4.6 Article

Measuring Sustainable Indigenous Tourism Indicators: A Case of Mah Meri Ethnic Group in Carey Island, Malaysia

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su9071256

关键词

indigenous tourism; cultural commoditization; sustainability; Mah Meri community

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) under Ministry of Education of Malaysia
  2. Universiti Putra Malaysia Scheme [GP-IPS/2016/9497300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sustainable tourism emphasises responsible utilisation of economic, socio-cultural and environmental resources for tourism development. Extant literature in sustainable tourism leans towards subjective and qualitative description in explaining the dynamic nature of the trans-disciplinary indicators of sustainability. However, few mechanisms have been proposed or developed to quantify the indicators measuring sustainable tourism in an indigenous ethnic context. The current study measures 61 sustainable indigenous tourism indicators of the Mah Meri ethnic group that comprise three constructs, namely, community resources, community development and sustainable tourism. Simple random sampling was employed for data elicitation and a weighted average score using R software as the basis of analysis was used to produce a sustainable indigenous tourism barometer (SITB). The study identifies 11 sustainability dimensions from the initial three main constructs that are treated as the relationship aspects in this study. Based on the Sustainable Indigenous Tourism Barometer (SITB), community participation, empowerment, economic and socio-cultural sustainability are found to be the main influencing dimensions of sustainability of the Mah Meri ethnic group. However, natural resources, financial resources and environmental sustainability indicated weaker relationships in explaining sustainability of the Mah Meri ethnic group. Based on the SITB, the results demonstrate that the Mah Meri ethnic group are a potential sustainable tourism stakeholder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据