Studies on the Role of Local People in Ecotourism Development

2.2.2.5. Studies on the role of local people in ecotourism development

Community participation is a bottom-up approach to promote the activeness and initiative of local people by empowering them to participate in ecotourism development and help bring socio-economic benefits, improve the quality of life, and ensure prosperity for the community (Mensah et al., 2013). Local people are considered the "core" component participating in ecotourism development because they are both the "ideal" human resources to satisfy tourists (more than anyone else, they are the ones who understand the characteristics of nature, history, culture... of the locality and can bring tourists new knowledge and experiences); at the same time, their unique cultural values ​​will be an important and indispensable part of ecotourism products.

The participation of local people in tourism has been mentioned in many studies such as: Arnstein (1969), Hollsteiner (1977), Cohen and Ufford (1980), Ashley and Roe's (1998), Tosun (1999, 2000, 2006), Kumar (2002), Zommorodian (2013), ... The level of community participation will be associated with the benefits brought to them. The higher the participation, the greater the level of initiative and direct interaction, the more empowered they will be and the more closely linked to political factors because they have power in their hands, use power to distribute or access, use, exploit, manage, and control resources (Heywood, 2007).

Studies by Ziffer (1989), Norris (1994), Honey (1999), Scheyvens (1999); Fennell (2001), Wood (2002), Campbell (2002), Kiss (2004), Langoya and Long (2007), Yacod et al. (2007)... show that to be successful in developing ecotourism, there must be the participation of local people and ensure political, economic, cultural - social and environmental benefits for the community . Although natural resources are the essential factor in forming ecotourism, the difference between ecotourism and other types of tourism based on nature is that it must have cultural values ​​and the participation of local people.

The role of local people in ecotourism development is reflected in the following aspects: Local people must participate in ecotourism with levels of participation from passive, active to automatic (Tosun, 2006); participate as employees, service staff and at a higher level as direct managers and decision makers (Scheyvens, 1999; Wood, 2002; Telfer and Sharpley, 2008; Wearing and Neil, 2009); participate partly in the provision of tourism products and services or as owners of business establishments, providing tourism services; participate in cooperation in volunteer activities, consulting, supporting nature conservation, environmental protection and community projects through ecotourism development (Ashley and Roe's, 1998); participate in all stages of the ecotourism development process; direct and indirect participation (Tosun and Timothy, 2003; Kencana et al., 2015).

Previous studies often mentioned the purpose of developing ecotourism to bring economic, cultural - social and environmental benefits to the community, including factors such as: promoting the local economy, creating jobs, increasing income for individuals/households, reducing poverty, increasing people's pride in the values ​​of resources and culture in the community, helping them change their awareness and behavior in protecting the environment and traditional culture . These benefits can be enjoyed by people when participating directly or indirectly. Recently, there have been some studies interested in the role of local people as those who directly own, manage, make decisions and control the development of ecotourism in the locality. Thereby, emphasizing the benefits of bringing prestige, voice and contributing to enhancing their "political status" in the community as well as ensuring sustainable development in the future. These studies introduce a new concept: community-based ecotourism. There are many debates about the concept and characteristics of community-based ecotourism, but these views have something in common (Kiss, 2004; Nelson, 2004; Boonzaaier and Philip, 2007; O'Neill, 2008): promoting the direct role of ownership, control and benefit of local people in ecotourism development . In fact, the nature of community-based ecotourism is still ecotourism. The difference is the emphasis on the role of participation at a higher level of the community. Thus, community-based ecotourism is a form of ecotourism that focuses on social relationships, improves the effectiveness of community participation, enhances the role, responsibility, status and level of benefits of local people (Campbell, 2002; Kiss, 2004). Therefore, the effectiveness (output) in ecotourism development today not only focuses on socio-economic and environmental aspects but also political benefits are given more attention.

Thus, participation from the normal level to the highest level of participation in management, control, ownership of resources and activities in the process of ecotourism development can bring great benefits not only to the socio-economic, environmental, and welfare of the community but also to the stakeholders and in particular, empowerment will help enhance the position, voice and right to enjoy political benefits for local people (Salafsky and Wollenberg; 2000; Sultana, 2009).

2.2.3. Factors measuring the benefits of local people in ecotourism development

The main goal of ecotourism development is to bring direct benefits to local people; therefore, to develop ecotourism, local people must participate at levels from "passive" to "active" and rise to "automatic" when they have the capacity to control and manage. However, Wood (2002) also stated that in reality, it is difficult to expect the community to be able to fully participate at the level of management and control in ecotourism development.

According to Langoya and Long (1997), when participating in ecotourism, local people can enjoy benefits such as: increasing income, restoring traditional handicraft production, attracting investment projects for social welfare, training and fostering human resources, enhancing responsibility for environmental protection, resolving conflicts over exploitation and management of resources. Later, Yacod et al. (2007) summarized: the benefits of ecotourism development are economic benefits (improving employment and income), cultural - social benefits (preserving traditional cultural values ​​and lifestyles of local people) and environmental benefits. Since 1999, Scheyvens has discovered that ecotourism development not only has the above benefits but also gives the community the right to enjoy added value in economic, cultural - social and political rights. This view was supported by Musavengane and Matikiti (2015) when the authors, after reviewing previous research works, came to the conclusion: The benefits of ecotourism are not only "limited" to the economic aspect, improving the lives of local people, but also "extend" to political, environmental and other cultural and social benefits.

Thus, from the perspective of what local people receive when participating in ecotourism development, it can be seen that: the benefits of local people in ecotourism development are the values ​​that local people benefit from in terms of politics, economy, culture - society and environment . More specifically, these benefits are expressed through the following aspects:

According to Scheyvens (1999), Jones (2005), political benefits (political benefits/political empowerment) are people being able to participate in giving opinions and solving common problems fairly, having a voice in making decisions in common forums of the community . Foucat (2002), Musavengane (2017) also pointed out that political benefits are to enhance the role of community participation in state agencies and the right to access and use resources. Tran and Walter (2014) emphasized that the political benefits of local people in developing ecotourism are to empower people fairly and equally and there must be action policies to promote the guarantee of these rights for them.

Economic benefits are material benefits (converted to money, goods, assets, etc.) that reflect the objective purpose and motivation of the community when participating in ecotourism development. These benefits can motivate people's participation, contributing to increasing social capital for the community. At the same time, when social capital increases, it will also affect other benefits in ecotourism development (Liu et al., 2014). The most direct economic benefits are increased tourism-related job opportunities, improved income and upgraded infrastructure for local people (Scheyvens, 1999, Ross and Wall, 1999; Watkin, 2003; Yacod et al., 2007; Kiper et al., 2011; Eshun and Tonto, 2014). According to Foucat (2002), the exploitation and use of resources for ecotourism development and the right to use land will bring economic benefits, directly creating the main source of income for local people. However, because economic benefits can cause damage

For the environment, the development of ecotourism must follow the principles of responsible tourism and encourage conservation.

According to Yacod et al. (2007) , social and cultural benefits are the preservation of traditional cultural values ​​and lifestyles of indigenous people, including tangible values ​​such as cultural relics, history, architecture, handicraft products... or intangible values ​​such as religion, rituals, art, music, dance... Not only that, social and cultural benefits also bring other values: investing in education and raising awareness for the community, attracting community projects, promoting cooperation among community members and connecting society into a network (Foucat, 2002; Watkin, 2003; Kiper et al., 2011; Tran and Walter, 2014). Previously, Honey (1999), Scheyvens (1999) also pointed out that the socio-cultural benefits are to help the community connect and form social networks in developing ecotourism, contributing to social welfare (investing in building public works such as schools, hospitals, roads, electricity, water, cultural houses, libraries...). These benefits both improve infrastructure (economic benefits) and help improve people's knowledge and quality of life (social benefits), create jobs, reduce social negativity and increase pride in local resource values.

Environmental benefits are usually studied in terms of values ​​that are beneficial to the environment such as preventing actions that lead to environmental degradation and pollution, and conserving resources (Yacod et al., 2007). However, from the perspective of studying the benefits of local people in developing ecotourism, environmental benefits here are understood as helping local people raise awareness, attitudes towards environmental protection or have behaviors and initiatives towards environmental protection (Tran and Walter, 2014). Through doing ecotourism, people will change their thinking and act more responsibly towards the environment; this consequence is both beneficial for the surrounding environment and helps local people become responsible people and live in a clean, safe and sustainable environment. In terms of awareness and attitudes towards environmental protection, Liu et al. (2014) mentioned the factors: the community feels that the resource is related to them, supports more conservation policies and will act to protect the environment. At the level of environmental protection behaviors, Foucat (2002) mentioned the factors: knowing how to use resources sustainably and effectively, having a commitment to biodiversity conservation, commitment to wildlife conservation, waste treatment, limiting resource exploitation and actively restoring the living environment .

2.2.4. Studies on the impact of social capital on people's benefits

Local in ecotourism development

Studies from around 2000 onwards show that social capital is increasingly seen as an important factor in community development and benefits for local people. Close relationships between social capital and policy making, research and

The implementation of community-beneficial development plans and projects has been explored through a series of studies (Grant, 2001; Lin, 2001; Alston, 2002; Krishna, 2002;

Perkins et al., 2002; Flores and Rello 2003; Pretty, 2003; Rohe, 2004; Vidal, 2004; Lohmann and Lohmann, 2005; Iyer et al., 2005; Bridger and Alter 2006; Binswanger, 2007; Boyd et al., 2008; Hanna et al., 2009; Vermaak, 2009; Homan, 2011…).

According to Alston (2002); Binswanger (2007), Boyd et al. (2008): Social capital is formed based on the development cooperation of local people and the "assets" that people bring to exchange, cooperate and connect in those relationships is "trust". Social capital is considered as a resource, an "asset" of the community, increasing strength and possibly leading to the growth of other capital sources (Lohmann and Lohmann, 2005). Therefore, social capital brings benefits to the community and is especially necessary for communities with developing economies, other capital sources are not yet strong. If a community has "abundant" social capital resources, when making efforts to exploit and promote social capital through the process of building trust to develop cooperative relationships, linking inside and outside the community can also increase other types of capital that are still "weak" in the community (Homan, 2011). Strengthening social capital through building sustainable trust, close networks and establishing long-term cooperative relationships is the “key” to community development (Alston, 2002).

In recent decades, studies on the influence/role of social capital on the development of tourism as well as ecotourism have attracted the attention of many researchers, approaching both qualitative and quantitative research methods or combining both. Regardless of the approach, the common point of the studies is to assess the influence/role of social capital in the ability to improve cooperation between resident communities and coordination between stakeholders in the tourism development process to bring benefits to the community. An overview of these studies shows that social capital clearly affects the benefits of local people in ecotourism development and the influence of social capital on the benefits of local people in ecotourism development is a topic that needs to be further studied.

- Previous studies have demonstrated that social capital affects the benefits of local people in developing ecotourism through the following bases:

Firstly, social capital is formed from social networks, the “strength” of social capital is the quality of cooperative relationships and social networks (links within and outside the community) characterized by elements of trust, norms and reciprocal support to bring about common benefits (Macbeth et al., 2004). Social capital is considered an important resource in promoting economic development and improving the quality of life, increasing benefits for local people, because according to Drumm and Moore (2002) to develop ecotourism, effective cooperation of participants is needed and local people are identified as the “central” factor ensuring success in the network of links.

Such relationships aim to achieve the main goal of ecotourism development, which is to ensure that “resources are preserved” and “local people benefit”. To achieve these goals, the trust of local people in the local government and stakeholders (including mutual trust among community members) is necessary and mutual support, sharing, cooperation, and association for development can only be sustainable when these relationships are based on trust as well as a commitment to respecting the rules and norms of the community/society.

Second, in a community, if people have strong cooperation and are involved in social networks, that community will receive more benefits from tourism development than a community where people are not allowed to participate in cooperation or are limited in collective activities and do not have associations/social organizations to support local community development (Claiborne, 2010, table 2.3). A community with low social capital will "prevent" the achievement of people's goals and benefits in ecotourism development (Kamuti, 2014). Therefore, communities with high social capital will have more conditions, advantages and receive more benefits from tourism development.

Table 2.3: The role of VXH in community-based tourism development

Characteristic

of VXH

- Collaborative participation in a group/community - There are activities that bring common benefits to each individual and collective.
Factors composition	- Connection, social network - Norms, trust, reciprocity, exchange and sharing
MQH Types in VXH	- Bonding relationships in the community or with acquaintances who have something in common. - Bridging MQH with external communities (which may not be familiar and through an intermediary MQH). - Linking with (state) agencies/social (non-governmental) organizations external stakeholders (government) outside the community that influence the community's development potential and policies.
Mechanism of creation so VXH	Relationship based on trust -> Exchange and sharing -> Respect for rules, common standards -> Cooperation, networking of groups inside and outside the community.
Benefits (outputs) of social capital for community development copper	- People can participate, exchange initiatives and have a voice in more group activities - People are cared for, supported and shared - Increase social interactions in various forms (including cooperation between competitors). - Promote interaction and activities of members to create common interests (economic, social, environmental...) of the community.

Maybe you are interested!

• Solutions for tourism development in Tien Lang - 10 zt2i3t4l5ee zt2a3gstourism, tourism development zt2a3ge zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts - District People's Committees and authorities of communes with tourist attractions should support, promote, and provide necessary information to people, helping them improve their knowledge about tourism. Raise tourism awareness for local people. * * * Due to limited knowledge and research time, the thesis inevitably has shortcomings. Therefore, I look forward to receiving guidance from teachers, experts as well as your comments to make the thesis more complete. Chapter III Conclusion Through the issues presented in Chapter II, we can come to some conclusions: Based on the strengths of available tourism resources, the types of tourism in Tien Lang that need to be promoted in the coming time are sightseeing and resort tourism, discovery tourism, weekend tourism. To improve the quality and diversify tourism products, Tien Lang district needs to combine with local cultural tourism resources, at the same time combine with surrounding areas, build rich tourism products. The strengths of Tien Lang tourism are eco-tourism and cultural tourism, so developing Tien Lang tourism must always go hand in hand with restoring and preserving types of cultural tourism resources. Some necessary measures to support and improve the efficiency of exploiting tourism resources in Tien Lang are: strengthening the construction of technical facilities and labor force serving tourism, actively promoting and advertising tourism, and expanding forms of capital mobilization for tourism development. CONCLUDE I Conclusion 1. Based on the results achieved within the framework of the thesis's needs, some basic conclusions can be drawn as follows: Tien Lang is a locality with great potential for tourism development. The relatively abundant cultural tourism resources and ecological tourism resources have great appeal to tourists. Based on this potential, Tien Lang can build a unique tourism industry that is competitive enough with other localities within Hai Phong city and neighboring areas. In recent years, the exploitation of the advantages of resources to develop tourism and build tourist routes in Tien Lang has not been commensurate with the available potential. In terms of quantity, many resource objects have not been brought into the purpose of tourism development. In terms of time, the regular service time has not been extended to attract more visitors. Infrastructure and technical facilities are still weak. The labor force is still thin and weak in terms of expertise. Tourism programs and routes have not been organized properly, the exploitation content is still monotonous, so it has not attracted many visitors. Although resources have not been mobilized much for tourism development, they are facing the risk of destruction and degradation. 2. Based on the results of investigation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and selective absorption of research results of related topics, the thesis has proposed a number of necessary solutions to improve the efficiency of exploiting tourism resources in Tien Lang such as: promoting the restoration and conservation of tourism resources, focusing on investment and key exploitation of ecotourism resources, strengthening the construction of infrastructure and tourism workforce. Expanding forms of capital mobilization. In addition, the thesis has built a number of tourist routes of Hai Phong in which Tien Lang tourism resources play an important role. Exploiting Tien Lang tourism resources for tourism development is currently facing many difficulties. The above measures, if applied synchronously, will likely bring new prospects for the local tourism industry, contributing to making Tien Lang tourism an important economic sector in the district's economic structure. REFERENCES 1. Nhuan Ha, Trinh Minh Hien, Tran Phuong, Hai Phong - Historical and cultural relics, Hai Phong Publishing House, 1993 2. Hai Phong City History Council, Hai Phong Gazetteer, Hai Phong Publishing House, 1990. 3. Hai Phong City History Council, History of Tien Lang District Party Committee, Hai Phong Publishing House, 1990. 4. Hai Phong City History Council, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU, Hai Phong Place Names Encyclopedia, Hai Phong Publishing House. 2001. 5. Law on Cultural Heritage and documents guiding its implementation, National Political Publishing House, Hanoi, 2003. 6. Tran Duc Thanh, Lecture on Tourism Geography, Faculty of Tourism, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU, 2006 7. Hai Phong Center for Social Sciences and Humanities, Some typical cultural heritages of Hai Phong, Hai Phong Publishing House, 2001 8. Nguyen Ngoc Thao (editor-in-chief, Tourism Geography, Hai Phong Publishing House, two volumes (2001-2002) 9. Nguyen Minh Tue and group of authors, Hai Phong Tourism Geography, Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House, 1997. 10. Nguyen Thanh Son, Hai Phong Tourism Territory Organization, Associate Doctoral Thesis in Geological Geography, Hanoi, 1996. 11. Decision No. 2033/QD – UB on detailed planning of Tien Lang town, Hai Phong city until 2020. 12. Department of Culture, Information, Hai Phong Museum, Hai Phong relics - National ranked scenic spot, Hai Phong Publishing House, 2005. 13. Tien Lang District People's Committee, Economic Development Planning - Culture - Society of Tien Lang district to 2010. 14.Website www.HaiPhong.gov.vn APPENDIX 1 List of national ranked monuments STT Name of the monument Number, year of decisiondetermine Location 1 Gam Temple 938 VH/QĐ04/08/1992 Cam Khe Village- Toan Thang commune 2 Doc Hau Temple 9381 VH/QĐ04/08/1992 Doc Hau Village –Toan Thang commune 3 Cuu Doi Communal House 3207 VH/QĐDecember 30, 1991 Zone II of townTien Lang 4 Ha Dai Temple 938 VH/QĐ04/08/1992 Ha Dai Village –Tien Thanh commune APPENDIX II STT Name of the monument Number, year of decision Location 1 Phu Ke Pagoda Temple 178/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Zone 1 - townTien Lang 2 Trung Lang Temple 178/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Zone 4 – townTien Lang 3 Bao Khanh Pagoda 1900/QD-UBAugust 24, 2006 Nam Tu Village -Kien Thiet commune 4 Bach Da Pagoda 1792/QD-UB11/11/2002 Hung Thang Commune 5 Ngoc Dong Temple 177/QD-UBNovember 27, 2005 Tien Thanh Commune 6 Tomb of Minister TSNhu Van Lan 2848/QD-UBSeptember 19, 2003 Nam Tu Village -Kien Thiet commune 7 Canh Son Stone Temple 2160/QD-UBSeptember 19, 2003 Van Doi Commune –Doan Lap 8 Meiji Temple 2259/QD-UBSeptember 19, 2002 Toan Thang Commune 9 Tien Doi Noi Temple 477/QD-UBSeptember 19, 2005 Doan Lap Commune 10 Tu Doi Temple 177/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Doan Lap Commune 11 Duyen Lao Temple 177/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Tien Minh Commune 12 Dinh Xuan Uc Pagoda 177/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Bac Hung Commune 13 Chu Khe Pagoda 177/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 Hung Thang Commune 14 Dong Dinh 2848/QD-UBNovember 21, 2002 Vinh Quang Commune 15 President's Memorial HouseTon Duc Thang 177/QD-UBJanuary 28, 2005 NT Quy Cao Ha Dai Temple Ben Vua Temple Tien Lang hot spring div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 16pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 6pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 12pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex
• Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales zt2i3t4l5ee zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science zt2a3ge zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators: a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness b. Tourist capacity The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students. c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune: Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time. Minh Chau island commune: Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year. d. Sustainability The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes. landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable. e. Location and accessibility Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf: - Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route: Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm. - Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route: Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don. f. Infrastructure Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists. 3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1). 3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows: Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient. Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level. Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable. 3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development  For Minh Chau commune: + Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12. + Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4. + Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12. + Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points + Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points. + Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points. The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table: Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes Attractiveness of self-tourismof course Capacity Mining time Sustainability Location and accessibility Infrastructure Result Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti CommuneMinh Chau 12 12 4 8 12 12 4 4 4 8 6 8 42/52 Quan CommuneLan 6 12 6 8 9 12 4 4 4 8 4 8 33/52 b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development  For Quan Lan commune: + The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12. + Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6. + Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9. + Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points. + Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points. + Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points. The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points. Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table: Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes Attractiveness of human tourismliterature Capacity Mining time Sustainability Location and accessibility Infrastructure Result Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Point DarkMulti Quan CommuneLan 12 12 6 8 9 12 4 4 4 8 4 8 39/52 Minh CommuneChau 6 12 4 8 12 12 4 4 4 8 6 8 36/52 Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching. Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019) 3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix: Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island Internal agent Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general quite wild, originalintact general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous. External agents Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high. Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:  To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to: - Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...) - Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources) div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex
• The Role of Vinh Phuc Tourism in Local Socio-Economic Development
• Study on the relationship between local people's livelihoods and conservation activities in Van Long wetland nature reserve, Ninh Binh province - 11
• Tourists' Reviews of Local People's Service Quality of Homestay Tourism in Binh Ba Island

Source: Claiborne, 2010 developed from Pretty, 2003; Vidal, 2004; Jones 2005; Okazaki, 2008

- The impacts of social capital on the benefits of local people in developing ecotourism is a topic that needs further research for the following reasons:

Firstly , ecotourism is a type of responsible tourism, associated with the goal of sustainable development (Stronza and Gordillo, 2008; Wearing and Neil, 2009). However, in practice, ecotourism development still has many barriers and negative aspects affecting both economic, cultural - social and environmental aspects due to the influence of many different factors such as the limited operational capacity, management organization of ecotourism organizations/enterprises and may not ensure compliance with the principles and requirements in ecotourism development; the lack of investment resources to support and promote the development of ecotourism such as financial capital, human capital/people, production capital/technical infrastructure... (Das and Chatterjee, 2015). In addition, shortcomings in the process of forming and "nurturing" social capital resources from the close relationship between stakeholders; In particular, the relationship between local people and the government, tourism suppliers, and NGOs in the role of consultants, supporters, and investors in ecotourism development projects associated with conservation and assistance to local people (Wu, 2012; Baksh et al., 2013) has not been adequately addressed, leading to the development of ecotourism and the benefits for local people when they participate in ecotourism not achieving the expected results. To provide more guidance and suggestions for making proposals for truly sustainable ecotourism development, it is necessary to continue to conduct research on factors affecting ecotourism development and the benefits of local people in different contexts. Social capital is one of the factors that has a close relationship with the perspective of sustainable tourism development, contributing to increasing benefits for the community as well as participants both now and in the future. Grootaert (1998), Lin (2001) and Krishna (2002) argued that: Social capital is an important factor, considered as the "key" to ensuring sustainable development for communities (Social capital is formed from the interaction between individuals and groups based on trust, norms, cooperation and social networks that can help local people access resources, be empowered to participate in policy making and decision making, and can ensure sustainable development and growth). Inheriting the results of these studies, Jones (2005) after assessing the importance of social capital for community-based ecotourism development also affirmed: Social capital is "a missing link" in sustainable development and considered it an important factor to ensure democratic fairness, poverty reduction and environmental protection . Vermaak (2009) considers social capital as a “cure” for enabling local people to participate in cooperation, access resources and be empowered in tourism development activities . Previously, Sawatsky (2003) also pointed out: Social capital in each community reflects how local people participate in resource management and contributes advantages for local people to participate in organizing, maintaining control and ownership of tourism development businesses. Tourism projects will be more successful in communities with more “closely” connected social networks .

Second, the results of previous studies often choose to evaluate the role/influence of social capital on one/some interest groups of local people in ecotourism development, the studies mainly focus on environmental impacts and raising environmental awareness for local people. Social capital plays an important role in managing resources, promoting environmental protection activities and increasing the role of the community in ecotourism development (Pretty and Smith, 2004). Social capital, especially normative factors and trust, positively influence local people's environmental protection attitudes; at the same time, promote sustainable development and bring benefits to local people (Liu et al., 2014). Studies explore and test the impact of social capital on the total benefits (political, economic, cultural - social, environmental), especially in the context of a small number of national parks. Most of these studies also explore the relationship of social capital to environmental resource management. In assessing the impact of social capital on collaborative resource management and the benefits it brings to communities, Musavengane (2017) found that “nurturing” social capital not only facilitates more effective collaborative resource management but is also a useful tool in accumulating other “productive capital” for communities to earn a living and enjoy educational and other benefits. From there, the author makes an important note that “ all action programs and community development initiatives seek “pathways” through which social capital is strengthened and enhanced ”. Therefore, studying the impact of social capital on the benefits of local people is a topic that deserves further research attention.

Table 2.4 below presents some research results related to the impact of social capital on the benefits of local people in ecotourism development. In the studies, social capital is a factor that can significantly affect the level and results of community participation in local tourism development and affect the benefits of ecotourism development. Logically, social capital will affect the participation of local people and this participation will bring political, economic, cultural - social benefits, and raise awareness of environmental protection for them. At that time, the participation of local people can also be seen as an intermediary factor/variable in the relationship between the impact of social capital on the benefits of local people. However, “local people’s participation” can also be considered as an aspect of social capital (Pongponrat and Chantradoan, 2012; Thammajinda, 2013; Pramanik et al., 2018), which is expressed in the elements of cooperation, social networks and mutual support and sharing. Therefore, most of these studies do not separate the factor “local people’s participation” into a separate factor/variable for measurement, but conduct direct research on the relationship of social capital’s influence on the benefits of local people in ecotourism development.