Systematic Review on Ecosystem Services (ES) of Ecotourism in South-East Asia (ASEAN)

• Autorzy: Abas Azlan , Aiyub Kadaruddin , Idris Nor Azizan

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/pe.2021.1.12

Warianty tytułu

PL

Przegląd usług pełnionych przez ekosystemy (ES) w kontekście ekoturystyki w Azji Południowo-Wschodniej (ASEAN)

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Ecotourism ecosystem services can rarely been identified specifically in detail. Hence, little is known about interactions and relationship between ecotourism and its services. We have chosen South-East Asia (ASEAN) as our case studies because of its multi-diverse ecotourism ecosystem. We conducted a systematic review of studies that aim to understand the relationship and interaction between the ecotourism ecosystem and its services to summarize research from this emerging topic and to identify the patterns for ecotourism ecosystem services in ASEAN from different case studies. The results show that 7 out 10 ASEAN countries have studied on ecotourism ecosystem services. Most studies indicated the importance of the services provided by the ecotourism sector as cultural (aesthetic, scientific research and recreational) and supporting (habitat conservation). Our review also found some limitations of this study: first, no data gathered from 3 countries (Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam and Myanmar) and second, the study only focused on monetary methods (WTP etc.) and third, calls for more studies and comparative studies to identify services provided by ecotourism sector in ASEAN. Finally, we discuss how our review fits into the Pakse Declaration 2016 and policy development to address climate change.

PL

Trudno szczegółowo określić usługi pełnione przez ekosystemy ekoturystyczne. Niewiele więc wiadomo na temat interakcji i związków między ekoturystyką a jej usługami. W naszych badaniach wybraliśmy kraje Azji Południowo-Wschodniej (ASEAN), ze względu na ich różnorodny ekosystem ekoturystyczny. Przeprowadziliśmy systematyczny przegląd, który miał na celu zrozumienie relacji i interakcji między ekosystemem ekoturystycznym i ich usługami, aby zidentyfikować wzorce usług ekosystemów ekoturystycznych w ASEAN na podstawie różnych studiów przypadku. Wyniki pokazują, że 7 na 10 krajów ASEAN przeprowadziło badania dotyczące ekoturystycznych usług ekosystemowych. Większość badań wskazywała na znaczenie usług świadczonych przez sektor ekoturystyki jako kulturowych (estetycznych, naukowo-badawczych i rekreacyjnych) oraz wspierających (ochrona siedlisk). W naszym przeglądzie występują także pewne ograniczenia. Po pierwsze, brak danych z 3 krajów (Brunei Darussalam, Wietnam i Mjanma). Po drugie, badanie dotyczyło tylko metod pieniężnych (WTP itp.). Po trzecie, przeprowadzone badania sugerują konieczność prowadzenia dalszych prac porównawcze w celu określenia usług świadczonych przez sektor ekoturystyki w ASEAN. Na koniec omawiamy, w jaki sposób nasz przegląd wpisuje się w Deklarację Pakse z 2016 r. i rozwój polityki dotyczącej zmian klimatycznych.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

ecosystem services; ecotourism; ASEAN; sustainable development goals; environmental management

PL

usługi pełnione przez ekosystemy; ekoturystyka; ASEAN; Cele zrównoważonego rozwoju; zarządzanie środowiskiem

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 16, nr 1
• Strony: 113--122
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 61 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Abas Azlan

• Centre for Research in Development, Social and Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

autor

Aiyub Kadaruddin

• Centre for Research in Development, Social and Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5614-6506

autor

Idris Nor Azizan

• Centre for Research in History, Politics and International Affairs (SPHEA), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Bibliografia

• 1. ABU BAKAR, N.A., RADAM A., SAMDIN Z., YACOB M.R., 2016, Willingness to pay in kubah national park and matang wildlife centre: A contingent valuation method, in: International Journal of Business and Society, 17(1), p. 131-144.
• 2. ALDRED J. JACOBS M., 2000, Citizens and wetlands: Evaluating the Fly citizens’ jury, in: Ecological Economics, 34(2), p. 217-232.
• 3. AZIZ S.A., CLEMENTS G.R., GIAM X., FORGET P.-M., CAMPOS-ARCEIZ A., 2017, Coexistence and Conflict between the Island Flying fox (Pteropus hypomelanus) and Humans on Tioman Island, Peninsular Malaysia, in: Human Ecology, 45(3), p. 377- 389.
• 4. BHUIYAN M.A.H., SIWAR C., ISMAIL S.M., 2013, Socio-economic impacts of home stay accommodations in Malaysia: A study on home stay operators in Terengganu state, in: Asian Social Science, 9(3), p. 42-49.
• 5. BOYD J.W., BANZHAF H.S., 2005, Ecosystem Services and Government Accountability: The Need for a New Way of Judging Nature’s Value, in: Resources, 158, p. 16-19.
• 6. BROPHY S.C., 2015, Ecotourism: Practises, benefits and environmental impacts, Nova Science Publishers.
• 7. CAILLE F., RIERA J. L., RODRÍGUEZ-LABAJOS B., MIDDELKOOP H., ROSELL-MEL A., 2007, Participatory scenario development for integrated assessment of nutrient flows in a Catalan river basin, in: Hydrology and Earth System Science, 11, p. 1843- 1855.
• 8. CALLESEN I., 2016, Biodiversity and ecosystem services in life cycle impact assessment – Inventory project or impact categories?, in: Ecosystem services, 22, p. 94-103.
• 9. CARANDANG A.P., CAMACHO L.D., GEVAÑA D.T., DIZON J. T., CAMACHO S. C., DE LUNA C. C., PULHIN F. B., COMBALICER E. A., PERAS R.J.J., REBUGIO L.L., 2013, Economic valuation for sustainable mangrove ecosystems management in Bohol and Palawan, Philippines, in: Forest Science and Technology, 9(3), p. 118-125.
• 10. CHURCH A., COLES T., FISH R., 2017, Tourism in sub-global assessments of ecosystem services, in: Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(11), p. 1529- 1546.
• 11. CLEMENTS T., JOHN A., NIELSEN K., TAN S., MILNER-GULLAND E.J., 2010, Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia, in: Ecological Economics, 69(6), p. 1283-1291.
• 12. CLEMENTS T., MILNER-GULLAND E.J., 2015, Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia, in: Conservation Biology, 29(1), p. 78-87.
• 13. DE LEON R.C., KIM S.M., 2017, Stakeholder perceptions and governance challenges in urban protected area management: The case of the Las Piñas – Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area, Philippines, in: Land Use Policy, 63, p. 470-480.
• 14. DIN A.S., KADIR H.A., ARSHAD M.R., HARIRI M.H.M., 2015, Malaysian integrated ocean observation system (MIOOS) buoy, in: Jurnal Teknologi, 74(9), p. 41-49.
• 15. ELFITHRI R., MOKHTAR M., ABDULLAH M.P., TORIMAN M.E., YASIN R.M., AMIR A.A., UNJAH T., HALIM S.A., SAAD N.M.N.F.M., ISHAK S.A., RAMZAN N. M., 2018, Water and Environmental Sustainability Education Linked with Ecotourism in Langkawi Geopark, Malaysia: Initiative Towards Sustainable Development, in: OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(1), p. 65-72.
• 16. ESHOO P.F., JOHNSON A., DUANGDALA S., HANSEL, 2018, Design, monitoring and evaluation of a direct payments approach for an ecotourism strategy to reduce illegal hunting and trade of wildlife in Lao PDR, in: PLoS ONE, DOI: 13(2)e0186133.
• 17. FRANCE R.L., 2016, Environmental restoration and design for recreation and ecotourism, Taylor and Francis Group, UK.
• 18. HALKOS G. and MANAGI S., 2017, Land use, forest preservation and biodiversity in Asia, in: Journal of Forest Economics, 29, p. 1-3.
• 19. HEATHER Z.D., 2006, Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. H. Zeppel.
• 20. HEBER-DUNNING K., 2015, Ecosystem services and community based coral reef management institutions in post blast-fishing Indonesia, in: Ecosystem Services, 16, p. 319-332.
• 21. HORNOIU R.-I., 2016, Resilience capacity of local communities from protected areas under the impact of climate change and their strengthening through ecotourism. The ASEAN countries’ case, in: QualityAssess to Success, 17(153), p. 70-73.
• 22. HWANG Y.H., ROSCOE C.J., 2017, Preference for site conservation in relation to on-site biodiversity and perceived site attributes: An on-site survey of unmanaged urban greenery in a tropical city, in: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 28, p. 12-20.
• 23. ISA S.S., HASBULLAH R. MOHD NASIR M.N., 2015, Adventure and ecotourism in Malaysia, Malaysia Tourism.
• 24. JAIN A., COURVISANOS J. 2006, A Framework for Sustainable Ecotourism: Application to Costa Rica, in: Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 3(2), p. 131-142.
• 25. JUNSONGDUANG A., SIRITHIP K., INTA A., NACHAI R., ONPUTTHA B., TANMING W., BALSLEV H., 2017, Diversity and Traditional Knowledge of Textile Dyeing Plants in Northeastern Thailand, in: Economic Botany, 71(3), p. 241-255.
• 26. KALLIS G., HATZILACOU D., MEXA A., COCCOSSIS H., SVORONOU E., 2009, Beyond the manual: Practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island, in: Ecological Economics, 68, p. 979-989.
• 27. KAPLOWITZ M.D., HOEHN J.P., 2001, Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?, in: Ecological Economics, 36, p. 237-247.
• 28. KIBRIA A.S.M.G., BEHIE A., COSTANZA R., GROVES C., FARREL T., 2017, The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park, in: Ecosystem Services, 26, p. 27-36.
• 29. KURNIAWAN F., ADRIANTO L., BENGEN D.G., PRASETYO L.B., 2016, Vulnerability assessment of small islands to tourism: The case of the Marine Tourism Park of the Gili Matra Islands, Indonesia, in: Global Ecology and Conservation, 6, p. 308-326.
• 30. KUSMANA C., SUKWIKA T., 2018, Coastal community preference on the utilization of mangrove ecosystem and channel bar in Indramayu, Indonesia, in: AACL Bioflux, 11(3), p. 905-918.
• 31. KUVAINI A., HIDAYAT A., KUSMANA C., BASUNI S., 2017, Institutional resilience of pesantren in mangrove forest management in Kangean Island, East Java Province, Indonesia, in: AACL Bioflux, 10(6), p. 1475-1482.
• 32. MALOVICS G., KELEMEN E., 2009, Non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services: A tool for decision making and conflict management, in: Ecosystem services, 22(1), p. 32-39.
• 33. MCKAY J.E., MANGUNJAYA F.M., DINATA Y., HARROP,S.R., KHALID F., 2014, Practise what you preach: A faith-based approach to conservation in Indonesia, in: ORYX, 48(1), p. 23-29.
• 34. MONACO A., PROUZET P., 2014, Ecosystem sustainability and global change, Ecosystem sustainability and global change, John Wiley and Sons, France.
• 35. MUHAMAD S., SANUSI N., MOHD KAMIL N.F.N., 2012, An economic valuation of Redang Island: Towards sustainable tourism in small Islands, in: Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 7(1), p. 87-93.
• 36. MUKRIMAH A., MOHD PARID M., LIM H.F., TARIQ MUBARAK H., 2016, Economic analysis of mangrove forest: A case of delta Kelantan mangrove forest (DKMF), in: Malaysian Forester, 79(1-2), p. 203-211.
• 37. MURDIYARSO D., PURBOPUSPITO J., KAUFFMAN J.B., WARREN M.W., SASMITO S.D., DONATO D.C., MANURI KRISNAWATI, H.H, TABERIMA S., KURNIANTO S., 2015, The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation, in: Nature Climate Change, 5(12): p. 1089-1092.
• 38. NALLAKUMAR K., 2003, The synchronously flashing aggregative fireflies of peninsular Malaysia, in: Biodiversity, 4(2), p. 11-16.
• 39. PAKSE DECLARATION, 2016, ASEAN Ecotourism Forum, Lao PDR.
• 40. PETERSON G. D., BEARD JR. T. D., BEISNER B. E., BENNETT E. M., CARPENTER S. R., CUMMING G. S., DENT C. L., HAVLICEK T. D., 2003, Assessing future ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern Highland Lake District, Wisconsin, in: Conservation Ecology, 7(3), http://www.consecol. org/vol7/iss3/art1
• 41. RAMLI F., SAMDIN Z., GHANI A.N.A., KASIM, M.R.M., 2018, Factors affecting users’ perception towards conservation of biodiversity in Matang Mangrove Forest Reserve (MMFR), Perak, Malaysia, in: International journal of Business and Society, 19(S1), p. 26-36.
• 42. RASIAH R., AHMED A., AL-AMIN A.Q., CHENAYAH S., 2017, Climate change mitigation: comparative assessment of Malaysian and ASEAN scenarios, in: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(3), p. 2632-2642.
• 43. RASIAH R., AL-AMIN A.Q., CHOWDHURRY A.H., AHMED F., CHEN Z., 2018, Climate change mitigation projections for ASEAN, in: Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, DOI: 10.1080/13547860.2018.1442145
• 44. RAVNBORG H.M., DAMSGAARD M.G., RABEN K., 2007, Payments for Ecosystem Services: Issues and Pro-Poor Opportunities for Development Assistance, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark.
• 45. REID WV et al., 2005, Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report, http://www.eldis.org/go/ homeandid=16968andtype=Document#.VhWJKi5Vi kp (05.12.2017)/
• 46. SALGADO P. P., QUINTANA S.C., PEREIRA A.G., ITUARTE L. DEL M., MATEOS B.P., 2009, Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Malaga), in: Ecological Economics, 68, p. 990-1005.
• 47. SAUMI M.F., ZOLKEPLI I.A., 2017, Sustainable eco-tourism service quality: Application of gap analysis model in understanding Malaysian zoo tourist satisfaction, in: Jurnal Pengurusan, 49, p. 112-123.
• 48. SEPPELT R., DORMANN C.F., EPPINK F.V., LAUTENBACH S., SCHMIDT S., 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead, in: J. Appl. Ecol., 48, p. 630-636.
• 49. SHAHWAHID H. M., IQBAL M. M., AYU A. A. M., FARAH M. S., 2013, Assessing service quality of community-based ecotourism: A case study from Kampung Kuantan Firefly Park, in: Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 22-33.
• 50. TOMAYO N.C.A., ANTICAMARA J.A., ACOSTA-MICHLIK, L., 2018, National Estimates of Values of Philippine Reefs’ Ecosystem Services, in: Ecological Economics, 146, p. 633-644.
• 51. TANALGO K.C., TEVES R.D., SALVAÑA F.R.P., BALEVA R.E., TABORA J.A.G., 2016, Human-bat interactions in caves of South Central Mindanao, Philippines, in: Wildlife Biology in Practice, 12 (1), p. 1-14.
• 52. TEUSCHER M., VORLAUFER M., WOLLNI M., BROSE U., MULYANI Y., CLOUGH Y., 2015, Trade-offs between bird diversity and abundance, yields and revenue in smallholder oil palm plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia, in: Biological Conservation, 186, p. 306-318.
• 53. THOMPSON B.S., 2018, The political ecology of mangrove forest restoration in Thailand: Institutional arrangements and power dynamics, in: Land Use Policy, 78, p. 503-514.
• 54. TRIALFHIANTY T.I., 2017, The role of the community in supporting coral reef restoration in Pemuteran, Bali, Indonesia, in: Journal of Coastal Conservation, 21(6), p. 873-882.
• 55. UNITED NATIONS (UN), 2015a, Millennium Development Goals Report http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/ mdg/News.aspx?ArticleId=84,(30.06.2017).
• 56. UNITED NATIONS (UN), 2015b, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sy mbol=A/RES/70/1andLang=E, 05.12.2017.
• 57. VAN OUDENHOVEN A.P.E., SIAHAINENIA A.J., SUALIA I., TONNEIJCK F.H., VAN DER PLOEG S., DE GROOT S., ALKEMADE R., LEEMANS R., 2015, Effects of different management regimes on mangrove ecosystem services in Java, Indonesia, in: Ocean and Coastal Management, 116. P. 353-367.
• 58. VIDEIRA N., ANTUNES P., SANTOS R., 2009, Scoping river basin management issues with participatory modelling: the Baixo Guadiana experience, in: Ecological Economics, 68, p. 965-978.
• 59. VILLAMOR G.B., VAN NOORDWIJK M., DJANIBEKOV U., CHIONG-JAVIER M.E., CATACUTAN D., 2014, Gender differences in land-use decisions shaping multifunctional landscapes, in: Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, p. 128-133.
• 60. WUNDER S., CAMPBELL B., FROST P.G.H., SAYER J. A., IWAN R., WOLLENBERG L., 2008, When donors get cold feet: The community conservation concession in Setulang (Kalimantan, Indonesia) that never happened, in: Ecology and Society, 13(1):12-21.
• 61. YUSOFF F.M., SHARIFF M., GOPINATH N., 2006, Diversity of Malaysian aquatic ecosystems and resources, in: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 9(2), p. 119-135.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).