Why Ecotourism Failed as an Alternative Livelihood in Marine Park: The importance of community’s involvement in park management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the impacts of park establishment on communities and how institutional structures, such as customary laws, can influence communities’ involvement in ecotourism. A sustainable livelihoods (SL) approach was adopted as a framework to analyze the relationships among institutional processes and organizational structures (i.e. NCR, institutional arrangement), livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. In-depth household surveys and stakeholder interviews were undertaken during three months of fieldwork conducted in Tun Sakaran Marine Park (TSMP), Sabah, Malaysia. Although TSMP contains beautiful islands, and has many attributes and potential to be suitable for ecotourism development, surprisingly, this study found out that the local communities are not involved in tourism. At the same time, dive operators are bringing divers and snorkelers to the park on a daily basis. In conclusion, ecotourism as an alternative livelihood in TSMP can be achieved through efficient institutions i.e. the implementation of policies that are informed by the local situation. Therefore, institutional support should be strengthened if ecotourism is to become a livelihood strategy for communities in TSMP.Keywords: Ecotourism; Sustainable Livelihoods; Institutional Arrangement; Marine ParkeISSN: 2398-4287 © 2018. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i9.1540
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".