Discussion Paper No.311
Local Community Participation and Benefit Sharing in
Community-Based Ecotourism in Lao PDR: The Case Study of
Phuo Khao Kouay NPA
Tomoya MORI
Faculty of Education
Yamaguchi University
March 2019

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Chuo University
Tokyo, Japan

Local Community Participation and Benefit Sharing in Community-Based Ecotourism in Lao
PDR: The Case Study of Phuo Khao Kouay NPA
Tomoya MORI*
Faculty of Education, Yamaguchi University, Japan
1677-1, Yoshida, Yamaguchi 753-8513
Tel: +81-83-933-5328
E-mail: moritomo@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp

1.

Introduction
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereinafter Laos) has received attention as an

ecotourism site because of its rich environment and varied culture. In a 2007 article in the New YorkTimes, Laos was ranked first of “53 places to go in 2008” (Lee, 2007). The World Tourism
Organization held the World Ecotourism Conference 2009 in the capital, Vientiane. Laos was awarded
the title of “World’s Best Tourist Destination 2013” by the European Council on Tourism and Trade(ECTT) (ASEAN Secretariat News, 2013). One of the most attractive ecotourism sites in Laos is the
National Protected Area (hereinafter NPA), where wild animals can be observed and sports such as
kayaking and trekking are available. The NPA was established based on Prime Minister’s Decree No.
164 on “Establishment of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas” formulated in 1993 and managed
by the government. Although this protection area was originally called the National Biodiversity
Conservation Area (NBCA), it was subsequently renamed NPA (Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012).
Eighteen NPAs were established in 1993, and two sites and two corridors connecting the NPAs wereadded. These areas occupy around 14.3% of the country (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005;
Science Technology and Environment Agency, 2004). The government uses NPAs and boundary
restrictions to protect and conserve biodiversity or water resources. However, it also allows tourists tovisit some NPAs with ecotourism potential. Profits from such tourism are used for the management ofthese sites. In addition, the conservation of an ecosystem can positively affect the attractiveness of theecotourism site, with the presence of NPAs enhancing tourism development.
However, land and resource management by the government sometimes creates conflict withlocal residents. This is because the government generally sets the boundary for the area to protect andconserve without considering the opinions of local residents, that is, a top-down approach. However,
the environmental services and natural resources of the NPAs are vital for local people’s livelihood.
Local people traditionally obtain certain materials/resources (e.g., food, firewood, and medicine) from

The author belongs to Institute of Economic Research Chuo University (IERCU) as a visiting
researcher, and reported this paper in the public seminar, “International Meeting on Ecotourism
and Regional Developing in Asia： Ecotourism and Regional Development in Asia”, hold by
IERCU at 9 March, 2018.
1*

the NPA or access it for cultural activity. Such top-down management by government could prevent
local people from accessing these areas. Moreover, although the establishment of NPAs negatively
influences the local area, travel agencies in urban areas such as Vientiane or foreign companies profit
from ecotourism.
Within this context, in cooperation with international organizations and NGOs/NPOs , Laos’government attempted to ensure that projects that benefit from ecotourism are also allocated to local
residents, especially the poor and ethnic groups. Such ecotourism is known as “community-based
ecotourism” (hereinafter CBET). The idea of CBET emphasizes two elements, namely, the“community-based” and “eco” approaches to achieve a well-matched balance. As previously
mentioned, if tourism is implemented only based on “eco” objectives, it may ignore local residents’
livelihoods. By contrast, if tourism is implemented only based on the “community-based,” approach,it may only pursue economic development without considering the sustainability of the environment
and natural resources.
For CBET to succeed, it is necessary for local residents to recognize the benefits ofprotecting and conserving the environment and natural resources. If they recognize that the better thenatural condition of the ecotourism site, the more benefit ecotourism generates for the local area, thiscan create more incentive to cooperate with protection and conservation activities. In this sense, CBET
is regarded as a payment for ecosystem/environmental services (hereinafter PES) system. People canreceive services from the ecosystem/environment for free. PES is the mechanism through which they
can be recognized as a beneficiary of an ecosystem or environmental service, and they are then induced
to pay to receive such services.
Some studies reveal key factors regarding sustainable management while supporting theeffectiveness and necessity of CBET projects. Tosun (2000) suggests it is important that local residents,
especially in developing countries, are engaged in decision making and receive some benefit to enable
them to participate in projects. Khanal and Babar (2007) demonstrate that local communities should
manage and make decisions by themselves, and the benefit from CBET should be given directly to
local communities. Kiss (2004) also demonstrates that CBET projects should provide local residents
with an incentive to be involved in project management. That is, the sustainability of CBET depends
on the engagement of local residents in the project and on benefit sharing among stakeholders.
This paper focuses on the number of local residents that can participate in CBET and how
the benefit from CBET is allocated among stakeholders. This paper takes Phou Khao Kouay NPA(hereinafter referred to as PKK-NPA) as the case study of a CBET project implemented in an NPA.

2.

Literature review
Some previous studies have evaluated CBET in PKK-NPA (hereinafter PKK-CBET)(Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012; Mori, 2016; Ounmany, 2014; Douangphoy et al., 2015; Park et al.,2

2018). Douangphoy et al. (2015) demonstrate that PKK-CBET has ecotourism potential, and the
local villagers also have a positive attitude regarding their involvement in the initiative. Park et al.
(2018) conclude that local residents participate in and manage the project more actively in PKKCBET than that in Sayabouly province. While only a proportion of the local villagers can be engaged
in projects in Sayabouly province—as local guides and homestay hosts, for example—local residentsin PKK-CBET can receive more benefit through selling handicrafts and food. In addition, the local
community in PKK pools a portion of the benefit into a village fund, which is then used for
microfinancing (Mori, 2016; Ounmany, 2014; Park et al., 2018). Park et al. (2018) also indicate that
local people can voluntarily manage CBET projects, in that they conduct the training for local guides
after donor organizations have completed supporting them. According to Mori (2016), while thefoundation of the CBET project is laid by the administration and the donor organization, local
villagers define the operational rules themselves through discussion.
According to Sirivongs and Tsuchiya (2012) local residents have a positive attitude
regarding participation in PKK-CBET because they recognize the economic outcome generated bycooperating with the project . Sirivongs and Tsuchiya (2012) suggest that villages where CBET
projects have been implemented display stronger commitment regarding the protection of theenvironment in PKK-NPA than those in which such projects have not been implemented.
Park et al. (2018) indicate that according to one villager, the CEBT project increased hisannual income from 450,000 kip (US$55) to over 1,100,000 kip (US$135). Additionally, the project
took the social aspect within the community into the consideration. For example, the village leader
selects local guides from among the poorest households to avoid an increase in the income gap whileconsidering their English speaking skills and the knowledge of the area. This project also tries toreduce the inequality between the genders by creating work in which women can participate. To doso, homestay duties and the production and sale of handicrafts are introduced while men are
generally involved as local guides and staff for outdoor sports because it requires physical strength(Ounmany, 2014; Park et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, Ounmany (2014) argues that the participants in the PKK-CBET are biased in
the community. This research reveals that there is a difference between the villagers who are
engaged as local guides and those who are not, although the local community in PKK-CBET morevoluntarily manages the CBET project than the local community in other projects. This can cause
economic disparity and conflict within the village or among villages. Ounmany (2014) conducted aninterview survey and clarified that local residents or villages who are not involved in CBET illegallyobtained some resources from PKK-NPA.
Although previous studies demonstrate that the PKK-CBET benefits local communities,
there are issues that still need to be addressed. For instance, these studies do not address how thebenefit from CBET is allocated among the members in the local community, that is, the benefit
3

sharing aspect of the project. In particular, they do not survey sources of benefit other than fromserving as local guides or homestay hosts. Based on a field survey, this research focuses oncomprehensive sources of benefit and then tries to clarify the current condition and problems
regarding local participation in and the benefit sharing structure of the project.
3.

The basic information of the research area
PKK-NPA was established in 1993 based on Prime Minister’s Decree No. 164 to protect

the biodiversity and ecosystem in the area, which includes the capital Vientiane, Vientiane province,
and Bolikhamxay province. PKK-NPA has the two entrances: one in Vientiane province and one in
Bolikhamxay province. The entrance in Bolikhamxay province is near village H, which is about 100
km from the capital. PKK-NPA has various wild animals and plants, and is particularly famous forwild Asian elephants and many types of orchid. Given the presence of endangered species, this area
has been strictly managed by the government since it was designated an NPA in 1993. Nonetheless,because the government does not have enough resources (experience, technique, knowledge, humancapital, and so on), support from donor organizations plays a role in the management of PKK-NPA.
For example, the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) has launched
the “Effective Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Lao PDR,” a project toprotect a wild green peafowl. Scheufele et al. (2016) demonstrated that this project gives local
people the economic incentive to cooperate with the protection of the green peafowl (e.g., to employ
them as the monitoring staff and to reward the village if the project goes well). As another example,
the Nam Luck dam hydropower project, which is located upstream of PKK-NPA, donates 1% of its
profit for the management of PKK-NPA (McNeely, 2007)†.
The PKK-CBET project was implemented in 2003 in cooperation with the Department ofTourism, the Department of Forestry, and with the support of the DED (Deutscher
Entwicklungsdienst: German Development Service). It targeted two villages (N and H) in theThaphabath district, Bolikhamxay province as the project site. Danish and Swedish NGOs
constructed a visitor center to inform tourists about the NPA and supported capacity building for thehouseholds offering homestays (Part et al., 2018). In addition, these households were advertised via
a poster written in both English and Lao. Thanks to their support, local villagers were empowered toobtain the skills required to become local guides and homestay hosts.
The unique tourism activity of village N is the observation of wild animals. If tourists are
lucky, they can observe wild Asian elephants. Village H is located in 10 km from village N. Tourists
can enjoy kayaking and trekking around waterfalls (Tad Leuk, Tad Xay, Pha Xay) near village H.
Table 1 presents the basic information of the two villages according to the field survey. Nuai in the

However we need to pay attention to the opinion that the project destroys the environment and thelife of the local people (Sayboualaven, 2004, Kouangpalath et al., 2016).
4†

fourth column is the equivalent of a neighborhood group. The village leader forms some Nuai groups
according to the spatial unit and selects the head of the groups. Each head needs to manage his/her
own group and deal with matters such as the resolution of conflict within the group. Villagers
cooperate with other Nuai members to perform tasks such as harvest work.
Table 1: Basic information
Population

Household

Neighborhood Group (Nuai)

Area (ha)EstablishedN village

668

125

8

2,250

1948

H village

551

97

6

2,250

1789

Source: The author’s field survey in 2015.
Table 2: Payment for each tourism role
N village

H village

100,000 kip/3~6 tourists

100,000 kip/3~6 tourists

Accommodation

30,000 kip/night/person

30,000 kip/night/person

Meal

40,000 kip/meal/person

30,000 kip/meal/person

Stay in the observation hut

100,000 kip/night/3~6 tourists-

Entrance fee for PKK-NPA

50,000 kip

50,000 kip

Donation to village fund

50,000 kip

50,000 kip

Local guideHomestay

Source: The author’s field survey in 2015.
Table 2 presents a breakdown of fees that tourists are required to pay. This is compiled basedon the field survey conducted by the author and following Douangphoy et al. (2015), Sirivongs andTsuchiya, (2012), Park et al. (2018), and Ounmany (2014). The author conducted interviews withvillage leaders and the head of the village tourism office in September 2015. The questionnaire survey
was conducted in cooperation with Training and Model Forest Division, Faculty of Forestry Sciencesof the National University of Laos in March 2016 and September 2017.
The payments made by tourists are classified into five categories. First, the fee for the local
guide in PKK-NPA. Tourists cannot visit PKK-NPA unaccompanied and should hire a local guide,
which is one way ecotourism in NPA can create job opportunities in the village. Second, the payment
for homestays, which includes the fee for accommodation and food. Third, if tourists stay in theobservation hut, they incur an accommodation fee and should be accompanied by a local guide. Fourth,the entrance fee into NPA. This profit is used for conservation, empowerment of staff, or regional
development (Kenny-Lazar, 2016). This system can be regarded as a PES. Fifth, the payment for thevillage fund. Tourists are required to pay 50,000 kip to this fund when visiting the village. The fund ismanaged by the villagers and plays the role of an informal finance system, or microfinancing. The
5fund mechanism was designed by the adviser from DED. The rate of interest, which is determined by
the villagers, is 5% per month in village N and 3% per month in village H. Neither rate is lower thanthose in the formal finance sector. However, because local villagers generally have difficulty accessing
the formal finance system, the informal system has an important role in the rural area. The two villages
have other opportunities to obtain benefit through activities such as the production of handicrafts, orthe management of restaurants and retail stores.
Two types of benefits occur in the two villages. One is private profit generated from beinga local guide or homestay host. Households involved in these activities can earn more income thanthey could before the project began. The other is the profit for the village or the region, not theindividual household, such as the village fund or the entrance fee. The former system can provide theindividual household the benefit directly. The latter is to enhance the wealth of the village and region
as a whole, which is an indirect benefit for households in the villages.
Based on the results of the questionnaire survey, the next section shows how many local
residents can be engaged with CBET, and what benefits they and the village can obtain. The
questionnaire survey reveals whether villagers are engaged as local guides and homestay hosts, if they
have experience of selling handicrafts or food, and whether they have borrowed from the village fund.
Those who have borrowed from the village fund were asked the reason for taking the loan. Moreover,this survey asked if they had requested the PKK-CBET in the questionnaire.

4.

Questionnaire survey
This questionnaire survey was conducted with a representative of each household in village

N in September 2015 and in village H in March 2016. As a result, we obtained responses from all 125
households in village N and from 94 out of 97 households in village H, a response rate of 100% and96.7%, respectively. Table 3 and Figure 1 present the gender, ethnic group, age, and educational
background of the respondents. While most respondents in both villages belong to the Lao ethnic
group, village H has more members of the Khmu ethnic group. In addition, a few villagers in bothvillages are members of the Hmong ethnic group.
Table 3: Gender and ethnic groups
GenderN village (n=125)

H village (n=94)

Male

74 (59%)54 (58%)

Female51 (41%)

No answer

Ethnic group

N village (n=125)

H village (n=94)

Lao

120 (96.0%)

67 (72%)10 (31%)Khmu

2 (1.6%)18 (19.4%)

29 (11%)Hmong

1 (0.8%)1 (1.1%)

No answer

2 (1.6%)7 (7.5%)

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.

6

Figure 1: Ages and educational background71-80 years

No answer

61-70 years

University

51-60 years

High school

41-50 years

Middle school

31-40 years

Elementary school

below 30 years

Only monastery020
H village

40

60

0

80

N village

2040

H village

N village60

80

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.

5.

Results
This section presents the results of the questionnaire survey. To begin with, we focus on thesituation for local guides and the homestay hosts in the two villages. As shown in Table 4, 26 (3.8%)
households in village N and 20 (3.6%) in village H are involved in homestays. A total of 10 (8%)
households in village N and 10 (10%) in village H are involved as local guides. These results indicatethat many households are not engaged in these roles in the two villages.
Table 4: The number of households engaged as local guides and homestay hosts
local guide

homestay

N village

26 (3.8％)

10 (8％)

H village

20 (3.6％)

10 (10％)Source: The author’s questionnaire survey.
Next, we focus on how many households have experience of selling handicrafts and food.
As shown in Table 5, 53 households (42%) in village N and 41 households (44%) in village H havesold handicrafts to tourists. A total of 59 households (47%) in village N and 55 households (59%) in
village H have served food to tourists. To ascertain the benefit flow in detail, we count the number ofhouseholds who have ever sold handicrafts and/or food, except for those involved as local guides andhomestay hosts. In village N, 22 households (17%) have obtained a profit from the sale of handicrafts
and 36 households (29%) have done so from serving food. In village H, 20 households (22%) haveobtained a profit from the sale of handicrafts and 37 households (40%) have done so from serving
7

food. Their businesses benefit local residents who are not engaged as local guides and homestay hosts,
although the benefit is not as large.

Table 5: Experience of selling handicrafts and serving foodHandicraft

Meal

Yes

No

No answer

Yes

No

No answer

N village

53 (42%)72 (58%)0 (0%)

59 (47%)65 (52%)

1 (1%)

H village

41 (44%)38 (41%)14 (15%)55 (59%)23 (25%)15 (16%)

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.
Regarding the village fund, the results reveal that 64 households (51%) have borrowed fromthe village fund in village N and 70 households (75%) have done so in village H, as shown in Table 6.
We now focus on households who have borrowed from the village fund except for those involved as
local guides and homestay hosts. A total of 43 (34%) households in village N and 52 (53%) in village
H have borrowed from the village fund. Moreover, we attempt to ascertain what benefit households
who are not heavily involved in tourism activities obtain from the village fund. The results indicatethat 17 households (13%) in village N and 11 households (11%) in village H have borrowed from thevillage fund, excluding those involved with selling the handicraft and meals as well as local guides
and homestay hosts.
Table 6: Experience of borrowing from the village fundYes

No

No answer

N village

64 (51%)61 (49%)0 (0%)

H village

70 (75%)13 (10%)10 (8%)

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.
Why do local residents borrow from the fund? Table 7 presents the reasons. In both villages,
the most common reason is to cover construction costs. Moreover, a relatively high number ofhouseholds borrowed to cover educational costs and the purchase of agricultural capital. Their reasonsare categorized as investment in physical and human capital.
Besides, some households have borrowed because of medical bills and a shortage of food.
These reasons reveal that the village fund works as a safety net to assure their standard of living invillages. Because Laos does not have sufficient irrigation facilities, agriculture depends on natural
conditions such as rain-fed paddy fields and slash-and-burn, which means that the harvest yield isunstable. In this situation, the village fund plays an important role as a safety net for unexpected illness8

or poor harvests. According to Ounmany (2014), the interest rate in first three months is excused if
local people borrow to cover medical bills.

Table 7: Reasons for loan from the village fund (multiple answers allowed)
CountsReasonN village(n=73)

H village (n=70)

Food shortage

3

15

Construction of a new house or building

34

37

Ceremonial occasion

3

10

Education

15

21

Purchase of agricultural capital

10

26

Purchase of non-agricultural capital

1

14

Purchase of leisure goods

01

Medical bill

6

3

Other

1

8

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.
On the other hand, the interview survey by Ounmany (2014) reveals that one village that is
involved in tourism work complained that the village fund is utilized for investment in tourism
development rather than for private loans. Such complaints may lead to conflict and the relationships
within the village may be fragile. The village fund can viewed as common pool resources (CPRs). It
means that while any community members can access it, the use by one member can reduce theavailability of use by others. The attribution can give appropriators the incentive to overuse CPRs.
Ostrom (1990) shows that the rules to resolve conflict among community’s members and allocate
resources play an important role to manage common resources appropriately and sustainably. To keep
the village fund system sustainable, the two villages need to pay attention to the coordination withstakeholders.
Ounmany (2014) suggests that most villagers engaged as local guides and homestay hosts
belong to the Lao ethnic group, which is the majority group in Laos. Can other ethnic groups benefit
from CBET? The results of the questionnaire survey suggest that although there are not many
households from other ethnic groups, they can also benefit from the CBET. Although there may bedifferences between the benefits that different ethnic groups can derive, the results suggest that villages
attempt to allocate the benefits evenly as possible.

9Table 8: Ethnic groups involved in CBET except for Lao group.
N village

H villages

Local guide12

Homestay0

3

Handicraft

1

6

Meal

2

13

Village fund1

15

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.
However, both villages have households that are not involved in tourism activities; 26 (21%)
households in village N and 5 (6%) in village H. Although village H has more households who canreceive the benefit from CBET than village N, both villages should pay attention to tourism activities.
Finally, Table 9 presents the requests that local residents have for CBET, and classifies their
responses as tourism resources, social infrastructure, training, resource management, and others. The
requests for tourism resources include that herds of wild elephants are brought in from other regions,that the waterfalls in PKK-NPA are improved to be more dynamic, and that a fish pond is established
as a new tourism resource. Although they may respond to regional development, their requests are far
from the original idea of the ecotourism, which is established not for rural development, but for theconservation of the environment or natural resources.
Local residents requested the development of social infrastructure such as the expansion ofcampsites and accommodation, the establishment of a bridge in PKK-NPA, and the improvement of
the road between the village and PKK-NPA. Specifically, the most responses were regarding theimprovement of the road. Their requests are also against the idea of the ecotourism. However, people
are sometimes unable to access PKK-NPA due to the poor condition of the road, especially during therainy season. Some social infrastructures need to be improved, but their impact must be carefully
considered.
Some households requested English language training. According to the head of the tourism
office, the training was implemented at the beginning of the project but has not continued. In addition,some feel that the work of local guides should be rotated among the villagers. As previously mentioned,a few members may oversee the local guide activities, meaning that the profit is unequally allocatedin the village. To improve equality in the community, this issue should be tackled. Only one respondent
indicated that the elementary school needs to be improved. Although it may not be directly relatedwith tourism, it may be necessary to develop human resources in the future.
It is suggested that to manage local resources, government management must be enforced
and forest resources need to be strictly monitored. According to the village leader and the head of the
tourism office, trees are illegally cut down and wild elephants are hunted in PKK-NPA to sell on the10black market. Some villagers recognize this as a serious problem and therefore have the motivation tomonitor PKK-NPA themselves. As other opinions, the improvement of the income and water supply
are mentioned.
Table 9: Requests for CBET
Contents

CountsTourism Resource

Infrastructure

Human resources

Management

OthersPurchase of “New” Elephants

1

Development of the tourism site near the waterfall

5

Development of fishing pond

1

Building of camp site and accommodation

2

Building of the bridge

3

Development of road into the tourism site

70

English training

7

Rotation of guides

1

Improvement of elementary school

1

Management of forest resources in NBCA

17

Enforcement of the government’s management

28

Income improvement

3

Improvement of water supply

18

Source: The author’s questionnaire survey in 2016 and 2017.

6.

Discussion
This section discusses the next steps for PKK-NPA based on the result of previous sections.

First, PKK-CBET must develop a financial mechanism to support the conservation of the environment
and to empower the local community. To begin with, it is necessary to reform the entrance fee and thepayment toward the village fund. Tourists derive multiple benefits from the CBET. They can enjoy
ecotourism based on the ecosystem service generated from PKK-NPA. Additionally, it can be assumed
that tourists relax. Taking this into consideration, the current pricing is not high enough for tourists tocompensate for ecotourism services.
Moreover, parts of the profit that the tourism agency receives should be redistributed to the
management of the PKK-NPA, rural development, and the empowerment of the local people byintroducing a financial mechanism, such as a PES system. The profit that the tourism agency canreceive is much larger than one the local community can receive, even though the environment in
PKK-NPA and the local community generate the intrinsic value of CBET. In terms of fairness, a larger
proportion of the benefits should be reallocated to the PKK-NPA and the local community. As
11previously mentioned, the electric company that manages the hydroelectric power in Nam Lueck river
donates 1% of its profit to conservation in PKK-NPA.
This challenge can provide the company as well as rural areas more benefit. The more thecondition of the environment and natural resources can be improved and the better the service provided
by the local residents, the more benefit the tourism agency can obtain. Actually, a pricing systemshould be created and the amount should be calculated according scientific discussion and analysis.
Fortunately, research and case studies regarding PES have already addressed this issue. A PES
approach is used to redistribute the benefits into ecotourism or CBET sites in some projects. However,the PES approach should be challenged in the future.
Second, PKK-CBET should create a benefit sharing system in which more local residents
can be involved, which can encourage them to cooperate with the protection and conservation
initiatives in PKK-NPA (Sirivongs and Tsuchiya, 2012; Ounmany, 2014). The results in the previous
section reveal that some households cannot access the benefit from CBET and there is a difference inthe profit that each household can obtain. To advance this project, the local community should create
an inclusive mechanism to allocate the benefits to more households. Ounmany (2014) suggests thatwhen evaluating the CBET, we should focus on the indirect profit for the community such as thedevelopment of social infrastructure, the improvement of hygienic conditions, and the investment incapacity building as well as on the direct profit for the individual. In this sense, the village fund isutilized not only for loans but also for investment in CBET to develop the local community. Suchinvestment indirectly contributes to the local residents.
Third, the benefit from CBET should be transferred not only to the two villages
implementing CBET but also to the wider area around the PKK-NPA. While the current CBET project
can provide the project villages with economic profit, other villages receive nothing. However, it may
worsen their situation because the strict management in NPA may exclude the local residents who
utilize the resources in PKK-NPA. Ounmany (2014) and Sirivongs and Tsuchiya (2012) report thatvillages who are not engaged with CBET pay less attention to the management of PKK-NPA thanthose be done. To sustain the PKK-NPA, it is necessary to obtain comprehensive understanding in theregion, which is why part of the benefit generated in PKK-CBET needs to be transferred to the entire
region around PKK-NPA.

7.

Conclusion
This paper attempts to reveal the number of local residents that can be engaged with PKK-CBET and how the benefit from CBET is allocated within local communities. The results indicate thatthe benefit is transferred to the local community in various ways, excluding private activities such as
local guides, homestays, selling handicrafts, and serving meals, and systems for the community, suchas the village fund. However, each household can receive different benefits. This paper provides some12

suggestions for the further development of CBET.
Future studies should extend the research regarding tourists who are consumers in the area.
This area of research has not been fully explored in the context of PKK-CBET. For example, thecharacteristics of tourists visiting PKK-NPA should be analyzed to develop the future strategy.
Moreover, it is necessary to calculate the pricing of ecosystem services from PKK-NPA or services
provided by the local community, and then review the entrance fee and the payment to the village fund.
Acknowledgment: We highly appreciate the financial support from the JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number JP16K16666.
References
ASEAN Secretariat News (2013, May 22). Lao PDR Awarded World’s Best Tourist Destination.
Retrieved from http://asean.org/lao-pdr-awarded-world-s-best-tourist-destination/.
Douangphosy, B., C. H. Han, and C. K. Ping (2015) “Community-based ecotourism for assessment
potential and planning at Phou Khao Khouay National protected area, Lao PDR,” International
Journal of Sciences, 4(3), pp. 1-8.
Kenny-Lazar, M. (2016) Protected area Governance and Equitable Access in the Lao PDR, Global
Associationfor

PeopleandtheEnvironment.

(http://www.laolandissues.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/12/Protected-Area-Governance-and-Equitable-Access-in-LaoPDR_GAPE-2016.pdf)
Khanal, B. R. and J.T. Babar (2007). “Community Based Ecotourism for Sustainable Tourism
Development in the Meckong Region,” Policy Brief, CUTS International.
Kiss, A. (2004). “Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?”
TREND in Ecology and Evolution, 19(5), pp. 232-237.
Kouangpalath, P., P. Lebailly and O. Ducourtieux (2016). “The future impacts on downstream
communities: A case study of the multipurpose Nam Mang 3 hydropower Project in Lao PDR,”Sky Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(6), pp. 105-128.
Lee, D. (2007, December 9). The 53 places to go in 2008, New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/ref/travel/20071209_WHERE_GRAPHIC.html.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2005) Forestry Strategy to the Year 2020 of the Lao PDR.
Retrieved from https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/forestry-strategy-to-the-year-2020-ofthe-lao-pdr_0.pdf.
Mori, T. (2016) “Current Situation and Future Prospects of the Community Based Eco-Tourism inPhou Khao Kouay NBCA: An Empirical Study of Common Pool Approach,” The Annul of theInstitute of Economic Research Chuo University, (48), pp. 111-131.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of the Institution for Collective Actions,13New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ounmany, K. (2014) Community-Based Ecotourism in Laos: Benefits and Burdens Sharing among
Stakeholders, Doctoral dissertation, BOKU University, Vienna.
Park, E., T. Phandanouvong, P. Xaysena and S. Kim (2018) “Empowerment, participation and barriers:
Ethic minority community-based ecotourism development in Lao PDR,” in Tourism andEthnodevelopment: Inclusion, Empowerment and Self-determination, I. B. de Lima and V. T.
King (Eds.), NY: Routledge, pp. 139-152
Scheufele, G., J. Bennett, and P. Kyophilavong (2016) “Pricing biodiversity protection: Payments forenvironmental services schemes in Lao PDR,” Land Use Policy, 75, pp. 284-291.
Science Technology and Environment Agency (2004) “National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and theAction Plan to 2010.” Retrieved from https://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/forestry-strategyto-the-year-2020-of-the-lao-pdr_0.pdf.
Sirivongs, S. and T. Tuchiya (2012) “Relationship between local residents’ attitudes andparticipation toward national protected areas: A case study of Phou Khao Khouay National
Protected Area, central Lao PDR,” Forest Policy and Economics, 21, pp. 92-100.
Sayboualaven, P. (2004). “The forgotten victims of the Nam Leuk Dam in Laos: Summary of fact-finding trip to affected villages.” Retrieved from https://www.internationalrivers.or
g/sites/default/files/attached-files/read_the_report.pdf.
Tosun, C. (2000) “Limits to community participation in the tourism development process indeveloping countries,” Tourism Management, 21, pp. 613-633.

14