stone, 2015). Therefore, a one-fit-all-model of

CBET cannot address the involvement of a local community in different settings.

In addition, the collaboration is also influenced by a power distribution among the stakeholders involved in the CBET programme, whereby increasing the power of a community implies decreasing the power of another stakeholder (Stone,

2015; De Lima et al., 2016). Besides the diverse settings of stakeholders and the power allocation, the CBET is constituted as a vehicle to reach a common goal of community development and conservation. Nevertheless, this goal is sometimes difficult to be accomplished equitably because different stakeholder may have wide- ranging of goals (Khanal & Babar, 2007; Islam et al., 2011).

Other views report a varied level of community participation and an unequal empowerment of CBET to a local community. A community empowerment is a central component in developing a rural community (Scheyvens, 1999; Ramos &

Prideaux, 2014; Stone, 2015). For instance, the board members and local people feel positive and empowered by their participation in the CBET, but those who do not participate in ecotourism (e.g. farmers and fishermen) feel disempowered because they do not adequately benefit from the CBET. Therefore, key stakeholders who are not benefiting or are excluded from CBET may oppose the implementation of CBET in their areas (Scheyvens, 1999; Stone, 2015).

Besides that, various roles and levels of community livelihoods cause difficulties in determining how CBET empowers a community. As such, to minimise negative effects, three important aspects are to build trust between different stakeholders, recognise their shared problems and goals, and to ensure the needs of all stakeholders are addressed appropriately in CBET (Ramos & Prideaux, 2014;

Stone, 2015; De Lima et al., 2016). This is achieved when each stakeholder is able to sit, discuss, and make informed decisions at the start of planning, implementing, and examining the performance of the CBET programme in their areas. 68

2.7 Climate change in relation to conservation and ecotourism

The section explains the contexts of climate change, its impacts on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism, as well as current management of climate change.

2.7.1 Climate change: shocks and stressors

Climate change is defined as change of climate properties that are identified by changes of mean and variability of its properties, and continue for a longer period due to natural variability and human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, 2007). Furthermore, risk factors associated with physical disasters due to climate change are known as shocks and stressors. Shocks are events that occur suddenly and last for a short period of time, whereas stressors happen at a slow pace and take a longer time (Calgaro et al., 2014). Several examples of shocks are tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, and landslide, whereas the examples of stressors are water shortage, biodiversity loss, and land degradation (Calgaro et al.,

2014).

The climate change influences ecotourism business in protected areas, because many attractions rely heavily on key resources such as wildlife, natural landscapes, archaeological sites, and infrastructures which are sensitive to climate change (Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Occurrence of shocks discourages tourists’ visit to affected areas, especially when it coincides with high season of tourists, thereby reducing income flow (Calgaro et al., 2014). Meanwhile, stressors have long-term effects on the conservation of natural attractions in protected areas, slowly reducing the viability of ecotourism businesses.

2.7.2 Impacts of climate change

Many private sector ecotourism (e.g. lodge managers, tour guides, and staffs) and local communities assert an indirect impact of climate change on the key resources of ecotourism – the animals that do not migrate during a severe drought may succumb to death and eventually affect ecotourism business (Becken & Wilson,

2016; Mkiramweni et al., 2016). The direct impacts of climate change are water shortage, damages to public facilities, recurrent drought, death of livestock, and vegetation changes (Stucki & Smith, 2011; Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Severe drought accelerates food scarcity due to a low yield of agriculture sector and disease complication whereby diseases-related viruses are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas which are sensitive to a climate change (Pounds et al., 2006; Aryal et al.,

2014).

In the context of conservation, invasive species respond negatively in an altered condition of climate change by inhabiting native biodiversity species in protected areas, thereby posing threats to ecology, environment, and economy

(Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Climate change is also linked with the decline of wildlife species such as elephants, rhinoceros, and lions (Casazza et al., 2014). It also exacerbates illegal harvesting of natural resources and illegal poaching due to food scarcity during a severe drought (Aryal et al., 2014). Therefore, the assessment of stakeholders’ awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of climate change is crucial, especially local communities in affected areas. This assessment is a vital aspect of risk assessment (RA) and vulnerability assessment (VA) because it can enhance or limit the whole process of mitigation against a climate change (Mkiramweni et al.,

2016). More importantly, the stakeholders may not perceive climate change as a risk

issue and fail to respond appropriately if they cannot draw a causal connection between a climate change and local consequences.

2.7.3 Current management of climate change

Climate change can be assessed at local, national, regional, and international levels to formulate effective mitigations against its global impacts. The assessments are carried out using a risk assessment (RA) and vulnerability assessment (VA), whereby the RA means a potential of climate change to harm a system or any components, whereas vulnerability denotes the susceptibility of a system or its components to cope against the adverse effects of climate change (Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Both RA and VA should be conducted before conducting any adaption or mitigation against a climate change. For instance, assessment and mitigation planning against a climate change in Tanzania (eastern Africa) shows that local people and private sector ecotourism have little knowledge about climate impacts and methods to counter it (Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Likewise, a climate change has profound effects on the local livelihood, ecosystem, wildlife, and plants in Trans-

Himalaya (Nepal) that warrants prompt strategies to mitigate its impacts (Aryal et al.,

2014). In addition, education and a right policy play a role in addressing the impacts of climate change. This can be done through capacity building and continuous education programme to local communities, as well as a strategic partnership among tertiary education institutions, government, NGOs, and private sectors (Fahey et al.,

2016).

While climate change is a global concern and its impacts are unavoidable, the most important is understanding its local effects, particularly in areas that harbour vast (threatened) species of flora and fauna, forested areas, and people who are prone

to climate disasters (e.g. El Niño, flash flood, typhoon, and massive forest burning).

Recent studies warrant for continuous studies of impacts and appropriate mitigations of the climate change in association of human being, climate-related diseases, biodiversity, and ecosystem, as well as its direct impacts on conservation and ecotourism (Aryal et al., 2014; Becken & Wilson, 2016; Gouldson et al., 2016).

2.8 Case studies on stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism

Four case studies are selected based on two criteria. First, the case studies are conducted in developing countries, namely Myanmar, China, Brazil, and Kenya

(International Monetary Fund, 2015a; International Monetary Fund, 2015b). This is because many studies of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism are conducted in developing countries, especially in protected areas (Scheyvens,

1999; Su et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016; Engen & Hausner, 2017).

Furthermore, the case studies can be used for appropriate comparison with Malaysia as one of developing countries. Second, the case studies are chosen according to different stages of development in conservation and ecotourism with different contexts, namely ecotourism products, history, cultures, social, and environmental background. The latter criterion is chosen in order to capture a wide range of perspectives, challenges, and opportunities in developing a sustainable conservation and ecotourism. Therefore, four case studies are selected as follows:

1. Biodiversity conservation and ecotourism in Myanmar

2. Conservation and ecotourism in Hainan, China

3. Conservation and ecotourism in protected areas in Brazil

4. Conservation and ecotourism in Kenya

2.8.1 Biodiversity conservation and ecotourism in Myanmar

Myanmar undergoes a huge transformation from an authoritarian military system to democratic governance (civilian rule) in 2011, which causes a series of social and economic reform (Ariel, 2014). The development of ecotourism in this country focuses on three elements, namely biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, educational learning for both hosts and visitors to conserve natural and cultural assets in Myanmar, as well as socioeconomic benefits for local communities. The socioeconomic development of local communities aims to reduce their demands for natural resources and encourage them to participate in collaborative approaches of managing protected area (Myanmar Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, 2015). In 2015, the “Myanmar Ecotourism Policy and Management Strategy” are officially launched to introduce the ecotourism as a green economy in Myanmar. Consequently, the number of tourists visiting the country increases after the introduction of the new policy (Myanmar Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, 2015).

Myanmar encounters issues of ecotourism such as poor accessibility to various sites, weak regulatory of environment, low skills of local communities, and insufficient coordination among public and private sectors (Myanmar Ministry of

Hotels and Tourism, 2015). Meanwhile, pertinent issues of conservation in Myanmar are illegal hunting of endemic wildlife species, over-exploitation harvesting of economically valuable plants, habitat loss and forest degradation. The reasons for habitat and forest degradation are mainly due to commercial logging for timbers, agricultural expansion, and rapid economic growth that increases pressure on natural resources in Myanmar (Rao et al., 2013).

Moreover, Myanmar is prone to extreme weather events due to skewed development process, failures of governance, and the scarcity of livelihood options 73

for the poor (Rao et al., 2013). High temperature and longer drought results in frequent forest fire in Myanmar, whereas an increase in rainfall causes frequent flooding incidents. Furthermore, the climate change causes loss of agricultural lands, shortages of food and fresh water, damage to property, health issues, and the need for communities to resettlement away from areas affected by floods (Rao et al., 2013).

Even worst, it causes more conflicts between local communities and protected areas as displaced communities move to new areas to settle in. Therefore, adaptation planning is necessary to ensure efficient biodiversity conservation within a changing climate, with minimum impacts on species and ecosystem services.

To ensure the ecotourism development delivers net benefits to the protected areas in Myanmar, the conservation is made as the number one priority. In addition, the government aims to raise awareness among all stakeholders on the value and impacts of protected areas, particularly pertaining to mitigation against a climate change (Myanmar Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, 2015). The strategies to promote sustainable ecotourism and conservation in this area are strengthening institutional arrangements, ecotourism planning in protected areas, engaging more local communities, investing in infrastructures and responsible business, strengthening research and monitoring on ecotourism and protected areas, as well as strengthening marketing strategy (Myanmar Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, 2015). Furthermore, a collaborative approach is applied to address different roles and needs of various stakeholders involve in managing the conservation and ecotourism in Myanmar.

Besides improving the ecotourism measures, it generates innovative ideas and solutions to solve pertinent issues in managing the ecotourism.

In Myanmar, the absence of systematic reviews on the biodiversity in protected areas is the main hindrance in conservation (Rao et al., 2013).

Conservation laws and land use policies need to be designed appropriately to clarify how local communities engage and legally manage the natural resources in

Myanmar. Two methods are proposed to protect the existing protected areas. First, apply ‘no regret’ actions in the absence of proper biodiversity baseline and forecast data. This action is achieved by conserving a full spectrum of geophysical setting that harbour rich species of biodiversity (Rao et al., 2013). The establishment of landscape corridors and increase functional landscape connectivity is deemed most strategic adaptation for biodiversity management. A real challenge in protecting communities and biodiversity amidst changing climate is to track the changing habitat conditions through space and time. However, it is difficult in determining where a new habitat or identifying species’ connectivity going to exist and persist against a climate change. Nevertheless, relying on the ‘no regret’ actions is insufficient. Therefore, a second approach is necessary to integrate a critically important knowledge, capacity, and human responses to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, ecotourism, and conservation (Rao et al., 2013).

2.8.2 Conservation and ecotourism in Hainan, China

Hainan is an island province of China, located in Southern China. Though it is small in size, it is endowed with rich natural resources, including tropical forests, mountains, mangroves, beaches, and harbours rare but endangered biodiversity species (e.g. “living fossil” tree fern, rhesus monkey, and cloud leopard) (Stone &

Wall, 2004). The government of China has identified sites and protected areas suitable for developing ecotourism, whereby local communities (Han and Li ethnic)

live in adjacent to these areas. The communities are the earliest inhabitants of the

Hainan island and engaged in traditional animal husbandry and subsistence-based agriculture. A decline of logging activity significantly affects many families residing in this island (Stone & Wall, 2004).

A case study reveals that most communities have a good understanding on the establishment of parks, protected areas, and forest reserves. Apart from the forest contribution in protecting the ecology, water resources, and regulating climate, the communities claimed that the ecotourism delivered positive impacts towards developing their facilities and socioeconomic. However, at least one quarter of the communities indicated that a climate change caused negative effects because they lost their jobs, lands, and limited access towards natural resources (Stone & Wall,

2004). The case study also shows that the current ecotourism generates limited economic benefits, but most officials and communities are optimist that ecotourism growth will eventually bring benefits to their communities.

Several issues pertaining to the conservation and ecotourism are inactive participation of local communities during the planning process, ecotourism staffs have little expertise in ecotourism management, the lack of biophysical data on conservation, the lack of educational opportunities for tourists, and illegal harvesting of natural resources (Stone & Wall, 2004). Inevitably, the failure of local communities to participate effectively in decision-making eventually thwarts the development for both conservation and ecotourism. In addition, there is a direct correlation between poverty, subsistence farming, and resource exploitation in this area.

Therefore, to solve the issue of community being restricted from using natural resources, they are compensated with new homes, lump sum payments, subsidised education, electricity, and crop seeds (Stone & Wall, 2004). Nevertheless, short of funds may render the compensation process. Besides compensation, other solutions are introduced to reduce communities’ pressures on natural resources such as a diversified farming and sale of cash crops. The development of ecotourism provides employment opportunities for local communities, but they need to learn requisite skills to hold certain positions. In addition, stimulating an entrepreneurial activity among the communities is vital by providing funding and teaching them how to start a business (Stone & Wall, 2004).

The successful management in conservation and ecotourism involves multiple bodies such as Hainan local government, private sectors, and local communities. In this case, the stakeholders collaborate to identify clear lines of responsibility and effective measures to solve issues of ecotourism and conservation.

The case study shows that it is difficult to develop a sustainable ecotourism without collective efforts among the stakeholders who hold different values and interests in ecotourism venture.

2.8.3 Conservation and ecotourism in protected areas in Brazil

The system of private reserve in Brazil is well established, but little is known about its link to ecotourism (Pegas & Castley, 2014). The network of protected area in Brazil includes 310 federal protected areas, 621 state protected areas, and 689 municipal protected areas (Pegas & Castley, 2014). Majority tourists (60 %) stated that they visit Brazil for leisure and vacation time, whereas 23 % reported their travelling reasons are nature, adventure, and ecotourism purposes. Ironically, the

economic contribution from the ecotourism industry here is far below a full potential

(Pegas & Castley, 2014). The low numbers of tourists travelling to national parks and protected areas in Brazil are related to inadequate funding of park, not managed properly due to insufficient staffs, lack of basic infrastructures, and incomplete land tenure demarcation (Pegas & Castley, 2014). To solve these issues, the role of federal government is crucial to allocate funds for improving infrastructures, food, and beverage services, transportation, and educational opportunities. Apart from the national parks and protected areas, Brazil makes efforts to promote ecotourism in private reserves (Pegas & Castley, 2014).

The private reserves in Brazil are recognised by the federal government as conservation areas of sustainable use whereby a direct using or harvesting of its natural resources are strictly prohibited. Moreover, unlike most protected areas, the private reserves in Brazil follow a bottom-up approach to conservation. The private reserves are established based on the voluntary act of landowner (not by the government), thereby the landowners can dictate the location, size, and land-use practices when creating reserve on their lands (Pegas & Castley, 2014). Nevertheless, the private reserves can only be used for a scientific environmental research, ecotourism, and education purposes, while other consumptive activities such as fishing, hunting, and harvesting of forest products are prohibited. In this case, the landowners are required to report any illegal activities conducted within the private reserves (Pegas & Castley, 2014). In addition, the landowners are required to apply to an associated environmental agency for establishing reserves on their lands and used the reserves for conservation and research purposes.

In Brazil, the integration of ecotourism as a sustainable land-use option and conservation tool remains underdeveloped. Moreover, it reveals that the primary 78

motivation for landowners to establish protected reserves is the protection of natural environment rather than for ecotourism development, as well as a low participation from the landowners (Pegas & Castley, 2014). Several constraints related to these findings are strict regulations place on establishing ecotourism in protected reserves, restriction on land uses, accessibility, the management capacity of ecotourism among landowners, low domestic demand for nature-based activities, and persistent anthropogenic threats (e.g. lack of tourists’ security, inadequate equipment to patrol, corruptions among enforcement agencies, and insufficient site audits) (Pegas &

Castley, 2014).

Two scenarios of ecotourism are portrayed in the protected reserves in Brazil.

First, the appearance of basic amenities and low-end ecotourism in protected reserves may benefit landowners who rather adopt a simpler nature-human interaction and focus on attracting domestic travelers. Second, a potential to develop a high-end ecotourism in areas outside the protected reserves whereby there is a large tract of undeveloped land with the presence of abundant wildlife and a variety of attractions for ecotourism development. More importantly, rather than competing, the landowners are advocated to promote the ecotourism value in protected reserves

(Pegas & Castley, 2014).

Overall, the current ecotourism in Brazil is neither a catalyst for establishing protected reserves nor a widely adopted conservation tool, because the development of protected reserve is established by the federal laws to primarily protect the environmental values. The future development of ecotourism in private reserves much depends on how the government agencies, NGOs, and landowners work together to solve issues such as regulating illegal activities in protected reserves, improving the landowners’ management capacity, and developing proper 79

infrastructures within the forest reserves (Pegas & Castley, 2014). In this regard, the landowners need to collaborate with other stakeholders who have power in terms of money, networking, and skill needed for developing a sustainable ecotourism. The collaboration provides sharing of knowledge, information and to jointly solve issues related to their common goals in ecotourism development.

2.8.4 Conservation and ecotourism in Kenya

The management of conservation in Kenya applies a community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), whereby this management system predominates in southern Africa (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). The CBNRM focuses on a wide participation of local communities in decision-making and the integration of local knowledge in a management process. Several types of natural resources associated with the CBNRM are community land title, state-own protected areas, parks, and valued environmental feature (e.g. lake, plain, and forest). Across different applications and tenure types, one common aspect of the CBNRM is its activities are conducted close to local communities (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013).

The successful implementation of CBNRM in Kenya is discussed in the context that the conservation outcomes are advanced, local communities feel empowered throughout the management process, and a successful collaboration among the stakeholders involve in conservation (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013).

The case study highlights four persistent reasons of a failure CBNRM, namely a top-down management, lack of economic incentives whereby lucrative returns from illegal poaching outweigh the livelihood cost, lack of autonomy among local communities, and incompatible livelihood and opportunity costs (Measham &

Lumbasi, 2013). To solve these issues, it is suggested that the conservation should

focus on local initiation, provide adequate incentives for conservation, and to structure compatibility between local livelihoods and restriction on using natural resources (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013).

In 2007, local communities in Ijara district of Kenya established a CBNRM known as the Ishaqbini Hirola Community Conservancy to specifically protect an endemic umbrella species (hirola antelope). Attempts to protect this animal species by a translocation method are inefficient because it results in a high mortality rate, high cost, predation by lions, and strong opposition from the local Ijara communities.

More importantly, these communities have a strong attachment to the hirola species

(part of their traditional culture long before the establishment of conservancy), that some even believe taking it away upsets their Gods, thereby causing no rains, dying livestock, and destroying the whole community (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013).

Despite the lack of technical knowledge in protecting the hirola, the local communities make efforts to request technical advice and training to manage the hirola from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Northern Rangeland Trust

(NRT). They register the Ishaqbini Hirola Community Conservancy without involvement from the KWS and NRT, except for receiving their technical advices.

The conservancy also benefits other animals such as giraffes, baboons, warthogs, and

African hare (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). The conservation of hirola on 19 000 hectares is carried out without any fence to avoid restriction for the hirola’s movement. The land is protected by the Ijara communities by traversing the land to guard against poaching and an additional security provided by armed KWS rangers.

Although all wildlife is placed under the jurisdiction of the KWS, they have no jurisdiction over the management of land. The local communities are equipped with

GPS and radio sets for monitoring and communication. Initial funding is assisted by 81

the NRT, but the local communities are planning their own strategies to raise funds for managing the hirola conservation.

The Kenya CBRNM exhibits its focus on conservation is locally relevant, not part of a broader political or ideological agenda. Moreover, an economic incentive is not a crucial concern for local communities who initiate the conservancy. Therefore, the economic factor is of secondary importance of notably the local communities’ strong attachment towards protecting the hirola species. The autonomy stems from the point of project initiation. The supports of KWS and NGOs (NRT) are vital to effectively manage the hirola conservancy. The KWS provides expert and scientific advice whereas the NGOs provide funds, equipment, and facilities to manage the conservancy. However, both KWS and NRT do not design or impose specific planning to local communities. Therefore, the most important criteria for the success of the Kenya conservancy is that it is initiated by the local communities and supported by other stakeholders such as authorities and NGOs.

The conservation in Kenya illustrates a successful collaboration among the stakeholders. In this case, the local communities are empowered to manage the conservation with a strong support from both authorities and NGOs who provide technical advices, funds and equipments to protect the hirola species. It also shows the strong value of traditional culture and belief of local communities which stimulates them to initiate and manage the conservation with less anticipation for economic gain. More importantly, other stakeholders like the KWS, NRT, and NGOs work together by sharing knowledge and providing financial support to the local communities – the collaboration efforts eventually lead to a successful management of hirola species and other animals in this area.

In the case of Kenya community, there is a potential for gaining future income through ecotourism venture due to its close proximity to tourist attraction

(e.g. nature, wildlife, and culture) (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). The opportunity to develop ecotourism in this area is necessary to compensate for future uncertainty when the cost of managing conservation surpasses the local budget. However, at present, the local communities of Kenya prioritise the conservation of a critically endangered hirola species – whereby an economic gain has become a secondary importance after the conservation goal.

2.8.5 Lessons learnt from four case studies

Most studies of conservation and ecotourism are conducted in developing

countries, especially in protected areas because local consumption of natural

resources often leads to conflict between their rights and the conservation of

depleting resources (Romero-Brito et al., 2016; Engen & Hausner, 2017). Scholars

claim the successful application of ecotourism as a tool to alleviate poverty, reduce

conflicts, and increase conservation awareness among local communities (Snyman,

2012; Measham & Lumbasi, 2013; Snyman, 2014b). Nonetheless, in some cases,

ecotourism is either portrayed as a failure due to its incapability to deliver promised

benefits or uncertainty as it subjects towards continuous challenges (Agrawal &

Redford, 2006; Amanda Stronza & Pêgas, 2008; Coria & Calfucura, 2012). This

scenario raises a question of what constitutes a successful strategy to develop

conservation and ecotourism in a certain area, as well as the underlying reasons that

lead towards unsuccessful development of both sectors.

When the four case studies are compared, the Myanmar sets a good starting of developing conservation and ecotourism by changing its governing from an authoritarian military system to a democratic management. Subsequently, this promotes an increased of tourist arrival in ecotourism sector and makes conservation as a priority to ensure the protection of its protected areas.

Nevertheless, it also encounters various challenges such as commercial logging for timbers, agricultural expansion, and rapid economic growth that increases pressure on natural resources, as well as a climate change that causes forest burning, severe floods, and a loss of agriculture yield (Rao et al., 2013). In the case of Hainan

(China), the stakeholders have a mixed perception on conservation and ecotourism sectors. While the officials and park management are optimistic about getting benefits through stakeholder participation in conservation and ecotourism, some local communities are pessimistic and worried about losing their jobs and lands with a limited access to existing natural resources (Stone & Wall, 2004).

On the contrary, the private reserves in Brazil are managed through a bottom- up approach that gives priority to landowners, but little is known about its link to ecotourism venture. Notably, while the involvement of landowners in conservation is based on a voluntary basis, there are few landowners that are interested to participate on the basis to protect the environment. Moreover, the ecotourism is underdeveloped in most of the private reserves. Others are discouraged to get engaged due to a strict regulation of private reserve, lack of management capacity, and low domestic demand for nature-based activities (Pegas & Castley, 2014).

Meanwhile, the indigenous community in northeastern Kenya exhibits a different scenario of ecotourism as a tool to promote conservation. In this case, most communities are motivated solely on protecting the hirola species (community 84

attachment towards the critically endangered animal). In particular, an economic incentive of developing ecotourism has become a secondary importance to their conservation agenda (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). This phenomenon shows a strong community support towards conservation with less concern on economic gain. However, it also poses danger because the management of conservation requires a strong foundation of finance that promotes a long-term (sustainable) conservation that delivers benefits to local communities, so as to avoid a possibility of financial crisis that may discourage them in the future.

The case studies illustrates two types of collaboration display by multiple stakeholders who are involved in conservation and ecotourism. First, a weak collaboration among the stakeholders in Hainan (China) leads to a mixed perception on conservation and ecotourism sectors. The officials and park management are optimistic about getting benefits through involvement in conservation and ecotourism whereas some local communities are pessimistic and worried about losing their jobs and lands with a limited access to existing natural resources (Stone & Wall, 2004). The major reasons for such problem are the lack of mutual understanding on benefit distribution and roles among the stakeholders, wherein both factors could be solve if the stakeholder mutually collaborate in managing the ecotourism and conservation in Hainan. Second, a successful collaboration between the local communities, KWS, NRT, and NGOs in Kenya.

The stakeholders have a good understanding on their roles and mutually work together to conserve the hirola species in Kenya. While the KWS and NRT provide technical advices, the NGOs provides financial support and equipment for the local communities to manage the conservation of hirola species.

In comparison to the four case studies, Malaysia employs a top-down approach of ecotourism development wherein ecotourism locations are selected almost by a decree within the government’s National Ecotourism Plan (Ramli &

Byrd, 2015). The National Ecotourism Plan is drafted by the Ministry of Culture,

Arts and Tourism in 1995 and has been accepted by the Malaysian government in

1996 (Bhuiyan et al., 2011). At present, the plan is coordinated by the Ministry of

Tourism (Bhuiyan et al., 2011). It also emphasises the preservation of natural attractions (e.g. wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and islands) for ecotourism to flourish. Although the plan provides guidelines for ecotourism development, the approach is contradicted with the bottom-up approach advocated by most academic and ecotourism development planners (Ramli & Byrd, 2015).

In addition, when compared to the four countries, many rural areas in

Malaysia experienced similar problems of ecotourism and conservation development. In the case of ecotourism, several common issues are poor accessibility to various sites, low skills of local community, lack of basic infrastructure, ineffective management, and inadequate funding (Payne, 1996;

Abdullah et al., 2013; Latip et al., 2015a; Goh, 2015; Kunjuraman & Hussin, 2017).

Meanwhile, in the conservation aspect, issues like forest degradation, habitat loss, illegal hunting, and environmental pollutions were common in rural areas (Payne,

1997; Jayaraman et al., 2010; Latip et al., 2015b; Abram & Ancrenaz, 2017).

Therefore, various stakeholders involved in the ecotourism and conservation in

Malaysia should mutually collaborate to find effective solutions so as to address the issues and improve the management of both sectors.

2.9 Impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas

The future interventions on conservation and ecotourism, and the relationships among the stakeholders are greatly influenced by the knowledge of past success and failures of a phenomena involved, including the positive and negative impacts of both conservation and ecotourism. The assessment of such knowledge helps to understand the factors which lead to an effective management of both sectors including the roles of relevant stakeholders in implementing necessary actions. More importantly, relevant stakeholders need the courage to modify less effective measures when existing management is inefficient and to continually materialising knowledge of success into a decision-making process.

2.9.1 Positive impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas

The advantages of ecotourism are well recognised in the global context. In terms of conservation, it is regarded as a successful tool to promote the conservation of wildlife, natural resources, and forests (Mbaiwa, 2005b; Agrawal & Redford,

2006; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008; Kiper, 2013). In rural area, ecotourism provides employment and positive social welfare to local community and improves their socioeconomic development (Scheyvens, 1999; Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Snyman,

2014b). The ecotourism provides a direct contribution to household incomes in remote areas, as well as an indirect diversification of economic benefit. For example, the cash income from ecotourism is used to trade with assets like buying a farm and livestock, thereby preparing them to face an unpredictable economic crisis in the long run (Snyman, 2012; Snyman, 2014b). Similarly, ecotourism in rural Tanzania

(Africa) shows its capacity to foster economic growth via employment opportunities, promote empowerment of a rural community, and improve resource utilisation, as an

increased income in a local household is one measure of poverty reduction (Pasape et al., 2013; Rehema et al., 2013). Moreover, in terms of sustainability, the economic contribution of ecotourism can be maximised, that a rural community gets benefits

(and see themselves benefiting) from ecotourism in their areas (Snyman, 2014b;

Romero-Brito et al., 2016).

Furthermore, in a rural area, ecotourism is more than a source of employment

(Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008). Rural areas provide few opportunities for learning marketable skills, but this problem is solved through ecotourism which can provide a platform in learning a communication skill, marketing, and other types of capacity building (Scheyvens, 1999; Snyman, 2014b;

De Lima et al., 2016). The capacity building in turn provides livelihood strategies and improves chances of getting other job employment when needed. Although ecotourism can be an unreliable source of income for rural livelihoods, it can help to disperse risk, such as a human-wildlife conflict, increases self-esteem of local community, and generates other form of supplementing incomes (Scheyvens, 1999;

Snyman, 2014b; Mbaiwa, 2015). For example, beyond a simple direct employment, ecotourism employees spend their salaries by buying goods and services from other community members, thereby generating indirect incomes to other communities who are not involved in ecotourism venture.

2.9.2 Negative impacts of conservation and ecotourism in remote areas

The downside impacts of ecotourism are categorised into three aspects, namely the environment, economic, and social. When it is not monitor properly, the influx of tourists can degrade the quality of natural environment (Tosun, 2001;

Mbaiwa, 2005c; Wearing & Neil, 2009; Amuquandoh, 2010; Tran & Anh, 2011). In

some situation, some wildlife species are turned into garbage feeders as they become familiar with the presence of tourists and eating the food and rubbish that are left behind by the tourists (Wearing & Neil, 2009; Marzuki, 2011). In addition, it also leads to environmental pollution, such as litter, water, and noise pollution

(Amuquandoh, 2010; Ramdas & Mohamed, 2014). For example, tourist activities can alter a water quality and eventually causes water pollution. The environmental pollutions are linked to improper behaviour of tourists, overcrowding of visitors, and poor management of infrastructures (Tosun, 2001; Amuquandoh, 2010; Ramdas &

Mohamed, 2014). Besides that, an expansion of infrastructures leads to environmental damages as the natural habitats are destroyed to make ways for ecotourism facilities (e.g. lodges, hotels, and restaurants).

In terms of economic impact, an increasing demand for basic services and goods from tourists often cause price hikes that negatively affect local residents whose incomes do not increase proportionately (Marzuki, 2011; Wearing & Neil,

2009; Sharma & Gursoy, 2015). It also leads to an increased of land values and building costs that are required for developing ecotourism facilities (Marzuki, 2011;

Sharma & Gursoy, 2015). Moreover, the focus of conservation and ecotourism to preserve nature discourage the ability of local communities to develop sustainably and lift themselves out of poverty (Goodwin et al., 1997). In other words, the conservation of the environment is prioritised over the needs of local communities which in turn, it limits the development prospects for the communities. A heavy reliance on ecotourism as a major economy in rural areas consequently places a greater pressure on the environmental conservation and local communities involved to perform well (Stronza, 2007; Wearing & Neil, 2009).

In addition to the environmental and economic impacts, the downside of ecotourism is also portrayed in social-cultural and psychological aspects (Scheyvens,

1999; Marzuki, 2011; Sharma & Gursoy, 2015). Positively, tourists that travel to ecotourism sites have more options to experience rare wildlife species, natural habitats, and local cultures. While the selling of cultural experiences provides economic incomes to local communities, overcrowding of tourists may cause discomfort to local communities, particularly related to tourist attitudes, Western norms and values (Tosun, 2001; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Sharma & Gursoy, 2015).

In some cases, local communities may take outside values and lose respect for traditional cultures (Scheyvens, 1999; Marzuki, 2011). Consequently, instead of cooperating, this leads towards internal competition among families and ethnic for the perceived benefits of ecotourism. Another example of social impacts is disparities in the spread of benefits of ecotourism among local communities whereby basic infrastructures are absent in remote or inaccessible areas (Scheyvens, 2011;

Snyman, 2014b).

2.10 Issues of conservation and ecotourism

Although ecotourism brings positive impacts towards promoting environmental conservation, there are several issues that hinder its development in rural areas. First, stakeholders who are directly employed in ecotourism or gain benefits indicate they are happy and supportive of ecotourism management.

However, those who are unemployed or gain nothing from ecotourism criticise the ecotourism management for its failure to reduce impacts of property damage by wildlife species (Stone, 2015). In this case, they blame ecotourism for the increased number of wildlife species, leading to the exacerbation of crop damage and livestock

predation. Inevitably, ecotourism generates both positive and negative impacts

(Tosun, 2001; Tran & Anh, 2011; Snyman, 2014b).

Therefore, when ecotourism is anticipated as providing supplements to existing livelihood activities, it is perceived as an alternative strategy of developing rural livelihood. In contrast, when it is seen as competing with existing livelihood

(e.g. competition between ecotourism and agriculture), it is regarded as a disempowering venture (Scheyvens, 1999; Stone, 2015). Second, although a direct employment in ecotourism provides household income and foster poverty alleviation in rural area, the number of people that are hired depends much on the size of ecotourism operation (Snyman, 2014b). This issue leads towards reduced opportunities in providing ecotourism-related jobs to local communities, especially when the communities are lacking the necessary skills and communication (Ramos &

Prideaux, 2014; Wijesundara & Gnanapala, 2016).

Third, due to the participation of various stakeholders with varying perceptions, a main question arises of who should benefit more from generated benefits or how the benefits are allocated to beneficiaries? In the case of rural areas in Botswana (Africa), the answer could be an individual, household, or a community in this area (Stone, 2015). A majority of people in Botswana believes that an economic distribution should be prioritised for community and households.

Nonetheless, in an individual level, some people decide not to support ecotourism or conservation when they feel that it does not benefit them (Snyman, 2014b; Stone,

2015). This implies that the ecotourism does not contribute equally across a community and at the same time, it can both empower and disempower certain segment of a community (Scheyvens, 1999; Snyman, 2014b). Therefore, it is crucial

to delineate and define a community of interest that can affect or affected by conservation and ecotourism development.

Fourth, some scholars argue that ecotourism does not always bring positive impacts on the environment, social, and economic that it has promised (Coria &

Calfucura, 2012; Boley & Green, 2016). More specifically, ecotourism can cause pollution, habitat deterioration, and wildlife harassment. Besides, some tourists tend to break rules and feed wildlife with processed foods which endanger the wildlife itself (Wearing & Neil, 2009; Marzuki, 2011). Fifth, ecotourism also possess a limiting ability to protect natural resources because once a consumer demand for ecotourism decreases, then the money subsidising environmental protection is reduced, while other economic activity likely to take over (Boley & Green, 2016).

Therefore, the ecotourism is neither a panacea nor pandora’s box because it depends much on the scale, size, and politics to determine its ability to successfully protect natural resources (Krüger, 2005; Das & Chatterjee, 2015; Mbaiwa, 2015).

Sixth, an evaluation has become a crucial stage of assessing the effectiveness of programmes and activities in order to examine an investment, measure impacts, and adapt interventions to improve future outcomes based on changing situations. In the case of conservation, the condition of biodiversity species and natural habitats continue to decline despite increased measures undertaken to protect the biodiversity and the environment (Bottrill et al., 2011; Cardinale et al., 2012). Two factors contribute to such issue are the information on whether an action is likely to succeed is understudied (yet this assessment is vital) and existing resources for conservation to reverse the negative impacts of human on declining biodiversity species back to natural levels are inadequate (Bottrill et al., 2011; Cardinale et al., 2012; Goossens &

Ambu, 2012). 92

In the case of ecotourism, evaluating the extent it contributes positively towards local communities and the environment is necessary so that unfavourable effects (e.g. environmental pollutions and negative socioeconomic effects on communities) can be avoided by adapting ecotourism interventions to cater for changing conditions (Scheyvens, 1999; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Ramírez &

Fennell, 2014). Nevertheless, it is difficult to evaluate both conservation and ecotourism because the definitions of success depend on the values of those individuals or organisation when assessing a project’s outcome – it is subjective and context-specific. Therefore, an evaluation greatly assists in understanding the factors that influence outcomes and promotes best practice to improve an existing management of conservation and ecotourism, as well as to encourage a mutual understanding among stakeholders to manage any programme through a continuous learning (Bottrill et al., 2011; Bonilla-Moheno & García-Frapolli, 2012; Somarriba-

Chang & Gunnarsdotter, 2012; Boley & Green, 2016).

2.11 Policies and regulations on conservation and ecotourism

Policy plays a major role in enhancing stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism. An effective policy aims to decentralize decisions over the provision of conservation and ecotourism through an active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders that promotes quality, responsiveness, and efficiency

(Kafeero, 2009; Khan, 2013; Siow et al., 2015). The basis of effective policy is to understand its fundamental implications towards a phenomenon studied (Wearing &

Neil, 2009). In this case, the policies and regulations are discussed in the context of stakeholders’ roles to facilitate effective management of conservation and ecotourism. The stakeholder collaboration is heavily influenced by the interplay of

government regulation and market forces (Kafeero, 2009; Marzuki, 2010). Policies and legislations should provide a range of opportunities for relevant stakeholders to participate in conservation and ecotourism (Kafeero, 2009; Wearing & Neil, 2009).

More importantly, they should be invited to comment on draft policies, management plans, and proposed actions that directly or indirectly affect their daily lives

(Wearing & Neil, 2009).

Meanwhile, ecotourism is advocated as an alternative to traditional economic sectors such as forestry, fishing, agriculture, and mining (Wearing & Neil, 2009).

Nevertheless, in many cases, ecotourism is often introduced by government or industry without consultation, inadequate legislative, exclusion of local communities, and without an effective management plan of protected areas (Kafeero, 2009;

Wearing & Neil, 2009). Consequently, ecotourism has not lived up to its expectations because its benefits are circumscribed by its significant impacts on the environment and local communities, such as increased pollutions and rising local prices (Wearing & Neil, 2009; Marzuki, 2011).

A strict regulatory policies of government, such as tourists be accommodated on boats, the registration of tourist guides, and the control of zoning in ecotourism sites aims to control damage causes by each tourist, but the most neglected aspect is controlling the volume of tourist arrivals (Manning, 2002; Wearing & Neil, 2009).

Another factor is many private sector ecotourism takes a higher control of incoming tourists while local enterprises have to compete by expanding their own accommodation with little revenues and an absence of local incentive (Wearing &

Neil, 2009). To address this issue, a regulatory policy that places local communities in control of ecotourism or at least returning the necessary financial benefits help to

encourage and minimise the communities’ burden of ecotourism competition

(Wearing & Neil, 2009; Ramírez & Fennell, 2014).

In the case of conservation, a prolonged debate exists between the orientations of ‘protection’ and ‘use’ whereby conservation goals are advocated as

‘how to protect’ rather than the option of ‘whether or not to protect’ (Wearing &

Neil, 2009, p.16). This implies that local communities are not given an option to willingly protect existing resources, but are forced to adhere to strict regulations in conservation and eventually leads to reduced support of a local community (Engen &

Hausner, 2017). In addition, ecotourism is increasingly sought after by political philosophy to provide a basis of protection for the environment, but sustainable development of ecotourism is difficult to achieve because an expansion of ecotourism places a great pressure of demand to access natural areas (Wearing &

Neil, 2009; Coria & Calfucura, 2012).

Ecotourism helps to boost the protection of the environment, but it can also degrade the values of natural landscapes. Therefore, it is crucial to achieve a right balance between using and protecting the environment. Similar to its parental concept of ecotourism, the management of conservation is inherently political (Siti-

Nabiha et al., 2008; Ramírez & Fennell, 2014; Siow et al., 2015). In many cases, government has the greatest potential to shape conservation in dictating how it is promoted, planned, and regulated (Siti-Nabiha et al., 2008; Wearing & Neil, 2009).

In fact, the government is a sole body that provides a long-term planning and management as legislative and juridical protection of nature reserves for the benefit of future generation. Apart from the government, it is crucial to understand the roles and commitments of various stakeholders in developing appropriate policies that

promote a sustainable management of conservation (Siti-Nabiha et al., 2008;

Wearing & Neil, 2009; Ramírez & Fennell, 2014).

The ecotourism policies in Malaysia are a complex system with diverse

(heterogenous) ethnics and vulnerable political system (Siow et al., 2015). Several policies involved are the National Ecotourism Plan (1996), First to Tenth Malaysia

Plan (five year economic plans), National Tourism Master Plan (1975), and the

Economic Transformation Plan (Marzuki, 2010; Siow et al., 2015; Giap et al., 2016).

Along with these policies, integrated and meaningful stakeholder collaboration is needed, whereby a partnership is developed at federal, states, and local level, and supported by a strong political leadership (Siti-Nabiha et al., 2008). In this case, the most comprehensive and applicable plan for ecotourism development is the National

Ecotourism Plan (Siow et al., 2015).

The Ecotourism National Plan (1996) is drafted by the Ministry of Culture,

Arts, and Tourism (MOCAT) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-

Malaysia). The goal of this plan is to assist the Malaysian government in developing effective tools to improve the ecotourism, conserve natural and cultural heritage while generating socioeconomic benefits to local communities (WWF, 1996;

Marzuki et al., 2011; Khan, 2013; Siow et al., 2015). It is formulated to provide an integrated approach to fulfil specific national objectives within the field of ecotourism (Khan, 2013; Siow et al., 2015). Nevertheless, a dispute arises regarding the application of the Ecotourism National Plan in a local context due to its vague practice of guidance on safety and security of tourists and its lack of specific techniques to ensure reduced harm on the environment (Siow et al., 2015). More importantly, in relation to stakeholders’ responses towards the policy, it reveals that the mindset of local community negatively affects its implementation while some 96

private operators do not adhere to the policy and its regulations (Kaur, 2006; Siow et al., 2015). Hence, the National Ecotourism Plan requires a revision and refinement, including in addressing the perceptions of various stakeholders towards its implementation.

Taken together, the most important question remains is to formulate a potent approach in structuring policies and regulations that boost stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, especially a community participation in rural areas.

In this case, an effective policy should define the responsibilities of government, private operators, and local communities in relation to the management of both ecotourism and conservation, address competing issues between private and local enterprises in ecotourism sector, mitigate negative impacts of ecotourism towards the environment (e.g. carrying capacity of tourists, pollution, pressures and access towards depleting natural resources), as well as examining the negative impacts of politic and strict regulations on community participation.

2.12 Conclusion

The chapter explains the collaborative approach on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism. The stakeholder collaboration is discussed based on the criteria, barriers, and its implication on stakeholder participation in both sectors. It structures a theoretical framework to enhance stakeholder collaboration in the Lower

Kinabatangan based on a stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration. It also describes several types of management of conservation and ecotourism, as well as it reflects the collaborative approach using four case studies. In addition, the study explains the impacts of conservation and ecotourism in rural areas, as well as the policies and regulations of both sectors.

CHAPTER 3

THE LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 explains the background of the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. There are previous studies conducted to examine the conservation and ecotourism activities here, but little is known about the stakeholders’ opinions on how to solve issues of both sectors, especially the viewpoints of local communities. The chapter is separated from the research methodology (Chapter 4) so as to thoroughly describe the gaps of studies in this area and how it is related to the current research.

3.2 Justifications for choosing the Lower Kinabatangan as a research area

In Malaysia, the Sabah state is an urgent priority for conservation because it harbours a variety of biodiversity species and depleting natural forests. A case in point is the Lower Kinabatangan that contains large expanses of biodiversity species and globally threatened ecosystems such as virgin tropical rainforests, freshwater swamp forest, limestone outcrop, secondary dry land, and lakes (WWF, 2004a). The forests in the Lower Kinabatangan support 129 species of mammal, 314 species of birds, 101 species of reptiles, and 33 species of amphibians (Lackman-Ancrenaz &

Manokaran, 2008). Based on the red list species of the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), many of these species are threatened such as the

Bornean elephant (Estes et al., 2012), Bornean orangutan (Goossens et al., 2005), and proboscis monkey (Sha et al., 2008). The forests not only provide natural habitat for the wildlife, but also serve as part of instrumental to connect fragmented areas, and facilitate multiple ecological processes needed for the ecosystem to function.

Nevertheless, at present, many forests are fragmented and subjected to an extensive 98

conversion to make ways for development and lucrative agricultural sectors (WWF,

2004b; Rautner et al., 2005; Estes et al., 2012). Both species and their habitats inside and outside protected areas in the Lower Kinabatangan are at increasing risk of ongoing over-exploitation and habitat loss (Estes et al., 2012; Goossens & Ambu,

2012).

Efforts to safeguard the remaining forests has led to the establishment of the

Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS) with an approximate size of 26

103 hectares in 2005 (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a).

Besides the LKWS, there are other types of protected areas (Doney et al., 2009) including mangrove forest reserves and commercial forest reserves. Sadly, important areas of unprotected forests are located outside the protected areas, on the Sabah state land or alienated land. According to the Sabah Land Ordinance (2010), an alienated land is a leased state land and thereby granted for specific purposes of development such as oil palm cultivation.

Previous studies conducted in this area prove the need to manage conservation priorities associated with threatened species and ecosystems, as well as warrant for comprehensive reviews to solve conservation issues (Ancrenaz et al.,

2004; Estes et al., 2012; Goossens & Ambu, 2012). In addition, a climate change is proven to contribute negatively towards anthropogenic threats like an extensive deforestation on biodiversity (Mann, 2009). Besides that, human influences on a biodiversity loss remain as a major threat towards conservation goals and have been recognised worldwide (Mann, 2009; Cardinale et al., 2012).

It is necessary to consider the chronological history of development that shapes the Lower Kinabatangan in order to attain a sustainable management of the land use in this area. Historically, the Lower Kinabatangan is relatively undisturbed 99

by human interventions until the blooming of commercial logging in the 1950s (Hai et al., 2001). The logging activities remain as a major economy in this region until the 1970s. In 1980s, the logged areas are redesigned for agricultural purposes to make ways for developing cocoa and oil palm plantations (Vaz, 1993; Agama et al.,

2015). Nevertheless, due to increasing problems of pests, diseases, and low commodity prices, the cocoa plantations are subsequently replaced by oil palm plantations (Hai et al., 2001). However, many areas of cocoa (replaced by the oil palm plantations) have unsuitable soils for planting the oil palms. In particular, out of

48 366 hectares of lands in the Lower Kinabatangan (including the wildlife sanctuary), 52 % soils are unsuitable whereas 31 % are deemed marginally suitable for oil palm cultivation (Paramanathan, 1999).

Most of the commercial logging and early development of agricultural plantations in the Lower Kinabatangan is influenced by an economic necessity with little attention given to conserve the environment. Consequently, the upstream logging activities and oil palm plantations have caused a land fragmentation, flooding incidents, loss of habitats and wildlife species (Hai et al., 2001; WWF,

2007). Although there is a growing awareness of the need to protect the environment among various stakeholders, the past activities have created irreversible impacts on the environment. Undoubtedly, the past activities (still occurring) remain as a stumbling block to achieve a sustainable development of ecotourism and conservation in this area.

100

3.3 The background of the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah

The section explains about geographic, physical, and demographic background in the Lower Kinabatangan. It also elaborates history of Kinabatangan particularly the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages which are located in this area.

3.3.1 Geographic setting

The Lower Kinabatangan is located in the Sabah state (east Peninsular

Malaysia), with a GPS coordinate of 5.5884° N and 117.8460° E (Figure 3.1). Sabah is a well-known state as ‘the land below the wind.’ In total, there are 25 districts in

Sabah including the Kinabatangan. The capital town and centre of Sabah is Kota

Kinabalu, but the biggest district in Sabah is the Kinabatangan with an approximate size of 600 hectares. The Kinabatangan district is divided into upper and lower

Kinabatangan wherein the upper Kinabatangan is severely disrupted by excessive logging and land clearing for plantations (Agama et al., 2015). Meanwhile, the

Lower Kinabatangan survives due to growing efforts on conservation.

Sabah has five administrative divisions, namely the west coast, interior,

Kudat, Tawau, and Sandakan divisions. The Lower Kinabatangan is under the administration of the district of Kinabatangan, but the Kinabatangan district is wholly administered by the Sandakan division. The nearest town from Kinabatangan is Sandakan. The Sandakan town is located approximately 68.9 km from the

Kinabatangan town, and 110 km from the Lower Kinabatangan (Ghasemi &

Hamzah, 2014; Goh, 2015). International or local tourists usually board a flight from

Kota Kinabalu to Sandakan airport, before renting a vehicle to reach the Lower

Kinabatangan. Therefore, it takes around 50 minutes flight from Kota Kinabalu to go to Sandakan airport, and another 1 hour 50 minutes drive to reach the Lower

101

Kinabatangan. Alternatively, tourists can drive or rent a taxi for approximately six hours drive from Kota Kinabalu to the Lower Kinabatangan (Goh, 2015).

Figure 3.1 The location of Kinabatangan town, Sukau and Batu Puteh villages. The red arrow appoints the location of the Lower Kinabatangan in Sabah state (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabah).

3.3.2 History of Kinabatangan

The early history of Kinabatangan is little written. Nevertheless, through an oral tradition, the legends and stories of how the floodplain settlements are formed, and how the huge river gets its name holds true to this day. The name of

Kinabatangan is made of two words joined together – that is ‘Kina-Batangan’. The

‘Batangan’ is a local name for a long river, whereas the ‘Kina’ refers to the early

Chinese settlers in this area. According to a previous record, the actual name is called

‘Chinabatangan’ (Vaz, 1993). Back to the 15th century, the Chinese traders sailed from China up to the Kinabatangan river to barter (a traditional exchange) with the 102

local people for forest products, especially bird’s nests (Harrisson & Harrisson,

1971). Eventually, more adventurers and traders visit the Kinabatangan, married with the local people and thus, creating a small Chinese community here.

Its strategic location between the east and west sea has attracted both local and international trades in the early century (Vaz, 1993). During the 15th century, it is believed that admiral Cheng Ho from China once sailed through the Kinabatangan river to collect bird nests that found abundantly in the Kinabatangan district.

According to the book of Sabahan history, the emperor of China had visited this area several times, hence several areas in the Kinabatangan are named after the Chinese words, such as Mumiang, Bilit, and Sukau (Vaz, 1993).

The legend also states the existence of the Sulu empire in the early 1800s.

The Sultan of Sulu monopolised the trade of forest products (especially Bornean bird nests) coming out from the Kinabatangan because it is reported to have high quality and value (Vaz, 1993). In those days, the Sulu base was located in the Sandakan and known as the district of Mangindora. Apart from edible bird’s nests, other famous products are resin, camphorwood, elephant ivory, rhinoceros horns, and hornbill casques. Eventually, the Sulu empire declines in the 1850s due to repeated raids by the ‘Segaii’ headhunters of East Kalimantan and an outbreak of smallpox (Vaz,

1993).

Further, in 1881, the Sandakan is taken over by the British North Borneo

Chartered Company (Whelan, 1973,). During this time, several famous products are exported such as sago, rubber, timber, pepper, and forest products. Additionally,

Melapi village has become the main settlement in the Kinabatangan due to a thriving economic drive of harvesting edible bird’s nests from Gomantong cave. However, the economic activities are disrupted in January 1942 when Sandakan is invaded by 103

the Japanese army during the Second World War. Many Malayan, British, and

Australian volunteers are captured, brutally tortured, and most lost their lives during this long Japanese occupation. The Japanese empire surrendered to the Allied Forces in 1945. Finally, Sabah receives independence from the British when it becomes part of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 (Vaz, 1993).

The Melapi village is the original settlement which is now called Sukau. It is located next to a strategic place known as the Menanggol river. The Menanggol is a main path that connects to Gomantong cave. Due to the harvesting and collecting forest products, one new village site is built not far from the Melapi village. It is named as Sukau because the famous and the expanding use of Sukau rattans which grow abundantly in this area. The Sukau rattans are used to make ‘hanging ladder’ to collect the bird nests. Native, indigenous people that live in Sukau are known as

‘Orang Sungai’ and the main religion is Islam. Their identities are known by a local dialect of Sungai, traditional tools and attires, and traditional livelihoods. Nowadays,

Sukau has the highest concentration of ecotourism lodges in Sabah (Ghasemi &

Hamzah, 2014).

Meanwhile, the Batu Puteh village has been explored since 1956 with an approximate size of 2 158 hectares. Based on a legend, the opening of the Batu Puteh village is led by Tuan Imam Yusof bin Mariwa with his fellow relatives (Goh, 2015).

The naming of Batu Puteh comes after a pile of white rock is found at the side of the

Kinabatangan river, located approximately 600 meters from the centre of the village

(Goh, 2015). The white rocks can be seen in this area until now. The early settlers and majority people living in this village is ‘Orang Sungai’ (90 %) while other minority ethnics also stay here such as Suluk, Bugis, and Kadazan Dusun (10 %).

104

3.3.3 Physical setting

The section describes four physical setting of Lower Kinabatangan, namely

Kinabatangan river, forest, weather, rain, flood, and land use changes in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

1. River

Lower Kinabatangan is one of Sabah’s most splendid natural resources. It is home to various rare wildlife species and also crucial for their continued survival

(Ghasemi & Hamzah, 2014; Goh, 2015). Kinabatangan river is the longest river (560 km) in Sabah, originating from the mountains and hills in the southeast part of the state, it drains eastwards towards the Sulu sea. The river plays an important role in the traditional livelihood and survival of the native indigenous Sungai people here. It is also the main source of Sandakan’s water supply, as well as providing various environmental supports. For instance, the mangroves at the riverside protect the coast from erosion, while serving valuable nursing grounds for Sabah’s marine resources

(Vaz, 1993; Agama et al., 2015). Several shallow freshwater lakes can be found in the Lower Kinabatangan are Butong and Labaung, including oxbow lakes.

2. Forests

Besides the fact that Lower Kinabatangan has the longest river in Sabah, the

Kinabatangan areas are made up of various types of forests, such as lowland dipterocarp forest, secondary dry-land forest, freshwater swamp forests, limestone outcrops, and lakes (WWF, 2004; Latip & Badarulzaman, 2014). These natural habitats provides home to many rare and endangered animals, including proboscis monkeys, Asian elephants, estuarine crocodiles, and a spectacular assembly of bird species. Thus, such features depict the importance of wetland in Sabah, but it also

105

serves as a natural heritage for international significance. Nevertheless, the rapid pace of development in Sabah, coupled with the growth of the timber industry and the expansion of agriculture has dramatically transformed the landscape here (Vaz,

1993; Payne, 1997; Abram et al., 2014). Many forested areas are shrinking and declining in quality. Consequently, the loss of vital habitats has resulted in the loss of essential wildlife species. For examples, the Sumatran rhino is facing extinction, the same goes for elephants and orangutan, while other animals are relying on shrinking pockets of forests in the Lower Kinabatangan (Goossens et al., 2005; Estes et al.,

2012; Goossens & Ambu, 2012; Payne & Davies, 2013).

3. Weather, rain, and flood

The equatorial climate in Sabah is generally wet and humid throughout the year. The daily temperature ranges from 23.2 °C to 33.9 °C. Throughout the years

2007 to 2016, the Kinabatangan receives an average rainfall of 2847 mm, with an average of wet days approximately 184 days (Ancrenaz et al., 2004; Sabah

Meteorological Department, 2017). In 2016, the rains are the heaviest between

August and November, and less raining between January and April (Sabah

Meteorological Department, 2017). In general, the river rises to one meter above the sea level during raining season, but heavy rains can result in an increased of twelve meters above the sea level. There are also incidents of severe floods in the

Kinabatangan, for examples in the year 1963, 1967, 1986, and 1996. Notably, it caused devastating impacts such as a loss of life, damage to property, loss of livestock, destruction of crops, and a deterioration of health due to waterborne diseases (Ayog et al., 2006; WWF, 2015).

106

4. Land use changes

The first commercial logging licenses in the Lower Kinabatangan started in the early 1950s (Vaz, 1993; Agama et al., 2015). It is an ideal place for logging since it has a network of waterways to transport heavy logs. The timber harvesting activities here provide most of revenue and employment for the local people. In the

1970s, the economy activities shift to cash crops, whereby most of the dry-land forests are replaced by a large scale of cocoa and oil palm plantations (Vaz, 1993;

Abram et al., 2014; Latip & Badarulzaman, 2014). Between 1990 and 2010, much of the land outside forest reserves and protected areas has been converted to oil palm plantations, and the oil palm plantations has become a major activity for villagers in the Kinabatangan (Hai et al., 2001; Agama et al., 2015). At present, the oil palm plantations are the predominant land use in the Kinabatangan district with the biggest coverage compared to other districts in Sabah (Hai et al., 2001; Abram et al., 2014;

Agama et al., 2015).

Besides the development of oil palm plantation, other land use in

Kinabatangan includes forest reserves, the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary

(LKWS), the Sabah Forestry Development Authority (SAFODA) for rattan plantation, and Gomantong cave (Agama et al., 2015). The forest reserves located within the LKWS provide an essential ecological corridor to connect fragmented areas in Kinabatangan. The LKWS falls under VII (wildlife reserves) serves to protect wildlife species, whereas other six forest reserves fall under the Class VI

(virgin jungle reserves), namely Keruak Forest Reserve, Bod Tai Forest Reserve,

Gomantong Forest Reserve, Materis Forest Reserve, Pin Supu Forest Reserve, and

Sungai Lokan Forest Reserve (Latip, et al., 2015; Sabah Wildlife Department,

107

2017b). The forest reserves are used for research purposes, the preservation of gene pools, and to connect protected areas within the LKWS (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Types of land use in the Lower Kinabatangan. The lots represent areas of the LKWS which are disconnected between various types of land use. Source: Estes et al. (2012).

Meanwhile, the SAFODA is responsible to manage rattan plantations located between the Batu Puteh and Lamog river. The rattan plantation provides habitat for wildlife, revenue for local villagers who are involved in selling the rattans, and protect water quality in the river, but the local villagers are denied access to harvest plants and hunt animals in the SAFODA land (Azmi, 1996). The Gomantong cave

(located in the Gomantong virgin forest reserve) is famous for edible swiftlet’s nests

108

for centuries (Payne, 1989). It also provides habitat for a wide-range of wildlife species. Overall, the land uses in the Lower Kinabatangan comprise of the LKWS, forest reserves, roads, human settlement and villages, small scale agricultures, and other types of unprotected forests and oil palm plantations (Latip & Badarulzaman,

2014; Agama et al., 2015).

3.3.4 Demographic background

The Lower Kinabatangan Sabah is dominated by the native, local indigenous people known as ‘Orang Sungai’ (river people). The total population in Sukau and

Batu Puteh villages are 2993 people, wherein there are 1560 males and 1433 females.

In addition, there are 226 houses in Sukau village and 178 houses in Batu Puteh village, thereby this amount to 404 houses in both villages (Personal communication with community leaders; District office of Kinabatangan, 2016). Historically, the

‘Orang Sungai’ are of mixed ancestry, they are descended from the true natives of indigenous Sabah, such as Tambanua, Idahan, and Dusun, including other ethnics like the Suluk, Kagayan, Bugis, and Chinese (Vaz, 1993; Goh, 2015). Majority of

‘Orang Sungai’ is Muslim, and they still live in scattered settlements along the

Kinabatangan river. The majority of these people settle down in several villages, namely Sukau (origin: Melapi), Abai, Bilit, Batu Puteh, and Bukit Garam (Lamag).

In the past, the people were engaged in subsistence, traditional activities, such as cultivating rice, vegetables, and collecting wild fruits (Payne, 1996; Goh, 2015).

Furthermore, rice and vegetables are produced for personal consumption, although excess foods are sometimes sold. The sources of proteinaceous foods are obtained from the rivers and lakes in the Lower Kinabatangan. Fishes and prawns are trapped using a traditional trap (known as ‘bubu’ and made of rattan and bamboo),

109

cash net (‘rambat’), and trammel nets (‘pukat’) (Vaz, 1993; Payne, 1996). Bird’s nests and rattans are a seasonal source of income for local people here, but the trade in of forest products has declined in recent years. The local communities are also involved in other economic activities such as working in government and private sectors, ecotourism and conservation sectors (Payne, 1997; Mohamad & Hamzah,

2013; Goh, 2015). Nevertheless, to this day, most of the Orang Sungai are still practicing the traditional livelihoods (e.g. subsistence farming, fishing, season fruit harvest, and the collection and sale of forest harvest) to support their daily living in the Lower Kinabatangan (Mohamad & Hamzah, 2013; Goh, 2015; Latip et al.,

2015a).

3.4 Issues and challenges in the Lower Kinabatangan

The section describes the issues and challenges encounter by the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan such as land fragmentation, illegal logging, environmental problems, and human-wildlife conflict.

3.4.1 Land fragmentation and habitat loss

The expansion of agricultural plantations (e.g. oil palm plantations) has resulted in land fragmentation (Norwana et al., 2011; Abram et al., 2014). The land fragmentation poses a great threat towards creating a corridor of natural habitat (Hai et al., 2001; WWF, 2004a). In particular, it causes isolation of wildlife habitats and impedes the movement of large mammals (e.g. elephant, orangutan, and Sumatran rhinoceros). Indeed, a habitat loss is a major obstacle of conserving many wildlife species in Sabah, particularly in the Lower Kinabatangan (WWF, 2007; Goossens &

Ambu, 2012; Estes et al., 2012). Several causes of habitat loss are forest conversion to agriculture, human settlement, and non-forest land cover. Plantations reduce the

110

quantity of habitat available to elephants in the Lower Kinabatangan, isolate their migration routes, and eventually causing a human-wildlife conflict when they graze on oil palm trees (Goossens & Ambu, 2012; Estes et al., 2012; Malay Mail Online,

2015).

Other negative impacts of the fragmentation and habitat loss are the increasing risk of crop predation, damage to property, damage to local cemeteries, and loss of human life when wildlife species cross into human territories and housing compound (Kothari et al., 2000; King & Nair, 2013a; Cronin et al., 2014; Sabah

Wildlife Department, 2017a). There are 30 173 hectares of unprotected forest remain in the Lower Kinabatangan, but despite its high value for connectivity and biodiversity, 64 % is allocated for future oil palm plantation (Abram et al., 2014).

Ironically, 54 % of these forests are unsuitable for cultivating oil palm due to inundation cases. Therefore, if the land conversion occurs, it only becomes commercially redundant, with little or no financial gain, but causing a significant cost to the ecosystem (Hai et al., 2001; Abram et al., 2014).

3.4.2 Illegal logging and poaching

Illegal logging still occurs ten years after the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife

Sanctuary is gazetted as a fully protected area (Malay Mail Online, 2015). Evidence shows illegal logging in the form of tree stumps found when the wildlife wardens patrol in two lots of the LKWS. Even worse, several photographs of hunters are caught in poaching activities at the same lots. Notably, the report indicates that two animals in the Kinabatangan have disappeared, namely Sumatran rhinoceros and wild cattle (also known as ‘tembadau’), while proboscis monkey, orangutan, and clouded leopard are still found in the Kinabatangan, but they are declining in

111

numbers (Ancrenaz et al., 2004; Goossens et al., 2005; Goossens & Ambu, 2012).

The director of the Danau Girang Field Centre highlights three major reasons for the declining number of wildlife which are linked to forest conversion to agriculture, illegal logging and hunting (WWF, 2007; Goossens & Ambu, 2012; King & Nair,

2013a; Cronin et al., 2014; Malay Mail Online, 2015). Furthermore, the levels of illegal poaching in protected areas are largely unknown (Sabah Biodiversity Centre,

2011). Consequently, more wildlife species could be gone in the near future and eventually the Kinabatangan would lose its interest as ecotourism destination.

3.4.3 Environmental problems

Local communities express their concerns over the declining quality of their environment (Vaz, 1993; Norwana et al., 2011; Latip et al., 2015a). The most noticeable effect is deteriorating water quality largely due to a land clearing and the establishment of plantations (Abram et al., 2014). Likewise, the communities report a significant drop in the amount of fish and prawn catches due to a high level of suspended sediment. Moreover, inorganic fertilizers and pesticide wastes from oil palm plantations also contribute to degrading water quality (Hai et al., 2001). The discharge of effluent from oil palm processing mills is another serious form of water pollution (WWF, 2007). The water pollution negatively affects the communities of

Lower Kinabatangan and an urban population in Sandakan town because their water are supplied from the Kinabatangan river (Hai et al., 2001; Goh, 2015). Furthermore, a continuous logging, land clearance, and mining cause severe soil erosion whereby the soils are washed into the river, leading a river pollution perceived as the main environmental problem in Sabah (Hai et al., 2001; Environment Protection

Department, 2002; Agama et al., 2015; Latip et al., 2015a).

112

In addition, local communities are also facing more difficulties to obtain income and livelihood due to the rapid deterioration and loss of natural resources.

According to Agama et al. (2015), at present, the largest cause of environmental problems in Sabah is the clearance of natural forest for plantations. Nevertheless, little is known regarding the impacts of climate change on the environment in the

Kinabatangan (Norwana et al., 2011; Agama et al., 2015; Daily Express Online,

2015). Meanwhile, forest fires are of significant threats to biodiversity, habitats, and people in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah, particularly during extended dry periods and El Nino (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011). The fires directly kill many wildlife species, destroy vegetations, and natural habitats.

3.4.4 Human-wildlife conflict

In the case of the Lower Kinabatangan, a human-wildlife conflict is associated with local communities and big mammals, especially elephants (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Estes et al., 2012). The main reason is that the elephant crossover and feed in oil palm plantations and communities farms, thereby causing a considerable damage to oil palm companies and communities’ farms. In some cases, the elephants are killed in retaliation (Ancrenaz et al., 2007). Many attempts are made to translocate the elephants, but this method is costly and ineffective because they will just come back to where they come from. Not only in the Lower Kinabatangan, the human-wildlife conflict is also reported in the Peninsular Malaysia, involving both human and elephants, and the translocation method is proven inefficient (Goossens

& Ambu, 2012; WWF, 2015).

Big size animals like elephants and rhinoceros require wider routes for migration. Moreover, fragmented habitats cause a low genetic distribution which

113

leads to a low survival in stressful or modified habitats, eventually causing species extinction (Goossens & Ambu, 2012; Estes et al., 2012). Besides this, the clearance of habitat causes shrinking availability of water and food sources for wildlife species, forcing the wildlife to travel to adjacent forest areas, thereby exposing them to danger when they crossover human settlement and plantations (Ancrenaz et al., 2004;

King & Nair, 2013a; Estes et al., 2012). Nevertheless, solving this problem is rather complicated, as stated by Ancrenaz et al. (2007, p.5): “in a highly fragmented landscape with current human-animal conflicts and with intense human pressure placed on the last natural resources of the area – meeting human needs and respecting biodiversity in this area is the means to a conservation end.”

3.5 Stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the key stakeholders of ecotourism are government agencies, local communities, and private sector ecotourism. The local governments related to ecotourism are the Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and

Environment (KePKAS), Sabah Tourism Board, and district office of Kinabatangan.

The local communities are further divided into the head of village, village development and security committee (JKKK), and local villagers. Private sector ecotourism is comprised of owners of chalet, lodges, bed and breakfast, resort, and homestay. Most of the ecotourism owners in Sukau village are combined under the management of Kinabatangan-Corridor of Life Tourism Operators Association

(KiTA) located in the Sukau village. However, not all of the owners are registered under the KiTA. In Batu Puteh village, a local enterprise of ecotourism is known as

114

the Community Ecotourism Cooperative or ‘Koperasi Pelancongan’ (KOPEL) manages all homestay ventures located in this village.

On the other hands, the key stakeholders directly involved in conservation are local governments, local communities, private sector ecotourism, and NGOs. The local governments are the Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Environment

(KePKAS), district office of Kinabatangan, Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD),

Sabah Forestry Department (SFD). Indirectly, the Environment Protection

Department (EPD) located in Kota Kinabalu is also responsible for managing environmental-related issues throughout Sabah including the Lower Kinabatangan

Sabah. The local communities are comprised of the head of village, village development and security committee (JKKK), and local villagers. Private sector ecotourism includes KiTA, KOPEL, and all owners of chalets, lodges, bed and breakfast, resorts, and homestay. Two pioneers that focus entirely on conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan are the NGOs such as HUTAN Kinabatangan Orangutan

Conservation Programme (HUTAN-KOCP) and the Danau Girang Field Centre

Research, whereby the office of the HUTAN-KOCP is located in the Sukau village while the Danau Girang Centre is located in the Batu Puteh village.

The ecotourism is perceived as a tool to boost conservation activities in the

Lower Kinabatangan. According to Hamzah (2016), different stakeholders in the

Lower Kinabatangan form a systematic relationship in managing ecotourism and conservation (Figure 3.3). In this regard, the systematic relationship refers to a well organised management and coherent interdependency among the stakeholders involved in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Undeniably, the conservation is much linked to the ecotourism in this areas because it assures the protection of the wildlife and forests which act as a main attraction for tourists 115

Figure 3.3 Systematic relationship among the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. Source: Hamzah (2016).

116

visiting the Lower Kinabatangan. The Sabah Forestry Department and Sabah

Wildlife Department administer the conservation programmes that are carried out by the KOPEL such as reforestation and lake restoration whereas the NGOs monitor and carry out educational programmes (e.g. talks, workshop, campaign) to raise conservation awareness to the local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan. The owners of oil palm plantation provide finance and establish honorary warden for conservation purpose. The KOPEL coordinates and provides ecotourism activities such as homestay, wildlife watching, and river cruises. The KOPEL is also involved in ecotourism and volunteer activities which contribute positively towards conservation by encouraging tourists to participate in conservation-related activities.

In addition, the KiTA has signed a partnership (MoU) with the Sabah Wildlife

Department and the Sabah Forestry Department, whereby the KiTA helps in reporting poaching activities and collect conservation fees from tourists that visit the

Lower Kinabatangan.

Although researches on conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan are limited, most of the studies show that the conservation and ecotourism in this area are directly related (Mizal et al., 2014; Goh, 2015). Some studies focus more on ecotourism aspects such as homestays, community-based ecotourism, impacts of ecotourism, issues, and challenges (Mohamad & Hamzah,

2013; Mizal et al., 2014; Goh, 2015), while other scholars solely investigate issues pertaining to threatened wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan, a declining number of forest reserve, impacts of deforestation and loss of habitats, issues and challenges in conservation (Ancrenaz et al., 2004; Goossens et al., 2005; Estes et al.,

2012; Abram et al., 2014). Intriguingly, little is known regarding the opinions of key stakeholders, especially the local communities on how to address pertinent issues of

117

conservation and ecotourism based on their knowledge and capabilities. Equally important, it is necessary to understand key relationships among the stakeholders whether they support or pose conflicts towards conservation and ecotourism measures in this area. These problems would be addressed in the Chapter 6.

3.6 Conservation activities in the Lower Kinabatangan

One pioneer of conservation management in the Lower Kinabatangan is the

Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD) which is located at the Kinabatangan town, while its main headquarters is in Kota Kinabalu. Nevertheless, the SWD is primarily responsible for the protection of wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan. The

SWD is officially established on January 1st, 1988 under the Sabahan Ministry of

Tourism, Culture, and Environmental Development. Previously, it is placed under the division of the Sabah Forestry Department, before it is officially separated in the

1988. The SWD is responsible for managing the conservation and enforcement of wildlife species, as well as the conservation of international trade in endangered species of flora and fauna (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017b). Several types of management and conservation of the SWD are ex-situ, in-situ, wildlife control, protected species, and protected areas, including public awareness and continuous research (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a).

The SWD enforcement focuses on controlling all activities that are violating wildlife laws (Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997). For examples, to conduct patrols, inspection of wildlife keep as a pet, control the smuggling of wildlife and wildlife products, arrange information regarding the hunting of wildlife animals and wildlife trade activities, as well as conducting a prosecution to people found guilty violating the wildlife laws. It also cooperates with international agencies in controlling wildlife smuggling and trafficking (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017b). 118

Although the SWD is responsible for the conservation of wildlife species and protected areas (e.g. the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary) in the Lower

Kinabatangan Sabah, the forests in this area is primarily managed by the Sabah

Forestry Department.

The forests in the Lower Kinabatangan fall under the jurisdiction of the

Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), whereby it is being monitored directly by the

SFD at the district office located in the Kinabatangan town, whereas the main headquarters is located in the Sandakan town. Compared to the SWD, the SFD is established earlier in the 1914 when the Sabah state is still ruled by the British

Borneo Chartered Company (Sabah Forestry Department, 2016). In the past, the main function of the SFD was to focus primarily on the collection of timber royalty, but at present, it is responsible for the protection and conservation of forest reserves based on a concept of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The SFM concept is introduced in the late 1980s and later it is applied statewide in the 1997 (Sabah

Forestry Department, 2016). Since its establishment, the SFD has established many forest reserves in the state, and currently managing 49.1 % of the Sabah’s land mass

(3.6 million hectares). The main function of the SFD is to effectively plan and manage the Sabah’s forest resources in accordance with the principles of sustainable forest management.

In 1992, the state government has approved a Sabah Conservation Strategy

(SBC) for planning and implementing action plans. In the SBC’s action plan, it establishes a multiple-use of management area committees to address the conflicts and problems related to conservation. For instance, to solve issues pertaining to freshwater resources, soils, forests, and biodiversity which undergoing serious threat from degradation and competing interests (Sabah Biodiversity Centre, 2011; Stone,

119

2015). Notably, one of the priority areas is the Lower Kinabatangan. Therefore, the remaining fragmented forests in the Lower Kinabatangan is gazetted in August 2006, under the state’s wildlife enactment 1997, and known as the Lower Kinabatangan

Wildlife Sanctuary. However, one issue stated during this establishment is the conflict between palm oil production and wildlife conservation that needs to be addressed efficiently.

Despite the efforts to boost conservation, like other developing areas in the

Southeast Asia, Sabah encounters many challenges in finding a balance between a sustainable development and an environmental conservation (Majail & Webber,

2006; Goossens & Ambu, 2012). In a case of the Lower Kinabatangan, wildlife habitats are bordered by growing human settlements and extensive economic activities (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Abram et al., 2014). A former habitat reduction and land fragmentation have resulted in many environmental issues such as pollutions, wildlife conflicts, and depletion of natural resources (Estes et al., 2012). The Sabah government, working closely with private sector ecotourism and NGOs conduct several initiatives in protecting the wildlife species, forest products, and forest reserves in the Lower Kinabatangan. For examples, the establishment of honorary wildlife wardens (HWW), reforestation, fishermen for conservation, and educational awareness campaign (Majail & Webber, 2006). Most of these programmes are introduced to local communities and they are trained to engage actively in these conservation projects. In this regard, getting to know the extent the programmes contribute positively towards conservation and the communities’ welfares in a particular area helps to uncover underlying factors that enhance their participation

(Tosun, 2000; Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Paimin et al., 2014).

120

Under the enactment of the Wildlife Conservation 1997, the Sabah Wildlife

Department trains and appoints eligible villagers to become the HWW. In 2001, several staffs of HUTAN-KOCP are appointed as the HWW after they complete a training session and passes a required test (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016a). In 2008, the majority staffs of HUTAN-KOCP are certified as the HWW. The wardens are given a mandate to monitor, report, and enforce laws to offenders when necessary in order to protect the wildlife and habitat within the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife

Sanctuary. To enhance the works, the top management of HUTAN-KOCP establishes a dedicated team to focus and work full time on the HWW (HUTAN-

KOCP, 2016a).

Previous rampant forest degradation and land fragmentation (and is still continuing) are the major threats to the long-term survival of wildlife and natural resources in the Lower Kinabatangan. To solve the problems, the staffs of HUTAN-

KOCP start replanting several species of fast-growing trees to recreate corridors for the wildlife (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016b). However, another issue emerges when the young plants are trampled by elephants and consumed by snails, caterpillars, and deer, thereby causing plant mortality (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016b). The HUTAN-KOCP builds electric fences to protect these plants and conduct maintenance of minimum two to three years of weeding. The forest rehabilitation deems successful, but it requires a high maintenance cost (e.g. workers’ salary, electrical fences, petrol oil and boats to reach certain areas).

For centuries, the local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan make traditional traps (also known as ‘bubu’ in Sungai language) for trapping prawns and fishes using the bark of trees in the forest reserves (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016c).

Unfortunately, apart from damaging the trees, it is illegal because the tree barks are

121

taken from protected areas. The HUTAN-KOCP works with experienced local fishermen to use alternative sources like plastic wire mesh to replace the tree barks.

This initiative is successful because making the traps using plastic wire mesh takes a shorter time than using the tree barks (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016c).

The HUTAN-KOCP also makes an effort in spreading environmental education to rural communities by establishing HUTAN Environmental Awareness

Projects (HEAP). The HEAP conducts various awareness talks to kindergarten, primary, and secondary students within the Kinabatangan district, including rural schools outside the Kinabatangan area (HUTAN-KOCP, 2016d). Other conservation activities in the Lower Kinabatangan are nursery propagation, educational trail, tree planting, and silviculture (Goh, 2015). Conservation activities also provide supplementary income to the local communities when they participate in the forest reforestation and silviculture, whereby they plant trees and sell them back to NGOs

(e.g. HUTAN-KOCP and Néstle RiLeaf) (Goh, 2015).

According to Agama et al. (2015), there are four policies which are directly involved with conservation in Sabah state, namely the Environment Protection

Enactment 2002, Sabah Biodiversity Strategy 2012-2022, Forest Enactment 1968, and the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997. The Environment Protection

Enactment 2002 is a key to legal protection of habitats, species, and regulation of environmental of development activities, including conducting an Environment

Impact Assessment (EIA). The Sabah Biodiversity Strategy 2012-2022 addresses issues like habitat degradation, hunting and illegal wildlife trade, human-wildlife conflict, as well as knowledge gaps of stakeholders involved. The Forest Enactment

1968 specifically focuses on forest reserves, cutting and removal of trees inside or outside of forest reserves. The Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 is responsible

122

for the gazettement of wildlife sanctuary (totally protected), wildlife conservation areas, hunting, as well as the protection of animals and plants. However, the Wildlife

Enactment does not cover incidental impacts due to land clearance (Agama et al.,

2015).

Notably, the Malaysian constitution bestows power to both the federal and state governments to legislate Sabah (Fletcher, 2009). Despite the existence of legislations for protecting endangered wildlife and plant species, there is uncertainty as to whose responsibility it is to implement the legislation. It is because the Sabah

Wildlife Department is responsible for managing the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife

Sanctuary, but they do not have full jurisdiction on the forest reserves, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Sabah Forestry Department (Agama et al., 2015). In addition to the difficulties in conducting regulations, the lack of specialised officers to carry out enforcement also leads to an inefficient management (Fletcher, 2009;

Agama et al., 2015).

3.7 Ecotourism attraction and products in the Lower Kinabatangan

Sabah is the second biggest state in Malaysia, after Sarawak. The key reason that leads to the early development of ecotourism is much related to the local livelihood issues (Goh, 2015). In the past, many villagers in the Lower Kinabatangan acquired seasonal income by working in nearby timber camps, but extensive land conversion into agriculture results in shrinking job opportunities. The Lower

Kinabatangan supports a high diversity of mammal, fish, bird, and reptile species, including several rare and endangered species, especially proboscis monkey, leaf monkeys, orangutan, macaques, Bornean gibbon, Asian elephant, Sumatran rhino,

Malayan sun bear, and various species of swiflets, hornbills, and birdlife (Goh, 2015;

Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a). In addition, the lakes and rivers in the Lower 123

Kinabatangan contain a dense of aquatic species, reptiles (e.g. lizard, snake, and estuarine crocodile), and amphibians. These natural attractions have triggered the early development of ecotourism in this area (Goh, 2015). The ecotourism is anticipated as a potential source of job employment and income to replace traditional livelihoods for many local communities in this area.

Several products of ecotourism offered in the Lower Kinabatangan are Miso

Walai Homestay (means ‘together as one house’ in Sungai language), guide service, village boat service, and cultural activities (e.g. dress up in traditional costumes, cook local cuisines, cultural dance and ritual performances, and community volunteer activities known as ‘gotong-royong’) (Mizal et al., 2014; Goh, 2015).

Other famous ecotourism products in this are are jungle trekking and wildlife observation. The main objective of homestay programme is to portray the traditional life of local ‘Orang Sungai’ in the Lower Kinabatangan.

A community-based ecotourism is established in the Batu Puteh village and is coordinated under KOPEL Ltd, whereby all homestay committees are absorbed into the homestay program (Bagul, 2009). Despite the fact that the ecotourism provides revenues and employment to local communities, some people are doubtful about getting tangible benefits in the long-term and are suspicious about the idea of forest conservation. The community-based ecotourism demonstrates a good bottom-up approach in a rural society whereby it involves more participation of local communities in a holistic manner, by working together with other major stakeholders of ecotourism and conservation sectors.

Despite efforts in promoting ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, the number of tourists visiting this area fluctuates between 2012 and 2015 (Table 3.1). In particular, the number of tourists drops instantly in 2012 and 2013, increases back in

124

2014, and reduces in 2015. There are many reasons pertaining to the fluctuation of tourists travelling to the Sabah state (including the Kinabatangan), such as high- profile abductions of tourists in eastern Sabah since 2013 and the disappearance of

Malaysia Airline (MH370) in 2014 (The Malay Mail Online, 2017). Notably, since

2013, the foreign ministers of six countries (Australia, Canada, Britain, New

Zealand, United States, and Singapore) issue notice urging their citizens to reconsider their plans to visit eastern Sabah (The Star Online, 2014). Despite the fact that only eastern Sabah is affected by a serious kidnapping issue, the security concern has a profound impact to all areas in Sabah. For example, a huge number of tourist who travels to the Kinabatangan Sabah drop significantly in 2013.

Table 3.1 Statistic of tourist travelling to Kinabatangan in 2009 until 2015

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Number of 19 475 13 668 11 606 9 025 5 122 17 276 13 291 89 463 tourists Source: District office of Kinabatangan (2016)

In Sabah, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Environment structures a policy for tourism development known as Sabah Tourism Master Plan (1995-2010), which identifies ecotourism as the main development priority in the interior and east coast of Sabah (Sabah Forestry Department, 2009). The plan provides guidelines for

Sabah tourism industry, to realise a potential of Sabah in line with national tourism policy objectives, and it places a great concern on the management issues of natural resources. Specifically, the plan indicates the development of east coast Sabah for ecotourism and nature-based tourism. For examples, the development of Lower

Kinabatangan wetland area, Danum Valley Conservation Area, Maliau Basin, and

Tabin Wildlife Reserve (Bagul, 2009). In this case, it is recognised that ecotourism 125

could only work with the involvement of the local community which has the capacity of lands (assets), authority (native right), and local knowledge which is essential for ecotourism development, but they may not have enough capacity to operate the ecotourism on their own. The second policy of the Sabah Tourism Master Plan

(2011-2025) is undergoing review and endorsement by the Ministry of Tourism,

Culture, and Environment (Agama et al., 2015).

3.8 Impacts of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan

Climate change means the entire earth is warming globally (Mann, 2009).

According to NASA GISS (2017), the average temperature of the earth has risen by

0.99 °C for the past century, this is the highest rise since 1880 and is expected to rise in coming years. Inevitably, the continuous increase in the average temperature of the earth can translate to large and drastic shifts in climate and weather (Mann,

2009). An extreme change of climate and weather causes a sudden flood, intense rain, drought, tropical cyclone, bushfire, harmful haze, more frequent heat waves, and climate-sensitive diseases (e.g. cholera, malaria, dengue, leptospirosis, and rickettsial infection), thereby causing adverse impacts to the society and the environment (Adler et al., 2013; Aryal et al., 2014; Mkiramweni et al., 2016).

Two main causes of climate change are natural and anthropogenic forcing waves (Malaysian Meteorological Department, 2009). First, the natural forcing occur when the tilt of the earth axis has time scales of thousand years (e.g. yearly, and century time scales) and variation in interaction between the ocean and atmosphere.

Second, the anthropogenic forcing occurs due to human-induced activities such as the release of greenhouses into the atmosphere, emission of carbon dioxide from deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, as well as methane emissions from

126

agriculture activities and vehicle exhausts (Malaysian Meteorological Department,

2009).

In Malaysia, the climate change causes less frequent occurrence of cold days and cold nights, but more frequent hot days, hot nights, and heat waves (Malaysian

Meteorological Department, 2009). Moreover, a significant regional temperature increase is much related to El Niño incidents, with a simulation shows the impacts of

El Niño are more significant in the East Malaysia compared to the Peninsular

Malaysia (Malaysian Meteorological Department, 2009). Climate change is a growing concern that hinders the development of both ecotourism and conservation projects (Jayaraman et al., 2010). In Sabah, the chief minister of Sabah, Datuk Seri

Panglima Musa Aman states that:

“The potential impacts of climate change go beyond rising sea levels. Weather trends showed Malaysia is getting hotter, we have longer droughts, and heavier thunderstorms, which affect our food crops, water supply and progress of infrastructure projects. Climate change is one of the most important environmental challenges that Malaysia has to overcome today.” Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia (2007)

The chief minister also expresses that it requires a strong cooperation from all stakeholders to study new technologies to mitigate the climate change issue while promoting economic growth at the same time (Sabah State Government, 2011).

Climate change is an emerging issue that requires an effective integration at the local, national, and regional levels (Sabah State Government, 2011). Nevertheless, the key problem of climate change is that – it requires specific adaptation at local area in order to achieve effective mitigation. Therefore, a specific study must be conducted at a specific area, whereby the adaptations will be formulated according to the local situation.

127

Recent studies show negative impacts of climate change on ecotourism sites and discourage tourists of visiting a particular site, their comforts and travel decisions (UNWTO, 2009; Adler et al., 2013; Mkiramweni et al., 2016). Moreover, ecotourism sites in developing countries that rely heavily on ecotourism venture experience a significant reduction in tourist arrivals, including a reduce in employment opportunities and poverty among local communities (UNWTO, 2009).

In addition, the climate change also causes degradation of ecotourism resources (e.g. biodiversity loss, change in natural landscape, and extinction of flagship species of wildlife and plants) (Aryal et al., 2014; Mkiramweni et al., 2016). In this case, it is necessary to examine the awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of various stakeholders so as to attain an effective mitigation against the climate change

(UNWTO, 2009; Mkiramweni et al., 2016).

Since 1999, Malaysia has engaged with international society in addressing global climate change, including carrying out assessments, structuring policies, and conducting public awareness (Yap, 2005). For example, Malaysia forms collaboration with Denmark for capacity building and implementation in addressing the impacts of climate change (Yap, 2005). In addition, Malaysia has become part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and

REDD+ (refer as “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” in developing countries) – Malaysia has voluntarily committed to reduce emission intensity of GDP up to 40 % based on 2005 levels by 2020 (Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment, 2011; Gouldson et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the

Malaysian government explicitly emphasises that a climate change is a secondary to the continued development in Malaysia (Gouldson et al., 2016). The current

Malaysia plan (2011-2015) maintains several programmes of national low carbon

128

emission (e.g. construct energy-from-waste infrastructure, renewable energy, and prioritise efficient lighting and appliances) (Gouldson et al., 2016).

At sub-national level, the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD) collaborates with the WWF-Malaysia to develop carbon accounting methodology, appropriate legal and policy in order to address issues of forest burning and climate change (REDD,

2012). In addition, the SFD has also taken steps to launch a program to tackle climate change through a sustainable forest management and community development with the support of the European Union (REDD, 2012). The Chief Conservator of SFD

(Datuk Sam Mannan) highlights the importance of increasing the size of protected forests in Sabah to 30 % of the state’s land by 2025, in order to map forest carbon, biodiversity, and functional composition, as well as integrating the livelihood requirement of forest-dependent communities (The Star Online, 2017b). Most of the plans for addressing the impacts of climate change are ongoing in the Sabah state, but the effectiveness of these efforts rely heavily on an appropriate consultation with various stakeholders, especially local communities in particular areas.

Notably, warmer temperature and drier conditions increase the chances of a fire starting which can cause severe forest burning. The climate change and severe forest burning cause damage to landscape and public health risk (Pounds et al.,

2006). For examples, air smokes from forest burning can reduce air quality, causing eye and respiratory illness, especially among children and elderly. Although the impacts of climate change are severe, little is known regarding its local effects on human, biodiversity, and the environment. In the case of the Lower Kinabatangan, the effects of climate change on natural forests, various species of plants and wildlife remain understudied (Sabah State Government, 2011). More importantly, more studies are required to understand the attitudes and perceptions of relevant

129

stakeholders in order to mitigate the climate change in this area (The Star Online,

2017b).

3.9 Conclusion

In conclusion, most studies on ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan are centred on the community-based ecotourism (homestay), the satisfaction of tourists travelling to the Lower Kinabatangan, issues and challenges to improve the current ecotourism. Meanwhile, previous studies on conservation aspect focus on the protection of endangered wildlife species (e.g. orangutan, elephants, and proboscis monkeys), the expansion of oil palm plantation, issues and challenges that hinder the conservation activities here. Notably, four aspects that remain understudied are collaborative approach among the stakeholders, perspectives and attitudes of key stakeholders towards conservation and ecotourism (especially their views on how to solve issues of conservation and ecotourism), the interdependent links between conservation and ecotourism (e.g. current management, effectiveness, and the contribution of ecotourism towards conservation goals), as well as the effects of climate change on the stakeholders, conservation, and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

Considering all the problems, the present study embarks on examining the stakeholder collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism, understanding the perspectives of various stakeholders, the impacts of conservation, ecotourism, and climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan.

130

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

The chapter explains the usage of a mixed method research (MMR) to investigate the collaboration of stakeholders on the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. It also describes several types of research instruments and the reasons for choosing them in the study. First, this section demystifies the roles of paradigms in research, and its relationship with choosing an appropriate method. Second, it explores the meaning of MMR, the ways in which qualitative and quantitative method can be integrated, and highlights the suitability of MMR to answer multifaceted questions arising from a complex phenomenon studied. It also considers the challenges to combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Third, it discusses previous application of the MMR and applies it in the context of the Lower Kinabatangan.

In particular, the chapter highlights the usage of a mixed method research, precisely the concurrent parallel triangulation via two approaches: (1) household surveys of local communities using closed-ended questionnaires, and (2) in-depth semi-structured interviews of multiple stakeholders using open-ended questions. It also justifies the reasons for choosing such methods, so as to obtain relevant information and uncover the key issues of conservation and ecotourism in this area.

Overall, there are six groups of stakeholders involved in this study, namely local communities, local authorities, NGOs, private sector, private sector ecotourism, and local ecotourism operators. To simplify the research flow, Figure 4.1 illustrates how the methods are arranged and later, how the findings from qualitative and

131

quantitative data are combined to develop an integrated framework based on the

research findings.

ResearchResearch objectivesobjectives

1) To4) examine To examine stakeholder the extent collabo ofration participation in achieving and sustainable opinions conservation of local of

naturalcommunities resources and and ecotourism stakeholders in the in ecotourismLower Kinabatangan. and conservation in the 2) To evaluateLower Kinabatangan.the impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism to stakeholders5) To evaluate in the Lower existing Kinabatangan. approaches and issues pertaining the

3) To identifystakeholders’ strategies managements in improving in ecotourism the stakeholder and conservation collaboration. in achieving sustainable6) To examine conservation the ecotourism, of natural conservation resources , and people ecotourism in relation in the to Lower Kinabatangan.the impacts of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan.

MixedMixed methodmethod approachapproach

QualitativeQualitative approachapproach QuantitativeQuantitative approachapproach

SampleSample size: size: SampleSample size: size:

40 40interviewees interviewees 328328 respondents respondents

QuestionQuestion types: types: QuestionQuestion types types: : Open Open-ended-ended questions questions ClosedClosed-ended-ended questionnaire questionnaire

Sa Samplingmpling design: design: SamplingSampling design: design: SemiSemi-structured-structured interview interview HouseholdHousehold survey survey Purposive Purposive sampling sampling CensusCensus SnowballSnowball sampling sampling

QualitativeQualitative datadata analysisanalysis QuantitativeQuantitative datadata analysisanalysis

FrameworkFramework technique technique DescriptiveDescriptive and and analytical analytical analysis analysis ContentContent analysis analysis SPSSSPSS version version 22 22

CompareCompare and andand contrast contrast the the findings findings of of qualitative qualitative and andquantitative quantitative methods methods

DevelopDevelop an integrated an integrated framework framework to enhance for future stakeholder developmentcollaboration ofin ecotourism conservation and and conservation ecotourism development of ecotourism and conservation

Figure 4.1 Research approach for examining the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

132

As explain in the Chapter 3 (Section 3.2), there are four villages in the Lower

Kinabatangan, namely Sukau, Bilit, Abai, and Batu Puteh. However, the current study only includes the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages for both quantitative and qualitative methods. The decision is unpinned by three main reasons, namely historical background, geographical difficulties, and sampling constraints (time and inadequate finance). Historically, the Sukau village has emerged as a prominent ecotourism destination due to its close proximity to Menanggol river where the famous proboscis monkeys are easily spotted and Gomantong cave that offers edible swallow nests (Hussin & Som, 2008; Ghasemi & Hamzah, 2014; Goh, 2015).

On the contrary, the Batu Puteh village offers unforgettable experiences of homestays that are well managed under the KOPEL Ltd. Geographically, both Sukau and Batu Puteh villages are well connected with roads, though some areas along the roads are filled with gravel and unpaved roads, but this is not the case for Bilit and

Abai villages. There are no direct roads to reach most areas of Bilit and Abai villages. Hence, the main transportation is to crossover the Kinabatangan river using a boat or a big ship from Sukau to opposite areas. Apart from the difficulties to reach these villages, the distances between each house are huge. In this study, a researcher needed to ride a motorcycle or drive a car to go from house to house, because some areas between the houses were covered by oil palm plantation and forests. Besides that, a researcher also had to walk when there was no transportation available to reach some houses.

133

4.2 Development of research designs

While research aims and objectives are the core importance of any research undertaken, an appropriate method will determine whether or not identified research problems are answered appropriately. This section introduces the approaches undertaken to examine the phenomenon of ecotourism and conservation in the Lower

Kinabatangan. It is structured based on the purposes of the research and reflected via a research paradigm to acquire the depth and breadth of research findings.

4.2.1 Concepts and approaches of research

Undeniably, there are varying ways of observing the world and one’s approach to knowledge is just one of many. Paradigm guides how researchers make a sound decision when carrying out their research, to identify appropriate methodology according to research purposes, and to align the research with a particular paradigm.

Three characteristics describe a certain paradigm, namely ontology, epistemology, and methodology, as shown in the Figure 4.2. It is crucial to understand the approach of paradigm before commencing a research, in order to increase researchers’ creativity and a quality of research, as well as to guide one’s decision to choose methods and sources of data. Moreover, understanding the three components help to formulate an appropriate theoretical perspective that fulfil the objectives of a research.

Figure 4.2 Relationships between ontology, epistemology and methodology. Source: Crotty (1998) and Hay (2002).

134

The approach undertaken by understanding a paradigm is considered appropriate in investigating the complex phenomenon of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, wherein it involves multiple stakeholders.

Based on previous studies, the conservation and ecotourism is mutually related because the ecotourism is not progressing well without a proper protection of various endangered wildlife species in this area (Sabah State Government, 2011). Similarly, the local communities that gain benefits by participating in the ecotourism deem to support the conservation. However, this relationship cannot be evaluated by a simple cost and benefit assessment between the ecotourism participation and the communities’ support in conservation initiatives (King & Nair, 2013a).

To understand such phenomenon, a researcher needs to examine the opinions and perceived impacts on the local communities, and at the same time gathering depth information on the mechanisms used to manage the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism here. The present of a researcher in a sampling area to meet and observe the stakeholders helps to understand the situation. An appropriate approach to explain such phenomenon should be a problem-centred, whereby the methods chosen complies with the specific questions and purposes of research – in the sense that the methodology chosen is secondary to the understanding the research problems. While a quantitative method is applied to the local communities, conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews (qualitative method) with key stakeholders offer depth of information to examine underlying issues that cannot be simply revealed in the quantitative approach. Further descriptions are explained in the following sections.

135

4.2.2 Link paradigm to data collection and analysis strategies

The decades of ‘paradigm wars’ created due to a controversy over the relative value and place of qualitative and quantitative methodologies have reached its end.

Many scholars have taken a ‘pragmatic’ approach to choose a methodology that best- suited to answering their research objectives, rather than complying with methodology orthodoxy (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). There are many types of paradigms, such as positivist (postpositivist), constructivist (interpretivist), transformative, and pragmatism. A problem arises when a first time or new researcher wants to conduct research, but come across varying terms and claims regarding how research paradigms are applied in a research (Mackenzie & Knipe,

2006). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the paradigms and link them to the data collection and analysis strategies, as well as to compare it with the previous studies conducted on similar phenomenon.

Positivism is defined as “scientific method or science research” and “reflects a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or outcomes"

(Creswell, 2003, p.7), whereby it can be applied to the social world based on an assumption that “the social world can be studied in the same way as the natural world, that there is a method for studying the social world that is value free, and that explanations of a causal nature can be provided” (Mertens, 2005, p.8). A previous paradigm of quantitative method ‘positivism’ is debated to be a poor choice, hence been replaced with a new philosophy of science, ‘postpositivism’ (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). The postpositivism appears because postpositivists believe that the truth about reality can only be approximated, drives by a theory which can be modified, but never been completely explained. In addition, one’s cultural experiences and worldviews could result in partial bias in one’s objective perceptions of reality

136

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Nevertheless, postpositivists believe that triangulation can approximate such objectivity (triangulation of method, data, and theory).

Compared to positivism, postpositivists emphasise its findings by assigning probabilities (e.g. p-values and levels of confidence), use inferential statistics for external generalisations, and utilise qualitative data analysis to develop quantitative instruments (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Positivist and postpositivist studies are commonly aligned with quantitative methods of data collection and analysis

(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006).

One common paradigm of qualitative methods is constructivism

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Constructivism paradigm claims the existence of multiple, contradictory, but equally valid accounts of multiple realities (e.g. social constructivists, radical constructivists, and cultural constructivists). Constructivist

(also known as interpretivist) is a study of interpretive understanding known as

‘hermeneutics.’ The approaches tend to rely on participants’ observations of phenomenon being studied (Creswell, 2003). Contrary to postpositivist, it usually does not start with a theory, rather it generates theory or patterns of meanings when conducting a research (Creswell, 2003). Therefore, constructivist is likely employing a qualitative technique, or a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods

(mixed method research) (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). The usage of quantitative methods support and enrich the qualitative findings.

Transformative paradigm arises due to concerns that constructivist inadequately address problems pertaining to social justice and marginalized people

(Creswell, 2003). Transformative researchers believe that a research should consider a political agenda, thus provide action agenda which able to change participants’ lives, institutions, and researchers’ lives (Creswell, 2003). When compared,

137

transformative researchers may use qualitative and quantitative methods (mixed method research) in the same manner to that constructivist (Mackenzie & Knipe,

2006).

Contrary to paradigms stated previously (postpositivist, constructivist, and transformative), a pragmatism focus on ‘what’ and ‘how’ of research problems, and it does not rely on a particular philosophy or reality (Creswell, 2003; Onwuegbuzie

& Leech, 2005). Moreover, it places research problems as a central focus, employs all techniques to understand such problems, and choose appropriate data collection/analysis to uncover them, without a reliance on any philosophy. In most cases, pragmatist researchers apply a mixed method research (MMR) to address their research questions, but some researchers use MMR aligns with a transformative paradigm (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; Mertens, 2005).

The pragmatist paradigm offers “an epistemological justification (via pragmatic epistemic principles and standards) and logic (combining approaches that help researchers optimally frame, examine, and provide tentative answers to one’s research question[s]) for mixing approaches and methods” (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009, p.128). The pragmatist paradigm of MMR involves a crucial approach to generate appropriate research questions and provide warranted answers to those questions, use all types of qualitative and quantitative analyses, including descriptive and inferential data analyses, to fulfill one or more purposes of mixed research.

There are five purposes outline by Greene et al. (1989), namely a triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion. Based on such purposes, a researcher then makes decisions to employ either one of three types of mixed analyses: parallel mixed analysis, concurrent mixed analysis, or sequential mixed analysis. The purposes of mixed research will also assist in determining the

138

types of data collection (monotype or multitype data), the number of data analyses

(monoanalysis or multianalysis), the priority status of collected data (the priority of qualitative over quantitative data, vice versa or equal status), and the interest of analysis (e.g. case-oriented analysis or variable-oriented analysis). In addition, a pragmatist researcher can use descriptive and/or inferential analyses to obtain in- depth descriptions for internal and analytical generalisations, as well as enhancing authenticity and trustworthiness.

Pragmatism research invites the application of both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses (Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2013). Therefore, a pragmatist researcher can use postpositivism approaches, but still can apply qualitative analyses (e.g. content analysis and word count). The usage of qualitative analyses enhances the findings of quantitative research. The reverse is true for a pragmatist researcher who takes a constructivist stance (employ qualitative orientation, but is permissible to use quantitative analyses, for example descriptive analysis). More importantly, in the case of MMR, a pragmatist researcher can apply constructivist-poststructuralist-critical stance, whereby an appropriate addition of quantitative approaches provides extra detailed data and interpretations

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). The relationships between paradigms, methods, and data collection tools are shown in the Table 4.1.

139

Table 4.1 Links between paradigms, methods, and instruments

Data collection tools Paradigm Criteria Methods (primary) (examples) Quantitative: "Although Experimental qualitative methods can Experiments Quasi-experimental be used within this Quasi-experiments Positivist Correlational paradigm, quantitative Tests (Postpositivist) Theory verification methods tend to be Scales Causal comparative dominant" (Mertens,

2005, p.12) Naturalistic Hermeneutic Interpretivist Ethnographic Multiple participant Qualitative methods Interviews meanings Interpretivist/ predominate, although Observations Social and Constructivist quantitative methods may Document reviews historical also be utilised. Visual data analysis Phenomenology Construction Theory generation Symbolic interaction Critical theory Neo-marxist Qualitative methods with Feminist quantitative and Diverse range of tools Participatory mixed methods. particular Emancipatory “Contextual and need to avoid Transformative Advocacy historical discrimination (e.g. Empowerment factors described, sexism, racism, and issue-oriented especially as they relate homophobia). Change-oriented to oppression” (Mertens, Interventionist 2005, p.9) Political May include tools Consequences of Qualitative and/or from both positivist actions quantitative methods may and interpretivist Problem-centred be employed. Methods Paradigms (e.g. Pragmatic Pluralistic are matched to specific interviews, Real-world practice oriented questions and purpose of observations, and Mixed models the research. testing and experiments). Source: Creswell (2003), Mertens (2005), Mackenzie and Knipe (2006).

140

Corresponding to the paradigms mentioned above, the study in the Lower

Kinabatangan utilised a pragmatist approach, focusing on ‘what’ research problems and ‘how’ to explain such phenomenon. Additionally, it employed a concurrent parallel triangulation of a mixed method research, collecting data using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In addition to gathering a primary data (data obtained first hand by a researcher), a secondary data was acquired through various published journals, books, reports, and pamphlets collected throughout the research.

4.2.3 Critics over choosing a method that fits the research purposes

In the past, most researches utilised either a monotype (one type of data; purely qualitative or quantitative) or multitype data (both data; qualitative and quantitative) (Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Subsequently, monotype data are analysed using monoanalysis (e.g. constant comparison analysis of qualitative data), whereas multitype data use multianalysis (use one or more types of data analysis). However, since the emergence and increasing interests in employing MMR, some scholars argue it lacks methodological basis, that little conceptual guidance are provided to choose appropriate method for a given research purpose, and few clarifications on which method should be combined for which research objective (Greene, 2008). According to textbook views, debates among scholars on the appropriateness of any research (the usage of MMR or monomethod to fulfill research purposes), two important points emerge: (1) particularistic discourse: MMR should only be applied when there is a strong demand by research questions, and (2) universalistic discourse: the views of MMR may provide more or less defined outcomes regardless of research’s goals.

Furthermore, there are debates on applying MMR approaches, whether it is based on a theoretical framework (feminism and/or transformative purposes) or the 141

basis of using them (realism, diactecs, and pragmatism) (Denzin, 2010; Hesse-Biber et al., 2015; Flick, 2016). Additionally, the same authors raise questions that it lacks considerations regarding the theoretical and epistemological differences, reasons to use MMR (actual purposes in relation to research questions and issues), and too pragmatic (combination of methods) without considering the underlying assumptions. Other issues (but not limited) related to MMR are: (1) it is employed before formulating and/or deciding research questions, (2) methodological and conceptual questions disappear while formulating different design typologies, and (3) recent approaches favour a schematic of method-methodological-issues, not the other way round (issues-methodological-methods) (Flick, 2016).

Rather than attempting to fit data collection and analysis methods to a research undertaken, a researcher should focus primarily on understanding the research problems and the paradigm of study undertaken (Mackenzie & Knipe,

2006). As such, the roles of research questions and paradigm are paramount to the decision of methodology, but it is not addressed effectively in most research.

Therefore, the primary concern of a good study should be set on understanding the research issues and relate it to theoretical basis, rather than focusing too much on designs or methods alone (Flick, 2016).

As stated previously, the study of Lower Kinabatangan employed a pragmatist approach and took several considerations to address the issues mentioned above. A primary focus is given to understand the research problems, while the method chosen is a second priority to the research questions. Understanding the phenomenon drew a guideline to choose an appropriate method that not only explained the depth of the phenomenon, but also assisted in formulating a theoretical framework and provided warranted answers to the research questions. The current

142

study was conducted based on the issues-methodological-methods, whereby the main priority was to understand the issues of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The next section explains the method chosen for the current study. It also justifies the reasons for taking a pragmatic approach and how it links to the concurrent mixed method.

4.3 Analysis of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism

The section explains the analysis and mapping of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The stakeholders are categorised based on their support or pose conflict towards conservation and ecotourism measures in this area.

4.3.1 Stakeholder analysis and mapping

Conservation problems are typically complex, uncertain, multidisciplinary, and affect various groups and agencies (Reed, 2008; Abram et al., 2014; Sterling et al., 2017), especially when it is underpinned by the development of ecotourism that relies heavily on the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity (Ramírez &

Fennell, 2014). It is evident that effective stakeholder collaboration enhances the quality of conservation-based ecotourism, in the sense that ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan depends primarily on the wildlife species in their natural habitats

(WWF, 2007). Therefore, identifying the key stakeholders help to assess appropriate strategies for stakeholder engagement, as well as to reduce conflicts and negative impacts on the stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in this area.

Reed et al. (2009) defines a stakeholder analysis as a process that examines aspects of natural phenomenon influenced by a decision, identifies individual or groups who are affected and can affect the phenomenon, and allows the involvement

143

by such people or group in the decision-making process. Stakeholder analysis is important to identify key stakeholders who can jointly work towards common goals of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Full participation of key stakeholders is a key to successful implementation because it allows understanding towards the stakeholders’ opinions on policies that may affect their lives, essential for sustainability, provides opportunity for learning, and enhances responsibilities (WWF, 2005). It also improves a transparency and equality among stakeholders, especially in the process of decision-making pertaining development projects (Reed et al., 2009). Stakeholder mapping is used to categorise different stakeholder groups by classifying them in terms of their potential for support towards desired objectives or their potential for conflicts (Freeman, 1984;

Savage et al., 1991; Carroll, 1996).

4.3.2 Analysis and mapping of stakeholders in Lower Kinabatangan

Analysis of stakeholders was conducted using a stakeholder analysis to identify the key stakeholders who involved in the conservation and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan. The identified stakeholders were then subjected to stakeholder mapping, in order to categorise them according to their potentials for supporting towards key objectives of conservation and ecotourism or their potential for conflicts

(Freeman, 1984; Reed et al., 2009). The stakeholder analysis and mapping was carried out using the collection of both primary and secondary data. Figure 4.3 illustrated the stakeholder analysis and mapping for this study.

144

‘ Stakeholder analysis

Identify key stakeholders in Examine key relationships the Lower Kinabatangan among identified stakeholders

Stakeholder mapping

 Low conservation  High conservation  Low ecotourism  High ecotourism

Formulate an integrated framework of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Figure 4.3 Stakeholder analysis and mapping in the Lower Kinabatangan. Source: modified from Reed (2008) and Reed et al. (2009).

In the case of the Lower Kinabatangan, two stages of stakeholder analysis were conducted to examine the stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan – namely identifying relevant stakeholders and examining their key relationships. There were three ways used to identify the stakeholders in this study. First, a researcher obtained valid information from the district office of Kinabatangan. Second, the researcher made thorough reviews on published reports regarding ecotourism and conservation in the Lower

Kinabatangan. Third, the researcher made a personal correspondence with potential interviewees.

145

The identification of various stakeholders was conducted before the formation draft of questionnaire and interview questions, whereby identifying experts and obtaining their consent were the most important step. By determining appropriate informants for the stakeholder analysis, it helped to draft the questions according to the research’s problems and paradigm, as well as to address the limitations of the study. Upon the identification of relevant stakeholders, the interviewees were selected using a purposive sampling. Additionally, in case the identified key informant declined to participate in the study, they would be requested to pinpoint a relevant respondent who possessed similar expertise (snowball sampling).

The stakeholder mapping was used to categorise different stakeholder groups by classifying them in terms of their potential for support towards desired objectives or their potential for conflicts (Freeman, 1984; Savage et al., 1991; Carroll, 1996). In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the stakeholder mapping was carried out to categorise identified stakeholders in relation to their potentials for supporting or posing conflicts with the objectives of conservation and ecotourism, including their level of influences in the decision-making process of both aspects. The stakeholders were categorised according to four different groups, namely low conservation, high conservation, low ecotourism, and high ecotourism. The outcomes from the analysis and mapping of stakeholders were used to formulate an integrated framework to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

In addition, the stakeholder mapping was conducted using two dimensional matrix. The matrix was generated based on the findings from the present study, secondary data, and participant observation. A direct observation had become a

146

useful source when a researcher gained a trust of community leaders and local villagers by mingling around, having a casual conversation, and observing their daily activities in conservation and ecotourism. Therefore, when the findings from interviews and direct observation contradicted, the researcher revisited, discussed, and validated the results with interviewees (Mohamad & Hamzah, 2013).

Initial analysis of relevant stakeholders revealed six important groups, namely local communities, local authorities, NGOs, private sector, private sector ecotourism, and local ecotourism operators. These six groups participated in the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism, as well as involved in the decision- making of both aspects, through direct or indirect ways. Detailed of the findings were explained in the Chapter 6.

4.4 Mixed method research: concurrent triangulation design

The section describes the rationale for choosing a concurrent mixed method approach, how it is carried out, and explains the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods.

4.4.1 Rationale for choosing a mixed method study

Three thoughtful steps should be applied when deciding to conduct a good study, which requires a mixed method research, as suggested by Creswell (2013).

First, to understand what research is all about, including the axiological components of research (paradigm, epistemology, and methodological). It is also crucial to understand the nature of a researcher’s personal view on how to acquire certain knowledge in order to understand the complex problems of research undertaken.

Second, identifying core problems and issues that require investigation (thesis project), to relate the phenomenon to paradigms, and develop a theoretical basis to

147

conduct a research. It also involves finding the gaps of knowledge of what has been done and what is lacking. Third, a thorough reading on the methods and methodologies of qualitative and quantitative should be conducted, including the fundamental of MMR, at the same time making an appropriate understanding of the phenomenon studied and compare it with previous studies. Based on the three steps, there are five reasons to employ the MMR to examine the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The justifications of using MMR are listed here; the current study:

 Need multiple perspectives and more complete understanding to uncover the

factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation of

natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

 Need to validate and explain the quantitative results with qualitative

experiences, and the same goes for the reverse.

 Need the presence of a researcher in a natural setting to best learnt about the

participation and management of conservation and ecotourism in Lower

Kinabatangan.

 Need a ‘pragmatist orientation’ to explain the depth of the phenomenon

studied.

 Need triangulation using different methods and obtain data from multiple

sources.

148

Researches concerning the relationships between humans and wildlife or nature are complex, and conservation problems are not easily solved via traditional science modes of thinking, measuring, and reasoning (Sterling et al., 2017). Often, researchers make efforts to bridge the gap between disciplines by integrating input from several scientific disciplines. For instance, social studies (e.g. social values, social demographics, and social pressures) are considered important in addressing conservation problems. Most importantly, social science is a problem driven rather than methodology driven, in the sense that it applies methods that best answer to a given research question. As such, the application of qualitative and quantitative method depends on the research goals: “If we want to find out how frequently hunters see brown bears or hear grey wolves, you do not need to conduct a deep, qualitative interview. These are matters that can be easily measured. But if you want to know how hunters feel about bears and wolves or why they became hunters, then qualitative interview is a better approach to start with, because these research questions cannot neither be answered quickly (briefly), nor coded easily” (Torkar et al., 2011, p.5).

The same goes to ecotourism, it is rather a complex phenomenon when it involves multiple stakeholders, and largely correlated with conservation. In the

Lower Kinabatangan, the primary attraction of visiting this area is the wildlife species. While ecotourism provides supplementary income to the local communities, its dependency on animals is unquestionable. The conservation has to be managed sustainably along with the management of ecotourism. In addition, the rights of local communities’ for their village development are equally important.

As both qualitative and quantitative methods are not purely technical processes, but are influenced by the researchers’ characteristics and their disciplinary

149

paradigms, critical reflection is crucial throughout the study, including the research design, data collection, and data analysis (Gale et al., 2013). Both approaches have inherent strength and weakness. For instance, while experienced qualitative researchers able to generate rich and nuanced findings by being flexible and adaptive, the quantitative research is strictly sequential, but mutually exclusive stages of the research process. Therefore, in any MMR study, it is important to consider the mutual roles of qualitative and quantitative research, which should fit with the research questions and overall aims of any study.

4.3.2 Approaches to concurrent mixed method research

Mixed method research means “a combination of qualitative and quantitative data or contains qualitative data that have been converted to numeric data and analysed using quantitative techniques (or vice versa)” (Gibson, 2016, p.3). Other scholars defined it as “research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or program of inquiry” (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2006, p.15). Creswell (2015, p.2) defines the MMR based on its fundamental aspect: “An approach to research in the social, behavioural, and health sciences in which the investigator gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data, integrates the two, and then draws interpretations based on the combined strengths of both sets of data to understand research problems.” However, he also warns the confusion over what constitute the MMR against multimethod approaches:

“Mixed methods is not simply the collection of multiple forms of qualitative data (e.g., interviews and observations), nor the collection of multiple types of quantitative data (e.g., survey data, experimental data). It involves the collection, 150

analysis, and integration of both quantitative and qualitative data. In this way, the value of the different approaches to research (e.g., the trends as well as the stories and personal experiences) can contribute more to understanding a research problem than one form of data collection (quantitative or qualitative) could on its own. When multiple forms of qualitative data (or multiple forms of quantitative data) are collected, the term is multimethod research, not mixed methods research” (Creswell,

2015, p.3).

Mixed method research has emerged as a third methodological study in the social and behavioural sciences since 1980’s (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The

MMR combines qualitative and quantitative research into one single study (methods, techniques, analyses, and characteristics). It has been developed since a ‘multiple operationalism’ is introduced by Campbell and Fiske (1959). Nevertheless, MMR is gaining a momentum in the past 25 years, whereby a more formalised development occurred due to an impetus by prominent researchers since the 1980s – who call for an integration of qualitative and quantitative method (Gibson, 2016). A remarkable change occurred in the past five years whereby more handbooks, journals, websites, and conferences devoted to publishing results of MMR (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).

Recent studies of MMR have contributed in at least three remarkable criteria:

(1) expand understanding towards approaches in MMR, (2) enhance capacity for elaboration, triangulation, generalisation, and interpretation, and (3) identify four themes which increase the values of research findings (Gibson, 2016). The MMR also emphasises the importance to sought multiple sources of data (both internal and external sources of entity), in order to establish independence of data, thereby avoiding single-source bias (Gibson, 2016). For instance, if the focal entity is an individual participation in conservation, then self-reported data (e.g. self-ratings of

151

individual participation and attitudes) can be considered to be ‘‘internal,’’ whereas data provided by people other than the focal individual (e.g., manager or local authorities’ ratings for attitude) are ‘‘external’’ to the focal entity. Hence, MMR is a multi-source data if data are collected from both internal and external focus of the entity, which eventually increasing data transparency.

Critics arise that rather than focusing on attempt to prove the superiority of one method over others, a researcher should focus on achieving a ‘methodological fit’ or internal consistency throughout research, including research objectives, research designs, previous studies, and philosophy assumptions (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011). By obtaining ‘fit’, it increases the impacts and the rigor of a study undertaken (Gibson, 2016). There are also substantial views on a contingency approach, wherein qualitative, quantitative, or MMR should be used appropriately, according to research circumstances. Some scholars stated that the MMR is useful when generating greater understanding of quantitative results, to resolve contradiction (Greene et al., 1989), while others claimed it adds in building proximal theory (Gibson, 2016). The benefits of employing the MMR are: (1) a research is strengthened by variety of methods, (2) obtain enrich information during research,

(3) provides a researchers with increased ability to be critical about their research, and (4) has greater impacts (Gorard, 2004).

152

4.3.3 Parsimonious set of mixed method designs

According to Creswell (2013), there are two sets of mixed method designs, namely basic and advanced. Three types of basic designs: convergent, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential (Figure 4.4). On contrary, three types of advanced: intervention, transformative, and multiphase. The current study employs a convergent/concurrent parallel triangulation of mixed method with minor modifications (refer to previous Figure 4.1).

4.3.4 Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in a mixed method research

Up until now, it has always been a challenge to integrate both data of qualitative and quantitative in the MMR. In most cases, the MMR studies present data with little true integration, left alone achieving a ‘combined value’ (Bazeley,

2009; Fitzpatrick, 2016). In addition, little is written regarding how the processes and techniques of data integration are carried out. When the data integration is properly conducted and explained, it can be the key to uncover a complex relationship in any study undertaken (Bazeley, 2009). Researchers in the MMR have developed several ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative method into a single study, such as through iteration, nesting, embedding, or serve as an ideological purpose (Greene,

2007). The combination can be done at various stages during a research process, such as, during the formulation of research questions, sampling methods, instrumentations, data collection, and analysis strategies (Yin, 2006).

In early times, triangulation is applied as a strategy of validation (Denzin,

1978; Flick, 2016). Three common types of triangulations are data triangulation, investigator triangulation, and theory triangulation. Data triangulation refers to the mixing of different data sources, which are investigated at different places and times. 153

Figure 4.4 Basic design of a mixed method research. Source: Creswell (2013).

154

Investigator triangulation (IT) means using two or more observers to control subject bias from an individual, whereas theory triangulation means using multiple perspectives and/or hypotheses prior collecting data (Flick, 2016). Nevertheless, the central concept of triangulation is a methodological triangulation within or between the methods. It refers to three principles, namely, assessing the nature of the research issue and its relevance to a particular method, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each method, and selecting method according to its theoretical relevance (Denzin, 1978; Flick, 2016). Data triangulation as a confirmation or validation strategy, can be employed to enhance understanding and richness of data, credibility, reliability, and validity. Investigator triangulation enhances the collaborative contributions of quantitative and qualitative research, thereby increasing the quality of MMR study. For example, different investigators hold varying perspectives on how to handle outliers during data analysis (quantitative data) or reviewing framework codes (qualitative data) (Archibald, 2016).

While the previous concept of triangulation is argued to focus so much on achieving ‘objective truth,’ a later concept is developed to mix theories and methods appropriately in order to gain deeper understanding of issues studied and add breadth to research findings (Flick, 2016). Recent approach of triangulation proposes a more comprehensive triangulation, known as ‘systematic triangulation of perspectives’

(Flick, 2016). Therefore, instead of applying data triangulation, IT, or methodological triangulation as an alternative option – they are integrated to build the strength of research findings. For instance, if a phenomenon studied requires more than one approach, it should employ IT, whereby two or more observers discuss several conceptual perspectives to examine the issues (theory triangulation), and then the data gathered is triangulated (data triangulation) (Flick, 2016). 155

Additionally, the discussion of different concepts by several observers provides guideline to determine appropriate method (methodological triangulation). In short, a systematic triangulation offers not only combining methods, but it also takes into account the theoretical and epistemological aspects of a phenomenon studied.

Fitzpatrick (2016) used data labels to determine the convergence between qualitative and quantitative methods, by considering a mutually illuminating ways to enhance her research findings, but at the same time preserves the integrity of each method. Each method has unique characteristics and strengths to understand a phenomenon – quantitative method is indirect and reductive, whereas qualitative approach is direct and holistic (Fitzpatrick, 2016). She used four codes to describe the relationship of qualitative and quantitative data: confirm (a positive alignment between the qualitative and quantitative data), contradict (a lack of agreement between the qualitative and quantitative finding), enhance (the qualitative and quantitative data address same phenomenon, but in illuminating ways), and mixed

(neither confirm nor contradict, therefore warrants further investigation) (Fitzpatrick,

2016). The data labels are useful because they simply, clearly, and succinctly describe the nature of the converged relationship between qualitative and quantitative data. Most importantly, the integration using the data matrix focuses on generating findings which illuminate both quantitative and qualitative approaches, as well as preserving the integrity of both methods because each method contributes unique ways for understanding a phenomenon studied (Woolley, 2009).

Triangulation allows researchers to explore further and affirm qualitative results with quantitative findings (the reverse are true), and sometimes to refute their findings (Gibson, 2016). In addition, it helps to prove that an interview process

(qualitative method) does not ‘manufacture’ the results, as it is confirmed via the 156

quantitative results. The value of MMR is enhanced using four stages of review, namely elaboration, generalisation, triangulation, and interpretation (Gibson, 2016).

The elaboration allows researchers to gain a deeper understanding of a phenomenon studied which cannot be achieved using a single method or source. The generalisation allows researchers to document findings found in a variety of contexts, wherein the MMR can enhance conclusion validity and get access to different contexts compare to a single method. Triangulation allows researchers to document the consistency in findings via various ways in the MMR, such as establishing convergence using different methods to study a same phenomenon. Interpretation allows researchers to gain additional insights to understand or draw a pattern of findings obtained using one method with another different method (or using one source with another different source), herein the MMR helps to clarify issues.

Taken together, triangulation works to improve researcher’s creativity and impacts of study. Furthermore, it allows the researchers to establish consistency in findings (Gibson, 2016). Nevertheless, integration should not only be focused on combining qualitative and quantitative methods, but also should focus on triangulating methods on more comprehensive concepts of using multiple approaches in any research undertaken (Morgan, 2014). In the context of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, the concurrent parallel mixed method applied a systematic triangulation (Flick, 2016), starting from the formulation of research questions until the analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data. First, investigator triangulation (IT) is applied during formulating the research questions and discussing about appropriate methods to achieve the research objectives. The process of IT involves three researchers, in the sense that a student is assisted by two lecturers with expertise in developing the research 157

questions, selecting an appropriate method that fits the phenomenon studied

(methodological triangulation), and discussing the analyses and findings of the research.

During the research sampling, two researchers are involved, whereby the student is supervised by the main supervisor during the first week of her field sampling. In this case, the main supervisor monitors the student while distributing the questionnaire surveys, observes the student conducting interviews, as well as checking the questionnaires collected and the first few transcripts of the interviews.

The presence of another researcher during the sampling helps to improve the student’s capabilities to conduct the surveys and interviews, to avoid bias during sampling, and to improve her soft skills when dealing with various stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. Second, the methodological triangulation helps the student to improve her methodology by revising appropriate theoretical frameworks aligned with the student’s paradigm and focus in answering the research problems. Third, data triangulation is employed by integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data using four labels, namely confirm, contradict, enhance, and mixed.

4.5 Qualitative methodology

Qualitative data means data that are orally communicated or observed, later transcribed into text, and appeared as verbal written form (Gibson, 2016). Qualitative research refers to a subjective approach, and defined as techniques associated with the gathering, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data in a narrative form

(e.g. words, pictures, interview, and observation) (Crescentini & Mainardi, 2009). It is performed in a natural setting, whereby researchers can learn much about human behaviour, thereby assisting them to understand and explain certain social

158

phenomena (Crescentini & Mainardi, 2009). In other words, it is a study that produces findings not arrived by a statistical procedure or other means of quantification. For instance, research about living experiences, behaviours, emotions, and feelings. Three terms synonym with ‘qualitative’ are interpretivist, etic

(subjective), and inductive, whereby they are sometimes used interchangeably in research’s reports (Creswell, 1994; Onwuegbuzie, 2009).

Several methods that apply qualitative approaches are observation studies, ethnographic studies, free-form interview, participant observation, historical, and case studies (Crescentini & Mainardi, 2009). It is associated with exploring issues, descriptions, relationships, and yields rich contents, as well as unique outcomes. It is undoubted that it helps to understand social phenomena, but the main challenge is ethical matter, because it involves a collection of personal data, hence it requires a complex permission. One benefit of using qualitative method is it does not require big sample size, because it is not to discover universal rules, but to explore the depth of issues studied. Several criteria that need to be considered: (1) it is a positive skew because it involves a small sample and limited perspective, (2) it is difficult to generalise findings with limited data, and difficult to present results which are not easily translated into diagrams tables (Bogt & Helden, 2012).

One pertinent issue regarding qualitative method is its lack of rigor of being little or no justification for sample size used in a research (Marshall et al., 2013;

Boddy, 2016). Undeniably, some scholars argue that a sample size is not an issue because much qualitative study does not involve statistical generalisations

(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005), but such notion is challenged by concerns over a validity of findings (Boddy, 2016). Additionally, a question ‘how large is too large

(an upper limit of sample size)’ is remained unexplored, but a large sample size 159

would cost a high expense, consume a longer time to conduct the sampling, and it may inhibit meaningful and timely analysis (Boddy, 2016). Several suggestions given to estimate appropriate sample size for qualitative study, such as 10 interviews for homogenous population, 20-30 interviews to establish data saturation using a grounded theory, and 15-30 interviews for case studies (Marshall et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, the selection of a sample size should be referred to the scope of a study, the nature of a topic, the interview time spent for each interviewee, and homogeneity of a population, particularly it should reflect the representative of a population in the study undertaken (Morse, 2000; Marshall, 2013; Boddy, 2016).

Qualitative method emphasises on developing a depth of understanding rather than a breadth, especially when it is undertaken under a constructivist approach to research. In such cases, a small number of samples or even a single case is acceptable to generate a great insight. On the contrary, if a qualitative approach is undertaken under a positivist or post positivist paradigm (e.g. to develop a quantitative measurement or a questionnaire), then a researcher should exercise a caution to sample a greater number of respondents in order to have a more representative understanding (Boddy, 2016). In short, the primary consideration of what constitute an appropriate sample size in qualitative research is to consider the context and scientific paradigm of a research undertaken.

4.5.1 Preliminary study

A pilot study is of importance to the current study because there are several aspects that were given thought before conducting the qualitative study. First, a thorough documentary research was undertaken prior to collecting actual qualitative data. Apart from considering the geographical and historical views in the Lower

160

Kinabatangan as discussed in the chapter three, several criteria were assigned: who are appropriate interviewees? What kind of interview themes needed to answer the research aims? What sort of holistic approaches to choosing key informants? How to analyse qualitative data? How to generalise and increase the reliability and validity of qualitative findings? The early stage of the research identified an appropriate link of qualitative to quantitative study, and positioned it in the context of MMR. More importantly, before conducting interviews, a researcher personally contacted and requested an approval from community leaders in Suk au and Bate Puteh villages

(Appendix A).

Second, as the objectives of this study involves uncovering the explanations for ‘how it happens’ and ‘why is it occurring,’ an utmost approach of ethic is applied to ensure the transparency and trustworthiness of interviewees involved in sharing their opinions. While giving options of how the interviewees can introduce themselves (e.g. name, position, or contacts), an option is offered for them to remain anonymous throughout the study (during sampling, data analyzing, and report writing). Such approach have increased the stakeholder participation in the interview, avoiding conflict of interests, and give them opportunities to open up to sensitive issues, especially in the event that they feel discomfort or unpleasant when explaining certain phenomena.

Finally, the pilot study involved testing the accuracy and suitability of interview questions. A pilot study was carried out by conducting ten mock interviews with local community in Bilit village, Lower Kinabatangan. The questions were validated by experts (lecturers) who were appointed by the Institute of Postgraduate

Studies (IPS, USM) to assist students in their research. The data obtained were

161

analysed using a content analysis. Where necessary, the questions were altered to increase reliability and validity of gathering appropriate data.

4.5.2 Sampling design of qualitative

The section describes the sampling technique and frames, sample criteria and size, interviewees’ recruitment and specifications, interview length, and resources available.

The selection of sampling technique and frame is a crucial start for a qualitative study, in assuring comprehensive and efficiency outcomes. It should also address the research purposes accordingly. A probability sampling (random sampling) is inappropriate for a qualitative study because respondents are chosen randomly or groups are selected according to their true proportions. The same goes for unequal probability, whereby data obtained are re-weighted back to its true proportions. Both techniques are employed to produce a statistically representative sample, suitable for a hypothesis testing, but not for qualitative study (Wilmot,

2005).

The sampling design used to collect qualitative data is a purposive sampling.

The purposive sampling is a nonprobability sampling involves selecting particular units or cases, according to specific purposes. It is also known as purposeful sampling or ‘qualitative sampling’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). There are four types of purposive sampling, namely, sampling to achieve representativeness, sampling special or unique cases, sequential sampling, and sampling using multiple purposive techniques (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). The current study employed a sequential sampling wherein the respondents were selected based on their relevance to the research questions, not its representativeness.

162

The strategy used to select the respondents was based on criterion-i and snowball sampling. The criterion-i was applied because the respondents were selected based on a predetermined criteria of importance (Palinkas et al., 2015), according to their expertise and experiences in ecotourism and conservation in the

Lower Kinabatangan. However, the snowball sampling was chosen to solve a problem, such as actual respondent refuses or unable to participate in the interview.

The snowball is crucial to identify a replacement candidate who possessed similar expertise and experiences (Palinkas et al., 2015). In this case, if the appointed respondent is unable to participate, he/she is requested to suggest another person who has similar expertise and/or experiences.

Although interviews, transcription, and analysis of transcripts are very time- consuming and expensive, the qualitative interviews are important in studies pertaining to wildlife and nature conservation (Torkar et al., 2011). Structured interview refers to respondents being asked with the same questions, wording, and sequence, wherein a researcher has a control over the topics. The questions are very specific, often with a fixed range of closed-ended, pre-coded or fixed option of answers are given. Therefore, such common format makes the obtained data easier to code, compare, and analyse (Torkar et al., 2011). Semi-structured interviews strive on finding a whole variety of answers concerning the research topics, particularly if a researcher is interested to address a specific questions or situations. Hence, the sample size usually depends on the complexity of the research’s objectives.

Whichever approach of interview undertaken, the primary concern is having a competent and well trained interviewer to gather good and reliable results.

The current study employed an in-depth semi-structured interview to allow for the emergence of unique insights (Gibson, 2016). The method was used to 163

interview key informants such as local authority, NGOs, community leaders, and ecotourism operators in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this study, a total of 40 respondents were selected for the qualitative study. Overall, eleven respondents were local authorities, three representatives from NGOs, eight private sectors, thirteen ecotourism operators, and five community leaders (Appendix B).

The community leaders in Kinabatangan district are divided into two categories, namely Village heads (‘Ketua Kampung’) and Village Security and

Development Committees (‘Jawatakankuasa Keselamatan dan Kemajuan Kampung,’

JKKK). In this study, there were three village heads and two JKKK involved in the semi-structure interview. The Village heads are responsible for managing local traditional customs (e.g. marriage, birth, death) and to authorize an individual’s identity as a valid resident of a village. On the contrary, the JKKK is responsible for the security and development of a village. Both community leaders are officially appointed and given stamp by the state government of Sabah, and are answerable to the Kinabatangan District Office. It is worth mentioning that community leaders in

Peninsular Malaysia are also known as Village heads which hold the jobs of managing local customs, security, and the development of a village. As such, contrary to Sabah and Sarawak which appoint village heads and JKKK as community leaders, there is no appointment of JKKK in Peninsular Malaysia. All community leaders in Sukau and Batu Puteh are involved in the interview.

All NGOs were identified through a documentary research at the district office of Kinabatangan, including published reports and journals. Three possible organisations for the interview were Hutan-KOCP, Rileaf, and WWF-Sabah.

However, only the HUTAN-KOCP and Rileaf were included in the qualitative interview. During a personal communication with the representative from the WWF- 164

Sabah, they decline to participate because of inactive participation in the conservation at the Lower Kinabatangan. However, they offered to share previous reports and published documents during the time they actively conducted conservation projects in Kinabatangan.

The purposive sampling was only applied to local authorities, NGOs, and ecotourism operators, because all community leaders were included in the qualitative study. The interviews with local authorities were crucial to understand the mechanism used to manage the ecotourism and conservation in the Lower

Kinabatangan. Five respondents of local authorities were located in the Kinabatangan area, two respondents in Sandakan town, and four respondents in Kota Kinabalu. The key informants were purposely selected based on their expertises and extensive experiences in ecotourism and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this study, local branches of ecotourism and conservation are located in the

Kinabatangan, but the main headquarters is located in Sandakan or Kota Kinabalu.

Thirteen ecotourism operators were included in the interview. The respondents were selected from various types of businesses such as local ecotourism operators, bed and breakfast (B & B), lodges, resorts, and travel agencies. The purposes of interviewing the operators were to examine the current management of ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, the challenges and interrelationship of ecotourism and conservation, as well as to understand the values of ecotourism and conservation in this area. It also aimed to explain the conservation and ecotourism projects that they conducted in this area.

165

4.5.3 Data collection

The data collection was carried out according to the research problems. As described previously, an interview theme was outlined to answer the research issues and developed in the early stage of this study. Meanwhile, the interview questions were developed based on the research problems, published reports and journals which described similar phenomenon. The factors which influence community attitudes towards conservation were adapted from Muhumuza et al. (2013), barriers of residents’ attitudes towards ecotourism were constructed from Adeleke (2015), and the impacts of climate change from Fahey et al. (2016). The interview theme was refined throughout the research as proposed by Gale et al. (2013).

The interviews with the respondents were conducted according to their time availability, location, and preference of language (Malay or English). Each interview lasted between 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes, and recorded using a digital voice recorder (Olympus, WS550M). Most respondents (38 interviewees) preferred to have a face-to-face interview in their offices, but two respondents requested to answer the interview questions through emails, by writing their opinions to each question

(interview questions in appendix C and D). Each interview followed the list of interview themes (Table 4.2). For the interview via emails, the structures of questions were arranged by introducing the purpose and confidentiality of interviews, followed by questions according to the themes, and ended by welcoming additional comments or issues not raised in the interview questions.

166

Table 4.2 Interview guide for multiple stakeholders

In-depth semi-structured interview follows the following themes:

1. Organisation and roles of local authorities, NGOs, and ecotourism operators.

2. Management of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

3. The participation of local communities in the conservation and ecotourism.

4. Factors that influence the local communities to participate in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5. Impacts of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

6. Issues and proposed solutions of conservation and ecotourism development.

7. The progress of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS).

8. Collaboration among various stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan.

9. Impacts of climate change on conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. 10. The stakeholders’ views for future development of conservation and ecotourism.

4.5.4 Data analysis

The current study employed a content analysis to analyse the data obtained from a qualitative sampling such as in-depth semi-structured interviews and participant observation, as well as an opened-ended question in questionnaire survey

(quantitative). Downe-Wambolt (1992, p.314) defined a content analysis as “a research method that provides a systematic and objective means to make valid inferences from verbal, visual, or written data in order to describe and quantify specific phenomena.” Meanwhile, Krippendorff (2004, p.18) stated that a content analysis is “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use.” In this light, Downe-

Wambolt (1992) emphasises that a content analysis is more than a counting process

167

because its goal is to relate the findings to the context or to the phenomena studied while Krippendorff (2004) focused on making a content analysis applicable for both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Bengtsson, 2016).

In comparison to other qualitative research methods (e.g. grounded theory, phenomenology, and ethnography), qualitative content analysis is not linked to any particular science, thereby reducing the risks of confusion pertaining to philosophical concepts (Bengtsson, 2016). Moreover, it can be applied to all types of written texts

(e.g. deep interview, open-ended question in survey, and observation) and without specific rules to follow. Nevertheless, a researcher needs to adhere to a qualitative perspective, achieve rigor and credibility so as to ensure results are as trustworthy as possible. In addition, a researcher must handle a self-reflection properly, especially to know the context of phenomena studied, being aware of the known knowledge so that it does not affect a research process or outcome (Bengtsson, 2016). There are two types of content analysis, namely manifest and latent analysis. The current study employed a manifest analysis whereby a researcher “describes what the informants actually say, stays very close to the text, uses the words themselves, and describes the visible and obvious in the text” (Bengtsson, 2016, p.3).

Framework method is developed in 1980s, has been widely used in research for the past 25 years, and become increasingly popular among multi-disciplinary research, such as psychologists, healthcare, conservationist, and sociologist (Gale et al., 2013). However, the appropriate use of framework method should be considered thoroughly in relation to the research questions because it does not applicable for all types of qualitative data, particularly for heterogenous type of data (Gale et al.,

2013). Therefore, it must address same topics or issues to ensure reliable categorising of data output. 168

The framework method is usually related to content analysis and thematic analysis in qualitative approach. Both content and thematic analyses identify commonalities and differences in qualitative data, relationship among variables, and draw conclusions based on themes. The framework method provides a clear guideline to follow and produces reliable outputs of summarised data. Other approaches of qualitative data analysis (e.g. grounded theory and phenomenology) are underpinned by philosophical ideas, but the framework method is not specifically aligned with a particular philosophical or theoretical approach. Rather, it has several advantages, such as flexibility, can be adapted for generating themes in various qualitative approaches, as well as to assist in constant comparative reviews of interview transcripts across a spreadsheet.

It is worth mentioning that the framework method does not align to either inductive or deductive type (Gale et al., 2013). Rather, it depends primarily on the research questions. These inductive-deductive continuum plays a big role in deciding how the themes are generated (inductive generates themes based on data obtained, whereas deductive generates themes based on previous literature). The current study combined both inductive and deductive approaches in the framework method because it aimed to explore specific issues, but at the same offered opportunity for respondents to give answers that were not pre-coded.

Although the framework method provided a clear steps to follow and systematic output of data, a reflective consideration should be exercised to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of qualitative data. In addition, the themes for the framework method should be checked by experienced researchers before and during the analysis of qualitative data. The current study included field notes and personal observation in the matrix, in order to increase the validity of data findings. Moreover, 169

the matrix was systematically arranged to efficiently compare the transcript, and later for checking purpose of whether the proposed themes were supplied with sufficient evidences.

Previously, a thematic framework for an applied policy research is developed by Ritchie and Spencer (1994), wherein it involves a systematic process of five stages, namely familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, coding, charting, mapping and interpretation. Contrary to Ritchie and Spencer (1994), a recent framework method is revised by Gale et al. (2013), and comprises of seven stages.

The latter systematic analysis starting from a transcription, familiarization with the interview data, coding, develop a working analytical framework, applying the analytical framework, charting data into a framework matrix, and finally interpreting the data (Gale et al., 2013). Nevertheless, before the analysis of interview data using the framework method, it is suggested to use a good quality of audio recording, to avoid noise and unclear records of interviews.

The present study employed the framework method revised by Gale et al.

(2013) which comprised of seven steps as explained in the following paragraphs. It used ten pre-defined themes (deductive coding) which were outlined before the interviews, but an inductive coding was also carried out to identify new observation or themes from the interview transcripts. A researcher used a manual transcription to transcribe and analyse the interview transcripts. Consequently, it helped the researcher to become immersed and familiar with the data. The researcher also used notes written during the interview sessions for comparison and validation of data findings. When necessary, the researcher referred the analysis of transcripts to an expert.

170

Step 1: Transcription

The transcription requires a good quality of audio recording for accurate transcription from audio to word. It is not necessary to include the conventions of dialogue transcriptions (e.g. two people talking simultaneously and pauses) which are difficult to read, because the focus is the contents (Gale et al., 2013). More importantly, the transcripts should have large margins and adequate line-spacing, thereby easier for coding and making notes. Transcription process is a crucial stage for new researchers because it offers an opportunity to become immersed in the data.

For a quality transcription, it is better to manually transcribe the audio recording into words, prior using online or purchased software to automatically transcribe the audio into words, as well as before sending it to professional transcribers (Gale et al.,

2013).

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, to ensure quality transcription and be familiar with the data, a researcher manually transcribed the data and resolved any inconsistencies (compare audio-recording and note written during interviews) in the early stage of the research. The researcher was more interested in the contents rather than the structure of interviewee’s responses, but interruptions and nonverbal communication (e.g. a laughter and long pause) were noted within the text. All transcripts were checked for errors by listening back to each audio-recording and reading the transcripts simultaneously. For convenience, each transcript was supplemented with notes made during and immediately after each interview. For instance, noting on additional information that was given by interviewees after the recorder was switched off.

171

Step 2: Familiarization with the interview

In a large scale or multi-disciplinary research, those involve in analyzing the data may be different from those who conduct or transcribe the interview recording.

Hence, a familiarization with the interview data is an important stage prior to interpretation. This step is accomplished by becoming familiar with the whole interview using the transcripts and/or audio recording, including any reflective or contextual notes (Gale et al., 2013). It is suggested to re-listen to all or parts of audio recording in the case of contradicting and/or confusing transcription. An additional margin can be used to record new thoughts or impressions.

In the present study, a researcher re-read each transcript and listened back to audio-recorded to become familiar with the whole data set. Furthermore, the researcher also recorded initial impressions in the margins of transcripts, such as when an interviewee expressed exceptionally strong or contrasting opinions to other interviewees. For example, contrary to other participants, one community leader strongly disagreed with the conservation initiatives that were carried out by the

HUTAN-KOCP in the Lower Kinabatangan. Therefore, a familiarization through reading and writing notes enabled the researcher to easily find ways over hundred pages of the transcript later in the analysis.

Step 3: Coding of interview transcripts

Coding focuses on classifying all data so that they can be compared systematically with other parts of the data set. If feasible, two or more researchers from different disciplines of the research team should independently code the first few transcripts. After the familiarisation of the interview data, the researchers read the transcript line by line, applying a label or code to describe what they interpreted

172

in the transcript as important. There are two methods of coding, namely inductive and deductive studies. An inductive study requires an open coding. For examples, to code anything that is relevant from as many different perspectives as possible, such as particular behaviours, incidents, emotions, something difficult to explain, or when an interviewee feel uncomfortable. Moreover, instead of literal or descriptive coding, the inductive study requires to search for an unexpected result to ensure the involvement of respondents from various perspectives were included.

Deductive coding does not necessarily require coding, as the researchers use pre-defined codes (e.g. specific interest of research or by an existing theory), and can move straight onto indexing. However, it is helpful to take a broad deductive approach to conduct an open coding to ensure important aspects of the data are not missed (Gale et al., 2013). Coding line by line can aid into a holistic impression of what is said during the interview, especially to consider what is not clearly expressed, or does not fit with the rest of the data – such reconciliation makes the analysis even stronger. The coding can be done manually (using a paper and pen) or digitally using computer assisted qualitative data analysis to keep track of new codes.

In this study, the researcher coded the transcripts of the first two interviewees

(participant 1 and 2) and showed the coding to an expert. The expert checked the researcher’s coding and proposed strategies to enhance the coding method.

Therefore, the researcher underlined interesting texts and used a left hand margin to describe the content of each passage with a code or label. Meanwhile, a right hand margin is used to record more detailed notes and ideas (e.g. ideas for explanation, patterns in data, or questions to bear in mind as the analysis proceed). Figure 4.5 showed an excerpt of open coding from one participant (local authority) who explained about conservation issues and community attitudes towards conservation. 173

Figure 4.5 The coding of an interview transcript. Source: Field sampling 2016

Step 4: Developing a working analytical framework

After coding the first few transcripts, all researchers involved should meet and compare the labels that they applied. They need to agree on a set of codes to apply for subsequent transcripts. The codes can also be grouped together into categories (to form an analytical framework), then define them clearly. The analytical framework is not completed until the last transcript is coded. Therefore, to improve the framework, additional code should be included under each category to avoid losing data that do not fit into any of the previous sets of codes (Gale et al.,

2013). 174

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the researcher focused on why each coded section was interpreted as meaningful, what it described about interviewees’ views on each code. The highlighted passages of texts greatly helped the researcher to check the codes. When there was uncertainty, the researcher revisited the transcript and referred to sampling notes until a set of codes were completed (each with a brief definition). In this light, a thorough observation and notes written during each interview session greatly assisted the researcher to compare an initial analysis

(first impression when listening to each participant’s talking) with the coding or transcription of interview transcripts. For example, a note was highlighted when one community leader strongly opposed conservation activities by NGOs in the Lower

Kinabatangan. In addition, an extra care was applied to note any new codes or impressions which did not fit with the existing code. Table 4.3 shows the example of codes and the description of codes.

175

Table 4.3 The codes and descriptions of codes

Source: Field sampling 2016

Step 5: Applying the analytical framework

The analytical framework is then applied by indexing subsequent transcripts according to the existing codes and categories. For easier identification and systematic indexing of subsequent transcripts, each code is assigned with a number or an abbreviation (Gale et al., 2013). In the current study, the researcher applied the set of codes for indexing subsequent interview transcripts. The researcher went through each transcript, underlined each meaningful text and attached an appropriate code from the final analytical framework. For instance, the analytical framework was

176

applied to a transcript using the codes of community attitudes, conservation issues, and impacts of ecotourism (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6 The application of an analytical framework to each transcript. Source: Field sampling (2016)

Step 6: Charting data into the framework matrix

Charting involves summarising the data by category from each transcript of the interview. The data from qualitative interview are big and lengthy, for instance, an hour of an interview can generate 15 to 20 pages of texts. Thus, it is vital to reduce (manage and summarise) the data using a spreadsheet. A matrix is generated in the spreadsheet and the data then are charted into the matrix (Gale et al., 2013). A balance between reducing the data while retaining the original meanings and ‘feel’ of the interviewees’ words are important, to achieve a good and reliable charting (Gale

177

et al., 2013). The chart should also include references to interesting or illustrative quotations. In the presence of two or more researchers, they can gather to compare and contrast their summaries to ensure consistency before interpreting the chart.

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, once all data had been coded using the analytical framework, the data were summarised in a matrix using a Microsoft Excel.

The data were copied from the transcripts (Microsoft Word) and then summarised using verbatim words and inserted into a corresponding cell in the matrix. The usage of sticky notes on each transcript greatly assisted the researcher to easily find and retrieve specific codes (highlighted in the texts), as well as to copy interesting quotations and paste them into the matrix. As illustrated in the Table 4.4, the matrix comprised of one row per participant and one column per code. The three columns showed the codes of conservation issues, community attitudes towards conservation, and ecotourism issues, whereas the row showed each respondent of the interview.

178

Table 4.4 Charting data into a matrix

Source: Field sampling 2016

Step 7: Interpreting the data

After charting the data into the framework matrix, an interpretation of the whole chart is conducted by examining the similarities and differences between the data identified, in order to generate typologies and/or interrogate prior concepts or ones emerging from the data. This step also includes mapping connections between the categories to explore relationships or causality (Gale et al., 2013). Furthermore, having a separate computer or a book to write down any idea or early interpretations of the data is useful, as well as taking a ‘pause’ at any stage to explore interesting or potential themes that need to be recorded (Gale et al., 2013). Undeniably, rich data 179

generate findings that go beyond of particular case to explain a certain phenomenon

– it contributes largely to understand underlying reasons, predict how the subject responds to a situation, and/or identify areas that are understudied (Gale et al., 2013).

The process of interpreting usually takes longer time, but investing in sufficient time guarantee a quality finding to explain the research problems.

When interpreting the data of Lower Kinabatangan, the researcher tried to go beyond the descriptions of individual cases towards developing themes – to search for possible explanations for what was happening within the data. The themes were generated by reviewing the matrix and making connections within and between interviewees and categories. This process involved both referring to the original research objectives (predefined themes) and new concepts generated inductively from the interview data. Furthermore, the researcher used a memo with sub-headings including specific codes, illustrative quotations that supported the discussion, and further points for consideration. For example, a memo of community attitudes towards conservation which related to conservation awareness, varying commitments, and factors that influenced their participation in conservation activities

(Figure 4.7).

180

Figure 4.7 Interprete the data. Source: Field sampling 2016

4.6 Quantitative methodology

Quantitative research refers to an objective approach, whereby researchers determine to quantify relationships between variables, gather data from subjects via survey or questionnaire, and analyse the obtained data using statistical methods (e.g. frequency, correlation, and inferential) (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Polit & Beck,

2010; Archibald, 2016). Two types of quantitative method, namely (1) researchers establish associations between variables (descriptive), and (2) researchers establish causality (experimental). Meanwhile, quantitative data means numeric representations of concepts, such as questionnaire, survey scores, rankings, and

181

financial reports (Gibson, 2016). There are three words synonym with quantitative, namely positivist (recently known as postpositivist), emic (objective), and deductive

(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).

Several methods that employ quantitative approaches are questionnaires, structured interviews, surveys, usage data analyses, and controlled experiments

(Archibald, 2016; Flick, 2016). The quantitative method is associated with facts, relationships, impartiality, predictability, and statistically proven. It is good at determining relationships, effects, and causes between variables. The benefits of using quantitative methods are: big samples offer statistically sound information, and produce proof of cause and effect, as well as easy to present results virtually and graphically (Archibald, 2016; Flick, 2016).

4.6.1 Sampling design

The section discussed the census technique, sample size and calculation for questionnaire survey, including data collection, and data analysis for quantitative method.

1. Data collection of questionnaire surveys: Census

Census is different than a sampling, as it intends to study everyone in a population rather than taking a fraction of a sample from the whole population. The census is less prone to response bias than sampling survey, but it is only practical for a small population. Conducting a census on a large population is impractical because it requires huge amount of money, longer time, a complex process to administer and analysis of massive survey data. A census eliminates sampling error and provides data for each individual in the population (Israel, 1992). It can achieve a desirable level of precision when all individuals in a small population are sampled.

182

The decision for conducting the census method was made according to the research’s problems, the appropriate paradigm that fits the research’s questions, and limitations of this study. Due to geographical difficulties, time and financial constraints, only Sukau and Batu Puteh villages were selected in the current study.

However, to acquire a higher degree of accuracy, a researcher decided to employ a census method of conducting household surveys to all houses in the Sukau and Batu

Puteh areas.

As described previously, a census (a total population sampling) is highly reliable for investigating a specific and a small number of population. It is a type of purposive sampling technique wherein a researcher chooses to examine an entire population that have a particular set of characteristics (Laerd, 2012; Alvi, 2016).

However, it also relies on a sampling frame to count the population (Alvi, 2016).

Therefore, the present study conducted census in two villages (Sukau and Batu

Puteh) by distributing a questionnaire to every household located in both villages.

The lists of houses were obtained from the district office of Kinabatangan and further information was gathered from the village leaders of both villages.

To increase efficiency in employing a census, one important criterion is to address non-response errors (bias). These errors are resulted from respondents who refuse to provide data or unable to comprehend a complex procedure of data collection, thereby not participating in the study. High levels of non-response errors have serious implications towards the extent of generalizing findings to a wider population. An ideal solution to reduce non-response errors are to apply varying methods of data collection and undertaking systematic follow-ups. In this study, prior to the commencement of a sampling, a researcher met community leaders in order to get a research approval, discussed and learnt (understand) about the villagers’ 183

behaviours so as to increase their participation in the questionnaire survey. The researcher also employed different methods of data collection, such as interview, questionnaire survey, and participant observation.

A census is a type of non-probability sampling, hence it is not possible to make statistical generalisations about the sample being studied (Laerd 2012; Alvi,

2016). However, the use of a total population sampling makes it possible to draw analytical generalisations pertaining to a population studied (Laerd 2012; Alvi,

2016). More importantly, if the list of population is incomplete or even a small proportion of members choose not to take part in the research, the results of analytical generalisations could be severely compromised – thereby it is suggested to use statistical generalisations if the population is incomplete (Pallant, 2011; Laerd,

2012). In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, a researcher learnt both approaches of using analytical and statistical generalisations so as to get ready if a proportion of the community chose not to participate in the research.

2. Respondents of census

The questionnaire surveys were distributed from a house to house in both

Sukau and Batu Puteh villages in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this case, the researcher would knock on the houses’ doors, introducing herself, and explained the purposes of the research. Then, the researcher would request for the head of house in each household to answer the survey because each house may have several families living in the same house. In case the head of house is unavailable, the researcher would request a representative of the house. They were also explained that the participation in answering the questionnaires was solely on a voluntary basis and all answers written were kept strictly confidential. In this study, the total house of Sukau

184

and Batu Puteh villages was 404, whereas the total population is 2993 with 1560 males and 1433 females (Personal communication with community leaders; District office of Kinabatangan, 2016). Therefore, the researcher prepared 404 questionnaire surveys to be distributed to each household in both villages. The response rates and outcomes of the survey were explained in the Chapter 5.

4.6.2 Questionnaire design

The wordings of questions were kept short, each section was stated clearly, and where applicable, an option was provided to give opportunity for ‘undetermined’ answers. To improve the response rates, the questionnaires were attached with a participation letter justifying the purposes of the survey and why it was important for each household to participate in the survey (Appendix E and F). The questionnaire was constructed according to the research problems and objectives of the study with references to published articles and reports (Table 4.5).

1. First section: Introduction

The first section introduced the purposes of the research and the respondents’

contributions by participating in the survey. It highlighted that the participation

from each household was crucial to get valuable insights concerning ecotourism

and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. It also stated the participation in the

survey was on a voluntary basis, that an informed consent was already obtained

from respective community leaders, supported by the Sabah Wildlife Department

and the Sabah Forestry Department, as well as assured confidentiality for answers

written in the survey. It briefly described the details of the questionnaire which

comprised of four sections (Section 1, 2, 3, and 4). An introduction enlightened

the respondents and gave them assurances when writing personal answers in the

185

survey, which eventually encouraged more local communities to participate in the

survey (Bakhtiari et al., 2014; Black, 2015).

Table 4.5 Attributes for questionnaire surveys No Attributes References Barriers of residents’ attitudes Somarriba-Chang and Gunnarsdotter (2012), 1 towards ecotourism Snyman (2014b), Mbaiwa (2015), Adeleke (2015), and Rasoolimanesh and Jaafar (2016). Residents’ attitudes towards Marzuki (2011), Abdollahzadeh and Sharifzadeh 2 impacts ecotourism (2014), and Snyman (2014b) development Factors influencing community Kideghesho et al. (2007), Muhumuza et al. (2013), 3 attitudes towards conservation and Ramos and Prideaux (2014)

Residents’ and local Stronza and Pêgas (2008), Mbaiwa and Stronza 4 community attitudes towards (2010), Snyman (2012), Snyman (2014b), and the impacts of conservation Cobbinah (2015)

The causes, impacts, and Aryal et al. (2014) , Borgström (2015), Becken mitigate against climate change and Wilson (2016), Fahey et al. (2016), and 5 on people, ecotourism, and Mkiramweni et al. (2016) conservation

2. Second section: Conservation and ecotourism

The section of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism was crucial

to evaluate the participation of local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan. It

also examined their interest, support, and underpinning reasons that encouraged or

discouraged them to get involved in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. This section also examined the impacts of conservation to the local

communities, such as the impacts of establishing the Lower Kinabatangan

Wildlife Sanctuary and whether the current ecotourism encouraged the

conservation in this area.

186

The questions were evaluated according to 5-point Likert scales. For instance,

when assessing agreement: 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’’ while 5 represented

‘strongly agree’; frequency of occurrences: 1 represented ‘never’ and 5

represented ‘always’; and the level of priority: 1 represented ‘not a priority’ while

5 represented ‘essential.’ In exception, dichotomous answers (yes or no) were

given for a direct question like ‘do you participate in conservation activity?’

3. Third section: Impacts of climate change

This section was an important element for understanding the impacts of

climate change on the stakeholders, conservation, and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The questions were structured with optional answers of 5-point

Likert scales. These questions strived to identify the awareness of local

communities on climate change, the impacts of climate change towards their

surroundings, and solutions to combat this problem.

Where appropriate, an optional answer of “others, please specify” were

included to provide an opportunity for respondents to write their answers which

were not included in the given answers. In addition, one open-ended question was

also added at the end of this section, right before the section of participant’s

background. The question generally asked for the respondent’s personal opinions

regarding the current ecotourism, conservation and climate change in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The question helped to give voice to respondents which might in

turn provide valuable information for the study (Bengtsson, 2016; Singer &

Couper, 2017).

187

4. Fourth section: Respondent’s background

Nine questions pertaining to the respondents’ demographic background were asked such as gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, education, length of stay, reason to stay, occupation, and monthly income. Two additional questions were asked regarding owning a land in the Lower Kinabatangan and personal experiences with wildlife in this area. Overall, the last section (respondent’s background) consisted of eleven questions and the outcomes were explained in the Chapter 5.

4.6.3 Preliminary study

A pilot study is an essential stage prior to an actual questionnaire survey. It ensures the questions are answered in the correct order and to determine how long it takes for recipients to answer. More importantly, it helps to identify ambiguous or repetitious wording as well as to test for validity and reliability. Subsequently, comments and suggestions from the pre-test surveys were applied to finalize the questionnaires (Lee, 2007; Dhami et al., 2014). In this study, a preliminary survey for questionnaires was conducted by distributing thirty questionnaires to local community in Bilit village, Lower Kinabatangan. Where necessary, the questions were changed to ensure clarity. In particular, the pilot study showed the necessity to add optional answer “others, please specify” in each question so that the respondents could write their answers which were not included in the given answers.

4.6.4 Data collection

To help distribute the questionnaires, three local residents were hired as research assistants for two main reasons. First, one research assistant would accompany the researcher to move from one place to another place as a safety precaution. It was exercised in light of kidnapping cases that involved visiting

188

tourists (Personal communication with community leaders), as well as considering the big distance between most houses in the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages. Second, the research assistants were hired to facilitate an appropriate communication with the respondents. This was because some villagers might not understand a Malay language or prefer to speak using a native Sungai language.

Prior to actual sampling, an early meeting with the community leaders from the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages brought benefits to the researcher for preparing a sampling strategy. It revealed that after several abduction and robbery cases, the local communities were more open to talk and discuss with people they knew.

Therefore, in addition to obtaining consent letters from the community leaders of both villages, trust and safety were crucial factors in determining the communities’ willingness to participate in the survey. Although the questionnaire survey applied a voluntary basis, the assistance of local residents (as research assistants) allowed for a higher participation in the questionnaire surveys.

4.6.5 Data analysis

The current study employed three stages of data analysis, namely data preparation, descriptive and inferential analysis. The data preparation involved entering the data obtained from the questionnaire surveys to a computer, transforming the data where necessary, and checking the data accuracy (Field, 2009;

Pallant, 2011). Descriptive analysis was used to examine three components of quantitative data, namely central tendency, dispersion, and distribution (Field, 2009;

Pallant, 2011). The central tendency of the data was estimated using mean, median, and mode, whereas the dispersion of data was measured by a range or standard deviation. In this study, the respondents’ demographic were measured using a

189

frequency distribution, and percentages were used to describe the percentages of respondents in varying demographic variables (e.g. gender, age, occupation, and monthly salary).

Nevertheless, a descriptive analysis simply provides the summary and basic measures of the data, whereas inferential statistic makes inferences or test of the probability for variables in data obtained (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2011). Inferential analyses such as factor analysis and regression explore the relationships between a set of variables, determine the best predictor of a given independent variable, and examine an underlying structure of items that make up scales in the questionnaire survey (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Field, 2009; Pallant, 2011). Therefore, the data obtained from the questionnaires were subjected to inferential statistics using exploratory factor analysis and regression.

Specifically, the willingness of communities to donate was tested using a binary logistic regression while the attitudes of communities towards conservation and ecotourism were analysed using two separate tests of multiple regressions. In addition, the factors that influenced the communities’ support for conservation and ecotourism were measured using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In this regard, the EFA was employed to assess underlying structure of items that made up the factors which influence communities’ support for conservation and ecotourism. On the contrary, the regression was used to compare the predictive ability of the factors

(determined from the EFA) and to find the best set of variables which predict the attitudes of communities towards conservation and ecotourism. The data preparation, descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS version 22). Detailed descriptions of the analyses were provided in the Chapter 5 and 6. 190

4.7 Conclusion

Overall, the chapter thoroughly explains the research methodology in investigating the phenomenon of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The use of a mixed method design is deemed as the best approach to answer the research problems, as well as to develop an integrated framework to improve their participation in both sectors. In this study, a convergent parallel mixed method is used wherein quantitative data are used to examine the support of local communities in the conservation and ecotourism, the factors that influence their participation, as well as their perceived impact of both aspects in this area. On the contrary, qualitative data are carried out using semi- structured interviews with the local authorities, NGOs, private sectors, community leaders, and ecotourism operators. The quantitative and qualitative methods are carried out to answer same research objectives, collected in parallel, analysed separately, and then merged for comparing and contrasting the findings of both data.

A concurrent triangulation design employed in this study has contributed to a large extent in understanding the collaboration of various stakeholders in the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in this area. Moreover, the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches for collecting data and analysing results are not only able to answer the research objectives, but also helps to understand the views of key stakeholders on how to improve the stakeholder collaboration in this area. The analyses and findings of qualitative and quantitative data are discussed in detail in the Chapter 5 and 6.

191

CHAPTER 5

RESULT

5.1 Introduction

Chapter 5 explains the outcomes from the questionnaire survey and the in- depth semi-structured interview. It addresses three research questions that are raised in the Chapter 1. This includes the response rates and screening of questionnaire surveys, reliability test, and the assessment of socio-demographic of respondents.

The chapter also examines the opinions of local communities on conservation and ecotourism using an exploratory factor analysis, including the views of key informants on current management of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. A triangulation method is applied to compare the results of quantitative and qualitative methods. Furthermore, the current findings are discussed in comparison with previous studies, as well as shed light on new findings that are used to improve the future collaboration of key stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.2 Response rates, data screening, and reliability test

The questionnaire sampling was conducted by distributing 404 sets of surveys to local communities in Sukau and Batu Puteh villages in the Lower

Kinabatangan (Table 5.1). The preferred method of sampling was a census, but the researcher experienced several problems during the field sampling. The assistance of three local Sungai people that administered the questionnaires to each household yielded 94.1 % returned questionnaires (380). However, upon a data screening, only

328 (81.2 %) were used for further analysis. Fifty-two questionnaires were rejected

192

because few questions were left unanswered. Upon checking with the research assistants, they explained that some respondents requested to fill up the survey later, while others preferred to wait for the head of their houses to answer the questions.

However, most questionnaires were completed when they were filled up in the presence of the research assistants. To solve this issue, a researcher requested the assistants to promptly check the questionnaires to ensure all questions were answered when they collected the surveys (if the respondents requested to answer later).

The remaining 24 surveys were empty because the houses that were supposed to be included in the survey were vacant. The researcher revisited the same houses, but they were still empty. Upon checking with the neighbours and the head of the communities, it revealed that the house owners in both Sukau and Batu Puteh villages already moved or worked at another place. In particular, most houses in the

Sukau village (PPMS area in the Sukau village) which were built by the local authority were unoccupied as the villagers already owned and stayed in their houses in the same village.

Table 5.1 Response rates for questionnaire surveys

Details of sampling Results Distributed questionnaires 404 Returned 380 Returned and usable 328 Returned and unusable 52 Response rate (%) 94.1 % Rate of usable response (%) 81.2 % Source: Field sampling 2016

193

5.2.1 Screening of questionnaire data

The first step before conducting inferential statistic is to ensure data are screened and clean from errors (Pallant, 2011). Common errors are shown by the presence of outliers and missing values. These errors can contaminate the analysis and if left unchecked produced unreliable results (Field, 2009; Pallant, 2011). One common error is typing wrong values in a software analysis (a value which is less or above the response range in the questionnaire). Therefore, the data obtained from the questionnaire survey with the local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan were subjected to frequency analysis for examining missing values and outliers. For example, for a gender, a zero represents male, while one represents female, but there were three respondents with the values of three. Upon checking the questionnaires, these three values were entered wrongly into the SPSS analysis. The values were checked and corrected according to the questionnaires. To confirm the correction, a second frequency test was conducted to check the same variable with errors. A similar procedure was carried out to all variables in the questionnaires.

5.2.2 Reliability test

Reliability test is conducted to check any variable with negative statements need to be recoded into positive statements (Leechet al., 2005; Field, 2009). First assessment using the questionnaire data showed the Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.906.

However, there were thirty items with negative values, showing that they had negative average covariance among the items. This violates reliability model assumptions. To solve this problem, the item coding in the questionnaire were checked and corrected in the SPSS data. After these items were recoded, the

Cronbach’s Alpha increased to 0.923 and all items had positive covariance.

194

5.3 Socio-demographic background of questionnaire respondents

Out of 328 respondents, 199 (60.7%) were males whereas 129 (39.3 %) were females (Figure 5.1a). It is similar to the report from the district office of

Kinabatangan with a relatively higher number of males compared to the females

(1560 males and 1433 females) living in the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages (District office of Kinabatangan, 2016). In addition, 24.1 % of respondents were between 39 to 41 years old, followed by 23.8 % between 42 to 49 years old, while the lowest was 13.7 % were above 50 years old (Figure 5.1a). This probably occurred due to the researcher’s strategy of conducting questionnaire surveys by approaching a family leader or key person in each house that had experiences or knowledge in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Similar to the report from the District office of Kinabatangan (2016), the highest percentage of ethnicity was Sungai (75.9 %), Bugis (7.3 %), Kadazan Dusun

(4.3 %), whereas the lowest was Chinese (1.2 %). Other minority groups were Suluk,

Filipino, Banjar, and Bajau (Figure 5.1b). Moreover, majority respondents (66.5 %) were married, 25.3 % single, and a mixed percentage of 8.2 % were divorced and widow/widower (Figure 5.1b). The percentages of ethnicity and marital status indicated that the Lower Kinabatangan were still dominated by local indigenous

Sungai and mostly were married. A low percentage of unmarried people indicated some people travelled to outside Lower Kinabatangan to continue studies or looked for better job opportunities (Personal communication with community leaders).

195

Figure 5.1a Frequency analysis of respondents based on gender and age in the Lower Kinabatangan.

196

Figure 5.1b Frequency analysis of respondents based on ethnicity and marital status in the Lower Kinabatangan.

197

When asked about educational levels (Figure 5.2a), most respondents with

35.4% completed an upper secondary school (SPM, STPM, SPVM), 9.1 % did not attend a school, while the lowest 3.7 % studied tertiary education (degree, master,

PhD). Furthermore, out of 328 respondents, 6.4 % of the respondents were not working, 17.1 % were housewives, 14.3 % established personal business, 13.4 % worked as farmers, 6.1 % as government staffs, and only 5.2 % worked in ecotourism sector, while 25.3 % worked in other type of jobs (e.g. conservation sector, researcher, student).

In terms of salary distribution, 33.5 % of respondents received a monthly salary between RM 501 and RM 1000, 12.5 % did not have incomes whereas a low percentage of 4 % received more than RM 2001 (Figure 5.2b). When compared to the guideline of monthly house income of the Sabah state (Berita Harian, 2015), 27.3

% of respondents were very poor (monthly income below RM 630) and 33.5 % were considered poor (monthly income below RM 1050). Therefore, more than half of the respondents in the Lower Kinabatangan were living below poverty level. In addition, most respondents (58.5 %) had spent more than twenty years living in the Lower

Kinabatangan while only 3.7 % stayed there in less than one year (Figure 5.2b).

198

Figure 5.2a Frequency analysis of respondents based on highest education level and occupation in the Lower Kinabatangan. 199

Figure 5.2b Frequency analysis of respondents based on monthly salary and length of stay in the Lower Kinabatangan.

200

Furthermore, the reasons to stay in the Lower Kinabatangan showed that the

59.1 % of the participants were born here, 15.9 % due to marriage, 6.1 % due to job opportunities, 1.2 % of respondents were doing business in the Lower Kinabatangan, and other reasons such as closed family members stayed and owned land in this area

(14.3 %) (Figure 5.3a). When the respondents were asked about owning a land in the

Lower Kinabatangan (Figure 5.3a), a relatively higher percentage of 56.4 % owned lands with size ranging from less than one hectare to twenty-five hectares, while 43.6

% did not own any land in this area.

Previous studies reported the important to assess the impacts of local communities living in near proximity with the wildlife species as one measure of conservation (Goossens & Ambu, 2012; Ojha & Sarker, 2012; Humavindu & Stage,

2015). Moreover, wildlife species are of important attraction for ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Latip et al., 2015b; Goh, 2015; Polus &

Bidder, 2016). Therefore, when asked about the respondents’ experiences with the animals (Figure 5.3b), 64.9 % stated they did not have bad experiences with the animals, with only 35.1 % admitted to experiencing loss of revenues (e.g. vegetable farms, fruit farms, and plantation) ranging between RM 500 and above RM 3000.

Others reported that the animals damaged their properties (e.g. houses, cars, and garden) and causing physical injuries when they encountered the animals

(questionnaire survey).

201

Figure 5.3a Frequency analysis of respondents based on reason to stay and land ownership in the Lower Kinabatangan.

202

Figure 5.3b Frequency analysis of respondents based on experience with wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.4 Research findings based on three research questions

The section shows the results based on three research questions, namely issues and factors that influence stakeholder collaboration, impacts of conservation and ecotourism, and strategies proposed to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.4.1 Research question 1

The issues and factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

203

5.4.1(a) Stakeholder participation in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Out of 328 respondents, there were differences between local community participation in conservation and ecotourism activities in the Lower Kinabatangan. In the case of ecotourism, more than half (51.8 %, 170 people) were not involved in any ecotourism activities (Figure 5.4). Therefore, only 48.2 % (158 people) of respondents involved in several types of ecotourism activities, namely working in various ecotourism-related jobs (21.6 %; e.g. tour guide, chef, cleaner, housekeeping, waitress), attending workshops and talks pertaining to ecotourism (21.3 %), attending capacity building on ecotourism (11.3 %), running homestays (11.3 %), and personal business in ecotourism (4.6 %). The participation of local communities in the ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan implied that they were involved in various forms of ecotourism, but the predominant ways of participation were working as supplementary staffs (e.g. chef, cleaner, housekeeping) in several lodges, bed and breakfast outlets, and resorts, as well as attending workshops/talks on ecotourism.

YES (%) NO (%)

Overall participation in ecotourism 48.2 51.8

Ecotourism jobs 21.6

Homestay 11.3

Personal business in ecotourism 4.6

Capacity building in ecotourism 11.3

Workshop and talks on ecotourism 21.3

Others 3.4

Figure 5.4 The participation of respondents in ecotourism activities.

204

The findings of the interview explained the outcomes of the survey. It was revealed that the local communities were aware of ecotourism opportunities, but they were probably discouraged to participate due to several factors such as the lack of necessary skills, facilities, funds, as well as largely related to their personal interest in ecotourism venture. Nevertheless, it was worthy to mention that the reasons were stated by other stakeholders:

“The communities are aware of the ecotourism opportunity. Tourists always come here. But, it is related to their skills and knowledge to carry out the business or get involved in ecotourism. Second, they have to consider their capabilities: If I want to open ecotourism business, I need to prepare the facilities, hire and pay staffs to work, and many things.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“Community of Batu Puteh is very broad. Most people are not involved in the ecotourism because they prefer to work as a farmer. Some are keen, while some are not keen to participate in ecotourism venture.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

Su and Wall (2014) reported that the participation of local community

Mutianyu in Beijing, China was varied to some levels with most local people involved in operating small business outlets inside and outside the tourism site. On the contrary, the current study showed that very few Sungai people owned or operate a personal business in ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan (4.6 %). A previous study showed that the KOPEL Ltd managed a CBET project in the Batu Puteh and encountered issues pertaining to community commitments who were the members or partners of the CBET project (Mizal et al., 2014). This occurred due to the lack of awareness, skills, and knowledge among the community (Latip et al., 2015a; Hussin et al., 2015). Furthermore, a failure to motivate or encourage its members might lead the KOPEL Ltd to lose reliable business partners in the long run. Besides that, the

205

KOPEL Ltd also experienced issues like its heavy reliance on wildlife and natural resources, uncontrolled deforestation, and unpredictable weather (Mizal et al., 2014).

Contrary to the local community participation in the ecotourism venture, a relatively higher percentage of respondents (58.5 %, 192 people) were engaged in conservation activities compared to not participating (41.5 %, 136 people), namely tree-planting (30.2 %), attending conservation campaign (20.7), few involved in discussion or making decisions on conservation activities (8.5 %), while others (2.1

%) participated in conducting research on wildlife and conservation in the Lower

Kinabatangan (Figure 5.5). Overall, more respondents engaged in the conservation activities (58.5 %) compared to the ecotourism activities (48.2 %).

YES (%) NO (%)

58.5 Overall participation in conservation 41.5 Work in conservation 10.4

Tree-planting 30.2

Gotong-royong 14.6

Conservation campaign 20.7

Patrol wildlife 5.8

Discuss and decision-making of conservation 8.5

Others 2.1

Figure 5.5 The participation of respondents in conservation activities.

Undoubtedly, the positive changes of local communities towards conservation were attributed to an increased understanding and awareness of the importance to conserve the wildlife and the environment in the Lower Kinabatangan:

“Based on my personal observation for the last 15 years or so, the participation of local communities in environmental conservation has increased. For example, we 206

have worked together with the Ministry of Rural Development to create environmental awareness among community leaders throughout Sabah, including the

Kinabatangan. Many leaders participated actively in the training and seemed to understand the environmental issues occurring in Sabah” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016).

Furthermore, in the view of a community leader, he emphasised that a strong link between the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan contributed towards the increased of awareness among the communities: “I personally think the awareness level among the villagers have improved than before.

It is because they realise that they need to protect the nature and animals which act as the main attraction for local and international tourists” (Respondent 26, 11 July

2016).

However, other stakeholders asserted that the support and commitments of the local communities towards the conservation were varied to some extent:

“Yes, there are changes of community attitudes towards positive conservation. I still remember years ago in the 1990s, when we want to conduct awareness program of conservation in the Bilit village, they chase us away, they even close the meeting hall. Now, they understand, and even scold people that hunt for animals in their area. But, I have to say, most of these support have obligations related to either they are working with NGO for conservation, working in ecotourism sector, or they are the owner of ecotourism businesses.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“The local communities are supportive, but their commitments are varied. However, compared to those times, the participation of local communities in Rileaf activity is much better nowadays. In fact, the number of Lower Kinabatangan community participating in tree planting has increased compared to before.” (Coordinator of Rileaf Nestlé; Respondent 21, 18 March 2016)

207

The findings showed an increased awareness of the local communities towards conserving the wildlife species and the environment. However, the questionnaires showed mixed results when compared with the interview analyses.

This was because the communities’ awareness had increased, but their support and commitments towards conservation were varied to some extent depending on their obligations in either working in conservation or ecotourism sector. Contrary to this finding, previous studies conducted in the Lower Kinabatangan reported that financial losses resulting from crop-raiding by animals were the major impediment to building community support towards conservation (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Latip et al., 2015a), especially when the losses experienced by the villagers were not compensated by any government agency (Hussin & Som, 2008).

One important criterion for determining an effective ecotourism development was to evaluate the local communities’ opinions on ecotourism in a particular area.

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, most respondents stated that few local communities participated in the ecotourism activities (53 %), although the respondents aware that the ecotourism brought many economic benefits in the Lower

Kinabatangan (63.1 %). In addition, the respondents reported that they could participate in a decision-making of ecotourism (64.9 %) and had the rights to speak about ecotourism development (66.5 %) (Figure 5.6).

208

Participation Few participation (%) Many participation (%) Benefits Less benefits (%) Many benefits (%) Decision-making Cannot participate in decision-making (%) Can participate in decision-making (%) The right to speak Do not have the right to speak (%) Have the right to speak (%)

66.5 63.1 64.9 53 47 36.9 35.1 33.5

Participation in ecotourism Economic benefits Participation in the decision- The right to speak in activities making of ecotourism ecotourism development Figure 5.6 The opinions of respondents on the current management of ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The community involvement can be grouped into three categories, namely coercive, induced, and spontaneous participation (Tosun, 1999; Tosun, 2006).

Therefore, based on the respondents’ perceptions in the questionnaire survey, the participation of the local communities in the ecotourism was considered a spontaneous participation. Although they perceived that only a few villagers involved in the ecotourism, but the ecotourism generated many benefits, they could participate in a decision-making, and had the right to speak pertaining to the ecotourism development in the Lower Kinabatangan. Notably, the interviews illustrated contradict findings compared to the questionnaire surveys. Most interviewees (ecotourism operators) stated that the community leaders represented the villagers when discussing with the local authority, the communities were not invited to attend the decision-making of conservation and ecotourism in this area, but only got informed after the discussions:

209

“In most cases, the community leader will be involved in decision-making regarding ecotourism and conservation, they are our representative to voice out our opinions. Later on, they will inform the rest of the villagers.” (Manager of a lodge; Respondent 12, 21 March 2016)

“Yes, the representatives of these villagers are called (Head of village and Development and Security Committee Village). Any matters regarding this village, they will inform the rest of the villagers here. I do hope the upper management listen to our opinions regarding the ecotourism management.” (Manager of a lodge; Respondent 14, 21 March 2016)

“Well, I personally think that very few lectures are carried out on ecotourism and conservation. Also, the people here are not invited to attend decision-making regarding ecotourism and conservation.” (Manager of a lodge; Respondent 16, 15 March 2016)

“If it is related to villagers, a representative from our office will be sent to inform and find a related agent to carry out any development project in the Lower Kinabatangan including ecotourism. Any matter happening in the villages will come back to the district office of Kota Kinabatangan. We will ensure that whatever decision, we consider the benefits of all people here.” (Assistant district officer; Respondent 5, 18 March 2016)

In addition to the involvement of local communities and ecotourism operators in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, the interview analysis revealed that a local authority (Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and

Environment, KePKAS) only provided guidelines for developing ecotourism projects, but they did not implement it to the ground: “We provide guidelines for people who want to develop areas, they will get our comments, is it suitable or not?

We also prepare a master plan for developing ecotourism site. We provide guidelines for development, but we are not implementing it to the ground” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016). Overall, the findings showed varying stage of stakeholder involvement in the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this case, the local

210

community asserted that they were involved in a decision-making of conservation and ecotourism, but the ecotourism operators claimed that only the community leaders were involved in the decision-making process. The results simply showed discrepancy views between the stakeholders pertaining to the stakeholder involvement in the conservation and ecotourism in this area, thereby it required a better strategy so as to improve their involvement in both sectors.

5.4.1(b) The factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

When the local communities were asked about the problems that they encountered when participating in ecotourism and conservation, they agreed on certain issues. In the case of ecotourism, 43.3 % of respondents agreed that they did not how to participate in ecotourism, 44.8 % were lack of confidence to participate, and 40.2 % stated that they did not have the necessary knowledge and skills to participate in the ecotourism venture. However, they disagreed that ecotourism was unimportant for them (37.2 %) (Figure 5.7). The questionnaire survey revealed that some respondents did not get appropriate information on how to participate while others specified that they were uninterested to participate in any ecotourism activities due to an old age.

211

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

44.8 44.8 43.3 43.3 40.2 40.5 41.5 37.2 35.7 36.6 33.8 31.7 31.7 30.5 28.7 24.4 20.7 16.8 16.2 15.2 14.3 14.3 13.1 11 11.3 10.7 7.3 7.3 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.8 4.3 5.5 4 3.1 3.1 3.7 2.7 3

Do not know how to Lack of confidence to Do not have necessary Not interested to Do not have time to Lack of job Ecotourism is not Prefer to work in participate participate knowledge and skills participate participate opportunities in important for me other jobs (not to participate ecotourism related to ecotourism)

Figure 5.7 A list of problems that the respondents encounter in ecotourism.

The interviews with key informants unveiled the expectations of the local communities when participating in the ecotourism venture. In fact, a senior manager of a local authority stated that: “These are what they expect: the profits and the benefits of participating in the ecotourism. The good part is once they understand, they are fired up to do, they will automatically set up their own association or

‘Koperasi Pelancongan’. Then, they start promoting the ecotourism from one village to another. Before this, the main challenge is the mindset of the community. For example, they ask: Do the government provide funds to manage the ecotourism development? This is called a high self-dependency on the government, but we cannot rely everything on the government” (Respondent 3, 8 July 2016).

Other interviewees reported two main reasons that encouraged the involvement of local communities in the ecotourism – pertaining to profits and interests. Moreover, the ecotourism sector provided an income opportunity to married women who were full-time housewives:

212

“Without doubt, the community participation in the ecotourism is driven by the economic and financial returns (e.g. employment opportunities), alternative livelihood to traditional activities (especially where natural resources are depleted), sense of pride in community, and success in achieving business sustainability.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

First, they are interested to participate. Second, to get profits because most of the married women here are not working. That is why they think, rather than they sit and do nothing at home, it is better to join us. At least they get extra income. Of course, we do not get daily income, but when the tourists come here to stay for 2-3 days, we get money. When we explain like this, they feel more interested to join.” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 30, 9 July 2016)

Meanwhile, a manager of a private lodge noted that it was difficult to motivate the local communities to participate in the ecotourism and explained a way which he applied to attract others to help him in managing his lodge: “It is not easy to motivate the villagers here. For ecotourism, we can motivate others to join by giving them an equal income. For example, if I bring tourists for a morning river cruise, then I bring one or two guides for the cruise, I must pay an equal amount to both guides, including me – we have to share the benefits equally among the three of us. Besides that, I think it depends on the interests of the villagers here. Many of the villagers here like to do a small farming on their land and some involved in a plantation rather than participating in ecotourism venture” (Respondent 15, 15

March 2016).

In the case of conservation, most respondents agreed that they did not know how to participate (48.2 %), did not get appropriate information on how to participate

(54.9 %), not invited to participate (42.4 %), and did not have time to participate in conservation activities (39.9 %) (Figure 5.8). However, they disagreed that conservation was unimportant for them (36.6 %). More importantly, the questionnaire survey revealed that the involvement of local communities in the 213

conservation could be encouraged by giving them a sense of acknowledgement, which could be done in the form of a simple gift such as giving them a certificate of appreciation. The respondents also stated that they suffered financial problems to engage in conservation while others claimed that it depended on one’s interest to either participate or not in the conservation.

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

54.9 48.2 42.4 42.1 39.9 38.1 36.6 32.6 34.1 29 30.8 25.9 23.8 25.3 25.6 23.5 20.4 12.8 10.4 9.8 10.1 11.6 11.3 11.9 5.8 6.7 7 5.5 4.9 2.4 4 3.4 2.7 4.3 2.4

Do not know how to Do not get Not invited to Not interested to Do not have time to The participation is Conservation is not participate appropriate participate participate participate restricted to certain important for me information people

Figure 5.8 A list of problems that the respondents encounter in conservation.

The analysis of interview transcript enhanced the findings of the questionnaire survey. Two key informants explained that encouraging the local communities to engage in the conservation has always been a challenge due to various aspects. An owner of homestay emphasised the issue: “Yes, there are certain ways to attract their attention to participate in conservation, but sometimes it takes longer time to do that. Sometimes, there are those who are interested, and others are just not interested to participate. Then, it takes longer time to explain to them and for them to understand and be interested to participate. Perhaps, in coming years, there will be more people who are interested to join the conservation activities”

(Respondent 30, 9 July 2016).

214

Additionally, the interview analysis revealed a complex link between conservation and ecotourism, particularly its effect on the support and participation of local communities towards the conservation. In this case, both interviewees agreed that profits prevailed against the pure intention in protecting the wildlife and the environment in the Lower Kinabatangan:

“From my experiences, if someone wants to carry out ecotourism business, that person often supports the conservation. Therefore, those who are involved directly in the ecotourism and get benefits usually support the conservation. However, those who are not involved in the ecotourism or do not get benefits, in most cases, they do not support the conservation. That is why there are still incidents of wildlife encroachment. Such is one reason that contributes to their supports. Those who are involved in ecotourism, get the benefits, they are well aware about the importance to protect the wildlife, because that is the main attraction to tourists coming all the way to Kinabatangan.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“Most of the community support of conservation relates to employment opportunities in the ecotourism sector. Some are interested while some are not interested. This is a job and it provides income. That said, if the income is lucrative, then many will be interested. When the perceived benefits financially are not good, then the communities’ interests are low. There are a few that participate, on the altruistic basis or protecting the natural resources for the sake of conservation for future generation. However, this is a small group, others may agree, but money is the main factor.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

In a different view, a local authority stated that encouraging the community to engage in conservation activities required a continuous process of understanding and learning: “Motivation is built throughout the process of engagement and building relationships. Thus, educators need to engage with local communities to get to know them, gauge their perceptions, needs, and current situations, and acknowledge their ideas in both ecotourism and conservation. Building relationships is one of the vital elements for an effective engagement with the communities. One of the ways is to identify relevant village leaders and engage directly with them to identify the 215

potential barriers and challenges encountered as a community leader”

(Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016).

Taken together, the interview analyses enhanced the findings of questionnaire surveys in a way it explained underlying reasons that determined the support and participation of local communities in ecotourism and conservation sectors. While the local communities viewed several factors (e.g. do not know how to participate, not invited, and no time) prevented them from participating, other stakeholders claimed that profits and benefits were the main factor which determined the community involvement in both sectors in the Lower Kinabatangan. The results also showed that simply giving a certificate of acknowledgement could encourage them to participate in conservation activities.

Previous studies on factors that influence community participation in both sectors were limited and did not take into account the communities’ viewpoints. For instance, Payne (1996) stated that a weak communication and collaboration prevented community involvement, while Hussin et al. (2015) reported that a lack of capital resources and public facilities (e.g. supply of clean water and electricity) discouraged community involvement in homestay program. In addition, economic benefits were limited because a majority of the local villagers were still not involved in ecotourism programmes (Hussin & Fernando, 2009).

216

5.4.1(c) Stakeholder management of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The section describes medium of communication used by the stakeholders for conservation purpose and the stakeholders’ perspectives on the Lower Kinabatangan

Wildlife Sanctuary.

1. Medium of communication for conservation activities

The medium of communication used to spread the information on conservation was an important indicator to ensure transparency and well-informed news circulation among the local communities. Of eleven mediums of communication, 31.7 % of respondents stated that they often watched conservation information on television (Figure 5.9). Nevertheless, across other mediums of communication (excluding the television), they sometimes heard the conservation information such as from the local authorities (40.9 %), village leaders (40.2 %),

NGOs (42.7 %), radio (33.2 %), poster or pamphlet (33.8 %). Moreover, the second highest answer preferred by the respondents showed they rarely heard about the conservation news from the local authorities (23.5 %), village leaders (22 %), family members or relatives (22.3 %), but never heard about it from oil palm companies

(25.3 %) and poster (21.3 %).

217

Never (%) Rarely (%) Sometimes (%) Often (%) Always (%)

42.4 42.7 40.9 40.2 40.2 38.1 34.8 33.2 33.8 31.7 30.2 30.8

24.4 25.3 23.5 22 22.3 22.6 23.2 21.3 21.3 21 21.6 22 19.5 18.6 19.8 16.8 16.2 17.4 16.5 16.2 16.5 16.2 15.2 15.2 15.5 15.5 14 12.8 12.2 12.5 11 11.3 9.8 10.7 8.8 8.2 8.5 7.3 6.7 6.4 4.6 4.9 5.8

Local Village Family NGOs Private Newspaper Television Radio Internet Oil palm Poster or authorities leaders members or companies companies pamphlet relatives (ecotourism) Figure 5.9 Eleven mediums of communication in conservation as reported by the respondents.

The findings from the interviews illustrated the approaches used by the local authority to deliver conservation messages to the communities such as briefing, capacity building, and campaigns to various levels of community (students, villagers, and district level). These efforts have improved the community awareness, but the interview analysis showed that only community leaders were involved in most of the decision-making of conservation agenda:

“Okay, one way to deliver the information is through briefing, including during district events. When we deliver speech, we will talk about issues and keep them updated on the current situation of the wildlife. Second, we conduct capacity building and talk about the wildlife to all people. Third, we conduct campaigns at school, we will explain to the students about the wildlife’s importance.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“The NGO and SWD are both giving lectures, campaign regarding the importance of animals and forests to our community here. That is why, the awareness level among the communities are better compared to before. We do realise that the animals are important for ecotourism attraction.” (Community leader; Respondent 23, 11 July 2016)

218

“Government and private organisations have conducted campaigns and lectures, but it is not frequent. Perhaps some villagers do not even aware of the campaigns. However, I think the awareness level among the villagers have improved than before. It is probably because they realise the need to protect the nature and animals as main attraction for local and international tourists.” (Village Development and Security Committee; Respondent 26, 11 July 2016)

“In many cases, the ‘Ketua Kampung’ is involved in community management. Sometimes the whole villagers are invited to discuss about matters regarding the village.” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 31, 9 July 2016)

“Regarding management in Sukau, in many cases, only the representatives of the village are involved in the decision-making. The leaders will later inform the rest of villagers.” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 32, 9 July 2016)

At management level, a local authority stated that it required a diplomatic way to communicate with the subordinate staff and local communities. Such way created a friendly environment whereby the staff and communities could listen attentively and discussed openly about their problems: “The management with subordinate staff require special way, the same goes to the local communities here.

When we meet and talk to them, we use a diplomatic approach and never force them.

We need to apply soft skills to attract their attention and be friendly. But when we talk about jobs and responsibilities, we have to be firm, when they do something wrong, we call and talk to them in private, not in front of everyone. We don’t follow the concept of ‘yes sir!’ by forcing orders, because then people surely dislike and tend to stay away from us. We use a diplomatic and friendly way, they will listen more and easier to tackle issues in any management system, including the conservation and ecotourism” (District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016).

Therefore, when compared, the findings between the questionnaires and interviews were contradicted. In this case, the local communities perceived that they learnt conservation mostly from the television and sometimes from the NGOs, local

219

authority, and village leaders. On the contrary, the local authority and community leaders reported that lectures and campaigns were conducted to increase conservation awareness among the villagers. Likewise, the ecotourism operators claimed that only community leaders were involved in most of the decision-making and the communities were only informed afterwards. Nevertheless, they reached a consensus that conservation awareness had improved compared to before because the communities realised the importance to protect animals and the environment for ecotourism to flourish in the Lower Kinabatangan.

2. Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary

In addition to the conservation programmes used to increase awareness among the local communities, the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS) is a strategy applied to strengthen the conservation initiatives in the Lower

Kinabatangan Sabah. It is established by gazetting 26 103 hectares of lands to conserve the remaining forests and important animals (Majail & Webber, 2006;

Ancrenaz et al., 2007; King & Nair, 2013a; Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a).

According to the Sabah Wildlife Department (2017a), there are three purposes of the

Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, namely (1) to protect the environment, habitat, and natural ecological process in an undisturbed manner, (2) to ensure the maintenance of valuable biodiversity, and (3) to carry out the necessary actions to conserve rare and endangered species of flora and fauna, biotic, as well as the sources of biodiversity genetic.

In addition, the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 provides the provision of three types of protected areas, namely wildlife hunting area, conservation area, and sanctuary (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a). The purpose of the conservation area is to provide fast and flexible protection of wildlife and habitats, whereas 220

wildlife hunting area is intended for managing animal population through a regulated hunting. The strongest category of conservation is the sanctuary that totally protects flora and fauna located in this area. Therefore, an admission to the LKWS (totally protected area) is prohibited except for an officer in charge of the sanctuary, possess a valid permit of conducting research or a visiting permit to enter any sanctuary area for public (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a).

The opinions of local communities on the LKWS were sought to evaluate the current management of LKWS (Figure 5.10). Ironically, most respondents slightly knew about the agenda of the LKWS (50.9 %). They were unsure about two aspects regarding the LKWS: its effectiveness to protect the biodiversity and wildlife in the

Lower Kinabatangan (53.4 %) and whether the local communities were involved in conservation activities (43.6 %), thereby they recommended to improve the current management of LKWS (46 %).

Awareness Not at all known (%) Slightly know (%) Somewhat know (%) Moderately know (%) Extremely know (%) Effectiveness Very ineffective (%) Ineffective (%) Not sure (%) Effective (%) Very effective (%) Community involvement Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%) Overall opinion Unacceptable (%) Inadequate (%) OK as it is (%) Meets expectation (%) Need improvement (%)

50.9 53.4 43.6 46 37.8 27.1 29.6 28.4

12.2 11.3 11.3 10.4 6.7 7.9 7.3 5.5 3 1.8 1.8 4 Awareness Effectiveness Community involvement Overall opinion Figure 5.10 The opinions of respondents on the current management of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary.

In contrast with the questionnaire findings, the key informants explained that the LKWS focused on protecting the endangered wildlife species in the Lower

Kinabatangan and concurred that its objectives were achieved:

221

“Last time, there were many forests here, but nowadays the forests have become smaller in size. I think if they really protect the wildlife, it should meet the objectives. So far, I think no new approach of sanctuary, but I know the authority continues to monitor the sanctuary and wildlife here.” (Manager of a private lodge; Respondent 15, 15 March 2016)

“The wildlife sanctuary ensures that the wildlife species and forests are well protected. If other village, I am not sure. But for Sukau village, yes, the objectives are met. It is because there are many wildlife species that are protected well since the initiation of the sanctuary.” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 30, 9 July 2016)

The findings of the questionnaire surveys indicated most respondents (46 %) stated that the current management of LKWS required improvement. In line with the survey findings, the views of local authority exhibited that the objectives of LKWS subjected to a continuous planning and monitoring.

“Regarding the safety of wildlife species in their natural habitats, it is still ongoing. Many efforts are made to promote protected areas, or gazette any related areas for wildlife habitat and other purposes, e.g. the sanctuary in the Lower Kinabatangan.” (Deputy director of Wildlife Department; Respondent 1, 22 March 2016)

“If we talk about the progress of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary – whether we achieve the objectives or not, we need the timeline of a management plan. Unfortunately, we have not finished outlining the management plans. For now, we execute the sanctuary’s functions, such as to increase the wildlife corridor, carry out frequent monitoring, and replant trees along the riparian reserve.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

In comparison to the questionnaire findings, the reports from a local authority revealed four positive impacts that occurred since the establishment of the LKWS

(Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a; Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017b). First, offenses that violated the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 had reduced.

Second, illegal encroachments in the LKWS area also reduced. Third, applications for licenses and permits for hunting according to the Wildlife Conservation 222

Enactment 1997 had increased. Finally, NGOs and estate companies contributed and participated in conservation efforts (Sabah Wildlife Department, 2017a; Sabah

Wildlife Department, 2017b). This result implied that the respondents of the questionnaire surveys were unaware about the LKW – its management, progress, and effectiveness in protecting the wildlife and habitats in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The future planning of the LKWS could be improved by getting input from all stakeholders (NGOs, community, private sectors, and ecotourism operators) in the

Lower Kinabatangan, especially on how they could contribute positively towards achieving the goals of LKWS. More importantly, the local communities should be informed properly regarding the roles and progress of the sanctuary in their areas.

5.4.1(d) The issues pertaining to the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Previous studies reported pertinent issues regarding the conservation in the

Lower Kinabatangan (Latip et al., 2015a; Latip et al., 2015b). However, these studies did not take into account the opinions of local communities on such matters. Of the seven issues of conservation, the respondents stated that environmental problems were a big problem (36 %) and a very big problem (24.7 %) in the Lower

Kinabatangan, therefore amounted to 60.7 % expressing their worries over such problem (Figure 5.11). A local authority stated that “several main environmental issues in various areas in Sabah are soil erosion, water pollution, air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, solid waste, social, and economic impacts” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016). However, the respondents were uncertain about other issues such as ineffective management of conservation (54.9

%), inefficient communication among stakeholders (43.9 %), conflict among stakeholders (48.5 %), human-wildlife conflict (43.6 %), inadequate funds for 223

conservation (50.6 %), and rampant deforestation for commercial purposes (34.1 %).

Nevertheless, the second highest answer for each issue indicated that the respondents regarded the six issues (excluding the environmental pollutions) as a big problem in this area.

Very big problem (%) Big problem (%) Not sure (%) Small problem (%) No problem (%)

54.9 50.6 48.5 43.9 43.6

36 34.1 28 25.6 24.7 23.2 24.4 24.7 24.4 19.8 15.2 13.7 13.4 13.4 12.8 11.9 10.7 11 11.9 12.8 10.1 8.8 10.1 8.5 5.5 6.1 5.5 4.3 4.6 3.4

Environmental Ineffective Inefficient Conflict among Human-wildlife Inadequate funds for Rampant pollutions management of communitication stakeholders conflict conservation deforestation for conservation among stakeholders commercial purposes

Figure 5.11 The perspectives of respondents pertaining to seven issues of conservation.

1. Inadequate supplies of technologies, insufficient staffs and integrity

The findings of the interview enhanced the issues highlighted in the questionnaire surveys. Apart from identifying the current issues of conservation, the interview transcripts explained underlying reasons of such issues. In this case, the management of conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan was negatively affected by inadequate supplies of proper technologies and the lack of human resources. This issue had gotten worse with negative attitudes of local communities in this area. Such matters were explained by a wildlife senior officer: “That is why, the first challenge that I notice here is the lack of budget and access towards necessary technology to monitor the wildlife and protected areas. Second, the lack of supporting staff. We are not like Japanese people whose mentality is good, they do not need to be monitored frequently because they obey rules. For them, one staff is enough to take care the

224

whole protected area with the assistance of adequate technologies. Unlike them, here in Kinabatangan with the people’s attitudes and mentalities, if possible, we need to place one ranger at every corner to avoid illegal encroachment” (Respondent 7, 11

July 2016).

In addition, a district officer reported that an integrity is the stumbling block for effective management in the government system, including in the conservation sector: “I think that, not only in the conservation, but it happens in any management system. The main obstacle is the people’s integrity. For example, 90 % people say the Kinabatangan river is polluted from the excess effluents of oil palm factories, but when we send people to investigate, the final report says it is uncontaminated. It is because the officers that are sent to a particular site are bribed, they do not go to the oil palm plantation in the Kinabatangan, but end up in the Kota Kinabalu to enjoy the day. It does not happen to all officers, but a few have low integrity. In my opinion, as long as the integrity issue is not solved properly, we will face many problems in any management system” (Respondent 4, 14 July 2016).

2. Inefficient communication and conflict among stakeholders

Furthermore, an inefficient communication and conflicts among the key stakeholders were portrayed among the stakeholders, including the upper management level. Even worse, there were issues of mistrust and disappointment among the stakeholders: “The officers working under my supervision do not tell me the real problems of what is happening in the field. Every time there is a case, I have to go to the field myself to check the situation. Even worse, other stakeholders like agricultural contractors, the palm oil company, and NGOs do not give cooperation.

There are cases of encroachment in the sanctuary, but they let it slip like that. We received photos of illegal land clearance, make a report to investigate the situation, 225

and called the people involved. Only to know the incident already happened months ago. Frankly speaking, I don’t trust them. If we consider and think properly, why would they come here in the first place? They said they want to help, and their objective is to protect the wildlife, but what did they do in actual? At other times, they make reports, but do not send it to us” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7,

11 July 2016).

More importantly, the interview analyses uncover a disturbing issue that involved various stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. A proposal was made to build a 350 m bridge to connect the Sukau village to opposite villages (Litang and

Tomanggong) across the huge Kinabatangan river. However, this suggestion sparked a controversy among the stakeholders to the extent a public demonstration was held by the local communities.

“Recently, there has been an incident ‘tunjuk perasaan.’ The people here needs development that align properly with the conservation. We do not want conservation, but put aside the villagers’ rights for development. Also, we do not want development in the conservation area that already known to provide incomes to the communities. The wildlife department does not object their rights for development, but it must be done in proper ways. Before we develop, we study the cause and effects, then only we carry out the development projects, so that we can minimise the impacts. We do not totally ban development here. Besides, the bridge brings benefits to the villagers.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“When we talk about conservation, I think it is about how we find a balance and address the issue. The NGOs want to keep the land intact, this is not only for the benefits of animals (biodiversity and ecotourism), but also for the local communities in the long term. That is why, the government is not completely against it. We have to build it in such a way it does not disturb the area (win-win situation for animals & villagers). If we simply build it, the precious nature will be gone, who is going to lose it? I mean, how many people will get benefit from this bridge, will it be everybody? Or only those who want to build it? The government might need more budget to make sure what they build is friendly to the animals in the Kinabatangan. It may benefit

226

the short term, but for long term, I think the Kampung folks are not getting much from the bridge, because it is palm oils area.” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

Based on the views of the key informants, the local communities have the rights to development in their area, but it requires a proper planning so that it brings a win-win solution for everyone including the wildlife. However, the proposed Sukau bridge project received strong objections from local and international conservationists who reported it would disrupt the migratory route of wildlife and negate wildlife conservation. The results implied that the struggle of community for village development was in conflict and went against the conservation goals in this area. Recently, the Sabah government decided to scrap the RM 223 million Sukau bridge project (The Star Online, 2017a). The decision was made after an immense discussion with various sectors, such as the Yayasan Sime Darby, Nestlé, scientists,

NGO groups, and also the opinion of someone who knew the territory better than anybody else – Sir David Attenborough. The chief conservator from the Sabah

Forestry Department stated that:

“The proposed bridge that would span 350 m across the Kinabatangan River, threatening one of the last sanctuaries of the rare Bornean pygmy elephant. It made us understand that the issue of a proposed bridge across a protected area for wildlife is now the number one environmental concern not just in Sabah, but globally too, because of the extremely precarious situation of the rich wildlife therein. The Chief Minister of Sabah has taken everyone's views into consideration – including Sir Attenborough before deciding on this very important issue, and I am pleased to say that a balanced development has prevailed. We are not going ahead with the bridge." (The Star Online, 2017a)

227

3. Human-wildlife conflict

The conflict between human and wildlife was perceived as a big threat in conserving the endangered animals in the Lower Kinabatangan, although some key informants stated that it had reduced:

“Conflict between human and animal is a big issue here. There are many forests opened for agriculture and other economic purposes. Most of the protected areas are habitat for wildlife species and these animals should be kept in their natural habitats. When the animals go out searching for foods, they are exposed to danger at open area.” (Deputy director; Respondent 1, 22 March 2016)

“The main problem (long-term) is the land fragmentation, can animals survive? In a fragmented area, it causes low genetic distribution (e.g. a union between two monkeys), it is limited and it won’t last until the second generation. Due to limited habitat, the animals have to run, cross through the villagers’ farms and plantations, it then causes conflict between human and animal.” (Director of HUTAN-KOCP, NGO; Respondent 20, 18 March 2016)

“I think it still exist, but is reduced because the local villagers have become more aware and appreciate about the importance to protect the wildlife. Usually, when we talk about the human-wildlife conflict in Kinabatangan, we talk about the elephants entering the villagers’ farm or plantations. With ecotourism, they understand that they have to protect the animals. Now, it is more like issues such as the tourists come there, some of them touch the animals, they go too near at the animals, and disturb the animals. That is why, we are trying to instil guideline, if the tourists come, they should not go too near, but still, some do not listen. So, this is a problem.” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

“The animal conflict here has reduced because nowadays, people can build electric fences to prevent the elephants from damaging our crops.” (Manager of a lodge; Respondent 12, 21 March 2016)

“In my opinion, there are fewer incidents of human-wildlife conflict. Nowadays, the villagers can place electric fences in their farm to prevent the elephants from damaging their crops.” (Manager of a lodge; Respondent 14, 21 March 2016)

228

Nevertheless, despite the application of electrical fences to prevent the animals from rampaging the farms and plantations in the Lower Kinabatangan, the findings revealed that such method was ineffective without good maintenances of the fences. Consequently, it still led towards a continuous conflict between the people and animals in this area. This matter was well explained by a wildlife senior officer:

“Actually, it is effective, but if they do not maintain it – it becomes ineffective.

Maintaining the electrical fences mean taking good care of the fences, avoid from electric disturbance due to fallen trees, the presence of grass that covers the fences.

Sometimes, the fences have already fallen, but they do not fix or replace it. At other times, the electricity is not functioning and no generator is prepared. Another obstacle is the geographical structures of some lands or plantation, whereby it is very difficult to prevent the entrance of elephants. They just make straight electrical fences, but do not follow the landscape’s structures. Hence, the fences are not effective to prevent the elephants from entering the areas” (Respondent 7, 11 July

2016).

4. Financial constraint and deforestation

Besides the conflict among the stakeholders and the human-wildlife conflict, the interview results also stressed about the lack of fundings and unresolved deforestation issues in this area:

“Environmental conservation requires funding in many cases. There are times, the lack of budget hinders the execution of conservation programmes. However, this can be addressed when government and the private sector collaborate in carrying out the conservation work.” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016)

“There are many forest areas opened for agricultural activities. Since the introduction of oil palm, more forests have been opened for oil palm plantation. When the animals go out to search for foods, they are exposed to danger at open area.” (Deputy director; Respondent 1, 22 March 2016) 229

“If you ask me, the size of forest here has reduced, because in most cases, developments in this forest go through the government, if they approve the project, then that particular forest will be opened for a particular project (which some cases, we do not agree).” (Head of village; Respondent 24, 11 July 2016)

5. Tourist safety

In terms of ecotourism, a distress issue of tourist safety required special attention from the local authorities and private sectors of ecotourism. Not only reported by the key informants during the interview, this problem was also highlighted by the respondents in the questionnaire surveys. Most local communities

(Homestay) and the private sectors involved in the ecotourism venture stated that the safety problem had greatly affected the number of tourists coming to the

Kinabatangan.

“The Tanduo issue and tourists being kidnapped are the main factor that stirs fear among the tourists travelling to Lower Kinabatangan. Besides, some countries have issued travel ban to Sabah due to this problem. It caused a great deduction number of tourists coming here, and that we suffer lots of revenue loss compared to the previous years.” (Male, 31 years; Questionnaire survey, 9 March 2016)

“A recent challenge is related to tourists’ safety. Psychologically, our partner in the US has issued travel advisory – to a certain level that the US government says don’t travel to Sabah. When ESSCHOM starts to tackle the safety issue, then they lift up the travel ban, that the tourists can travel, but they need to be careful. Besides, we have a big domestic market, but recent tax implementation like GST has negatively affected the number of tourists travelling because now everything costs them extra.” (Senior manager; Respondent 3, 8 July 2016)

6. Community dissatisfaction

Moreover, the findings of interviews revealed issues that were not reported in the questionnaire surveys, such as dissatisfaction among the communities and that the local authority was lack of awareness pertaining to their roles in ecotourism particularly in supporting ecotourism development at the district level. The

230

community dissatisfaction stemmed from a competition in getting anticipated benefits in ecotourism venture and the lack of avenue for them to openly talk about their problems:

“Undoubtedly, ecotourism is all about business. Sometimes, the local communities see the companies come there, but these companies are not from the local Kinabatangan. So, they think these companies are taking over their benefits or these companies don’t bring benefits to them. But some villagers make profits from their own business, so you see, this is all about competition.” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

“First, KOPEL has no powers to change policy or legislation of ecotourism in Kinabatangan. Besides, the government (Ministry of Tourism) never goes down to the ground to consult and find out the issues on the ground, nor create a forum for this. KOPEL does not have much avenue to highlight issues on the ground. Local politicians are focused on other business interests or economic development, and likewise do not consult local business like KOPEL directly. If we knock on their doors, we are perceived as complaining. Therefore, we better shut-up and struggle away quietly, the usual culture here. Second, all levels of government (especially local authority) lack of awareness and knowledge of ecotourism ecosystem, and their important roles in supporting the development at the district level.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

7. Inadequate facilities, policy implementation, and political alienation

Apart from the respondents’ direct comments on the conservation and ecotourism (questionnaire survey), the key informants also tapped on issues such as the supplies of clean water, drugs, lack of proper signage, policy implementation, and political alienation. These issues were indirectly related to the management of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, and when addressed appropriately helped to improve both sectors.

“I hope the source of water can be improved to accommodate the increasing needs of water in daily life in Kinabatangan. Nowadays, the water has become more precious. If we do not take good care of the water, such as the Kinabatangan river (now the water is pumped from the Kinabatangan river & processed for daily use), its quality deteriorates. We have to think in the long run, if we do not conserve the

231

forest as a water catchment, we do not care much about the river, soon the river cannot be processed for our daily use here.” (Forestry deputy officer; Respondent 10, 14 July 2016)

“At community level, we have to deal with the population growth and demand for land, wider social issues such as disparity in incomes, drugs, social division (plantation sector versus local community), and pollution problems. Besides, we also have to address habitat fragmentation, the management of depleting resources, and fisheries destruction. Other issues due to lack of integrated development at a district level such as a lack of gateway or signage, waste disposal, poor transportation, policy implementation, and political alienation. The solutions to these problems will greatly improve the ecotourism here. Otherwise, the business here goes as usual.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

8. Two major issues: conflict among stakeholders and human-wildlife conflict

Overall, considering the findings from the surveys and interviews, there were two main issues largely influencing the development of ecotourism and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan, namely conflict among the stakeholders and human- wildlife conflict. The interview findings discovered that integrity, negative attitudes of local communities, mistrust, competing interests and needs, as well as other stakeholders were not mutually cooperative as the major reasons contributing largely towards the conflict among the stakeholders. Meanwhile, several factors that caused the human-wildlife conflict were unregulated maintenances of electrical fences, geographic landscapes which caused difficulties to install fences, and limited habitat due to the clearing of forested areas. Above all, it revealed that the main factor causing the human-wildlife conflict was a land fragmentation whereby animals had to crossover human settlement, farms, and plantations in order to reach another habitat or search for foods.

Furthermore, the conflict among stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan could be categorised into two types. First, a conflict occurred among the management level such as local authorities, NGOs, and private sectors (e.g. private 232

ecotourism companies and oil palm companies or owners). Most issues that caused the conflict stemmed from the smallholder of plantations (to give part of their land for wildlife corridor), a lack of cooperation, mistrust, a lack of understanding on personal roles, and negative perception on ecotourism venture.

“Some of the palm oil companies are supportive, some are not. Actually, the big company of palm oils does not give problems. The one that usually gives problems are the smallholders of palm oil plantation, mostly local communities. Those who own small size of plantations. If they want to give up some areas for wildlife corridor or riparian reserve, it is a lot of loss for them, isn’t it? For example, if they have a half hectare, how much they can give? That’s why, when we talk about conservation issues in Kinabatangan, it usually involves the smallholder lands. Most of the big company of palm oils is quite helpful and they are willing to give part of their land for conservation.” (Head of Research & Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

“In some ways, the NGOs were not cooperative. They should send reports to the Kinabatangan Wildlife department, but they did not do so. I am not sure if they send reports to the headquaters in Kota Kinabalu, but personally speaking, where you get the source (Kinabatangan district), you should place the reports there. However, we do not get their reports here. Besides that, I have to go to the field myself because my subordinates did not tell me actual problem that occur.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“There is ‘barely any’ cross-sectoral cooperation in the Kinabatangan. Most government agencies and officers see the ecotourism sector as a luxury business, and people with lots of money. They have limited understanding of their roles and importance to the industry. Most ecotourism businesses are cutting each others’ throats. The NGOs have limited understanding (mostly biologists) and see ecotourism more for its impacts - if not a ‘cash cow.’ There are occasional forums which give ‘lip service’ to cooperation. But, we have a long way to go to have effective and constructive mutual cooperation.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

Second, an issue involving the local communities with the upper level management (local authority, NGOs, and private sectors). The problems with the communities were attributed with their mindset, understanding of rules that were enforced on private lands, sanctuary, and protected forests, as well as the local

233

communities’ needs and rights for using natural resources (traditional ways of living) contradicted with enforced rules in the Lower Kinabatangan.

“There is a Tourism Action Council in every district. For example, in Kinabatangan, they have Kinabatangan Tourism Council, which is led by the district officer. The challenges of each district is to change the mindset of local communities. Some of them stated that ecotourism is not their priority because they are more on agriculture. Some asked if government funds are provided if participating in ecotourism venture.” (Senior manager; Respondent 3, 8 July 2016)

“Whatever you want to do, even if it is your land, you must get permission and approval from the land department, forestry, and the wildlife department. There is issue like people conduct study at a private land, now the blame comes back to that person. That is why, it is important to understand the rules before opening or doing land clearance, including if you move trees to other areas. Also, some villagers cut trees or hunt animals because they think there is no need to apply for a proper permit to do so (traditional ways of living) in the Lower Kinabatangan” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

Previous studies supported the present findings. Conflict of interests among various stakeholders occurred due to stakeholders (NGOs and local authority) had visions (e.g. conservation for wildlife and habitats) which were not parallel with the villagers’ needs and could not overcome an issue of poverty and underdevelopment in the Lower Kinabatangan (Hussin, 2009). Additionally, there were problems such as a land dispute between the NGO and the local community, mistrust over the roles of NGO, a struggle over political power (NGO was taking over traditional roles of

JKKK) in the Lower Kinabatangan (Hussin & Som, 2008; Hussin, 2009).

Furthermore, monkeys and elephants were reported to cause a major loss of agricultural crops and disturbances to villagers’ daily living in the Lower

Kinabatangan mainly due to fragmented areas in the Lower Kinabatangan (Hussin,

2009).

234

5.4.2 Research question 2

The impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

The section describes the impacts of conservation, ecotourism, and climate change to the stakeholder in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.4.2(a) The impacts of conservation of natural resources to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

In the case of conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan, nine criteria were evaluated. As shown in the figure 5.12, most respondents agreed that illegal poaching reduced (43.9 %), illegal logging reduced (45.4 %), crop damages caused by wildlife species reduced (38.4 %), conservation offered job opportunities (41.5 %), and conservation awareness improved among the local communities (48.8 %).

Nonetheless, they were undecided whether the conservation initiatives resulted in an increased number of wildlife species (44.8 %), improved infrastructures (46.6 %), a limited access to harvest forest products (55.2 %), and cultural activities (48.8 %).

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

55.2 48.8 48.8 46.6 44.8 43.9 45.4 41.5 39 38.4 36.6 36.6 35.4 35.4 35.1 30.2 29 28.7

15.5 10.7 10.7 12.5 11.6 7.6 8.8 9.1 8.2 8.5 8.5 7.6 7.9 8.5 6.7 5.2 5.2 5.8 6.1 1.2 3 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.1 1.8 2.4

Increased Reduced illegal Reduced illegal Reduced crop Job Conservation Improved Limited access to Limited access to number of poaching logging damages caused opportunities in awareness infrastructures harvest forest cultural activities wildlife species by wildlife conservation improves among products local communities

Figure 5.12 The perceived impacts of conservation among the respondents.

235

The findings of interviews with the key informants supported the perceived impacts of local communities on the conservation. Most interviewees reached a consensus that the conservation initiatives in the Lower Kinabatangan contributed towards reducing illegal poaching, crop damages, and illegal logging. At the same time, it provided job opportunities, increased the conservation awareness among the local communities, and improved the facilities in their areas. However, the results yielded contradict views in one aspect – a mixed answer on whether the number of animals increased or reduced.

“Yes, the hunting has reduced. You have already visited the Miso Walai in Kinabatangan, right? I remember, last time, before they have ecotourism, many local people are involved in an illegal logging. But when the ecotourism starts, it gives them an alternative and revives their cultures, so they are not involved in the illegal logging. So, the ecotourism gives them an alternative source of income.” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

“First, illegal logging is something cannot be stopped easily, but it has reduced. It usually happens when someone wants to build houses and they need strong timbers as the basis for construction. As such, they chop the trees in the forest. It is usually difficult to trace the minor, but illegal logging (less than ten trees are cut). Certain cases like illegal hunting in a deep forest, it is difficult to trace who does it. But if it is near to where people are staying, it is easier to identify the culprit with the presence of witnesses.” (Forestry Deputy Officer; Respondent 10, 14 July 2016)

“The Hutan-KOCP conduct studies on the orangutan, hire around 40 local communities as conservation staff here, and pay them salaries. So, that gives income to some villagers. In this way, they conserve the wildlife and promotes awareness among the communities.” (Coordinator of homestay program; Respondent 28, 12 July 2016)

“Compared to before, the crop damage by the wildlife has reduced because more efforts have been done by the upper management and NGO to prevent the elephants from damaging our crops. For example, the communities were assisted by installing electric fences to protect our crops and plantations.”(Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 33, 19 March 2016)

236

Despite the positive impacts of conservation, a dispute arose on the effect of conservation to the number of wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan. Contrary to the questionnaire survey whereby most respondents were uncertain whether the number of animals increased or reduced, the interview transcripts showed mixed results among the key informants.

“Regarding the animals here, I think their numbers have increased compared to before the enforcement of illegal hunting. Besides, they breed every year, their habitat has increased in size because more conservation work is conducted here. Not much issue about the animal damaging our crops, but I hope the local authority continues to find effective solutions to solve the elephant problems.” (Community leader; Respondent 24, 11 July 2016)

“I think the awareness levels of conservation among the communities have improved compared to years before. That is why the number of animals has increased because the illegal hunting cases have reduced. Also, more facilities have been improved here (e.g. clean water supply and community hall).” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 33, 19 March 2016)

“I think most of the animals have reduced in number. Years ago we can see elephants everywhere, but now, we hardly see one… The incident of elephant damaging our crops have reduced because now we use electric fences which are coordinated by the HUTAN-KOCP and the SWD in order to discourage the elephants from rampaging our crops.” (Community leader; Respondent 23, 11 July 2016)

“I personally think the numbers of animals have reduced due to a decreasing size of their habitats. Those times we can easily see hedgehog around the house, but nowadays you hardly see them around. Same goes for other animals.”(Coordinator of homestay program; Respondent 28, 12 July 2016)

The contradict opinions on the number of wildlife species among the key stakeholders indicated that the field research on the number of wildlife was understudied because of the lack of technology and human resources. This was supported by a wildlife senior officer: “That is why, the first challenge that we face here is the lack of budget and access to the necessary technology to monitor the

237

wildlife and forests. Second, the lack of human resources (staffs). The wildlife department has already requested drones to tag and check the wildlife, where we can also observe areas above the forests. The main benefit is we can fly the drones to check many areas that we cannot easily get access to. We need these drones to check illegal poaching and threatened wildlife species. Sometimes, the culprits do not disturb the front areas, but they already clear areas deep in the forests” (Respondent

7, 11 July 2016).

5.4.2(b) The impacts of ecotourism to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

In addition to the problems that the respondents encountered when participating in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, they were also asked regarding the impacts of ecotourism with regards to four aspects (Figure

5.13). Most respondents noted that the current ecotourism encouraged the protection of wildlife species and the environment (52.7 %) and offered job opportunities to local communities (52.1 %). However, there were mixed answers (agreed and not sure) on whether the ecotourism businesses were mostly owned by local communities and that the current policy of ecotourism generated income to local communities. These results indicated that the ecotourism acted as a buffer to promote the conservation of wildlife species and the environment in this area, as well as providing economic opportunities to local communities.

238

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

52.7 52.1

40.9 40.2 38.1 37.5

24.4 23.8 20.1 18.9

11.6 12.5 9.5 3.4 3.4 4.6 1.5 2.7 1.8 1.8

Ecotourism encourages the Ecotourism offers more job Most ecotourism business are Current policy of ecotourism is protection of wildlife species and opportunities owned by local communities good (generates income to local the environment communities)

Figure 5.13 Perceived impacts of ecotourism among the respondents.

The findings of interviews emphasised the role of ecotourism as an incentive for conservation in the sense it generated funds and promoted conservation awareness. More importantly, the conservation itself acted as an incentive for ecotourism to flourish in this area because the flagship attraction is the nature and wildlife in the Lower Kinabatangan. Hence, this showed a symbiotic relationship between the conservation and ecotourism in this area. However, some key informants argued that ecotourism only generated benefits if its scale and returns were adequate.

Suggestions were proposed to increase skills, knowledge, and market chains to achieve ecotourism goal.

“Ecotourism is a business. So for me, the operators’ key aim is to gain profit, as well as to promote the richness of natural heritage to visitors. However, conservation requires funding and maintenance. Therefore, the ecotourism developers/operators actually need to contribute to and invest in environmental conservation work. In a way, environmental conservation is an incentive for them because they need to maintain it in order for ecotourism to flourish.” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016)

239

“Ecotourism is an incentive for conservation, only if the scale and returns are adequate. Also, it is possible to create more job opportunities in ecotourism sector to local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan. For this to happen, we need adequate vertical and horizontal integration both across supply and market chains. Improving communications, skills, and access to the internet is critical. Improving fundamental understanding, knowledge, and skills in ecotourism is vital.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

In addition to ecotourism function as a tool to improve conservation, it also provided employment opportunities and greatly assisted in alleviating poverty among the local communities in the Lower Kinabatangan, as well as enhancing the conservation of wildlife and the environment in this area:

“As for the Kinabatangan district, our core business is to alleviate the poverty among the local communities in the Kinabatangan. Therefore, having KOPEL Ltd helps us by offering job opportunities to local Sungai people here. Some of them work full- and part-time in ecotourism sector. In this way, some poor villagers get a chance to get income for their households and hence, it helps us to achieve our core mission. The KOPEL Ltd also contributes towards protecting threatened wildlife species here.”(District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016)

“Ecotourism generates good benefits to local communities here because it offers jobs. I noticed some people here have switched from fisherman or farmer to working in the ecotourism, such as chef, tourist guide, and housekeeping. As for me, I am not a local person here, but it provides income to support my daily living.” (Supervisor of a private lodge; Respondent 18, 17 March 2016)

Previous studies supported the findings that ecotourism provided job opportunities, improved household incomes and a standard of living in the Lower

Kinabatangan although a majority of the local villagers were not involved in ecotourism venture (Payne, 1996; Hussin & Fernando, 2009). More importantly, the current study exhibited ecotourism as a strategy to alleviate poverty among poor villagers in this area. Despite the ecotourism brought positive impacts to the local communities, they were unsure about ecotourism ownership and policy which

240

indicated that they were not well informed regarding ecotourism development in their areas (Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Engen & Hausner,

2017). It was because the views of local people in ecotourism sites in Sabah were seldom taken into a serious consideration when it came to a decision-making and implementation of policy (Hussin & Som, 2008).

5.4.2(c) The impacts of climate change on conservation, ecotourism, and stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

Many researchers report that the climate change has profound impacts on ecotourism and conservation (Borgström, 2015; Becken & Wilson, 2016;

Mkiramweni et al., 2016). It affects the global temperature and cause rising sea level

(Aryal et al., 2014). While this matter is the responsibility of each nation, the most important measure is to understand its impacts in a local scale. In the case of the

Lower Kinabatangan, 39.9 % respondents stated they often heard about the climate change before the current survey was conducted (Figure 5.14). Furthermore, they were extremely concerned about the impacts of climate change in their areas (46.3

%).

241

How often Never (%) Rarely (%) Sometimes (%) Often (%) Always (%) Concern Not at all concerned (%) Slightly concerned (%) Somewhat concerned (%) Moderately concerned (%) Extremely concerned (%)

46.3 39.9

29.6 28

14.9 11.3 8.8 10.4 10.1

0.6

How often you hear about climate change before answering this survey? Concern over the effects of climate change on the communities and the environment

Figure 5.14 The opinions of respondents on the climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Contrary to the questionnaire findings wherein the local communities often heard about the climate change, the interviewees reported that the impacts of climate change on the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan were understudied. They described negative changes of their surroundings due to the climate change, but affirmed that appropriate data on this problem was lacking:

“To my knowledge, there is no study of climate change in the Kinabatangan area. I think the negative impacts of climate change have become more evident than before. The rainfall and drought are much more unpredictable.” (District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016)

“At present, besides looking for water resources to extinguish a forest fire, I don’t think we have specific mitigation against the climate change. Also, I think other stakeholders have not conducted the investigation pertaining to climate change in this area.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“If we really think about it, yes, there are changes due to climate change here. But we cannot focus on one side only, because it involves many factors. There are times it is really hot, another time it keeps raining. So far, there is no incident of heat stroke here. But to me, because I was born here, I can feel the difference. Though it is a small change, we can really feel the changing weather. The heat surrounding does not feel like before, it is different.” (Owner of Balai Kito Homestay; Respondent 30, 9 July 2016)

242

The opinions of local communities on three impacts of climate change on ecotourism were examined (Figure 5.15). Most respondents reported that the climate change affected tourist flow coming to the Lower Kinabatangan (33.5 %), eroded natural attraction of ecotourism (31.7 %), but they were unsure whether it influenced community employment in the ecotourism sector (47.9 %).

No effect (%) Minor effect (%) Not sure (%) Moderate effect (%) Major effect (%)

47.9

33.5 31.7 25 25.9 20.4 19.5 16.8 18 14.3 13.7 11 8.5 9.5 4.3

Climate change affects tourist flow to the Climate change erodes natural attraction of Climate change affects community Lower Kinabatangan ecotourism employment in ecotourism

Figure 5.15 The impacts of climate change on ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The interview analyses showed mixed results. First, it illustrated contradict findings with the questionnaires. The key informants reported that tourists could easily spot animals along the Kinabatangan river during a drought season. Therefore, a drought seemed to become a turning point for a tourist attraction. However, the animals might experience food deprivation due to a lack of food resources. Second, the interviews supported the questionnaire findings in a way that the climate change likely influenced ecotourism business and discouraged tourists coming to the Lower

Kinabatangan. This was because prolong raining season (and sometimes unpredictable weather) caused floods which eventually raised a safety issue.

243

“Climate will likely have subtle (and slow felt – long term) impacts on the surrounding forests, habitats, and wildlife. If the sea levels rise, we will be in trouble. The Kinabatangan rising backwater tidal influence upstream (where it meets floodwaters coming down) causes more flooding in the midterm. This will cause difficulties for ecotourism business, discourage tourists to come here because their safety is at stake.” (Coordinator of KOPEL Ltd; Respondent 29, 2 September 2016)

“During drought, the wildlife usually has a restricted movement, they only move along the river and stay in shaded areas. They need water and spend longer time at the riverside. That is why, during this time, it is easy to see elephants along the river. Normally, if not drought, they stay in the forested areas, and get access to water at lake area. However, during drought, they have lacked access to food supplies due to dry grasses.” (Wildlife senior office; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

In the case of conservation, 32.9 % of respondents expressed that the climate change moderately affected the environment while 22.3 % reported it caused major effects to the environment. Hence, this amounted to 55.2 % of respondents agreed that the climate change had profound impacts on the environment (Figure 5.16).

However, they were unsure about the effects of climate change on forest burning

(32.9 %) or whether it contributed to the death of wildlife species (48.2 %).

No effect (%) Minor effect (%) Not sure (%) Moderate effect (%) Major effect (%)

48.2

32.9 32.9

24.7 21.3 22 22.3 23.2 17.7 14.6 9.5 10.1 9.5 9.8 1.5

Climate change contributes towards Climate change contributes to the death Climate change contributes towards environmental problems of wildlife species forest burning

Figure 5.16 The impacts of climate change on the conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

244

Contrary to the questionnaire findings, the key informants reported devastating impacts of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan. Notably, the climate change not only negatively affected wildlife, forest, and the environment, but also caused difficulties to local villagers due to an absence of water supply, reduced yield of agriculture, and spread of climate-related diseases. Furthermore, it also triggered forest burning especially during prolong hot and dry weather.

“When there is a prolonged hot weather, it becomes really dry here, and many villages experience no supplies of water. We have to contact the emergency department of natural disaster to supply water to local communities. Even worse, some rural areas cannot be reached by lorries and cars. Then, the yields of oil palm plantations are much reduced during drought season. We also experience many kinds of disease-related climate spread via unclean water.” (District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016)

“An extreme climate change is one driving factor towards forest burning. Therefore, when hunters light up a fire in the forest, local communities use slash and burn method to clear their farms and burn rubbish, a hot and dry weather makes the fire spread easily to other areas. That is what happened to a recent fire in the Abai village, whereby the fire from the oil palm plantation spread to adjacent sanctuary and forest reserve.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

Taken together, the climate change has negatively affected the conservation, ecotourism, and the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. For instance, it caused unpredictable weather which discouraged tourists coming to the Lower

Kinabatangan, an absence of water supply, a spread of climate-related diseases, and an exacerbated forest burning. Other studies reported that the climate change caused recurring human and wildlife diseases, biodiversity and habitat loss, as well as environmental degradation (Borgström, 2015; Becken & Wilson, 2016; Mkiramweni et al., 2016). In terms of the negative impacts of climate change, the interview analyses showed mixed results when compared to the questionnaire surveys. More importantly, little was known regarding the impacts and mitigation of climate change

245

in this area. The present study stressed the necessity to further investigate the climate effects and its solutions in this area.

5.4.3 Research question 3

Strategies to improve the stakeholder collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The third research question describes the strategies to improve the conservation, ecotourism, and collaboration among the stakeholders in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

5.4.3(a) Strategies to improve the conservation of natural resources in the Lower Kinabatangan

In the case of conservation, three personal attitudes of respondents were asked regarding their experiences on wildlife, willingness to share, and change negative attitudes for a better conservation (Figure 5.17). Of three attitudinal statements, most participants agreed that they had knowledge and experiences on wildlife and forests (41.8 %), they were willing to share the knowledge and experiences (51.2 %), and changed negative attitudes for a better conservation (50

%). Overall, the results exhibited positive responses from the respondents as their willingness to share experiences and changed negative attitudes (e.g. do not have time, uninterested, and conservation was unimportant) surely influenced the future management of conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

246

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

51.2 50

41.8 36.3 32 30.8

12.5 11 11.9 7.9 4.6 6.4 1.5 1.2 0.9

Have knowledge and experience on Willing to share knowledge and Willing to change negative attitudes for wildlife and forests experiences for a better conservation better a conservation

Figure 5.17 Three attitudinal responses of respondents on conservation.

Moreover, a local community is a vital stakeholder that determines the future stake of precious wildlife species and virgin forests in protected areas (Ramos &

Prideaux, 2014; Snyman, 2016). Nevertheless, one key informant asserted that it was a challenge to cooperate with the communities: “The one difficult to manage is the villagers. That is why we need like ten years of management plan. We have to advise the villagers that this is the route of elephants, try to avoid making a plantation here.

If you insist to open it and use an electric fence, but the elephants still pass through and damage that area, it will be at your own risk and responsibility” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016).

In addition, five aspects of conservation were evaluated to improve the current conservation (Figure 5.18). Most respondents agreed that more financial aids should be allocated for conservation (44.2 %), more local communities should be trained to be self-independent to contribute positively in conservation, not merely attending a conservation awareness (51.5 %), their participation could be encouraged by offering monetary incentives (41.8 %), they should participate more in decision-

247

making on conservation (52.4 %), and the current rules of conserving wildlife and forest should be tightened (43.6 %). Furthermore, 28.7 % of respondents strongly agreed that the rules should be strengthened, indicating that the current rules were inadequate to prevent illegal hunting and deforestation. Notably, some respondents reported that illegal poaching was mostly committed by outsiders and suggested the local authorities to enforce a strict penalty for the offenders.

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

51.5 52.4 44.2 41.8 43.6 33.5 34.5 28.7 24.7 25.3 24.1 21 20.1 16.2 15.5

5.5 6.1 3 0.6 0.3 2.4 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.6

Provide more financial aids Train more local Offer incentive (money) to Encourage more Tighten current conservation to improve current communities to be self- encourage the participation participation of local rules on wildlife and forest conservation independent in conservation of local communities in communities in decision- activities conservation making on conservation

Figure 5.18 The perspectives of respondents on future development of conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Technically, the key informants revealed that it would be difficult to gazette other areas in the Lower Kinabatangan as a sanctuary. The local authorities were focusing more on preserving the current sanctuary and reconnecting fragmented areas between the corridors. In addition, extra efforts were made to request support from the oil palm companies to make a passage enough for the wildlife to pass through and build electrical fences along the route:

“Personally, I think it is difficult to gazette more areas, as the remaining areas are limited, but we are focusing more on preserving the one already being gazetted, to try reconnecting fragmented areas and the corridors. The challenge is not all lands are reserved areas for conservation, other lands or lots belong to native

248

lands or private owners. If they don’t open their lands and remain as forest is okay, but if one day, they decide to open or sell it to other companies, it becomes a huge problem.” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016)

“We request support from the palm oil companies to give us a route for the wildlife corridor to pass through and they build a territory using electrical fences along that corridor. The meaning of route is to a make a clear way for the wildlife to pass through without any restrictions. We are waiting for more plantation company to offer small area of their plantation for the wildlife corridor.” (Wildlife deputy officer; Respondent 8, 16 March 2016)

Apart from understanding the impacts of conservation, opinions and methods to improve the current conservation, their support, participation, and willingness to donate to conservation were also examined (Figure 5.19; Figure 5.20). The analysis showed 39.6 % of respondents concurred that the trend of community participation in conservation increased than before. They also supported the conservation (41.2 %) and agreed to participate in future conservation if they were given chances (40.2 %).

Moreover, 72.3 % of respondents were willing to donate to improve current conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Figure 5.19 The opinions of respondents on the current trend of conservation and future participation in conservation.

249

Strongly oppose (%) Somewhat oppose (%) Not sure (%) Somewhat support (%) Strongly support (%) No (%) Yes (%)

72.3

Yes 41.2 32 27.7 20.4 No 2.1 4.3

Support for conservation Willingness to donate for conservation

Figure 5.20 The opinions of respondents on the support for conservation and the willingness to donate for conservation.

The positive responses of the respondents showed the current conservation could be enhanced by the support and more participation from the local communities, including their willingness to donate for conservation activities. These favourable opinions were attributed to a continuous exposure on the importance of conservation:

“In terms of environmental education and awareness, various programmes have been carried out for schools, communities, universities, environmental consultants, project proponents, etc. Programmes include forums, seminars, workshops, tree- planting, talks, exhibitions, etc. EPD has been carrying out studies from time to time by engaging external experts on critical environmental issues. The findings of the research are used to guide and enhance the decision-making process for conservation” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016).

The respondents were also asked regarding their opinions for future management of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan (Figure 5.21). Most respondents agreed that they wanted to learn more about the climate change in their area (63.7 %), there was a need to develop an effective framework to mitigate the current climate change in their area (55.2 %), and that they wanted to participate in

250

activities that helped to reduce the negative impacts of the climate change in the

Lower Kinabatangan (54.9 %).

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

63.7 55.2 54.9

22.6 24.7 17.7 16.8 18.9 18.6

3 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.9

I would like to know more about the climate Need to develop effective mitigation against the I would like to participate in activities that help change in the Lower Kinabatangan climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan to reduce the effects of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan

Figure 5.21 The opinions of respondents on the future management of climate change in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The interviews illustrated similar findings with the questionnaire surveys.

Most key informants suggested the necessity to conduct additional studies on the climate change in the Kinabatangan.

“Yes, it’s necessary to conduct more studies on the climate change. It’s because we need to understand why it is happening, the impacts on economic, social, and other aspects, to give us an overview of what’s really happening. For examples, the animals look for water at the river side during drought season and get shot, but directs impacts remains unknown. Then for villagers, during drought, the yield of farming and plantation are greatly affected; for fishermen, they cannot catch fish or prawns during the raining season. When they don’t get incomes, what are the preparation to face this problem? More importantly, we need to know how to mitigate its impacts, especially in this area.” (District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016)

“In my opinion, so far we have not conducted a specific study on climate change and the forests. I think it is vital to carry out this study. It is good if we get to know how much it affects the forest in the Lower Kinabatangan. For example, during El Niño and a prolong drought season, we face severe burning of forests. This El Niño does not happen yearly, last time it happens once in 8-10 years. But when it happens, it causes devastating impacts on the forests. Especially in Sabah, there are many red zones whereby the areas are highly vulnerable towards forest burning during hot weather.” (Forestry deputy officer; Respondent 10, 14 July 2016) 251

5.4.3(b) Strategies to improve the ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

As part of rural areas, the Lower Kinabatangan harboured outstanding natural resources, which held great potential for ecotourism development (Hamzah, 2016).

However, it also featured with various environmental constraints such as lack of local resources for economic development, limited access to education, and poor transportation networks (Goh, 2015; Polus & Bidder, 2016). Therefore, it was vital to understand the interest and willingness of respondents to participate in ecotourism in order to facilitate an effective ecotourism planning in the future. The questionnaire analyses exhibited that most respondents were interested (40.9 %) and very interested (25.9 %) to learn more about the job and business opportunities in ecotourism (Figure 5.22). Likewise, 43.3 % of respondents agreed while 25.6 % strongly agreed to participate in ecotourism if they were given chances.

Interest Really disinterested (%) Not interested (%) Not sure (%) Interested (%) Really interested (%) Participation Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%)

43.3 40.9

25.9 25.6 21.6 22.9

10.1 6.1 1.5 2.1

Interested to learn more about job and business opportunities in Participate in job and business in ecotourism ecotourism

Figure 5.22 The interests and willingness of respondents to participate in future ecotourism venture.

Besides the respondents’ opinions and perceived impacts of current ecotourism, their perspectives on how to improve the ecotourism were also sought during both questionnaire and interview research (Figure 5.23). Most respondents

252

agreed that the current ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan could be improved by providing more capacity building (56.7 %), offering financial aids to local communities to establish ecotourism business (41.8 %), building more ecotourism facilities (52.7 %), and giving priorities of jobs and business of ecotourism to local communities (48.5 %).

Strongly disagree (%) Disagree (%) Not sure (%) Agree (%) Strongly agree (%) 56.7 52.7 48.5 41.8

31.7 32.6

23.2 22.9 22 22 18.9 17.4

2.4 2.4 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.9

Provide more capacity building in Offer financial aids to local Build more ecotourism facilities Ecotourism gives priority to local ecotourism communities for ecotourism communities business

Figure 5.23 The opinions of respondents on how to improve current ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

The results implied that the local communities were seeking more capacity building, funds, facilities, and priorities when participating in ecotourism venture.

Corresponding to the communities’ needs, the key stakeholders (local authorities) should provide avenues for them to learn more about ecotourism business through the guidelines of policies and advices on how to develop products. Undeniably, there were conflicts among various stakeholders and ecotourism products were underdeveloped. That was why the future development of ecotourism should focus on integrating and balancing the needs of everyone, diversifying ecotourism products, as well as to establish a smart collaboration to ensure the ecotourism benefits everyone.

253

“We provide guidelines for people who want to develop areas, they will get our comments, is it suitable or not? We also prepare a master plan for developing ecotourism site. We provide guidelines for development, but we are not implementing it to the ground. The ministry chair a management committee and get input from all parties involved (e.g. forestry, wildlife, local communities, plantations, and many others involved) to address a question like ‘how we go about with this matter.’ It involves a lot of conflicts. That is why we are looking into ways to integrate these things, how it can work together – as I said before we have to balance.” (Head of Research and Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

“If the local community really wants to develop the product, they can contact the Sabah Tourism Board, or KiTA, or the forestry, we will help them. We will visit the area and advise them on how to develop the product. However, if they do not want to communicate with us or relevant agencies, they can make initiatives on their own, develop on their own until to the extent that they can package their own products, then inform us, then we go visit. The real challenge is how we can attract the tourists to come to the place? So, again, the strategy is we need to have a smart partnership with tour operator. In the case of Kinabatangan, I think the product development is underdeveloped (not diversified). So far, the focus is the wildlife as a flagship, nature, and culture that are available there. They also have Miso Walai Homestay which can help to promote the culture and attract the tourists coming to the Kinabatangan.” (Senior manager; Respondent 3, 8 July 2016)

Besides providing the guidelines and advices on how the communities can participate in ecotourism, understanding the rules is of importance. The ecotourism business should abide to Standard Operating Procedure when the tourists are brought to watch the wildlife species: “The ecotourism here follows Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP), if they want to bring tourists to see the animals, they must follow this SOP when they come to wildlife sanctuary. However, the animals can also be found outside the sanctuary area. Most of times, they bring the tourists to go to areas outside the sanctuary” (Wildlife senior officer; Respondent 7, 11 July 2016).

254

5.4.3(c) Strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in managing conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The questionnaire respondents and interviewees highlighted several aspects regarding the future development of conservation and ecotourism. Major elements were the roles of stakeholders, the importance to curb poverty, the needs to educate the younger generation to higher levels, and addressed a low flow of currency:

“Every stakeholder has their own roles. Our core business is to alleviate poverty in the Kinabatangan through effective development. We try to build one institutional here to encourage the younger generation to continue studies in higher level. But, I think the people here are not ready for this. We have already built ecotourism center in Kinabatangan. The problem is many people with skills and high income do not stay in Kinabatangan. Everyone goes back to Sandakan after they have done their work in Kinabatangan, hence the currency flow is very low in Kinabatangan”

(District officer; Respondent 4, 14 July 2016).

Overall, understanding varying needs of the key stakeholders in the Lower

Kinabatangan were vital, especially in addresing the question ‘how to enhance the stakeholder collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism for the future?’ Specifically, the local communities (questionnaire surveys) reported that they had knowledge of wildlife and the forests, willing to share the knowledge and changed negative attitudes, as well as they supported and wanted to participate in future conservation and ecotourism if they were given opportunities. The results implied that the communities were willing to change for a better development of conservation and ecotourism, provided that underlying issues (as explained in the research question 1) were addressed appropriately.

255

The empirical findings of in-depth interviews uncovered that the management of conservation and ecotourism could be improved by a mutual collaboration among the stakeholders (local authorities, NGOs, ecotourism operators, and local communities). Therefore, focusing on what made the collaboration stronger was necessary while at the same time addressing underlying issues that prevent its implementation. For instance, the key informants stressed on positive collaboration and balancing development between ecotourism and conservation:

“Future conservation work in Sabah seems to be moving forward positively because of the increasing collaboration between the government, NGOs, and the private sectors.” (Environmental senior officer; Respondent 6, 15 July 2016)

“Yes, other stakeholders like NGOs do greatly help us in conservation, especially in riparian reserves. For example, when we receive complaints or report from the NGO and the villagers that some areas in the riparian reserves are intruded, we will investigate the situation promptly. Usually, the NGOs are involved in the tree-planting, such as the Nestlé organisation in the Sukau village. They do tree-planting in the riparian reserves along the Kinabatangan river.” (Forestry deputy officer; Respondent 10, 14 July 2016)

“We hope to keep the environment intact. When we talk about the ecotourism, we need to discuss about how to balance it. If we do too much on ecotourism, we might forget about the environment and end up destroying it. So, we have to balance both sides because both ecotourism and conservation go side by side. Then, when we talk about ecotourism, the community must earn benefits from it. So, that is the challenge we have to confront, how we balance all of these.” (Head of Research & Tourism Development; Respondent 2, 8 July 2016)

256

5.5 Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative results

The findings of quantitative and qualitative research are compared and contrasted according to the three research questions that are raised in the Chapter 1.

The comparisons were conducted based on data label of convergence that was introduced by Fitzpatrick (2016). The research questions of mixed method study aim not at finding a simple answer or ‘truth’ but to problematize and provoke further discussion through the integration of both sources of data (Fitzpatrick, 2016). In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the relationships between quantitative and qualitative research (each point of convergence) were ascertained based on four levels of data convergence, namely “confirm, contradict, mixed, and enhance.”

When the data directly addressed a similar issue, they were labelled as either confirming or contradicting one another. Meanwhile, a mixed convergence was used when the data both points of confirmation and contradiction. In a case that the data provided different perspectives on a similar phenomenon or added a richness of understanding (but it neither directly confirm nor contrast one another), it was labelled as enhancing the understanding of a phenomenon studied. The researcher used these four data labels to explain the integration of quantitative and qualitative data as shown in the Table 5.2.

257

Table 5.2 Triangulation of mixed method research using a condensed data convergence matrix

Quantitative survey themes Qualitative themes (n= 40) Label (n= 328)

Research question 1: The stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

5.4.1(a) Stakeholder participation in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The participation of local The participation of local communities in conservation: Yes communities in conservation: The (58.5 %); No (41.5 %) participation and support of local Mixed communities increased, but vary to some extent. The participation of local The participation of local communities in ecotourism: Yes communities in ecotourism: Most are (48.2 %); No (51.8 %) not involved, related to their skills, Enhance knowledge, and capabilities (e.g. budget and facilities).

Local communities could Community leaders represented the participate in a decision-making villagers when discussing with local and had the right to speak authorities, the communities were not pertaining to the ecotourism invited to attend the decision-making Contradict development in the Lower of conservation and ecotourism in Kinabatangan. this area, but only got informed after the discussions. Furthermore, a local authority only provided guidelines for developing ecotourism projects, but they did not implement it to the ground.

5.4.1(b) The factors that influence the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Factors influence the Factors influence the participation of participation of local local communities in conservation: communities in conservation: Do The main factors were benefits and not know how to participate, do interests; other minor factors were Enhance not get appropriate information, the sense of protecting the not invited to participate, and do environment for future generation, a not have time to participate. continuous process of learning, A certificate of acknowledgement building relationships, and longer could encourage them to time taken to encourage the 258

participate in conservation communities to participate in activities. conservation.

Factors influence the Factors influence the participation of participation of local local communities in ecotourism: The communities in ecotourism: Do main factors were profits and not know how to participate, lack interests; others include expecting Enhance of confidence, do not have the funding from a government and a necessary skills and knowledge. sense of pride.

5.4.1(c) Stakeholder management of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan The opinions of respondents on the current management of the The objectives of LKWS have been Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife achieved. Sanctuary (LKWS) in the Lower Kinabatangan: Local community Contradict awareness on the LKWS, the community was unsure about the effectiveness and community involvement in the LKWS, as well as the current LKWS needed improvement.

The opinions of respondents on The community leaders represented current ecotourism in the Lower the villagers for discussions with the Kinabatangan: Many economic local authority, the communities were Contradict benefits, the community could not invited to attend the decision- participate in decision-making, making regarding the ecotourism and and had the rights to speak for conservation in this area, but only get ecotourism development, but informed after the discussions. only a few participated in ecotourism.

Eleven mediums of The local authorities and NGOs communication for conservation: sometimes conduct campaigns and The community learnt lectures regarding conservation. conservation mostly from Confirm television, sometimes from local authorities, NGOs, private ecotourism companies, newspaper, radio and internet.

259

Conservation awareness among Conservation awareness among the the local communities improved communities had improved compared compared to previous years. to before because the communities realised the importance to protect Confirm animals and the environment for ecotourism to flourish in the Lower Kinabatangan

5.4.1(d) The issues pertaining to the conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan The perspectives of respondents The underlying reasons pertaining to pertaining to seven issues of conservation issues were people’s conservation: Environmental mentality and attitudes, integrity, lack Enhance problem is a very big issue, but of access to necessary technology the community was unsure about and lack of supporting staffs. the other six issues. A distress issue of tourist safety Safety problem had greatly affected required special attention from the number of tourists coming to the the local authorities and private Kinabatangan. Enhance sectors of ecotourism.

Environmental pollutions, Other issues such as the supplies of conflict among stakeholders, clean water, drugs, lack of proper human-wildlife conflict, illegal signage, policy implementation, and Enhance logging and poaching. political alienation.

Research question 2: The impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism to stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.4.2(a) The impacts of conservation of natural resources to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

Perceived impacts of A varying response from the conservation among the local interviewees: unsure about the communities: Reduced illegal number of wildlife. Increased poaching, logging, and crop conservation awareness, reduce damage, increased conservation illegal hunting, logging, and crop Mixed awareness, and provided job damage. It also improves facilities in opportunities to local community areas. The challenges of communities. conservation were limited budget and access to technology, and lack of human resources.

5.4.2(b) The impacts of ecotourism to the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

260

Perceived impacts of ecotourism Ecotourism encourages the protection among the local communities: of wildlife and the environment, Protection of wildlife species and provides job opportunities and the environment, provide job incomes to both local communities Enhance opportunities. and outsiders, and alleviates poverty. It also generates funds and promotes conservation awareness.

5.4.2(c) The impacts of climate change on conservation, ecotourism, and stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

The opinions of respondents on The interviewees reported that the the climate change in the Lower information on climate change on the Kinabatangan: 39.9 % of the ecotourism and conservation in the community often heard about Lower Kinabatangan were climate change before the survey understudied. Contradict and 46.3 % were extremely concerned about its impacts on the community, ecotourism, and conservation.

The impacts of climate change on During a prolong hot weather, local the conservation in the Lower community experienced no supplies Kinabatangan: 32.9 % of the of water, many kinds of disease- community stated it had a related climate spread via unclean moderate effect on the water the yields of oil palm Mixed environment problems. However, plantations were much reduced 48.2 % were unsure about its during drought season. In addition, it impact on the wildlife and the triggered forest burning cases. environment while 32.9 % unsure about its impact on forest burning.

The impacts of climate change on Prolong raining season caused sea ecotourism in the Lower level and river to increase which in Kinabatangan: 33.5 % of the turn causing floods in the Lower community stated it had a Kinabatangan. This issue discouraged moderate effect on tourist flow tourists from coming to the Lower visiting the Lower Kinabatangan, Kinabatangan. Enhance 31.7 % moderate effect that erodes natural attraction of ecotourism, while 47.9 % were unsure about its impact on community employment in ecotourism venture.

261

Research question 3: The strategies to improve the stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan 5.4.3(a) Strategies to improve the conservation of natural resources in the Lower Kinabatangan

Three attitudinal responses of The one difficult to manage is the respondents on conservation: villagers because some developing a 41.8 % community agreed that plantation or farm on a same route of they had knowledge and wildlife passing through. This leads experience on wildlife and forest, to human-wildlife conflict. In this Enhance 51.2 % were willing to share case, it is crucial to advise them on these knowledge and experience, understanding the wildlife and forest, while 50 % of community were as well as to prepare an effective willing to change negative management plan. attitudes for better conservation.

The perspectives of respondents Technically, to improve current on conservation development in conservation in the Lower the future: To improve current Kinabatangan, it would be difficult to conservation, most community gazette more areas as a sanctuary. agreed that it needed more The local authorities were focusing financial aids, to train community more on preserving the current Enhance of being self-independent, offer sanctuary and reconnect fragmented monetary incentives to local areas in between the corridors. In people, encourage their addition, efforts were made to request participation in decision-making support from the oil palm companies of conservation, and to tighten to make a passage enough for the current practices in conservation. wildlife to pass through and build electrical fences along the route.

The perspectives of respondents The positive responses of on the current trend of respondents showed the current conservation, future conservation could be enhanced by participation, support, and the support and more participation willingness to donate: An from the local communities, increased trend of community including their willingness to donate Confirm participation in conservation, for conservation activities. These most community somehow favourable opinions are attributed support current conservation, towards continuous exposure towards they were strongly agreed (25.9 the importance of conservation: %) and agreed (40.2 %) to participate in future conservation. They were also willing to donate for conservation (72.3 %).

262

The opinions of respondents on The findings of questionnaire survey the climate change planning in were similar to the findings of the future: 63.7 % of the interviews. Most key informants community wanted to learn more suggest the necessity to conduct about the climate change, 55.2 % further studies on the climate change stated the need to develop in the Kinabatangan – regarding why effective framework to mitigate it is happening, the impacts on Confirm current climate change in the economic, social and other unknown Lower Kinabatangan, and 54.9 % aspects. For example, during El Niño wanted to participate in activities and a prolong drought season, there that help to reduce the effects of was a severe forest burning. This El climate change in the Lower Niño does not happen yearly; last Kinabatangan. time it happened once in 8-10 years. But when it happened, it caused devastating impacts on the forests.

5.4.3(b) Strategies to improve the ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The opinions of local Guidelines were provided for people communities on how to improve who want to develop areas, but they current ecotourism in the Lower are not implemented to the ground. Kinabatangan: Most community Input were gathered from various agreed that current ecotourism organisations such as forestry, could be improved through more wildlife, the local communities, the capacity building, financial aids, plantations, and many others improved facilities, and by giving involved. It is also important to Enhance priority to local people in understand and adhere to ecotourism participating in ecotourism rules. There are a lot of conflicts venture in the Lower going on in this thing. Therefore, an Kinabatangan. integration and balance were important aspects to solve this problem.

The interests and willingness to For example, in Batu Puteh village, participate in ecotourism among most people were not involved in the the local communities in the ecotourism because they preferred to future: Most community were work as a farmer. Some were keen, very interested (25.9 %) and while some were not keen to Contradict interested (40.9 %) to learn more participate in ecotourism venture about job and business opportunities. In addition, 25.6 % strongly agreed and 43.4 % agreed to participate in future ecotourism.

263

5.4.3(c) Strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in managing conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The respondents highlighted The management of conservation and several aspects regarding the ecotourism could be improved by a future development of mutual collaboration among the conservation and ecotourism. stakeholders (local authorities, Major element is the roles of NGOs, ecotourism operators, and Enhance stakeholders. local communities). Therefore, focusing on what made the collaboration stronger was necessary while at the same time addressing underlying issues that prevent its implementation.

Note: The findings of quantitative analysis are integrated with the qualitative data using four data labels: Confirm, enhance, contradict, and mixed. Source: Field sampling 2016.

264

5.6 Exploratory factor analysis

The exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the underlying structure that made up the factors which influenced the respondents’ opinions on current conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

5.6.1 Exploratory factor analysis of items of conservation

A number of 28 items of opinions pertaining to the community participation in conservation were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS version 22. Prior to performing the PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. An inspection of correlation matrix revealed many coefficients had a value of 0.3 and above (Pallant, 2011). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.79, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 (Hair et al., 1995; Tabachnick & Fidell,

2007). A Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) showed a statistical significance

(p < 0.05), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Initial factor analysis using PCA revealed eight components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining between 20.1 % and 68.3 % of the variance. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a clear break after the sixth component. Using a scree test

(Catell, 1966), it was decided to retain six components for further investigation. This decision was supported by a parallel analysis using a Monte Carlo that showed six eigenvalues had higher values than a randomly generated data of the same size

(Watkins, 2000; Pallant, 2011). A second PCA was conducted using six fixed factor solution (oblimin rotation) revealed one item (item: have knowledge of wildlife and forests) did not load to any component and was excluded from further analysis.

265

The six-component solution explained a total of 60.2 % of the variance. An oblimin rotation revealed the presence of a simple structure (Thurstone, 1947). When the PCA results were compared to the scale of questionnaire surveys, all items of improving the current conservation grouped into one component (first), six items of impacts loaded the second component (item of ‘have knowledge of wildlife and forests’ was removed), seven items of reasons to participate loaded into two separate components (third and fifth component), three items of climate’s opinions related to conservation were grouped into fourth component, whereas three items of climate effects loaded into the sixth component (Table 5.3).

The results implied that the communities’ opinions on current conservation were described by six factors, namely suggestions to improve current conservation, impacts of conservation, inefficient management of conservation, community’s opinions on climate change, community attitudes towards conservation, and impacts of climate change on conservation. When compared to the current study, previous studies reported an inefficient management of conservation as a barrier that influenced community participation in conservation programmes in the Lower

Kinabatangan (Latip et al., 2015a; Latip et al., 2015b). All factors consisted of at least three or more items and were subjected to a multiple regression in order to examine aspects that influenced community support and participation in conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. It was also used to determine factors that influenced community’s willingness to donate for conservation activities.

266

Table 5.3 Factor analysis of respondents’ opinions on current conservation Factors Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Commu nality Factor 1: Suggestions to improve current conservation Participate in decision-making of 0.852 0.727 conservation Be independent in conservation 0.815 0.703 activities Tighten rules of conservation 0.808 0.619 Provide fund for conservation 0.781 0.631 Provide incentives for conservation 0.663 0.477 Change negative attitude on 0.578 0.577 conservation Share traditional knowledge of 0.576 0.630 conservation Have knowledge of wildlife and forests a 0.513 Factor 2: Impacts of conservation Illegal poaching decrease 0.770 0.595 Illegal logging reduce 0.723 0.545 Reduce crop damage 0.706 0.522 Job opportunities 0.701 0.529 Conservation awareness increase 0.666 0.493 Increase of wildlife 0.657 0.482 Improve facilities 0.635 0.455 LKWS is effective 0.517 0.332 Factor 3: Inefficient management of conservation Do not know how to participate in 0.835 0.724 conservation Do not get information on conservation 0.779 0.662 Not invited to participate in 0.659 0.490 conservation Factor 4: Community’s opinions on climate change Want to participate in mitigation against 0.877 0.757 climate change Want to learn more about climate 0.862 0.767 change Need mitigation against climate change 0.810 0.726 Factor 5: Community attitudes towards conservation Do not have time for conservation 0.816 0.731 Not interested to participate in 0.805 0.737 conservation Restricted participation in conservation -0.624 0.462 Factor 6: Impacts of climate change Environmental problems 0.858 0.780 Death of wildlife 0.802 0.710 Forest burning 0.609 0.490 aItem does not load to any component and is excluded from further analysis.

267

5.6.2 Exploratory factor analysis of items of ecotourism

As described in the Chapter 4 (research methodology), the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out to identify underlying relationships between a set of independent variables. Twenty-two items of opinions (n= 8), factors (n= 8), and related impacts of climate change (n= 6) influencing the participation of local communities in ecotourism were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS version 22. Prior to performing the PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. An inspection of correlation matrix revealed many coefficients had a value of 0.3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.8, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974; Hair et al., 1995;

Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) showed a statistical significance (p < 0.05), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Hence, the items could be applied for further analysis in identifying factors that influence community attitudes towards ecotourism.

The PCA revealed the presence of six components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining between 22.8 % and 64.4 % of the variance. However, an inspection of a scree plot revealed a clear break after the fifth component (Catell,

1966). This was further supported by the results of a parallel test using a Monte

Carlo to compare the size of the eigenvalues with those obtained from a randomly generated data set of the same size (Watkins, 2000; Pallant, 2011). Therefore, it was decided to retain five components for further analysis. Furthermore, an oblimin rotation was performed and it revealed a simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), with all five components showed a number of strong loadings (loading value was 0.4 and above) and all items loading substantially on each component (Table 5.4) (Pallant,

2011). 268

Table 5.4 Factor analysis of respondents’ opinions on current ecotourism

Factors influencing the Loading value participation in the ecotourism Commu 1 2 3 4 5 nality Factor 1: Suggestions to improve current ecotourism Train skills on ecotourism 0.803 0.715 Prioritise opportunities to local 0.791 0.696 communities Loan money for ecotourism 0.787 0.638 Improve facilities of ecotourism 0.782 0.662 Ecotourism contributes towards 0.633 0.603 conservation Prefer to work another job (not -0.512 0.498 ecotourism) Conservation is not important 0.511 0.571 Factor 2: Community attitudes towards ecotourism Not confident to participate in 0.810 0.670 ecotourism Lack of skills training in 0.798 0.658 ecotourism No time to participate in 0.761 0.626 ecotourism Not interested to participate in 0.743 0.634 ecotourism Do not know how to participate 0.711 0.562 in ecotourism Lack of job opportunities in 0.551 0.336 ecotourism Factor 3: Effects of climate change on ecotourism Discourage tourists to visit the 0.854 0.703 Lower Kinabatangan Erode natural attraction of 0.746 0.620 ecotourism Affect community employment 0.721 0.598 in ecotourism Factor 4: Community perceptions of climate change Want to participate in mitigation -0.883 0.754 against climate change Want to learn more about -0.883 0.800 climate change Need mitigation against climate -0.841 0.760 change Factor 5: Impacts of ecotourism Provide income to local -0.852 0.706 communities Provide job opportunities to -0.810 0.768 local communities Business opportunities to local -0.527 0.596 communities 269

The communities’ opinions on current ecotourism were underpinned by five factors, namely suggestions to improve current ecotourism, community attitudes towards ecotourism, effects of climate change on ecotourism, community perceptions of climate change, and impacts of ecotourism. Each factor comprised of at least three or more items. All five factors were subjected to multiple regression in order to identify aspects that influence community attitudes towards supporting and participating in ecotourism venture. The current results of EFA were compared to previous studies on a similar phenomenon. Similar to the community attitudes towards ecotourism (factor 2), other studies highlighted that two barriers, namely a lack of knowledge (do not know how to participate in ecotourism) and poor skills had discouraged local villagers from undertaking ecotourism ventures (Paimin et al.,

2014; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014; Ushantha & Wijesundara, 2016).

5.7 Conclusion

The Chapter 5 thoroughly explained the findings from both questionnaire surveys and interviews. It answered the three research questions that were raised in the Chapter 1. It also assessed the opinions of local communities on conservation and ecotourism using an exploratory factor analysis. Several findings were highlighted including the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. First, the community involvement was higher in conservation activities compared to ecotourism venture, conservation awareness among local communities had increased, but the respondents’ commitment were varied based on their obligation of whether they participated and/or gained benefits in ecotourism or conservation sector.

Second, the local communities perceived several factors (e.g. do not know how to participate, not invited, and no time) prevented them from getting involved in

270

conservation and ecotourism sectors, but other stakeholders (interviews) stressed that monetary benefits were the main factor that influenced community participation in both sectors in the Lower Kinabatangan. Third, conservation initiatives showed positive impacts such as the decreased in illegal hunting, logging, and crop damaged, as well as providing job opportunities in conservation sector. Meanwhile, the development of ecotourism contributed positively towards encouraging the protection of wildlife species and the environment, as well as offering employment opportunities to local communities.

Fourth, two main issues influenced the conservation and ecotourism in this area were the conflict among stakeholders and human-wildlife conflict. Fifth, a climate change negatively affected the conservation, ecotourism, and stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan, but little was known regarding its causes, effects, and mitigation. Both respondents and interviewees stressed the needs to conduct further investigation on this matter especially on how to mitigate its local impacts. Sixth, the local communities reported that they had knowledge of wildlife and the forests, willing to share the knowledge and changed negative attitudes, as well as they supported and wanted to participate in future conservation and ecotourism if they were given opportunities. In addition, the key informants stated that the conservation and ecotourism could be improved through a mutual collaboration among the key stakeholders in this area. The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods were conducted using four levels of data convergence, namely confirm, contradict, mixed, and enhance. Overall, the study had fulfilled its three objectives by addressing all three research questions in this chapter.

271

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

6.1 Introduction

The chapter discusses the attitudes of local communities towards conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, key relationships between various stakeholders involved in conservation and ecotourism, as well as proposes strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in both sectors. First, a multiple linear regression is conducted to analyse the attitudes of local communities in conservation.

Second, a binary linear regression is carried out to evaluate the willingness of local communities to donate for conservation programmes in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Third, another set of multiple linear regression is conducted to assess the predictive power of a set of variables to the attitudes of local communities in ecotourism. The second part of this chapter explains an interest-influence matrix that illustrates the interests, roles, influences, and key relationships of the stakeholders involved in conservation and ecotourism. Third section explains an integrated framework which is formulated using the current findings. The framework is generated based on a backcasting approach and pinpoints aspects that need to be addressed for enhancing the stakeholder collaboration in the future conservation and ecotourism in this area.

272

6.2 The attitudes of local community towards conservation

Multiple regression was carried out to examine the ability of seven independent variables to predict the attitudes of local communities in conservation.

The seven variables comprised of six continuous variables (suggestions to improve current conservation, impacts of conservation, inefficient management of conservation, impacts of climate change on conservation, community’s opinions on climate change) and one dichotomous categorical (Table 6.1).

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 43 %, F (7, 328) = 32.9, p < 0.01. The coefficient (R2= 0.43) showed that 43 % of the variance of the community attitudes towards conservation were related to three variables. In this case, the community attitudes towards conservation were significantly influenced by three independent variables, namely the suggestions to improve current conservation (beta = 0.15, p < 0.01), the impacts of conservation (beta = 0.49, p < 0.01), and a previous participation in conservation activities (beta = 0.16, p < 0.001).

273

Table 6.1 Regression analysis on the effects of seven independent variables on the community attitudes towards conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan

Unstandardized Standardized Independent variables Coefficients Coefficients t-value Sig Result B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 0.07 0.36 0.19 0.84 NS Suggestions to improve current 0.68 0.07 0.49 9.89 0.00 Support conservation Impacts of 0.22 0.07 0.15 3.29 0.00 Support conservation Inefficient management of -0.05 0.05 -0.05 -1.08 0.28 NS conservation Community attitudes 0.11 0.08 0.07 1.43 0.16 NS towards conservation Impacts of climate -0.00 0.04 -0.00 -0.03 0.98 NS change Community’s opinions on climate 0.09 0.06 0.07 1.58 0.12 NS change Previous participation 0.26 0.07 0.16 3.52 0.00 Support in conservation Sig: significant, NS: not support (p > 0.05)

The results indicated that the communities were hoping for a better management of conservation, namely to provide more avenues for community participation in decision-making, monetary incentives, increase funds for conservation activities, and tighten the current rules of conservation. Moreover, the questionnaire survey revealed that most cases of illegal poaching were committed by outsiders (not local villagers). The second factor illustrated that the local communities perceived the impacts of conservation positively, such as improved facilities, reduced illegal hunting and crop damages. The third factor showed a previous experience in conservation activities encouraged the communities to support and participate in conservation initiatives in the Lower Kinabatangan.

274

Previous literatures supported the findings that community participation in a decision-making (effective management) was a key factor in determining a higher compliance in conservation initiatives (Andrade & Rhodes, 2012), and community’s support depended largely on the perceived impacts of conservation (e.g. job and income opportunities) (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Awung & Marchant, 2016).

6.3 The community’s willingness to donate for conservation activities

A binary logistic regression was performed to assess the effect of ten factors on the likelihood that the respondents were willing to donate for conservation activities in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. The logistic model comprised of ten independent variables and regressed against one dependent variable. This analysis was chosen because the dependent variable was dichotomous (categorical) and predicted with a set of categorical and continuous independent variables. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, χ2 (10, N = 328) = 86.5, p < 0.001, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between respondents who were willing and not willing to donate for conservation.

The model as a whole explained between 25 % (Cox and Snell R2) and 36 %

(Nagelkerke R2) of the variance of willingness to donate for conservation activities, and correctly classified 84 % of the cases. As shown in the table 6.2, three independent variables made a significant contribution to the model, namely the suggestions to improve current conservation, the impacts of conservation, and previous participation in ecotourism activities. The strongest predictor of willingness to donate was the suggestions to improve current conservation, recording an odds ratio of 4.9. This was followed by the previous participation in ecotourism activities

(odds ratio= 2.22) and the impacts of conservation (odds ratio= 1.9). Overall, the

275

results indicated that the respondents who positively perceived the suggestions to improve current conservation were over 4.9 times more willing to donate for the conservation activities than those who perceived it negatively, controlling for all other factors in the model.

Table 6.2 Logistic regression predicting a likelihood of the community’s willingness to donate for conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan

Odd 95 % CI odd ratio Independent variables B S.E Wald df Sig. ratio Lower Upper Suggestions to improve current 1.59 0.35 21.1 1 0.00* 4.93 2.49 9.73 conservation Impacts of 0.68 0.29 5.16 1 0.02* 1.96 1.09 3.51 conservation Inefficient management of -0.11 0.21 0.27 1 0.61 0.89 0.60 1.35 conservation Community attitudes towards 0.56 0.35 2.56 1 0.11 1.75 0.88 3.48 conservation Impacts of climate 0.02 0.17 0.02 1 0.90 1.02 0.74 1.42 change Community’s opinions on climate -0.13 0.25 0.28 1 0.59 0.88 0.54 1.43 change Experience with 0.37 0.36 1.07 1 0.30 1.45 0.72 2.94 wildlife (1) Previous participation in 0.46 0.32 2.10 1 0.14 1.59 0.85 2.98 conservation activities (1) Previous participation in 0.79 0.34 5.58 1 0.02* 2.22 1.15 4.31 ecotourism activities (1) Land ownership (1) -0.28 0.34 0.71 1 0.40 0.75 0.39 1.46

Constant -8.36 1.74 23.2 1 0.00 0.00 *Significant when p < 0.05

276

The empirical findings revealed that the local communities’ willingness to donate were influenced by how they perceive the future management of conservation, impacts of conservation, and previous participation in ecotourism activities. Specifically, the communities were expecting a better approach in improving current conservation, such as providing a platform for community involvement in decision-making, incentives, and tighten the current rules of conservation. They also perceived the effects of conservation positively while a previous exposure in ecotourism activities contributed towards the communities’ willingness to donate for conservation due to the economic benefits that they experienced. In brief, the results simply meant that those experienced economic benefits of ecotourism were more willing to donate than those who did not get benefits. Similarly, other studies highlighted that ecotourism-related benefits had changed attitudes of local people to support conservation (Sundufu et al., 2012; Chan

& Bhatta, 2013; Mamo, 2015; Yang et al., 2015; Shoo, 2017).

A central question here – the willingness to donate (WTD) was chosen in comparison to a willingness to pay (WTP) in order to understand an individual behaviour under the institution of voluntary contribution compared to the choice of forced payment on conservation programmes (Zhang & Zheng, 2011). In this study, the WTD was selected by asking an amount of money that the local communities could give voluntarily in order to run conservation activities in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The factors ‘impacts of conservation’ (e.g. increased awareness, decrease logging and hunting) and ‘previous participation’ (participated previously in ecotourism activities) were supported by previous studies. In particular, Zhang and

Zheng (2011) proved that conservation awareness contributed towards residents’ willingness to donate for conservation programme, while Cárdenas and Lew (2016) 277

reported that past behaviours (experiences) significantly influenced an intention to donate for funding conservation actions of endangered wildlife species.

6.4 The attitudes of local community towards ecotourism

A multiple regression was conducted to assess the predictive ability of the ten independent variables on the attitudes of local communities towards ecotourism

(Table 6.3). The independent variables comprised of five dichotomous categorical variables (previous participation in ecotourism and perceived opinions on current ecotourism: participation, economy, decision, and power) and five continuous variables (suggestions to improve ecotourism, impacts of ecotourism, community attitudes, impacts of climate change, and community’s opinions on climate change).

Table 6.3 Regression analysis on the effects of ten independent variables on the community attitudes towards ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Unstandard Standard Standard Independent variables t-value Sig. Result beta beta error Constant -0.07 0.42 -0.17 0.87 Suggestions to improve 0.723 0.398 0.105 6.871 0.00 Support ecotourism1 Impacts of ecotourism2 0.086 0.068 0.067 1.280 0.20 NS Community attitudes 0.026 0.019 0.063 0.403 0.69 NS towards ecotourism Impacts of climate 0.006 0.006 0.049 0.125 0.90 NS change Community’s opinions 0.106 0.074 0.076 1.394 0.16 NS on climate change Previous participation 0.207 0.118 0.089 2.312 0.02 Support in ecotourism Status 1: participate -0.025 -0.014 0.095 -0.263 0.79 NS Status 2: economy 0.104 0.057 0.100 1.034 0.30 NS Status 3: decision 0.145 0.079 0.109 1.331 0.18 NS Status 4: power 0.169 0.091 0.113 1.506 0.13 NS Sig: significant, NS: not support (p > 0.05).

278

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. The total variance explained by the regression model as a whole was 33 %, F (10, 319) = 15.04, p < 0.01. The coefficient

(R2= 0.332) showed that 33 % of the variance of the community attitudes in ecotourism were related to two variables. In this case, the community attitudes in ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan were significantly influenced by two independent variables, namely the suggestions to improve current ecotourism (Beta =

0.39, p < 0.05) and previous participation in ecotourism (Beta = 0.12, p < 0.05) in the

Lower Kinabatangan.

The results implied that the communities were hoping for a better approach in developing ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan which included aspects such as providing more capacity building, training of ecotourism skills, and prioritizing ecotourism opportunities for local villagers. Previous participation in ecotourism also encouraged the communities to support and participate in ecotourism, which meant they were motivated by economic gained and benefits of ecotourism (e.g. improve livelihood and standard of living) (Hussin & Fernando, 2009; Goh, 2015). Likewise, previous scholars reported that a better approach in managing ecotourism (e.g. adequate training of skills and prioritisation of community members to lead ecotourism activities) increased community support and participation in ecotourism, as well as reducing disparities among communities (Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Chan

& Bhatta, 2013; Tilleman & Marcharis, 2017).

279

6.5 Analysis of stakeholder collaboration in conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

Two stages of stakeholder analysis were employed to investigate the stakeholder involvement in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan (Reed, 2008; Reed et al., 2009). First, relevant stakeholders were identified through literature reviews (including reports from the district office of

Kinabatangan), semi-structured interviews, and field sampling. The methods were also used to develop thorough descriptions of stakeholders engaged in the conflicts of conservation and ecotourism and to categorise the stakeholders based on their roles and interests in both sectors. Second, the relationships between the stakeholders were examined by comparing and contrasting their potentials and influences for ecotourism and conservation in this area.

Stage 1 demonstrated 40 relevant stakeholders who were directly or indirectly involved in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, which could be grouped into six categories, namely the local communities, local authorities, NGOs, private sector, private sector ecotourism, and local ecotourism operators. The community groups comprised of local communities and community leaders, while the local authorities were the Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment

(KePKAS), Sabah Wildlife Department (SWD), Sabah Forestry Department (SFD), and the district office of Kinabatangan. The NGOs included the HUTAN-

Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation Programme (HUTAN-KOCP), Nestlé, and

Danau Girang Field Centre. Several private sectors of ecotourism were the

Kinabatangan-Corridor of Life Tourism Operators Association (KiTA), Borneo

Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies (BEST) Society and ecotourism lodges.

Several oil palm companies were grouped as a private sector which comprised of big

280

and smallholder plantations. The last group was the local enterprises of ecotourism venture which comprised of KOPEL Ltd. and homestay program.

The stakeholders were chosen based on one criterion – they were directly or indirectly impacting or being affected by the development (processes and outcomes) of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The local communities and community leaders were greatly impacting and being affected by the development of conservation and ecotourism in this area. Both stakeholders were differentiated by their roles at a community level, but generally their interests were similar wherein to strive for improving their villages, facilities, and better livelihoods. The communities made their living from traditional subsistence such as farming, catching prawns and fishes, and collecting forest products. Moreover, only a few villagers worked in ecotourism ventures, government and private sectors. The establishment of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS) restricted most of their traditional sources of incomes because its regulations were mainly focused on protecting endangered wildlife species and habitats. The regulations on the usage of forest products and activities in protected areas were enforced by the

SWD and SFD.

The community leaders were an important part of the stakeholders in the

Lower Kinabatangan. Although these people were local communities that reside in the Sukau and Batu Puteh villages, it was categorised into a different group of key stakeholder due to their huge roles and influences towards their communities. In this regard, the community leaders comprised of Head of Village (‘Ketua Kampung’) and

Village Development and Security Committee (‘Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan

Keselamatan Kampung,’ JKKK). The head of a village is responsible for validating one’s identity as a valid resident in a respective village and consulting matters 281

regarding to traditional customs. Meanwhile, the JKKK is responsible for the development and security of a village. Both play leadership roles and have huge influences to determine the progress of their villages. Both are also answerable to the district office of Kinabatangan, when it comes to matters related to villages and communities.

The Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment (KePKAS) is a cabinet level ministry in the Sabah state that uses a top-down approach to establish policies for tourism and conservation purposes. In particular, it develops and provides guidelines for sustainable tourism development in Sabah, as well as to provide suitability of tourism development projects. Several organisations are established under the KePKAS to achieve its goals, namely the Sabah Wildlife

Department (SWD), Sabah Tourism Board, Sabah Park, and Environment Protection

Department. Typically, it chairs meeting among various groups to resolve conflicts by balancing the needs of everyone’s needs. Although it provides policies, it does not implement it to the ground (interview transcripts).

Two local authorities were primarily involved in the conservation of wildlife, biodiversity, and forests in the Kinabatangan. First, the Sabah Wildlife Department

(SWD), with primary responsibility to protect fauna and wildlife resources to ensure they remain in natural habitats. The SWD is also responsible for enforcing the Lower

Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. Second, the Sabah Forestry Department (SFD) which is responsible in managing and conserving forest reserves and resources according to the principle of sustainable forest management. The SWD encountered issues with NGOs and plantation owners (e.g. a lack of cooperation in conservation measures) and conflicts with the local communities (e.g. human-wildlife conflict) pertaining to wildlife and habitat conservation. Similarly, The SFD faced issues with 282

plantation owners and local communities due to illegal land clearance, tree cutting, and forest burning.

Another identified local authority was the district office of Kinabatangan,

Sabah. It is responsible for planning and developing the Kinabatangan district, increase economic revenues, and improve public facilities. However, it also engages in various aspects of planning and development, such as conservation, ecotourism, and especially in eradicating poverty in this area. The district office of Kinabatangan corresponded directly with the community leaders pertaining to villages, safety, and development issues. It worked together with the SWD, SFD, and NGOs to promote conservation awareness among communities. It also supported private and local operators of ecotourism (e.g. KOPEL Ltd. and KiTA) in providing economic opportunities to local communities.

Non-government organisations (NGOs) were stakeholders that mostly involved in conservation activities here, particularly in Sukau and Batu Puteh villages. Two NGOs were located in the Sukau village, namely the HUTAN-KOCP and Nestlé Rileaf, while one NGO (Danau Girang Field Centre) was based in the

Batu Puteh village. The HUTAN-KOCP is a French NGO that primarily conducts researches on orangutan in the Lower Kinabatangan. Since 1998, the HUTAN-

KOCP established a Kinabatangan orangutan conservation project by working together with the SWD. Meanwhile, a Rileaf project was a corporate social responsibility conducted by Nestlé company which focused on planting forest seedlings up to 150 km on both sides of Kinabatangan river. The Nestlé Rileaf also engaged with palm oil companies to ensure a sustainable cultivation of oil palm in the Lower Kinabatangan.

283

The Danau Girang Field Centre collaborated research and training facilities with the SWD and Cardiff University. It focused on wildlife species, habitats, and biodiversity. It welcomed volunteers and internships to get involved in various conservation projects in the Lower Kinabatangan. It also offered field courses for any university to be developed and conducted in this area. In 2015, it reported cases of illegal poaching in the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary and raised caution about the disappearance of rhinoceros and wild cattle (‘tembadau’). It greatly helped to increase conservation awareness among local communities in this area.

Most lands in Kinabatangan were cleared and developed for cultivating oil palms. The owners of oil palm were categorised into private owner (big company) and smallholder plantations (local Sungai people and other minority ethnicity). Well established companies cooperated with local authorities to give ways for corridor connection in their plantations, but usually conservation issues related to smallholder plantations (interview transcript). It was because the latter owned a small size of plantation and giving up a portion of their lands meant a great loss of economic profits. Such issue caused difficulties in connecting fragmented habitat for wildlife species. Even worse, some oil palm estates caused environmental pollutions due to inappropriate management of wastes. The pollutions negatively affected the fresh water supply (Kinabatangan river) and caused difficulties to local villagers who worked as fishermen, especially those that depended on the Kinabatangan river for living purposes (e.g. drinking, cooking, and washing clothes).

The Kinabatangan-Corridor of Life Tourism Operators Association (KiTA) was jointly established between Kinabatangan-Corridor of Life tour operators and

WWF-Malaysia in 2008. Its purposes were promoting better management practices of natural resources and sustainable development of ecotourism industry in the 284

Lower Kinabatangan. It provided support to the SWD in protecting a sanctuary and endangered wildlife species. It also improved conservation awareness among local communities and built a recycling house for conservation purpose. Several lodges in the Lower Kinabatangan were registered under the KiTA which applied the fundamental of ecotourism, imposed conservation levy, and established a sustainable funding mechanism to finance conservation programmes. For instance, out of fourteen ecotourism operators in Sukau village, only nine registered to the KiTA

(Sabah Wildlife Department, 2016).

There were two types of ecotourism operators in the Lower Kinabatangan, namely private and local enterprises. Most of the private ecotourism operators were based in Sandakan town. The existence of ecotourism operators greatly assisted in promoting the Lower Kinabatangan to both local and international tourists. However, there were cases of ecotourism tours conducted against a Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP), which caused disturbance and stress to wildlife species. Moreover, private private ecotourism operators posed competition to local operators, thereby causing dissatisfaction among local communities (interview transcript).

There were several ecotourism operators in the Lower Kinabatangan. It was categorised as homestay (Balai Kito Homestay and Miso Walai Homestay), bed and breakfast, chalet, lodge, and resort. For examples, the Sukau village had several ecotourism operators such as Balai Kito Yanti, Balai Kito Bahrani, Balai Kito Maria,

Balai Kito Mastura, Balai Kito Fatimah, Balai Kito Samsudin, Sukau Greenview Bed and Breakfast, Sukau Evergreen Bed and Breakfast, Longhouse Bed and Breakfast,

Sukau RB lodge, Barefoot Sukau lodge, Kinabatangan Sukau Riverside lodge, Sukau

Kinabatangan Backpacker lodge, and the Borneo Natural Sukau Bilit Resort.

Nevertheless, except for homestay, not all of these ecotourism operators were owned 285

by the local communities of Sukau village. On the contrary, the Batu Puteh village only provided homestay which was wholly coordinated by the KOPEL Ltd (Mizal et al., 2014; Goh, 2015). There is no existence of bed and breakfast, lodge, chalet, or resort in the Batu Puteh village. As such, compared to the Sukau village, the competition for tourists was lesser and maximised benefits were provided to local

Sungai people in the Batu Puteh village.

In 2003, Batu Puteh Community Ecotourism Cooperative (KOPEL) was set up to coordinate the villager’s conservation activities and the ecotourism in Batu

Puteh. The KOPEL Ltd. conducted various conservation projects, such as forest habitat rehabilitation and lake rehabilitation. It also coordinated and managed ecotourism activities, such as Miso Walai Homestay, Mayo do Talud Boat Service, and MESCOT culture group. Unlike Batu Puteh, one prominent ecotourism organisation in Sukau was the Borneo Ecotourism Solutions and Technologies

(BEST) Society that supports the environment and community projects on a nonprofit basis. It was established by the Sukau Rainforest Lodge together with the

Borneo Eco Tours.

The Sukau Rainforest Lodge followed the environmental codes of responsible tourism of the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) and the PATA’s green leaf program. For example, it harvested rainwater service as a source of water, used solar energy to generate powers for hot showers in the lodge, proper trash disposal, and uses electric motors for river safari tours (instead of oils that contaminated

Kinabatangan river). The BEST society employed majority local Orang Sungai as staffs working in the Sukau Rainforest lodge, provided educational awareness campaign, as well as encouraged local community participation in ecotourism and

286

conservation. The key relationships among the stakeholders were summarised in the Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Interest-influence relationships among the stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

Key relationships with Stakeholder Interest (Goal) Roles Influence other stakeholders

 Live and earn  Traditional  Land clearance  Restricted from income for subsistence and habitat using protected their families (e.g. farming deduction resources by and fishing) regulations that are Local  Collect forest enforced by the communities products for SWD and SFD  Strive for a their use village  A pioneer of  Employment development one’s place in  Cut down trees opportunities and better rural area to build houses provide by the facilities (also known private sectors as ‘Orang ecotourism and asal’) local enterprises.

 Job opportunities in a conservation sector offer by the NGOs

 Services and facilities provide by the local authorities

 To earn  To promote  Assist in a  Support the local income for economic decision- authority in their families development making ecotourism and , cleanliness, pertaining to conservation Community  To improve and health in ecotourism and leaders infrastructures respective conservation in  Encounter issues and the village the Lower with the NGOs who standard of Kinabatangan prioritise a community  Act as a conservation over a living in the moderator  Decide the community Lower between the direction and development Kinabatangan government development of and the local a village communities

 In charge of confirming

287

one’s identity as a valid resident and responsible for the development and safety of villagers

 Develop and  Enhance the  Address conflicts provide policy management between the local Local (guidelines) level of authority, NGOs, oil authority: for a ecotourism and palm companies, and Promote sustainable conservation by the local Ministry of sustainable development balancing the communities in Tourism, tourism of tourism in needs of all relation to Culture, and development Sabah state stakeholders ecotourism and Environment conservation (KePKAS)  Provide  Conduct development inputs on the research and appropriatenes provide  Provide guidelines s of tourism necessary to private and local project (e.g. suggestions for ecotourism operators provide letters the to manage their of support and development of business recommendati ecotourism in appropriately ons) particular areas  It provides policies, but does not implement it to the ground

 Preserve the  Population of  A subordinate to Sabah fauna in wildlife KePKAS Local Promotes the their natural increases authority: conservation of habitats  Restrict hunting wildlife species  The local activities of the Sabah and natural  Enforcement communities’ local communities Wildlife habitats of wildlife awareness on in a protected Department regulations wildlife sanctuary (LKWS) (SWD) increases (e.g. illegal  Try to resolve hunting,  Inefficient conflicts with the wildlife patrol, management NGOs in relation to and public attributes to the wildlife awareness) conflicts, conservation inadequate staff,  Connect and lack of  Resolve the issue of fragmented access to a connecting corridor lands for proper with plantation wildlife technology owners corridor

288

 Conserve  Forest  Restrict activities natural rehabilitation of the local Local forests and tree communities authority: (environment planting inside protected Promotes a , biodiversity, increases forests sustainable Sabah water management of Forestry resources,  Local  Work with the forests and its Department and soils) communities’ NGOs to protect (SFD) resources awareness on riparian reserves  Conduct an forests enforcement increases  Encounter to safeguard management forest  Difficulty in issues with the resources tracing minor plantation owners (e.g. legal cases of forest and the local prosecution, burning and communities on forest illegal illegal land research, and harvesting of clearance and public forest forest burning awareness) products in protected areas

 Provide  Alleviate a  Collaborate with the quality poverty for the NGOs, SWD, and Local Provide efficient services to local the SFD to manage authority: development in local communities the ecotourism and District office Kinabatangan communities with low conservation of district incomes Kinabatangan  Improve  Support the private quality of  Promotes and local public conservation ecotourism facilities awareness to operators in the local providing job  Increases communities opportunities to financial local communities resources  The community leaders correspond directly to the district officer of Kinabatangan

 Reconnect  Encounter a wildlife corridor conflict with the NGO: Promotes the Conduct local communities conservation of research on  Improve the over a village HUTAN- wildlife species orangutan in local development KOCP Lower communities’ Kinabatangan awareness of  Encounter a conflict conservation with the local authority over the management of

289

conservation activities

 Conduct a tree  Stimulate a  Distribute seeds to planting along local economy the local riparian by creating jobs communities for reserves of and generating tree planting and the NGO: Promotes Kinabatangan incomes for the communities gain riparian river local income by selling Nestlé Rileaf reforestation and communities them back to the oil palm  Distribute Nestlé sustainability forest tree  Speed up a seedlings to riverside  The Nestlé Rileaf local reforestation works with the palm communities along the oil companies to for tree Lower ensure a sustainable planting Kinabatangan growth of oil palms, to reduce  Offer to buy  Minimise a environmental the grown tree water pollution impacts through which from good agricultural provides sedimentation practices alternative and agricultural incomes to the run-offs local communities

 Doing  Increase  Provide support to research and communities’ the local authority offer awareness of for the conservation suggestions conservation of wildlife species NGO: Promote the for conservation of  Improve  Collaborate with the Danau Girang conservation tropical conservation SWD and Cardiff Field Centrea ecosystems,  A research initiatives by University for including an center that offering conservation effective uses volunteer and purposes, thereby management of extensive internship promoting the wildlife in a facilities and programmes Lower fragmented technological Kinabatangan to an landscape tools for  Report animals international level effective are still being management poached ten of wildlife years after the Lower Kinabatangan is gazetted as a fully protected sanctuary

290

 Follow the  Increase  Cooperate with the RSPO support to the SWD by providing a procedure for SFD by passage for wildlife sustainable reporting the corridor in their Focus on oil cultivation of presence of plantations palm cultivation Private sector: oil palm wildlife in their plantations  Encounter conflict Oil palm  Provide basic with the local companiesa facilities for  Report of authorities and workers burning communities on incidents in environmental protected issues (e.g. air, forests waste, and river pollutions)

 Issue with smallholder plantations of providing route for wildlife corridor

 To protect the  Conduct tree-  Provide support to natural assets planting the SWD to protect of tourism activities in tour a sanctuary (e.g. through better packages Kinabatangan river Private sector To promote management patrolling) ecotourism: sustainable practices  Enforce a tourism in conservation  Work with the local Kinabatangan- Lower  To establish levy (RM 10) to communities by Corridor of Kinabatangan sustainable every tourist providing a Tourism funding to staying at recycling house. Association finance ecotourism site (KiTA)a conservation – use it for  Encounter issues activities conservation with the cost of activities running wildlife patrols (Technical  Improve glitch between the conservation KiTA and the SWD) awareness among the local communities

 Promote a conservation awareness to local and international tourists

291

 Provide  Increase job  Rely heavily on the accommodatio opportunities nature and wildlife Private sector n to tourists for the local species as tourist ecotourism: travelling to communities attractions Ecotourism- the Lower Private lodges, driven based on Kinabatangan  Promote the  The private sector resort, bed and nature and Lower ecotourism (not breakfast wildlife  Prepare tour Kinabatangan to local own) pose outlets packages for both local and competition to local tourists international enterprises

tourists.  Most  Have been reported companies are to bring tourists for based in wildlife watching Sandakan against the Standard Operating Procedure

 Provide in-  The local  Support the local house communities authority by Local Ecotourism- accommodatio learn to speak promoting cultural enterprise: driven based on n to travelling English uniqueness to Homestay cultural tourists tourists activities  Exchange  Provide tour cultural  Face a competition activities experiences in ecotourism based on the with local and venture with the cultural international private sector experiences tourists ecotourism (e.g. traditional  Experience a lack cooking and of skills, funds, and dancing) basic amenities in ecotourism venture, especially homestay.

 Coordinate  Increase the  Contribute towards ecotourism establishment of economic activities of Miso Walai development of communities Homestay in local communities Local Promotes Batu Puteh through homestay enterprise: ecotourism and  Coordinate village programme conservation conservation KOPEL Ltd. intervention  An increased  Support the SWD to contribution conserve wildlife towards wildlife species and environmental  Support the local conservation authority via public awareness programme

292

 Promotes the  Provide job use of opportunities to the Supports the Follow the environmental- local communities environment and environmental friendly Borneo community codes of ecotourism (e.g.  Provide supports to Ecotourism projects on a responsible solar energy, the local authorities Solutions and non-profit basis tourism of proper waste for conservation Technologies World Travel disposal, and (BEST) and Tourism harvests Societya Council rainwater) (WTTC) and the PATA’s  Improve green leaf conservation program awareness among the local communities

a Analyses through literature reviews, opinions from other stakeholders (interviews), and participant observation. Source: modified from Reed et al. (2009) and Zhou et al. (2014).

6.6 Stakeholder mapping in the Lower Kinabatangan

Relevant stakeholders were categorised according to their potentials to support or pose conflicts towards the development of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, as well as their level of influences in the decision-making process of both aspects. The mapping of stakeholders was conducted using a two dimensional matrix (Figure 6.1). First, the key stakeholders with a high support and high influence on decision-making for ecotourism and conservation were KePKAS,

KOPEL Ltd., and BEST society. The stakeholders strived to promote the protection of forests, wildlife, and biodiversity, and at the same time had strong influences in managing ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

293

High ecotourism High ecotourism High conservation Low conservation

KePKAS Private ecotourism operators KOPEL Ltd. Local enterprises BEST society

Low ecotourism Low ecotourism High conservation Low conservation

SWD Local communities SFD Community leaders HUTAN-KOCP Private sector (oil palm) Nestlé Rileaf Danau Girang Field Centre

Figure 6.1 Analysis of key stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan

Second, a group of high support for conservation, but low influence in the ecotourism sector was local authorities (SWD and SFD) and NGOs (HUTAN-

KOCP, Nestlé Rileaf, and Danau Girang Field Centre). The stakeholders focused primarily on the conservation of the wildlife, biodiversity, and forests, but had a little influence in the decision-making of ecotourism development. The SWD worked hard on connecting fragmented habitat and regulated the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife

Sanctuary while the SFD safeguard protected forests in the Kinabatangan. The NGOs focused on protecting endangered wildlife species, and conducted conservation programmes (e.g. tree planting and awareness campaign). Nevertheless, both local authorities and the NGOs had little involvement in the decision-making of ecotourism in this area.

Meanwhile, a third group with high ecotourism and low conservation comprised of private and local ecotourism operators such as lodges, resorts, bed and breakfast outlets. This group typically aimed for generating higher revenues in the ecotourism, but sometimes at the cost of compromising the conservation efforts in

294

this area. Furthermore, there were occurrences of ecotourism tours which conducted against a standard operating procedure. Consequently, although there were certain guidelines and policies needed to be practiced in ecotourism venture, negligence had resulted in the disturbances of wildlife species and environmental pollutions.

A fourth group comprised of the local communities and community leaders.

This group has conflicting findings. Those that directly involved in the ecotourism inclined to support the conservation, but those who were not involved or did not gain benefits opposed the conservation. Furthermore, other pertinent issues like human- wildlife conflicts and conflict between stakeholders had discouraged some villagers to support neither conservation nor ecotourism. Besides the leaders and communities, a private sector of oil palm also categorised into this group because their priority was to gain higher revenues, sometimes at the cost of depleting natural resources, such as land clearance and forest conversion into a bigger size of oil palm plantation.

Furthermore, they were not much involved in the decision-making of ecotourism and conservation in this area.

Taken together, when compared to the systematic relationship by Hamzah

(2016), the current results emphasised the potentials of stakeholders to support or pose conflicts towards the development of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan, including their level of influences in the decision-making process of both aspects. The systematic relationship by Hamzah (2016) showed the advantages of mutual roles among the stakeholders, whereas the current study seeked to undertand how varying roles and influences the stakeholders’ decision to either support or oppose the conservation and ecotourism initiatives in this area.

295

6.7 Collaborative process and outcomes in the Lower Kinabatangan

The stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan were assessed based on the process and outcomes of collaboration.

This section identified the flaws in the stakeholder collaboration and suggested ways to improve the collaboration in order to attain a sustainable management of conservation and ecotourism in this area.

6.7.1 Collaborative process of conservation and ecotourism

The collaborative process of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan was evaluated based on six criteria as outlined by Cullen et al. (2010). First, in term of inclusive representation, the local communities were involved in the decision-making process of conservation and ecotourism, but unsure about their involvement in the conservation of Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife

Sanctuary. However, other stakeholders (ecotourism operators and private sectors) stated that only community leaders were invited for decision-making process of conservation and ecotourism whereby the communities were only informed afterwards. Second, for voluntary participation and commitment, most communities supported the current conservation and ecotourism activities. They were also keen to participate in both sectors in the future. Meanwhile, from perspectives of other stakeholders, they stated that the local communities were supportive, but their commitments were varied according to their obligations to either working in conservation or ecotourism venture. Other stakeholders such as local and private ecotourism operators show their commitment for conservation initiatives through various conservation activities such as tree planting and conservation awareness programmes.

296

Third, for equal opportunity and resources, the local communities experienced unequal opportunities for participating in ecotourism because the ecotourism operators prefer to hire outsiders to work at their lodges. On the contrary, the local ecotourism operators also experienced unequal opportunities and resources for managing ecotourism venture. This is because the local ecotourism operators had inadequate skills, insufficient finance and lack of proper facilities, but they had to compete with private sector ecotourism who possessed better skills and facilities.

Fourth, in term of principle negotiation and respect, the local communities respected the local authorities, but they depended much on the local authorities and NGOs to initiate programmes of conservation and ecotourism. Furthermore, there were issues such as a lack of mutual respect, trust, and understanding between the stakeholders.

Fifth, for time limits, the local communities were not aware of the progress of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, including its timeline and mechanisms undertaken by the authorities to manage the sanctuary. On the contrary, the local authorities were still preparing a timeline for effective management of the Lower

Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. This result illustrates an inherent collaboration between the stakeholders whereby the local authorities were lacked of systematic management plan for conservation and the progress is not made known to the local communities. Sixth, for an effective process management, the local authorities and

NGOs assisted the local communities to manage the conservation and ecotourism activities in the Lower Kinabatangan. Consequently, the collaboration contributes to increase of knowledge and awareness among the communities. Likewise, the local authorities, NGOs, and ecotourism operators have specific roles in coordinating the conservation and ecotourism measures. In this regard, the mutual collaboration enhanced the management of conservation and ecotourism in this area. 297

Overall, across six criteria of efficient collaborative process, only two criteria were met namely ‘voluntary participation and commitment’ and effective process management (Table 6.5). The perspective of local communities on the inclusive representation (the involvement of local communities in decision-making) was contradicted with other stakeholders especially the local ecotourism operators. Three criteria were unaccomplished namely equal opportunity and resources, principle negotiation and respect, as well as time limits. Therefore, in order to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in the Lower Kinabatangan, the stakeholders needed to address the weakness on existing collaborative process based on four aspects: inclusive representation, ‘equal opportunity and resources,’ ‘principle negotiation and respect,’ and time limits.

Table 6.5 Collaborative process of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Criteria of Perspectives of local Perspectives of other collaborative communities stakeholdersa process Local communities are Local ecotourism operators state Inclusive involved in the decision- that only community leaders are representation making process of invited for decision-making process conservation and ecotourism. of conservation and ecotourism. The communities are informed afterwards. Meanwhile, the local authority (KePKAS) provides guidelines for ecotourism development, but they do not implement it to the ground. Most communities support the Other stakeholders such as local and Voluntary current conservation and private ecotourism operators show participation and ecotourism activities. They their commitment for conservation commitment were also keen to participate in initiatives through various both sectors in the future. conservation activities.

298

Unequal opportunities for Unequal opportunities and resources Equal community participation in for local ecotourism operators in opportunity and ecotourism because the ecotourism. resources ecotourism operators prefer to hire outsiders to work at their lodges. Local communities depend on The stakeholders encounter issues Principle the local authorities and NGOs such as a lack of respect, trust, and negotiation and to initiate programmes of understanding between the respect conservation and ecotourism. stakeholders.

The local communities are not The local authorities are still Time limits aware of the progress of the preparing a timeline for effective Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife management of the Lower Sanctuary, including its Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. timeline and mechanisms undertaken by the authorities to manage the sanctuary. The local authorities and The local authorities, NGOs, and Effective NGOs assist the local ecotourism operators have specific process communities to manage the roles in coordinating the management conservation and ecotourism conservation and ecotourism activities in the Lower measures. Kinabatangan. The collaboration contributes to increase of knowledge and awareness among the communities. a Other key stakeholders refer to local authorities, NGOs, private sectors, local and private sector ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Note: The criteria of collaborative process are modified from Cullen et al. (2010). Source: Field sampling 2016.

299

6.7.2 Collaborative outcomes of conservation and ecotourism

The collaborative outcomes of stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan were evaluated based on six criteria as outlined by Cullen et al. (2010). First, in term of perceived as successful, the communities stated that the management of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary required improvement.

They emphasised the necessity to improve communication and collaboration among the stakeholders. On the contrary, the local authorities view the progress of Lower

Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary as successful. The authorities also stated that their collaboration with the private sector and NGOs greatly assisted in managing the conservation in this area.

Second, for conflict reduced, the stakeholders reported that a human-wildlife conflict reduced, but conflict between the stakeholders remained unsolved. The conflicts between stakeholders occurred among top management of local authorities, private sectors, NGOs, and local communities. Third, for knowledge, understanding, and skills, the communities stated that the collaboration among stakeholders in conservation improved the conservation awareness and knowledge of local communities. It also enhanced skills among the communities to participate in ecotourism venture. In addition, the local ecotourism operators commented that the collaboration provided better understanding and enhance their skills in ecotourism venture. However, the local ecotourism operators and local communities emphasised that existing policy provided less avenue for them to openly express their problems pertaining to conservation and ecotourism measures.

Fourth, for information, despite the collaboration among stakeholders, the local communities stated that they learnt most information of conservation from television, not through campaign or talks by the local authorities and NGOs. In 300

comparison, the local authorities and NGOs claimed that they conducted seminars and campaign to deliver conservation messages to local authorities. They also conducted capacity building to enhance community skills in ecotourism venture.

Fifth, in term of second-order effect (changes in behaviour and relationships), the local communities were willing to share their knowledge and experiences on forests and wildlife, as well as to change their negative attitudes in conservation. They were also keen to participate in future programmes of conservation and ecotourism if they were given opportunities. Other stakeholders stated that the collaboration was important for managing the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, but it also needed to address other issues such as community development, tourist safety, and facilities in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Finally, in term of understanding and supportive of collaboration, the communities were supportive of the collaboration, but insisted that it required a more strategic approach in addressing a conflict among the stakeholders and human- wildlife conflict (Table 6.6). Similarly, other stakeholders reported that the stakeholders were supportive of collaboration approach in conservation and ecotourism, but it needed to be improved by addressing the conflict among the stakeholders. Overall, only two criteria of collaborative outcomes were accomplished, namely the ‘knowledge, understanding, and skills’ and ‘understanding and supportive of collaboration.’ The stakeholders had contradicted views on

‘perceived as successful’ and information. In this regard, the future collaborative outcomes could be achieved by addressing the conflict among stakeholders and other issues such as community development, tourist safety, and facilities in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

301

Table 6.6 Collaborative outcomes of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Criteria of Perspectives of local Perspectives of other collaborative communities stakeholdersa outcomes

The local communities emphasise The local authorities view the Perceived as the necessity to improve progress of Lower Kinabatangan successful collaboration and communication Wildlife Sanctuary as successful. among the stakeholders. They also They also state the collaboration state that the management of the with the private sector and NGOs Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife help to manage the conservation Sanctuary need to be improved. measures in this area.

Human-wildlife conflict reduces, Human-wildlife conflict reduces, Conflict but conflict between the but conflict between the reduced stakeholders remains unsolved. stakeholders remains unsolved.

The collaboration among The collaboration provides better Knowledge, stakeholders in conservation understanding and enhance skills understanding, improve the conservation of local ecotourism operators in and skills awareness and knowledge of local ecotourism. communities.

Despite the collaboration among The local authorities and NGOs Information stakeholders, the local claim that they conduct seminars communities state that most and campaign to deliver information of conservation are conservation messages to local learnt from television, not through authorities. They also conduct campaign or talks by local capacity building to enhance authorities and NGOs. community skills in ecotourism venture. The local communities are willing While the collaboration is Second-order to share their knowledge and important for managing the Lower effects experiences on forests and Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary, wildlife, as well as to change their it is also needed to address other negative attitudes in conservation. issues such as community development, tourist safety, and facilities in the Lower Kinabatangan.

302

Understanding The local communities are The stakeholders are supportive of and supportive supportive of collaboration among collaboration approach in of the stakeholders, but insist that it conservation and ecotourism, but it collaboration requires a more strategic approach needs to be improved by in addressing conflict among the addressing the conflict among the stakeholders and human-wildlife stakeholders. conflict. a Other key stakeholders refer to local authorities, NGOs, private sectors, local and private sector ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The criteria of collaborative process are modified from Cullen et al. (2010). Source: Field sampling 2016.

6.8 Integrated framework of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

This section explains the development of an integrated framework for enhancing the collaboration of key stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. It is structured based on a backcasting approach and utilises the perspectives of stakeholders involved in conservation and ecotourism in this area.

6.8.1 Criteria used to structure an integrated framework

A number of studies examine the success and failure of stakeholder collaboration and involvement in conservation and ecotourism (Stronza & Pêgas,

2008; Coria & Calfucura, 2012; Measham & Lumbasi, 2013; Muhumuza et al., 2013;

Mbaiwa, 2015). Although some reports claim that the stakeholder involvement could be enhanced through an effective management, they reach a consensus that there is no one-size fits all approach in achieving successful stakeholder collaboration

(Somarriba-Chang & Gunnarsdotter, 2012; Pasape et al., 2013; Mbaiwa, 2015).

303

Therefore, a method that works at one place does not necessarily always work elsewhere.

In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, an integrated framework to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism was structured using a backcasting approach. This approach was deemed most appropriate because of the necessity to assess the extent of persistent issues of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, especially actions undertaken to mitigate the issues, but failed to address them. Vergragt and Quist (2011, p.1) defined the backcasting as

“generating a desirable future, then looking backwards from that future to the present in order to plan strategically how it could be achieved.” For this study, the backcasting approach was applied by formulating a desirable future based on the stakeholders’ opinions, compared the desirable future with existing approaches, and planned effective strategy to achieve the desirable future based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders involved in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

There were three criteria used to formulate the integrated framework (Figure

6.2), namely (1) to structure a desirable future of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism based on the perspectives of key stakeholders in the

Lower Kinabatangan, (2) to compare existing approaches of stakeholders in managing conservation and ecotourism with the desirable future, as well as to identify the main concerns of key stakeholders pertaining to conservation and ecotourism, and (3) to identify solutions and strategies in order to improve the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors. All three aspects were used to develop an integrated framework for enhancing the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. 304

Stage 1

Structure a desirable future of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism based on the perspectives of key stakeholders in the Lower

Kinabatangan.

Stage 2

 Compare existing approaches of stakeholders in managing conservation and ecotourism with the desirable future.

 Identify the main concerns of key stakeholders pertaining to conservation and ecotourism.

Stage 3

 Identify solutions to address issues based on the opinions of key stakeholders.  Develop strategies to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism.

Figure 6.2 An integrated framework to enhance a stakeholder collaboration on conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Source: modified from Newton et al. (2002), Vergragt and Quist (2011).

6.8.2 Stakeholders’ opinions on improving the collaboration for the future

The first stage of backcasting approach was to structure a desirable future of stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism based on the opinions of stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this regard, the respondents of surveys and key informants of interviews hoped that the future development of conservation and ecotourism addressed the following aspects:

 Stakeholder collaboration: address the conflict among stakeholders and the

human-wildlife conflict (although it involves wildlife, but relevant

stakeholders should develop effective strategies to curb this issue),

305

understand the roles of every stakeholder and work together to solve issues of

conservation and ecotourism.

 Management of conservation and ecotourism: Address competition issue in

ecotourism venture, empower the local communities to independently

conduct conservation activities, address issues of illegal hunting and logging,

deforestation, as well as to provide a platform for the local communities and

local sector ecotourism to express their problems pertaining to both sectors.

 Environment: reconnect fragmented areas for wildlife corridor, provide a

proper waste disposal in every village, and solve environmental pollutions.

 Social: conservation initiatives should not prohibit the communities’ right for

development, more capacity building for local communities, and improve

basic infrastructures in the Lower Kinabatangan.

 Economy: prioritise employment opportunities to the local communities,

provide funds for the communities to engage in ecotourism venture, reduce

poverty, increase currency flow, and equal distribution of benefits to every

stakeholder.

The stakeholders’ desirable future implied that they wanted a better collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan by solving pertinent issues of conflict among stakeholders, human- wildlife conflict and to address varying roles of stakeholders. In terms of management of conservation and ecotourism, they emphasised the need to provide an avenue for them to openly express their problems pertaining to issues of conservation and ecotourism, as well as to address other issues such as competition in ecotourism 306

venture, illegal logging, and deforestation. Equally important, they also hoped for improvement in three aspects, namely the environment, social, and economy.

6.8.3 Strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan

The backcasting approach was employed to identify appropriate strategies for enhancing stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. This was because the backcasting was one of the tools that could be applied to examine patterns of problems and develop strategies to achieve goals

(Newton et al., 2002). While the stage one formulated a desirable future based on the stakeholders’ opinions, the stage two was carried out by comparing the desirable future with existing approaches and identifying main concerns on conservation and ecotourism. Subsequently, appropriate strategies were developed based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan. In this view, the current study proposed five aspects that needed to be improved in order to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism in this area, namely the environment, social, economy, stakeholder collaboration, and climate change.

1. Environment

In terms of environmental aspect, this study highlighted the main issue of human-wildlife conflict that remained unsettled. An ideal solution would be to gazette more areas for wildlife habitats so as to reduce human contact with the animals. However, in reality, the stakeholders stressed out that it was difficult to gazette more areas for a sanctuary. This view corresponded to the establishment of

307

the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary which focused on protecting remaining flora and fauna in the Kinabatangan area. Therefore, the focus should be to reconnect fragmented areas and requested support from the plantation owners to provide a passage in their plantation for a wildlife corridor.

Furthermore, the application of electrical fences did not simply solve the problem unless good maintenances (e.g. fences did not fall and adequate supply of electric power) were exercised by farm or plantation owners. Besides that, the establishment of Honorary Wildlife Warden (HWW) by recruiting local villagers

(they needed to undergo specific training and passed examination) to safeguard wildlife and habitat, enforce laws, and apprehended offenders when necessary were deemed inefficient. This was because the HWW was appointed based on a voluntary basis (no salary) and some had obligations to work for obtaining incomes for their families. Therefore, the performance of HWW could be improved by giving monetary incentive in order to provide side income and motivate them to carry out their responsibilities effectively.

In addition, the local communities requested for a various programmes of conservation awareness for all levels starting from a small children to adults and from a community to a district level. More importantly, the conservation awareness should be conducted consistently by a dedicated agency who worked honestly towards achieving conservation goals. This was because the present awareness campaign was conducted based on a seasonal period and thereby viewed as inefficient by the local communities. Besides the issue of human-wildlife conflict, other environmental issues such as pollutions (river and rubbish), wildlife encroachment, and rampant deforestation were highlighted by the stakeholders. The local communities and ecotourism operators commented that each village required a 308

proper signage and waste disposal in each village, while a person with integrity should be assigned to safeguard vulnerable routes particularly river and roads in order to protect wildlife species from illegal hunting. In addition, the local communities strongly agreed that the current conservation rules should be tightened, especially because most offences were committed by outsiders.

2. Social

For social aspect, one prevalent issue was the conflict among stakeholders.

Generally, previous studies related this problem to competing interests and needs between various stakeholders, the lack of consultation over development of both sectors, and dissatisfaction among local community (Majail & Webber, 2006; Hussin

& Som, 2008). Therefore, the scholars suggested the state government to revise their roles and policies pertaining to participatory approach in order to give real benefits and minimise negative impacts to local community in the Lower Kinabatangan

(Hussin & Som, 2008). Overall, the previous literatures provided well explanation on this issue, but little information was given on how to tackle this issue.

In this case, it was best to put forward the stakeholders’ personal views on how to solve issues in this area. In this study, the local communities asserted that unity was a centre towards achieving a coherent collaboration among all stakeholders involved, by setting aside differences and personal interest as individual, company, and political agenda. They further elaborated that the local communities needed to take proactive efforts to improve their families and villages, by seizing great opportunities offered in the ecotourism and conservation sectors. Positively, the realisation of community on this matter contributed largely towards enhancing community participation in both sectors. However, it was possible that only a small

309

number of villagers realised such matter and hence, the community leaders needed to spread such awareness among the villagers.

Other stakeholders voiced out their opinions on the issue of conflict among the stakeholders. A local authority stated that a meeting was just part of procedures to review ongoing situation, but the government had to make a decision – still they cannot side with any party because a decision should be based on balancing the impacts on everyone including the environment and animals. Furthermore, conservation goals should not prohibit the villagers’ right for village development in the Lower Kinabatangan. For example, a recent issue of a Sukau bridge sparked a controversy between the local community and NGO whereby the protest of NGO on building the bridge led towards anger among the local communities. In this case, the

Sabah state was not against the bridge development, but it needed to be built in such as a way it did not cause harm to wildlife species, which required extra funds. Even worse, some local community viewed the NGO’s effort of protecting animals as a hindrance towards the village development.

Local ecotourism operators honestly pinpointed that the conflict among stakeholder and the human-wildlife issue were difficult to solve because the conservation goals which were carried out by the local authorities and NGOs often went against the traditional livelihood of local communities (e.g. cut trees to build houses or hunted animals for foods). The local authority agreed that both conflicts were a complex issue and difficult to solve because it involved a sanctuary, the culture and traditional economy of community, as well as a politician group.

However, he stressed that it was impossible to acquire a development without a sacrifice, but the effects should be balance to everyone including the wildlife and the

310

environment. The local authority further recommended that it required understanding of various players to solve both issues.

Apart from the conflicts, the social aspect also included several development issues such as inadequate facilities, lack supply of clean water and electricity. In this regard, the local communities and local ecotourism operators stated that the local government should provide basic amenities to rural areas like the Lower

Kinabatangan. Corresponding to this matter, the local authorities noted that the government was responsible for providing facilities and funds for developing ecotourism and conservation in the rural areas, but they advised the local communities to make efforts in improving their families and villages. The authorities also expressed that the local communities should avoid relying too much on the government for everything. In addition, the NGOs emphasised that negative mentality and attitudes on ecotourism and conservation should be changed. In this regard, majority of local communities agreed to change negative attitudes and willing to share their knowledge and experiences to contribute towards a better conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan.

3. Economy

For economy aspect, the local communities raised concerns pertaining to job opportunities and benefits obtained from the ecotourism sector. They inquired that having ecotourism was good for community development, but the ecotourism operators especially private sector preferred to hire outsiders to work in the ecotourism sector in the Lower Kinabatangan. The ecotourism operators rebutted that the outsiders possessed better skills and experiences in ecotourism venture compared to the local communities. Therefore, this problem could be solved by prioritising

311

employment opportunities to local residents in this area, as well as to increase a platform for capacity building and provide financial aids for the communities to participate in the ecotourism venture. Moreover, the findings revealed that the local communities were interested to learn more about jobs and business opportunities, and keen to participate in the ecotourism venture if they were given chances.

4. Stakeholder collaboration

Fourth aspect was related to the stakeholder collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism, as well as the local community participation in both sectors in the Lower Kinabatangan. The existing ecotourism sector applied a community-based ecotourism (CBET) approach while the conservation portrayed a fortress management. In the case of CBET, this approach worked well in the Batu

Puteh village because all homestay operators were coordinated under the KOPEL

Ltd. However, it did not work well in the Sukau village because a strong competition existed between the homestay operators and private sector ecotourism. Therefore, the focus should be improving the management of ecotourism in villages that experienced such competition including the Sukau village. In achieving a successful management, it required an effective communication among the stakeholders so as to ensure the messages of conservation and ecotourism were delivered to everyone in this area. At present, the local communities claimed that they sometimes heard conservation from the key stakeholders such as the local authorities and NGOs.

Besides that, the decision-making of conservation and ecotourism was mostly attended by the community leaders while the local villagers were only informed afterwards. Both cases could be solved by ensuring the local communities were

312

informed and invited for the decision-making, while conservation awareness should be conducted on a regular period by a dedicated agency of conservation sector.

Meanwhile, there were many aspects of conservation needed to be improved in the Lower Kinabatangan. Based on the current findings, it was best to propose a community-based conservation to gradually change the top-down management approach. This was because the conflict among stakeholders in conservation stemmed primarily from the dissatisfaction among the stakeholders on how the conservation should be managed in this area. For examples, the local authorities and communities were suspicious on the roles of NGOs in conservation, a top management level mistrusted their subordinates, the local communities were unhappy with the management of conservation, and the local ecotourism operators stated the lack of avenues to voice out their opinions. To date, most conservation activities were initiated by the local authorities and NGOs, but the future management of conservation would be more sustainable if the local communities were given a sense of responsibility in protecting the wildlife, forests, and the environment, while assuring their cultures and traditional lifestyles were preserved as well. Although the local communities lacked the skills and knowledge on how-to-do, but they were willing to change negative attitudes, contributed existing knowledge they had on wildlife and forests, and interested to participate if they were given opportunities. They were also willing to donate for conservation purposes, thereby increasing funds for managing the conservation activities in this area.

In addition, the local communities needed to be trained to be self-independent on how to properly manage depleting natural resources and proactively initiate conservation activities, not just attending conservation awareness. They should also be encouraged to engage more in the decision-making of conservation matters in the 313

Lower Kinabatangan. Notably, the LKWS was established since 2005, but the local communities had little information on its progress and effectiveness. Consequently, the local communities would be less interested and thereby contributed less towards achieving its goals.

In the case of collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, the stakeholders needed to mutually work together in order to improve collaborative process such as inclusive representation, equal opportunity, and principle respect, as well as collaborative outcomes. In addition, a strategic method was required to solve pertinent issue of conflict among stakeholders which interfered with the collaborative outcomes. Undeniably, effective collaboration among the stakeholders greatly assisted in achieving a successful management of conservation and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan.

5. Climate change

The present study emphasised the profound impacts of climate change to stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. For example, a prolong drought led to an absence supply of clean water and reduced yield of agriculture, while a prolong rain caused flooding and discouraged tourists coming to the Lower Kinabatangan. Notably, the impacts and mitigation against the climate change was understudied in this area. All stakeholders, including the local communities agreed that it required further research to understand its impacts and stressed the need to develop strategies to mitigate its local impacts. More importantly, the local communities corresponded that they would like to learn more about the climate change and participate in activities that help to reduce its impacts.

Therefore, the positive changes of communities’ attitudes should be encouraged and

314

utilised for enhancing the relationships among the stakeholders in the Lower

Kinabatangan, as well as to improve the current ecotourism and conservation in this area.

Overall, the integrated framework focused on enhancing the stakeholder collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. This could be achieved by improving the collaborative approach, environment, social, economy, and climate change in this area because each aspect greatly influenced the outcomes of conservation and ecotourism measures in this area. The different roles and interests of stakeholders should be addressed appropriately in order to stimulate collective understanding and trust among the stakeholders so as to attain a successful collaboration in managing the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

6.9 Conclusion

The chapter thoroughly explained the factors that influenced the attitudes of local communities towards conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, including aspects that affected the communities’ willingness to donate. In this regard, the community involvement in ecotourism was influenced by the suggestions to improve current ecotourism and previous participation in ecotourism. In the case of conservation, the community participation was influenced by the suggestions to improve current conservation, impacts of conservation, and a previous participation in conservation. The strongest predictor of communities’ willingness to donate for conservation was the suggestions to improve current conservation followed by a previous participation in ecotourism activities, and the impacts of conservation in this area, wherein the respondents who positively perceived the suggestions to

315

improve conservation were over 4.9 times more willing to donate for the conservation activities than those who perceived it negatively.

The chapter also described a stakeholder analysis in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Relevant stakeholders were identified and categorised based on their roles and interests in conservation and ecotourism, followed by examining their key relationships. The stakeholders were chosen based on a criterion that they were directly or indirectly impacting or being affected by the development (processes and outcomes) of conservation and ecotourism in this area. There were six categories of stakeholders, namely the local communities, local authorities, NGOs, private sector, private sector ecotourism, and local ecotourism operators. The stakeholders were categorised according to their potentials to support or pose conflicts towards the development of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, as well as their level of influence in the decision-making process of both aspects. In this case, the KePKAS, KPEL Ltd. and the Best society were categorised into a high ecotourism and high conservation, whereas the local community, community leaders, and private sector (oil palm) were grouped into a low ecotourism and low conservation.

The final section proposed strategies to improve the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. An integrated framework was formulated based on three criteria, namely to structure a desirable future of stakeholder collaboration, compare existing approaches and identify the main concerns of key stakeholders pertaining to conservation and ecotourism, as well as to identify solutions and strategies in order to improve the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors. The current study identified five aspects that could be enhanced, namely the environment, social, economy, stakeholder collaboration, and 316

climate change. Based on the current findings, it was best to propose a community- based conservation to gradually change the top-down approach management in conservation sector, while the CBET approach should be improved in the Sukau village. Overall, the application of backcasting approach was deemed most appropriate in addressing issues pertaining to the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, while at the same time formulating strategies based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders in this area.

317

CHAPTER 7

RESEARCH SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

Chapter 7 summarises the research flow from the Chapter 1 until the Chapter 6.

It recalls the three main objectives that are pursued in this study and explains the extent of aims fulfilled. Further, the chapter explains a triangle interaction between the stakeholder collaboration, ecotourism, and conservation in the Lower

Kinabatangan. It highlights four major contributions of the study, including using the current findings to outline an integrated framework to improve the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. The chapter also describes the constraints encounter by the researcher from the beginning until the end of the research and explains the solutions undertaken to solve the problems. In addition, the chapter describes the opportunities for future research based on the current findings.

7.2 Overview and implications of the study

The main goal of the study is to examine the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. In particular, three objectives are pursued in this study, namely (1) to examine stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan, (2) to evaluate the impacts of conservation of natural resources and ecotourism to stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan, and (3) to identify strategies in improving the stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable conservation of natural resources and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. To

318

achieve the objectives, the study is grounded based on the stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration (Chapter 2). The research goals are formulated based on the researcher’s personal experiences and supported by extensive reviews of literatures (gaps of knowledge) pertaining to the conservation and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan (Chapter 3).

The data collection is conducted using a mixed method research by integrating a quantitative and qualitative approach since the early stage of formulating the research objectives (Chapter 4). Therefore, both methods are used to fulfill the same research objectives and research questions (Yin, 2006). The quantitative method (questionnaire survey, N = 328) is applied to gain information on the local community participation, persistent issues, and the management of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Meanwhile, the qualitative method is conducted using in-depth semi-structured interviews to key informants

(N= 40) and a personal observation during a research sampling. The findings of the questionnaire surveys are triangulated with the interview analyses and examined based on four labels – confirm, contradict, enhance, or mixed (Chapter 5).

The empirical findings of the current study exhibits that more local communities are involved in the conservation activities (58.5 %) compared to the ecotourism activities (48.2 %). In the case of conservation, the result implies that more communities are aware about the importance to conserve the wildlife and forests in the Lower Kinabatangan (Chapter 5). Nevertheless, the interview findings reveal that their supports and commitments in the conservation are varied and are greatly influenced by their obligations to either working in the conservation sector, supplementary jobs in the ecotourism sector, or as the owner of ecotourism businesses. In the case of ecotourism, most communities are involved in the 319

supplementary jobs such as housekeeping, cleaner, and chef (21.6 %), but very few participate as a personal business in this sector (4.6 %). In line with the questionnaire analyses, the interview findings explain the lack of community participation in the ecotourism venture such as inadequate skills, knowledge, and budget to manage ecotourism business.

The collaboration of other key stakeholders (local authority, NGOs, ecotourism operators, and private sectors) are explained in the form of their management and participation in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The interview findings show that every stakeholder has different roles and priorities when it comes to managing the ecotourism and conservation in this area (Chapter 5). Furthermore, the study uncovers both the issues and the factors that encourage the local communities to participate. The major problems of community participation are they do not know or get appropriate information on how to participate, the lack of confidence and necessary skills to participate. The findings of the questionnaire show that monetary incentives can encourage the community involvement in ecotourism and conservation, but the respondents also assert that the communities can be motivated to participate simply by giving a certificate of acknowledgement. More importantly, the present study also imparts several pertinent issues pertaining to the conservation and ecotourism, such as the conflict among the stakeholders, human-wildlife conflict, ineffective management, and inefficient communication among the stakeholders.

The findings of a questionnaire survey reveal two major impacts of ecotourism – it encourages the protection of wildlife and forests, as well as offers employment opportunities to the local communities. In the case of conservation, there are five positive impacts, namely decreasing cases in illegal poaching, illegal 320

logging, crop damages by the animals, as well as an increased conservation awareness among the communities and job opportunities in the conservation sector.

The survey exhibits that the communities are unsure whether the number of animals increase or reduce. Nonetheless, the interview analyses illustrate a mixed finding regarding the number of wildlife species, whereby some key informants perceive the animals have increased in number while other interviewees state they have reduced.

This dispute arises due to the lack of appropriate technology and supporting staff to investigate the exact number of wildlife species in the Lower Kinabatangan. The result implies that the research on wildlife in the Lower Kinabatangan is understudied and the local communities are not adequately informed regarding the wildlife research in this area.

The current study highlights the profound impacts of climate change towards the stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. In the ecotourism sector, the climate change influences the tourist flow that visiting this area and erodes the natural attraction of ecotourism. Meanwhile, in the conservation sector, the climate change causes environmental problems. These findings are further supported by the interview analyses that the climate change contributes negatively towards forest burning, decrease the yield of oil palm plantations, increase diseases- related to climate, and cause an absent supply of water during a prolong drought season. More importantly, many key informants report that no specific studies are undertaken to investigate the impacts of climate change in this area, particularly on the proactive measures to mitigate the effects of climate change at a local context.

The attitudes of local communities towards conservation and ecotourism are further examined using a logistic and multiple regression (Chapter 6). First, a binary logistic regression is used to assess the community’s willingness to donate for the 321

conservation activities. Interestingly, the communities that positively perceive the suggestions to improve the conservation are over 4.9 times more willing to donate compare to those who perceive it negatively. Second, a multiple regression is conducted to examine the community attitudes towards the ecotourism. The results depict that the suggestions to improve current ecotourism and previous participation in the ecotourism significantly influence the community attitudes in ecotourism participation (p < 0.05). Third, a second series of multiple regression is carried out to examine the community attitudes towards the conservation. In this case, three factors such as suggestions to improve current conservation, impacts of conservation, and a previous participation in the conservation significantly influence the community attitudes towards the conservation (p < 0.05).

One important finding in this study is the proposal of an integrated framework which primarily developed based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders and a backcasting approach. The backcasting approach is deemed most appropriate because it greatly assists in identifying pertinent issues and thereby work backwards to examine flaws in the management of conservation and ecotourism in this area, and then formulate strategies to address the problems. The backcasting also allows for generating a desirable future based on the stakeholders’ opinions and then compare the desirable future with existing approaches used by the stakeholders to manage the conservation and ecotourism in this area. The framework consists of three stages, namely to structure the desirable future, compare the desirable future with existing approaches, and identify solutions to address the issues based on the perspectives of the stakeholders.

Several pertinent issues are listed such as the conflict among stakeholders, human-wildlife conflict, barriers that discourage community involvement, 322

environmental pollutions, uncontrolled land conversion, and wildlife encroachment.

The findings reveal that unresolved issues stemmed primarily due to a lack of an avenue to discuss the problems openly (especially the local communities and local ecotourism operators to express their dissatisfactions), a lack of mutual cooperation, and an inefficient management in ecotourism and conservation. It also shows that the current ecotourism employs a CBET approach while conservation initiatives apply a fortress management. Based on the current results, it is best to propose a community- based conservation to gradually change the top-down management in conservation. It is because the local communities are willing to change negative attitudes towards conservation and share their knowledge, and keen to participate in conservation programmes if they are given chances. More importantly, they agree that they should learn to conduct conservation activities independently, not just attending conservation awareness. In the case of ecotourism, the CBET approach should be improved in the Sukau village (e.g. to address competition issues between the local enterprise and private ecotourism operators).

The framework suggests five aspects that need to be improved, namely the environment, social, economy, stakeholder collaboration on conservation and ecotourism (including local community participation), and a climate change. In environmental aspect, the stakeholders highlight the human-wildlife conflict and suggest to focus on reconnecting fragmented areas, requesting supports from plantation owners to provide a small area in their plantation to make a way for a wildlife corridor, practicing proper maintenances of electrical fences, and providing incentive for Honorary Wildlife Warden to carry out their tasks efficiently. Second, in a social aspect, they stress on the conflict among stakeholders and propose that the best way to solve this problem is to set aside differences and personal interests as 323

individual, company, or political agenda – thereby all stakeholders should aim for unity and the impacts of any decision undertaken should be balanced on everyone including the environment and wildlife species.

Third, in economic aspect, the local communities raise concern pertaining to employment opportunities and benefits obtained from ecotourism sector whereby the ecotourism operators like to hire outsiders to work rather than choosing local villagers. The problem could be solved by prioritising such opportunities to local residents, provide skill training and financial aids for local people to participate in ecotourism venture. A fourth aspect is related to the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, including the local community involvement in both sectors. As stated previously, the findings illustrate that the CBET approach should be improved in the Sukau village while the conservation should apply a community- based conservation. Fifth, the stakeholders emphasise the profound impacts of climate change to the stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation, but stress that the issue is understudied. More importantly, they agree that it needs detailed studies and the local communities keen to learn more about it, as well as to participate in activities that help to reduce its negative effects. Overall, the framework pinpoints pertinent issues, identify weaknesses in current methods use to solve the problems, and develop strategies to address the issues based on the viewpoints of key stakeholders in this area.

Taken together, the study fulfils all three objectives and further highlights the unique contributions of understanding the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. This is because the study is one among limited literatures that thoroughly investigate the extent of prevalent issues are solved including barriers that discourage community involvement and 324

issues on stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, and use the opinions of key stakeholders to address such problems. In addition, the study emphasises a triangle interaction between the stakeholder, ecotourism, and conservation in this area. The ecotourism promotes the conservation of wildlife and forests because these are the flagship attraction of ecotourism activities in the Lower

Kinabatangan. In return, continuous conservation ensures the natural attractions for ecotourism are maintained at best for ecotourism to flourish. More importantly, a strategic management of the conservation and ecotourism depends entirely on the key stakeholders in this area – as each stakeholder has different interests and roles, they need to collaborate mutually and get benefits from both aspects.

7.3 Contributions of the study

The current study demonstrates the extent of stakeholder collaboration in the rural setting of conservation and ecotourism, with a specific reference to the Lower

Kinabatangan Sabah. While there are several studies (community-based tourism, wildlife conservation, oil palm cultivation, and forest conservation) conducted previously in this area, the present study uncovers novel findings pertaining to the involvement of the key stakeholders in both conservation and ecotourism. Compare to the previous studies conducted in the Lower Kinabatangan and probably in other remote areas in Malaysia, this study is one of the few researches that specifically pinpoint the underlying roots that explain why the stakeholders behave in certain ways towards the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan – gather from their point of views. Therefore, it illuminates the findings of conservation and ecotourism in both empirical and theoretical aspects.

325

The sampling techniques undertaken by the researcher through a participant observation (besides the questionnaire survey and an in-depth semi-structured interview) gather not only the empirical results, but also captures an interpersonal and emotional feelings shared by the respondents during the research sampling.

Interestingly, this helps the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of developing a concept when investigating their involvements in both ecotourism and conservation here. While specific objectives and themes are predetermined in many studies undertaken, the development of concepts throughout the research is what gives deeper and wider understanding of a phenomenon studied. The specific contributions of this study are grounded in four pillars, namely the body of knowledge, society, and economy, including an effective collaboration on ecotourism, conservation, and climate change in a rural setting.

7.3.1 Contribution towards the existing body of knowledge

Many studies regarding to a stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism are usually focused in the developing countries, particularly in the remote areas. It is because many natural attractions are found in the forested, rural areas which have become the flagship allure to tourists that enjoy watching wild biodiversity in natural habitats. The major finding of this study reveals the dissatisfaction feelings among the key stakeholders pertaining to competing interests and roles in participating and managing the ecotourism and conservation in this area.

The study also reveals underlying reasons that give rise to the persistent issues of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan – that remains unsolved.

Moreover, based on the findings, an integrated framework is formulated as a

326

guideline to improve the stakeholder collaboration in both conservation and ecotourism in this area.

Besides the empirical contributions toward the research subjects, the application of a mixed method research in this study adds into a new dimension of methodological concept of stakeholder collaboration in both conservation and ecotourism, particularly in a rural setting. It provides a narrow comparison (confirm, contradict, enhance or mixed) and further explains certain facts that cannot be measured quantitatively. For example, the questionnaire survey reports the number of local communities participating in the conservation and ecotourism, but it is unable to configure the extent of their commitments and supports in both aspects.

The interview findings do not only confirm the questionnaire results, but also provides explanations of why the community participation increased in the conservation sector. In the case of Lower Kinabatangan, the present study adds into understanding the factors that demotivate local communities to get engaged in both sectors. Therefore, the barriers that prevent their participation should be addressed appropriately to enhance community involvement in both sectors.

In addition towards empirical and methodological contributions, the present study also expands the application in terms of theoretical concepts. In this light, the current study employs a stakeholder theory and collaboration theory to examine the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. The current study enhances the principle of collaborative approach by

Cullen et al. (2010) and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). While previous studies incorporate the usage of understanding the process and outcomes of collaborative approach (including predetermined conditions for a collaboration to happen), the current study shows that varying roles and and key relationship influences the 327

collaboration among stakeholders, thereby it emphasised the needs to examine these factors and integrate the collaborative concept with a stakeholder theory. The integration between the two theories assist in a better understanding of how the stakeholders work together efficiently to attain a sustainable development of conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan.

In addition, the application of the stakeholder theory and collaborative approach contribute largely towards understanding the key relationship among stakeholders, identifying unresolved issues and flaws in the current management of conservation and ecotourism. Furthermore, the theoretical contribution of this study includes the integration of opinions from various stakeholders to address pertinent issues so as to develop strategies to enhance stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in this area. The finding demonstrates the value of stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration in soliciting perceptions from the key stakeholders to uncover underlying roots that influence the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors in the Lower Kinabatangan.

In terms of policy implication, the study proposes the necessity to provide more avenue for local community and local ecotourism operators to voice out their opinions and problems. This is because existing policy of conservation and ecotourism in Sabah provide guidelines for local community to participate in ecotourism (e.g. how to develop ecotourism site), but it does not being implemented to the ground. Therefore, the traditional ways by just assuming what the stakeholder needs always result in unsuccessful management of both conservation and ecotourism. Equally important is the need to understand the implication of community participation in achieving a stronger collaboration. In this case, a policy which focuses on gaining a trust of local participation eventually leads to a better 328

collaboration among the stakeholders. The unique contribution of this study is it expands the collaborative approach among various stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in a rural area with a specific reference to the Lower Kinabatangan. It shows how the collaborative approach could be enhanced by understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders, especially on how to address pertinent issues between the stakeholders, conservation, and ecotourism sector. This study also strengthens the mixed-method approach proposed by Creswell (2003, 2015) whereby the triangulation using four data labels (confirm, contradict, enhance, and mixed) contribute to a richer understanding on qualitative and quantitative findings.

7.3.2 Contribution to the society in the rural setting

There are two implications in societal aspects. First, the opinions of the key stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan are sought to develop an integrated framework which caters to their specific needs in improving the current conservation and ecotourism in this area. Therefore, this promotes a mutual understanding among the stakeholders to collaborate diligently and dissolve competing interests in enhancing the conservation and ecotourism in the future. Second, the integrated framework can also be applied by policy makers, institutions, and upper management in encouraging the partnership of various stakeholders for improving conservation and ecotourism in a rural setting.

7.3.3 Contribution to the economy

Perhaps the most important element of promoting the rural ecotourism and conservation is improving rural livelihoods and mitigate poverty. In the case of

Lower Kinabatangan, the development of both sectors has opened a broader opportunity for employment and livelihood improvement of local communities,

329

which in turn reduces poverty in this area. However, the study reveals that the local communities are aware of the economic benefits, but few participate in the ecotourism. Therefore, additional initiatives need to be conducted to increase the community participation in various stages of conservation and ecotourism that generate incomes, including diversification of job opportunities in relation to both sectors. Furthermore, the development of ecotourism venture has assisted in generating funds to manage the conservation activities in this area. It also promotes the development of improved facilities such as a better system of clean water supplies, community halls, and access to wireless internet.

7.3.4 Contribution towards effective stakeholder collaboration in conservation, ecotourism, and climate change

The focus of this study is examining the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. However, the study finds out that the climate change is also a central and greatly related to the management of conservation and ecotourism. In particular, there are no specific studies undertaken to investigate the negative impacts of climate change towards the stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation in this area. More importantly, the formulation of an integrated framework is the main contribution of this study, which acts as a tool to enhance the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism, while at the same time doing initiative to mitigate the climate change in this area.

In the case of ecotourism, the CBET approach is good for rural communities, but the benefits should be distributed equally to every community, as well as to address a competition between the local and private sector ecotourism. In conservation aspect, a community-based conservation is a better approach when the communities are willing to change negative attitudes, share knowledge and keen to 330

participate in conservation activities. Moreover, the local communities are willing to conduct conservation activities independently, not just attending conservation awareness. Meanwhile, more studies are needed to examine the impacts of climate change at a local context so as to plan an effective mitigation such as the case in the

Lower Kinabatangan.

The most important part is gathering the views from key stakeholders for enhancing the collaboration among the stakeholders in conservation and ecotourism in this area. In this regard, the collaboration could be improved by addressing varying needs and interests of various stakeholders and solving major issues which interfere with collaboration outcomes such as conflict among stakeholders and human-wildlife conflict. More importantly, the process of collaboration shows an increased participation of local communities in conservation activities and they can participate in decision-making of both conservation and ecotourism aspects – which is part of important components of effective collaboration.

7.4 Research limitations

The main constraint that is faced by the researcher is the geographical setting of the study area. The Lower Kinabatangan is a huge area (Kinabatangan district:

7542 km2), but the transportation access to various areas are limited while some rural areas are inaccessible. The difficulty to reach most of the areas contributes to an increased cost of sampling and takes a longer period to complete the field sampling.

Therefore, to accommodate the limitations, many factors are taken into consideration to reduce the expense and the timeframe of the field sampling. This is conducted by selecting the villages (Sukau and Batu Puteh) that fulfil the research objectives, historical backgrounds of conservation and ecotourism, and ease of transportation.

331

Apart from the geographical limitation, the empirical shortcoming is also considered when interpreting the findings of this research. In this case, two key informants decline to participate in the semi-structured interview, namely the representatives from the Kinabatangan-Corridor of Life Tourism Operators

Association (KiTA) (located in the Sukau village) and the Danau Girang Field

Centre (Batu Puteh village). Both representatives are approached by sending consent letters through emails and a follow up through a personal telephone. However, as the interview is carried out based on a voluntary basis, the informants’ reasons to reject the interview are wholly accepted such as a busy schedule, their preferences to keep their reports and planning as confidential and not opened to public. Nevertheless, to solve the problems, the researcher makes efforts to search published reports pertaining to KiTA and the Danau Girang on the website. In addition, the information on the involvement of both organisations in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan are sought from other key informants who have collaborated directly with these organisations.

7.5 Opportunities for future research

The empirical and theoretical findings of this study can be applied to investigate the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in other remote areas. There are three aspects that require further investigation to improve the stakeholder collaboration in both sectors. First, the focus should be on the key stakeholders regarding their competing roles and interests in both sectors. The present study manages to uncover underlying roots that cause conflicts among the stakeholders, human-wildlife conflict, and other pertinent issues. More importantly, the stakeholders can apply the integrated framework as a guideline in refining their

332

current management in various aspects of conservation and ecotourism. However, a further research is required to examine how these findings are applied to settle the problems – that the framework needs to be tested and adapted according to the changing needs of various stakeholders in the Lower Kinabatangan.

Second, the main goal of this study is assessing the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan. Therefore, the main priority is to boost the factors that motivate them while at the same time addressing negative factors that discourage their collaboration in both sectors. For instance, using a monetary incentive is probably off limit due to a lack of conservation budget, but appraising local communities by giving an acknowledgement (certificate) can encourage them to participate in conservation activities. This method can be incorporated into the management of community participation and later the effectiveness of this technique (a monetary incentive versus certificate acknowledgement) can be assessed and adapted according to the changing development of both sectors in this area.

Third, the study highlights the negative impacts of climate change to the stakeholders, ecotourism, and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan. The study shows that a climate change is greatly related to the management of ecotourism revenues and conservation effectiveness. Moreover, the extent of stakeholder preparation to mitigate or respond towards devastated effects (e.g. huge forest burning, a prolong drought with profound impacts on agriculture yield, and short supplies of clean water) are little known. Undoubtedly, this study warrants a further investigation on such matters by using the findings as a basis to formulate a proactive management against the climate change.

333

7.6 Final remarks

The present study has fulfilled the three objectives raised in the introduction.

The research applies a stakeholder theory and stakeholder collaboration to investigate the stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the

Lower Kinabatangan. It identifies the main issue which is a conflict among the stakeholders that remained unsolved. Other issues are also highlighted, namely the barriers that discourage the participation of local communities in the conservation and ecotourism venture (from the viewpoint of local communities), human-wildlife conflict, and environmental problem. Moreover, the current study highlights the lack of study on the impacts of climate change in the local context of the Lower

Kinabatangan. Therefore, an integrated framework is proposed based on a thorough investigation using the current findings and supported by previous studies.

The study reveals that many issues pertaining to the stakeholder collaboration in the conservation and ecotourism are remained unsolved. Using a backcasting approach, the study structures the stakeholders’ desirable future and compare it with existing approaches used to manage the conservation and ecotourism in the Lower

Kinabatangan. Overall, the integrated framework emphasises issues that need to be addressed effectively and proposes strategies to solve the problems based on the opinions of key stakeholders in this area.

334

REFERENCES

Abdollahzadeh, G., & Sharifzadeh, A. (2014). Rural Residents' Perceptions Toward Tourism Development: a Study from Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research 16(2): 126-136.

Abdul Hamid, M., Ismail, N., & Mohd Fuza, F. I. (2013). Defining a sustainability concept in tourism product. Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on Tourism Research, Langkawi, Malaysia, pp 945-951.

Abdullah, A. R., Weng, C. N., & Mohamed, B. (2013). Potentials and challenges of involving indigenous communities in ecotourism in Belum-Temenggor Forest Complex, Perak, Malaysia. Proceedings of International Conference on Tourism Development, pp 332-344.

Abram, N. K., & Ancrenaz, M. (2017). Orangutan, oil palm and RSPO: Recognizing the importance of the threatened forests of the Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Ridge to reef, living landscape alliance, Borneo futures, hutan, and land empowerment animals people. Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, pp 47.

Abram, N. K., Xofis, P., Tzanopoulos, J., MacMillan, D. C., Ancrenaz, M., Chung, R., Goossens, B. (2014). Synergies for improving oil palm production and forest conservation in floodplain landscapes. PloS One 9(6): e95388.

Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning 44(3): 179-196.

Adeleke, B. O. (2015). Assessment of residents’ attitude towards ecotourism in KwaZulu-Natal protected areas. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(3): 316-328.

Adler, C. E., McEvoy, D., Chhetri, P., & Kruk, E. (2013). The role of tourism in a changing climate for conservation and development. A problem-oriented study in the Kailash Sacred Landscape, Nepal. Policy Sciences 46: 161-178.

Agama, A., Crowe, M., Hase, A. v., Kate, K. t., & Lim, T. (2015). Policy and regulations assessment for implementing no net loss / net gain of biodiversity in sustainable multiple-use forest landscape, Sabah, Malaysia. Sabah Forestry Department: UNDP/GEF Project, pp 99.

335

Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 507-525.

Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: shooting in the dark? Working paper no. 26, March. Wildlife Conservation Society.

Agüera, F. O. (2013). Stakeholder theory as a model for sustainable development in ecotourism, Turydes, pp 12.

Alfred, R., Ahmad, A. H., Payne, J., Williams, C., Ambu, L. N., How, P. M., & Goossens, B. (2012). Home range and ranging behaviour of Bornean elephant (Elephas maximus borneensis) females. PloS One 7(2): e31400.

Alfred, R., Williams, A. C., Vertefeuille, J., Payne, J., Andau, P., Ambu, L., Lim, A. (2005). Satellite tracking of Borneo’s Pygmy elephants. WWF-Malaysia, pp 18.

Alvi, M. H. (2016). A manual for selecting sampling techniques in research. MPRA paper no. 70218, pp 57.

Ami, J., & Hamzah, A. (2013). Incorporating sacred places and traditional values in the management of protected areas for conservation and ecotourism. TEAM Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10(1): 53-64.

Amuquandoh, F. E. (2010). Residents' perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism in the Lake Bosomtwe Basin, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(2): 223-238.

Ancrenaz M, Goossens B, Gimenez O, Sawang A, & Lackman-Ancrenaz I. (2004). Determination of ape distribution and population size using ground and aerial surveys: a case study with orang-utans in Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Animal Conservation 7: 375-385.

Ancrenaz, M., Dabek, L., & O’Neil, S. (2007). The costs of exclusion: recognizing a role for local communities in biodiversity conservation. PLoS Biology 5(11): e289.

Andrade, G., & Rhodes, J. (2012). Protected areas and local communities: An inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecology and Society 17(4): Art 14.

Anup, K. (2016). Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development of Nepal. Tourism - From empirical research towards practical application. Chapter 3, pp 31-59.

336

Archibald, M. M. (2016). Investigator triangulation a collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(3): 228-250.

Ariel, R. (2014). NGO involvement in ecotourism: case study from Myanmar. Asia Pacific News, pp 15.

Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson- Hunt, I. J., Davidson-Hunt, A. P., Diduck, N. C., Doubleday, D. S., Johnson, M. Marschke, P., McConney, E. W., Pinkerton, & Wollenberg, E. K., & Marschke, M. (2009). Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(2): 95-102.

Arnstein SR. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planner 35: 216-224.

Aryal, A., Brunton, D., & Raubenheimer, D. (2014). Impact of climate change on human-wildlife-ecosystem interactions in the Trans-Himalaya region of Nepal. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 115: 517-529.

Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Naomi, N., & Paddon, M. (2010). Effective community based tourism: A best practice manual. Access on 3 May 2017, retrieve from http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/askeretal2010effectivecbt.pdf.

Ashley, C., Roe, D., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor. A review of experiences, Overseas Development Institute, pp 64.

Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of Management Review 9: 526-535.

Awung, N. S., & Marchant, R. (2016). Investigating the role of the local community as co-managers of the Mount Cameroon National Park conservation project. Environments 3(4), pp 22.

Ayog, J., Bolong, N., & Zakaria, I. (2006). Human adaptation for survival against floods in Sabah floodplain areas: the past and the present. River symposium, pp 8.

Azmi, R. (1996). Protected areas and rural communities in the Lower Kinabatangan region of Sabah: Natural resource use by local communities and its implications for managing protected areas. Sabah Society Journal 13: 1-32.

Bagul, A. H. B. P. (2009). Success of ecotourism sites and local community participation in Sabah. PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, pp 439.

Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J. B., Strange, N., & Helles, F. (2014). Revealing lay people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method. Global Ecology and Conservation 1: 27-42. 337

Baral, N., Stern, M. J., & Heinen, J. T. (2007). Integrated conservation and development project life cycles in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: Is development overpowering conservation? Biodiversity and Conservation 16(10): 2903-2917.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 16 (Series B): 296- 298.

Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3(3): 203-207.

Becken, S., & Wilson, J. (2016). Are tourism businesses’ responses to weather variability a suitable precursor to climate change adaptation? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 8(5): 578-592.

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2: 8-14.

Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107-116.

Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Epstein, G. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93-108.

Berkes, F. (2009). Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary context. Conservation Letters 2(1): 20-25.

Berita Harian. (2015). Poverty level and ETP program, published on May 19, 2015, pp 4.

Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Siwar, C., Ismail, S. M., & Islam, R. (2011). The role of government for ecotourism development: Focusing on East Coast Economic Region. Journal of Social Sciences 7(4): 557-564.

Black, R. S. (2015). Social and economic impacts of tourist lodges on local communities: case studies from Rwanda and Botswana. Report no. 82, African Wildlife Foundation, Kenya, pp 116.

Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19(4), pp 8.

338

Bodmer, R. E., Penn, J., Puertas, P., Moya, I., & Fang, T. (1997). Linking conservation and local people through sustainable use of natural resources: Community-based management in the Peruvian Amazon. In C.H. Fresse (Ed.), Harvesting wild species: implications for biodiversity conservation (pp 315-358). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bogt, H. T., & Helden, J. V. (2012). The practical relevance of management accounting research and the role of qualitative methods therein. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 9(3): 265-273.

Boley, B. B., & Green, G. T. (2016). Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the ‘potential’for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. Journal of Ecotourism 15(1): 36-50.

Bonilla-Moheno, M., & García-Frapolli, E. (2012). Conservation in context: a comparison of conservation perspectives in a Mexican protected area. Sustainability 4(9): 2317-2333.

Boonzaaier, C. C. (2012). Towards a community-based integrated institutional framework for ecotourism management: The case of the Masebe nature reserve, Limpopo province of South Africa. Journal of Anthropology pp 11.

Borgström, S. (2015). Assessing the capacity of nature conservation law to help biodiversity adapt to climate change: The case of Finland. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 24(1): 69-82.

Bottrill, M., Hockings, M., & Possingham, H. (2011). In pursuit of knowledge: addressing barriers to effective conservation evaluation. Ecology and Society 16(2), pp 1-18.

Brager, G. & Specht, H. (1973). Community organising, New York, Columbia University Press.

Brazer, S. D., & Keller, L. R. (2006). A conceptual framework for multiple stakeholder educational decision-making. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 1(3), pp 14.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review 6(1): 21- 53.

Bulatović, J., & Rajović, G. (2016). Applying sustainable tourism indicators to community-based ecotourism tourist village Eco-katun Štavna. European Journal of Economic Studies 16(2): 309-330.

Burton, B., & Dunn, C. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 6(2): 133-147.

339

Butler, J., Bohensky, E., Suadnya, W., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., Suharto, I. (2016). Scenario planning to leap-frog the sustainable development goals: an adaptation pathways approach. Climate Risk Management 12: 83-99.

Calgaro, E., Lloyd, K., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2014). From vulnerability to transformation: A framework for assessing the vulnerability and resilience of tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(3): 341-360.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2): 81-105.

Caniato, M., Vaccari, M., Visvanathan, C., & Zurbrügg, C. (2014). Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment. Waste Management 34(5): 938-951.

Cárdenas, S. A., & Lew, D. K. (2016). Factors influencing willingness to donate to marine endangered species recovery in the Galapagos National Park, Ecuador. Article 60. Frontiers in Marine Science 3: pp 14.

Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., & Wardle, D. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401): 59-67.

Casazza, G., Giordani, P., Benesperi, R., Foggi, B., Viciani, D., Filigheddu, R., Mariotti, M. G. (2014). Climate change hastens the urgency of conservation for range-restricted plant species in the central-northern Mediterranean region. Biological Conservation 179: 129-138.

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research 1: 245-276.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Gland: IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature).

Chan, R., & Bhatta, K. (2013). Ecotourism planning and sustainable community development: theoretical perspectives for Nepal. South Asian Journal of Tourism & Heritage 6(1): 69-96.

Clarke, T., & Clegg, S. (1998). Changing paradigms: the transformation of management knowledge for the 21st century, Harper Collins, London.

Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Local attitudes towards natural resources management in rural Ghana. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 26(3): 423-436.

340

Coffey, B., & Major, A. (2005). Towards more integrated natural resource management in Victoria: possible elements of an integrated state-wide policy framework. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 12(sup1): 29-38.

Cohen JM, & Uphoff NT. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development 8: 213-235.

Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics 73: 47- 55.

Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. (2011). Stakeholder theory and social identity: Rethinking stakeholder identification. Journal of Business Ethics 102(1): 77- 87.

Crescentini, A., & Mainardi, G. (2009). Qualitative research articles: guidelines, suggestions and needs. Journal of Workplace Learning 21(5): 431-439.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design qualitative & quantitative approaches. California: SAGE Publications Inc., pp 228.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp 273.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker series, pp 54.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp 152.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp 457.

Cronin, D. T., Owens, J. R., Choi, H., Hromada, S., Malhotra, R., Roser, F., & Bergl, R. (2014). Where has all our research gone? A 20-year assessment of the peer-reviewed wildlife conservation literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 27(1): 101-106.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cullen, D., McGee, G. J. A., Gunton, T. I. & Day, J. C. (2010). Collaborative planning in complex stakeholder environments: an evaluation of a two-tiered collaborative planning model. Society and Natural Resources 23(4): 332-350.

Daily Express Online (2015). Climate change is for real, including Sabah. National newspaper of East Malaysia, published on October 19, 2015, pp 3.

341

Das, M., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism Management Perspectives 14: 3-16.

De Lima, I. B., Kumble, P. A., De Almeida, M. G., Chaveiro, E. F., Ferreira, L. C. G., & Mota, R. D. (2016). Ecotourism community enterprises and ethnodevelopment: modelling the Kalunga empowerment possibilities in the Brazilian savannah. Brazilian Journal of Science and Technology 3(1): 1-25.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine. (Original work published 1970).

Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry 16: 419-427.

Dhami, I., Deng, J., Burns, R. C., & Pierskalla, C. (2014). Identifying and mapping forest-based ecotourism areas in West Virginia–Incorporating visitors' preferences. Tourism Management 42: 165-176.

District office of Kinabatangan. (2016). Rural development of Kinabatangan district, Sandakan. Presentations by the District officers, pp 98.

Dixey, L. (2005). Inventory and analysis of community based tourism in Zambia. Access on 3 May 2017, retrieve from http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/resources/PROFIT%20Community%20Touris m% 20Survey%20-%20Final%20CBT%20Report.pdf.

Donaldson T, & Preston L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65-91.

Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A., & Kleypas, J. A. (2009). Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem. Marine Science 1: 169-192.

Douthwaite, B., Ekboir, J. M., Twomlow, S., & Keatinge, J. (2004). The concept of integrated natural resource management (INRM) and its implications for developing evaluation methods. Natural resource management in agriculture: Methods for assessing economic and environmental impacts. Eds B. Shiferaw, H.A. Freeman and S.M. Swinton, pp 321-340.

Downe-Wambolt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications and issues. Health Care for Women International 13: 313-321.

Dunham, L., Freeman, R., & Liedtka, J. (2006). Enhancing stakeholder practice: A particularized exploration of community. Business Ethics Quarterly 16: 23- 42.

Egels‐Zandén, N., & Sandberg, J. (2010). Distinctions in descriptive and instrumental stakeholder theory: A challenge for empirical research. Business Ethics: A European Review 19(1): 35-49. 342

Engen, S., & Hausner, V. H. (2017). Impact of local empowerment on conservation practices in a highly developed country. Conservation Letters pp 8.

Environment Protection Department (2002). Environmental indicator report, Sabah, Malaysia.

Estes, J. G., Othman, N., Ismail, S., Ancrenaz, M., Goossens, B., Ambu, L. N., & Palmiotto, P. A. (2012). Quantity and configuration of available elephant habitat and related conservation concerns in the Lower Kinabatangan floodplain of Sabah, Malaysia. PloS One 7(10): e44601.

Fabricius, C. & Collins, S. (2007). Community-based natural resource management: governing the commons. Water Policy 9 (Supplement 2): 83-97.

Fahey, S., Verstraten, L., & Berry, A. J. (2016). Education for sustainable development: Enhancing climate change adaptation expertise in developing countries. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 10(1): 54-67.

Fennell, D., & Weaver, D. (2005). The ecotourium concept and tourism-conservation symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(4): 373-390.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Third edition, Sage Publication Ltd, pp 857.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2016). Points of convergence in music education the use of data labels as a strategy for mixed methods integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(3): 273-291.

Fletcher, C. J. (2009). Conservation, livelihoods and the role of tourism: a case study of Sukau village in the Lower Kinabatangan district, Sabah, Malaysia. Master thesis, Lincoln University, pp 231.

Fletcher, R. (2009). Ecotourism discourse: challenging the stakeholders theory. Journal of Ecotourism 8(3): 269-285.

Flick, U. (2016). Mantras and myths the disenchantment of mixed-methods research and revisiting triangulation as a perspective. Qualitative Inquiry 23(1): 46-57.

Fowler, H. W. & Fowler, F. G. (1964). The concise Oxford dictionary (5th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Basic books, New York.

Freeman RE. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 409-421.

343

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13(1): pp 8.

Garrod, B. (2003). Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism 2(1): 33-53.

Ghasemi, M., & Hamzah, A. (2014). An investigation of the appropriateness of tourism development paradigm in rural areas from main tourism stakeholders' point of view. Fifth Asia Euro Conference. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 144: 15-24.

Giap, T. K., Gopalan, S., & Ye, Y. (2016). Drivers of growth in the travel and tourism industry in Malaysia: A geweke causality analysis. Economies 4(3): pp 15.

Gibson, C. B. (2016). Elaboration, generalisation, triangulation, and interpretation on enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organisational Research Methods 20(2): 193-223.

Goh, H. C. (2015). Nature and community-based tourism (CBT) for poverty alleviation: a case study of Lower Kinabatangan, East Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11(3): 42-52.

Goodwin, H., Kent, I., Parker, K., Walpole, M., Swingland, I., & Sinclair, M. (1997). Tourism, conservation & sustainable development. Comparative report, volume one, pp 98.

Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? Access on 3 May 2017, retrieve from http://www.andamandiscoveries.com/press/pressharold-goodwin.pdf. Hall

Goossens B, Chikhi L, Jalil MF, Ancrenaz M, Lackman-Ancrenaz I, & et al. (2005). Patterns of genetic diversity and migration in increasingly fragmented and declining orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) populations from Sabah, Malaysia. Molecular Ecology 14: 441-456.

Goossens, B., & Ambu, L. N. (2012). Sabah Wildlife Department and 10 years of research: towards a better conservation of Sabah's wildlife. Journal of Oil Palm & the Environment 3: 38-51.

Gorard, G. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Gordon, A. (2015). Implementing backcasting for conservation: Determining multiple policy pathways for retaining future targets of endangered woodlands in Sydney, Australia. Biological Conservation 181: 182-189.

344

Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., Papargyropoulou, E., Kerr, N., McAnulla, F., & Hall, S. (2016). Cities and climate change mitigation: Economic opportunities and governance challenges in Asia. Cities 54: 11-19.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, B. (1994). Obstacles to interorganisational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and multiple methods. In M. Wang & L. Rigby (Eds.), School/community connections: Exploring issues for research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Fransicso, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(1): 7-22.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11: 255-274.

Hai, T. C., Ng, A., Prudente, C., Pang, C., & Yee, J. T. C. (2001). Balancing the need for sustainable oil palm development and conservation: the Lower Kinabatangan Floodplains experience. ISP national seminar: strategic directions for the sustainability of the oil palm industry Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, 53 pp.

Hair Jr, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1995). Black (1995), Multivariate data analysis with readings. New Jersy: Prentice Hall.

Hamzah, A. (2016). Sustainable tourism and conservation initiatives in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah, Malaysia. Fourth World Tourism Conference. Tourism delights: Delivering the unexpected, pp 35.

Harrisson, T., & Harrisson, B. (1971). The prehistory of Sabah, Kota Kinabalu: the Sabah society.

Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: a critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Hesse-Biber, S., Rodriguez, D., & Frost, N. A. (2015). A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of mixed method and multi-method research (pp. 3-20). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hongslo, E., Hovik, S., Zachrisson, A., & Lundberg, A. K. A. (2016). Decentralisation of conservation management in Norway and Sweden — different translations of an international trend. Society & Natural Resources 29(8): 998-1014. 345

Humavindu, M. N., & Stage, J. (2015). Community‐based wildlife management failing to link conservation and financial viability. Animal Conservation 18(1): 4-13.

Hussain, A., Dasgupta, S., & Bargali, H. S. (2016). Conservation perceptions and attitudes of semi-nomadic pastoralist towards relocation and biodiversity management: a case study of Van Gujjars residing in and around Corbett Tiger Reserve, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability 18(1): 57-72.

Hussin, R. (2006). Ecotourism development and local community participation: case studies of Batu Puteh and Sukau villages in Lower Kinabatangan area of Sabah, Malaysia. PhD thesis. University of Glasgow, pp 528.

Hussin, R. (2009). Ecotourism, local community and “Partners for Wetlands” in the Lower Kinabatangan area of Sabah: Managing conservation or conflicts? Borneo Research Journal 3: 57-79.

Hussin, R., Cooke, F. M., & Kunjuraman, V. (2015). Community-based ecotourism (CBET) activities in Abai village, Lower Kinabatangan area of Sabah, East Malaysia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Resources, Tourism, and Services Management. Universiti Putra Malaysia, pp 169-175.

Hussin, R., & Fernando, J. M. (2009). Ecotourism and community participation in the Homestay Programme of Sukau village: Long term or limited benefits? Jurnal Sarjana 23: 72-86.

Hussin, R., & Kunjuraman, V. (2014). Sustainable community-based tourism (CBT) through homestay programme in Sabah, East Malaysia. Proceeding of the Social Sciences Research ICSSR 2014 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-7-0), pp 41- 61.

Hussin, R., & Som, A. P. M. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation programme, and local community participation: conflict of interests in Sukau village of Sabah, Malaysia. Sosiohumanika 1(1), 115-140.

HUTAN-KOCP (2016a). Wildlife's warden: Honorary wildlife warden. Accessed on 29 May 2016, from http://www.hutan.org.my/whatwedo/wardens/.

HUTAN-KOCP (2016b). Reforestation project in Lower Kinabatangan. Accessed on 29 May 2016, from http://www.hutan.org.my/whatwedo/reforestationproject/.

HUTAN-KOCP (2016c). Fishermen for conservation in Lower Kinabatangan. Accessed on 29 May 2016, from http://www.hutan.org.my/whatwedo/fishermenforconservation/.

346

HUTAN-KOCP (2016d). HUTAN’s environmental awareness project (HEAP). Accessed on 29 May 2016, from http://www.hutan.org.my/whatwedo/awareness/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernemntal panel on climate change Geneva, Switzerland.

International Monetary Fund (2015a). World economic outlook. Database: WEO groups and aggregates information. Accessed on 26 May 2016, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/groups.htm.

International Monetary Fund (2015b). World economic outlook: Uneven growth short- and long-term factors. Washington, pp 230.

Islam, S., Abubakar, H., & Islam, M. (2011). Community-based ecotourism in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Rajagiri Journal of Social Development 3: 31-50.

Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size. Fact Sheet PEOD-6, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, pp 5.

Jamal T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22(1): 186-204.

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (2000). Community roundtables for tourism-related conﬂicts: The dialectics of consensus and process structures. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability (pp. 159–182). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Jayaraman, K., Lin, S. K., Yap, L. L., & Ong, W. L. (2010). Sustainable ecotourism: the case of East Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7(1): 27-44.

Kafeero, F. (2009). Enhancing stakeholder participation in national forest programmes. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Italy, pp 8.

Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika 35: 401-415.

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39: 31-36.

Kaur, C. R. (2006). National Ecotourism Plan: Assessing implementation of the guidelines for marine parks. Maritime Institute of Malaysia (MIMA), pp 38.

Kessler, B. L. (2004). Stakeholder participation: A synthesis of current literature. National marine protected areas center, pp 26.

347

Khan, M. M. A. (2013). Tourism development in Malaysia: A review on government plans and policies. Acme International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research I (XII), pp 7.

Khanal, B. R., & Babar, J. T. (2007). Community-based ecotourism for sustainable tourism development in the Mekong region. Policy Brief, CUTS Hanoi Research Centre, pp 8.

Khazaei, A., Elliot, S., & Joppe, M. (2015). An application of stakeholder theory to advance community participation in tourism planning: the case for engaging immigrants as fringe stakeholders. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(7): 1049-1062.

Kideghesho, J. R., Røskaft, E., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2007). Factors influencing conservation attitudes of local people in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(7): 2213-2230.

King, B., & Peralvo, M. (2010). Coupling community heterogeneity and perceptions of conservation in rural South Africa. Human Ecology 38(2): 265-281.

King, N., & Nair, V. (2013a). Gap analysis of future studies on wildlife tourism in Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. Proceedings of International Conference on Tourism Development, pp 310-322.

Kiper, T. ( 2013). Role of ecotourism in sustainable development. Advances in landscape arhitecture, licensee InTech. Chapter 31, pp 30.

Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(5): 232-237.

Kothari, A., Pathak, N., & Vania, F. (2000). Where communities care: community- based wildlife and ecosystem management in South Asia. International Institute for Environment and Development, pp 222.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation 14(3): 579-600.

Kunjuraman, V., & Hussin, R. (2017). Challenges of community-based homestay programme in Sabah, Malaysia: Hopeful or hopeless? Tourism Management Perspectives 21: 1-9.

Lackman-Ancrenaz I, & Manokaran K. (2008). Kinabatangan biosphere reserve nomination Dossier. HUTAN.

Laerd (2012). Total population sampling: examples, creating samples, advantages and disadvantages. Laerd dissertation, pp4. 348

Latip, N. A., & Badarulzaman, N. (2014). Land use and sustainable forest management in Sabah: issues and challenges. American Transactions on Engineering & Applied Sciences 3(2): 163-180.

Latip, N. A., Badarulzaman, N., Marzuki, A., & Umar, M. U. (2013). Sustainable forest management in Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah: Issues and current practices. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, XI: 59-84.

Latip, N. A., Marzuki, A., Marcela, P., & Umar, M. U. (2015a). The involvement of indigenous peoples in promoting conservation and sustainable tourism at Lower Kinabatangan Sabah: common issues and challenges. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 9(7): 323-325.

Latip, N. A., Marzuki, A., Marcela, P., & Umar, M. U. (2015b). Indigenous people, conservation and sustainable tourism at Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah: SWOT analysis. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9(7): 331-334.

Latip, N. A., Marzuki, A., Umar, M. U., & Rais, N. S. (2015). Land use and forestry management in Sabah: review of literature. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 9(7): 317-322.

Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganisational collaboration: The emergence of proto institutions. Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 281-290.

Lee, T. H. (2007). An ecotourism behavioural model of national forest recreation areas in Taiwan. International Forestry Review 9(3): 771-785.

Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretations. Second edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp 255.

Lepp, A., & Holland, S. (2006). A comparison of attitudes toward state-led conservation and community-based conservation in the village of Bigodi, Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 19(7): 609-623.

Lewis, C. (1996). Managing conflicts in protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, IUCN, pp 110.

Logsdon, J. M. (1991). Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 27: 23-37.

Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html. Issues in Educational Research 16(2): 193-205.

349

Majail, J., & Webber, D. A. (2006). Human dimension in conservation works in the lower kinabatangan: Sharing PFW’s experience. World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia (Borneo Program), Fourth Sabah-Sarawak Environmental Convention, pp 9.

Mak, B. K., Cheung, L. T., & Hui, D. L. (2017). Community participation in the decision-making process for sustainable tourism development in rural areas of Hong Kong, China. Sustainability 9(10): pp 13.

Malay Mail Online (2015). Dr. Benoit Goossens: Illegal logging, poaching a threat to Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. Accessed from http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/illegalloggingpoaching athreattolowerkinabatanganwildlifesanctuary.

Malaysian Meteorological Department (2009). Climate change scenarios for Malaysia 2001-2099. Scientific report, pp 84.

Mamo, Y. (2015). Attitudes and perceptions of the local people towards benefits and conflicts they get from conservation of the Bale Mountains National Park and Mountain Nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni), Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 7(1): 28-40.

Manaf, A., Purbasari, N., Damayanti, M., Aprilia, N., & Astuti, W. (2018). Community-based rural tourism in inter-organisational collaboration: how does it work sustainably? Lessons learned from Nglanggeran tourism village, Gunungkidul Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability 10(2142), pp. 18.

Mann, M. E. (2009). Do global warming and climate change represent a serious threat to our welfare and environment? Social Philosophy and Policy 26(2): 193-230.

Manning, R. E. (2002). How much is too much? Carrying capacity of national parks and protected areas. Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Conference proceedings, pp 306-313.

Manu, I., & Kuuder, C.-J. W. (2012). Community-based ecotourism and livelihood enhancement in Sirigu, Ghana. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(18): 97-108.

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems 54(1): 11-22.

Marzuki, A. (2010). Tourism development in Malaysia. A review on federal government policies. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 8(17): 85-97.

350

Marzuki, A. (2011). Resident attitudes towards impacts from tourism development in Langkawi Islands, Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal 12: 25-34.

Marzuki, A., Hussin, A. A., Mohamed, B., Othman, A. G., & Mat Som, A. P. (2011). Assessment of nature-based tourism in South Kelantan, Malaysia. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism 6(1): 281-295.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005a). The socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 2(3): 163-185.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005b). Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of environmental management 77(2): 144-156.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005c). The problems and prospects of sustainable tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(3): 203-227.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2015). Ecotourism in Botswana: 30 years later. Journal of Ecotourism 14: 204-222.

Mbaiwa, J. E., Stronza, A., & Kreuter, U. (2011). From collaboration to conservation: Insights from the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Society and Natural Resources 24(4): 400-411.

Mbaiwa, J. E., & Stronza, A. L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(5): 635-656.

Measham, T. G., & Lumbasi, J. A. (2013). Success factors for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental Management 52(3): 649-659.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia (2007). Malaysia: second national communication to the UNFCCC, pp 145.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853-886.

Mizal, K., Fabeil, N. F., & Pazim, K. H. (2014). Financial sustainability of community-based tourism (CBT): The case of tourism cooperative limited (KOPEL Berhad). International Journal of Research in Business Management 2(1): 23-32. 351

Mkiramweni, N. P., T. DeLacy, M. J., & Chiwanga, F. E. (2016). Climate change risks on protected areas ecotourism: shocks and stressors perspectives in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism 15(2): 139- 157.

Mohamad, N. H., & Hamzah, A. (2013). Tourism cooperative for scaling up community‐based tourism. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 5(4): 315-328.

Mohamed, B. (2002). The development of ecotourism in Malaysia – Is it really sustainable? Paper presented at the regional conference: International Year of Ecotourism 2002, pp 8.

Mont, O., Neuvonen, A., & Lähteenoja, S. (2014). Sustainable lifestyles 2050: Stakeholder visions, emerging practices and future research. Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 24-32.

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Morgan, L. M. (1993). Community participation in health: The politics of primary care in Costa Rica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research 10(1): 3- 5.

Muhumuza, M., Sanders, M., & Balkwill, K. (2013). A theoretical framework for investigating ecological problems associated with biodiversity conservation in national parks: A case of the Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Uganda. Open Journal of Ecology 3(2): 196-204.

Mumtas, M., & Wichien, C. (2013). Stakeholder analysis for sustainable land management of Pak Phanang River Basin, Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 91: 349-356.

Mustapha, N., Azman, I., & Ibrahim, Y. (2013). Barriers to community participation in tourism development in island destination. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Culinary 5(1): 102-124.

Myanmar Ministry of Hotels and Tourism. (2015). Myanmar ecotourism policy and management strategy. Ministry of Hotels and Tourism, Myanmar, pp 62.

Nair, V., & Hamzah, A. (2015). Successful community-based tourism approaches for rural destinations: The Asia Pacific experience. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 7(5): 429-439.

NASA GISS (2017). Global land-ocean temperature index. Annual average for 2016, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Accessed on 20 April 2017, from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. 352

Newton, S. T., Fast, H., & Henley, T. (2002). Sustainable development for Canada's arctic and subarctic communities: A backcasting approach to Churchill, Manitoba. Arctic 55(3): 281-290.

Norwana, A. A. B. D., Kunjappan, R., Chin, M., Schoneveld, G., Potter, L., & Andriani, R. (2011). The local impacts of oil palm expansion in Malaysia: an assessment based on a case study in Sabah state. Working Paper 78. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, pp 26.

Novey, A. D. l. C. (2015). Stakeholder engagement model: making ecotourism work in Peru’s protected areas. Responsible investment banking part of the series CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance. Springer, pp 609-624.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2011). Second national communication to the UNFCCC, pp 145. Accessed from http://www.nre.gov.my/ms- my/PustakaMedia/Penerbitan/SECOND%20NATIONAL%20COMMUNICA TION%20TO%20THE%20UNFCCC%20(NC2).pdf.

Ojha, A. P., & Sarker, T. K. (2012). Effectiveness of the integrated conservation and development program (ICDP) in conserving wildlife in the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 4(6): 237-242.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Mixed methods research in sociology and beyond. In G. Ritzer (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Sociology (Vol. VI, pp. 2978-2981) Oxford: Blackwell.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Introduction. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 7(1): 9-26.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3(2): 114-139.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(5): 375-387.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). The role of sampling in qualitative research. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9(3): p. 280.

Paimin, N. V., Modilih, S., Mogindol, S., Johnny, C., & Thamburaj, J. (2014). Community participation and barriers in rural tourism: a case study in Kiulu, Sabah. SHS Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences 01003, pp 7.

353

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42(5): 533- 544.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, 4th edition, pp 359.

Pang, C. (2003). Creating a conservation vision for the Kinabatangan: a corridor of life. Sabah Society Journal 20: 65-77.

Paramanathan (1999). Assessment of the soils of the Lower Kinabatangan area: report for WWF Malaysia, pp 90.

Pasape, L., Anderson, W., & Lindi, G. (2013). Towards sustainable ecotourism through stakeholder collaborations in Tanzania. Journal of Tourism Research & Hospitality 2(1), pp. 14.

Paul Ceron, J., & Dubois, G. (2007). Limits to tourism? A backcasting scenario for sustainable tourism mobility in 2050. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 4(3): 191-209.

Payne, J. (1989). A tourism feasibility study for the proposed Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary. Kota Kinabalu: WWF/Malaysia.

Payne, J. (1996). Sabah biodiversity conservation project, Malaysia. Kinabatangan multi disciplinary study, pp 55.

Payne, J. (1997). The Kinabatangan floodplain: An introduction. Malaysia: WWF- Malaysia.

Payne, J., & Davies, G. (2013). Conservation of rain forest mammals in Sabah: Long term perspectives. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 29: 187-201.

Pegas, F. d. V., & Castley, J. G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(4): 604-625.

Pengiran Bagul A. H. B. (2009). Success of ecotourism sites and local community participation in Sabah. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Accessed 2016, 14 June from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/890?show=full.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalisation in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies 47(11): 1451-1458.

354

Polus, R. C., & Bidder, C. (2016). Volunteer tourists’ motivation and satisfaction: A case of Batu Puteh village, Kinabatangan Borneo. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 224: 308-316.

Pounds, J. A., Bustamante, M. R., Coloma, L. A., Consuegra, J. A., Fogden, M. P., Foster, P. N., & Puschendorf, R. (2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439(7073): 161- 167.

Powell, L., Powell, L., Tilt, C., & Tilt, C. (2017). The examination of power and politics in a conservation organisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30(3): 482-509.

Pretty, J. (1995). The many interpretations of participation. In Focus 16: 4-5.

Quist, J. (2007). Backcasting for a sustainable future: the impact after ten years. Eburon, Delft NL, pp 284.

Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: the shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures 38(9): 1027-1045.

Ramdas, M., & Mohamed, B. (2014). Impacts of tourism on environmental attributes, environmental literacy and willingness to pay: A conceptual and theoretical review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 144: 378-391.

Ramírez, F., & Fennell, D. (2014). A comprehensive framework for ecotourism and wetland restoration: the case of Bogotá, Colombia. Journal of Ecotourism 13: 128-151.

Ramirez, R. (1999). Stakeholder analysis and conflict management. Cultivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. Chapter 5, pp 101-126.

Ramli, M., & Byrd, H. (2012). Towards a sustainable built environment in Malaysia. Published by the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, pp 215.

Ramos, A. M., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of Palenque: empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(3): 461-479.

Rao, M., Htun, S., Platt, S. G., Tizard, R., Poole, C., Myint, T., & Watson, J. E. (2013). Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate: A review of threats and implications for conservation planning in Myanmar. Ambio 42(7): 789- 804.

355

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Jaafar, M. (2016). Community participation toward tourism development and conservation program in rural world heritage sites. Tourism: From empirical research towards practical application, InTech, pp 14.

Ratner, B. D., Burnley, C., Mugisha, S., Madzudzo, E., Oeur, II., Mam, K., Rüttinger, L., Chilufya, L. N., & Adriázola, P. (2017). Facilitating multistakeholder dialogue to manage natural resource competition: a synthesis of lessons from Uganda, Zambia, and Cambodia. International Journal of the Commons 11(2): 733-753.

Rautner, M., Hardiono, M., & Alfred, R. J. (2005). Borneo: Treasure island at risk. Status of forest, wildlife and related threats on the island of Borneo. WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, pp 80.

REDD (2012). REDD in Malaysia. Accessed on 3 June 2012, from http://theredddesk.org/countries/malaysia.

Reed, M.G. (2000). Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism settings. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability (pp. 247– 271). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417-2431.

Reed, S. M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., & Stringer, C. L. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 146: 292-302.

Responsibletravel.com. (2013). Access on 3 May 2017, retrieve from http://www.responsibletravel.com/copy/what-is-community-based-tourism.

Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A. and Burges R.G. (Eds.). Analyzing qualitative data. London, Routledge.

Robert, K. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47(3): 8-21.

Roberts, L., & Simpson, F. (2000). Developing partnership approaches to tourism in central and Eastern Europe. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

356

Roberts, N. C. & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state level. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 27(2): 209-227.

Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O'Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(5): 756-768.

Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focussed stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics 82(1): 233-250.

Romero-Brito, T. P., Buckley, R. C., & Byrne, J. (2016). NGO partnerships in using ecotourism for conservation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 11(11): e0166919.

Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management 20(1): 123-132.

Ruiz-Mallén, I., Schunko, C., Corbera, E., Rös, M., & Reyes-García, V. (2015). Meanings, drivers, and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America Ecology and Society 20(3): 1-14.

Sabah Biodiversity Centre (2011). Lower Kinabatangan-Segama Wetlands Ramsar Site. Volume 1: management plans 2011-2020. Sabah state government, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, 294 pp.

Sabah Forestry Department (2009). Strategic plan of action (Sabah): The heart of Borneo Initiative. With assistance from the WWF-Malaysia, pp 43.

Sabah Forestry Department (2016). Sabah Forestry Department: background and history. Accessed on 25 November 2016, from http://www.forest.sabah.gov.my/about/background/history.

Sabah Land Ordinance (2010). State of Sabah Land Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 68). Land Ordinance.

Sabah Meteorological Department (2017). Weather reports for Kinabatangan district, Sandakan, Sabah. Reports for the year 2007 until 2016: Rainfall, relative humidity, and temperature, pp 5.

Sabah State Government (2011). Asian Wetland Symposium on integrated biodiversity conservation: Linking forests and wetlands, pp 34.

Sabah Wildlife Department (2016). Ecotourism operators and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan, pp 2.

357

Sabah Wildlife Department (2017a). Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary: Purposes, protected species, and locations. Reports by the Sabah Wildlife Department, Kinabatangan office, pp 7.

Sabah Wildlife Department (2017b). Management and conservation: protected areas. Accessed 12 April 2017 at http://www.wildlife.sabah.gov.my/?q=en/content/protected-areas.

Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2): 312-328.

Savage, G. T., Bunn, M. D., Gray, B., Qian, X., Wang, S., Wilson, E. J. & Williams, E. S. (2011). Stakeholder collaboration: Implications for stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 9.

Saxena, K. G., Rao, K. S., Sen, K. K., Maikhuri, R. K., & Semwal, R. L. (2001). Integrated natural resource management: Approaches and lessons. Conservation Ecology 5(2): Art 14.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management 20: 245-249.

Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: empowering communities. Harlow, England: Prentice hall.

Scheyvens, R. (2011). The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the Maldives: Understanding the social and political dimensions of sustainability. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 52(2): 148-164.

Schulze, H., & Suratman, S. (1999). Villagers in transition: case studies from Sabah. Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Seixas, C. S., Davy, B., & Leppan, W. (2009). Community-based conservation and development: Lessons learned from the 2004 Equator Prize. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 28: 523-552.

Sha JCM, Henry B, & Nathan S. (2008). Status and conservation of proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) in Sabah, East Malaysia. Primate Conservation 23: 107-120.

Sharma, B., & Gursoy, D. (2015). An examination of changes in residents' perceptions of tourism impacts over time: The impact of residents' socio- demographic characteristics. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20(12): 1332-1352.

Shoo, R. A. (2017). Local communities’ perception of ecotourism and attitudes towards conservation of Lake Natron Ramsar site, Tanzania International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 7(1): 162-176.

358

Shoo, R. A., & Songorwa, A. N. (2013). Contribution of ecotourism to nature conservation and improvement of livelihoods around Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism 12(2): 75-89.

Singer, E., & Couper, M. P. (2017). Some methodological uses of responses to open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses: a Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology (MDA) 11(2): 115-134.

Sink, D. (1996). Five obstacles to community-based collaboration and some thoughts on overcoming them. In C. Huxham (Ed.), creating collaborative advantage (pp. 101-109). London: Sage.

Siow, M.-L., Ramachandran, S., Shuib, A., & Afandi, S. H. M. (2015). Adapting evidence-based intervention in rural tourism policies. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 7(5), 473.

Siti-Nabiha, A. K., Abdul Wahid, N., Amran, A., Che Haat, H., & Abustan, I. (2008). Towards a sustainable tourism management in Malaysia. Lex ET Scientia International Journal (LESIJ) XV-2, pp 301-312.

Snyman, S. (2014a). Partnership between a private sector ecotourism operator and a local community in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: The case of the Okavango Community Trust and Wilderness Safaris. Journal of Ecotourism 13: 110-127.

Snyman, S. (2014b). The impact of ecotourism employment on rural household incomes and social welfare in six southern African countries. Tourism and Hospitality Research pp 16.

Snyman, S. (2016). The role of private sector ecotourism in local socio-economic development in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism pp 1-22.

Snyman, S. L. (2012). The role of tourism employment in poverty reduction and community perceptions of conservation and tourism in southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3): 395-416.

Somarriba-Chang, M. d. l. A., & Gunnarsdotter, Y. (2012). Local community participation in ecotourism and conservation issues in two nature reserves in Nicaragua. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(8): 1025-1043.

Spenceley, A. (2003). Tourism, local livelihoods and the private sector in South Africa: Case studies on the growing role of the private sector in natural resources management. Sustainable livelihoods in Southern Africa. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Research paper 8, pp 139.

Spiteri, A., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Environmental Management 37(1): 1-14. 359

Sterling, E. J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Blair, M. (2017). Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 209: 159-171.

Stone, M., & Wall, G. (2004). Ecotourism and community development: case studies from Hainan, China. Environmental Management 33(1): 12-24.

Stone, M. T. (2015). Community-based ecotourism: a collaborative partnerships perspective. Journal of Ecotourism 14: 166-184.

Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 6(3): 210-230.

Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2): 448-468.

Stronza, A., & Pêgas, F. (2008). Ecotourism and conservation: two cases from Brazil and Peru. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(4): 263-279.

Stucki, V., & Smith, M. (2011). Integrated approaches to natural resources management in practice: the catalyzing role of national adaptation programmes for action. Ambio 40(4): 351-360.

Su, M. M., & Wall, G. (2014). Community participation in tourism at a world heritage site: Mutianyu Great Wall, Beijing, China. International Journal of Tourism Research 16(2): 146-156.

Su, M. M., Wall, G., & Ma, Z. (2014). Assessing ecotourism from a multi- stakeholder perspective: Xingkai lake national nature reserve, China. Environmental Management 54(5): 1190-1207.

Sundufu, A., James, M., Foday, I., & Kamara, T. (2012). Influence of Community Perceptions towards Conservation and Eco-tourism Benefits at Tiwai Island Wildlife Sanctuary, Sierra Leone. American Journal of Tourism Management, 1(2), 45-52.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using multivariate statistics 3: 402-407.

Tasci, A. D. A., Semrad, K. J., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2013). Community-based tourism: finding the equilibrium in COMCEC context. Setting the pathway for the future. COMCEC coordination office, Turkey, pp 109.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6(1): 61-77.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools 13(1): 12-28. 360

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 77-100.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) (2015). Uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel through ecotourism. Accessed from http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism.

The Malay Mail Online (2017). Sabah tourism industry until 2016. Accessed 10 May 2017 from http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/sabah-hits- record-tourist-numbers-for-2016.

The Malaysian Economic Planning Unit (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan: 2006-2010, pp 556.

The Malaysian Economic Planning Unit (2011). Tenth Malaysia Plan: 2011-2015, pp 451.

The Star Online (2014). Nazri Aziz: Foreign travel ban on east Sabah will affect whole state. Accessed on 25 November 2016, from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/07/17/three-more-countries- bar-citizens-going-to-sabah/.

The Star Online (2017a). Sabah scraps Sukau bridge project. Accessed on 20 April 2017 from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/04/20/sabahscrapssukaubridge project/.

The Star Online (2017b). Landmark project to expand Sabah’s protected forest to 30% of land area by 2025. Accessed on 21 May 2017, from http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/04/21/landmark-project-to- expand-sabahs-protected-forest-to-30-percent-of-land-area-by- 2025/#X3Pit5qzekD0J4hC.99.

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The International Ecotourism Society (1990). Ecotourism definition and principles. Washington, DC.

Tilleman, F., & Marcharis, M. (2017). The road towards community based ecotourism. Maastricht University Journal of Sustainability Studies pp 14.

Torkar, G., Zimmermann, B., & Willebrand, T. (2011). Qualitative interviews in human dimensions studies about nature conservation. Varstvo Narave 25: 39- 52.

Tosun, C. (1999). Towards a typology of community participation in the tourism development process. Anatolia 10(2): 113-134. 361

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21(6): 613-633.

Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 22(3): 289-303.

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management 27(3): 493-504.

Tran, L., & Quynh Anh, D. (2011). A study on the environmental impact of ecotourism in Can Gio mangrove biosphere, Vietnam. Tourist Management 3: 1-60.

Trist, E. L. (1983). Referent organisations and the development of interorganisational domains. Human Relations 36: 247-268.

UNEP (2012). Climate change adaptation: Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA). Accessed May 31, 2015, available from: http://www.unep.org/climatechange/adaptation/EcosystemBasedAdaptation/t abid/29583/Default.aspx.

UNWTO (2002). Sustainable development of tourism: ecotourism and protected areas. The British Ecotourism Market [accessed May 10, 2015]. Available from: http://sdt.unwto.org/content/ecotourism-and-protected-areas.

UNWTO (2009). Adaptation to climate change in the tourism sector. World Tourism Organisation, pp 12.

Ushantha, C., & Wijesundara, N. (2016). Barriers to community participation in tourism businesses: a case study of local community in Arugam-Bay. Proceedings of ISER 26th International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 86-90.

Vaz, J. (1993). The Kinabatangan Floodplain: an introduction. Edited by Junaidi Payne, produced by WWF-Malaysia, in association with the Sabah's Ministry of Tourism and Environment, pp 63.

Vaz, J., & Pyne, J. (1997). The Kinabatangan floodplain: an introduction. Kota Kinabalu: WWF Malaysia.

Vergragt, P. J., & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78: 747-755.

Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: Local sustainable projects. Annals Tourism Research 32: 325-345.

Waayers, D., Lee, D. & Newsome, D. (2011). Exploring the nature of stakeholder collaboration: a case study of marine turtle tourism in the Ningaloo region, Western Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, iFirst article, pp. 1-20. 362

Waddock, S. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organisations. Administration and Society 21: 78-100.

Walters, B. B., Cadelina, A., Cardano, A., & Visitacion, E. (1999). Community history and rural development: why some farmers participate more readily than others. Agricultural systems 59(2): 193-214.

Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates. Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009). Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possibilities? Second edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier Ltd, pp 305.

Weitzner, D., & Deutsch, Y. (2015). Understanding motivation and social influence in stakeholder prioritisation. Organisation Studies 36(10): 1337-1360.

Western, D., & Wright, R. M. (1994). Natural connections: perspectives in community-based conservation. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Wijesundara, N., & Gnanapala, A. C. (2016). Difficulties and challenges related to the development of homestay tourism in Sri Lanka. Tourism, Leisure and Global Change 3: 90-104.

Wilmot, A. (2005). Designing sampling strategies for qualitative social research: with particular reference to the Office for National Statistics’ Qualitative Respondent Register, pp 219-231. Source: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/qbank/QUest/2005/Paper23.pdf.

Wilson, K. A., Carwardine, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2009). Setting conservation priorities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162(1): 237-264.

Woolley, C. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3(1), pp. 7.

World Bank (2013). Regional study on community based tourism in the Caucasus. Access on 3 May 2017, retrieve from http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/eca/eca.nsf/d1e666886eb626e2852567d100165 1 68/780a475beed61c07852568fc005df707/$FILE/Regional%20Studies%20on %20 Community-Based%20Tourism%20in%20the%20Caucasus.pdf.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). New York: Oxford University Press, pp 8.

WWF (1996). Part 1: Malaysian national ecotourism plan. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Malaysia). Prepared for the Ministry of Culture, Arts, and Tourism, pp 324.

363

WWF (2001). Kinabatangan, a corridor of life: a vision for the Kinabatangan 2020. Partners for Wetlands, Lower Kinabatangan floodplain, Malaysia, pp 20.

WWF (2004). Poverty and conservation: ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, pp 2.

WWF (2015). Managing rivers wisely: Kinabatangan case study, pp 6. Accessed from http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/mrwkinabatangancasestudy .pdf

Yang, H., Harrison, R., Yi, Z.-F., Goodale, E., Zhao, M.-X., & Xu, J.-C. (2015). Changing Perceptions of Forest Value and Attitudes toward Management of a Recently Established Nature Reserve: A Case Study in Southwest China. Forests 6(9): 3136-3164.

Yap, K. S. (2005). Malaysia's response to climate change. Malaysian Meteorological Service, accessed from http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/ap- net/documents/seminar/13th/22%20Malaysia.pdf

Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools 13(1): 41-47.

Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2011). Assessments of citizen willingness to support urban forestry: An empirical study in Alabama. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3) 118-125.

Zhou, D., Wang, Z., Lassoie, J., Wang, X., & Sun, L. (2014). Changing stakeholder relationships in nature reserve management: A case study on Snake Island- Laotie Mountain National Nature Reserve, Liaoning, China. Journal of Environmental Management 146: 292-302.

Zhu, Z., & Eckfeld, T. (2016). The development of conservation practices in China from the 1980s to the present. Bulletin of the Australian Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material 37(1): 26-34.

364

Appendix A: Consent letter for research sampling

The following letter shows the example of a written permission undertaken before conducting a field sampling in the Lower Kinabatangan:

365

Appendix B: List of interviewees for an in-depth semi-structured interview

No Respondent Position Gender 1 Local authority Deputy director Female 2 Local authority Head of research and Tourism Female Development 3 Local authority Senior manager Male 4 Local authority District officer Male 5 Local authority Assistant District Officer Male 6 Local authority Environmental senior officer Female 7 Local authority Wildlife senior officer Male 8 Local authority Wildlife deputy officer Male 9 Local authority Forestry senior officer Male 10 Local authority Forestry deputy officer Male 11 Local authority Forestry officer Male 12 Private sector Manager Male 13 Private sector Manager Male 14 Private sector Manager Female 15 Private sector Manager Male 16 Private sector Manager Male 17 Private sector Supervisor Male 18 Private sector Supervisor Female 19 Private sector Manager Male 20 NGO Director Female 21 NGO Coordinator Female 22 NGO Supervisor Male 23 Local community Head of Sukau village Male 24 Local community Head of Sukau village (Menanggol) Male 25 Local community Head of Batu Puteh village Male 26 Local community Committee of safety and development Male (Sukau) 27 Local community Committee of safety and development Male (Batu Puteh) 28 Local community Coordinator of homestay Male 29 Local community Cordinator of Kopel Ltd Male 30 Rosmah Balai Kito Homestay owner (Sukau) Female 31 Yanti Balai Kito Homestay owner (Sukau) Female 32 Mustara Balai Kito Homestay owner (Sukau) Female 33 Bahrani Balai Kito Homestay owner (Sukau) Male 34 Sarimah Balai Kito Homestay owner (Sukau) Female 35 Aisyah Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Female 36 Arbaiyah Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Female 37 Rohani Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Female 38 Sarimah Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Female 39 Zaiton Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Female 40 Yus Walai Kito Homestay owner (Batu Puteh) Male

366

Appendix C: Interview questions (English)

1. How long have you been in this organisation, and what are the roles of your organisation?

2. What are the current managements of ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan area (e.g. Activities and policies)? Are they effective? Why/Why not?

3. What are the current managements of conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan area (e.g. Activities and policies)? Are they effective? Why/Why not?

4. Compared to before, how is the progress of the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary (LKWS)? Are the objectives met? Are the local communities involved in the management of LKWS?

5. What are the impacts of ecotourism in terms of economy, social and environment, especially to local community? Can you give examples?

6. What are the impacts of conservation in terms of economy, social and the environment? Can you give examples?

7. What is the main problem of ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan? To what extent it has been resolved? How about the conservation?

8. From what I read, there are some issues regarding human-wildlife conflict in the LK area. Has it been solved? How about the conflict among stakeholders?

9. What do you think about the local community participation the ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan? What are the factors that can encourage/discourage them to participate in this sector?

10. What do you think about the local community participation the conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan? What are the factors that can encourage/discourage them to participate in this sector?

11. What do you think about the impacts of climate change to people and the environment in the Lower Kinabatangan? Is it necessary to include a specific management to mitigate the climate changes?

12. What do you think about the cooperation between the authority, NGOs, ecotourism operators, and the community in ecotourism and conservation? What you can suggest to improve this cooperation?

13. What is your opinion on the future development of ecotourism and conservation in the LK area?

367

Appendix D: Interview questions (Malay)

1. Sudah berapa lama anda bekerja dalam organisasi ini? Apakah tugas anda?

2. Bagaimanakah cara pengurusan ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan (cth: Polisi dan aktiviti)? Adakah cara tersebut berkesan? Kenapa/Kenapa tidak?

3. Bagaimanakah cara pengurusan konservasi di Hilir Kinabatangan (cth: Polisi dan aktiviti)? Adakah cara tersebut berkesan? Kenapa/Kenapa tidak?

4. Berbanding dahulu, bagaimana pencapaian Santuari Hidupan Liar Kinabatangan? Adakah mencapai objektif? Adakah penduduk tempatan terlibat dalam melaksanakan santuari ini?

5. Apakah kesan perlaksanaan ekopelancongan dari aspek ekonomi, social, dan persekitaran, terutama sekali kepada penduduk tempatan? Boleh berikan contoh?

6. Apakah kesan perlaksanaan konservasi dari aspek ekonomi, social, dan persekitaran? Boleh berikan contoh?

7. Apakah masalah utama berkaitan ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan? Adakah kes ini sudah diselesaikan? Bagaimana dengan isu utama berkaitan konservasi?

8. Apakah pendapat anda tentang isu antara manusia dengan hidupan liar di Hilir Kinabatangan? Adakah kes ini sudah diselesaikan? Bagaimana dengan isu berkaitan konflik antara pemegang taruh?

9. Apakah pendapat anda tentang penglibatan komuniti dalam ekopelacongan di Hilir Kinabatangan? Apakah faktor yang boleh menggalakkan penglibatan mereka?

10. Apakah pendapat anda tentang penglibatan komuniti dalam konservasi di Hilir Kinabatangan? Apakah faktor yang boleh menggalakkan penglibatan mereka?

11. Apakah pendapat anda tentang impak perubahan cuaca kepada penduduk dan persekitaran di Hilir Kinabatangan? Adakah perlu untuk mewujudkan cara spesifik untuk mengatasi masalah ini?

12. Apakah pendapat anda tentang kerjasama antara pihak kerajaan, swasta (NGOs), pengusaha ekopelancongan, dan komuniti dalam ekopelancongan dan konservasi? Apakah cadangan anda untuk memperbaiki kerjasama ini?

13. Apakah pendapat anda tentang pembangunan ekopelancongan dan konservasi di Hilir Kinabatangan pada masa hadapan? 368

Appendix E: Questionnaire survey (English)

An integrated framework to improve stakeholder collaboration in conservation and ecotourism in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah

Dear respondent,

The study aims to investigate the participation and opinions of stakeholders in in the ecotourism and conservation in the Lower Kinabatangan Sabah. I appreciate if you can take some time to answer the questionnaire survey which takes around 15 to 20 minutes. Your participation and views are crucial to understand the current stakeholder involvement, issues, and development of both ecotourism and conservation in your area. The findings are employed to formulate an integrated framework to enhance the stakeholder participation in both sectors.

The research is one requirement to fulfil my PhD study at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). All answers of questionnaire surveys are kept strictly confidential. If there is a problem with the questionnaire, you can contact me at 019-5290708 or email at [email protected].

The questionnaire comprises of four sectors (Section 1, 2, 3 and 4). Please read the questions carefully. More importantly, there are no right or wrong answers, but I appreciate if you can answer the questions honestly based on your knowledge. Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

(Marcela Pimid) PhD student

Approved by,

(Dr. Normah Abdul Latip) Senior lecturer/ Main Supervisor 369

SECTION 1 CONSERVATION IN LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH Note: LKWS is Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary a) Do you know about the conservation agenda of LKWS?  Not at all known  Moderately know  Slightly know  Extremely know  Somewhat know b) In your opinion, how effective is the current conservation management of LKWS?  Very ineffective  Effective  Ineffective  Very effective  Not sure c) What are the impacts of LKWS? SD: strongly disagree; D: disagree; NS: not sure; A: agree; SA: strongly agree. SD D NS A SA Increase number of wildlife Reduce number of illegal hunting Reduce number of illegal logging Reduce crop damage (animal attacks) Increased job opportunities in conservation Increased community awareness in conservation Improved infrastructures in your community Restrict the access to forest products Restrict cultural activities in your area Other, please state: d) The current management of LKWS involves the participation of the local community?  Strongly disagree  Agree  Disagree  Strongly agree  Not sure e) Overall, what do you think about the current conservation of LKWS?  Unacceptable  Meets expectation  Inadequate  Need improvement  OK as it is f) Have you participated in any of the conservation activities below:  Yes (Please tick any that apply):  Work in conservation department  Replant tree along the river  “Gotong-royong” to clean up the forests  Take part in an awareness program of conservation  Patrol the wildlife  Participate in decision-making in conservation 370

 Other, please state: ______ No (none at all) g) In your opinion, what are the reasons that discourage the local community from participating in the conservation? SD: strongly disagree; D: disagree; NS: not sure; A: agree; SA: strongly agree. SD D NS A SA Do not know how to participate Local community does not get appropriate information Not invited to participate Not interested to participate Do not have time to participate Only applicable to certain groups (e.g. Community leaders, etc.) The conservation is not important to me Other, please state:

h) According to each source listed below, how frequently do you hear about conservation in your area? N: never, R: rarely, S: sometimes, VO: very often, A: always. N R S VO A Local authorities Non-government organisations (NGOs) Community leaders Oil palm industry company Private company of ecotourism Family members or relatives Newspaper Television Radio Internet Poster or pamphlet Other, please state: i) Compare to before, how is the participation of local community in conservation activities?  Decrease greatly  Increase slightly  Decrease slightly  Increase greatly  Stay the same j) Do you support the conservation activities in your area?  Strongly oppose  Somewhat support  Somewhat oppose  Strongly support  Not sure

371

k) If given an opportunity, would you like to participate in the future conservation activities?  Definitely no  Probably yes  Probably no  Definitely yes  Not sure l) Are you willing to donate for the conservation activities in the LKS?  Yes (Please tick one answer):  RM 1 – RM 5  RM 16 – RM 20  RM 6 – RM 10  More than RM 20  RM 11 – RM 15  No

m) How to improve the current conservation in the LK area? SD: strongly disagree; D: disagree; NS: not sure; A: agree; SA: strongly agree.

SD D NS A SA I have knowledge and experience regarding the forest and wildlife I am willing to contribute those knowledge/experience for conservation purposes I am willing to change negative attitudes of conservation (e.g. No time, not interested, etc.) Increase fundraising for conservation projects Provide effective governing to nurture conservation leadership among local community Provide incentive (money) to participate in conservation Increase participation of local communities in decision-making of conservation Empower the local community to act in conservation, not merely attending conservation awareness campaign Other, please state:

372

SECTION 2: CURRENT ECOTOURISM IN LOWER KINABATANGAN SABAH

a) Have you participated in the ecotourism sector in any way of this:  Yes (Please tick any that apply):  Work in the ecotourism lodge or resort  Offer Homestay to tourists  Own a personal business related to ecotourism  Take part in capacity building (skills training) related to ecotourism  Attending talks or briefing related to ecotourism  Other, please state: ______ No (none at all)

b) Current ecotourism in your area: Please tick one answer for each criterion.

CRITERIA OF ECOTOURISM 1) Participation of local High level of participation community Low level of participation

2) Economic benefits Few economic benefits Many economic benefits

3) Local community Can make decisions for ecotourism involvement in decision- Cannot make decisions for ecotourism making of ecotourism

4) Control over development Have control over ecotourism process of ecotourism development No control over ecotourism development

c) What do you think about the problems related to participating in ecotourism? SD: strongly disagree; D: disagree; NS: not sure; A: agree; SA: strongly agree. SD D NS A SA Do not know how to participate Lack of confidence to participate Lack of knowledge/skills to participate Not interested to participate Do not have time to participate Limited jobs offered in the ecotourism sector Ecotourism is not important to me Prefer to work with other type of jobs (not related to ecotourism) Other, please state: 373

d) Are you interested to learn more about ecotourism opportunities in your area?  Very disinterested  Interested  Disinterested  Very interested  Not sure e) If given the opportunity, do you want to participate (work and/or do business) in future ecotourism sector?  Definitely not  Probably yes  Probably not  Definitely yes  Not sure f) What is your opinion on current ecotourism? SD: strongly disagree; D: disagree; NS: not sure; A: agree; SA: strongly agree

SD D NS A SA Ecotourism encourages the conservation in the LK Ecotourism generates more job opportunities to local communities Most of the tourism business open in my area is owned by the local communities Current policies of ecotourism are good (it generates incomes to the local communities) More capacity building to train skills in ecotourism Provide money (loans) to encourage the local communities to start ecotourism business Build more ecotourism infrastructures in LKS Prioritise the ecotourism opportunities to local communities Other, please state:

SECTION 3 CLIMATE CHANGE ON PEOPLE, ECOSYSTEM, BIODIVERSITY, SOCIAL, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT a) How frequently have you heard about climate change before receiving this survey?  Never  Very often  Rarely  Always  Sometimes

374

b) Are you concerned about the impacts of climate change to your community and the environment?  Not at all concerned  Moderately concerned  Slightly concerned  Extremely concerned  Somewhat concerned c) How the climate change affect your area? NE: no effect, MiE: minor effect, NS: not sure, MoE: moderate effect, MaE: major effect NE MiE NS MoE MaE Climate change affects the tourists flow to the Kinabatangan Climate change erodes natural attraction of ecotourism Climate change affects community employment in ecotourism Climate change contributes towards environmental problems Climate change contributes to the death of wildlife species Climate change contributes towards forest burning Other, please state:

d) Personal opinions regarding climate changes:

SD D NS A SA I would like to learn more about the climate changes (e.g. Causes, impacts, solutions, etc.). I think it is necessary to include mitigations of climate changes in my area. I would like to participate in solving the issue of climate changes in my area.

I appreciate if you can give comments or suggestions to improve the current ecotourism and conservation in your area, including the climate change in Lower Kinabatangan. ______375

SECTION 4 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC OF RESPONDENT 1) Gender  Male  Female

2) Age  18 - 25 years  42 - 49 years  26 - 33 years  More than 50 years  34 - 41 years

3) Ethnicity  Sungai  Bugis  Kadazan/Dusun  Other, please specify:  Malay ______ Chinese

4) Education  Not attending school  Upper secondary school  Primary school (SPM/ SPVM/STPM)  Lower secondary school  Diploma (PMR/SRP)  Tertiary (degree/master/PhD)

5) Marital status  Single  Divorced  Married  Widow/widower

6) How long have you stayed in Lower Kinabatangan?  Less than 1 year  16 - 20 years  2 - 10 years  More than 20 years  11 - 15 years

7) Reasons to stay at Lower Kinabatangan? Tick any that apply  Born here  Buy land here  Marriage  Other, please specify:  Job opportunity ______ Business opportunity

8) Occupation (Please tick any that apply)  Farmer  Personal business  Fisherman  Housewife  Government staff  Not working  Logging sector  Other, please specify:  Oil palm estate ______ Ecotourism (e.g. homestay, tourist guide, etc)

376

9) Monthly income  Less than RM 500  RM 1501 - RM 2000  RM 501 - 1000  More than RM 2001  RM 1001 - RM 1500

10) Do you own any land in Kinabatangan?  Yes  No

11) Do you have bad experience with wildlife species (e.g. crop damage, property damage, or getting hurt)?  Yes  No

377

Appendix F: Questionnaire survey (Malay)

Rangka Kerja Bersepadu untuk Meningkatkan Kerjasama Pemegang Taruh dalam Konservasi dan Ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan Sabah

Kepada responden,

Dalam usaha mengkaji penglibatan dan pendapat pemegang taruh dalam pemuliharaan biodiversiti dan ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan Sabah, diharap anda boleh menjawab soal selidik ini yang akan mengambil masa 15-20 minit. Semua pendapat dan jawapan daripada kajian ini adalah penting untuk pembangunan kelestarian dalam pemuliharaan biodiversiti dan ekopelancongan pada masa depan.

Kajian ini adalah salah satu syarat untuk pengijazahan peringkat PhD saya di Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). Semua jawapan akan disimpan secara sulit. Sekiranya terdapat masalah mengenai soal selidik ini, sila hubungi saya di 019- 5290708 atau [email protected].

Soal selidik ini terdiri daripada empat bahagian (Bahagian 1, 2, 3 dan 4). Harap anda membaca soalan dengan cermat sebelum menjawab. Selain itu, anda perlu tahu bahawa tiada jawapan yang salah, sebaliknya keikhlasan dan kejujuran adalah sangat penting semasa anda menjawab soalan. Terima kasih banyak.

Yang Benar,

(Marcela Pimid) Pelajar PhD

Disokong oleh,

(Dr. Normah Abdul Latip) Pensyarah/Penyelia utama

378

BAHAGIAN 1 PEMULIHARAAN DI HILIR KINABATANGAN, SABAH

Nota: Santuari Hidupan Liar Kinabatangan juga dikenali sebagai ‘Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary’ (LKWS) a) Anda tahu mengenai Santuari Hidupan Liar Kinabatangan?  Tidak tahu langsung  Tahu banyak  Tahu sikit-sikit  Tahu sangat banyak  Sederhana tahu b) Pada pendapat anda, berapa efektif perlaksanaan Sanktuari Hidupan Liar Kinabatangan?  Sangat tidak efektif  Efektif  Tidak efektik  Sangat efektif  Tidak pasti c) Apakah kesan perlaksanaan Santuari Hidupan Liar Kinabatangan? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju STS TS TP S SS Bilangan hidupan liar bertambah Kes pemburuan haram berkurang Kes pembalakkan haram berkurang Kes kerosakan tanaman oleh haiwan berkurang Peluang kerja dalam bidang pemuliharaan bertambah Kesedaran penduduk akan pemuliharaan meningkat Kemudahan/infrastruktur bertambah baik Terhad akses untuk kutip hasil hutan Aktiviti budaya di kawasan anda terhad Lain-lain, nyatakan: d) Pengurusan semasa Santuari Hidupan Liar ada melibatkan penduduk kampung?  Sangat tidak setuju  Setuju  Tidak setuju  Sangat setuju  Tidak pasti e) Secara keseluruhannya, apakah pendapat anda tentang pemuliharaan santuari hidupan liar?  Tidak dapat diterima  Mencapai objektif  Tidak mencukupi  Perlu diperbaiki  OK seperti sekarang

379

f) Adakah anda pernah menyertai mana-mana aktiviti pemuliharaan?  YA (Pilih mana yang berkenaan):  Kerja di bahagian pemuliharaan  Tanam pokok di kawasan anda  “Gotong-royong” untuk bersihkan hutan  Mengikuti kempen kesedaran pemuliharaan  Mengawal atau patrol hidupan liar  Mengikuti perbincangan/membuat keputusan tentang pemuliharaan  Lain-lain, nyatakan: ______

 TIDAK (tiada langsung) g) Ikut pengalaman anda, apakah sebab-sebab yang menyebabkan kurang penglibatan penduduk dalam pemuliharaan? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju

STS TS TP S SS Tidak tahu cara untuk ikut Tidak dapat maklumat yang sepatutnya Tidak dijemput untuk ikut Tidak berminat untuk ikut Tiada masa untuk ikut Penglibatan adalah terhad untuk orang tertentu (cth: ketua kampung, JKKK, dan sebagainya) Pemuliharaan tidak penting bagi saya Lain-lain, nyatakan:

h) Berdasarkan saluran di bawah, berapa kerapkah anda dengar berita tentang pemuliharaan di kawasan anda? TP: tidak pernah, SJ: sangat jarang, KK: kadang-kadang, S: selalu, SS: sangat selalu TP SJ KK S SS Pihak kerajaan Agensi bukan kerajaan (NGO) Pemimpin kampung (cth: Ketua kampung, JKKK) Syarikat industri kelapa sawit Syarikat swasta ekopelancongan Anggota keluarga atau saudara-mara Surat khabar Televisyen (TV) Radio Internet Poster atau risalah Lain-lain, nyatakan:

380

i) Berbanding dahulu, bagaimana penglibatan penduduk kampung dalam pemuliharaan?  Sangat kurang  Semakin bertambah  Semakin berkurang  Sangat banyak  Sama sahaja j) Adakah anda sokong perlaksanaan pemuliharaan di kawasan anda?  Sangat tidak sokong  Sokong  Tidak sokong  Sangat sokong  Tidak pasti k) Jika diberi peluang, anda mahu melibatkan diri dalam aktiviti pemuliharaan?  Sangat tidak setuju  Setuju  Tidak setuju  Sangat setuju  Tidak pasti l) Adakah anda sudi menderma untuk aktiviti pemuliharaan di kawasan anda?  YA (Sila pilih satu jawapan di bawah):  RM 1 – RM 5  RM 16 – RM 20  RM 6 – RM 10  Lebih daripada RM 20  RM 11 – RM 15  TIDAK

m) Apakah pandangan anda tentang cara untuk memperbaiki pemuliharaan di kawasan anda? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju STS TS TP S SS Saya ada pengetahuan/pengalaman tentang hidupan liar/hutan Saya sudi berkongsi pengetahuan/pengalaman tersebut untuk tujuan pemuliharaan Saya sedia untuk ubah sikap negatif untuk lindungi hutan dan hidupan liar (cth: tiada masa, tiada minat, sebagainya). Tambah dana untuk projek pemuliharaan Latih penduduk untuk berdikari dalam aktiviti pemuliharaan, bukan setakat hadir kempen kesedaran Sedia insentif (duit) untuk galakkan penduduk ikut pemuliharaan Pertingkatkan penglibatan penduduk dalam membuat keputusan berkaitan pemuliharaan Ketatkan lagi undang-undang pemuliharaan hidupan liar dan hutan Lain-lain, nyatakan: 381

BAHAGIAN 2: EKOPELANCONGAN DI HILIR KINABATANGAN SABAH a) Adakah anda pernah sertai ekopelancongan dalam mana-mana cara berikut:

 YA (Pilih mana yang berkenaan):  Bekerja di ekopelancongan (cth: resort, homestay, Bed & breakfast)  Buka homestay untuk pelancong  Buka business sendiri dalam ekopelancongan (cth: sewakan bot, dan lain-lain)  Sertai latihan kemahiran berkaitan ekopelancongan  Mendengar ceramah/seminar berkaitan ekopelancongan  Lain-lain, nyatakan: ______ TIDAK (tiada langsung) b) Apakah pendapat anda tentang ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan? Pilih satu jawapan untuk setiap kriteria.

Ciri-ciri ekopelancongan Banyak penglibatan 1) Penglibatan penduduk kampung Kurang penglibatan

Banyak faedah ekonomi 2) Faedah ekonomi Kurang faedah ekonomi

3) Penglibatan penduduk membuat Boleh buat keputusan keputusan berkaitan Tidak boleh buat keputusan ekopelancongan

Ada hak dalam proses 4) Kuasa (hak bersuara) dalam ekopelancongan pembangunan ekopelancongan Tiada hak dalam proses ekopelancongan

c) Pada pendapat anda, apakah masalah berkaitan penglibatan penduduk dalam ekopelancongan? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju

STS TS TP S SS Tidak tahu cara untuk libatkan diri Kurang keyakinan untuk ikut Tiada pengetahuan/kemahiran untuk ikut Tidak berminat untuk ikut Tiada masa untuk ikut Kurang peluang kerja yang ada dalam ekopelancongan Ekopelancongan tidak penting bagi saya Lebih suka bekerja dalam bidang lain (tidak berkaitan ekopelancongan)

382

Lain-lain, nyatakan: d) Adakah anda berminat untuk mempelajari peluang kerja/business berkaitan ekopelancongan?  Sangat tidak minat  Berminat  Tidak minat  Sangat berminat  Tidak pasti e) Jika diberikan peluang, anda mahu melibatkan diri (kerja/ buat business) dalam ekopelancongan pada masa hadapan?  Sangat tidak setuju  Setuju  Tidak setuju  Sangat setuju  Tidak pasti f) Apakah pendapat anda tentang ekopelancongan sekarang? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju

STS TS TP S SS Ekopelancongan menggalakkan pemuliharaan hidupan liar dan hutan Ekopelancongan membuka lebih banyak peluang kerja kepada penduduk Kebanyakkan business ekopelancongan di kawasan anda dimiliki oleh penduduk sendiri Polisi (dasar-dasar) ekopelancongan sekarang cukup bagus (menjana ekonomi kepada penduduk)

g) Apakah pendapat anda untuk memperbaiki ekopelancongan di Hilir Kinabatangan? STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju

STS TS TP S SS Menambah latihan kemahiran berkaitan ekopelancongan Sedia pelaburan/pinjaman untuk penduduk membuka business ekopelancongan sendiri Bina lebih banyak kemudahan ekopelancongan Beri keutamaan peluang kerja/business kepada penduduk setempat Lain-lain, nyatakan:

383

BAHAGIAN 3 IMPAK PERUBAHAN CUACA DI HILIR KINABATANGAN a) Sebelum dapat soal selidik ini, berapa kerap anda dengar tentang perubahan cuaca/iklim?  Tidak pernah  Selalu  Sangat jarang  Sangat selalu  Kadang-kadang b) Adakah anda prihatin/peduli terhadap kesan perubahan cuaca kepada penduduk dan alam sekitar?  Tidak prihatin sama sekali  Prihatin banyak  Kadang-kadang prihatin  Sangat prihatin sekali  Tidak pasti c) Apakah kesan perubahan cuaca di Hilir Kinabatangan? TK: tiada kesan, SK: sedikit kesan, TP: tidak pasti, ST: sederhana teruk, PT: sangat teruk

TK SK TP ST PT Perubahan cuaca mempengaruhi kedatangan pelancong ke Kinabatangan Perubahan cuaca mengurangkan daya tarikan semulajadi untuj ekopelancongan Perubahan cuaca mempengaruhi peluang pekerjaan penduduk dalam ekopelancongan Perubahan cuaca menyebabkan masalah persekitaran Hidupan liar mati disebabkan cuaca melampau Hutan terbakar disebabkan cuaca panas melampau Lain-lain, nyatakan:

d) Pandangan anda terhadap perubahan cuaca. STS: sangat tidak setuju, TS: tidak setuju, TP: tidak pasti, S: setuju, SS: sangat setuju

STS TS TP S SS Saya mahu tahu lebih banyak tentang perubahan cuaca (cth: punca, kesan, sebagainya) Perlu wujukan satu rangka kerja untuk atasi masalah perubahan cuaca di kawasan saya Saya mahu sertai aktiviti yang boleh atasi masalah perubahan cuaca di kawasan saya 384

Saya sangat hargai sekiranya anda dapat memberi komen atau cadangan untuk memperbaiki pemuliharaan, ekopelancongan atau perubahan cuaca di kawasan anda. ______

BAHAGIAN 4: SOSIO-DEMOGRAPIK RESPONDEN 1) Jantina  Lelaki  Perempuan

2) Umur  18 - 25 tahun  42 - 49 tahun  26 - 33 tahun  Lebih daripada 50 tahun  34 - 41 tahun

3) Bangsa  Sungai  Bugis  Kadazan/Dusun  Lain-lain, nyatakan:  Melayu ______ Cina

4) Tahap pendidikan  Tidak bersekolah  Sekolah menengah atas  Sekolah rendah (SPM/ SPVM/STPM)  Sekolah menengah bawah  Peringkat diploma (PMR/SRP)  Peringkat tinggi (degree/master/PhD)

5) Status perkahwinan  Bujang  Bercerai  Berkahwin  Duda/janda

6) Sudah berapa lama tinggal di Hilir Kinabatangan?  Kurang daripada 1 tahun  16 - 20 tahun  2 - 10 tahun  Lebih daripada 20 tahun  11 - 15 tahun

7) Apakah sebab tinggal di Hilir Kinabatangan? Pilih mana yang berkenaan.  Lahir di sini  Peluang business  Perkahwinan  Beli tanah di sini  Peluang pekerjaan  Lain-lain, nyatakan: 385

______

8) Pekerjaan. Pilih mana yang berkenaan.  Petani  Business sendiri  Nelayan  Suri rumah  Staff kerajaan  Tidak bekerja  Kerja di syarikat pembalakkan  Lain-lain, nyatakan:  Kerja di lading kelapa sawit ______ Kerja pelancongan (cth: ‘homestay’, tukang masak, ‘tourist guide’, dan lain-lain)

9) Pendapatan bulanan  Kurang daripada RM 500  RM 1501 - RM 2000  RM 501 - 1000  Lebih daripada RM 2001  RM 1001 - RM 1500

10) Adakah anda mempunyai tanah di Hilir Kinabatangan?  Ya  Tidak

11) Adakah anda mempunyai pengalaman buruk dengan hidupan liar (cth: tanaman rosak, harta benda rosak, cedera dan lain-lain)?  Ya  Tidak

386

387