Research proposal written for MSc Disaster Management & Sustainable Development (Northumbria University, 2010-11).

1. Sustainable
Livelihoods
Analysis of
Community
Based
Ecotourism
Research Proposal
W10025958
Abstract:
Tourism has had huge impacts on communities and natural environments for decades, and
will continue to do so. Ecotourism is one form of sustainable tourism, which is considered a
more responsible way to travel. Theoretical and empirical literature is mixed however: from
the types of businesses and activities under the ‘ecotourism’ umbrella; to a varied impact of
ecotourism initiatives. This research seeks to explore links between community-based
ecotourism, participation and conservation, through a sustainable livelihoods approach.

2. Contents
Working Title..................................................................................................3
Background: Literature Review......................................................................3
Aims and Objectives......................................................................................4
Theoretical Perspective..................................................................................5
Methodology...................................................................................................6
Methods.........................................................................................................7
Timetable.....................................................................................................12
Budget and Resources................................................................................12
Ethical Considerations.................................................................................13
Risk Analysis................................................................................................15
References...................................................................................................16
Appendices
Appendix A: Maps..................................................................................18
Appendix B: Draft Observation Outline...................................................19
Appendix C: Draft Interview Outline.......................................................19
Appendix D: Draft Workshop Outline......................................................20
Appendix E: Draft Consent Form (Interview)..........................................21
Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach..................................................5
Figure 2: Map of South East Asia, showing the three study sites..................8
Tables
Table 1: Data................................................................................................10
Table 2: Timetable.......................................................................................12
Table 3: Budget............................................................................................12
Table 4: Risk Analysis (Researcher)............................................................15
Sources of cover page photos (left to right): http://www.ccben.org;
http://www.mangobayphuquoc.com; http://www.mescot.org
2

3. Working Title
Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis of Community Based Ecotourism
Background
Ecotourism
‘Sustainable tourism’ (ST) has been gaining ground since the 1990s, as more people
became aware of the negative effects of tourism on local environments and people. The
World Tourism Organisation developed a definition of ST, using the Brundtland Report’s
definition of sustainable development as a starting point:
"Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host
regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future... leading to
management of all resources in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic
needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity, and life support system" (Meyer et al. 2005:11).
Ecotourism (ET) is one form of ST, defined as “environmentally responsible travel and
visitation to natural areas to enjoy and appreciate nature that promotes conservation of the
environment and sustains the well being of a local people” (Ngece 2002:1).
Weaver & Lawton (2007) stated that ET should satisfy three criteria, namely: that attractions
are predominantly nature based; the focus is on education; and the whole package should
follow principles of ecological, socio-cultural and economic sustainability. They also
commented on the attempts to include recreational activities such as angling and trophy
hunting in ET; and attempts to include a cultural element.
There has been much research showing that ET is performing as hoped; and also research
stating that is difficult to assess initiatives, in terms of being financially viable, and also
benefitting local communities and the environment (Simpson 2009).
From an economic perspective, Wunder (2000) concluded that income obtained from ET
provided a conservation incentive. Stronza & Gordillo (2008) found that tourists tend to pay a
lot for their ‘eco-tours’ but tour operators may be reluctant to share the returns with the local
communities. Where some community members gain more than others, social conflicts
emerge. Additionally, the communities become vulnerable to the seasonality of the tourism
market, which is especially bad if they become heavily dependent on it.
From an ecological perspective, there are questions over whether the income and
employment gained from ET will unambiguously lead to conservation. ET rarely replaces
other destructive activities; and the new income can exacerbate habitat loss through more
rapid resource extraction (Stronza & Gordillo 2008). There are also problems associated
with ‘greenwashing’: whereby the ethics of tour operators do not conform to ET (Weaver &
Lawton 2007).
ET is predominantly promoted and practiced by middle class, Western white people
(Fletcher 2009). It has become increasingly institutionalised, with community-based projects
based in developing countries dependent on environmental organisations based in
developed countries Weaver & Lawton (2007).
3

4. Stronza & Gordillo (2008) found that research seldom measures the link between
participation in ownership and management of ET and conservation. Of studies that have
done, they reported that Sheyvens found that ET was more likely to lead to conservation
where locals have some measure of control and share equitably; Kruger performed a study
of 57 projects, and found that conservation occurred in the 17% that had communities
involved in decision making; and Belsky concluded that participation is linked to conservation
but only if communities truly benefit from influx of tourists. Weaver & Lawton (2007) found
that studies associated factors such as collaboration, partnerships and effective leadership,
with success.
What research is required?
Stronza & Gordillo (2008) found that an increasing number of scholars have hypothesised
that ET’s real connection to conservation comes through participation in ownership and
management, rather than through economic benefits alone. They believe that greater
attention needs to be paid to values, social relations and institutions, as opposed to just
economic change, in conservation projects. They believe that weaknesses of existing local
institutions are obstacles to conservation. Institutions are “social capital”, such as trust,
reciprocity, common rules, norms and sanctions, and strong networks. The conditions under
which ET leads to stronger or weaker local institutions remains poorly understood.
Stronza & Gordillo (2008) recommended that further explanatory research be carried out on
the causal mechanisms among ET benefits, the strength of local institutions and
conservation. Research should examine the extent to which participatory approaches can
help build social capital and thus provide local communities with the capacities to translate
ET into broader and locally sustained goals of conservation and development.
Aims and Objectives
The main focus of this research is to use the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) to
examine community-based ecotourism (CBET), with special interest in the relationship
between ET participation and ownership, and conservation. Specifically, it seeks to examine
the hypothesis that community participation and ownership of ET ventures is the real
connection to conservation and sustainable development, rather than economic benefits.
The objectives of this research are to:
1. Explore the effects that ET has on a community’s capital assets (financial, social,
human, natural, physical)
2. Examine whether ET has enhanced or degraded social capital within the community
3. Examine whether ET has enhanced or degraded natural capital within the community
4. Examine links between ET, social capital and natural capital
5. Use community-based participatory research (CBPR) to identify priorities and actions
for the community
The purpose of the research is to explore links between ET, community participation and
sustainable development, in three case study areas. The study will seek to explore the
extent to which participatory approaches to ET can help build social capital.
4

5. Theoretical Perspective
The SLA seeks to understand and build on people’s existing assets to develop positive
livelihood outcomes by identifying practical action. It is founded “on a belief that people
require a range of assets to achieve positive livelihood outcomes” (DfID 1999:5). The
approach is people-centred and holistic, based on the views of those concerned (Simpson
2009). The five categories of assets are shown in Figure 1.
Fig.1: Capital Assets
Social Capital: networks and
connections, membership of
more formalise groups, and
relationships of trust, reciprocity
and exchanges
Human Capital: skills,
knowledge, ability to labour and
good health
Natural Capital:
natural resource
stocks from which
resource flows and
services useful for
livelihoods are
derived, e.g. land,
water, biodiversity,
etc.
Physical Capital:
basic infrastructure
and producer goods
needed to support
livelihoods, e.g.
affordable
transport, secure
shelter and
buildings, adequate
water and
sanitation,
affordable energy,
and access to
information
Financial capital: resources including
available stocks (bank deposits, cash,
livestock) and regular inflows of money
(wages, state transfers, remittances)
Source: DfID
The ‘asset pentagon’ visually represents people’s assets: the centre point being zero access
to assets, and the outer perimeter representing maximum access. Different shaped
pentagons can be drawn for different people, social groups or communities. Gathering
information about trends incorporates a time dimension, meaning accumulation and loss of
assets can be examined (DfID 1999).
This exploratory study will employ a combination of deductive and inductive theory. Firstly
the hypothesis and SLA inform the evidence I will look for, and the data collected will confirm
or refute the hypothesis. The study seeks new insights, and will draw conclusions and
generate ideas that can be fed into further development of theory related to ET and SLA
(Grix 2004).
Worldview
The study will be approached from a critical realist (CR) perspective, which states that the
social world exists independently of our knowledge of it, but it is constructed through the
5

6. interactions of individuals (Grix 2004). A pragmatic worldview will also be adopted, in which it
is not necessary to question reality and the laws of nature. This worldview is real-world
practice oriented; using diverse approaches to develop knowledge (Creswell 2009), and is
therefore relevant to SLA which is used to examine existing situations.
Methodology
Answers to research questions will be acquired using a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods, and CBPR. The combined methods are necessary due to the
complexity of SL analysis. Quantitative data can be easily categorised and counted, while
qualitative data enriches the study. This also enables cross-checking and triangulation of
findings, complementary analysis of results, analysis of diverse opinions, and the ability to
look into perceptions and sources of relevant change and impacts (Simpson 2009; Ritchie &
Lewis 2009).
When examining sustainable livelihoods, not all factors of capital assets can be measured
quantitatively. Even examining those that can (e.g. wages) will not necessarily prove useful.
Individuals and communities can provide more valuable information through qualitative
analysis: issues of group dynamics can be captured, as well as descriptions of processes
(Simpson 2009). Jones (2005) differentiated between structural social capital (membership
of formal organisations) and cognitive social capital (trust, solidarity, reciprocity, and
membership in labour saving groups); and noted that previous studies had only considered
structural capital. This study will consider both, using Krishna & Shrader’s template.
CBPR is a collaborative approach that enables communities to actively participate in
research. It has evolved as an alternative research paradigm (OBSSR). CBPR involves
shared decision making, shared ownership, and recognition of contributions in the research
(Horowitz et al. 2009). It is an important tool for improving the quality, effectiveness and
sustainability of projects, providing a mechanism for communities to express feelings and
share knowledge (Simpson 2009). CBPR benefits the community as well as the researcher
through knowledge gained (OBSSR). Laverack & Thangphet (2007) provide an example of
using CBPR to examine community capacity to manage ET in two communities in Thailand.
Key to their approach was using strategic planning to initiate community actions towards
sustained, locally managed ET. This approach made people more aware of their strengths
and weaknesses. The information gathered was then used to improve their livelihoods
through strategic planning and collective action.
This study is not designed to be a rigid template: it does not seek to make generalisations
between participation and conservation. However, it is a flexible approach that can be
adapted to other projects and environments. Endogenous CBET initiatives and the concept
of social capital are also scarce in current literature (Jones 2005), so this will add to case
study material.
Sampling
Since qualitative research does not aim to estimate the incidence of phenomena, it requires
a sampling logic where scale and statistical representation are not key considerations.
Therefore ‘non-probability sampling’ is better suited, due to its ability to represent relevant
characteristics: units of investigation are deliberately chosen to reflect particular features,
and so the chances of selection are unknown. Purposive sampling will be employed, to
6

7. enable a detailed exploration of the central themes. This will ensure all relevant areas are
covered and some diversity is included. Some use of convenience sampling has been
employed with regard to finding study areas. Additionally, it can be argued that opportunistic
sampling will be employed: although I can state that I intend to act upon interesting
observations during fieldwork, I cannot foresee what those observations will be, or how
many there will be. The deliberate nature of purposive sampling does not equate to bias, but
clear objectivity must be maintained when selecting units of investigation (Ritchie & Lewis
2009).
Data Analysis
Quantitative data will be analysed using SPSS, and content and discourse analysis of
qualitative data will be used to create tables and matrices outlining key impacts of CBET
(Simpson 2009).
Triangulation
The study will incorporate both method and data triangulation (as shown in Table 1 on page
10). Multiple methods will be used to investigate the same phenomenon, and multiple data
sources will be used in order to analyse the same phenomenon.
Scale
This study is small-scale and in-depth, being undertaken at three study sites. It will involve
individuals and communities. Due to the scale of the study, no attempt will be made to
generalise the findings to a wider population. However, it is hoped that the participatory
action research methods employed will garner some useful insights on ‘best practice’ that
can be shared. There is also the possibility of reproducing the research in other locations, or
carrying out a longitudinal study, to observe development over time.
Weaknesses
Potential weaknesses exist within this study. Firstly, SLA assumes capital assets can be
expanded in an incremental way, which may not be the case. It also does not pay much
attention to inequalities of power, or macroeconomic trends and conflict. Lastly, it
“underplays the fact that enhancing the livelihoods of one group can undermine those of
another” (Serrat 2008:4). Additionally, the budget places limits on the time that can be spent
at study sites and therefore the amount of data that can be collected. Observational methods
also have the disadvantage that participants will know they are being observed, distorting
’reality’. However, one of the key advantages of collecting qualitative data is its flexibility,
through open-ended questions and the ability to react to responses and adapt (FHI).
Methods
The study will employ the research methods detailed below. Table 1 summarises the data,
and methods of collection and analysis.
1. Literature Review
I will conduct a comprehensive literature review on tourism, ST, ET and CBET. This will
provide background information that will constitute the theoretical framework for the study.
7

8. 2. Case Studies
I will identify areas where CBET is taking place in order to conduct case studies. World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) is involved in CBET initiatives in Asia. Through contact with WWF, the
following communities have been provisionally selected:



Chi Phat, Ko Khong, Cambodia
Mango Bay, Phu Quoc, Vietnam
Mescot Initiative, Malaysian Borneo
Figure 2 shows the locations of these communities (further maps can be found in Appendix
A). I will contact to ask permission to carry out research in their communities. I will then visit
the study areas for two weeks to conduct the empirical research listed below.
These represent CBET projects at different stages of their development, with differing levels
of state and private support, understandings of ET, and activities available. As these
communities are accustomed to accepting visitors, it is assumed that the period of
acclimatisation will be fairly short. An ‘ice breaker’ will be initiated shortly after arrival, with
the support of community leaders. This will allow me to discuss the purpose of the study and
what will be asked of participants.
Analysis of the ecological and socio-cultural background will be carried out, which takes into
account the structure, operation, funding and stakeholders of initiatives (Simpson 2009).
Fig. 2: Map of South East Asia, showing the three study sites
Chi Phat,
Cambodia
Mango Bay,
Vietnam
Malaysian
Borneo
Source: http://www.nationsonline.org
3. Questionnaires
Following the initial meeting with the community, I will ask community members to complete
questionnaires, designed to inform levels of capital assets, which can be analysed
8

9. quantitatively. Questions will be developed using Krishna & Shrader’s template, to capture
both structural and cognitive levels of capital (Jones 2005). Average scores and percentages
will be recorded.
The questionnaire will consider household composition, income generation, food security,
and number and membership of community organisations. It will consider who is perceived
to receive benefits and costs from ET, at the household and community level. It will also
consider cognitive factors such as cohesion, trust, reciprocity, equity, decision making,
exclusion, power and conflict (Simpson 2009; Jones 2005). Participants will be asked to
consider changes that have taken place over time.
4. Participant Observation
The communities will be observed for 4 hours per week for 10 days. I will observe those who
participate in the ET initiative and those who do not, where applicable. I will also observe
community meetings and interactions with tourists. Observations will inform capital assets
such as participation and networks, and also their skills in terms of operating their CBET
initiative.
5. Semi-Structured Interviews
Shortly after arrival I will conduct interviews with key informants, such as community leaders
and entrepreneurs. These will focus on the evolution of the ET initiative, and past, present
and future developments and issues.
I will also choose several other community members to interview, based on participant
observations. This will include people who are highly engaged and those who are not. The
exact number cannot be defined, as it will depend on the size of the community, the extent of
the ET initiative, and observations. I will endeavour to include women, children, older people
and people with disabilities, in order to gain a thorough account as possible.
These interviews will focus on changes in capital assets associated with ET. I will discuss
past, present and future development and issues. Where interesting observations have been
made, interviews will be conducted shortly after these observations in order to clarify and
provide insight to observations.
Open-ended questions will be used, which may be varied according to the audience, to
include questions of relevance and meaning to each community; identified through
participant observation and interviews with key informants. The general strategy will be to
start with broad questions and follow up on the interviewee’s responses, to capture his or her
meanings and avoid imposing my own meanings or bias. This is outlined in the interview
sheet in Appendix C.
6. Participatory Workshops (CBPR)
Participatory workshops will be set up in order to undertake CBPR. I will work with
community leaders to develop the agenda for these workshops, but essentially it will be
aimed at discussing observations and results so far, and identifying areas for improvement
(see Appendix D for an outline). One participatory focus group will be conducted in each
study site. It will last up to 4 hours and involve 10-15 participants.
9

10. Activities that will be undertaken include:



Asset mapping: participants will identify past and present capital assets within the
community, which will enable them to utilise and build on existing resources. It will
involve detailing assets and also creating drawings of maps.
Priority ranking: participants will be asked to assign high, medium or low
importance to various ‘priorities’. The participants’ priority hierarchy is essential (as
opposed to the researcher’s), showing their values using their language and
concepts (Kitzinger 1994).
Pentagon configuration: participants select one of five statements they believe to
be true for each asset. A pentagon is developed from results, and participants then
discuss ways to improve which is fed into strategic planning (Laverack & Thangphet
2007).
7. Photographic and Video Evidence
I will gather photographic material from the study area, to aid reader visualisation of the
study areas. This will include examples of conservation or loss of biodiversity; community
meetings; interaction; and other interesting observations. Photographs will also be taken of
activities in the workshops. Photographs and videos will also be sought from the community
and from tourists that have visited the area via internet searches.
Table 1 summarises the data that will be collected, and the methods employed for data
collection and analysis. Throughout, I will be exploring who participates in CBET, who feels
positive and negative effects, what those effects are, how people feel about them, and what
improvements could be made.
Table 1: Summary of Data
Method
Analysis
Data to collect
Literature
review
Content analysis of secondary
research in terms of SLA and
capital assets
Books
Journal articles
Organisational reports
Case studies
Situational analysis of initiatives
Ecological and socio-cultural background
Structure, operation, funding and
stakeholders of initiatives
Past, present and future developments and
issues
Relevant laws, statutes and policies
Questionnaires
Quantitative analysis
Human capital: health, education, skills,
time use, population composition
Social capital: social structure,
participation, decision making patterns,
gender roles
Natural capital: land and water resources,
produce, wildlife, biodiversity, examples of
conservation
Physical capital: housing conditions,
educational services, health services,
transport and communications
10

11. Method
Analysis
Data to collect
Financial capital: household income and
expenditure patterns
Participant
observation
Conversation analysis: structure
and content
Human capital: skills, time use
Social capital: social structure,
participation, decision making patterns,
gender roles
Natural capital: interaction with resources,
examples of conservation
Semi-structured
interviews
Content analysis: identify themes
in content and context
Heuristic analysis: idiosyncratic
meanings
Life history: single narratives and
collected around common themes
Human capital: health, education, skills,
time use
Social capital: social structure,
participation, decision making patterns,
gender roles
Natural capital: land and water resources,
produce, wildlife, biodiversity, examples of
conservation
Physical capital: housing conditions,
educational services, health services,
transport and communications
Financial capital: household income and
expenditure patterns
Communitybased
participatory
research
Asset and historical mapping
Priority ranking
Pentagon configuration
Human capital: health, education, skills,
time use
Social capital: social structure,
participation, decision making patterns,
gender roles
Natural capital: land and water resources,
produce, wildlife, biodiversity, examples of
conservation
Physical capital: housing conditions,
educational services, health services,
transport and communications
Financial capital: household income and
expenditure patterns
Photographic
and video
evidence
Visual analysis of relationships
and interactions
Recording evidence to aid reader
visualisation
Human capital: skills, labour force
participation, time use
Social capital: membership of formal and
informal groups, decision making, mutual
support and reciprocity
Natural capital: land and water resources,
produce, wildlife, biodiversity, examples of
conservation
Physical capital: housing conditions,
educational services, health services,
transport and communications
11

12. Timetable
The research will last for 4 months and will be undertaken between June and September
2011. Table 2 shows when each stage of the research will take place, and how long it will
take. An additional 2 weeks ‘contingency’ have been left blank at the end, in case of any
issues resulting in a delay. As no stage of the research is time-sensitive (e.g. dependent on
harvest season) it is not important where delays may occur.
Table 2: Timetable
Week:
Background
research
Developing
methods
Time with
communities
Collecting
data
Analysing
data
Report
writing
Contingency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Budget and Resources
A budget of £2,854.14 has been prepared to cover the costs of the research outlined above.
Table 3 shows a breakdown, using the foreign exchange rate of US dollars to GB pounds on
1st April 2011. This includes all travel and accommodation costs, visas and insurance. It also
includes recording equipment, stationery, and other equipment necessary for undertaking
the research. Some funds have been kept aside as a contingency fund. This budget will be
funded by the researcher. Items once I have returned home have been omitted as I would be
paying for them anyway, e.g. internet connection, rent, food at home, etc.
Table 3: Budget
Item
Unit Cost Quan. Subtotal Total Cost
Flights:
Manchester – Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Phnom Penh – Sandakan, Malaysia
Sandakan – Manchester
£1258.42
£504.00
£242.00
£512.42
1
1
1
£504.00
£242.00
£512.42
Internal travel:
Bus: Phnom Penh to Andoung Tuek
Boat between Andoung Tuek and Chi Phat
Bus: Andoung Tuek to Rach Gia
Boat between Rach Gia and Phu Quoc
Bus: Rach Gia to Phnom Penh
Bus between Sandakan and Batu Puteh
£6.52
£15.26
£11.45
£5.84
£7.21
£4.36
1
2
1
2
1
2
£6.52
£30.52
£11.45
£11.68
£7.21
£8.72
Accommodation: per night B&B
Chi Phat, Cambodia
£12.40
14
£173.60
£76.10
£893.62
12

13. Item
Unit Cost Quan. Subtotal Total Cost
Mango Bay, Vietnam
Mescot Initiative, Malaysia
£37.18
£14.25
14
14
Food: £5 per day incl. 2 meals and snacks
£5.00
45
£225.00
Internet and phone: per week while travelling
£5.00
6
£30.00
£66.78
1
£66.78
£15.26
£44.00
N/A
1
1
N/A
£15.26
£44.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
£2.50
£2.00
£7.99
£9.99
£9.99
N/A
2
1
1
1
2
N/A
£5.00
£2.00
£7.99
£9.99
£19.98
Insurance: ‘Infinity’ quote for 4 months worldwide
£520.52
£199.50
Visas:
£59.26
Cambodia
Vietnam
Malaysia
Recording equipment:
Asus laptop – already own
[Audio: Samsung mobile phone – already own]
[Video: Flip video recorder – already own]
[Photographic: DSLR Nikon D40 – already
own]
Stationery:
Pens and pencils
Writing pads
Highlighters – pack of 6
Flipchart A1 Paper for workshops (pack of 40)
Sharpie Pens for workshops (pack of 12)
Sticky notes for workshops (pack of 6)
Contingency: in case of extended time necessary with
communities, loss of spending money; other
extenuating circumstances
TOTAL
£00.00
£44.96
£200.00
1
£200.00
£2854.14
Ethical Considerations
Efforts will be taken to minimise risk to participants and study sites (physical, psychological,
social, economic, and legal). A principle of ‘reciprocity’ will be adopted, to ensure that
participants benefit from the research too (Creswell 2009).
Communities will be made aware that:





Fraudulent practices such as of suppressing, falsifying or inventing findings will
not be undertaken;
Data will only be recorded and processed with permission;
Data will only be used for the purposes outlined;
Results will not be misused in order to advantage any group; and
They will be provided with a preliminary copy of the research publication.
Protecting Participants from Harm
Participants will be given a clear understanding of the issues to be addressed before being
asked to participate. Only questions relevant to the study will be asked. I will remain alert to
signs of discomfort; and in the event of someone becoming uncomfortable, I will check their
willingness to continue. After the interview, I will revisit confidentiality, to reassure the
participant. I will also offer to revisit issues discussed, or move onto other topics. I will not
give advice, but offer to help the participant seek support (Ritchie & Lewis 2009).
13

14. In the event of a participant disclosing information that indicates they are at risk of harm, I
will encourage them to report it themselves, seek help another way, or I will offer to talk to
someone on their behalf. The interview as a whole will be treated as private and confidential,
so reporting observations as well as disclosures will require consent (Ritchie & Lewis 2009).
The research will adopt an ‘equality’ principle, ensuring no bias is made against people
because of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability or age (Creswell 2009).
Informed Consent
Community leaders will be contacted in order to secure agreement of access to the study
site in order to undertake the research (Creswell 2009). Participants will be provided with
information about the purpose of the study, the researcher, how the data will be used, the
subjects to be covered, and what is required of them, in terms if input and time (Ritchie &
Lewis 2009). All participants will be given consent forms (Appendix E) to sign,
acknowledging their rights during data collection (Creswell 2009).
It will be made clear that all participation is voluntary, and participants have the right to
withdraw at any time (Ritchie & Lewis 2009). Debriefing will be undertaken following
interviews and workshops to ensure accuracy in data interpretation (Creswell 2009).
Permission will be sought to audio-record interviews. In the case of someone refusing
permission, detailed notes of responses will be made instead. Permission will be sought to
record workshops on video. If denied, materials from the activities will be used to conduct
data analysis. With regard to photographic evidence, permission will be sought from
participants, where they are the subject of the photographs. Permission will be sought via
email for photographs found through internet searches.
Anonymity and Confidentiality
Due to the case study nature of the research, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed. It is
highly likely that community members will be aware of who is being interviewed and
observed; and everyone at the workshop will know each other as it is community-based.
Participants will be made aware of these matters (Ritchie & Lewis 2009).
Confidentiality (avoiding attributing comments to people using name or role, or referring to
characteristics) during interviews will be upheld. However, this becomes more complicated
when considering participant observation. Where possible, confidentiality will be protected by
making general comments instead; or consent will be sought from the person involved
(Ritchie & Lewis 2009).Some participants may wish to be known, and they will be given the
option of having their comments attributed to them, but made aware of the risks posed.
In terms of data storage, audio recordings and transcripts will be coded and identifying
information will be stored elsewhere. All data will be password protected. However,
anonymising some forms of data, e.g. photos and videos, is not possible. Participants will be
made aware of this prior to the study (Ritchie & Lewis 2009). Data archiving will be
discussed prior to the study. Participants will be informed that data will be kept for the
number of years in line with the School of Built & Natural Environment policy, and then
destroyed (Creswell 2009).
14

15. Risk Analysis
It is sensible to make arrangements to minimise risks to researchers at the beginning of the
study. Risks may be within study sites, or during travel to and from them. Possible risks
include: modes of transport, familiarity with the location, personal safety, and ways in which
private engagements are carried out (Ritchie & Lewis 2009).
Potential risks are shown in Table 4, with mitigation strategies alongside. Risks have been
analysed in terms of their likelihood (1 to 5, unlikely to very likely) and their impact (1 to 5,
low to high impact).
Table 4: Risk Analysis (Researcher)
Area of Risk
Risk Factor
Mitigation
Personal safety, e.g.
mugging, rape, etc.
3x3=9
Find out about known risks and dangers beforehand
Take details of flights, accommodation, etc. and take
contact numbers
Take extra copies of important documents
Observe any customary dress codes
Ensure accommodation is secure
Take padlocks to keep valuables safe
Avoid walking or travelling alone in unknown places,
especially at night
Travel: accident/crash
2 x 5 = 10
Only use operators with good safety records
Take care crossing roads
Interviews
3x3=9
Find out background information about participants
beforehand
Ensure others know of times and locations of interviews
Remain in contact before and after interviews
Conduct interviews in communal areas
Be alert to possible risk factors or heightened risk
Respond to raised feelings with respect and empathy, and
possibly move onto another topic
End the interview if risk increases further
15

16. References
Cambodia Community Based Ecotourism, http://www.ccben.org (accessed 23/03/11)
Complete Asia, Map of Cambodia and Vietnam, http://www.complete-indiaasia.com/maps/vietnam-map.html (accessed 23/03/11)
Creswell, J. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, (3rd edition), London: Sage
Department for International Development (DfID) (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance
Sheet 2.1, available online at http://www.eldis.org/ (accessed 12/03/11)
Family Health International (FHI) (no year) Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s
Field Guide, available online at
http://www.fhi.org/nr/rdonlyres/etl7vogszehu5s4stpzb3tyqlpp7rojv4waq37elpbyei3tgmc4ty6d
unbccfzxtaj2rvbaubzmz4f/overview1.pdf (accessed 12/03/11)
Fletcher, R. (2009) Ecotourism discourse: challenging the stakeholders theory, Journal of
Ecotourism, 8.3:269-285
Grix, J. (2004) The Foundations of Research, New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Horowitz, C., Robinson, M. & Seifer, S. (2009) Community-Based Participatory Research
From the Margin to the Mainstream, Circulation, 119:2633-2642, available online at
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/119/19/2633 (accessed 10/04/11)
Jones, S. (2005) Community-based Ecotourism: The Significance of Social Capital, Annals
of Tourism Research, 32.2:303-324
Kitzinger, J., 1994. The Methodology of Focus Groups - the Importance of Interaction
between Research Participants, Sociology of Health & Illness, 16.1:103-121
Laverack, G. & Thangphet, S. (2007) Building community capacity for locally managed
ecotourism in Northern Thailand, Community Development Journal, 44.2:172-185
Mango Bay Resort, http://www.mangobayphuquoc.com (accessed 23/03/11)
Mescot Initiative, http://www.mescot.org (accessed 23/03/11)
Meyer, M., Parkyn, M. & Roth, S. (2005) Training on Tourism: Introduction to Sustainable
Tourism, Ecological Tourism in Europe (ETE), Bonn
Nations Online, Map of South East Asia,
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map_of_southeast_asia.htm (accessed 23/03/11)
Ngece, K. (2002) Community Based Ecotourism: What can the people of East Africa learn
from success stories elsewhere?, available online at
http://www.cbnrm.net/pdf/nicholas_kn_001_ecotourismpaper.pdf (accessed 12/03/11)
NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), Community Based
Participatory Research,
http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/methodology/community_based_participatory_resear
ch/index.aspx (accessed 10/04/11)
16

17. Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2009) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students and Researchers, London: Sage
Serrat, O. (2008) Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Simpson, M. (2009) An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on community
development and sustainable livelihoods, Community Development Journal, 44.2:186-208
Stay Res Malaysia, Map of Malaysia, http://www.stayresmalaysia.com/malaysia-map.htm
(accessed 23/03/11)
Stronza, A. & Gordillo, J. (2008) Community Views of Ecotourism, Annals of Tourism
Research, 35.2:448-468
Vietnam Hotels, Map of Mango Bay, http://www.vietnamhotels.biz/mangobay_resort/
(accessed 23/03/11)
Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. (2007) Twenty years on: the state of contemporary ecotourism
research, Tourism Management, 28:1168-1179
Wild Frontiers, Map of Chi Phat,
http://www.wildfrontiers.co.uk/wildfrontiers/destination_itinerary.jsf?tid=489&id=8 (accessed
23/03/11)
Wunder, S. (2000) Ecotourism and economic incentives – an empirical approach, Ecological
Economics, 32:465-479
17

18. Appendices
Appendix A
Maps
Fig. A1: Maps showing study sites in Cambodia and Vietnam
Sources: http://www.wildfrontiers.co.uk/; http://www.complete-india-asia.com/ and
http://www.vietnamhotels.biz/
Fig. A2: Map showing study site in Malaysian Borneo
Sources: http://www.stayresmalaysia.com and www.mescot.org
18

19. Appendix B
Draft Observation Outline
Study site: ________________________________________________________
Date: ________________________ Time: ____________ to _______________
Location/Activity: __________________________________________________
Description: e.g. physical setting, participants, accounts of events or activities,
reconstruction of dialogue, etc.
Reflective notes: own subjective responses to observations: speculations, feelings,
problems, ideas, hunches, impressions, prejudices
Appendix C
Draft Interview Outline
Interview reference: _______________Study site: _______________________
Date: ________________________ Time: ____________ to _______________
Location/Activity: __________________________________________________
Interview Guide
Introduction
Background and contextual information; Definitional questions
Present circumstances (age, housing, sources and levels of income)
Life history (childhood and family background, education, work history,
friendships
Core part of the interview: more in depth; attitudinal/evaluative/explanatory
Tourism – what you know, what you think – nature, feelings
Effects of tourism – past, present, future
Winding down: suggestions
19

20. Appendix D
Draft Workshop Outline
Study site: _______________________________________________________
Date: ________________________ Time: ____________ to _______________
Location/Activity: __________________________________________________
Introduction
Thanks for hospitality
Findings so far
Aims of discussion
Asset mapping
Identify past and present capital assets
What has changed?
What existing resources exist that can be built upon?
Priority ranking
Assign high, medium or low to ‘priorities’
Create hierarchy
Pentagon configuration
Select one of five statements for each asset
Develop pentagon
Discuss ways to improve
Winding down
20

21. Appendix E
Draft Consent Form (Interview)
Researcher: Francesca Hughes
Sponsoring institution: Northumbria University
The purpose of the research is to explore links between ecotourism, community
participation and sustainable development. Participating will allow you to share feelings,
knowledge and experiences. Findings will be fed into community-based participatory
research, which aims to identify areas for improvement.
Participants have been selected by considering roles within the community, and through
participant observation. The study aims to include diverse views within the community,
and will therefore include men, women, children, and older people.
Interviews will last 1-2 hours and will focus on changes in capital assets associated with
ecotourism. Past, present and future development and issues will be discussed. Where
interesting observations have led to the interview taking place, questions will be asked
in order to explore the observation in more depth.
Anonymity and confidentiality:
Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed due to the case study nature of the research.
Confidentiality will be upheld: comments made will not be attributed to you in name, role
or characteristics. However, you have the right to have comments attributed to you if
you wish. Audio recordings and transcripts will be coded and identifying information will
be stored elsewhere. All data is password protected.
You have the right to withdraw at any time.
I, the participant, confirm that:
I have been briefed about this research project and its purpose and agree
to participate

I have discussed any requirements for anonymity or confidentiality with the
researcher

I agree to being audio-taped / videotaped during the interview

Participant’s signature: _______________________________________________
Researcher’s signature: ______________________________________________
Names of people to contact with questions:
Francesca Hughes [include contact details] [Supervisor – include contact details]
21