Putting Community First: Tourism for Development in Doi Village, Central Vietnam Table of Contents Declaration ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii List of Acronyms viii Abstract ix Acknowledgements x Chapter One: Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Aims and objectives 3 Arguments and contribution of the research 3 Research design and methodology 4 Research design 4 Data collection 8 Data interpretation 13 Limitations and biases 14 Thesis organization 14 Chapter Two: Development and Tourism: Evolving Thinking 16 Tourism as modernization and “smokeless industry” 16 Tourism as a “plantation economy” and dependency theory 19 Tourism development and economic neo-liberalism 20 Alternative tourism and alternative development 21 Another tourism and post-development? 25 Summary 27 Chapter Three: From Mass to Alternative Tourism: Old Wine in New Bottles? 30 Mass tourism: a ticket to development? 30 iii Alternative tourism: rhetoric unchanged? 33 Ecotourism or eco-terrorism? 36 Sustainable tourism or sustainable industry? 37 Pro-poor tourism: poverty reduced? 39 Community-based tourism: what community development? 42 Summary 43 Chapter Four: Tourism and Community Development: Contentious Relationship? 45 Tourism and community development 46 Agency 46 Participation 47 Empowerment 49 Tourism development in ethnic minority communities 51 Summary 55 Chapter Five: Case Study: Tourism Development in Doi Village 56 Vietnam: growing tourism in the new millennium 56 Tourism in Thua Thien Hue Province 59 Tourism development in Nam Dong 64 Tourism in Thuong Lo Commune, Doi Village 66 Social setting of Doi Village 66 Tourism in Doi Village and external imposition 69 Tourism development versus community development in Doi Village 72 Questioning tourism in Doi Village 76 Implications for development 77 Summary 79 Chapter Six: Conclusion 81 Development theories and tourism development 81 Summary of findings 83 Lessons and implications 84 iv References 86 Appendix A: Ethical clearance approval by SSERC 96 Appendix B: Introduction letter by MDP Program Director 97 Appendix C: Participant information sheet 98 Appendix D: Informed consent form 100 Appendix E: Letter of appreciation and feedback 101 Appendix F: Major questions for semi-structured in-depth interviews 102 Appendix G: A price list of tourism services of Doi Village 104 Appendix H: Some photos of Katu traditional art performance and Kazan waterfall at Doi Village 105 v List of Tables Table 1.1: Overview of the critical theory paradigm 5 Table 1.2: Advantages and disadvantages of the case study 7 Table 1.3: Comparison of structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews 12 Table 1.4: Interview participants 13 Table 2.1: Characteristics of traditional and modern societies 17 Table 3.1: Characteristics of mass versus alternative tourism 34 Table 4.1: Examples of ethnic tourism development projects in Vietnam 54 Table 5.1: Tourist number to Nam Dong District 2004-2006 65 Table 5.2: SNV activities to facilitate Doi Village tourism development 68-69 vi List of Figures Figure 1.1: Dimensions of observation 10 Figure 1.2: The thesis structure 15 Figure 2.1: Rostow’s stages of economic growth 17 Figure 2.2: Paradigms of feminist development theory 23 Figure 2.3: Sustainable development: principles and objectives 24 Figure 2.4: The evolution of the development and tourism thinking: A framework 28 Figure 2.5: The conceptual basis for mainstream and alternative tourism 29 Figure 3.1: Spheres of alternative development and alternative tourism 35 Figure 3.2: Criteria often used for sustainability in tourism 38 Figure 3.3: Typical distribution of tourism income 40 Figure 3.4: Benefit distribution in existing tourism system and pro-poor tourism 41 Figure 4.1: Taxonomy of participation to tourism 47 Figure 4.2: Full participation versus token participation 48 Figure 4.3: Framework for assessing extent of empowerment of community involved in tourism 50 Figure 4.4: Elements of ethnic tourism 52 Figure 5.1: The structural pyramid of the presentation of Chapter five 56 Figure 5.2: Thua Thien Hue Province map 61 Figure 5.3: Thua Thien Hue tourism management chart 62 Figure 5.4: Doi Village map 68 Figure 5.5: Doi Village tourism organization and management 70 Figure 5.6: The participation matrix of Doi Village tourism’s main stakeholders by project elements 72 Figure 5.7: The tourist number and revenue of Doi Village tourism in 2004-2006 73 vii List of Acronyms CBT Community Based Tourism CD Community Development CPC Commune People’s Committee DPC District People’s Committee ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific GAD Gender and Development GDP Gross Domestic Product IMF International Monetary Fund IUCN The World Conservation Union IYE International Year of Ecotourism MDP Master of Development Practice NGO Non-Governmental Organization PAD Postmodern and Development PPT Pro-Poor Tourism PWWII Post-Second World War TTHDoT Thua Thien Hue Department of Tourism TTHPPC Thua Thien Hue Province People’s Committee SALPs Structural Adjustment Lending Programmes SPPT Sustainable Pro-Poor Tourism SNV Stichting Nederlandse Verijwilligers SSERC School of Social Science Ethical Review Committee UN United Nations VNAT Vietnam National Administration of Tourism VND Vietnam Dong WAD Women and Development WB World Bank WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WED Women, Environment, and Alternatives to Development WID Women in Development WTO World Tourism Organization WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature WWII Second World War viii Abstract Since the end of the Second World War, shaped by mainstream development theories, tourism has been touted as a panacea for economic backwardness in developing countries. However, critics have also begun to question its effectiveness as a strategy of economic development since the 1970s. Even with the emergence of alternative development and the rise of eco-, sustainable and pro-poor tourism, skeptics continue to find tourism development disappointing if not downright destructive to community development. This thesis examines whether tourism even in its more recent forms remains more concerned with sustaining the industry rather than enhancing the well being of people in local community.
To this end this research investigates tourism development in Doi Village, one of the poorest ethnic communities in Vietnam. It explores the relationship between tourism and community development. The research has found that while local people were generally happy with tourism development in their community, the motivation for their participation in tourism activities was less economically but more community driven – all for the hope of producing a more equitable, secure, and cohesive community with which they had deep affection and identity. Reflective of their commitment to their community was the fact that some volunteered to work for the village tourism project at the expense of earning less for themselves had they work independently.
Some also believed that tourism should be operated with a social conscience, like using the revenue generated to establish a community fund that could offer vulnerable households and those who were in dire difficulties in the village ready assistance. In the end, the case study has affirmed that tourism development works best when integrated with community development. ix Acknowledgements In writing this thesis, I have accumulated much intellectual debt. While I cannot possibly thank every single individual, the contributions of a number of people deserve special mention.
I am indebted particularly to my supervisor, Associate Professor David Ip for his thoughtfulness, patience and tireless academic support. The guidance he gave me throughout the process in preparing this thesis, from searching for references, advice and comments on my progress, have been crucial in bringing this research to fruition. My deepest thanks must also go to each and every villager in Doi Village who not only allowed me to conduct the interviews, but also provided me with the opportunity to understand their lifeworld and culture. I am equally thankful to participants from the Thua Thien Hue Department of Tourism, Nam Dong People’s Committee and Office of Industry and Commerce, and the two NGOs, SNV and WWF in Vietnam.
The information I gained from them has been most valuable and this thesis would not have been possible without their assistance. I would like also to thank the leaders and staff of Thua Thien Hue Union of Friendship Organizations, Department of Foreign Affairs in Vietnam and the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland in Australia. Their generosity and support have made my research journey both smooth and precious. Last but not least, I owe a heartfelt gratitude to my extended family and my friends, Mithra Bakhtiari, Cong Huyen Ton Nu Thuy Trang, Hoang Nu Minh Nguyet, Hoang Viet Thang, Le Luu Dieu Duc, Ly Hoang Quan, Jason McKay, Nguyen Quy Thuy Trang, Nguyen Thi Thuy Trang, Nguyen Duc Dung, Ben Satriatna, Tran Ho Tram Uyen, Vo Dinh Anh Tuan and others.
Their unfailing support and encouragement have provided me with the inspiration I needed most to meet the challenges I encountered in completing this thesis. x Chapter One Introduction Introduction Tourism for development is contemporary but not a novel theme in the literature of tourism development. From the late 1950s, the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank (WB) have supported tourism as a means of development (Holden 2005: 133). In particular, Naylon (1967, cited in Oppermann and Chon 1997: 16) in discussing the value of tourism to Spain; which was considered a developing country at the time pointed out that: One reason was already alluded to in tourism is perhaps the only sector of economic activity in which the principles of free trade still apply.
More important, it is now possible for underdeveloped countries to improve their economies, not by increasing exports via low-cost production, but by tourism. (Naylon 1967: 23) De Kadt (1979), in his pioneering volume, Tourism: Passport to Development, however, began to question its socio-economic impacts and advocated better planning for tourism growth in developing nations. Likewise in Tourism: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, although Rosenow and Pulspher (1979) argued that tourism played a significant role in preserving a country’s diversity and made communities more livable, it also developed an anti-tourism development stance. The costs or blight of tourism was further seen to outweigh its benefits or blessing by other researchers (see for example Young 1973; MacCannell 1976).
Despite these critical assessments over the past decades, developing economies however have continued to pursue tourism as a development strategy. The reason might be that tourism has been frequently referred to as “the world’s largest industry”, enticing many, if not all countries to jump on the “bandwagon” (Sharpley and Telfer 2002: 1). Hawkins and Mann (2007: 353) observed that under the World Bank’s framework, 80% of the 56 1 low-income countries implementing poverty reduction strategies had cited tourism as one of most common options for economic growth, employment, and poverty reduction. Notably many nations also gave tourism equal weight, considering it as important as other industries such as agriculture and manufacturing (Hawkins and Mann 2007: 353).
What is most amazing is that although in both academic theory and practice, there has been widespread representation of tourism as an effective means of achieving development, little attention has been given to critically examine the inherent processes, influences, objectives and outcomes of tourism related development (Sharpley and Telfer 2002: 1). Furthermore, as Sharpley and Telfer (2002: 2) argued, the developmental role of tourism should not be celebrated without an understanding of how development is defined and the processes by which it might be achieved. More importantly, development cannot simply mean economic growth as it used to be conceptualized. Rather, it “has been taken to mean different things at different times, in different places, and by different people in different professions and organizations” (Chambers 2004: 2).
For instance, Sachs (1992: 1) asserted: “The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crime have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work […] development has become outdated”. In contrast, Thuvesson (1995, cited in Chambers 2004: 2) optimistically commented: “As the existing system crumbles around us, new and exciting alternatives are sprouting in the rubble”. Following this logic, the issue raised by Sharpley (2002a: 34) is critical: “If development itself is a debatable concept, then the potential for any activity, including tourism, to contribute to development must also be in doubt”.
This argument, coupled with the evolution in both tourism and development studies and practices, requires a review of the concept of tourism for development.