1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The thesis necessity
1.1.1. Theoretical aspect
The ecotourism term attached with responsible tourism tendency
“seeing, enjoying but not damaging” (Orams 1995) has been notified
since 1980s. Ecotourism is different from other types of mass tourism in
the way of developing sustainability, supporting efforts in environmental
presevation and education, and bringing about benefits for local people
(Wood, 2002). Since its appearance, ecotourism has been researched
from various perspectives.
Previous studies emphasized ecotourism as a responsible and ideal
tourism to achieve sustainable development goal. Also, the exploration of
ecotourism should take notice of its effects on the effectiveness of
ecotourism development. One important factor ensuring the success of
ecotourism is the local people’s involvement attached with their benefits
(Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). Therefore, analyzing factors having effects
on ecotourism development also means evaluating these factors’ effects
on local people’s benefits when they participate in tourism development.
Among different factors influencing ecotourism development, social
capital is a quite new one, which has been researched since 2000. Unlike
other capital sources, social capital is an “unphysical source” established
from cooperative relationships of social networks, which are built up
based on trust, norms and regulation sharing and reciprocity. Also, it has
a significant distraction to participants.
Under the context of developing ecotourism attached with local
people’s participation, studies on the relationship between ecotourism and
social capital are essential, which aim at promoting benefits for local
people through developing values based on their social capital source.
Previous studies on the relationship between social capital and
ecotourism (Foucat, 2002; Sawatsky, 2003; Jones, 2005; Nguyen, 2007;

theory; and providing suggestions for policy makers, managers, local
people and relevant stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of
ecotourism in practice through social capital for the community.
1.2. Researh objectives
1.2.1. General objectives
To analyze and investigate the effects of social capital on local
people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism in national parks in
Red river delta and north east coast.
1.2.2. Specific objectives
(1) To determine elements of social capital, which have an influence
on benefits for local people in the development of ecotourism in national
parks. Then, it is the foundation for building up the theoretical framework
(model) and research hypothesis.
(2) To identify, test and analyze influencing level of social capital
elements on different benefits (politics, economy, socio-culture and
environment) of local people in the development of ecosystem in
National parks in red river delta and north east coast.
(3) To analyze the inluencing level of demography on the benefit for
local people from the development of ecosystem in National parks in red
river delta and north east coast.
(4) To seek for solutions and recommendations based on the research
results so that these suggestions can help to increase social capital and


3
improve benefits of local people in the development of ecosystem in
National parks in red river delta and north east coast.
1.3. Research questions
Question 1: What are elements of social capital that put an effect on
the benefits (politics, economy, socio-culture and environment) of local

east coast).
- Duration: Mainly in the period from 2013 to 2017 (secondary data
collection) and 2016 - 2017, early 2018 periods (primary data collection)
1.5. Thesis organization
- Chapter 1: Introduction to the thesis

4
Chapter 2: Theroretical basis and literature review on effects of
social capital on benefits of local people in the development of
ecotourism
- Chapter 3: Research methods
- Chapter 4: Research results
- Chapter 5: Discussion on research results and
recommendations, solutions
CHAPTER 2: THERORETICAL BASIS AND LITERATURE
REVIEW ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON BENEFITS
OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ECOTOURISM
2.1. Theories on social capital
2.1.1. Definition of social capital
According to various studies, social capital term appeared the first
time in 1916 by Hanifan. So far there have been different ways of
understanding this term. However, in general, social capital can be
defined as one type of “special resource” with “social” identity of human
beings, social capital is established through relationships between
individuals or groups (organization/society), improved through
reciprocity and sharing, cooperation and partnership of social networks
which are based on trust and respect for regulations, norms aiming at
bringing about benefits for individuals /groups when they participate and
invest in relationships institutionalized to some extent.

by Lascurain (1983, 1987) which puts an emphasis on experiences
improving visitors’ awareness and developing effectiveness attached with
the rule of preservation; and by World Ecotoursim Association (1991,
2015) which focuses on natural sustainability, culture attached with
lecturing activities and environmental education. From my own
perspective and inheritance from revious studies, I define ecotourism as a
type of tourism based on attracting values of neglected natural resources
and unique local culture;it is attached with great involvement of local
people and relevant stakeholders; there are environmental education and
lectures as well as preservation activities; there is promotion of tourism
business activities in local area at small scale with low consumption
(resources), which still satisfy experiencing demand and improve visitors’
awareness; at the same time, it helps to bring about economic, sociocultural and environemental benefits as well as improve the position of
local people and relevant stakeholders.
2.2.2. Studies on the development of ecotourism
2.2.2.1. Studies on the appearance and development of ecotourism
Studies by Wood (2002), Obenaus (2005), Weaver and Lawton
(2007), Cobbinah (2015), Chandel and Mishra (2016), etc show that the
development of ecotoursim has experienced changes and supplimentaries,
which are reflecting more and more apparently the typical features of a
responsible and sustainable type of tourism.
2.2.2.2. Studies on features, rules and instructing tools of ecotourism
development
Features and rules of ecotourism were integrated in the research by
Butler (1992). Then, there have been different studies on rules providing
specific instructions on ecotourism development for relevant
stakeholders. A set of rules for implementation of ecotourism has been
largely recognized, which was issued in 1990 by World Association of
Ecotoursim and amended in 2015. In these rules, there is an emphasis on
“the key pillar” of ecotourism development, which is not only attached

et
al
(2005)
Zhao et al
(2011)
Park et al
(2012)
Baksh et al.
(2013)
Gaitho (2014)
Marcinek and
Hunt (2015)
Musavengane
(2017)

Elements of social capital
Trust

Reciprocity,
sharing

X
X
X

X

X

x


Norms

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

Others
X1,2
X1

X

X3

development of ecotourism
Stakeholders of ecotoursim development is also a “topic” for
different researchers (Honey, 1985; Drake, 1991; Brandon, 1993; Wood,
2002; Drumm and Moore, 2005…). Among previous studies, the model
of essential partners for the success of ecotoursim development given by
Drumm and Moore (2005) is mentioned much more than others. In this
model, the authors emphasized the participation of main subjects such as
non-governmental organizations, local authorities, tourism businessmen,
local people and other supporting groups/organizations.
2.2.2.5. Studies on the role of local people in the development of
ecotoursim
The participation of the community is the bottom – up approach to
promote the positive role if local people who are provided with the right
to explore, manage and develop ecotourism (Kiss, 2004; Nelson, 2004;
Boonzaaier and Philip, 2007; O’Neill, 2008; Mensah et al, 2013). The
participation from normal role to managers, investigators owners of the
resources and activities of ecotoursim development can not only bring
about great benefits in terms of socio-economy, environment, social
welfare; but also provide “added” benefits for stakeholders. Especially,
the provision for local people with those rights would help to improve
their position, voice and benefits (Salafsky and Wollenberg; 2000;
Sultana, 2009).
2.2.3. Factors measuring benefits of local people in ecotoursim
development
Political benefits of local people when they participate in ecotourism
(according to Scheyvens (1999), Jones (2005)) are chances to raise their
voice and solve mutual problems as fairly as possible; give their ideas in
making decision in the mutual forusm of the community.
Economic benefits: are physical beneits (converted to money, items,
assets, etc) reflecting the purpose and objective motivation of the

community, in which people are incooperative or restricted to group
activities and there are no supporting associations/organziations for local
community development (Claiborne, 2010). A community with low
background knowledge would “prevent” local people from gaining
objectives and benefits from ecotourism development (Kamuti, 2014).
Therefore, communities with advanced knowledge will have more
conditions, favors and benefits from tourism development.
In order to provide the influencing relationship between social capital
and benefits of local people in ecotoursim development, this thesis
consolidated relevant studies (diagram 2.4) to reveal this relationship
with different results in different contexts and objectives. Along with the
basement of previous theories, in-depth interviews with experts and local
people in National parks, the author created the research frame, in which,
there is a new element/ scale identified based on this study entitled
“Particiaption in implementing regulations on operational management of
ecotoursim in National parks”.
2.5. Research frame
Based on analysis, comments and evaluation on good and bad
points of each study; research subject, scope covering the exploration,
description and analysis into effects of social capital elements on local


9

10

people’s benefits in ecotourism development in National parks of Red
river delta and north east coast; and selection of experts’ contributions,
the author designed research frame as presented in diagram 2.4.
H1

Demographic features: age,
gender, ethnic, background
knowledge, main job, average
income

H2a,b,c,d

Diagram 2.4: Research model on effects of social capital on local
people in ecotourism development in National parks of Red river and
north east coast
Source: Compiled and designed by the author
Table 2.5: Research hypothesis
Symbol
Hypothesis
H1: Social capital has positive effects on benefits of local people from
ecotourism development
H1a
Social capital has positive effects on political benefits
H1a1
Trust has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a2
Sharing has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a3
Norms have parallel effect on political benefit
H1a4
Cooperation has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a5
Social networks have parallel effect on political benefit
H1a6
Participation in implementing regulations on operational management

Cooperation has parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit
Social networks have parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit

H1c6

Participation in implementing regulations on operational management
of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on socio- cultural
benefit
Social capital has positive effects on environmental benefits
Trust has parallel effect on environmental benefit
Sharing has parallel effect on environmental benefit

H1d
H1d1
H1d2
H1d3
H1d4
H1d5
H1d6

Norms have parallel effect on environmental benefit
Cooperation has parallel effect on environmental benefit
Social networks have parallel effect on environmental benefit
Participation in implementing regulations on operational management
of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on environmental
benefit
H2: Demographical features of local people which have controlling influence on
benefits of local people from ecotourism development
H2a
Demographic features have controlling influence on political benefit

3.2. Qualitative research
- Qualitative methods: the thesis applies: observation, interview with
focus group and in-depth interview.
- Interviewees: these are local people participating in activities of
ecotourism in National parks in Ba Vì, Cúc Phương and Cát Bà (18
interviewees). Also, there are interviews with representatives of Board of
management of national parks, local authorities (6 interviewees) and
interviews with experts (11 researchers related to ecotoursim and social
capital). Focus group interview is carried out with 03 groups, each of
which has 06 poeple who are local ones in research places.
- Data analysis: All information is collected based on each specific
content (encoding) to give a mutual conclusion; results are gathered and
compared with the theoretical model to build up the official model and
hypothesis, at last, the qualitative results are used to present explanation
to the effects and complex relationships which are not explained by the
quantitative model.
3.3. Quantitative research
- Research sample: This thesis uses the convenient sampling method
with selection and categorization. The sampling is carried out based on
criterion of exporatory factor analysis and multiple regression; the
research sample’s size is 323.
- Measuring scale:
+ Social capital measuring scale (independent variable): trust,
reciprocity and sharing, norms, cooperation, social networks and
participation in the implementation of operational management
regulations on ecotourism at National parks.
+ Benefit measuring scale (dependent variable): benefits of
politics, economy, socio-culture and environment.
+ Demography measuring scale (control variable).
- Data analysis: SPSS 23.0 is used to insert data and analyze research

scale
Step 6: Official research model
and survey questionnaire

Step7a: Official
quantitative
survey (n = 323)

Step7b:
Analysis into
reliability of
scale

Step7c:
Exporatory factor
analysis (EFA)

Phase 3
Official
research

Deletion of variables with
low correlation (
responses (97,3%) to be officially analyzed.
4.2. Evaluation on measuring scales by Cronbach’s alpha
The results of testing the scales’ reliability show that all scales are
qualified with CA from 0.631 to 0.800. However, 02/47 of observed
variables are excluded due to low correlation with general variable
(
ML1
.806
Social networks
ML2
.818
ML3
.716
QC1
.835
Particiaption in
implementation of operational
QC2
.867 management regulation in

The analysis shows that there are 07 factors extracted with
cumulative of variance: 60,8% (the model is compatible with data
variations). However, there are 03/25 observed variables loaded with 2
factors at factor loading variance < 0.3, so, they are excluded, the rest 22
variables are qualified with factor loading from 0.602 to 0.867 and
devided into 07 groups. Norms are devided into 2 specific groups under
new names. The factor of particiaption in the implementation of
operational management regulations in National parks is a new qualified
variable with quite high factor loading (>0.8).
Table 4.7: EFA into benefit measuring scales of local people in the
development of ecotourism
Factors
Observed
Name
variables 1
(* new name)

.759

Political benefits
.735
.843
.764

Economic benefits
.635
.807
.808
.679

Socio-cultural
benefits of
individual/
household*

.748
.756
.721

Sociocultural
benefits

Socio-cultural
benefits of
community*

.735

people in the development of ecotourism (LY2), result of regression:
LY2i = 0.231 (QC)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that only QC (participation in implementing
operational management regulations on ecotourism in National parks) has
positive impac on LY2 (economic benefits).
4.5.4. Test on model of social capital’s effects on socio-cultural benefits
for individual/household
Evaluation on effect of social capital on socio-cultural benefits of
individual/household in the development of ecotourism (LY3), result of
regression:
LY3i = 0.268 (LT)i + 0.165 (HT)i + 0.139 (ML)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that only LT (trust), HT (cooperation) and social
networks (ML) have impacs on LY3 (socio-cultural benefits for
individual/household). All of these effects are positive with top down
ranking as LT, HT và ML.
4.5.5. Test on model of social capital’s effects on socio-cultural benefits
for community
Evaluation on effect of social capital on socio-cultural benefits of
community in the development of ecotourism (LY4), result of regression:
LY4i = 0.249 (HT)i + 0.159 (ML)i + 0.188 (QC)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that HT (cooperation), ML (social networks) and QC
(participation in implementing operational management regulations on
ecotourism in National parks) have effects on LY4 (socio-cultural
benefits of community). All of these effects are positive with top down
ranking as HT QC and ML.
4.5.6. Test on model of social capital’s effects on environmental
benefits
Evaluation on effect of social capital on environmental benefits of
community in the development of ecotourism (LY5), result of regression:


for individual/ household

Socio-cultural benefits
for community

Environmental benefits
Demographic features:
Age,
gender,
ethnic,
background
knowledge,
main job, average income.

H2 a, b, c,d,e

Diagram 4.1: Adjusted research model of effects of social capital on
ecotourism development in National parks in Red river delta and
north east coast
Source: Compiled and designed by author
Hypothesis for the adjustment of measuring scales for norms and
socio-cultural benefits is presented in table 4.8 of the thesis.
4.5. Regression analysis (hypothesis testing)
4.5.1. Population regression test
Evaluation on effects of social capital on local people’s benefits in the
development of ecotourism (LY), result:
LYi = 0.511 (VXH)i + ei
So, meaning of 5% shows that social capital has positive effect on
local people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism.
4.5.2. Test on model of social capital’s effects on political benefits

Factors
of social
capital

VXH
LT
CS
CMQT
CMXH
HT
ML
QC

Effects of
social capital
on benefits

%

Beta for benefit standard
Politics

Economy

Order

25,9 %
10,7
3
No effect

-

Sociocultural
for

Environment

community

.360
.249
.159
.188

.306
.142
.150
.147

.200

Source: Research results by author
4.5.7. Test on effects of demography variable
The research uses regression model with dummy variables to test
the level and direction of social capital’s effect on local people. The
results show that 04 factors of demography having effects are ethnic,
knowledge, income and main job. Age and gender do not have any effect.
Factors of demography having control effect on 04 groups of benefits
which are politics, economy, socio-culture of the community and
environment, whereas they do not have effect on benefits of socio-culture

from social capital cover benefits of politics, economy, socio-culture of
individual/household, socio-culture of community and environment.
- Influencing level of factors of social capital on local people’s
benefits in developing ecotourism is arranged with the top down order of


19

20

(1) Social networks, (2) Cooperation, (3) Trust, (4) participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in national
parks, (5) social norms, and (6) regulatory norms. It is notified that
research results for not record that sharing and reciprocity has effect on
local people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism.
- Influencing factors have differences among groups of benefits:
• Social capital’s factors with top down influence on political
benefits are social networks, cooperation, participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in
national parks and trust.
• Except for the factor of participation in implementation of
operational management on ecotourism in national parks, other
factors have no effect on economic benefits
• Trust, coopeation and social networks have effect on socio-cultural
benefits for individual, household.
• Factors putting effects on socio-cultural benefits for the community
are cooperation, social networks and participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in
national parks.
• Factors putting effects on environmental benefits are trust,

based on the improvement of unique tourism values of national parks.
- Second, in order to provide local people with chances to cooperate,
share information through ecotourism activities, it is suggested to expand
tourism business to potential areas in Natioanl parks and approve
mechanism for household to cooperate to supply toursim service and
product.
5.2.3. Better applying management regulations in National parks
- Management boards in national parks should more effectively use
these regulations to achieve double objectives in improving business
performance of ecotourism in national parks and living standard of local
people. This is the aspect that can bring about a lot of benefits concerning
economy, environment for the community and partially promote benefits
in terms of socio-culture and politics.
- During the process of applying mechanism, national parks should
have policies on encouraging local people to develop ecotoursim.
However, business cooperation in spending forest for rent has not been
consistently implemented, which requires more detailed and open
instructions. At the same time, management boards should be stricter in
enhancing private sector of ecotourism within the allowance of
preservation rules. A big disadvantage of national parks is their limited
plans on training human resource, so, the quality of labor is quite low.
Thus, boards of management, authorities and local people should
cooperate with training departments and experts on tourism to organize
conferences, workshops and training courses for local people; support
local people to apply for foreign sponsorship to implement programs
improving community competence.
5.2.4. Some other solutions
- In addition to the above solutions, maintaining trust and ensuring
respect for principles and standards in the community will continue to be
given adequate attention.

5.3.2. Recommendations
5.3.2.1. Regarding departments of ecotourism management and
development in national parks
- There should be documents giving more specific instructions and
reviews to encourage ecotoursim development in national parks through
implementing policies. It is essential to consistently apply “Regulations
on operational management of ecotoursim in national parks”.
- It is suggested to review and complete general strategies, polcies on
developing ecotoursim attached with preservation in nationwide, and key
ecotourism areas should be linked with typical priorities in National
parks.
5.3.2.2. Regarding local authorities and management boards in national
parks in Red river delta and north east coast
- They should promote activities of researching, traning human
resource, cooperating with relevant sectors to prioritize mechanisms of
policies, capital attracting investment in ecotourism in national parks.
- They should simplify administrative procedure, be cooperative in
negotiations to agree on policies in terms of lending forest for toursim
purpose in national parks of Cat Ba, provide opportunities for local
people to manage and develop ecotourism in national parks of Ba Vì, and
apply mechanism for cooperative development business for national
parks of Cuc Phuong.
5.4. Thesis’ new contributions
- Applying a theoretical framework (relatively comprehensive) for
influencing relationships between social capital and local people’s
benefits in developing ecotourism under the context of national parks in
Red river delta and north east coast.
- Pointing out clear differences in benefits (politics, economy, socioculture and environment) for local people in developing ecotourism.
These benefits are affected by different factors of social capital and
demography.

(NGOs)

- NGOs of environment
- NGOs for the community
- Other organizations and
volunteers.

Diagram 5.1: Model of relationships among relevant partners in
ecotourism development in national parks
Source: proposed and researched by the author


23

24

- Helping managers and relevant partners to evaluate the role of social
capital as well as its effect on benefits for local people in developing
ecotourism. Then, there are strategies, plans, actions to develop
ecotourism more effectively.
5.5. Limitations and future research direction
- Sample is collected by convenient method, thus, despite efforts in
gathering data of 3 national parks in Red river delta and north east coast,
it is impossible to avoid limitations of variances in sample size of each
national park and representation of local area. As a result, there might be
sample which does not ensur representation and generalization.
- Social capital is a difficult term which is used mainly in in developed
countries, thus, when this term is translated into Vietnamese, it is hard to
ensure the original meaning (so, English term is used at the same time for
reference)

general rule when they are multipled in other areas. In short, this thesis
provides a clear picture of social capital effects on ecotourism
development in national parks in Red river delta and north east coast –
one of areas with apparent advantages for ecotourism development in
Vietnam.

CONCLUSION
Being in compliance with previous studies on the effect of social
capital on ecotourism (Foucat, 2002; Jones, 2005; Liu et.al, 2005; Gaitho,
2014; Park et.al, 2012; Marcinek and Hunt, 2015, etc), this study
confirms the important role of social capital in bringing about benefits for
local people in developing ecotourism, which cover politics, economy,
socio-culture and environment.
Social capital is comprised of different factors, of which the most
popular ones mentioned and researched in the field of ecotourism are
trust, sharing, cooperation, social networks. These are also independent
measuring scales inherited for this research. In addition, under the
research context, there is an exploration and identification of new
measuring scale “Participation in implementing operational management
of ecotourism in national parks”. Thanks to measuring scale test and
development, the thesis proves the reliability and importance of these
scales in improving benefits for local people in ecotourism development
in national parks. Research results show that increased political benefits
are evidences of effects of social networks, cooperation, trust and
participation in implementing operational management of ecotourism in
national parks; similarly, increased economic benefits are linked with