Community-Based Tourism: A Strategy for Sustainable Tourism Development of Patong Beach, Phuket Island, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study proposes community-based tourism as a strategy for sustainable tourism development of Patong Beach. Direct observation, questionnaire and interview are research instruments. A result of analyzing 120 questionnaires of local people which displayed a negative impact including economic impact which was very high )= 4.53(, social impact )= 4.28( and environmental impact) = 4.42( which were high so the total mean score was high )= 4.41(. The Community-Based Tourism was adapted for solution all negative impacts which were mentioned earlier. The sreategies are namely 1. Political development strategy: (1.1) Enabling the participation of local people, (1.2) Giving the power of the community over the outside and (1.3) Ensuring rights in natural resource management. 2. Environmental development strategy: (2.1) Studying the carrying capacity of the area, (2.2) Managing waste disposal and (2.3) Raising awareness of the need for conservation.3. Social development strategy: (3.1) Raising the quality of life, (3.2) Promoting community pride, (3.3) Dividing roles fairly between women/men, elder/youth and (3.4) Building community management organizations. 4. Cultural development strategy: (4.1) Encouraging respect for different cultures, (4.2) Fostering cultural exchange and (4.3) Embedding development in local culture and 5. Economic development strategy: (5.1) Raising funds for community development, (5.2) Creating jobs in tourism and (5.3) Raising the income of local people.<strong></strong></p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".