Conservation costs: Nature-based tourism as development at Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam

Abstract

Local communities are frequently displaced from areas selected for environmental protection. Development of nature-based tourism, believed to be more environmentally benign than traditional agricultural systems, has been encouraged by governments and national park managers in the hope of providing alternative livelihoods for local people. This paper examines the extent to which indigenous peoples resettled from within one Vietnamese national park have engaged with the nascent tourism industry, thereby providing a perspective on the success of their resettlement, through the eyes of those communities affected. The perspectives of resettled peoples are contrasted with those of villagers who have continued to reside within the national park, using traditional means of survival, along with new initiatives designed to supplement their livelihoods and to reduce their dependence on national park resources for survival. Resettled villagers are unable to survive on agricultural activity alone, tourism has done little to provide an alternate livelihood and the park environment is still threatened by the use of park resources by resettled communities in their struggle to survive.

Developing sustainable tourism through adaptive resource management: a case study of Machu Picchu, Peru

“…Such conflicts between local interests and tourism-associated demands are not unique to Machu Picchu (e.g. Rugendyke & Son, 2005). The ICOMOS highlights the difficulties in integrating cultural resource management and tourism in its International Cultural Tourism Charter, asserting that physical, intellectual and emotive access to cultural heritage sites is a right that should not be denied (ICOMOS, 1999).…”

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

“…Other studies found no evidence that respondents felt that either negative or positive impacts resulted from the protected area [75,86,88,91,92].…”

Vietnam's Emerging National Parks: War, Resource Exploitation, and Recent Struggles to Protect Biodiversity

“…SUF regulations prevent all extractive and most non‐extractive resource uses and specify that protected lands should be managed to address four objectives: 1) the preservation of nature, 2) the protection of historical and cultural sites, 3) scientific research, and 4) recreation/tourism. Although the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is responsible for the overall direction of SUFs, oversight of individual SUFs is provided by local management boards (Rugendyke and Son ). Overlapping agency jurisdictions sometimes create confusion.…”