Local residents attidudes and participation in tourism development in ba be national park vietnam

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF TABLES iv ABBREVIATIONS vi ABSTRACT .vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Research Motivation Research Question Research Purpose CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Ba Be National Park Personal Benefit from Tourism Development Community Attachment Tourism Impacts 10 5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW 13 1) Social Exchange Theory 13  5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW 15 Participation in Tourism 18 Stakeholders 19 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 22 Measurement Variables 22 Research Model 25 Research Hypotheses 28 1) Relationship between Personal Benefit and Perception of Tourism Impacts 28 i 2) Relationship between Community Attachment and Perception of Tourism Impacts 28 3) Relationship between Perception of Tourism Impacts and Support for Additional Tourism Development 29 4) Relationship between Perception of Tourism Impacts and Participation in Tourism 30 5) Relationship between Support for Additional Tourism Development and Participation in Tourism 30 6) Differences among Variable Groups of Tourism Experience and Tourism Related Job Status 31 Site Selection 32 Sampling and Data Collection 32 Methods of Analysis 33 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 34 Descriptive Analysis about Local Residents 34 Factor Analysis 44 Correlation Analysis 55 Regression Analysis 57 1) Regression Analysis of Tourism Impacts Perception 57 2) Regression Analysis for Support and Participation in Tourism Development 58 Independent Samples T-test 60 Results of analysis 63 CHAPTER V DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 68 Discussions 68 Implications 73 1) Theoretical Implications 73 2) Managerial Implications 74 Limitations and Future Research 75 ii REFERENCES 77 APPENDIX 85 APPENDIX 86 APPENDIX 88 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Factors Affecting WR5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHWRZDUG7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW were Tested 16 Table 3.1: List of Items 22 Table 4.1: Description of Survey Respondents 35 Table 4.2: Characteristics of Local Residents in Tourism Participation 37 7DEOH/RFDO5HVLGHQWV¶6XJJHVWLRQVZKHQ,QYROYHGLQ7RXULVP3ODQQLQJ 38 Table 4.4: Frequencies for Tourism Attitude and Perception 41 Table 4.5: Factor Analysis of Positive Tourism Impacts Perception 45 Table 4.6: Factor Analysis of Negative Tourism Impacts Perception 48 Table 4.7: Factor Analysis of Support for Additional Tourism Development 49 Table 4.8: Factor Analysis of Participation in Tourism 50 Table 4.9: Correlation Analysis for Variables 56 Table 4.10: Regression Analysis for Tourism Impacts Perception 58 Table 4.11: Regression Analysis for Support and Participation in Tourism Development 60 Table 4.12: Results of T-test for Tourism Experience 61 Table 4.13: Results of T-WHVWIRU5HVLGHQWV¶-RE6WDWXV 62 Table 4.14: Results of Testing Hypotheses by Multiple Regression Analysis 64 Table 4.15: Results of Testing Hypotheses by T- test Analysis 66 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Map of Ba Be National Park Figure 1.2: Map of Villages in and around Ba Be National Park )LJXUH5HVHDUFK0RGHORI5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHDQG3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQ7RXULVP Development 27 v ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of Organizations and Projects - 3PAD: Pro-Poor Partnerships for Agro-forestry Development - IFAD: Fund for Agriculture Development - IUCN: The International Union for conservation of Nature - NGOs: Non-Government Organizations - UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme Abbreviations of the Factors in the Model - CA: Community Attachment - LB: Local Benefit - NEI: Negative Economic Impacts - NSEI: Negative Social and Environmental Impacts - PART: Participation in Tourism - PB: Personal Benefit - PEB: Personal Economic Benefit - SEB: Social and Environmental Benefit - SUP: Support for Additional Tourism Development vi ABSTRACT /RFDO5HVLGHQWV¶$WWLWXGHVDQG3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQ7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQWLQ Ba Be National Park, Vietnam Pham Minh Huong Department of Tourism Development Graduate School, Daegu University Gyeongbuk, Korea Supervised by Professor Lee, Ju-Hee Although participation in tourism is studied many times, it has rarely been examined in a research model The main purpose of this study was to test the model of local UHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGHs and participation in tourism to explore the factors which affect to UHVLGHQWV¶support and participation in tourism in Ba Be National Park, Vietnam From the findings, the author suggested the strategies to LPSURYH ORFDO SHRSOH¶V VXSSRUW for additional tourism activities and their participation in tourism The raw data of the study was collected from 267 questionnaires among three hamlets insides Ba Be National Park (Pac Ngoi, Bo Lu, and Coc Toc) Noticeably, the results of factor analyses of tourism impacts generated five new factors: Social and Environmental Benefit (SEB), Personal Economic Benefit (PEB), Local Benefit (LB), Negative Social and Environmental Impacts (NSEI), and Negative economic Impacts (NEI) Hypotheses testing revealed that, in a rural area where the community depends on natural resources, community attachment of local residents significantly affects their perception of positive tourism impacts In addition, social and environmental impacts from tourism are considered very important IDFWRUVLQIOXHQFLQJORFDOUHVLGHQWV¶VXSSRUW and participation in tourism Keywords: 5HVLGHQWV¶ Dttitudes, Participation, Tourism impacts, Ba Be National Park, Vietnam vii Results of analysis After analyzing frequencies, factors, correlations, regressions, and independent samples T-tests by SPSS system, overall results implicated three new factors (SEB, PEB, DQG/% ZKLFKZHUHIRXQGIURPWKHIDFWRU³3RVLWLYH7RXULVP,PSDFWV3HUFHSWLRQ´7ZR QHZ IDFWRUV 16(, DQG 1(,  ZHUH IRXQG IURP ³1HJDWLYH7RXULVP ,PSDFWV 3HUFHSWLRQ´ The findings of new factors led to more in-depth hypotheses They were tested through regression analyses Twelve of the twenty one hypotheses were supported Noticeably, WKH IDFWRU ³3HUVRQDO %HQHILW´ LPSDFWHG ³3HUVRQDO (FRQRPLF %HQHILW´ DQG ³1HJDWLYH (FRQRPLF ,PSDFWV´ VLJQLILFDQWO\ +RZHYHU LW GLG QRW LQIOXHQFH ³6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO %HQHILW´ ³/RFDO %HQHILW´ DQG ³1HJDWLYH 6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFWV´2EYLRXVO\UHVLGHQWVEHOLHYHGWKHLUSHUVRQDOEHQHILWand economic from tourism would be both positive and negative from future tourism development in Ba Be $OWKRXJK ORFDO UHVLGHQWV DWWDFKHG WR WKHLU FRPPXQLWLHV SHUFHLYHG ³6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO %HQHILW´ ³3HUVRQDO (FRQRPLF %HQHILW´ ³/RFDO %HQHILW´ DQG ³1HJDWLYH 6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQW ,PSDFWV´ WKH\ GLG QRW SHUFHLYH QHJDWLYH economic impacts Interestingly, awareness about social and environmental issues (SEB and NSEI) LQIOXHQFHG ERWK UHVLGHQWV¶ VXSSRUW DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW 7KHVH findings suggested that social and environmental impacts are important issues which effect support and participation in tourism activities in Ba Be National Park &RQWUDVWLQJO\ UHVLGHQWV¶ VXSSRUW DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZHUH QRW influenced by their perception of local benefit and negative economic benefit Although the perceptions of personal economic benefit not impact local support for tourism development, people will take part in tourism development when they believe they will receive personal economic benefit Similar to previous studies, the results indicated thDWFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV¶VXSSRUWRIWRXULVPGHYHORSPHQWZLOOSUHGLFW intention to participate in tourism development (McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Sirivongs & Tsuchiya, 2012) This cause and effect relationship is the closest of all tested model ZLWK D ȕ value of 584 and sig value at 000 Detailed results of the hypotheses by multiple regression analyses were in the table 4.14 63 Table 4.14: Results of Testing Hypotheses by Multiple Regression Analysis Hypothesis H1 H1-1 H1-2 H1-3 H2 H2-1 H2-2 H3 H3-1 H3-2 H3-3 H4 H4-1 H4-2 H5 H5-1 H5-2 Local UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO positively influence the perception of positive tourism impacts /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO positively influence the perception of social and environmental benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO positively influence the perception of personal economic benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP development will positively influence the perception of local benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO negatively influence the perception of negative tourism impacts /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ personal benefit from tourism development will negatively influence the perception of negative social and environmental impacts from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUVRQDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO negatively influence the perception of negative economic impacts from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH the perception of positive tourism impacts /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH the perception of social and environmental benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH the perception of personal economic benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW will positively influence the perception of local benefit from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO QHJDWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH the perception of negative tourism impacts /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO QHJDWLYHO\ influence the perception of negative social and environmental impacts from tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQW¶V FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQW ZLOO QHJDWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFH the perception of negative economic impacts from tourism Local UHVLGHQWV¶SHUFHSWLRQRISRVLWLYHWRXULVPLPSDFWVZLOOSRVLWLYHO\ influence the perception of the support for additional tourism development /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI VRFLDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO EHQHILW IURP tourism will positively influence the perception of the support for additional tourism development /RFDOUHVLGHQWV¶SHUFHSWLRQRISHUVRQDOHFRQRPLFEHQHILWIURPWRXULVP will positively influence the perception of the support for additional tourism development 64 Results Not supported Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported Supported Not supported H5-3 H6 H6-1 H6-2 H7 H7-1 H7-2 H6-3 H8 H8-1 H8-2 H9 /RFDOUHVLGHQWV¶SHUFHSWLRQRIORFDOEHQHILWIURPWRXULVPZLOOSRVLWLYHO\ influence the perception of the support for additional tourism development /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH WRXULVP LPSDFWV ZLOO negatively influence the support for additional tourism development /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH VRFLDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO impacts from tourism will negatively influence the support for additional tourism development /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ perception of negative economic impacts from tourism will negatively influence the support for additional tourism development /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI SRVLWLYH WRXULVP LPSDFWV ZLOO positively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI VRFLDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO EHQHILW from tourism will positively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI SHUVRQDO HFRQRPLF EHQHILW IURP tourism will positively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI ORFDO EHQHILW IURP WRXULVP ZLOO positively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH WRXULVP LPSDFWV ZLOO negatively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH VRFLDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO impacts from tourism will negatively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI QHJDWLYH HFRQRPLF impacts from tourism will negatively influence the participation in tourism /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ VXSSRUW IRU DGGLWLRQDO WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO positively influence the participation in tourism Not supported Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Not supported Supported Not Supported Supported After independent samples t-tests were conducted with the two grouping variables ³7RXULVPH[SHULHQFH´DQG³-REVWDWXV´RIORFDOUHVLGHQWVLQ%D%HDVDORWRIVLJQLILFDQW GLYHUJHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG ,Q WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ³3HUVRQDO %HQHILW´ ³&RPPXQLW\ $WWDFKPHQW´ ³3HUVRQDO (FRQRPLF %HQHILW´ ³1HJDWLYH 6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQWal ,PSDFWV´ ³1HJDWLYH (FRQRPLF %HQHILW´ DQG ³3DUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ 7RXULVP´ VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ ³7RXULVP H[SHULHQFHG´ DQG ³1RW WRXULVP H[SHULHQFHG´UHVLGHQWJURXSV,QDGGLWLRQ ZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI³6RFLDODQG(QYLURQPHQW %HQHILW´ DQG ³/RFDO %HQHILW´ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHVZHUHIRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH ³7RXULVP 65 UHODWHG´DQG³1RWWRXULVPUHODWHG´MREJURXSVLQWKHVHYHQUHPDLQLQJGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOHV (PE, CA, PEB, NSEI, NEI, SUP, and PART) (Table 4.15) Table 4.15: Results of Testing Hypotheses by T- test Analysis Hypothesis H10 H10-1 H10-2 H10-3 H10-4 H10-5 H10-6 H10-7 H10-8 H10-9 H11 There are significant differences between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perceptions of personal benefit from tourism, community attachment, positive tourism impacts, negative tourism impacts, and the attitudes toward support and participation in tourism development There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of personal benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of community attachment There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of social and environmental benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of personal economic benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and nonexperienced residents on the perception of local benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of negative social and environmental impacts from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the perception of negative economic impacts from tourism There is significant difference between tourism experienced and non-experienced residents on the attitude toward support for additional tourism development There is significant difference between tourism experienced and nonexperienced residents on the participation in tourism There are significant differences between tourism related and non-tourism related job status of residents on the perceptions of personal benefit from tourism, community attachment, positive tourism impacts, negative tourism impacts, and the attitudes toward support and participation in tourism development 66 Results Support Support Not supported Support Not supported Supported Supported Not supported Supported H11-1 H11-2 H11-3 H11-4 H11-5 H11-6 H11-7 H11-8 H11-9 There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the perception of personal benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and non-tourism related job status of residents on the perception of community attachment There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the perception of social and environmental benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the perception of personal economic benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on perception of local benefit from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the perception of negative social and environmental impacts from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the perception of negative economic impacts from tourism There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the attitude toward support for additional tourism development There is significant difference between tourism related and nontourism related job status of residents on the participation in tourism 67 Supported Supported Not supported Supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Supported CHAPTER V DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Discussions Based on Perdue HWDO¶V model (1990), this study examined the model of Ba Be 1DWLRQDO 3DUN UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW $OWKRXJK Perdue et al (1990) SXWWKHIDFWRU³6XSSRUWIRU6SHFLDO7RXULVP7D[HV´LQWKHLUPRGHORU 0F*HKHHDQG$QGHUHFN¶VPRGHOZLWK³6XSSRUWIRU7RXULVP3ODQQLQJ´WKHPodel of this research involves the factor of ³3DUWLFLSDWLRQLQ7RXULVP´ZKLFKKDVUDUHO\been attached in a research model Noticeably, the results of factor analysis suggest that there are some new factors from ORFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHLYHG WRXULVP LPSDFWV 6RFLDO DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO Benefit, Personal Economic Benefit, Local Benefit, Negative Social and Environmental Impacts, and Negative Economic Impacts) From the new factors, the current study offered QHZ K\SRWKHVHV DQG LQWHUHVWLQJ UHVXOWV UHODWLQJ WR ORFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGHV DQG participation in tourism development First, hypothesis H1 generated three new hypotheses H1-1, H1-2, and H1-3 The results imply that residents who receive personal benefit from tourism activities will have a perception of positive economic impacts from tourism However, obtaining personal tourism benefit does not mean that local people will recognize the local, benefit, and social and environmental benefit It explain that when the personal benefit which residents obtain from tourism is biased toward economic indicators and based on their economic benefit, local residents will perceive economic benefit positively Bias toward economic indicators in tourism benefit was suggested by Wang and Pfister (2008) Second, bias toward economic indicator in tourism benefit is also proved in hypothesis H2-1 Local residents who receive personal benefit from tourism not perceive the negative economic impacts, and they not attend to negative social and environmental impacts from tourism Third, support of hypotheses H3-1, H3-2, and H3-3 indicated that residents attached to their community believe in positive tourism impacts The residents not only 68 perceive positively personal economic benefit, but also local, social and environmental benefit This finding does not support to Jurowski HWDO¶V implications (1997) in the paper ³A Theoretical Analysis of Host Community Resident Reactions to Tourism´ However, the finding supports one part of LátNRYi DQG 9RJW¶V research (2012) which implicated that community attachment significantly influence positive tourism impacts in S-county and T-county, but does not influence E-county S-county and T-FRXQW\ KDYH UHVLGHQWV¶ education, income lower than E-county, but employment in tourism industry, length of residency or home ownership in S-county and T-county higher than in E-county Fourth, Látková and Vogt (2012) pointed out that inhabLWDQWV¶ FRPPXQLW\ attachment does not have a significant relationship with perception of negative tourism LPSDFWV 7KLV VWXG\ VXSSRUWV RQH SDUW RI /iWNRYi DQG 9RJW¶V UHVHDUFK ZKHQ describing resLGHQWV¶ DWWDFK WR FRPPXQLW\ GLG not relate to their perception of negative economic impacts from tourism However, this study does suggest that negative social and environmental impacts from tourism will be perceived negatively by local residents who are attached to their land Fifth, branch hypotheses H5-1, H5-2, and H5-3 of hypothesis H5 indicate stimulating results Although many scholars showed that local people will support tourism development if they feel tourism brings positive impacts (Ko & Stewart, 2002; Látková & Vogt, 2012; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Perdue et al., 1990; VargasSánchez et al., 2009), in Ba Be National Park, only local residents who believe in social and environmental benefit from tourism, will support for additional tourism development Their perceptions of personal economic benefit from tourism not have a relationship ZLWK VXSSRUW IRU WRXULVP 7KLV LV FRQWUDU\ WR 0F*HKHH DQG $QGHUHFN¶V HPSKDVLV RI economic role to attitudes toward tourism development in their study in 2004 Moreover, Perceptions of local benefit QRWUHODWHWRUHVLGHQWV¶VXSSRUWIRUWRXUism activities An H[SODQDWLRQ FDQ EH JLYHQ WKDW ORFDO SHRSOH¶V NQRZOHGJH RI SRVLWLYH WRXULVP LPSDFWV WR local (taxes, investment, and local economy relating tourism) is very narrow Residents not understand clearly and exactly the benefit which tourism brings to their local so 69 their perceptions of local benefit did not importantly effect to the support for tourism development 6L[WK ORFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH RI VXSSRUW IRU WRXrism development does not depend on the perception of negative economic impacts, but hinged on their perception of negative social and environmental impacts Based on the results of testing hypotheses H5-1, H5-2, H5-3, H6-1, and H6-2, it can be seen that the social and environmental impacts from tourism significantly affects to attitudes toward community for tourism development Residents will support for tourism activities in the community when positive social and environmental impacts are perceived By contrast, they will not support developing tourism if they perceive negative social and environmental impacts from tourism In local peopOH¶VDWWLWXGHWRZDUGVXSSRUW for tourism development, the role of social and environmental impacts is more important than the role of economic and local impacts This finding is not consistent with earlier research, but Pham and Kayat (2011) agreed with the finding in the research of Cuc Phuong national park in Vietnam Although Ba Be and Cuc Phuong National Park are two different parks, their economic state and tourism development are similar Therefore, Pham DQG.D\DW¶s explanations can inform the situation in Ba Be National Park, as the residents in the national park also depend on the resources of the national park, and economic impacts from tourism is not worth considering Seventh, both perception of social and environmental benefit and negative social DQGHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVVLJQLILFDQWO\LQIOXHQFHORFDOSHRSOH¶VSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWRXULVP This study stresses the role of social and environmental impacts from tourism in not only DWWLWXGHV DQG EXW DOVR ORFDO SHRSOH¶V SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WRXULVP ,Q DGGLWLRQ UHVLGHQWV perceiving personal economic benefit from tourism have intention to participate in tourism However, their perception of negative economic impacts does not link to their participation This finding can be because negative economic impacts from tourism are not much in Ba Be National Park and the residents not pay attention of these impacts Moreover, local residents can perceive that local benefit from tourism does not relate 70 importantly to them, thus perception of local benefit from tourism also does not significantly influence community participation in tourism development Although perception of personal economic benefit does not relate to their support for additional tourism development (H5-2), local residents will take part in tourism activities when they feel personal economic benefit from tourism (H7-2) This conclusion suggests that residents perceiving personal economic benefit cannot support for tourism development, but they will want to participate in tourism activities because of economic benefit from tourism Eighth, the result of hypothesis H9 is not different to previous research which showed that local residents supporting tourism development will participate in tourism activities (McGehee & Andereck, 2004) However, MF*HKHHDQG$QGHUHFN¶VSDSHURQO\ H[DPLQHG WKH IDFWRU ³7RXULVP 3ODQQLQJ´- one component of tourism participation Tourism participation in this research consists of natural environment protection, tourism business, decision-making, and tourism education Ninth, this study tested the differences between tourism experienced and nonexperienced residents The results suggested that tourism experienced local residents receive more benefit from tourism and they are also more attached to their community than tourism non-experienced people With perceptions of tourism impacts, the two groups also have noticeable dissimilar thoughts of personal economic benefit, negative social and environment, and negative economic impacts from tourism The people with tourism experience perceive more personal economic benefit than the non-experienced, and not perceive more in negative impacts (social, environmental, and economic impacts) than the residents who have not tourism experience With social and environmental impacts from tourism, there is no significant difference in perceptions between the groups The reason can be that tourism experienced and non-experienced SHRSOH¶VSHUFHSWLRQVRIVRFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWEHQHILWIURPWRXULVPare rather adequate In the national park, tourism plans of international organizations helping residents in developing tourism (building toilets for visitors and HGXFDWLQJORFDOUHVLGHQWVDQGYLVLWRUV¶ awareness about environment conservation and tourism business, etc.) have been 71 conducted mainly in Po Lu and Pac Ngoi Hamlet where the questionnaires were distributed the most Coc Toc Hamlet is also the community being next to Bo Lu Hamlet Therefore, social and environment benefit from tourism have paid attention and known popularly by inhabitants including both tourism experienced and non-experienced residents Local benefit from tourism is not also the important difference in perceptions of tourism experienced and non-experienced group It can be the same with the explanation from hypotheses from research model which relate to local benefit Local people in Ba Be National Park not understand adequately benefit which tourism bring to their local Consequently, there are not significant different perceptions between two groups Unpredictably, there is no significant difference between non-experienced and experienced UHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGHWRZDUGVXSSRUWIRU additional tourism development Whilst it is noticeable that tourism experienced residents have may participate in tourism activities more active than non-experienced residents The direct interviews and statistical figures showed that both residents having tourism experience and non-experience support for tourism development The reason can be that Ba Be National Park is being at involvement stage of tourism area cycle of evolution and the inhabitants support for developing tourism activities Finally, with tourism related or non-related job status of residents, there is a significant difference between the two groups on perceptions of personal benefit from tourism, community attachment, personal economic benefit, negative social, environment, and economic impacts from tourism There is a significant difference in attitudes toward support for additional tourism development and participation in tourism development However, tourism related and non-related people not perceive significant difference in social, environmental, and local benefit from tourism development The reasons are the same with the explanations of tourism experienced and non-experienced group which show that the respondents perceive social and environment benefit from tourism In addition, they not have good awareness of complicated positive tourism impacts to their locals 72 Implications 1) Theoretical Implications The results of this study contribute to tourism theory First, the personal benefit from tourism that rural residents receive closely relates to and optimistically influences their perception of good personal economic impacts It supports that personal benefit from tourism is partial to economic indicators (Wang & Pfister, 2008) 6HFRQG /RFDO UHVLGHQWV¶ FRPPXQLW\ DWWDFKPHQt significant affects to their perception of positive tourism impacts which include social, environmental, personal economic, and local benefit This finding creates argument with Jurowski et al (1997) when they implied there was no significant relationship between community attachment and perceptions of economic, social, and environmental impacts from tourism 7KLUGORFDOSHRSOH¶VSHUFHSWLRQRIVRFLDODQGHQYLURQPHQWLPSDFWVIURPWRXULVP is more significant than their perception of economic impacts in support for tourism development This study completely reinforces Pham and Kayat (2011), but only supports one part of Jurowski et al.¶V study (1997) ZKLFK VKRZHG WKDWUHVLGHQWV¶ DWWLWXGH WRZDUG nature-based tourism is affected by perceived economic and social impacts and excepting perceived environment impact Although Jurowski et al (1997) did not include perception of environment impact in support for nature-EDVHGWRXULVP³3HUFHLYHG6RFLDO ,PSDFW´ LV Dn important factor concerning to support for tourism activities Combining with the results of Pham DQG D\DW¶V UHVHDUFK, which was conducted in Cuc Phuong National Park in Vietnam, it can be seen that social and environmental impacts from tourism is an important issue to be examined in the studies of tourism development attitudes of local residents who depend on the natural resources of their living environment )RXUWK WKLV VWXG\ VXJJHVWV WKDW UHVLGHQWV¶ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WRXULVP DFWLYLWLHV depends on perception of social and environmental impacts, personal economic benefit from tourism and support for additional tourism Especially when looking at the factor of 73 ³6XSSRUWIRU$GGLWLRQDO7RXULVP´WKLVVWXG\DIILUPVHDUOLHUUHVHDUFKWKDWORFDOUHVLGHQWV¶ support for tourism development significantly impacts to their participation in tourism Finally, implications of this study can be useful for future studies which are undertaken in ecological areas or rural aUHDVZKHUHUHVLGHQWV¶OLYHVGHSHQG on the natural resources of their land 2) Managerial Implications %DVHGRQ%XWOHU¶VILJXUHRIDWRXULVPDUHDF\FOHRIHYROXWLRQ WRXULVPLQ Ba Be National Park can be arranged at the involvement stage However, Ba Be national park has spent for a long time in this stage because there is lack of investments and the area is an ecological region in which there is a limited amount of building or construction Butler (1980) suggested that governments and organizations should provide and improve transportation, as well as tourism facilities for visitors However, building in the park requires careful planning because this is an area of conserving ecosystem and diverse biology Although there are big roads from the Bac Kan Town to Ba Be National Park, the street system in the hamlets of the national park are limited Local government and international projects should provide investment to construct and improve roads inside the villages so that it is more convenient for visitors to approach In addition, the primary means of transportation for Ba Be Lake are often hollowed-tree boats and electric boats which lack of safety Therefore, traffic on the lake could be improve by helping to educate the locals in rescuing skills, as well as supplying floats and better modes of transportation for local residents of Ba Be )URP UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LW LV HDV\ WR UHFRJQL]H WKDW UHVLGHQWV¶ SHUFHSWLRQ RI social and environmental impacts is actually important to their attitudes toward support for tourism development and participation in tourism activities Consequently, the planners of tourism projects should focus on raising ORFDO SHRSOH¶V SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH positive social and environmental impacts from tourism Currently, the 3PAD project is helping Ba Be residents through career training and education by increasing their 74 ... Map of Ba Be National Park Source: http://www.babelaketravel.com /ba_ be_ lake _vietnam. html Ba Be National Park is beautiful and attractive by not only thick and interminable forests and mountains,... development in Ba Be National Park? - Which factors affect locDOUHVLGHQWV¶DWWLWXGH toward and participation in tourism development in Ba Be National Park? - What kind of strategies should be suggested... conducted in communities insides Ba Be National Park The national park is located in Ba Be District, (Bac Kan Province) which includes Cho Ra town and fifteen communes A large area of the national park