Eco Tourism Contribution

1. Anatomy And Taxonomy Of Tourism


What is tourism?



Everyone attending this session should have a fair idea of what the term signifies. A simple definition which I think most people will agree is that tourism is any form of traveling from one’s home to visit another place solely for enjoyment or pleasure and not to work for monetary rewards. A more academic definition is given by Waver and Lawton (2002), who have expanded a definition given by Goeldner, Ritchie and McIntosh (2000): Tourism is the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction among tourists, the tourism industry, host governments, host communities, origin governments, universities, community colleges, and non-governmental organizations, in the process of attracting, transporting, hosting and managing these tourists and other visitors.



Tourists may be of domestic origin or foreign origin. Both types contribute to the growth of the local economy directly and indirectly. Recall that the size of an economy is measured by the gross national income as given by the formula learned in Economics 101:

Y = C + I + G + (X – M)

where Y is the GNP, C is private consumption expenditure, I is private investment, G is government expenditure, X is value of exports and M is value of imports.

Thus, while domestic tourists collectively contribute towards C, i.e. private consumption expenditure, by spending on transportation, accommodation, food, entrance fees, etc., foreign tourists bring in much-valued foreign exchange earnings via X in the GNP equation. The government spends part of its revenue (via G) to provide the infrastructure to make the tourists more comfortable and enjoyable by building new airports, roads, highways, parks, and museums, and by restoring of historic buildings and sites, etc. The private sector, in anticipation of an influx of tourists, both domestic and foreign, invests (via I in the equation) in new hotels, lodges, restaurants, while residents near tourism sites may be encouraged by the government to spruce up their homes for added income via home-stays for those tourists who prefer to learn more about local culture and way of life.

All the four components (C, I, G, X) contribute positively to the growth of GNP. However, “imports” (M) tend to negate the size of the GNP; these include outflow of our own tourists to foreign destinations, imports of exotic foods and equipment by hotels, restaurants and other tourism-oriented establishments, materials for building such as steel, transportation equipment, etc., which all tend to drain foreign exchange. Added to these negative flows, and often ignored in conventional national income accounting, are the various negative “externalities” such as damage to the environment via air, soil, noise and water pollution, brought about by sudden increase in vehicular traffic, excessive land clearing and tree felling to make way for hotels, new airports, reduction in biodiversity, and other environmental degradation, unless there are legal provisions to mitigate the impacts of all these phenomena. If one is interested in the Net National Product, then one should incorporate these environmental losses into the calculation, which is referred to as “green accounting,” a very tedious process, to say the least.

The literature on tourism seems to distinguish two broad categories of tourism – mass tourism and nature tourism. The tourist arrival figures published by the Malaysian Tourism Board would best be described as mass tourism – that is the sum total of all visitors to our country regardless of their specific purpose of, or specific site for, coming here. Once they are in the country, if they decide to visit the National Park, then we could classify them as ecotourists or nature tourists. If they remain in Kuala Lumpur area, or move on to another city, like Penang, or Langkawi, for instance, I would regard them as general or “mass” tourists (Ayob, 2003). Thus, nature tourists are a subset of the mass tourists, and they possess special profiles, which we need not go into here.



The tourism sector in Malaysia ranks second as a generator of foreign exchange, and provides jobs to many people employed in the hotel and transportation industries, as well as those in the restaurant and other tourism-related businesses.

Tourism receipts in Malaysia totalled RM9174.9 million in 1995, and surged to RM25,781.1 million in 2002, growing at about 15.9% annually during that period. The 2003 receipts however dropped drastically to RM 21,292.1 million due to SARS. Despite the big drop, one can appreciate the rising importance of this industry’s contribution to foreign exchange earnings from the following figures: tourism’s share of the travel receipts in the services account of the balance of payment has increased from 20% in 1997 to 48% in 2002 (Public Bank 2003). Tourist arrivals in Malaysia are shown in Chart I, which indicate that tourist arrivals dropped by about 24% in 2003 due to the SARS scare. In 2003, about 56% of the tourists are from Singapore, which is not surprising as the island city is our closest neighbor.





Chart I: Tourist Arrivals in Malaysia 1981-2003

What is ecotourism?

Ecotourism has now become a buzzword in many circles (politicians, NGOs, businessmen, academics and environmentalists), and almost every country that has some natural resources and historical heritage has jumped on to the bandwagon to develop this sub-sector of the tourism industry. From Ecuador to Sulawesi (Indonesia), from India to Australia, people talk and write about ecotourism (particularly visits to mangrove areas). This is because ecotourism is perceived to be the solution to the adverse effects of mass tourism, which most people view as “unsustainable.” Therefore to push for ecotourism is to be “politically correct” and moving with the times. Tropical countries such as Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries see mangrove swamps (fashionably classified as wetlands nowadays) as another opportunity to develop ecotourism in their respective countries. This year the Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, in celebrating its centennial anniversary of the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve, has included “mangrove and tourism” as one session in its present conference, which is the focus of my presentation. Happy centennial anniversary!



The Ecotourism Society (cited in Institute for Ecological Tourism website listed in Reference), defines Ecotourism as purposeful or responsible travel to natural areas to understand the culture and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem while producing economic opportunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people.



There is in this definition a certain element of ethics, morality and values involved in ecotourism, i.e. it is expected that people who take part in an ecotourism excursion are very responsible people who love the natural environment and would like to contribute towards its conservation. They want to minimize impacts to wildlife, soil, vegetation, water, and air quality, and emphasize respect for the cultural traditions and activities of local people. Said in another way, the environment benefits from visitors because they help to conserve the environment; they in turn benefit from their non-consumptive use of the resource (which economists refer to as use value) as they increase their knowledge about the site visited; and this raises their utility level. The local community too should benefit from both the resource (which has been sustaining their life) and the visitors who bring them new sources of income. There is, therefore, a symbiotic relationship among the three entities involved in ecotourism (Chart II).





Chart II: Three-way Symbiosis in Ecotourism

If ecotourism is to have minimal impact on the area and the local people, then the tours will have to be in small groups of 5-15 people because the tour normally involves an interpretative session; and it is easier to get people’s attention when groups are small. If groups are larger, there is also the danger that people will trample on each other and spoil the fun for everyone. They might also step on rare plants or frighten the wildlife there. Some may wander away from the main group and miss the educational part of the visit – the interpretation session.



“Mangrove ecotourism” is not a new “branch” of ecotourism; it merely indicates the nature of the site visited by the tourists. A mangrove is a woody forest area that lies at the interface between the land and the sea in tropical and subtropical latitudes where the condition is highly saline, tides are extremes, winds are strong, temperatures high and soils are muddy and anaerobic for most of the time. Dominant tree species include, but are not limited to, Rhizophora apiculata (bakau minyak) and R. mucronata (B. kurap) – the true bakau types, as understood by local Malays, and as typified by the Matang Mangrove Forest Reserves.

The development of mangroves as ecotourism sites is growing worldwide, at least within the subtropical regions of the world, which make up their habitat. Browsing the Internet, one is overwhelmed by websites that mention mangroves as potentially viable as ecotourism destinations; you just type “mangrove ecotourism” and you will understand what I mean!

2. Motives for promoting ecotourism

An interesting European speaker at an ecotourism seminar held at UUM last year posed an interesting question about the “eco” part of ecotourism (Wheeler 2003). Although most people would associate “ecology” with the prefix “eco” in ecotourism, the speaker suggested “economics” as a possibility for the prefix “eco.” What he was insinuating was that some people saw ecotourism as a money-spinner, and not so much as a savior of the natural environment. The speaker was (and still is) a professor of ecotourism! Then he made a plea for people “to be realistic and not too over-reliant on the (false) expectations of Ecotourism.”

Therefore, should ecotourism be seen or interpreted as ecological or “economical” tourism? Should it be viewed in this way, as “either-or” or a dichotomy? The answer is not so simple. According to the Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism (2002), the stakeholders, such as ecotourism businesses must be able to make profits to be sustainable, and the environment too must not suffer as a result of ecotourism activities, while the local community must also benefit financially from the activities being promoted. In other words, the three-way symbiosis mentioned earlier in this paper must continue to function in order for ecotourism to be sustainable. One entity cannot take advantage of the other; otherwise the entire system simply collapses. It is like one entity killing the goose that lays the golden egg!

Thus, one may conclude that economics and ecology must go hand in hand in the development of ecotourism. Economic logic (eco-logic?) should be applied in trying to build ecotourism projects. A simple economic logic is that if the returns exceed the costs, leaving a sufficient surplus for entrepreneurship, then one should proceed with the project. If not, the project will not be viable to the private sector; hence it will not contribute to economic growth, which it was intended to do. Similarly, if the benefit to the environment is greater than the damage done to it, then proceed with the project.

The driving force behind any business is consumer demand. In the case of ecotourism, the consumers are the nature- or eco-tourists. They normally constitute a small group within the tourist population; in marketing they form a niche. It is they who will determine whether or not to visit a certain site for their outdoor recreation. They have many kinds of competing sites to choose from – sandy beaches, waterfalls, state woodland parks, jungle trails, marine parks that allow snorkeling or scuba diving, bird watching at bird sanctuaries, inland wetlands, mangrove forests etc.

On the supply side, the authorities will have to scrutinize any proposed project so that it does not damage the protected area. There is thus a “balancing act” that has to be done by the government as a custodian of the natural heritage on behalf of future generations. In this “act” the interests of the private sector, the environment and the local community will have to be safeguarded in the name of “sustainability.” The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Weaver, 2001).



3. What does a mangrove swamp have to offer?

As an ecotourism site, a mangrove wetland has to compete with many more appealing sites, such as a sandy beach, a marine park that allows snorkeling or scuba diving, state woodland parks, jungle trails, waterfalls, bird watching at bird sanctuaries, inland wetlands, etc.

It would be interesting to ask people randomly how they would rank these alternative sites as places for outdoor recreation. My suspicion is that a mangrove swamp will not be on the top of the list. Why? In a mangrove swamp, one cannot simply walk about without getting soiled and dirty, unless special boardwalks have been built, and even then, the walk has to follow a set trail.

There is no scenic beauty there unless one is a mangrove specialist or a forester or a botanist trying to identify tree and plant species; the tide has to be right before a boat ride can be arranged. Yes, one can listen to sounds of birds and insects, but it is difficult to actually see large birds that are often pictured in the brochures. These birds must be very shy of people or easily frightened.

Mangroves are for the “scholarly” type – those who want to learn the scientific aspects of the forest (flora and fauna), the economic and ecological benefits of mangroves to man, etc. Mangroves provide “educational recreation” – if there is such a term. Some of the “interesting” discoveries one can make by visiting a mangrove with a trained guide or a forester are:

•

There are many other species of plants growing in mangroves besides the bakau; for example the Nipah palm (Nypa sp.), rattan (Calamus sp) and nibong (Oncosperma sp), and some ferns (piai or Acrostichum spp.) can be seen growing among the bakau species. These have little economic value and are left to grow for the sake of biodiversity.

• The “seeds” of the bakau, known as propagules, start to germinate on the trees; and when they drop, the long root is “designed” to stick into the mud, thus ensuring its survival. Crabs are its worst enemy! When young they are succulent and provide food for these crustaceans.

• Mangroves have the ability to grow in salt or brackish water and are a life support for various types of fish, mollusks (seashells), and crustaceans (crabs, prawns and shrimps).

• In addition to controlling coastal erosion the mangroves can expand into the sea, a process known as accretion; this results in an increase in area of mangroves – a sort of natural land reclamation!

• The root system of the bakau (Rhizophora spp.) is unique, or even “weird” as the modern youth would have it, compared to most inland tree species; but it is quite “interesting” to look at the stilt roots (this is an opinion!).

• The Matang Mangrove is actually a charcoal production “complex” – its uses a renewable resource, unlike coal mining in other countries where coal deposits are extracted, leaving the country “poorer” from the perspective of resource endowment

4. Valuing Tourists' Satisfaction From Ecotourism

What is the satisfaction or “utility” to be derived by tourists and visitors to see these swamps? Can it be valued?



People spend money in buying goods or services because they derive satisfaction from such purchases. The same is true for travels and recreation. The tourists have spent a considerable sum of money to make the travel to a site; he or she of their entire party must pay for transportation, accommodation, food, and entrance fee. In return for these expenditures they expect to enjoy (or gain utility from) the visit, by indulging in acts that give them satisfaction – swimming, diving, snorkeling, bird watching, sun-bathing (not for locals perhaps!), gazing at beautiful and unique scenery, fishing, trekking, etc.

If one is interested in finding out whether visitors have enjoyed their visit to a mangrove site, a simple survey can be conducted among a sample of the visitors. Several aspects of the visit can be evaluated, such as the quality of the interpretation session, the friendliness of the tour guide, punctuality of the organizers in the various schedules, quality of food served during the trip, the entrance fee charged, opportunities to ask questions, clarity of the answers, etc.

The main purposes of such a survey are to identify strengths and weaknesses of a service provider and then to capitalize on the strengths and rectify weaknesses for future tourists. Level of satisfaction can be measured on Likert scales and summative ratings computed. One can relate the ratings with demographic variables such as age, gender, education level, ethnicity, income class, etc. Establishments, such as hotels, restaurants, besides the universities, continuously carry out research on visitor satisfaction.

If one is interested to go further as to put a dollar value to the site, there are two major methods to do it, the details of which will not be dealt with in this paper. One is the individual travel cost method (ITCM) and the second is the contingent valuation method (CVM) (see Garrod and Willis, 1999). The first method involves survey of visitors to find out how many visits have they made to the site, how much they have spent on transportation, food, accommodation, time taken to arrive at the site, socioeconomic characteristics, etc. The idea is to trace a demand curve and then try to compute “consumer surplus” which reflects the sum total of the value of the site.

The CVM uses a different approach and asks visitors how much they would be willing to pay (WTP) or contribute to “restore” a site from state A (degraded) to state B (improved to a certain degree), or to maintain the environment in its present pristine state. The assumption is that, without government intervention, which will require public expenditure, the site will deteriorate due to the heavy use by visitors. This approach looks only at the “use-value” of the site and its facilities. Knowing the total number of visitors to the site and the average WTP, the total use value can be computed.

5. Likely Visitors’ Expectations: Role Of Government And Private Sector

What do ecotourists expect from a visit to mangrove sites? The answer will depend on their interest and educational background. First-timers to a mangrove would be expecting to see some of the big birds (migratory or otherwise) that the brochures claim the mangrove to have; or they want to know what a bakau tree looks like from near; or how a Nipah palm, which produces such a sweet nira (floral sap) sold along the Jitra-Changloon highway, is supposed to look like.

Some visitors would just love to enjoy “trekking” on the boardwalks prepared by the Forestry Department, while listening to the songs of birds, which are often too small to be seen without a pair of binoculars! Others look forward to the boat ride in the estuaries and waterways between the little islands (referring to the Matang Mangroves, of course.) Some might enjoy watching cockle harvesting in the brackish water or getting a free Kerapu fish, through the good office of the Forestry Department!

Very few would want to wade in the mud of the mangroves; hence random walks are just not part of the enjoyment in mangroves, or other ecotours. After a hard half- to one-day tour, visitors look forward to a sumptuous meal, preferably seafood harvested from the mangrove environment itself. The “soft” ecotourists would want to eat in an air-conditioned restaurant; the “hard” ones will be less choosy.

Both types want cleanliness in the eating-places and in the toilets provided. The true ecotourist would like to meet with the local community (preferably indigenous people) to see how they live, how the mangroves support their livelihood, and watch their culture.

The government’s role in making ecotourism more enjoyable is to put in place the infrastructure: the boardwalks, automatic listening devices, an interpretative center, jetty, clearing the streams of broken branches, building landing places along the boating route, etc. The private sector will arrange the tours and bring the tourists to the various spots of interest, provide trained guides and gives a running commentary as the boat passes an interesting spot. These guides have to have extra-good sense of humor to make the visit interesting. With all these in place, the tourist is likely to feel he or she is getting value for money. This kind of tourism would be best described as nature tourism or soft-ecotourism.

Another vital of the government is to monitor the operators so that they comply with the principles of true ecotourism (Wallace, 2003). These include the following:

1. Entails a type of use that minimizes negative impacts to the environment and to local people.

2. Increases the awareness and understanding of an area's natural and cultural systems and the subsequent involvement of visitors in issues affecting those systems.

3. Contributes to the conservation and management of legally protected and other natural areas.

4. Maximizes the early and long-term participation of local people in the decision-making process that determines the kind and amount of tourism that should occur.

5. Directs economic and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional practices (farming, fishing, social systems, etc.)

6. Provides special opportunities for local people and nature tourism employees to visit natural areas and learn more about the wonders that other visitors come to see.

6. Why Bring Tourists To Mangroves?

The main purpose of ecotourism is to conserve nature and make up for the degradation of the environment brought about by mass tourism. Should these tourists be made to pay a small sum (entrance fee) to enjoy nature? Is not “nature” a public property to be enjoyed by all and sundry? The entrance fee to enter Galapagos National Park in Ecuador is USD100.00 per person (http://www.ecuadorexplorer.com/html/coastparks.html). The fund collected is used to protect the islands and their unique flora and fauna, which are endemic to these islands.

Surely, no one is suggesting that Malaysia charges RM100.00 per person to enter a mangrove area! The Galapagos Islands have Darwin’s theory of evolution to boast about. The experience on these islands must be truly ecological; the entrance fee has economic logic! Scarcity dictates its price. Although the distance of the islands to the nearest continent is 600 miles, yet people still go to visit this world’s natural wonders. On these islands, too, people have to walk along prescribed paths built by the custodians.

There is an economic basis for charging tourists a token fee to cover maintenance costs of infrastructure built by the government, especially if the purpose is conservation. If tourists can afford the travel cost, then a small fee would not make a dent on their wallets. Politically, a fee may not be possible when the public (locals) expect parks to be enjoyed for free. But, to pass on the cost to taxpayers is not in keeping with the times. Privatization is aimed at making users pay for a service or to use a facility. Those who do not use a toll road are not asked to pay toll; soon even the toll road becomes very congested! Similarly, a park (e.g. a zoo) soon becomes congested if it is very accessible and free. People do not mind paying a reasonable sum of money to undertake outdoor recreation if they know the money is for a good cause. A two-tier system should be tried whereby foreign tourists pay slightly more.

The role of the private sector in ecotourism is to provide accommodation near the site, to conduct the tours, and collect the entrance fee, which can be built into the cost of the tour package. They also should operate presentable eateries outside the mangrove areas, and should serve locally available food, preferably from the brackish water where the mangrove thrives.

7. The Matang Mangroves And Ecotourism

In this section I will try to recapitulate the basic facts about the Matang Mangroves Forest Reserve for the sake of completeness; then I will present a simple do-it-myself SWOT analysis, a techniques often used by marketing people. It is hoped that the analysis will help decision-makers in developing ecotourism of the site. The people in the front-line would be in a better position to know if what is presented in the SWOT analysis is anywhere near reality.

Basic Facts, Some opinions

• Matang Mangroves are made of 19 separate forest reserves; the whole area comprises 108 compartments for management purposes. Over 50% of Peninsular Malaysia’s mangrove forests are in Perak; and Matang is the largest stretch of coastal mangrove, covering an area of 40,466ha. These forests have been producing quality firewood since 1900’s.

• The forest reserves run north to south, stretching from Kuala Gula (Krian District) in the north to Bagan Panchor in the south (Manjung District), with a dimension of 51 km long and 13 km wide. The western coastal line faces the Straits of Malacca, one of the busiest sea-routes in the world, linking the Western World and the Eastern countries of Asia.

• Nearest urban center is Taiping town (a distance 16 km away from Kuala Sepetang (in Larut/Matang District), where the Nature Education Center has been set up and is being run by the Larut/Matang Forestry Department). Other towns nearby where tourists can find good accommodation include Laketown, a water theme park, and Kuala Kangsar, the Royal capital of Perak, with its own tourist attractions.

• The Forest reserves, first gazetted since 1902 and completed in 1906, cover a total area of 40,466ha hectares. It is a well-managed forest reserve (even said to be best managed mangrove forest in the world and for the longest time period). It consists of productive forests (74%) and non-productive or protective forests (24%). The Productive Forest is managed on sustainable basis on 30-year cycle. For a non-forest person, imagine a rectangular area divided into 30 equal-sized strips – beginning with one-year old mangrove plants (planted or self-generated), followed by two-year old, and so on, until the last strip, which should be a 30-year old stand and ready for harvest for its wood.



When the trees reach 15 years of age, contractors carry out the first thinning to reduce the number of trees per unit area, and the felled trees are sold as poles. These poles are used by the fishing industry and as piling material in construction of residential houses. The second thinning takes place at age 20 years and the felled trees have even higher commercial value as poles. The final harvest takes place on reaching maturity at 30 years old. Only forest personnel who serve more than 30 years will ever see the harvesting of what they planted while serving in the department!

• The Matang Mangrove area is not a “wilderness” in the true sense – as it is easily accessible from the main North-South Expressway. This should be positive point or its STRENGTH. (Refer to SWOT analysis table below). Basically almost three-fourth of the forest is actually a plantation, very well managed to generate continuous revenue to the Perak State Government. Only 5.2% (or 2,105.50ha) is reserved as virgin jungle where no logs can be taken out. Another 1232.7ha (3%) serves as research forest, bird sanctuary, ecotourism, educational, seed stand, and archeological reserves.

• To the extent that Matang Mangroves Forest Reserve is already managed in an ecologically sustainable way, it may not need an ecotourism industry to boost its sustainability. What nature tourism will do is to educate the public about the importance of mangroves to man and why the mangrove ecosystem must be protected at all costs. Nature tourism will also contribute to the economy of the state by creating demand for tourism-related goods and services outside the site itself. However, if visitors are made to pay an entrance fee to the “park” for the purpose of improving services and facilities and also to be used to further protect the forests, then the visit can be categorized as “true ecotourism.” Since this is a political decision of the State Government, it remains to be seen whether visitors are made to share the cost of the park’s upkeep.

• How will the “local” community benefit from the tourists? This has to be carefully studied since the word “local” can be interpreted in many ways. In the literature, local community mainly refers to indigenous people whose livelihood depends on the protected area (Weaver, 2001). If the “locals” are already fully employed as workers in the forest plantations or in the fishing industry, then tourists will not bring direct benefit, except by way of increased demand for seafood. Matang Mangrove supports 34 permanent settlements within the reserves, the majority (28) of these settlements being fishing villages (Azahar Muda [Dato’] and Nik Mohd. Shah Nik Mustafa, 2003).

• To my knowledge, two companies operate in the area to bring tourists. One of the operators charges RM350 per day-trip; RM175 per trip (half-day or less); student rates are lower – RM300 per day-trip; RM150 per trip (max. 15 persons). Presumably, the tours start and end at Kuala Sepetang.

• This government-run forest plantation’s final products are logs to be turned into charcoal in kilns belonging to designated contractors. The Forestry Department practices clear felling of the trees. Revenue collected in the form of royalty from the charcoal industry amounted to over RM4.5 million between 1990 and 1999 (Azahar and Nik Mohd. Shah, 2003).

Question of Viability



This is a matter of concern to the private sector wanting to establish an ecolodge or operate the tours in a protected area or outside its fringes. In Matang Mangrove, the District Forestry Department has already built eight chalets; private sector participation appears to be unnecessary at the present time. The tour operators must be making profits to be still in business.

An excellent example of a successful family business in ecotourism in neighboring Southern Thailand is Siam Safari, which was started by a British visitor (Mr. Robert Griefenberg), who has made Phuket, his home. Siam Safari's own definition of ecotourism is: "Tours for people who enjoy looking at and learning about the natural and social environment. This must be combined with direct economic benefits for local communities and active conservation of the areas visited."



Siam Safari’s advice for economic viability includes the following:

1. An ecotour company should plan its activities before it starts operations and constantly update and share information with others.

2. Local communities should be actively involved in the decision making process and be informed of new activities and events that will be occurring in their area.

3. Intensive training for guides and refresher courses should be regularly held.

4. Ecotourism operators should be issued special licenses demonstrating that they run socially and environmentally correct tours. Government agencies should issue these licenses, as well as regularly monitor companies' activities.

5. Ecotourism operators should have special insurance policies for clients as well as their employees.

6. Tour operators should foster a sense of team spirit amongst their staff.

7. A private sector Ecotourism Association should be established.

8. Ecotourism operators should have high standards and regularly monitor and evaluate their tours and services.

9. Tour operators should be active members of the community and contribute to projects or programs that benefit the natural and cultural environment.

10. Tour Operators should be members of Ecotourism Societies and nature organizations. Siam Safari belongs to The Ecotourism Society of America and has links with Fauna and Flora International in the UK which provides a worldwide eco-company network. Siam Safari is also trying to work with other tour companies in Thailand to establish an Ecotourism Association in Thailand.