Content uploaded by Fiffy Hanisdah Saikim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fiffy Hanisdah Saikim on Oct 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
USING TOURISM AS A
MECHANISM TO REDUCE
POACHING AND HUNTING: A
CASE STUDY OF THE TIDONG
COMMUNITY, SABAH
Fiffy Hanisdah Saikim, Bruce Prideaux,
Maryati Mohamed and Zulhazman Hamzah
ABSTRACT
In Sabah, Malaysia, illegal hunting has increased in recent years putting
considerable pressure on large mammal populations. The causes for this
phenomenon lie in increasing rural poverty, ineffective policies to regu-
late hunting, as well as a ready market for many wildlife products in the
Chinese medicine markets. This paper examines how Community-Based
Ecotourism has some potential to be used as a tool to reducing poaching
using the Tidong community in Sabah as a case study. The key finding is
that successful conservation outcomes for Community-Based Ecotourism
projects are only sustainable over the long run if projects are structured
to ensure that the local community is able to continue effective manage-
ment once sponsoring organizations hand over control and that revenue
from tourism does not decline. If tourist revenue declines communities
Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, Volume 12, 119144
Copyright r2016 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1745-3542/doi:10.1108/S1745-354220160000012010
119
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
may be forced to revert to previous practices reversing any initial conser-
vation gains.
Keywords: Wildlife; poaching; hunting; Tabin wildlife reserve;
Borneo; community-based ecotourism
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines how tourism may be used as a tool for developing a
Community-Based Ecotourism (CBET) project designed to enhance local
livelihoods while at the same time reducing illegal hunting activity includ-
ing poaching. Despite the growing popularity of studies on aspects of sus-
tainable tourism development, the issue of poaching and illegal hunting, a
major enemy of sustainability, has been largely ignored in the tourism lit-
erature. In recent years wildlife poaching and illegal hunting have become a
growing problem particularly in Africa and parts of Asia. In Asia, poach-
ing has put considerable pressure on large mammal populations. In
Borneo, many of the island’s vertebrates and some specifically targeted spe-
cies such as turtles, crocodiles, and certain birds, have already been hunted
to virtual extinction (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Continued illegal hunting
in Sabah, a Malaysian state located in Borneo, has the potential to discri-
minate many large mammal populations, damage healthy, productive eco-
systems and have an adverse impact on the welfare of the human
communities that depend the natural ecosystem for their livelihoods.
The aim of this paper is to explore the potential offered by tourism as
an alternative to poaching. To achieve this aim the paper first examines the
positive effects on a local rainforest community when a tourism project
based in part on wildlife viewing was established. One outcome was giving
live animals in a nearby protected area a greater market value than
poached animals. The paper then reports on the impact on wildlife and
the community’s economic situation when NGO support for the CBET
project ceased.
Poaching is defined as the illegal hunting of wildlife in protected areas,
hunting is defined as the permitted killing of wildlife while illegal hunting is
defined as the illegal hunting of wildlife in unprotected areas (Eliason,
2003). Illegal hunting, which for the purposes of this paper includes poach-
ing, poses a greater threat to large forest fauna than timber harvesting in
120 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
many areas of the humid tropics (Auzel & Wilkie, 2000; Bennett et al.,
2002; Linkie et al., 2003). In some regions illegal hunting may even be a
greater threat to wildlife than habitat loss (Bennett et al., 2002; Kinnaird,
Sanderson, O’Brien, Wibisono, & Woolmer, 2003; Robertson & van
Schaik, 2001).
Several themes have emerged in the wider literature related to poaching
including the threat from hunting (Kaltenborn, Nyahongo, & Tingstad,
2005; Magige, Holmern, Stokke, Mlingwa, & Røskaft, 2008), impacts from
subsistence farming (Bulte & Horan, 2003), construction of roads (Ament,
Clevenger, Yu, & Hardy, 2008; Trombulack & Frissell, 2000), the growing
demand for wildlife products (Aryal, 2002; Moyle, 2003; Nijman, 2005)
and issues related to enforcement (Broad, Mulliken, & Roe, 2003; Leader-
Williams & Milner-Gulland, 1993). The aim of this review is to identify
specific areas of research that relate to issues associated with illegal hunting
including poaching and a role for tourism activities in communities
engaged in poaching.
The most important international treaty prohibiting the trade of endan-
gered species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) that came into force in 1975. Unfortunately, it is difficult
to enforce such treaties and anti-poaching laws as demonstrated by the
major poaching crisis that swept through Africa and Asia in the 1970s and
1980s, and again in the current decade, decimating the population of
African and Asian elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers. A paper AU:2by Wyler
and Sheikh (2008) gave some indication of the value of illegally traded
wildlife (see Table 1).
One major initiative of the CITES was the banning of the ivory trade in
1989. Along with this ban, the US Congress passed the African Elephant
Conservation Act of 1988 to provide grants to help African countries pre-
serve their endangered elephant population. In 1994, the Rhinoceros and
Tiger Conservation Act was enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America and was, in part, responsi-
ble for a steady improvement in the status of endangered animal popula-
tions in Africa and Russia (Ellis, 2005; Walker, Brower, Stephens, & Lee,
2009). Unfortunately, this legislation seemed to have little effect on poach-
ing in Asia. Rhinoceros and tigers are especially at risk with the reemer-
gence of ivory markets and growth in demand for traditional Chinese
medicines.
In Asia, poaching has focused on a number of species including
Rhinoceros and Elephants for their tusks, bears for body parts, and in
many areas primates for bush food as well as the pet market. In Vietnam,
121Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting AU:1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
for example, 90% of the country’s 19 primate taxa are endangered, with
eight critically endangered, primarily from deforestation, the wildlife trade,
and poaching (Mittermeier, 2010). Currently there seems to be no effective
solution to reducing poaching AU:3in Asia (Wang, 2010) although the potential
to use tourism offers one approach that is worth investigating.
Over-poaching alters wildlife population densities, their distribution,
and demography. This in turn may lead to shifts in seed dispersal, brows-
ing, competition, predation, and other community dynamics in protected
areas. Cumulatively, the loss of a key species can have significant knock-on
effects throughout an ecosystem leading to changes in the abundance and
distribution of key flora and fauna communities and in some cases
encouraging invasive species to fill positions in the ecosystem previously
occupied by threatened species.
Illegal Hunting in Borneo
Borneo, a recognized ecological hotspot with an enormous diversity of
flora and fauna (Krupnich & Kress, 2003; Myers, Mittermeier,
Table 1. Selected Illicit Wildlife Trade and Estimated Retail Value.
Illegally Trade Wildlife Estimated Retail Value
Elephants $121$900 per kilogram of ivory
Rhinos $945$50,000 per kilogram of rhino horn
Tibetan Antelopes $1,200$20,000 per shahtoosh shawl
Big Cats $1,300$20,000 per tiger, snow leopard, or jaguar skin;
$3,300$7,000 per set of tiger bones
Bears $250$8,500 per gall bladder
Sturgeon $4,450$6,000 per kilogram of caviar
Reptiles and Insects
(often live)
$30,000 per python; $30,000 per komodo dragon; $5,000$30,000
per plowshare tortoise; $15,000 per Chinese alligator; $20,000 per
monitor lizard; $20,000 per shingle back skink; $8,500 per pair of
birdwing butterflies
Exotic Birds
(often live)
$10,000 per black palm cockatoo egg ($25,000$80,000 per mature
breeding pair); $5,000$12,000 per hyacinth macaw; $60,000
$90,000 per Lear macaw; $20,000 per Mongolian falcon
Great Apes (often live) $50,000 per Orangutan
Source: Wyler and Sheikh (2008).
122 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Mittermeier, Da Fonseca, & Kent, 2000), is governed by Malaysia (the
Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak), Indonesia (five provinces), and
Brunei Darussalam, an independent nation. Tourism promotion of the
island has consistently employed pictures of endemic species such as the
orangutan as a key selling point yet poaching continues to reduce the popu-
lations of many of its major species. Despite protected areas being estab-
lished in regions where forests remain largely untouched by logging, illegal
hunting has the capacity to create “empty forests” devoid of higher order
fauna (Redford, 1992). One study (Buckland, 2005) of poaching in the
Kayan Mentarang National Park (North Kalimantan Province, Indonesia
Borneo) found that after several years of uncontrolled poaching, primate
populations had declined locally despite the forest remaining virtually
untouched by illegal logging. Developing a sustainable wildlife tourism
sector in such circumstances is difficult.
If wildlife populations decline significantly as a consequence of poaching
and hunting, members of the communities who rely on these activities for
food will eventually be forced to purchase food (Ferraro & Kiss, 2002;
Gibson & Marks, 1995). A clear understanding of the financial implications
of having to pay for food when animal populations crash may provide a
positive incentive to encourage communities to work towards adopting sus-
tainable hunting techniques. Traditional hunting is often nonselective and
animals may be killed irrespective of their condition, fat or thin, with litter,
pregnant or not; and hunting is sometimes wasteful, with only part of the
animal taken (Meijaard et al., 2005). In Borneo, other factors increasing
the impact of hunting include: increased access to forests; improved trans-
port into remote areas using cars, motor bikes, motorized boats, and heli-
copters; ready access to guns and ammunition; the erosion of traditional
prohibitions on killing and eating certain animals; increased immigration
by nonindigenous people into the interior areas; and, a growing market for
wildlife products either as food, trophies, or medicine (Bennett et al., 2002;
Davies, Heydon, Leader-Williams, MacKinnon, & Newing, 2001; Fischer,
2010). Together, these factors often result in hunting being transformed
from a subsistence to a commercialized activity.
Illegal hunting in Borneo appears to have been relatively sustainable at
least until the 1970s, with the exception of the Sumatran Rhinoceros which
was already in decline by the 1930s (Bosi, 2003). In the 1970s, the global
demand for ivory increased due to the dramatic increase in the value of
ivory lead to a significant increase in illegal hunting pressure and popula-
tion declines (Messer, 2000). In Borneo, illegal hunting and poaching
activities include harvesting rhinoceros horn (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis
123Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
harrissoni), ivory from the Bornean pygmy elephant (Elephas maximus
borneensis), for bushmeat, and for ingredients for traditional medicine.
There is also an illegal pet trade. Other animals that are targeted by illegal
hunters and poachers include the Bornean yellow muntjac (Muntiacus
atherodes), red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), Sambar deer (Cervus unico-
lor), binturong (Arctictis binturong), bearded pigs (Sus barbatus), rhinoceros
hornbills (Buceros rhinoceros), some primates including the Bornean oran-
gutan (Pongo pygmaeus), Malayan sun bears (Helarctos malayanus), and
clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa) (Bennett et al., 1999; Bernard,
Husson, Page, & Rieley, 2003).
Illegal hunting pressure varies between different areas of Borneo,
although no comprehensive studies are available. In Sabah, there appears
to be a significant difference between the rich eastern forests where many
large mammals occur in higher densities including Bornean Pygmy ele-
phants, Sumatran rhinoceros, Bornean orangutan, and banteng (Bos java-
nicus), whereas these species are rare or absent in the state’s west. Because
of cultural and religious reasons, poaching pressure in eastern forests is low
compared with the state’s west where indigenous hunting cultures predomi-
nate (Acrenaz et al., 2004; Alfred, Abdul Hamid, Payne, Williams, &
Ambu, 2010).
While it is apparent that there is substantial research on the impact of
poaching and illegal hunting on community livelihoods and its impact on
ecosystems in the scientific literature, this issue has yet to receive attention
in the tourism literature. Given that many forest communities in Asia,
Africa, Central America, and South America continue to practice tradi-
tional hunting, fishing and agricultural practices, often in areas of potential
high tourist value, research that can identify a role for tourism in mitigating
the impact of these practices is required.
A Role for Tourism
A number of authors (Cottrell, Vaske, Shen, & Ritter, 2007; Dixon &
Sherman, 1990; Goodwin, 2002; Kiss, 2004; Rodrigues & Prideaux, 2012;
Saarinen, 2006; Sekhar, 2003; Tosun, 2006; Wallace, 1993) have argued
that various forms of tourism are able to assist conservation by providing
employment to local communities. In one of many examples, Rodrigues
and Prideaux (2012) found that there was a reduction in hunting and the
incidence of slash and burn agriculture when members of a river, local
community they investigated in the Brazilian Amazon found long-term
124 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
employment in a tourism enterprise. In Botswana, Snyman (2014) observed
that for CBT projects to be successful, particularly where the venture is a
partnership between a local community and an outside agency, there must
be a clear connection between the benefits from tourism and the need for
conservation.
The form of tourism required to achieve positive environmental out-
comes has been subject to significant debate however there is a growing
view that top-down, conservation first approaches are less likely to show
long-term success than with community first approaches. A growing num-
ber of researchers (Adams & Hulme, 2001; Honey, 2008; Kiss, 2004;
Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; Tosun, 2006) advocate Community-Based
Tourism (CBT) and CBET as strategies able to minimize harmful environ-
mental practices such as poaching and slash and burn agriculture by pro-
viding communities with opportunities to generate alternative incomes.
CBT aims to promote the social and economic sustainability of host com-
munities while CBET emphasizes environmental objectives. In this way,
CBET in theory offers host communities the opportunity to develop their
capacity to control ecotourism development and its management (Walter &
Regmi, 2016). As Sakata and Prideaux (2013) argue however, there is a
propensity for many CBET projects to place the environment ahead of the
community and for this reason the long-term success rates of many CBET
projects are questionable.
A number of authors (de Haas 2002; Vincent & Thompson, 2002) see
CBET as a tool for conservation which at the same time is able to generate
benefits for local communities. In their investigation of a small scale CBET
project in Belize (Timothy & White, 1999) found even very small projects
located in peripheral areas had the ability to improve the lives of local com-
munities as well as protecting the natural and cultural environments. As an
approach to development Kontogeorgopoulos (2005) describes CBET as a
method of distributing economic benefits widely with the potential to
enhance social cohesion, harmony, and cooperation. Adams and Hulme
(2001, p. 13) state that CBET should “emphasize the role of local residents
in decision making about natural resources.” Kiss (2004) extends this view
by stating that the natural environment should pay for itself by generating
economic benefits for local people. If successful, this will in turn foster pro-
environmental attitudes (Sakata & Prideaux, 2012).
However, protection of the environment is a social issue as well as an
ecological issue (Lele, Wilshusen, Brockington, Seidler, & Bawa, 2010) and
where this element has been neglected, projects have failed (Honey, 2008).
As Kontogeorgopoulos (2005) noted, CBET in theory places considerable
125Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
importance on the social sustainability of local communities. However,
economic aspects are just as important and if neglected, local communities
that see little or no improvements to their livelihoods are likely to have less
propensity to support CBET projects.
Sponsoring organizations generally fund CBET projects to achieve spe-
cific conservation outcomes. The apparent benefits of CBET has attracted
significant attention from NGOs and government-aid agencies and accord-
ing to Harrison (2010) the United Nations Development Program funded
over 700 community-based and ecotourism projects between 1990 and
2007. Unfortunately, as a number of authors have noted (Harrison, 2010;
Kiss, 2004; Wearing, McDonald, & Ponting, 2005), there are a number of
problems related to the operationalizing of CBET projects including
inequitable power relations between outside funding bodies and local com-
munities and conflicting objectives between aid organizations and local
communities. For these reasons, the track record of many CBET projects is
poor. In part, this has been a result of the top-down approach taken in
many CBET projects (Butcher, 2007; Erb, 2005; Harrison, 2010; Kiss,
2004). For example, Manyara and Jones (2007) in a study of six Kenyan
CBET projects found that “outsiders” tend to reinforce dependency and
enforce Western views on environmentalism. Burns and Barrei (2009) noted
that problems of dependence might also arise. Insufficient training
(Salazar, 2012; West, 2006) and the absence of adequate exit strategies
(Manyara & Jones, 2007; Salazar, 2012) have also been identified as a
problem that has led to poor CBET results.
Some of the characteristics of successful projects include their location
in areas where tourism is already established (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005;
Matarrita-Castente et al., 2010; Mehta & Heinen, 2001; Stronza &
Gordillo, 2008) and the local community being able to see visible improve-
ments to their standard of living. Given the problems encountered in devel-
oping successful CBET and building on the observations of a number of
authors (Kiss, 2004; Wearing et al., 2005) on the lack of understanding of
why many CBET projects do not succeed, the failure of the CBET project
discussed later in this paper is not surprising.
Tourism in Sabah
In 2012, Sabah hosted 3.4 million tourists, 1.1 million of whom were inter-
nationals (Sabah Tourism Board, 2014). Based on research conducted by
the Sabah Tourism Board (2014) in 2011 at Kota Kinabalu International
126 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Airport, Free Independent Tourists accounted for 54.7% of all arrivals; the
remainder purchased a package tour product. Repeat visitors (47.2%) are a
significant segment and 25.5% of visitors hold technical or professional
jobs. Marketing by the Sabah Tourism Board emphasizes nature-based
tourism experiences including wildlife viewing.
METHODS
This paper reports on local community attitudes to wildlife utilization in
Tabin Wildlife Reserve (TWR), Sabah, and examines how the degree of
success of tourism activities is related to increases and decreases in poach-
ing and hunting. The research focused on three kampongs (Dagat, Parit,
and Kampung Tidong) located just outside the TWR.
In exploring local community attitudes to wildlife utilization, it is impor-
tant to elicit local people’s views of their world, in an effort to understand
the environment and changes happening to or around them as they have
experienced them (Eyler et al., 1999). With this need in mind the researchers
adopted a mixed methods approach that combined qualitative and quantita-
tive data collection. Given the lack of previous research into possible rela-
tionships between poaching and tourism, this research first adopted an
inductive approach to identify major issues that were then quantified by
adopting a deductive approach. Based on this approach four stages were
identified as being required to meet the aim of the research with stages one
to three using an inductive approach and stage four using a deductive
approach. Stage one was based on an extensive literature review to develop
a detailed understanding of the impacts of hunting and the society and cul-
ture of the villages (Kampong) that were the subject of this research. Stage
two entailed the principle researcher undertaking ethnographic research by
living in Kampong Dagat and Kampong Parit for an extended period of
time. This allowed the researcher to observe firsthand the routine of village
life and to understand the pressures faced by the community particularly in
relation to food supply. The results of observations during this stage were
used in the construction of the questionnaire used later in the research.
During the third stage the principle researcher conducted informal conversa-
tions with community members including discussions about the value of
tourism as an alternative livelihood to traditional hunting and poaching.
These conversations were hand recorded in a field diary for later evaluation.
The fourth step entailed the construction and conduct of a survey to
identify the views of various sections of the community on both poaching
127Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
and tourism. A pilot survey was undertaken to pre-test the short question-
naire that was developed for the purposes of this research. Specific ques-
tions were designed to measure the attitude of local community members
to wildlife utilization, their views on sustainable wildlife management in the
TWR, and on tourism as an alternative livelihood. The items used in the
questionnaire were derived from the outcomes of stages one, two, and
three. The language used in the questionnaire was Malay which is spoken
by respondents as either a first or second language. A five-point Likert
scale was used with one being least likely and five being the most likely.
The survey was conducted after the handover of the wildlife project to
the community and in a period when tourism numbers had declined
significantly.
As with any research of this type a number of limitations were encoun-
tered that may affect the generalization of results. Primarily, the circum-
stances that specific communities find themselves in are not uniform and
what may be important to one community may be of little importance to
another target community. For example, culture, governance, traditions,
and the degree to which communities are undergoing change may vary
from region to region. For these reasons the results of this research may
not be able to be applied in whole to communities in other countries.
Study Area
The study was undertaken among the Tidong community located near the
boundaries of the TWR (see Fig. 1). At the time the research was underta-
ken there were 518 people including children, living in the three kampongs
(Malaysian term for village), the majority of whom have Tidong (Dyak)
ethnicity and adhere to the Muslim faith. The forest both inside and out-
side of the TWR provides important sources of medicine, water, timber,
rattan cane, and food, including fish and animals for the community
(Majail, 1996). While not permitted within the protected area, some hunt-
ing for species such as wild boar is permitted in a surrounding buffer zone
although permits are required. Buffer zones were introduced to provide an
added layer of protection to the protected area while providing an opportu-
nity for neighboring rural communities to continue traditional hunting
for food.
The TWR was established as a wildlife reserve in 1984 and covers an
area of over 120,521 hectares (Fig. 1). The protected area is an important
breeding ground for wildlife some of which are threatened by logging
128 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
activities outside the protected area. It also serves as a refugee for animals
from nearby palm oil plantations (Bosi, 2003). The area has a rich assem-
blage of flora and fauna including 87 species of mammals. As a compari-
son, Sabah as a whole has 222 recorded species (Noraini, 2005; Yasuma &
Andau, 2000). The most significant species in the TWR include Bornean
pygmy elephant, orangutan, banteng, proboscis monkey, sun bear, clouded
leopard, and bearded pig, as well as one internationally rare species, the
Sumatran rhinoceros (Yasuma & Andau, 2000). Most large mammals
live in the deep, dense forest, which is uninhabited by humans and in
many areas penetrable only by foot. The Sabah Wildlife Department is
Fig. 1. Tidong Community Located near the Boundaries of the TWR.
129Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
responsible for enforcement of regulations protecting wildlife while the
Sabah Forestry Department ensures the protection of the forest habitat.
In 2002, an outreach project funded by the Bornean Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Conservation (BBEC) program was introduced to educate com-
munities about the value of biodiversity and ecosystems and the impor-
tance of conserving them (Maryati, Suleiman, & Hashimoto, 2006). The
implementation phase was based on a top-down approach and designed to
achieve specific conservation outcomes for the TWR. Funding for the pro-
gram came from a consortium comprising the Malaysian government and
the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA). An associated aim
of the project was to fund a nature-tourism project to provide employment
and encourage community members to give up traditional activities such as
poaching and hunting. As one of its objectives the program funded the
establishment of a home-stay style tourism venture in Kampong Dagat and
employed external professional staff from Sabah Wildlife Department for a
five-year period (20022007) to undertake training of community members
in management and marketing. External professional staff were employed
to manage the project. During this period the main target market was
Japan with guests usually traveling in groups, staying for 34 nights in
local family houses that had been refurbished with program funding to
bring them up to a standard suitable for foreign visitors. Activities offered
included cultural shows, fishing expeditions, wildlife viewing, and handi-
craft making. The product that was offered differed considerably from that
offered by the Tabin Wildlife Lodge, a commercial venture located in the
TWR that focuses specifically on wildlife viewing experiences. The Tabin
Wildlife Lodge can be described as a high-end ecotourism product that
offers accommodation in detached units set in the forest and connected by
an elevated walkway to a central dining and recreation area. The Lodge
has developed a tourism product that aims at a different segment to that
which the CBET product was designed for.
During the five years that the project was externally funded the commu-
nity experienced a significant improvement in their standard of living. The
major selling point of the project was the opportunity to experience local
culture in a “kampong lifestyle.” During each year of the project more than
2,000 Japanese tourists visited the community generating sufficient income
for the families involved to enable them to meet their monthly cost of food.
When operating at capacity the project employed a significant number of
community members as drivers, cooks, gardeners, housekeepers, and in a
few instances in managerial roles such as temporary wildlife rangers (game
wardens) managing the forest around the villages.
130 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
At the conclusion of the project in 2007 responsibility for managing the
project was handed over to the community and funding for marketing pre-
viously provided by the consortium was withdrawn. The withdrawal of
funding for professional managers in particular created a major crisis for
the project in part because of inadequate training of the community to run
a project of this nature and their lack of knowledge of the global tourism
market where their product was sold. As a consequence the community
was unable to continue funding promotional activities leading to a steep
decline in visitors to an average of 100200 per year by 2010 when this
research was undertaken. Income to the community and the individuals
involved rapidly declined, most tourism-related jobs were lost, and the
number of homestays supporting the enterprise fell by three quarters. The
loss of income from tourism led to many community members opting
to return to traditional fishing activities and in some cases poaching and
illegal hunting in an attempt to make up for the lost income.
RESULTS
Results are presented in two parts, the first of which reports on the verbal
responses made by members of the community during stage three. Results
of the community survey undertaken in stage four are then reported.
During stage three informal conversations were held with 15 senior com-
munity members over an extended period of time and recorded in a field
diary. Informants were advised that they would not be mentioned by name
in any subsequent reporting to preserve confidentially.
Most respondents reported a decline in poaching during the period that
the tourism venture was supported by external funding. Respondents gen-
erally understood animals were a major tourism draw card and needed to
be protected to continue attracting tourists. This view was common
throughout the kampongs. Respondents also commented that tourism pro-
vided them with an income that allowed them to purchase food from com-
mercial outlets. Not all families participated in the tourism venture
particularly those from Kampong Dagat whose main livelihood was based
on fishing. Some respondents reported that they could not see how giving
up fishing to work in a tourism business would generate sufficient income
to feed their families which in some cases had up to 14 children.
As income from the tourism venture declined many respondents felt
pressured to resume hunting. While aware of the damage caused by
131Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
poaching and expressing regret that this situation existed, most respondents
reported they felt they had little alternative but to resume poaching. As
informant A observed “the community is badly educated it’s just because
the life is hard and the prices of things are high.” While conscious of the
adverse impacts of poaching respondents expressed a fear that if they failed
to take advantage of the resources in the present they will miss out because
others will take all the available animals. This is aggravated by illegal hunt-
ing by people outside of the community who, as respondent B stated,
“don’t care” about the future as they will move on when the resource is fin-
ished. This was a common view amongst all respondents. As respondent E
noted “Every month, there’s always sound of gunshots heard in TWR with
findings of animal traps and snares in the reserve. However, it is not sure
whether the poaching done by community alone or by other people who lived
outside the reserve. Nevertheless, the hunting amongst community always
occurred during festival seasons such as the Hari Raya Festival.” Based on
the results of the interviews it was apparent that hunting is most prevalent
amongst older community members however young men may be also asked
to participate in hunting for special occasions such as weddings and the
Hari Raya festival.
Because of the problems faced by the tourism business, many commu-
nity members discouraged their children from continuing to work and train
for tourism-related activities believing that further training was a waste of
time and resources and unlikely to solve their economic problems.
Nevertheless, the community continued to play an active role in many wild-
life and forest conservation programs within the adjacent reserve, possibly
because this was one of the few sources of paid work available to them.
The communities also encouraged their teenagers who had finished school
but have not found employment to participate in wildlife protection
courses. By 2010, about 20 young school leavers have been awarded a wild-
life protection ranger badge in part for their help as volunteers in monitor-
ing wildlife species vulnerable to poaching. As some participants observed,
this did cause some problems particularly when the younger members of
the community were directed by the elders to hunting for big community
occasions.
Interviews with community members indicated that species of particular
value were wild boar (for meat), sun bear (for many products, but particu-
larly gall bladder and paws), Bornean pygmy elephant (tusk), and the
Sumatran rhinoceros (for its horn). The result also revealed that some wild-
life species such as deer and wild boar and to a lesser extent pangolin was
used for household consumption.
132 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Many respondents expressed an opinion that the competition for
resources has resulted in “everyone going to the forest” (respondent C) and
“using it in a ‘disorderly’ way” (respondent H) (i.e., in a careless or disre-
spectful way), which they realized was not sustainable in the long term. It
was explained by respondent M that “in the forest there are long trees and
short trees,” that is, that everyone is different, and uses nature in different
ways and for different purposes. The discussions revealed that while some
families were almost completely reliant on natural resources for survival,
for most the forest provides a supplementary food source and for a small
number of respondents it was seen as a hobby that provided extra money.
Discussions with community members indicated that where hunting was
for cash it often occurred in response to orders from outsiders for specific
products such as exotic meats (i.e., pangolins).
Most respondents expressed empathy with nature, despite the fact that
they might also be using it in a disrespectful or destructive way; that is tak-
ing animals for purposes other than food, such as the Chinese medicine sec-
tor or for pets. However, while aware of the impacts they could not see a
workable way out of the problem. Having a market value for exotic ani-
mals has clearly affected how people use the resource. Most respondents
were aware that natural resources such as animals are important for their
livelihoods but were being poached at a rate that is not sustainable in the
long term.
The fourth stage consisted of a short verbally administrated question-
naire. The heads of families were specifically targeted because they are able
to speak for the family and the community. If the head of the family was
not available the wife or the eldest child aged 18 years old and above were
asked to complete survey. Participants were asked to respond to a series of
eight key statements related to their views on poaching, hunting, and invol-
vement in tourism by describing the current situation in their community.
A five-point Likert scale was used. Because of community sensitivities the
only sociodemographic data collected was gender. Results are shown
visually in the spider-web configuration in Fig. 2. The eight key statements
of the survey are:
1. Became a poacher to earn extra money
2. Became a poacher to obtain food for my family
3. I am willing to give up poaching for a successful tourism business
4. I am actively involvement in tourism development
5. I encourage other members of the community to become involved
in tourism
133Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
6. I see tourism as the main source of my income
7. I actively participate in wildlife and forest conservation programs
8. I am actively involved in NGOs and government agencies supporting
tourism development in the community.
The aim of statements 1 and 2 was to determine the level of support for
poaching and why it was participated in. The aim of statements 38 was to
test the level of support for continuing involvement in tourism including
training and other tourism-related aid given by NGOs. Because a number
of participants had poor literacy the principle investigator completed all
surveys on behalf of the respondents. The survey was completed by 185
including 89 males and 96 females.
Table 2 shows the responses to the eight statements about views on
poaching, conservation, and tourism. Responses indicate that the impor-
tance of hunting for personal consumption (mean = 4.9) is very high, as is
hunting for on-sale (mean = 4.9). The statement “see tourism as a main
source of income” recorded the lowest mean, a reflection of the significant
Fig. 2. Community Participation in Poaching and Wildlife-Forest Resources
Conservation for Tourism Development.
134 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
decline in tourism by the time the research was undertaken. At the time the
survey was conducted, there were less than 100 visitors per year. Some of
the remaining tourists were supported by the SOS Rhino Borneo Bhd, a
nonprofit organization that works for the conservation and preservation of
Borneo Sumatran rhinoceros in the TWR.
Results from statements 1 (Became a poacher to earn extra money) and
2 (Become poacher to obtain food for my family) show that while many
respondents claim to have actively participated in wildlife and forest con-
servation programs (see statements 7 and 8) including working as wildlife
rangers with Sabah Wildlife Department and rhino protection rangers with
the SOS Rhino Borneo Bhd, most continued to be involved in poaching
activities. The responses to key statements 1 (Became a poacher to earn
extra money) and 2 (Become poacher to obtain food for my family) indi-
cate the main reasons for continued involvement in poaching. Interestingly,
the response to statement 3 (I am willing to give up poaching for a success-
ful tourism business) does indicate a willingness to give up poaching if tour-
ism is able to provide a better level of income.
The Tidong community gave the lowest rating (mean = 3.2) to making
the tourism industry their main source of income. The reason for this
response has to do with the failure of the tourism project, remoteness of
the community, and the difficulty this causes for tourists seeking to visit
that part of reserve for wildlife viewing. In addition to remoteness the
Table 2. Distributions of Mean of Indicators of Community Participation
in Tourism Development.
Indicators NMean (Max = 5)
1. Become poacher to earn money 185 4.9
2. Become poacher to obtain food for my family 185 4.9
3. I am willing to give up poaching for a successful tourism business 185 3.8
4. I was actively involved in tourism development 185 4.3
5. I encouraged other members of the community to become involved
in the tourism business
185 3.4
6. I see tourism as the main source of my income 185 3.2
7. I actively participate in wildlife and forest conservation programs 185 4.6
8. I am actively involved with NGOs and government agencies
supporting tourism development in the community
185 3.7
135Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
community also has to compete for tourists with a commercial lodge that
has been established within the reserve in a location that is more accessible.
Results appear contradictory in that respondents show a high level of
support for conservation (statement 3 results) but are also actively involved
in hunting. This situation is the result of several cultural and economic fac-
tors. At the time of the survey the village was suffering an economic crisis
as a result of the fall in tourism income. When tourism income was high,
village elders supported tourism and a reduction in poaching based on an
understanding that live animals were a valuable tourism resource. When
tourism income fell the village elders were confronted with a shortfall in
income that was in part overcome by hunting and working for NGOs and
the government. While working for conservation agencies and poaching
appears contradictory it was, in the mind of the village elders, the only
solution to providing adequate income for the community which in their
view as their primary responsibility. For example, Respondent D stated
“Without money from tourism we had to go back to the forest to hunt even
though we did not really want to.”
Fig. 2 shows the level of participation of the Tidong community in terms
of tourism, participation in conservation, and poaching activity. Results
appear as a spider’s web configuration and illustrate how each variable is
interconnected with other variables. These results, together with the
responses given during the interviews with community members, indicate a
strong relationship between the success of tourism and the propensity for
poaching. Given that the community has few other sources of income the
removal of one income source (in this case tourism) will force community
members to look for alternative income sources. Another factor that needs
to be considered is that prior to the establishment of the TWR the commu-
nity had a long tradition of hunting to supplement fishing and farming as
the community’s major food source. In effect the declaration of the TWR
overturned a century’s long tradition of using areas such as this for tradi-
tional hunting.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this paper was to investigate how tourism may be used as a tool
for reducing illegal hunting activity including poaching. The Tidong com-
munity is an example of a community that has yet to see permanent long-
term benefits accruing from conservation in terms of improved personal
136 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
and community income. They were willing to support tourism and curb
hunting because they were able to see the benefits it provided, however
when their tourism business faltered they were quite willing to return to
hunting. This contradictory view of hunting can also be seen in the manner
that the Kampong elders encouraged the young generation to work for
NGOs or government agencies if there is an opportunity for them to
receive income, but continued to request them to hunt particularly for cere-
monial occasions.
It is difficult for traditional peoples such as the Tidong community to
resist pressures to engage in illegal hunting particularly when food is
required for consumption and occasionally for ceremonial purposes and
where there is a commercial market willing to pay for poached animal pro-
ducts. The findings of this research show that when CBET projects are able
to generate viable alternative incomes, communities have an incentive to
place the environment above alternatives such as poaching. In effect tour-
ism is able to create a different form of value to that created by poaching.
The value created by tourism is ongoing with animals producing income
over a long period of time. Illegal hunting however produces only short-
term returns for once the animal is gone income ceases. The question of
value and its definition is therefore important and one that has not been
explored in the literature. Findings from this research indicate that strate-
gies based on the concept of value may be a useful tool in demonstrating to
target communities the benefits of conservation of animals versus
their hunting.
Analysis of the project and its outcomes illustrates many of the factors
that can cause a CBET to fail including:
•The period of support by sponsoring organizations was not sufficient to
train the community to a standard where they were able to deal with
the global tourism supply chain at a level that gave the project a capacity
to achieve long-term economic sustainability. This is not surprising as
the transition from an inward focused community that lived a semi-
subsistence lifestyle to a community that had the capacity to engage with
the global supply chain can be difficult.
•Training to enable the community to develop appropriate managerial
capacity was inadequate. Previous research (Salazar, 2012; West, 2006)
has identified similar failings in other projects leading to the view that
this must be a key criteria for success in future projects of this type.
•The single market approach, in this case based on Japan, lacked wisdom
given the propensity for markets to make rapid changes in the style of
137Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
product desired. Without sufficient training of the type discussed above
this problem can be expected to be one that will be faced by other CBET
projects where sponsors show a bias towards marketing to either a speci-
fic country or consumer segment.
•The exit strategy was time and budget based. A more appropriate strat-
egy would be to base the exit strategy on the demonstrated capacity of
the community to continue the project on a long-term commercial basis.
The issue of exit strategies has been raised previously (Manyara & Jones,
2007; Salazar, 2012) and for some NGOs may be a matter of concern
particularly when donors have expectations of outcomes within a time-
frame that was negotiated prior to the realities of the on-ground situa-
tion becoming evident and where there are other worthwhile projects in
the funding pipeline. From the perspective of the literature (Kiss, 2004),
this is a further example of conflicting objectives between the aid organi-
zation and the local community. The top-down project administration
and governance approach adopted by the project sponsors, while admin-
istratively efficient, may be less effective in the long run if target commu-
nities become alienated with the process.
•It is difficult to overturn centuries of tradition in a relatively short period
of time. In the case of the Tidong community the use of certain types of
meat at community special events is based on hunter gatherers traditions
that in a sense define the community and the way in which it sees the
world. Redefining traditions is a slow process that in some cases even leg-
islative prohibitions are unable to overturn. This observation parallels
the work by Manyara and Jones (2007) who identified issues that may
occur when “outsiders” either overtly or inadvertently project their own
views of society and the need for conservation on local communities.
•Unless a CBET project is able to demonstrate that the economic benefits
of tourism provide a superior and sustainable standard of living over the
long term it is difficult to overcome resistance to change both at the indi-
vidual and community levels. In a sense CBET projects of this nature
introduce a high level of rapid innovation-based change into the commu-
nity and as previous experience has shown, it is difficult for some sectors
of communities to accept change despite demonstrated benefits
(Mendoza-Ramos & Prideaux, 2014). This finding also supports Honey’s
(2008) earlier discussion on the need to consider social as well as ecologi-
cal aspects of CBET projects.
•One important finding of this research is the value of animals to the local
community. The direct value of the animals at a particular point in time
and the economic conditions prevalent at that time is important. When
138 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
the tourism business was viable, the community was able to see that live
animals produced far greater income than poached animals and poaching
declined. Once the contribution of tourism fell the value of the animals to
those who were no longer able to derive income from tourism was greater
as a food source or a sellable commodity than as a live animal.
Many of these observations parallel those suggested by Snyman (2014)
in relation to CBET.
CONCLUSION
The Tidong community is an example of how a community outreach
approach to conservation based on wildlife focused (CBET) tourism busi-
ness can successfully integrate conservation and development objectives so
that each could be promoted without detriment apparently supporting ear-
lier work by de Haas (2002) and Vincent and Thompson (2002). However,
the Tidong community also provides a warning of what can go wrong
when aid agencies leave too early and the community is unable to maintain
the tourism enterprise that was gifted to them. It is apparent that the
assisted community was willing to give up hunting and poaching when
other sources of income became available but despite understanding that
heavy hunting and poaching is not sustainable, were prepared to resume
these activities when income from the tourism business declined. It is
apparent that for hunting and poaching to cease the income earned from
tourism must be sustainable over the long term. If the income stream is
reduced, as in the case of the Tidong community, many community mem-
bers will revert to hunting and poaching to supplement their daily food
requirements. The warning that the findings highlight is central to many of
the debates about aid: to what extent is success dependent on the successful
matching of the objectives of aid givers with those of the receivers of aid?
In CBET projects that specifically target problems related to illegal hunt-
ing it is apparent that for past hunting practices to change, tourism must
generate an acceptable level of income over the long term. This points to
the need for NGOs and other aid agencies to accept the need for long-term
monitoring of the viability of CBET businesses they assisted and the reali-
zation that further assistance may be required in the future if conservation
gains are not to be lost.
It is also apparent that it may be difficult to change long-term cultural
practices based on hunting. Education is one strategy but as the previous
139Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
discussion highlights, it is difficult for young community members to defy
direction given by community elders even where they are employed to pre-
vent the poaching practices they may be directed to engage in. This obser-
vation also highlights the futility of banning traditional hunting activity by
declaring them to be illegal without providing alternative income sources.
As with any community that is asked to radically change traditional life-
styles the outcome of change must be seen by those asked to change to be
better than the lifestyle they had prior to the change.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financially supported by Universiti Malaysia Sabah through
Skim Bantuan Penyelidikkan Universiti Malaysia Sabah and partially
funded by SOS Rhino (Borneo) Bhd., presently known as Borneo Rhino
Alliances (BORA). We are grateful to the people of Tidong community
and staff of BORA for their wonderful hospitality during this study.
REFERENCES
Adams, W. M., & Hulme, D. (2001). If community conservation is the answer, what is the
question? Oryx,35(3), 193200.
Alfred, R., Abdul Hamid, A., Payne, J., Williams, C., & Ambu, L. (2010). Density and popu-
lation estimation of the Bornean elephants (Elephas maximus borneensis) in Sabah.
Journal of Biological Sciences,10(2), 92102.
Ament, R., Clevenger, A. P., Yu, O., & Hardy, A. (2008). An assessment of road impacts on
wildlife population in U.S. national parks. Environmental Management,42(3), 480496.
Ancrenaz, M., Gimenez, O., Ambu, L., Ancrenaz, K., Andau, P., Goossens, B., …Lackman-
Acrenaz, I. (2005). Aerial surveys give new estimates for orangutans in Sabah,
Malaysia. PLoS Biology,3(1), e3. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030003
Aryal, R. S. (2002). Wildlife trade in Nepal. Environment,7(8), 15.
Auzel, P., & Wilkie, D. S. (2000). Wildlife use in northern Congo: Hunting in a commercial
logging concession. In J. G. Robinson & E. L. Bennett (Eds.), Hunting for sustainability
in tropical forests (pp. 413426). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Bennett, E. L., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Bakarr, M., Eves, H. E., Robinson, J. G., & Wilkie,
D. S. (2002). Hunting the world’s wildlife to extinction. Oryx,36, 328329.
Bennett, E. L., & Robinson, J. G. (2000). Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests. Implications for
biodiversity and forest peoples. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Bernard, M., Husson, S., Page, S. E., & Rieley, J. O. (2003). Population status of the Bornean
orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) in the Sebangau peat swamp forest, Central
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation,110, 141152.
140 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Bosi, E. J. (2003). Report on the Sumatran rhino survey. In M. Maryati, M. Andau, &
M. Schithuizen (Eds.), Tabin limestone scientific expedition 2000 (pp. 145148). Kota
Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Broad, S., Mulliken, T., & Roe, D. (2003). The nature and extent of legal and illegal trade in
wildlife. In S. Oldfield (Ed.), The trade in wildlife. Regulation for conservation. Flora and
fauna international (pp. 322). London: Earthscan.
Buckland, H. (2005). The oil for ape scandal. London: Friends of the Earth.
Bulte, E., & Horan, R. (2003). Habitat conservation, wildlife extraction and agricultural
expansion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,45, 109127.
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., Shen, F., & Ritter, P. (2007). Resident perceptions of sustainable
tourism in Chongdugou, China. Society and Natural Resources,20(6), 511525.
Davies, B. (2005). Black market. Inside the endangered species trade in Asia. San Rafael, CA:
Earth Aware Editions.
Davies, G., Heydon, M., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, J., & Newing, H. (2001). The
effects of logging on tropical forest ungulates. In R. A. Fimbel, A. Grajal, & J. G.
Robinson (Eds.), The cutting edge: Conserving wildlife in logged tropical forest. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
de Haas, H., Heydon, M., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, J., & Newing, H. (2001).
The effects of logging on tropical forests. In R. Fimbel, A. Grajal, & J. Robinson
(Eds.), The cutting edge: Conserving wildlife in logged tropical forests. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Dixon, J. A., & Sherman, P. B. (1990). Economics of protected areas: A new look at benefits
and costs. London: Earthscan.
Eliason, S. L. (2003). Illegal hunting and angling: The neutralization of wildlife law violations.
Society and Animals,11,3.
Ellis, R. (2005). Tiger bone and rhino horn: The destruction of wildlife for traditional Chinese
medicine. Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books.
Eyler, A. A., Mayer, J., Rafi, R., Housemann, R., Brownson, R. C., & King, A. C. (1999).
Key informant surveys as a tool to implement and evaluate physical activity interven-
tions in the community. Health Education Research,14(2), 289.
Gibson, C. C., & Marks, S. A. (1995). Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An
assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World
Development,23, 941957.
Harrison, D. (2010). Tourism and development: Looking back and looking ahead More of
the same? In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: A 2020 vision
(pp. 4052). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishing.
Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Kaltenborn, B. P., Nyahongo, J. W., & Tingstad, K. M. (2005). The nature of hunting around
the western corridor of Serengeti national park, Tanzania. European Journal of Wildlife
Research,51(4), 213222.
Kinnaird, M. F., Sanderson, E. W., O’Brien, T. G., Wibisono, H. T., & Woolmer, G. (2003).
Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large
mammals. Conservation Biology,17, 245257.
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?
TREE,19, 232237.
141Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-based ecotourism in Phuket and Ao phangnga.
Thailand: Partial Victories and Bittersweet Remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
13(1), 423.
Krupnich, G., & Kress, W. (2003). Hotspots and ecoregions: A test of conservation priorities
using taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation,12, 22372253.
Leader-Williams, N., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (1993). Policies and enforcement of wildlife
laws: The balance between detection and penalties in Luangwa Valley, Zambia.
Conservation Biology,7, 611617.
Lee, S. K. (2002). Human & elephant conflict in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. M.Sc. thesis.
Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Lele, S., Wilshusen, P., Brockington, D., Seidler, R., & Bawa, K. (2010). Beyond exclusion:
Alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,2,94100.
Linkie, M., Martyr, D. J., Holden, J., Yanuar, A., Hartana, A. T., Sugardjito, J., & Leader
Williams, N. (2003). Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger in
Kerinci Seblat national park, Sumatra. Oryx,37,4148.
Magige, F. J., Holmern, T., Stokke, S., Mlingwa, C., & Røskaft, E. (2008). Does illegal hunt-
ing affect density and behavior of African grassland birds? A case study on ostrich
(Struthio camelus). Biodiversity and Conservation,18(5), 13611373.
Mainka, S. A., & Mills, J. A. (1995). Wildlife and traditional Chinese medicine Supply and
demand for wildlife species. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine,26(2), 193200.
Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in
Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism,15(6), 628664.
Maryati, M., Suleiman, M., & Hashimoto, T. (2006). Biodiversity and Conservation: Research
for science and people: Proceeding of Research Seminar at the Institute for Tropical
Biology and Conservation BBEC Publication No. 55. Universiti Malaysia
Sabah. (p. 178).
Mathews, A., & Matthews, A. (2002). Distribution, population density, and status of sympa-
tric cercopithecids in the Campo-Ma’an area, Southwestern Cameroon. Primates,
43, 155168.
Matsrrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M., & Luloff, A. (2020). Community agency and sustainable
tourism development: The case of la Fortyna, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism,18(6), 735756.
Mehta, J. N., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Does community-based conservation shape favorable
attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental Management,
28(2), 165177.
Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Augeri, D., Setyawati, T., …O’Brien, T.
(2005). Life after logging: Reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in
Indonesian Borneo. Bogor: CIFOR, WCS and UNESCO.
Mendoza-Ramos, A., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest
of Palenque: Empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism,22(3), 461479.
Messer, K. (2000). The poacher’s dilemma: The economics of poaching and enforcement.
Endangered Species Update,7(3), 5056.
142 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Mittermeier, R. (2010). Foreword. In T. Nadler, B. Rawson, & V. N. Thinh (Eds.),
Conservation of primates in Indochina, Frankfurt zoological society Vietnam primate
conservation program. Hanoi: Frankfurt Zoological Society.
Mohamed, M. (2010). Start now to protect nature. New Strait Times, December 31.
Moyle, B. (2003). Regulation, conservation, and incentives. In S. Oldfield (Ed.), The trade in
wildlife. Regulation for conservation. Flora and fauna international (pp. 4151).
London: Earthscan.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, G., Da Fonseca, G., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature,403, 853858.
Nijman, V. (2005). Hanging in the balance: An assessment of trade in Orang-utans and Gibbons
in Kalimantan. Indonesia: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Noraini, N. (2005). Tabin wildlife reserve: A potential nature tourism site. Institute for tropical
biology and conservation. M.Sc. Thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Redford, K. H. (1992). The empty forest. BioScience,42, 412422.
Robert, J. (2000). Dossier traffic animal: Ia Mafia a I’assault de la nature. Terre Sauvage.,
155,3550.
Robertson, J. M. Y., & van Schaik, C. P. (2001). Causal factors underlying the dramatic
decline of the Sumatran orang-utan. Oryx,35,2638.
Rodrigues, C., & Prideaux, B. (2012). Backpacker tourism in the Brazilian amazon: Challenges
and opportunities. In G. Lohmann & D. Dredge (Eds.), Tourism in Brazil environment,
management and segments (pp. 123140). Oxon: Routledge.
Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research,33, 11211140.
Sabah Tourism Board. (2014). Tourism statistics. Retrieved from http://www.sabahtourism.
com/business/statistic. Accessed on June 10, 2014.
Sakata, H., & Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism:
A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism,21(6), 880899.
Salazar, N. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,20(1), 922.
Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local people’s attitude towards conservation and wildlife tourism
around Sariska tiger reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management,
69, 339347.
Snyman, S. (2014). Partnership between a private sector ecotourism operator and a local com-
munity in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: The case of the Okavango community trust
and wilderness safaris. Journal of Ecotourism,13(23), 110127.
Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism: Redefining benefits.
Annals of Tourism Research,5(2), 444468.
Struhsaker, T. T. (2001). Unsustainable hunting in tropical forests. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution,6, 163164.
Timothy, D., & White, K. (1999). Community-based ecotourism development on the periphery
of Belize. Current Issues in Tourism,2(2), 226242.
Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development.
Tourism Management,27, 493504.
Trombulack, S. C., & Frissell, C. A. (2000). Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial
and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology,14,1830.
143Using Tourism as a Mechanism to Reduce Poaching and Hunting
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Vincent, V., & Thompson, W. (2002). Assessing community support and sustainability for eco-
tourism development. Journal of Travel Research,41(2), 153160.
Von Kroff, M., Wickizer, T., Maeser, J., O’Leary, P., Pearson, D., & Beery, W. (1992).
Community activation and health promotion: Identification of key organizations.
American Journal of Health Promotion,7, 110117.
Walker, S., Brower, A. L., Stephens, R. T. T., & Lee, W. G. (2009). Why bartering biodiversity
fails. Conservation letters. Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology,2, 149157.
Walter, P., & Regmi, K. D. (2016). Conceptualising host learning in community-based
ecotourism. Journal of Ecotourism,15(1), 5163.
Wearing, S., McDonald, M., & Ponting, J. (2005). Building a decommodified research
paradigm in tourism: The contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
13(5), 424439.
West, P. (2006). Conservation is our government now: The politics of ecology in Papua New
Guinea. London: Duke University Press.
Wilkie, D., Shaw, E., Rotberg, F., Morelli, G., & Auzel, P. (2000). Roads, development, and
conservation in the Congo Basin. Conservation Biology,14, 16141622.
Wyler, L. S., & Sheikh, P. A. (2008). International illegal trade in wildlife. Hauppauge: Nova
Science Publishers.
Yasuma, S., & Andau, M. (2000). Mammals of Sabah: Habitat and ecology. Kota Kinabalu:
Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) and Sabah Wildlife Department.
Ministry of Tourism Development, Environment, Science and Technology, Malaysia.
UNCITED REFERENCES AU:4
Ancrenaz et al. (2005), Davies (2005), de Haas, Heydon, Leader-Williams,
MacKinnon, and Newing (2001), Von Kroff et al. (1992), Lee (2002),
Mainka and Mills (1995), Mathews and Matthews (2002), Matsrrita-
Cascante, Brennan, and Luloff (2020), Mohamed (2010), Robert (2000),
Struhsaker (2001), Wilkie, Shaw, Rotberg, Morelli, and Auzel (2000)
144 FIFFY HANISDAH SAIKIM ET AL.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Book: AHL-V012-3611336
Chapter: CH007
Please e-mail or fax your responses
and any corrections to:
E-mail:
Fax:
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen.
These are listed below. Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in
the margin of the proof or compile them as a separate list.
Disk use
Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is
the case, we have proceeded by:
□Scanning (parts of) your article □Rekeying (parts of) your article
□Scanning the artwork
Bibliography
If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following
may apply:
□The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from
your literature list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.
□UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the
reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text
or delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.
Queries and/or remarks
Location in Article Query / remark Response
AU:1 As per style, the right running head
is shortened to fit the space. Please
check the suggested right running
head for correctness.
AU:2 Reference citations “Whyler and
Sheikh, 2008”, “Bennet et al., 2002”,
and “Adams and Hume, 2001” have
been changed as “Wyler and Sheikh,
2008”, “Bennett et al., 2002”, and
“Adams and Hulme, 2001”,
respectively. Please confirm
the changes.
AU:3 The following references are cited
but not present in the reference list:
“Wang, 2010; Ferraro & Kiss, 2002;
Fischer, 2010; Bennett et al., 1999;
Acrenaz et al., 2004; Wallace, 1993;
Goodwin, 2002; de Haas 2002;
Sakata & Prideaux, 2012; Butcher,
2007; Erb, 2005; Burns and Barrei,
2009; Matarrita-Castente et al.,
2010; Majail, 1996”. Please provide
complete reference details.
AU:4 The following references are not
cited: “Ancrenaz et al. (2005),
Davies (2005), de Haas, Heydon,
Leader-Williams, MacKinnon, and
Newing (2001), Von Kroff et al.
(1992), Lee (2002), Mainka and
Mills (1995), Mathews and
Matthews (2002), Matsrrita-
Cascante, Brennan, and Luloff
(2020), Mohamed (2010), Robert
(2000), Struhsaker (2001), Wilkie,
Shaw, Rotberg, Morelli, and Auzel
(2000)”. Please cite them; if no
citation is available then these
references need to be removed from
the list.
