title: Community-based ecotourism development through stakeholder engagement and collaboration: A case of Lababia Village, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea

authors: Vanua, Renet

subjects: Ecotourism

abstract: This thesis argues that community and stakeholder engagement and collaboration in ecotourism development has been limited. However, involvement/engagement of stakeholders is important in the affairs of planning, governing and overall development at local level, and must become an integral part (Williams, 2006) of ecotourism development. While there has been much previous research on ecotourism, emergence of participatory tourism development is a relatively new component within prevailing socio-economic, cultural and political conditions. The concepts of ecotourism, community-based ecotourism, and community participation in tourism planning set the theoretical context of the study. The key question in this study is how can we achieve community-based ecotourism development and participation? Methods and conclusions of the thesis have not only provided critical commentaries about community-based ecotourism and participation but have also drawn clear identification of how stakeholders can effectively participate to achieve sustainable community-based ecotourism development.

The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of community and stakeholder engagement and collaboration in ecotourism development in the context of a developing nation and provide recommendations as to how it may be achieved. As a result of the uneven distribution of economic benefits to the host community, the positive nature of socio-cultural impacts is admittedly perceived by the host community as poor in developing nations. Most, if not all, stakeholder engagement lacks transparency, and is characterised by political instability, lack of information and data about developmental issues, making it difficult to achieve sustainable ecotourism development. This draws attention to the need for tourism stakeholders and the local community to enhance local ecotourism development through stakeholder participation and collaboration. Lababia village in Papua New Guinea is no exception, as an internationally recognised area, Kamiali Wildlife Management, recognised as a biodiversity research area, fulfilled the requirements of a case study for this research, due to the potential in community-based ecotourism development, and the significance of the negative impact of tourism on the socio-economic nature of the host community. To achieve the research aim, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was applied to reveal the existing ways of how stakeholders can facilitate effective engagement and collaboration, and prioritise their recommendations about community-based ecotourism participation. Semi-structured follow-up interviews were conducted with a variety of the relevant stakeholders to further examine the current issues, problems, and concerns raised for the achievement of effective community and stakeholder engagement.

The results of this thesis clearly demonstrate the importance of the facilitation of effective community and stakeholder engagement in community-based ecotourism development and that the local community cannot work without the participation and collaboration of other tourism stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in tourism.

text: Community-based ecotourism development through stakeholder engagement and collaboration: A case of Lababia Village, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea This thesis argues that community and stakeholder engagement and collaboration in ecotourism development has been limited. However, involvement/engagement of stakeholders is important in the affairs of planning, governing and overall development at local level, and must become an integral part (Williams, 2006) of ecotourism development. While there has been much previous research on ecotourism, emergence of participatory tourism development is a relatively new component within prevailing socio-economic, cultural and political conditions. The concepts of ecotourism, community-based ecotourism, and community participation in tourism planning set the theoretical context of the study. The key question in this study is how can we achieve community-based ecotourism development and participation? Methods and conclusions of the thesis have not only provided critical commentaries about community-based ecotourism and participation but have also drawn clear identification of how stakeholders can effectively participate to achieve sustainable community-based ecotourism development.

The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of community and stakeholder engagement and collaboration in ecotourism development in the context of a developing nation and provide recommendations as to how it may be achieved. As a result of the uneven distribution of economic benefits to the host community, the positive nature of socio-cultural impacts is admittedly perceived by the host community as poor in developing nations. Most, if not all, stakeholder engagement lacks transparency, and is characterised by political instability, lack of information and data about developmental issues, making it difficult to achieve sustainable ecotourism development. This draws attention to the need for tourism stakeholders and the local community to enhance local ecotourism development through stakeholder participation and collaboration. Lababia village in Papua New Guinea is no exception, as an internationally recognised area, Kamiali Wildlife Management, recognised as a biodiversity research area, fulfilled the requirements of a case study for this research, due to the potential in community-based ecotourism development, and the significance of the negative impact of tourism on the socio-economic nature of the host community. To achieve the research aim, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was applied to reveal the existing ways of how stakeholders can facilitate effective engagement and collaboration, and prioritise their recommendations about community-based ecotourism participation. Semi-structured follow-up interviews were conducted with a variety of the relevant stakeholders to further examine the current issues, problems, and concerns raised for the achievement of effective community and stakeholder engagement.

The results of this thesis clearly demonstrate the importance of the facilitation of effective community and stakeholder engagement in community-based ecotourism development and that the local community cannot work without the participation and collaboration of other tourism stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in tourism.

year: 2014

title: Compositional nonblocking verification with always enabled events and selfloop-only events

authors: Pilbrow, Colin

abstract: This paper proposes to improve compositional nonblocking verification through the use of always enabled and selfloop-only events. Compositional verification involves abstraction to simplify parts of a system during verification. Normally, this abstraction is based on the set of events not used in the remainder of the system, i.e., in the part of the system not being simplified. Here, it is proposed to exploit more knowledge about the system and abstract events even though they are used in the remainder of the system. Abstraction rules from previous work are generalised, and experimental results demonstrate the applicability of the resulting algorithm to verify several industrial-scale discrete event system models, while achieving better state-space reduction than before.

text: Compositional nonblocking verification with always enabled events and selfloop-only events This paper proposes to improve compositional nonblocking verification through the use of always enabled and selfloop-only events. Compositional verification involves abstraction to simplify parts of a system during verification. Normally, this abstraction is based on the set of events not used in the remainder of the system, i.e., in the part of the system not being simplified. Here, it is proposed to exploit more knowledge about the system and abstract events even though they are used in the remainder of the system. Abstraction rules from previous work are generalised, and experimental results demonstrate the applicability of the resulting algorithm to verify several industrial-scale discrete event system models, while achieving better state-space reduction than before.

year: 2013-10-29

title: He aha te reo 'Tuturu'? (what is an official language?)

authors: Harlow, Ray

subjects: te reo Māori

abstract: Nō te tau 1987 ka whakaaetia e te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa te Ture Reo Māori, arā, he ture hei whakamana i te reo Māori hei reo tūturu mō Niu Tïreni, hei tuku atu hoki te mana ki te reo Māori i roto i ētahi whakahaere o ngā ture, ā, hei whakamana hoki i te whakatūnga o te Kōmihana mō te Reo Māori, ā, me te whakaingoa hoki i ngā mahi me ngā mana o taua Kōmihana. Ko te whakamāoritanga o te 5(a) o ngā wāhanga, e pēnei ana: He mana anō ka homai e ngā wāhanga 3 me te 4, engari kāore he mana i tua atu i ēnei i te whakaaetia. He aha aua mana? Mō te wāhanga tuawhā, e mārama ana, ko ngā mana kei reira e takoto ana, arā, te mana o te tangata, ahakoa ko wai, e whaiwāhi ana ki ngā whakahaere kōti, ki te whakaputa kōrero ki te reo Māori. Engari ki te tahuri ki te tuatoru o ngā wāhanga, kāore i āta whakatakotoria ngā mana e pā ana ki taua wāhanga. Kāore hoki he ture atu anā i tēnei e āta whakamāramatia nei aua mana. Nō reira, he tino pātai e pā ana ki te mana o te reo Māori i Aotearoa ko tēnei: he aha ngā mana o tēnei mea, o te “reo tūturu” o tētahi whenua? He aha te tikanga o te kupu nei, “reo tūturu”? He huarahi e taea ai tēnei urupounamu te whakautu, ko te āta titiro i ngā tikanga o ētahi atu whenua e rua nei, neke atu rānei ngā reo e whaimana ana i roto i te ture, kia kitea ai te tino āhua o te mea nei, te reo tūturu, i roto i te ao whānui, me te whakahāngai i aua tikanga ki te tū o te reo Māori i roto i Aotearoa (tirohia Waite, 1992 II, 47-8). Ko te kaupapa o te pepa e takoto atu nei he āta titiro i te tūnga o tētahi reo kotahi, arā, o te reo Romanihi i roto i Huiterangi, i te taha o ētahi reo e toru, o ngā reo Tiamana, Wīwī, Itariana; he rangahau i te tū o taua reo i raro i te ture, i roto i ngā whakahaere tūmatanui o taua whenua. 

"In 1987 the New Zealand Parliament passed The Māori Language Act, An Act to declare the Māori language to be an official language of New Zealand, to confer the right to speak Māori in certain legal proceedings, and to establish Te Kōmihana Mō Te Reo Māori and define its functions and powers. Section 5(a) implies that there are rights granted by virtue of sections 3 and 4 and that these may not be construed to affect any rights beyond these. But what are these rights? With respect to section 4 it is clear, these are the rights specified there, that is, the right of any party to certain types of hearing to speak Māori. When one turns to section 3, there are no rights specifically laid out, nor is there any other legislation detailing those rights. Thus, an important question for the status of Māori within New Zealand is: what are the rights implied in the term “official language”? What is the meaning of the expression “official language”? A way to approach this question is to investigate the situation in other countries with two or more official languages, in order to discover how this term is understood generally in the world, and to apply appropriate aspects of this situation to New Zealand (see Waite, 1992 II, 47-8). This paper reports on research into all aspects of the status and situation of Rhaetoromansh in Switzerland beside three other languages, German, French and Italian. One aspect of this general study was the investigation of the legal status of the language, and its status within governmental institutions."

text: He aha te reo 'Tuturu'? (what is an official language?) Nō te tau 1987 ka whakaaetia e te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa te Ture Reo Māori, arā, he ture hei whakamana i te reo Māori hei reo tūturu mō Niu Tïreni, hei tuku atu hoki te mana ki te reo Māori i roto i ētahi whakahaere o ngā ture, ā, hei whakamana hoki i te whakatūnga o te Kōmihana mō te Reo Māori, ā, me te whakaingoa hoki i ngā mahi me ngā mana o taua Kōmihana. Ko te whakamāoritanga o te 5(a) o ngā wāhanga, e pēnei ana: He mana anō ka homai e ngā wāhanga 3 me te 4, engari kāore he mana i tua atu i ēnei i te whakaaetia. He aha aua mana? Mō te wāhanga tuawhā, e mārama ana, ko ngā mana kei reira e takoto ana, arā, te mana o te tangata, ahakoa ko wai, e whaiwāhi ana ki ngā whakahaere kōti, ki te whakaputa kōrero ki te reo Māori. Engari ki te tahuri ki te tuatoru o ngā wāhanga, kāore i āta whakatakotoria ngā mana e pā ana ki taua wāhanga. Kāore hoki he ture atu anā i tēnei e āta whakamāramatia nei aua mana. Nō reira, he tino pātai e pā ana ki te mana o te reo Māori i Aotearoa ko tēnei: he aha ngā mana o tēnei mea, o te “reo tūturu” o tētahi whenua? He aha te tikanga o te kupu nei, “reo tūturu”? He huarahi e taea ai tēnei urupounamu te whakautu, ko te āta titiro i ngā tikanga o ētahi atu whenua e rua nei, neke atu rānei ngā reo e whaimana ana i roto i te ture, kia kitea ai te tino āhua o te mea nei, te reo tūturu, i roto i te ao whānui, me te whakahāngai i aua tikanga ki te tū o te reo Māori i roto i Aotearoa (tirohia Waite, 1992 II, 47-8). Ko te kaupapa o te pepa e takoto atu nei he āta titiro i te tūnga o tētahi reo kotahi, arā, o te reo Romanihi i roto i Huiterangi, i te taha o ētahi reo e toru, o ngā reo Tiamana, Wīwī, Itariana; he rangahau i te tū o taua reo i raro i te ture, i roto i ngā whakahaere tūmatanui o taua whenua. 

"In 1987 the New Zealand Parliament passed The Māori Language Act, An Act to declare the Māori language to be an official language of New Zealand, to confer the right to speak Māori in certain legal proceedings, and to establish Te Kōmihana Mō Te Reo Māori and define its functions and powers. Section 5(a) implies that there are rights granted by virtue of sections 3 and 4 and that these may not be construed to affect any rights beyond these. But what are these rights? With respect to section 4 it is clear, these are the rights specified there, that is, the right of any party to certain types of hearing to speak Māori. When one turns to section 3, there are no rights specifically laid out, nor is there any other legislation detailing those rights. Thus, an important question for the status of Māori within New Zealand is: what are the rights implied in the term “official language”? What is the meaning of the expression “official language”? A way to approach this question is to investigate the situation in other countries with two or more official languages, in order to discover how this term is understood generally in the world, and to apply appropriate aspects of this situation to New Zealand (see Waite, 1992 II, 47-8). This paper reports on research into all aspects of the status and situation of Rhaetoromansh in Switzerland beside three other languages, German, French and Italian. One aspect of this general study was the investigation of the legal status of the language, and its status within governmental institutions."

year: 2000-10