Local participation in sustainable tourism development in Bung Kan Province

¶ … Local Participation in Tourism Development in Bung Kan Province

The tourism industry is an important element of economic development sector around the world, especially in many developing countries that possess natural resources that are amenable to tourism development. The experiences to date show that besides major metropolitan areas, people living in rural areas of developing countries can also gain benefits from the tourism. These outcomes indicate that around the world, tourism frequently plays a vital role in terms of helping to decrease poverty levels and boost communities' economic development (Hong-Long and Kayat, 2011). Not surprisingly, then, tourism has been advocated for economic development purposes for emerging nations in an increasing number of instances in recent years (Hong-Long and Kayat, 2011).

Developing countries can drive their economic growth by attracting tourists to their various destinations for business or pleasure using any of the many tourism niche approaches available today, including sports (Lindberg, 1991), eco- (Cater, 1993), cultural, heritage, cultural-heritage, or so-called enclave tourism models (Hirsch and Warren, 1999). Irrespective of which model is used, properly implemented and administered, these models can promote increased tourism levels in ways that can help developing nations gain economic benefits and drive economic growth from tourism-generated revenues. For instance, tourists are able to pay for the local foods, accommodation, transportation and so forth; this can be said that tourism sector is the source of large scale economic and is the helpful tool to drive the economic development of the country (Auger, 2011). In addition to the important of tourism sector, tourism sector can also have a positive effect on sociocultural, and environmental outcomes (Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). For instance, locals can share their unique cultural practices with tourists and so forth. As tourists travel to the particular destination, a good management and long-term sustainable in tourism sector in particular destination is also important as it can make people visit more and revisit the destination again (Shani, Rivera and Hara, 2009). Therefore, Bung Kan province, located in northeast of Thailand and is the newest province as Thai cabinet just upgraded it as 77th province of Thailand in August, 3 2010 (Bangkokbiznews, 2010). The key to success in applying any of these tourism models, though, is the need to do so in ways that are sustainable, a term that means far more than just ensuring that the resources exist in the future, but rather increasingly includes active stakeholder participation in the process.

Therefore, the opportunity currently exists to facilitate the development of a sustainable tourism industry in Bung Kan Province by preserving natural resources while simultaneously creating tourism attractions that can provide long-term sustainable tourism growth, providing that local residents are afforded a voice in the process. Despite this need, time is of the essence in pursuing these developmental initiatives because there is a great deal of competition for international tourists in Thailand. Current statistics indicate that a growing number of international tourists to Thailand originate in the European Union and these consumers pay a great deal of attention to issues such as sustainable tourism destinations that demonstrate responsible social and environmental practices (Sriburi, 2007), Likewise, in terms of destinations, the 1995 Korean Tourism Annual Report indicated that Japan (26.2 per cent) was the most popular destination, followed by the United States of America (17.2 per cent), China (10.6 per cent), Thailand (8.0 per cent) (Pearce and Butler, 1999). .Therefore, the opportunity exists to promote Bung Kan Province as an international tourism destination in ways that can provide long-term sustainable tourism growth by ensuring local residents are afforded the opportunity to actively participate in the developmental process from the outset.

Political Background to Provincial Initiative

Bung Kan Province contains the Nong Khai district in northeast of Thailand. It is believed that the Nong Khai district has potential in tourism sector for driving the province. As the northern area of Nong khai is located near the Mekong River and close to the border of Thailand and Laos, it is advantageous for the Nong Khai district to promote international trade and investment. In addition, Nong Khai can be said that it is the busiest border crossing point to Laos as they had been established and constructed the bridge between Thai-Laos called "First Thai-Laos Friendship Bridge" in 1994 (Siakit, 2009).

The bridge links between Nong Khai, Thailand and Vientiane, Laos and has a road link between these two countries. There is also daily rail service from Nong Khai to Vientiane. Therefore, it is easy to gain many visitors and has the opportunity in tourism sector to gain many benefits from it. Since, Bung Kan district had separated from Nong Khai province and became province itself, it came into the researcher's thought that Bung Kan province would still has potential for itself to develop tourism sector.

According to Sompong (2011), the vision of Bung Kan Province is to develop the region as a sustainable tourist destination as it is located in northernmost and has nice weather, nice food, and many natural attraction places. It can be seen in this point that Bung Kan Province is ready to develop its tourism sector; however, it is clear that the success of tourism development in Bung Kan Province depends on many factors. The essential part for tourism sector in particular place to be tourist destination is to have a long-term sustainable tourism in a particular place. By having a sustainable tourism in place, there are some vital keys to lead to a sustainable tourism development. It leads to a good management of resource (Patrascu and Ciange, 2010), maintain ecological process and provide fairness and opportunity to local population (Hall and Lew, 1998). However, the main and very vital tool to have a successful sustainable tourism development is the local involvement as local people play an essential role in term of successful tourism planning (Marzuki, 2008). Therefore, this research is considered the local involvement in sustainable tourism development in Bung Kan province.

Research aim

The overarching research aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the opportunities for and practice of local participation toward sustainable tourism development in Bung Kan Province.

Objectives

In support of the above-stated aim, the study will be guided by a number of objectives as follows:

1. To investigate the understanding of local people toward the role of tourism industry in Bung Kan province.

2. To identify the needs of local participation in tourism development of Bung Kan province.

3. To explore the positive and negative impact of tourism development regarding the local perception.

Research Questions

To achieve the above-stated research aim and objectives, the study will be guided by the following research questions:

1. What do local citizens view as their role in the tourism industry in Bung Kan Province, Thailand?

2. Do the locals need to participate in the development of tourism in their province?

3. What are the locals' negative or positive perceptions toward tourism development in their province?

To achieve the above-stated research aim and objectives and to formulate timely and informed answers to these research questions, the study will use a triangulated methodology consisting of a review of the relevant literature, a case study of an eco-tourism development initiative in northern Thailand as well as similarly situated regions, and a survey of local residents in the Nong Khai district of Bung Kan Province, Thailand newest province. A triangulated research approach can help promote the trustworthiness of the findings that result (Owen and Demb, 2004), and each component of the research approach is consistent with the guidance provided by Neuman (2003) and other social researchers concerning the need to review the relevant literature (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2001; Thomas, 2004; Wood and Ellis, 2003; Gratton and Jones, 2003; Silverman, 2005) and the usefulness of including case studies in a study to gain insights and make connections that might otherwise go undiscerned (Zikmund, 2000; Leedy, 1997; Burton and Steane, 2004; Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg, 1991).

Literature Review

Sustainable Tourism Development

Sustainable tourism development can be defined in several ways. One definition is the development that can meet the need of the present visitors but also maintain and enhance the opportunity for future generations and their needs (Delisle, 2007). Other definitions of sustainable development typically describe the use, preservation and protection of existing resources along a continuum that places higher priorities on existing needs compared to future needs depending on the unique circumstances that are involved (Mehmetoglu, 2008).

Because the principles of sustainable development include environmental, economic, and social factors, the definition of sustainable development as it applies to a given destination also needs to address issues such as the management of all resources in economic, social and aesthetic needs and also protect the cultural unity, ecological process, biological diversity and life systems (Mehmetoglu, 2008). Furthermore, the definition of sustainable development should include a description concerning how the process can improve the quality of life in local communities and provide new experiences to tourists, all the while protecting the quality of the environment in which they exist (Ruhanen, 2010). Successful sustainable development also requires an evaluation of major trends and problems in the tourism industry rather than focusing on minor new developments that may have localized impact only (Butler, 1998).

Taken together, the foregoing indicates that irrespective of the precise definition that is used, sustainable tourism development is based on three main principles, economic, environment and social which are described below:

1. Economic: This principle refers to something that affects to the majority number of people and enhance the economic situation which is related to sustainable management of economic in tourism sector. This can regarded as opportunities to educate and train employees, support local suppliers, trade, producers and so on (Chapman, 2007). This principle is consistent with the observation by King (2008) that, "tourism in Thailand, as with tourism in the Asian region more generally, is a highly diversified, complex, and changing phenomenon, the impact and consequences of which have to be gauged within the wider process of economic development and social change" (p. 105).

2. Environmental: The environmental principle refers to nature places, wildlife, energy, pollution, water and so forth (Rain Forest Alliance, 2007). All of these need to be taken into account in order to maintain and enhance the resources for future generations.

3. Social. This principle means to respect the local traditions and communities in particular place (Chapman, 2007). Achieving authentic sustainability, though, depends on many factors. It is believed that to achieve the sustainable is responsible for all stakeholders. The influence of stakeholders can help sustainability in the quality of the environment (Bramwell and Lane, 2003).

Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development are comprised of residents (local), management (state), government (federal), non-governmental organization, employees, industry involvement and tourists. To be successful in sustainable (equally concerned of economic, environment and social), a different of stakeholder positions and views, need to be concerned. For tourism planning in development, the participation of all stakeholders are essential of public contribution in the decision making process and benefits of tourism development. In sum, stakeholder participations appears to be a critical component of sustainable tourism (Green, 1995; Leslie, 1993; Murphy, 1988).

National governments and international organizations such as the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Eco-tourism Society, the Domestic Technology Institute, the European Union (EU), the Business Council for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have all actively supported wise-use, market-driven, integrated, sustainable development principles and programs (Hirsch and Warren, 1999). To date, these and other organizations have actively promoted the so-called "greening of development practices" within the global tourism industry that specifically encourage local participation (Hirsch and Warren, 1999) and these issues are discussed further below.

The Need for Local Participation in Sustainable Development Initiatives

Local participation in sustainable development initiatives has been important key in tourism industry in developing countries for more than 30 years (Li, 2006). The research to date indicates that in order to gain benefits and achieve a competitive advantage in many emerging nations, it is essential to include local communities in the developmental process. It is also believed that it will be benefits if local participate in decision making process. Local participation can be supporter in sustainable development (Van Rooyen, 2004). Conversely, a lack of local support can doom even the most well-designed and funded tourism development initiatives (Hirsch and Warren, 1999).

The participation of local people in particular destination is therefore the main key to developing sustainable tourism offerings. It is said that local involvement is the road in development of sustainable tourism as the involvement of community plays a key role in long-term standing and can generate the quality of community's life (Putnam, 2000). In addition to the Community involvement is the road in sustainable development, it is the process in decision making which enables local to be part of development. It results in supporting local culture, tradition and local knowledge, skill and so on (Lacy et al., 2002). The important issue is that it provides a framework in which the solution of community problems can be pursued (Lasker et al., 2001). In addition, this framework can help reduce the negative impacts while maximizing the positive impacts (Lasker et al., 2001). It can create good and new opportunities for local people and in this way, local people will benefit from tourism development (Lasker et al., 2001). Moreover, a benefit in this point is not mean only about revenue, income or financial but also mean the benefit in the skills development, creating confidence, trust and becoming the owner of businesses (Tosun, 2000). Participation in decision making processes in tourism development can therefore help the Bung Kan Province tourism sector become truly sustainable.

Figure 1: Source: Timothy (1999, p. 372).

According to Timothy's model in Figure 1 above, full participation in tourism development requires involvement by all of the stakeholders. It is seen here that local people or residents in particular area should have participated in the decision making process in tourism development planning to gain benefits from it. When considering about local participation, in other word community participation in term of tourism, many studies has used "means" and "ends" approach. To define "means," it regards as the process of participation or in the position of empower community to involvement. To define "ends," it regards as the level of participation. In addition to the process of participation in tourism development, the consideration is not only dependent on the political, social and economic sectors, but must also take into account the impact from the perspective of local residents. In this point, it refers to personal interest, personal knowledge, personal confidence, resources, education, awareness and time (Reid 2003; Cole 2006; Addison 1996).

Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the participation in tourism development planning needs not only power but also personal factors. Therefore, it links to three main types which are motivation, opportunity and ability; these three main are factors that result in participation behavior.

Figure 2: Ladder of Community Influence

Source: Swarbrooke, 1999 p.126

As can be seen from Figure 2 above, the level of community participation exists along a continuum that extends along a series of steps that are required for greater participation. The ladder helps to understand the level and step of community participation in tourism development. It can be seen from the figure that community participation develops from a lower end to great empowerment at upper end. It is seen that in the upper end, the community has a power to have resource control and has a decision making according to community interests.

Impact of Tourism

Many researchers have investigated the impact of tourism by studying locals' perception toward the impact of tourism development. The research to date indicates that tourism can result in both positive and negative outcomes (Lankford & Howard, 1994). As the main point for sustainable tourism development is local support, therefore, the positive perception or attitude of local communities toward tourism is very essential for visitors. It is approved that to have a successful in sustainable tourism development and planning, local communities need to understand the impacts of tourism sector (Andriotis, 2005; Yoon et al., 2001).

There are several positive and negative impacts that are directly and indirectly related to tourism (King, 2008). According to Kreag (2001), the impacts of tourism can be categorized into seven types which are economic, community attitude, social and culture, environmental, services, crowding and congestion and taxes. While, accordingly to Archer and Cooper (1994) stated that the impacts of tourism can be categorized into five sectors which are economic, socio-cultural, political, environmental and ecological effects. Other researcher shows that there are only two impacts of tourism which can be categorized into only socioeconomic impacts and environmental impacts (Inskeep, 1991). Therefore, it can be concluded here that impacts of tourism result in economic, sociocultural, and environmental (Yoon, Gursoy, & Chen, 2001). Each of these impacts can affect different groups in varying ways; for example, some communities may be affected by environmental issues while others may be more affected by the economic impact, with the latter appearing to predominate for the reasons discussed further below.

The corporate sector in tourism as in all industries seeks investments that yield the best opportunities for expansion and profit maximization. This inclines the industry towards promotion of luxury consumption for the cash-rich and privileged, or a mass market of middle-class tourists who are encouraged by the industry to develop similar tastes that can be satisfied through a standardized 'package'. The result is a capital-intensive pattern of tourism development, which has the same tendency as extractive industries to expand to the limit the use of all available 'resources' in its search for profits (Hirsch & Warren, 1999, p. 265).

Fueled in large part by the demand to maximize profits, growth in the tourism industry has been characterized by a tendency towards more and larger accommodation centres and transport facilities, and an ever-increasing demand for new attractions. Nature and culture are vulnerable commodities in the search for unique sources of comparative advantage. 'Nature' and 'culture' are marketed as new products for tourist consumption without regard for intrinsic worth or value context. Habitats of hill tribes such as settlements of the Akka and Karen are converted to tourist centres, and people 'exhibited' as attractive showpieces. Wildlife too becomes victim to the price tag on its rarity (Hirsch & Warren, 1999, p. 265). Indeed, although Thailand has been very successful in attracting tourists and developing the industry, the progress to date has exacted significant social and economic costs. These costs have been incurred partly because of the lack of an effective control system (Elliott, 1997). Tourism implementation, especially development, demands an effective, active and experienced ministry-level agency that possesses the power needed to effect change where needed and protect local citizens who may be vulnerable to exploitation. In this regard, Elliott (1999) emphasizes that in Thailand, while the Tourism Authority of Thailand has the needed experience and expertise, the organization has largely been ineffective in development control because it has lacked the requisite power.

From this perspective, local citizens in the newest Thai province are faced with a wide range of opportunities as well as corresponding threats, including diversion or destruction of the resources upon which they depend, loss of cultural identity and consequent economic and cultural dependence within a background of political change that may or may not provide the support required for sustained development of the country's tourism industry (Elliott, 1997). In this regard, Hirsch and Warren report that, "The constant uprooting and relocation of communities by tourism sector interests and associated corporate projects exacerbate rural indebtedness and landlessness. Skilled labour and custom-produced luxury foods are imported, marginalizing local products and leaving local people unemployed" (p. 265).

Moreover, the economic and social problems that have taken place as a direct result of this type of poorly administered development model remain understudied and salient, thereby detracting from Thailand's ability to develop its full economic and social potential. According to Hirsch and Warren, "Such strategies induce structural dependence on technology, finance and marketing through transnational corporate control of the local industry, with negative impacts on the very cultural integrity and natural resource base upon which the comparative advantage of the region in the tourism industry depends" (1999, p. 265). Therefore, there is a need to identify the perspective of local communities concerning their understanding of the respective impacts of tourism development and to find out whether they have positive or negative attitudes toward tourism in the Bung Kan province and these issues are described further below.

Study Area

As noted above, the Bung Kan district recently separated from Nong Khai province and became province itself, it came into the researcher's thought that Bung Kan province would still has potential for itself to develop tourism sector (see political maps in Figure __ and __ below).

Figures 1 and 2. Political Maps of Thailand (Figure 2 on right highlights Bung Kan Province)

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Thailand_ Bueng_Kan_locator_map.svg/220px-Thailand_Bueng_Kan_locator_map.svg.png

The Bung Kan Province is further subdivided into eight districts, or "Amphoe" and these districts are further subdivided into 54 subdistricts or "tambon" (singular and plural) as well as 599 villages or "muban"; the districts are as follows:

1. Mueang Bueng Kan

2. Phon Charoen

3. So Phisai

4. Seka

5. Pak Khat

6. Bueng Khong Long

7. Si Wilai

8. Bung Khla

This northern Thai enclave of eight districts also contains a number of existing tourist attractions that could serve as the basis for sustainable developmental initiatives and these destinations are described further below.

Tourist attractions

The Bung Kan provincial region features a number of nature or eco-tourism destinations, including the following:

1. Wat Phu Tok, a temple on Phu Tok, a rocky sandstone outcrop which is now the symbol of the province.

2. Bung Khong Long, an emblematic lake located south of the town which is a breeding ground for aquatic birds.

3. Phu Wua Wildlife Sanctuary, a protected natural area with forests and waterfalls.

4. Nam Tok Tat Kinari, a waterfall with pools of clear water

The locally developed vision for Bung Kan province is that it will be a "suitable tourist destination as it is located in northernmost and has nice weather, nice food, and many natural attractions such as waterfalls" (see Figure 3 and 4 below) (Sompong, 2011, p. 3).

Current Trends in Sustainable Tourism Development in Thailand

By any international standard, the extent of the growth in tourism in Thailand has been profound. According to Hirsch and Warren, there was double-digit increases in tourism levels year to year throughout the 1990s, with Thailand receiving almost seven million international arrivals (an increase of 12.7 per cent over the previous year) in 1998 alone (Hirsch and Warren, 1999). Moreover, projections by Thai governmental agencies indicate continued increases in tourism levels for the foreseeable future (Hirsh and Warren, 1999). Further, despite some ongoing political problems in recent years, these did not substantively affect regional or national stability and tourism levels were not adversely affected (Michaud, 1999). In sum:

If the government and trade industry predictions are correct, Thailand could become one of the most sought-after destinations in the world. In addition to its substantial share of the holiday tourist market, Thailand is also fast emerging as a convention centre and business hub in Asia. Consequently, the demand for travel and tourism facilities is increasing rapidly, and many Thai business leaders are anxious to respond with new products to create and accommodate new demand. (Hirsch and Warren, 1999, p. 265)

Therefore, the question for the local residents of Bung Kan Province is what type of tourism model is best suited for sustainable development given their unique attributes and circumstances? Given the Bung Kan region's natural attributes, a nature or eco-tourism model appears to represent a viable approach. In this regard, Hirsch and Warren (1999) point out that this model has a proven track record of success that dates back to the 1950s. According to these authorities, "The idea of 'nature' tourism is not new. Natural history tours attracted Western tourists in the 1950s; later, 'discovery tours' were marketed as products for travellers" (Hirsch and Warren, 1999, p. 265). The definition provided by Hirsch and Warren (1999) indicates that, "Eco-tourism is purposeful travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of these habitats while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems and providing economic opportunities that make conservation of natural resources financially beneficial to the inhabitants of the host region" (p. 265). The operative component of this definition, then, is the conservation of natural resources in ways that not only benefit local residents economically, but this conservation is done in ways that are sustainable over time. As noted above, the nature tourism model has been used in some parts of upland Thailand with modest results, but these initiatives have largely been superficial presentations of Thai cultures that are presented in neat and tidy packages designed for tourist consumption rather than being reflective of authentic Thai daily life. Nevertheless, as noted above, Bung Kan has more than its fair share of natural resources that are suitable for tourism development, especially its waterfalls and abundant wildlife. These attributes, together with the stated goals of the local tourism development authorities to promote tourism initiatives that are sustainable over time and benefit local residents economically, suggest that some type of nature-oriented approach would be most suitable for the Bung Kan Province.

Conceiving any type of tourism initiative is one thing, of course, but selling it to local residents is quite another. In fact, as also noted above, tourism development initiatives in Thailand have frequently been met with mixed responses from local residents who recognize the economic value of such enterprises but question their relevance to their own lives if these benefits do not accrue to them as well. In this regard, Hirsch and Warren (1999) emphasize that, "It is argued that eco-tourism offers the advantage of supporting local communities while protecting forests and other habitats since it provides more income than other forms of exploitation, generating employment for the local people while earning foreign exchange. But critics challenge these assertions. Investments are made by outside financiers who have no concern for local people or resources; residents simply cannot compete with or control the demands of the tourism industry, and find their way of life increasingly dominated by external forces" (p. 266). The adage that land is a good investment because "they aren't making any more of it" is certainly applicable to nature-themed tourism development initiatives as well. For example, in some parts of Thailand, "Both wilderness and cultivable land are fast disappearing in eco-tourist areas, and families are forced to seek wage labor to survive. Tourism creates external dependence rather than appropriate development predicated on local autonomy" (Hirsch and Warren, 1999, p. 262).

Given some instances of past exploitations by unscrupulous tourism developers, some Thai residents have come to view any appropriation of their natural resources as just another scheme by outsiders to unjustly profit from these resources. According to Hirsch and Warren, "Cultural and eco-tourism, like other models of the industry, change the socio-cultural as well as the environmental landscape, despite claims of protection. "Indeed, 'eco-tourism' in Thailand is increasingly seen as a device for appropriating the country's national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and other protected areas" (emphasis added) (1999, p. 262). One of the more salient of these types of tourism development projects that has been aggressively promoted by the private sector as well as Thai national travel authorities was a cable-car initiative to reach the top of Doi Suthep mountain and its beautiful Buddhist wat in Chiang Mai Province, also located in northern Thailand (see map in Figure __ above) that failed because of this perception of exploitation by local residents as well as the failure of the project developers to actively involve local residents in the project development process. Unlike Bung Kan, Chiang Mai is an a more advanced stage of tourism development and the region has become an important tourist destination in northern Thailand in recent years due in large part to the efforts of the private sector to develop existing resources for these purposes. In this regard, Pholpoke advises that, "Over the years, investors with government support have created several attractions within Chiang Mai to draw more visitors and bring substantial profits" (2000, p. 262).

According to Pholpoke (2000), on the one hand, "Tourism has become a highly promoted development strategy throughout the world because of its potential for rapid growth and for contributing foreign exchange to national economies. It also has the image of being a 'soft' form of development with lesser environmental and social impacts than other types of natural resource exploitation" (p. 262). On the other hand, though, Pholpoke emphasizes that, "The expansion of tourism in Thailand, however, is increasingly perceived as posing a serious threat to the cultural and environmental resources of host communities. In fact, the sustainable exploitation of cultural resources in the tourism industry is proving as problematic as the protection of natural values" (p. 262).

Particularly noteworthy was the fact that the cable-car project developers, Four Aces Consultants, promoted the initiative in ways that suggested the local community supported the project in collaboration with the Thai governmental authorities, the harsh reality was that local residents were largely excluded from the development process altogether (Pholpoke, 2000). Among the more egregious failures was the fact that Buddhist monks were not consulted nor surveyed concerning their views of the cable-car project even though it directly affected their wat (Taylor, 1997) and the region was noted by its biodiversity (Elliott et al., 1989). In this regard, Pholpoke adds that, "From the point-of-view of the environment, Doi Suthep's unique mountain features would be eroded with every new activity in the area. Some of the rare animals and plants which are localized in very small areas would be exterminated. And most of these still await recognition of their importance as genetic reserve or as medicinal plants" (2000, p. 262).

The case study presented by Pholpoke makes it clear, at least in hindsight, where project developers went wrong. In this regard, Pholpoke reports that, "In 1985, Four Aces, the consultants who had produced the Master Plan for Chiang Mai, submitted a proposal to the local government to erect a cable-car system between the foot of the Doi Suthep hills and the temple, covering a distance of about 3 km and requiring an investment of around 115 million baht (U.S.$4.6 million at 1985 rates)" (2000, p. 262). This initiative was a joint venture between two companies in Bangkok (the Four Aces Consultants Company and Phaibun Sombat Co. Ltd., proprietors of several real estate properties in Bangkok) with financial support from a Bangkok-based Thai Farmers' Bank group company (Pholpoke, 2000). The cable-car initiative, though, ignored the needs of the local residents of Chiang Mai in ways that helped to doom the project. For example, Pholpoke reports that, "Some critics noted the conflict of interest involving consultants who served as planners, later as investors and businessmen, and the fact that the master plan had been silent on socio-economic issues. There are about 2,500 song thaew (pick-up vans) plying the city, providing a livelihood to about 5,000 families. With the introduction of the cable-car and more sophisticated modes of transportation, these families were threatened with job losses" (p. 262). In response, local residents mounted a grassroots campaign against the project that defeated the proposed cable-car initiative despite intensive campaigning on the part of the joint venturers and the Thai governmental tourism authorities (Pholpoke, 2000).

The failure of the cable-car project in Chiang Mai provides some valuable lessons learned for tourism developers in Bung Kan Province who are in the formative stages in this sector. Whatever tourism model is used, it is clearly vitally important to actively involve the local citizenry in the developmental process to avoid unexpected adverse consequences that might not be readily apparent to developers otherwise. Therefore, surveying the local residents of Nong Khai district in northeast of Thailand represents an essential first step in achieving sustainable development of tourism in this newest Thai province.