18127 annex document cbt phase i 2

Thoải mái (Make yourself at home.) CbT Development in Minh Hóa Annex Document for Phase I Activities and Basis Document for the Phase II working proposal (view on Do and Ta Vong, Trọng Hoá, from the road) Sai Gon/ Phong Nha/ Dong Hoi, 25th of August 2012 Content List of Figures iii List of Tables iv Brief Introduction Methods 2.1 First Visits Trọng Hoá and Đân Hoá Communes 2.2 Launch Meeting 2.3 Hamlet Leader and Household Surveys 2.4 Tour Operator Surveys 12 2.5 Visitor Surveys 15 Tourism Inventory 20 3.1 Introduction to the Minh Hoá District 20 3.2 Dân Hoá 23 3.2.1 Population, Access and Infrastructure 24 3.2.2 Distances and Access 25 3.2.3 Attractions/Activities 26 3.2.4 Images from Đân Hoá 29 3.2.5 Communication 31 3.2.6 Potential Obstacles/ Threats 31 3.3 Trọng Hoá 32 3.3.1 Population, Access and Infrastructure 33 3.3.2 Distances and Access 34 3.3.3 Attractions/Activities 35 3.3.4 Images from Trọng Hoá 37 3.3.5 Communication 40 Culture and Traditions 41 4.1 Khua Customs and Traditions 41 4.2 Máy Customs and Traditions 44 Village Households’ Results 46 5.1 Household Characteristics and Perceptions of Touristic Activities 46 5.2 Eating and Drinking 50 5.3 Housing 51 5.4 Visitor Behavior 53 5.5 Other/ Daily Life 54 i Tour Operator Survey Results 55 6.1 The Sample 55 6.2 Community and Cultural Activities in the PNKB NP Region 56 6.3 Experience with Community-based / Cultural Activities 57 Visitor Survey Results 60 7.1 Visitor Profile 60 7.2 CbT – Perceptions and Attitudes 63 Contact List and Survey/ Interview Participants (For Internal Use Only) 65 ii List of Figures Figure Commune and hamlet leader interview guideline Figure Household survey interview questionnaire 10 Figure Household survey handicraft development – CbT section 11 Figure Visitor survey 19 Figure Overview map of the Phong Nha-Ke Bang Region 20 Figure Map of the tourism sites of the Phong Nha-Ke Bang Region 21 Figure Images HCM East and Highway 12A 23 Figure Households who have heard about tourism so far 47 Figure Households who would be willing to host visitors 49 Figure 10 Households who have space for potential visitors 49 Figure 11 Example of a floor plan of a common house in Trọng Hoá or Đân Hoá 52 Figure 12 Visitors’ reasons for visiting the PNKB NP Region 61 Figure 13 Where visitors spent the night before arriving to the PNKB NP Region 61 Figure 14 Modes of transport to PNKB 62 Figure 15 Visitors perceived importance of selected criteria when staying at a local family household 64 Figure 16 Visitors perceived importance of selected activities when staying at a local family household 64 Figure 17 Number of nights that visitors could imagine to spend at a homestay 65 iii List of Tables Table Working Schedule Phase I Table Hamlet leader and household interview schedule Table Tour operators participating in a survey questionnaire 12 Table Data collection of the visitor survey 15 Table Đân Hoá: Overview over population, access and infrastructure 24 Table Trọng Hoá: Overview over population, access and infrastructure 33 Table Household sample characteristics 46 Table Main income activities of surveyed households 50 Table Tour operators selection criteria for homestay/ community-based tourism activities 57 Table 10 Experienced difficulties in organizing homestays by tour operators 58 Table 11 Potential negative impacts of CbT activities on the local community 59 Table 12 Visitor sample characteristics 60 Table 13 Visitors’ reasons for not staying overnight in PNKB 62 Table 14 Visitors travel partners 63 iv Brief Introduction This annex serves as a supplement to a following report on Phase I of the GIZ’s community-based tourism efforts in the Trọng Hoá and Đân Hoá communes in the northern PNKB NP bufferzone district of Minh Hoá It shall provide interested readers with detailed descriptions on the activities carried out so far and on the methods applied for information collection The latter includes descriptions of formal and informal meetings with the communes and of the survey instruments (commune, hamlet leaders, households, tour operators, visitors) as well as their appraisal A discussion of the results and a conclusion/upcoming working plan will be delivered in the subsequent working proposal of Phase II of the CbT process Annex outline:  An array of interviews were held and questionnaires gathered from stakeholder groups, including the commune, hamlet leaders, village households, visitors and tour operators  the initial visits paid to the Trọng Hoá and the Đân Hoá communes as well as the methods applied for the surveying process  piloting of the handicraft survey  interviews/survey findings resulting in a tourism inventory (though not comprehensive), including attractions, infrastructure/access, communication, potential threats  tourism inventory: o attractations/activities o access/infrastructure o culture: customs and traditions of Khua o images to get a first impression Methods The following schedule for data collection was followed from the Mid of July until the Mid/end of August: Table Working Schedule Phase I Date 13.7 16.7 17.7 18.7 19.7 20.7 23.7 24.7 25.7 26.7 27.7 30.7 31.7 1.8 2.8 3.8 6.8 7.8 8.8 9.8 10.8 13.8 14.8 15.8 16.8 17.8 Fr Mo Tu We Th Fr Mo Tu We Th Fr Mo Tu We Th Fr Mo Tu We Th Fr Mo Tu We Th Fr Activity First field visit Launch meeting Finalize tour operator questionnaire WS Hanoi Field visit Dân Hoá: Ha Vi and Ba Looc, Trọng Hoá: Pa Choong and Pa Choong, Ra Mai: hamlet + household survey Field visit Trọng Hoá: Do, Sy, Cha Cap, Lom K.Chom: village head surveys and landscape attractions finish data collection tour operator survey review of the visitor survey Visitor surveys Paradise Cave and Tourism Centre Phong Nha Field visit Dân Hoá: K’Ai, K’Vang, Bai Dinh, (Cha Lo): village head surveys and landscape attractions Follow-up on activities Starting Annex writing It is to note that any dates indicated as, for instance, ‘month 5’ refer to the lunar and not to the Gregorian calendar For a conversion of dates, the reader is referred to the website http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~duc/amlich/JavaScript/vncal_js.html? yy=2012&mm=8 2.1 First Visits Trọng Hoá and Đân Hoá Communes On the 13th of July, a first visit was paid to the Trọng Hoá (La Trọng 2) commune This was to introduce the suggested CbT (and handicraft) activities to the members of the Commune and to receive a very first feedback as well as to introduce the team members to the relevant local authorities In details: 1) Meeting with the local communes: Trọng Hoá commune (in La Trọng 2): o Present: Mr Tiên (Chairman of the CPC), Mr Hô Mi (Social and Cultural Affairs CPC) + Băc (Vice-Chairman of the CPC) o Scheduling of a major CbT/handicraft meeting for the 18.7 in the CPC building, with participation of the Trọng Hoá and the Đân Hoá commune representatives, evolving around CbT and handicraft development as well as presentation of the working plans o Questionnaires for local authorities were handed over in order to allow them for time for their completion Đân Hoá commune (in Y-Leeng): o Present: Secretary of the CPC and Mr.Tuân o Informed about the intended launch meeting o Questionnaires for local authorities were handed over in order to allow them for time for their completion 2) Survey piloting  The handicraft survey (including CbT components) was tested in three households in La Trọng 2, help was provided by the chairlady of the Women’s Union, Mrs Toàn; first pilots indicated strong support for CbT participation; it became apparent that the neither the term ‘tourism’ nor the term ‘communitybased tourism’ are being understood Explanations/meanings were provided  One village head survey was piloted with Mr Bình, village head of La Trọng The day followed a slight revision of the hamlet leader survey (to be provided in section 2.3.) Commune and hamlet leader surveys were structured identically, except for the fact that the former sought for a more comprehensive overview of all villages existing in each commune (e.g households, population, ethnicity, access to water and electricity, transport access) 2.2 Launch Meeting On the 18th of July, a launch meeting was held at the CPC building in La Trọng which was to officially introduce upcoming handicraft and CbT development activities and the team members as well as to receive a first feedback and input on forthcoming activities of commune and village representatives An array of stakeholder groups were presented at the workshop: commune leaders and staff, hamlet leaders, the Women’s Union, the Youth Union from both the Trọng Hoá and the Đân Hoá communes, Mr Xuan (Director of Van Xuan Handicrafts, Đồng Hới), Mr Thanh (PPMU at the National Park), Dr Jens Kallabinski (CTA GIZ) and five staff members of the GIZ In total the launch meeting was attended by 35 people, including 13 representatives from the Trọng Hoá and 12 representatives from the Đân Hoá commune as well as representatives from the DPDA Minh Hoá The meeting covered the following contents: Content morning:  Introduction and opening by the chairman of the CPC Trọng Hoá  Introduction GIZ and handicraft/CbT development, CTA GIZ  Presentation of initial survey results from the souvenir development in the Trọng Hoá and Đan Hoá communes carried out during three field visits in late May/early June 2012 and future working plan handicrafts by Mrs.Ngoc Anh  Presentation on tourism and CbT development, initial ideas on a future working plan, Chau/Anna  Introduction Van Xuan Handicraft, Mr Xuan  Feedback on presentations by participants, including Q&A  Discussion groups on handicraft and CbT development (initial impressions, perceived threats/ opportunities) During the morning session, it was particularly sought for feedback on the planned CbT and handicraft development activities in the two communes, including first impressions held and clarifications/ explanations on terms/ ideas needed by the participants, as well as concerns held and willingness and motivation for future participation and support The following comments were made: Generally:  There should be a combination of handicraft and CbT development taking place to mutually strengthen the activities and to share resources  Handicrafts (and their making) could be showcased to CbT visitors, these should also be made available for direct purchase  There are plenty of waterfalls worthwhile seeing for visitors, picnics can be arranged, traditions and weddings interesting to get to know for visitors  The concept of CbT is still partially unclear, no practical example was presented yet  Some of the participants have heard about CbT beforehand, one mentioned the example of ‘city people’ wanting to experience rural life nowadays, they become part of their daily life, eat and drink together, ethnic minorities in the north and their involvement in CbT activities  codes of conduct for visitors are needed, explanations why certain things are not allowed should be provided  Visitors are very welcome and local authorities committed to support the community as well as project team  Sapa was proposed for a potential study trip  Support/ advice was already wished for when initializing contracts with tour operators etc Planning:  Local authorities highlight that planning issues may arise for the new Rural Development Plan: a better integration of ethnic minorities and CbT activities is needed  Administration procedures need to be clarified and simplified: e.g border area permissions  Guides will be needed who can introduce the visitors to the local life and to the local traditions, these can be e.g hamlet leaders or other Vietnamese-speaking members of the community, tour guides accompanying the visitors are then to translate between the parties  Making the team aware that clear planning is needed, e.g.: how many households will be involved, capacities needed, products produced, transport and access, electricity, bathrooms/toilets, if possible to be integrated into the Master Plan, but: everybody agrees that CbT is feasible  Advertisement is needed (in newspapers or on a website)  The selection of villages should be based on the following criteria: traditional houses on stilts + food + handicrafts Concerns:  There was concern about whether or not visitors would eat the same food as the locals  there was slight concern about the language barrier between visitors and members of the community  There was concern about visitors using the same roads as illegal loggers Content afternoon:  Commune interviews on CbT development: Chau/ Anna  Train the trainer: how to conduct the handicraft surveys with the households, Ngoc Anh/ Thinh The following feedback was provided by the local authorities on the proposed CbT activities during the interviews:  Involvement of border police and commune as well as more involvement proposed with reference to the National Park (and their representatives)  CbT should/ needs to be recognized as a socio-economic development activity in the Community Plan  Recommended villages by Dân Hoá: Bai Dinh, Ha Vi, K-Ai and Y-Leeng  Recommended villages Trọng Hoá: Lom K.Chom/ Pa Choong, Ra Mai, Ka Ooc and Ong Tu these are based on a one-room-one-house idea, yet, there are separate spaces: there is a common seating area in the middle of the house as well as there is a taboo area for the wife either to its right or to its left side (around 2-3 meters to the right or left after entering) On top of this area would be the resting place for visitors or for the very young children who cannot walk yet The sleeping-berth next to it is reserved for the husband only (with the exception of also allowing a very young child to sleep here), followed by the sleeping-berth of both husband and wife The next berth would be kept for the eldest son, the one after for the second eldest and so on Then, the oldest daughter’s berth would follow etc While it is not necessarily uncommon that couples get divorced, the sleeping area may have to be extended for the returning daughter or son However, this also depends on the ghost’s blessing and nowadays it is more likely that a new house will be built Most commonly, the kitchen and the hearth can be found in a separate corner of the house If this does not exist, then the hearth will be in the middle of the seating/ entrance area sleeping area children who cannot walk yet/visitors husband husband or and wife young children eldest son second eldest son daughter kitchen taboo area for wife sleeping area veranda entrance Figure 11 Example of a floor plan of a common house in Trọng Hoá or Đân Hoá Construction materials for the houses are almost exclusively extracted from the nearby forest; in a ceremony the ‘God of the forest’ will be thanked for the gift During the field visits it was also very often the case that villages have been only very recently re-established and moved from another area In Lom K Chom and Sy, for instance, according to the commune plans 135 and 167, villagers received an 8Mio.VND and a 40 Mio.VND subsidy respectively in 2003 and in 2008 for the construction of wooden (instead of bamboo) houses 52 5.4 Visitor Behavior During the field visits, the project team was also made aware of specific rules which would need to be obeyed when entering a household Thus, visitors would be asked to comply with the following behaviors:  It should always be asked for permission to walk around in the village with the hamlet leader  Seek permission with the house owner before entering a house Greet the house owner first before anybody else  Men and women, whether married or not, have to sleep separately  Guests are asked to sleep vertically to the entrance of the house; the horizontal position is reserved to the spirits       No hammocks are allowed inside the house It should not be walked around the house with shoes on Visitors should ask, whether or not they can wear a hat inside the house Visitors should avoid to sit on the window or door silts Visitors should avoid to whistle inside the house Visitors should always stay in the guest area and seek permission, if they would like to enter another area of the house  Visitors should avoid making noise after 9pm Khua and Máy (as the Kinh) like going to bed early as they will get up early in the morning Please, note: Very often, visitors want to ‘do good’ and often take along sweets with them to the villages However, there are several downsides to this:  Children/ community members would get used to visitors bringing along items with them  Children/ villagers not know how to handle waste; there is no proper ‘waste management’ system in place, so any plastic/ paper brought to the villages will remain in the villages  Children/ villagers not have the possibility to see the dentist/ doctor (on a regular basis) Instead, it is proposed that visitors, if wanting to take something along with them, should consult the tour operator beforehand Schools, for instance, are often in need of writing material Such should be handed to the local teachers only Furthermore, visitors could be encouraged to pay into a local community fund (which could either be handled by the hamlet leader or the responsible commune staff member for the relevant village) which could be used for renovation purposes for the local kindergarden or school or for facilitating hydro-power or public water access facilities 53 5.5 Other/ Daily Life Becoming a hamlet leader Hamlet leaders are considered the ‘mayors’ of the villages The villagers elect the representative for a 5-years period, which can be extended by another years thereafter During this term, the house of the hamlet leader will also serve as the public meeting house of the village Schooling The large majority of children has access to a school nowadays Almost every village features a primary school which offers grades Then, the children either drop out of school or they have to leave home to attend a secondary/ boarding school In the villages visited in Trọng Hoá, children would need to go to Ra Mai Education is free of charge Only very few get to complete 12 grades, which need to be passed in order to apply for university entry tests The project team got told in Sy that, so far, only two pupils passed the 12th grade However, they had to return to their families thereafter in order to secure the income at home 54 Tour Operator Survey Results Tour operators play an essential role for CbT development, being an intermediary for the communes/ villages/ village households and the potential visitors These depend vitally on the support and the commitment of local or/ and national tour operators Accordingly, eight tour operators (managers or department heads) were surveyed for the planned activities in the pilot communes The appraisal is summarized in bullet points 6.1 The Sample Out of the sampled operators, four are quite long-established businesses, existing for more than 15 years, one has been existing since more than 10 years, while operators were founded fairly recently The responding operators currently offer the following activities: Bird watching Wildlife watching Marine-/ water- Fishing based Kayaking/ rafting Snorkeling/diving River/ lake cruising Walking/ trekking Mountain biking / bicycle Land-based Climbing Sightseeing/Photography Motorbiking Accommodation Accommodation Camping Homestays Visits to craft producers/ villages Visits to traditional villages Other Agro-tourism FAM tours                                                              Many of the tour operators, thus, show much experience with nature-based activities in general, but also with tours connected to the visits of ‘traditional’ villages and to handicraft producers Most also indicated to offer/ facilitate possibilities of ‘homestay’based accommodations However, it is not known whether some of these refer particularly to stays with private family households in minority villages 55          As indicated earlier (section 2.4.), there was a slight misunderstanding with the completion of the question concerning the specific target groups of the respective tour operators Nonetheless, the following table summarizes the responses: Related activity Adventure Sightseeing/City Cultural/ Rural Communities Religion International Customers (%) Domestic Customers (%) 8 100 15 35 60 26 90 70 90 - 0 10 10 100 50 35 20 30 - 10 90 - 0 70 10 100 30 25 20 34 - 20 90 - 0 15 10 5 0 6.2 Community and Cultural Activities in the PNKB NP Region In total, five operators stated to currently offer touristic activities in the PNKB National Park, whereas two denied this One of these respondents mentioned that activities used to be carried out in the Park, but these were no longer being offered due to low sales Half of the respondents yet know about any community/ cultural activities available in the PNKB NP Region, which are:  (Rustic) Chay Lap (n=2)  Drum beating festival of the Ma Coong minority, Thuong Trach commune  Doong village Asking participants whether or not they also offer activities in the buffer zone of the Park, three stated that they so, with the following activities available:  Staying at Rustic Chay Lap, biking, visiting caves, ‘river cruise’  Doing farm work at the Rustic Chay Lap and attending folk song performances in Tuong Khuong Ha  Activities in Rao Con and Bong Lai village, (Tu Lan; just outside the buffer zone) Interestingly, one operator mentioned to not offer any activities in the buffer zone, although it is known by the author that they, in fact, so The very same respondents also indicated to offer homestays in the PNKB NP Region Only one affirmed that a homestay was also offered in the pilot communes of Trọng Hoá and Đân Hoá One respondent mentioned to organize homestays in the Mekong Delta, in Mai Chau and in Sapa However, six of the operators who did not (yet) offer any activities in these two communes showed interest in offering a homestay in the future, one respondent did not know where the communes are actually located Furthermore, the following concerns/ issues arose for the operators:  It was considered as very complicated to organize border permissions for visitors in Dong Hoi (PA 35 at the Immigrations Office)  Three conditions would need to be fulfilled: transport/ access, attractions and permissions 56 6.3 Experience with Community-based / Cultural Activities Subsequently, tour operators were asked about different experiences with communitybased or cultural activities on offer, if applicable In this regard, Table summarizes selection criteria mentioned by tour operators for homestay/ community-based tourism activities Table Tour operators selection criteria for homestay/ community-based tourism activities # Selection Criteria  Region and surrounding scenery  Potential activities around  Spirit and quality of hosts  Basic sleeping equipment  Basic bathroom facilities  Friendliness of local people,  Hygiene  Safety  Facilities even if basic  Available attractions/ activities around or within acceptable distance,  Scenery or landscape  Accessibility (transport/ road conditions)  Must be very authentic  Not so difficult to access  Suitable for big groups (from 15 – 20 pax)  Clean, comfortable lodgings with good facilities and food  Customers need to be able to interact with the family (through an interpreter/ local guide/ tour leader) and help them prepare dinner and learn more about their life  Shouldn’t have a ‘dormitory’ style feel to it and ideally it looks and feels completely authentic  The local culture  Comfort  Difference  Combination with sites/ attractions/ activities  Transport/ access  Attractions  Permissions  Clean (WC, dormitory…)  Safe  Family interaction (ambiance)  Authentic, typical culture  Not too touristy  New destination  Where there are no or very few homestays 57 Although not all the sampled tour operators offer homestays, all pointed out challenges in organizing homestays which have occurred at least in the starting phase of these activities Difficulties which have or had arisen included (Table 10): Table 10 Experienced difficulties in organizing homestays by tour operators # (6) Challenges  Hosts lack organization, e.g they may forget that clients are coming  Cleanliness  Irregularities with the quality of meals  Communication between local people and tourists  Facilities (e.g basic and dirty toilets, sharing toilet or no private room/area)  Distance to ‘downtown’ (road conditions or accessibility)…  In some areas, guests stay in house-on-stilt sharing with others while they expect to have more privacy  At times, homestays might be advertised, but accommodations rather resemble a ‘house-stay’ or guest-house  House owners not have meals with clients and/ or eat separately  Accessibility  Authenticity of the homestay  Cleanliness of facilities  Noise problems  Booking conditions/ system, responsibility for bookings/ organisation  English-speaking host needed in Chay Lap for service and tourist information  Rainy season to access Chay Lap ‘in the middle of nowhere’  Not enough facilities  Non-professional at the beginning  Invoicing  Recruitment and training of staff needed, because locals have difficulties in communicating and lack experience working with international visitors and lack international standards of hygiene An important issue to consider when organizing activities in the buffer zone of the PNKB NP Region/ border areas or ethnic minority communities is the procurement of permissions/ certificates Accordingly, tour operators were asked whether or not they are aware of specific licenses/ permits needed Most of the participants were aware that approval from local authorities is needed, including:  A licensed/ registered/ authorized homestay/ family household  Family households need to report visitors to the local police  Family households need to proof the operation as a homestay  Hygiene certificates might need to be acquired  Border area access permissions/ border police registration for (overnight) visitors are needed  The operator needs to have a ‘tourism license’  An introduction letter of the tour operators is needed for the application procedure 58 Besides the many positive impacts that community-based tourism can bring along for the local community, CbT activities should also carefully consider any potential negative impacts that might arise Therefore, it was also wondered whether operators are aware of any negative influences which may arise (Table 11) Table 11 Potential negative impacts of CbT activities on the local community # Impacts CbT activities need to be operated carefully Distribution of benefits and involvement of locals must be carefully balanced There are always positive and negative impacts We must minimize the negative [impacts], but it is impossible to have no [negative] impacts Furthermore, what can be seen negative from tourists or westerners may be considered as very positive by the community Tourism is always about cultural exchange and economic influence, which certainly impacts local culture/society So far, I not see negative social/cultural/economic impacts in the Mekong Delta, in Pu Luong or most other areas However, we see some changes in the lifestyle and the behavior of ethnic people in Sapa, even without much community activities Offering local community activities means that we bring tourists to the area who stay there and who interact with local people It is very easy to see the positive side of the activities, however, we have to admit some negative impacts on the culture of local people, e.g.: local communities have a much better living standard and they expect to earn more money or they even become dependant on the income from tourism It needs to be made sure that local culture is ‘preserved’ and ‘protected’ If done correctly, the impact should be positive One negative [impact] we have seen is that once we pioneer some kind of local community activity, others then copy it, but not act responsibly and cause negative impacts Oh course, [negative impacts] could evolve However, it also depends on the capacity and the understanding of each tour operator No pollution of the environment, income generation, no influence: ‘eco-tourism’ Balance between tourism activities and their routine life Try to keep local people not depending too much on tourism, especially at the first steps People should abandon their traditional economic activities such as agricultural activities for tourism activities Finally, some comments were made by the operators at the end of the survey questionnaire: # Comment We did visit Phong Nha-Ke Bang, stayed at a homestay and did cycling/ trekking/ kayaking and agreed that Phong Nha-Ke Bang has much potential for community-based tourism However, we are quite concerned about the accessibility of the destination Most of our clients can be easily persuaded to visit Hue or Hoi An rather than Phong Nha-Ke Bang , even though they know that this area is a World Nature Heritage If possible, we would like to a FAM trip to the area to review the potentials of the area and outline a plan for developing our products there I appreciate this proposal but at present we should focus to develop tourism in Phong Nha, Cu Lac, Bong Lai, Chay Lap CbT should be established in the central area of the Park to attract more tourists Afterwards, we can think about another area The number of tourists staying in Phong Nha and in the neighboring area is not the number of tourists we expect Visitors would enjoy to join locals in their daily activities 59 Visitor Survey Results Finally, it was attempted to delineate a profile of the visitor commonly coming to the PNKB NP Region as well as to outline some of the perceptions and attitudes visitors hold with reference to CbT activities Although the number of responses remained fairly low, findings may nevertheless help to point out some common characteristics, needs and expectations 7.1 Visitor Profile Visitors were sampled with the following characteristics (Table 12): Table 12 Visitor sample characteristics Gender Age (Country of Residence) Female Male 18-23 24-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ Domestic International n 25 20 10 11 38 % 55,5 44,5 22,2 20,0 17,8 24,5 11,1 4,4 80,9 19,1 Most of the domestic visitors came from Sai Gon (n=8), from Quang Binh Province (n=5) or from Ha Noi (n=4) International respondents came from a variety of countries, including Canada, England, France, Korea, the Netherlands and Switzerland For 80,4% (n=37) it has been the first visit to the PNKB NP Region, with the main purpose of visit being holiday/ pleasure for 97,8% (n=45) One respondent came to the Region for visiting friends/ relatives 60 Further asking visitors why they have come to the area, visiting caves, enjoying nature/ landscape, and getting to know local culture ranked among the most important reasons (Figure 12) n=47 Figure 12 Visitors’ reasons for visiting the PNKB NP Region Almost half of the respondents spend the night before visiting the NP Region in Dong Hoi or Hue (Figure 13); 40% of the respondents were staying in the Province, 60% had spent the night out of the Province (from n=43) Only one respondent stayed in Phong Nha n=43 Figure 13 Where visitors spent the night before arriving to the PNKB NP Region 61 Most of the sampled visitors arrived to PNKB with a rental car/ van, with a private car/ van or with a tour bus (Figure 14) n=43 Figure 14 Modes of transport to PNKB 80,4% of the sample did not stay overnight in the PNKB NP Region (from a total n=46) 10,4% stayed for only one night (with most of these indicating Phong Nha as the place of stay, n=6) On average, out of the participants who spent at least one night in the Region, would stay for 1,7 nights Yet, respondents were also asked why they did not stay overnight, with most indicating that it was just not intended to stay longer beforehand or that the tour did not include an overnight stay (Table 13) Table 13 Visitors’ reasons for not staying overnight in PNKB Reason n Did not plan to stay longer Tour does not include overnight stay From the area (QB/QT) Accommondation not available No/ not many attractions 13 11 Total 33 Most of the sampled visitors travelled to the PNKB NP Region with (a) family member(s) and/ or with friends (Table 14, multiple answers possible) 62 Table 14 Visitors travel partners Travel partner With other family members With friends With an organized tour group With partner/spouse With church By myself Total n 19 15 3 47 Subsequently, respondents were more specifically asked with how many people they would be travelling with Out of 46 responses, visitors travelled either by themselves or with one other travel partner, travelled in a group of 3-4 people, 13 were in group of 5-10 people, 12 visited with a group of 11-20 and 10 respondents visited the Region with a group consisting of more than 20 people Unfortunately, a question referring to the expenditure of visitors had to be abandoned Most of the participants pointed out that they did not keep track of their exact expenditures in the Region itself, while others did not pay attention to any expenses since they have been on a packaged tour Only very few visitors would remember what they had spent in total, but then were not able to break down their expenses for different units (e.g accommodation, F&B, souvenirs) 7.2 CbT – Perceptions and Attitudes Afterwards, it was intended to get to know more about visitors’ perceptions on and attitude towards CbT activities Initially, these were asked whether they have, so far, been on an overnight trekking/ boat tour in the PNKB NP Region Out of 42 respondents, 88,1% denied the question The few participants who have been staying overnight had spent the night either in a hotel/ guesthouse (n=3), in a traditional village house/ homestay (n=1) or in a tent/ hammock (n=1) Afterwards, visitors were asked whether or not they have ever stayed in a homestay before 20,9% respondents have done so (from a total of n=43) Only of the sampled visitors knew of any homestay possibility in the PNKB NP Region (from a total n=43) Nonetheless, 23,8% would have considered to stay at least for one night in a homestay/ traditional village house, if they would have been given the opportunity; 7,1% were uncertain (from a total n=42) 63 Subsequently, visitors were also asked, if having spent or if interested in spending a night in a traditional village house/ homestay to rate selected criteria on a scale, ranging from not important at all to very important (Figure 15) not important at all little important imporant very imporant Figure 15 Visitors perceived importance of selected criteria when staying at a local family household While most of the pre-determined criteria deemed important to respondents, the friendliness of the family household and spending time with locals were considered as the most important aspects of a homestay Breaking down the importance of ‘activities’, most visitors thought it to be most important to learn about the history of the area, to explore caves and to go hiking/ trekking (Figure 16) not important at all little important imporant very imporant Figure 16 Visitors perceived importance of selected activities when staying at a local family household Many of the sampled visitors could imagine to drive around ½ hrs further to the north from Phong Nha along the HCM East Highway in order stay with a local family household/ ethnic minority household in the buffer zone of the Park (75% from a total n=40); 20% were not sure about the travel time 64 Generally, respondents could imagine to spend 2,2 nights on average in a homestay in the Region (n=31) (rf also Figure 17) Figure 17 Number of nights that visitors could imagine to spend at a homestay Finally, it should be noted once again that this document serves as a basis for a following Phase II report for the GIZ’s CbT development activities in the proposed communes A discussion/ conclusion of the findings is, thus, not being provided in the course of this document Contact List and Survey/ Interview Participants (For Internal Use Only) Direct contacts for CbT development: Commune Name Responsibility Telephone/Mobile E-mail Cao CPC: Land 01274133379 Xuân administration Dan Hoa Khá and agroforestry Mr Hồ Secretary of Phin the Communist Party at the Commune Trọng Hóa Level Pham Vice01253634339 phamvanbac15@g Văn Chairman CPC mail.com Bắc other Schedule visits at least two days in advance Schedule visits one week in advance 65 Other contacts: Trọng Hoá Name Mr Phiên Responsibility Hamlet Leader Pa Choong Tour operators: Tour Operators Address Handspan Travel 78 Ma May – Hoan Indochina Kiem – Hanoi Haivenu Tours 12 Nguyen Trung Truc, Ba Dinh, Hanoi Buffalo Tours 94 Ma May, Hoan Kiem, Hanoi PEAK Adventure 57A Nguyen Khac Travel Hieu St, Truc Bach, Ba Dinh, Hanoi Viet Hung Trade 48 Ly Thuong Kiet and Tourist and St., Dong Hoi city, Ltd., Co Quang Binh (Phong Nha province Discovery) Active Travel Building 45 Nguyen Asia Son, Long Bien, Hanoi, Vietnam Exotissimo Exotissimo Travel Vietnam – Hanoi branch 26 Tran Nhat Duat, Hoan Kiem, Hanoi Tel / Fax 04 3926 2828 +84 3715 0996 Telephone/Mobile 01649783528 Contact/ E-mail Guilhem Cavaill Guilhem@handspan.com Huong-Haivenu huong@haivenu-vietnam.com Thuy Tran thuy.tran@buffalotours.com David Mannix David.Mannix@peakadventuretravel.com Hung Vu tours@phongnhadiscovery.com Tel: +84 936 69 59 96 Fax: +84 3573 8570 Ta Thi Phuong Thúy thuy@activetravel.asia Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan kimngan@exotissimo.com 66 ... of households 24 28 21 22 38 27 34 75 38 22 38 39 Ethnic minorities Electricity Water1 164 171 46 103 100 1 72 124 161 428 190 114 22 9 20 2 Accessible by car (on foot )2  (by motorbike) (on foot)... Planning:  Local authorities highlight that planning issues may arise for the new Rural Development Plan: a better integration of ethnic minorities and CbT activities is needed  Administration... presentations by participants, including Q&A  Discussion groups on handicraft and CbT development (initial impressions, perceived threats/ opportunities) During the morning session, it was particularly