sustainable community-based tourism (cbt) through homestay

Transcription

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM (CBT) THROUGH HOMESTAY
PROGRAMME IN SABAH, EAST MALAYSIA
Rosazman Hussin
The Ethnography and Development Research Unit, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia
Sabah, 88999 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
[email protected]
Velan Kunjuraman
The Ethnography and Development Research Unit, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia
Sabah, 88999 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is a new agenda in tourism study that involves local community,
which also participate in the tourism development within their area. This concept emerged in the midyear of 1990s (Asker, et al. 2010, p. 2). CBT stresses on the community’s direct involvement within any
tourism development project that can empower the community in the aspect of economy, social and
politic. Homestay programme is one of the tourism activities that are based on community
involvement which has the potential to expand and develop the rural community. In order to achieve
success in this programme, the parties involved, especially the homestay operators need to identify
the steps that can bring benefits for them. For instance, the arrival of tourists in the homestay
programme can bring economic benefits to the homestay operators. Attention needs to be given
towards tourists’ satisfaction so that the homestay programme can be maintained and will be
maintainable for a long period of time. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse domestic
tourists’ satisfaction in Mesilou Village, Kundasang, Sabah towards the quality of the homestay
service. The measurement for satisfaction is based on the mean analysis for domestic tourists that
visit the homestay programme. The quantitative research approach has been applied in this study
which is the usage of the face to face survey interview method using survey questionnaires towards
85 domestic tourists. Qualitative research approach such as in-depth interview and fieldwork
observation were also carried out with the stakeholders in the homestay programme in order to gain
additional information for the study. The results of the study show that all of the domestic tourists are
satisfied with the aspects of facilities, safety and services in the homestay programme as shown by
the satisfaction mean value which is between 4.193-4.4157. The data shows the domestic tourists’
level of satisfaction towards the three elements is within the satisfied zone. This study is pivotal to the
stakeholders in the homestay programme especially to the participants of the homestay programme.
This is so that they know the exact desire of the domestic tourists toward the quality of the homestay
services and facilities that are provided. Moreover, they can take some actions for improvements. The
results of the study can also contribute to and widen the study field of Tourism Sociology as well as
Community Involvement within the development.
Field of Research: Domestic Tourists, homestay programme, Mesilou village, domestic tourists’
satisfaction, Mean Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Introduction
Tourism sector has always been defined as a temporary movement of residents to a destination
outside of their residence and doing certain activities at the tourism destination that can fulfil their
needs (Matheison & Wall, 1982; Bukart & Medlik, 1987; Bhatiah, 2001). Besides that, tourism has
Proceeding of the Social Sciences Research ICSSR 2014 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-7-0). 9-10 June 2014,
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net
41
also been considered as the biggest and fast growing industry in the world (Scheyvens & Momsen,
2008). Day after day, the tourism sector has been given serious attention by most countries in the
world because it has its own potential to compete on par with the other sectors in the world. In
Malaysia, the tourism sector is the second biggest sector after the manufacturing sector (Che Leh &
Omar, 2013; Ministry of Tourism Malaysia, 2010).
Tourism sector has a connection with the arrival of tourists to the country, either domestic or
international tourists. Their arrivals are very important because it can generate income as well as
increase the country’s economic growth. According to UNWTO (2013), the world’s tourism has
expanded as much as 4 percent in 2012, with the arrival of 1035 billion tourists and a total income of
US$1,075. This is considered as good because the tourism sector is expanding and is giving a lot of
economic benefits to a country. In Malaysia, the total of tourists that arrived in the country were
15.03 million with a MYR60.6 billion (USD 46.26 Billion) total of expenditure in the year 2012
(Tourism Malaysia, 2012). The arrival of tourists in Malaysia is significant because they contribute
towards the country’s economic growth. This is also interrelated with the country’s or the state’s role
in promoting the country’s tourism sector to other countries through various efforts and initiative.
For Example, in conjunction with Visit Malaysia Year 2013/2014, the government has allocate 358
million ringgit under the development expenditure, that is an increment of allocation as much as 42
percent with tourists target of 26.8 million people. The government also proposed extension of tax
exemption for 3 years for tourism operators that are handling at least 750 foreign tourists or 1,500
domestic tourists a year (Ministry of Finance, Budget of 2013). With the efforts introduced in the
tourism sector development by the Malaysian government, estimation has stated that Malaysian
tourism sector will contribute RM 66.7 billion in the Country’s Gross Income (CGI) in 2020 (Che Leh &
Omar, 2013).
Table 1: Tourists Arrivals and Receipts to Malaysia (1998-2012)
Year
Arrivals
2012
25.03 Million
2011
24.71 Million
2010
24.58 Million
2009
23.65 Million
2008
22.05 Million
2007
20.97 Million
2006
17.55 Million
2005
16.43 Million
2004
15.70 Million
2003
10.58 Million
2002
13.29 Million
2001
12.78 Million
2000
10.22 Million
1999
7.93 Million
1998
5.56 Million
Source: www.tourism.gov.my Accsed Nov 2013
Receipts (RM)
60.6 Billion
58.3 Billion
56.5 Billion
53.4 Billion
49.6 Billion
46.1 Billion
36.3 Billion
32.0 Billion
29.7 Billion
21.3 Billion
25.8 Billion
24.2 Billion
17.3 Billion
12.3 Billion
8.6 Billion
In an effort to develop the tourism sector in a country, there is a need for the involvement of the
local community in the tourism development project. Without the community’s involvement in the
tourism development project, it is considered that the project will not achieve its objective. This is
stressed by Din (1997), the issue of the residents’ involvement in tourism is a serious matter. For
instance, homestay programme is one of the community-based tourism activities which has the
potential to expand and develop rural communities in the sosioeconomic aspect. This programme
42
was introduced by the Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (formerly known as Ministry of Culture, Arts and
Tourism Malaysia) in 1998 as one of the alternative form of accomodation which is offered to the
tourists that visit the country. Besides that, the Malaysian government also stresses homestay
programme as one of the products that need to be powered in the country (Mapjabil & Che Ismail,
2012). The success of a homestay programme can be seen when the management team are able to
fulfil requests from the tourists that visit the programme. Satisfaction issue in the homestay
programme is a crucial matter that must be taken into account by the management team.
Nonetheless, there are homestay handlers who neglect improving the service quality and
infrastructure of their homestays. This affects tourists’ interest and satisfaction with the Homestay
Programme. For example, according to research done by Adrianna, Cindy & Nor‘ ain (2007), the
bathrooms and toilets at Kundasang homestay do not meet the expectations of tourists. Some
researchers state that overseas tourists favour 5-star hotels or Bed & Breakfasts due to their good
services, attractive prices and other available amenities during their visits to a tourist destination
(Barsky, 1992; Saleh & Ryan, 1992; Bojanic, 1996). Data from the Tourism Services Department,
Ministry of Tourism, Malaysia recorded that domestic tourist visits to Sabah dropped from 3068 in
2007 to 2214 in 2008 (Ibrahim & Razzaq, 2009, pp. 12-13). This means that there are weaknesses in
the tourism industry that cause domestic tourists to be uninterested in visiting tourist destinations in
Sabah. Low demands for homestay yield less income among homestay participants. Research
regarding homestay before this focused on the participation of the communities in the Homestay
Programme (Wall & Long, 1996; Hussin & Mat Som, 2008; Yong, 2010; Hatton, 1999; Kayat & Mohd
Nor, 2005; Peaty, 2009) which less concentration on satisfaction issue. Studies on the level of
customers’ satisfaction towards the facilities, services, and safety are scarce, especially in Sabah.
Thus, this research will focus on the satisfaction of domestic tourists with the Homestay Programme
in order to evaluate their views towards the quality of the services and the facilities offered by the
homestay operators in Sabah.
The main objectives of the study presented here were:
1. To identify the background of the domestic tourists who stay at homestays;
2. To identify the level of satisfaction of the domestic tourists with the facilities offered by
homestay operators;
3. To identify the level of satisfaction of the domestic tourists with the security aspects
provided by the homestay operators;
4. To identify the level of satisfaction of the domestic tourists with the facilities provided by the
homestay operators.
This research investigates the satisfaction of domestic tourists with the Homestay Programme at
Mesilou Village, Kundasang, Sabah. The significance of conducting this research is that the useful
findings will help all relevant parties, especially the homestay handlers, to understand the
expectations of the domestic tourists with regards to the Homestay Programme. Apart from that,
the homestay handlers will also be able to further develop their programme towards fulfilling the
expectations of tourists such as in matters pertaining to the facilities provided and others. The
Homestay Programme has great potential for benefiting the parties involved, especially the local
community. With the rise of visitor satisfaction levels, tourists will hopefully visit and participate in
the Homestay Programmes in the future as they have had rewarding experiences during their visit
(Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Ross, 1993; Hui, et al. 2007). In addition, the results of this research can
contribute to and widen the scope of research in Sociology of Tourism especially regarding
Community Involvement in Development.
43
2. Definitions for the Concepts
2.1 Homestay Programme
The definition for homestay is always differentiated with the situations in the countries involved.
Generally, homestay is a form of accommodation or a form of residential facility where tourists are
given the chance to live with a host family which is selected in order for them to interact and
experience the families’ daily way of lives. Tourists also get direct experiences such as the host
family’s culture. In the beginning, the homestay programme was known as a vacation concept that
started in the late 1970s in Europe (Zurina Nureen Noor & Nur Adilah as quoted in Mapjabil & Che
Ismail, 2012: 138).
In the western countries, especially in Australia, the homestay term is used as accommodation for
international academic students (Richardson, 2002). The project has stated that the need for
accommodation for international students will increase. Before the year 2025, more than 560 000
international students will further their studies to higher institution level which need homestays
(Bohm et al. 2002). Students from other countries stay with a foster family until they graduate.
Richardson (2003) explains the use language of the term homestay in the western countries as:
“In Australia, the term “homestay” refers to the concept of sojourners
residing with a family within a target culture and has been associated with
bed and breakfast accommodation and international student
accommodation.”
For Knight & Schmidt-Rinehart (as quoted in Richardson, 2002: 196-196), ‘homestay is designed to be
an ideal setting where international students are exposed to the target culture and language from
within the intimate and safe family environment’.
Table 4: Homestay concepts in several countries
Country
United States
Homestay concepts
Agricultural
Homestay,
Educational
Homestay
Canada
Cultural Homestay, Farmstay, Heritage
Homestay
Australia
Farmstay
Japan
Home Visit, Educational Homestay
South Korea
Educational Homestay
South Africa
Leisurestay
New Zealand
Farmstay, Cottage Homestay
Philippines
Cultural Homestay
Thailand
Student Homestay, Volunteer Homestay,
Cultural Homestay
Singapore
Urban Homestay
Indonesia
Cultural Homestay, Leisure Homestay
Source: adapted from Mohd Zaki, et al. (2011: 491)
44
Table 3: Major activities in the homestay programme
Major activities in the homestay programme
Culture and way of life
 History
 Dance, songs dan traditional food
 Games and local sports
 Culture: wedding, gathering, open
house
Leisure




Economic activities
 Rubber tapping
 Aquaculture
 Agriculture: cocoa, paddy, fruits, oil palm
Nature conservation
Sightseeing
Jungle tracking
White water rafting
Melawat tarikan berdekatan
 Programme Plant a Tree (PAT) (Kumar,
et al. 2012): Plant a tree programme
encourage every tourist to plant a tree
at the homestay to contribute in
nature conservation and in the same
time to beautify the landscape.
Source: adapted from Mohd Zaki, et al. (2011: 491)
2.2 Community-Based Tourism Concept
The community-based tourism (CBT) concept is a new agenda in tourism studies which involves local
community participating in tourism development within their area. This concept emerged in the
middle of the 1990s (Asker, et al. 2010, p. 2). CBT stresses on direct involvement of the community in
any tourism development project that can empower them in the aspect of economy, social and
politic. Studies on CBT have been widely researched by a lot of researchers in the tourism field either
inside or outside of the country (Siwar, 2013; Kayat, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2013; Rafee, et al. 2012;
Jamaludin, et al. 2012; Pakshir & Nair, 2011; Harris, 2009; Peaty, 2009; Halstead, 2003; Mohamad
Nor, et al. 2012). The CBT term has different meanings toward researchers according to their
understanding in tourism field, but the real essence of CBT is involving the local community directly
in all of the tourism development projects in an area. According to Asker, et al. (2010, p, 2.), CBT
encourages the locals to have the need to work together or to involve both parties that are the
tourists and the hosts in a tourism project which has been organised by the locals. For Jamaluddin, et
al. (2012), CBT “implies individuals by some collective responsibilities and the ability to make
collective decisions by representative bodies”. Mann (2000) defines “community-based tourism so
broadly that it appears to include almost all forms of tourism which involve community members and
benefit them: “anything that involves genuine community participation and benefits”.
CBT gives benefits to the communities that are involved in tourism projects within an area which has
been selected by the community. For Example, the communities can develop their families’ economy
such as gaining extra income which leads to the increase of their standard of living. In this situation,
the communities receive profits from the tourism development as well as it gives them the
confidence to stand on their own feet. CBT also stresses on the active participation of the locals in an
area and became an empowerment tool in all of the tourism opportunities that are prepared (Rafee,
et al. 2012).
To stabilise, smoothen and systemise CBT, a few critical factors need to be taken into account in CBT
as proposed by Ashley, Roe dan Goodwin, (2001, p. 28):
45
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Access to the poor to market: physical location, economic elites and social constraints on local
producers.
Commercially sustainability: product quality and price, marketing, strength of the broader
destination and funding mechanisms.
Policy framework: Land tenure, regulatory context, planning process, government attitudes and
capacity.
Implementation issues: filling the skills gap, managing costs and expectations and maximising
collaboration among stakeholders.
The above factors should be carefully analysed so that a tourism development project achieve a
success and sustain a for a long period of time. Besides that, in CBT, nature plays an important role in
making a tourism development project a successful one. This is because most of the CBT
development programmes are carried out in the rural areas which are rich with natural resources.
For instance, Homestay Programme is one of the programme that involves community and is under
the CBT (Hamzah, 2009) which has been intoduced in the year 1995 (Siwar, 2013). In the homestay
programme, the environment is widely integrated which has become the hopes of tourists who love
eco-tourism. In the homestay programme, tourists will stay with a host family within a short period
of time and are exposed to the host’s culture which become a new and unique experience for the
tourists. For example, in Dorani Homestay at Selangor Malaysia, tourists have the chance to gain new
experiences when they are in the area such as exposed to them fishing activity which one of the main
activities in that homestay. Moreover, the participants have chance to acquire new skills in fishing by
the paddy fields (Kumar, et al. 2012). Therefore, community-based tourism in the context of
homestay programme, gives opportunities to the tourists to stay together and learn how the locals
live their daily lives in a tourism destination such as in the homestay programme in West Malaysia
(Iryany, 2010; Kayat & Mohd Nor, 2005; Mapjabil & Che Ismail, 2012; Kumar, et al. 2012; Che Leh &
Hamzah, 2012) as well as East Malaysia (Kunjuraman & Hussin, 2013; Yong, 2004; Hussin, 2008;
Adrianna, et al. 2007).
2.3 Satisfaction of the Tourists
Satisfaction with the destinations visited by both the local and international tourists differs from one
location to the other. This is because every destination has its very own tourist products which are
considered unique by the tourists. The issue of satisfaction amongst the local and international
tourists is of no difference as the tourism industry can only be developed if efforts for improvement
are continuously carried out (Mohd Salleh, et al. 2011). Bigne, Sanchez and Sanchez (2001) defined
satisfaction as a reaction and the outcome of the choice made based on an individual’s emotion and
inner-being. On top of that, the reactions also refer to the focal point that is usually represented by
an object that satisfies the users in a particular destination. These reactions also relate to specific
moments considered special which are the pre-buying, post-buying and the after effects of using a
product or service. Apart from that, Bake and Crompton (as quoted in Mageswari and Badaruddin,
2010, p. 803), defined satisfaction as a feeling directed by factors such as social elements and the
psychology of a particular individual, such as emotions, behaviour, needs and external aspects like
the seasons and social interactions. In this research, researchers defined satisfaction as a feeling
which tourist was filled their demands in a particular tourism destination and influence them to make
a nother revisit in future. Researchers have identified many factors contributing to tourist
satisfaction. Common factors include quality of services, safety aspects (Mohd Salleh, et al. 2011;
John & Ron, 2000), infrastructure facilities (Yeong, et al. 2010), personal factors (Mutinda & Mayaka,
46
2012), food and beverages (Hui, et al. 2007), fastidiousness (Mohd Salleh, et al. 2011), destination
product (Akama & Keiti, 2003) and so on.
3. Significance of Community-Based Homestay Programmes in Malaysia
The Ministry of Tourism Malaysia has identified the importance of homestay programme as a tool to
develop the rural communities in their socioeconomic aspect. Their involvement in this programme
gives them the opportunity to gain benefits in the economic and social aspects. From the economic
aspect, the homestay programme creates job opportunities for the communities involved (Mapjabil
& Che Ismail, 2012; Hamzah, 2007; Hussin, 2008; Kayat & Mohd. Nor, 2006; Hatton, 1999; Kayat,
2013; Ibrahim & Razzaq, 2009; Din, 1993 & 1995; Kumar, Gill & Kunasekaran, 2012) as well as a
increase in source of incomes and side incomes (Mapjabil & Che Ismail, 2012; Che Leh & Hamzah,
2012). Meanwhile, from the social aspect, the homestay programme gives benefits in foreign
language proficiency within the locals (Hatton, 1999; Ahmad, 2013), and public facilities and
infrastuctures (Ibrahim & Razzaq, 2009; Din, 1993 & 1995; Johan & Zaki, 2009; Che Leh & Hamzah,
2012).
Another benefit of the homestay programme is that it has opened up the rural communities’ minds.
They have started to realise that the homestay programme can help to develop their socioeconomic
level if they seriously get involve in it. For instance, in Malaysia, the establishment of homestay
programme has drastically increased to 231 homestays in the year 2011 (Ministry of Tourism
Malaysia, 2012b) differ to 78 homestays in the year 2005 (Kayat, 2007). This programme recorded an
increment of 38.4% for accomodation rate differ to 24.9% during the same time in the previous year.
A total of 133,689 tourists have visited the homestays from January until May 2012, which is 110,322
domestic tourists and 23,367 foreign tourists. That is an increment of 70.7% different to last year
which was only 78,333 people. The total of income gained from the homestay programme for the
first five months in the year 2012 is RM 7,376,446.50 (+53.1%) differ to January until May in the year
2011 that is RM 4,817,158.30 (Ministry of Tourism Malaysia, 2012a). The Homestay Tourism
Programme has encouraged the locals to be part of the rural tourism and at the same time sustained
their tradition and identity.
4. Sustainable Development Approach and Homestay Tourism
Sustainable development approach is relevant in order to discuss homestay tourism programme
phenomenon in an area. The theory of sustainable development is a development philosophy and a
set of principles that has been debated in the global development policy. In fact, it has also been
made as the management framework in various sectors including tourism (Sharpley 1999: 241). The
concept of sustainable development originated from the World Conservation Strategy which was
published by the World Conservation Unit in the year 1980 (Reid, 1995). The word or the concept of
sustainable development that is received by the locals today is the result from Brudtland Report
which was sent to the Organization of the United Nations in the year 1987 (Mowforth dan Munt
1998: 24; The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987: 43) which was
defined as:
“Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”.
It refers to economic development that uses natural resources and must sustain the present as well
as the future needs. The purpose of WCED is to check problems related to nature and the
development obtained by the world today as well as to find solutions to overcome the problems
(Holden, 2000: 158). According to this approach, the earth is considered as a priceless resource ad
encourages resources that less pollutes the environment.
47
Sharpley and Telfer (2002: 242) have given a brief definition on sustainable tourism development
into three categories:
I.
Tourism needs to form an industry that cares about economic activity effects in resources
usage for a long period of time.
II.
The sustainable concept is a guideline in re-evaluating the role of tourism activity in a
community that is making sure that the usage in today’s tourism activity is not more than
the hosts’ ability in a destination when they are offering tourism resources to the tourists in
the future.
III.
The third part focuses on the mission of the sustainable tourism that rely on (1) fulfilling the
need of the tourism destination population from the aspect of increasing their standard of
living in the short and long period of time, (2) fulfilling the taste and satisfying the wants as
well as attracting the tourists’ interests to visit and accommodate, (3) to preserve and
conserve the environment in order to achieve two of the mentioned missions.
4.1 Sustainable Community-Based Tourism through Homestay Programme
Since the 20th century, the concept of the sustainable development has been widely applied by
certain parties such as the government, international agencies, non-government bodies, private
parties as well as academicians (Holden, 2000). The sustainable tourism development stresses on
balance in management and community’s involvement that involves in the industry. In the context of
the homestay programme in Mesilou Village, this theory has been applied. This theory stresses on
three most important aspects. They are economic, social and nature (refer figure 1).
This theory stresses on balance in all of the three components in any development in a country
(Farrel, 1992). In order to explain this theory, community-based tourism such as the homestay
programme became an analysis unit. In the economic aspect, a tourism activity should gives benefits
to the community such as offering job opportunities and side incomes which could develop the
community to a higher level. Furthermore, homestay tourism activity should also be systematically
and sustainably carried out. Moreover, the profits gained from the homestay programme can be
sustained because it is closely-related to business.
For instance, the locals also gain benefits from the programme when they participate in the tourism
activity such as handicraft manufacturing industry (Hatton, 1999; Hussin, 2008; Pakshir & Nair, 2011).
This way, they can increase their standard of living as well as their productivity after being involved in
the programme. Thus, this programme is carried out as a community programme, needs to be well
planned and developed so that the objectives can be achieved, which are to gain profits and using
existing resources in a way that is preserved (Kayat, et al. 2004). The second aspect in the theory is
the social aspect which involves the locals’ rights and the same opportunities in all tourism activities
in an area.
The last aspect in the theory is environment. The theory suggests that the natural resources need to
be sustained for future generations so that they can enjoy the benefits. In the context of the
homestay programme in Mesilou village, the environmental conservation in the area can be well
taken care of and preserved. According to researchers’ observations, there are none development
projects run by the locals that can harm the village’s surrounding environment. If there is a
development project carried out in the location, then the parties involved should take into account
the effects that will occur as a result of the project. The concept of Appropriate Technology that is an
idea from E. F. Schumacher in the book ‘Small is Beautiful’ can be used to give suggestions to the
involved parties on how to use suitable technologies to preserve the environment without causing
48
any havoc (Willis, 2005). The technologies used in the development project should be suitable so that
it does not give negative effects towards the environment in the village.
Figure 1: Three Pillars of Sustainable Development
Source: (Abdul Hamid, et al. 2013, pp. 945-951; Asker, et al. 2010, p. 2).
5. Research Methodology
This research were applied a mixed methods approach. Researchers felt that mixed methods will give
some valuable information regarding to this study. Creswell (2012, p. 230), defined mixed methods
research as “an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative
forms of research”. Similar definition given by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) has defined
mixed methods research as ‘the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines
quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts, or language into a
single study’. Method of Face to face survey interviews (Yin, 2003) in which the researcher used a
structured questionnaire was administered to 85 respondents. Jones, et al. (1996) stated that the use
of questionnaires as a research instrument is very suitable for this kind of study because it is easier
for respondents to cooperate. Sample determination on this research was based on the
recommendation made by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) stating that a total of 85 sample is appropriate
based on 10 percent from the total population 110.
In addition, a qualitative approach was also used, specifically, field observation and in-depth
interviews that involved relevant parties (stakeholders) in the Homestay Programme, to obtain
additional information regarding the programme. The first sampling in this research is simple random
sampling involving domestic tourists. By chosing simple random sampling, the sample is based on the
average of the population. The second sampling is a purposive sampling involving everyone involved
in managing the Homestay Programme.
In the questionnaire, close ended questions were used with twenty-seven (27) questions were
divided into four categories related to the satisfaction of domestic toursits. The categories were
Category A: Background information of Respondent; Category B: Satisfaction Levels of Domestic
Tourists with Facilities at Homestay; Category C: Satisfaction Levels of Domestic Tourists with Safety
Aspects at Homestay; Category D: Satisfaction Level of Domestic Tourists with services at the
homestay. The reason why researchers used close ended questions because close ended questions
are easier for respondents to answer as well as time effective (Bailey, 1984). All questions in the
questionnaire used the Likert Scale of 1 to 5 ranging from “very unsatisfying (1) to very satisfying (5)”
(Chua, 2006).
49
Reliability tests in this research showed a very high overall reliability at 0.970. According to Nunnally
and Bernstein (1994), reliability tests returning a value of 0.7 and above is considered reliable. Hair,
et al. (2010), also agrees that a reliability value of a certain study should exceed 0.7 to be considered
reliable for a study. Therefore, the high value returned by the reliability tests in this research signifies
that this research is reliable. Data from questionnaire was processed by using Program of Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0 for MS Window. Data analysis was adopted of
descriptive analysis such as percentage, mean and frequency were used to analyzed the raw data.
While data from interview method was analysed by using transcribing by the researcher.
This research was conducted in Mesilou Village located in Kundasang, Sabah. Kundasang is a subDistrict of Ranau, a District in the interior of Sabah (refer figure 2). The research have done in 2012
and the time period was 1 year from june 2012 untill june 2013. Researchers chose this location
because the Homestay Programme in Mesilou Village has the potential to be developed into one of
the most famous tourist destinations in Sabah in the future. Its natural beauty and the variety of
tourist products can intensify the Homestay Programme even further in the area.
Figure 2:
Map of Atamis Homestay Programme Mesilou Village, Kundasang
Sabah
Source: www.sabahhomestay.my
6. Findings and Discussion
6.1 Demographical Analysis of Respondents
Referring to table 4, the survey was carried out with 85 respondents (domestic tourists). There were
50 male (58.8%) and 35 female (41.2%) respondents. This survey had more males than females by
17.6 percent. There were two levels of formal education among these tourists: 67.1 percent were
tourists who had higher education, such as diploma and above, while the rest had secondary school
education or lower at 32.9 percent. In this research many respondents were diploma holders,
numbering 36 people (42.4 percent). Domestic tourists who participated in this Homestay
Programme mostly have monthly incomes of between RM2001-RM3000 at 37.6 percent, followed by
those with incomes of between RM1001- RM2000 (25.9 percent), and between RM3001- RM4000
(15.3 percent) and so on. As such, most of the tourists who took part in this Homestay Programme
were from the group with monthly incomes of RM2001 to RM3000. In this research it was found that
of the tourists who visited this homestay, a little over half were married, at 56.4 percent, while 40
50
percent were unmarried, 2.4 percent were widowed, and, 1.2 percent were divorced. From this, we
can conclude that married couples may be more likely to participate in Homestay Programmes like
this Regarding satisfaction levels of tourists towards facilities, safety aspects and services based on
gender, it appears that gender can be a significant indicator to measure the satisfaction level of
tourists. In this study, all domestic tourists were satisfied with the facilities, safety aspects and
services provided by the homestay as indicated with the mean values of satisfaction: 4.193-4.4157.
Table 4: Backgrounds of Respondents
Information
Gender(%)
Male
Female
Education(%)
Primary School
Secondary School
Diploma
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Phd
Income(%)
<500
501-1000
1001-2000
2001-3000
3001-4000
4001-5000
>5000
Maritial Status(%)
Unmarried
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Source: Research Analysis, 2012
N=85
58.8
41.2
5.9
27.1
42.4
18.8
2.4
3.5
3.5
7.1
25.9
37.6
15.3
8.2
2.4
40.0
56.5
2.4
1.2
6.2 Satisfaction of Domestic Tourists with the Homestay Programme in terms of Facilities in Atamis
Homestay
Overall mean analysis from the table 5 which shows that as a whole, respondents were satisfied with
the facilities at the homestay. Mean analysis shows that both males and females achieved a value of
more than 4 which means that facilities at this Homestay Programme were at satisfying levels. Both
male and female respondents were satisfied with the facilities provided, like bedrooms and toilets,
demonstrating value of more than 4. This shows that the homestay managers take these aspects into
consideration in their daily operations. Interviews with the homestay’s Secretariat also clearly
showed this, as one member said (translated):
The management is very systematic whereby after the tourists leave, we will
clean-up and improve the homestay. As an example, during the cleaning-up of
the homestay, we will replace broken or defective equipment.
51
Thus, the facilities provided in this homestay have met the demands of domestic tourists, and the
results of this study is in line with research done by Kozak, (2001) and Mohd Salleh, et al. (2011).
Previous studies by Adrianna, et al. (2007), and Jamaluddin, et al. (2012) in other homestays were
not in favour of this result because they found that facilities like toilets were unsatisfactory for
tourists and caused many problems for them. Past studies also reported that when tourists enjoyed
their experience at a certain destination, they will make another visit to that place in the future
(Ross, 1993; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Hui, et al. 2007). On that note, they also recommended that
other people such as their family members and friends should visit the destination which they had
enjoyed visiting (Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Mohd Salleh, et al. 2007).
Table 5: Respondents’ Satisfaction towards the Facilities in Atamis Homestay Based on Gender
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Attribute
Toilet facilities
N
50
35
Bedroom facilities
50
35
Food menu
50
35
Suitability of pricing package
50
35
Cleanliness and tidiness of house and 50
rooms
35
Transportation facilities
50
35
The condition of television, refrigerator, 50
matress and bed
35
Cheerfulness during the stay
50
35
Hospitality of host
50
35
Appreciation during the stay
50
35
Gender
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Mean
4.3000
4.3429
4.2800
4.2857
4.1600
4.2286
4.2000
4.3143
4.26
4.31
4.2000
4.3143
4.3400
4.2000
4.2400
4.3143
4.3600
4.3429
4.4000
4.3143
Overall
4.32145
4.28285
4.1943
4.25715
4.285
4.25715
4.27
4.27715
4.33715
4.35715
Source : Research Data, 2012
6.3 Satisfaction of Domestic Tourists with the Homestay Programme in terms of Security in Atamis
Homestay
Overall means analysis from the table 6 shows that, the security aspect of this homestay was also at
a satisfying level. In this aspect, respondents were satisfied with the security systems, facility of the
cupboard and rooms as well as parking spots at this homestay. It can be assumed that the security
aspect is vital to enable tourists to feel secure and safe during their visit. Mean analysis shows that
both genders achieved a value of more than 4 which implies that the safety aspects of this homestay
is satisfactory. For example, lockable cupboards and rooms were the main concerns of domestic
tourists. Both the attributes recorded a mean value of 4.36715 and 4.32285 for both genders. This
means that the respondents were satisfied with the safety aspect of this homestay.
52
The interview with the homestay’s Head of Secretariat (translated) supported these findings:
We provide lockable cupboards…tourists do not have to worry on
that matter…other than that, we also provide rooms with locks so
their personal safety is ensured. Safety is very important to us,
because if it’s not safe, tourists will not visit this place.
It is clear that the homestay’s Head of Secretariat takes the safety aspect of the homestay into great
consideration. The findings of this study is in line with research done by (Mohd Salleh, et al. 2011;
Mutinda & Mayaka, 2012; Akama & Keiti, 2003; Kozak, 2001; Jamaluddin, et al. 2012).
Table 6: Respondents’ Satisfaction towards the Security Aspect of the Homestay According to
Gender
No
1
Attribute
Security systems
N
50
35
Gender
M
F
Mean
4.3000
4.3429
Overall
4.32145
2
Host as security guardian
Cupboard locks
4
Room locks
5
Parking spots
6
Room lighting
7
Local’s anxiety towards tourists
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
4.3000
4.1143
4.3600
4.2857
4.4200
4.3143
4.5000
4.3143
4.4000
4.3143
4.5400
4.2857
4.20715
3
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
4.32285
4.36715
4.40715
4.35715
4.41285
Source: Research Data, 2012
6.4 Satisfaction of Domestic Tourists with the Homestay Programme in terms of Services at Atamis
Homestay based on Gender
The findings regarding this aspect indicate that both male and female respondents showed the same
level of satisfaction with Mesilou Village homestay’s quality of services (refer table 7). Results from
both genders returned values more than 4 which is considered satisfying. In the services aspect, both
genders were very satisfied with the attitude and behaviour of the hosts, such as having proper
discipline while managing the homestay in their village. The overall mean value for host hospitality is
considered good, at the value of 4.38715. This shows that domestic tourists were satisfied with the
homestay host’s hospitality.
The interview with the Homestay’s Head of committee member (translated) supported this:
Service is also our main focus. First and foremost, as soon as the
guest arrives, we automatically consider them as our own family…so
we have to mingle with them properly…the reason being, with good
and friendly service, the tourists will in turn be friendly with us and
get to know us as well as consider us as their family…other than
53
that, in the future we would still be remembered as their foster
family in Kundasang.
As such, hosts showed positive attitudes while managing this homestay and met the demands of the
domestic tourists. The research findings also indicated that tourists were satisfied with the cleaning
done by the homestay management and this is in line with research done by others (Mapjabil & Che
Ismail, 2012; Kozak, 2011).
Table 7: Domestic Tourists’ Satisfaction Towards The Services of the Homestay According to
Gender
No
1
Attribute
Hospitality of the host
2
Discipline of the host.
3
Spoken manner of the host
4
5
The surrounding maintanence done by
the host
Friendliness of the host
6
Communication manner of the host
7
Assisstance offered by the host
8
Tourist guidance from the host
9
In-house maintenance service done by
the host
Spoken discourse ability of the host
10
N
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
50
35
Gender
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Mean
4.4600
4.3143
4.4600
4.3714
4.4600
4.2571
4.3600
4.3429
4.3600
4.3143
4.3800
4.2571
4.4200
4.2000
4.4400
4.3143
4.3800
4.2571
4.4400
4.2286
Overall
4.38715
4.4157
4.35855
4.35145
4.33715
4.31855
4.31
4.37715
4.31855
4.3343
Source: Research Data, 2012
7. Conclusion and Recommandations for further research
This study shows that the quality of services, which include facilities, safety aspects and service
aspects, in the Homestay Programme at Mesilou Village have contributed to the numbers of
domestic tourists coming to the homestay as well as helping to meet their demands. All these three
aspects have satisfied domestic tourists and the management’s role in this is vital. The research
findings show that all domestic tourists were satisfied with the above aspects as shown in the mean
value of between 4.193 – 4.4157. The findings from this research refine other studies like those by
Wall and Long (1996), Hussin & Mat som (2008), Yong (2004 & 2010), Hatton (1999), Kayat & Mohd
Nor (2005), Mapjabil & Che Ismail (2012), Peaty (2009), and Jamaluddin, et al. (2012) who focused
their research on the involvement of communities in the Homestay Programme with less
concentration on the issue of tourists’ satisfaction.
Based on the discussion above, the homestay programme in Mesilou Village has taken into account
all of the aspects that have been recommended by the sustainable development theory. For
example, environmental care, guarantees of household income (economic) and good relationship
(social) between the “host and guest”. Unplanned development effects the homestay operators and
the locals in Mesilou Village. According to researchers’ observation, during the time of the research,
54
there were no activities that could threaten the environment in the village. All of the locals in
Mesilou village are concerned about the environmental issue. They realised that it can affects
tourism activities such as the homestay programme in the area if there are no serious steps taken by
the stakeholders in order to make sure that the development carried out is not destroying the
environment.
From the economic aspect, homestay operators in Mesilou Village also gained side incomes which
could help them to increase their socioeconomic level. They also hoped that their side income could
be sustained for a long period of time so that their incomes can be guaranteed. Meanwhile, from the
social aspect, the homestay operators have a close-relationship with the domestic tourists through
the homestay programme that is being carried out in the village. Moreover, they are free to run the
homestay programme according to the tourists’ wants and requests. Comments or opinions received
from the tourists about services’ quality are taken into account by the homestay operators. This is so
that the homestay operators can ensure that their income can be sustained. If the tourists’ demands
and desires are achieved, they will repeat their visit to the same location in the future (Ross, 1993;
Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Hui, et al. 2007). This is the loyal attitude of tourists toward a tourism
destination. They will be loyal toward the homestay programme in Mesilou Village if the programme
meets with their requirements and satisfactions.
Based on the results of this research it can be suggested that the Homestay Programme in Mesilou
Village would be an example to other Homestay Programmes in Malaysia because of the skill and
aptitude of the management in this homestay that allowed the tourists to be satisfied with the
facilities, safety and service aspects. Based on the research findings, it is highly recommended that
this homestay should be promoted aggressively through collaboration between the private saector
as well as Sabah Tourism Board. Moreover, facilities and quality of services can be upgraded through
continuous housekeeping courses and maintenance which all parties should collaborate together
namely, the homestay operators, Secretariat Homestay committee, and Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Environment, Sabah. The results of this research will also benefit further studies in the future as
well as serve as a guideline for other researchers. On top of that, it is highly recommended that
future research should focus on the community involvement of Mesilou Village both in community
based tourism (CBT) and small scale industries such as vegetable farming project and dairy milk farm.
References
Abdul Hamid, M., Ismail, N., & Mohd Fuza, F. I. (2013). Defining sustainability concept in
tourism product. Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on Tourism Research, 29-31
Oct, 2013, Langkawi, Malaysia. pp, 945-951.
Adrianna. A., Cindy. J., & Nor’ain, O. (2007). Study of tourists’ expectation and perception towards
products and services offered by Walai Tokou Homestay Kundasang Sabah in N. Othman &
M. Jamaludin (Eds.). The 3rd Tourism outlook conference & global events Congress II,
Heritage & Tourism: Alliance & Network relationship, Event management & Event
Tourism, Shah Alam: UITM (UPENA).
Ahmad, K. (2013). Edutourism through homestay. Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on
Tourism Research, 29-31 Oct, 2013, Langkawi, Malaysia. pp, 541-549.
Akama, J. S., & Keiti, D. M. (2003). Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s Wildlife Safari: a case
study of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism Management, 24, 73-81.
55
Ashley, C., Roe, D., & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies making tourism work for
the poor: A review of experiences. ODI., Accesed 01 Nov 2013 at
http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/ppt_pubs_outputs.html
Asker, S., Boronyak, L., Carrard, N., & Paddon, M. (2010). Effective Community Based Tourism:
A
Best Practice Manual, Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Barksy, J. D. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Meaning and measurement.
Hospitality Research Journal, 16, (1): 51-73.
Bailey, K. D. (1984). Methods of social research. New York: Free Pr.
Bhatiah, A. K. (2001). Tourism Development: Principles and Practices. Sterling: New Delhi.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez M. I & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: inter relationship, Tourism management, 22, (6) December.
Bohm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., & Pearce D. (2002). Global Student Mobility 2025: Forecasts of the
global demand for international higher education. Media Briefings, Australia: IDP Education.
Accesed on 1 July 2012 at
http://www.idp.com/marketingandresearch/research/internationaleducationstatistics/GlobalS
tudentMobility2025.pdf.
Bojanic, D. C. (1996). Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel
industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 14, (1): 5-22.
Bukart, A. J. and Medlik, S. (1987). Tourism: Past, Present and Future. Heinaman: London.
Budget, (2013). Malaysia Government report. Putrajaya: Ministry of Finance.
Che Leh, F., & Omar, B. (2013). The growth and achievement of Agro-tourism in Malaysia, 2000-2012.
Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on Tourism Research, 29-31 Oct, 2013,
Langkawi, Malaysia. pp, 40-52.
Che Leh, F., & Hamzah, M. R. (2012). Homestay tourism and pro poor tourism strategy in Banghuris,
Selangor, Malaysia. Geoscience, 45, 7602-7610.
Chua Yan Piaw. (2006). Kaedah Penyelidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Mc Graw Hill Education (Malaysia).
Creswell, J. (2012).Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Din, K. H. (1993). Dialogue with the Hosts: An Educational Strategy Sustainable Tourism. In M.
Hitchcock, V. T. King & M. J. G. Parnwell (Eds).Tourism in South-East Asia (pp.327-336), London:
Routledge.
56
Din, K. H. (1995). Entertaining Guest in Remote Areas: Benefit and Problems. Kertas Seminar
Kebangsaan Dampak Perluasan Pasaran Ke Atas Komuniti Setempat, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, Cawangan Sabah.
Farrell, B. (1992). Tourism as an Element in Sustainable Development, In Hana, Maui V. Smith, & W.
Eadington (Eds.). Tourism Alternatives (pp. 115-132). Philadelphia : University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Harris, R. W. (2009). Tourism in Bario, Sarawak, Malaysia: A Case Study of Propoor Community-based
Tourism Integrated into Community Development. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
14, (2): 125-135.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., dan Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. (7th ed).
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Halstead, L. (2003). Making community-based tourism work: An assessment of factors contributing
to successful community-owned tourism development in Caprivi, Namibia. DEA Research
Discussion Paper No. 60. Windhoek: MET.
Hamzah, A. (2009), The growing Importance of Community Based Tourism in National Economies: A
global perspective International Seminar on Community based Tourism: Learning From the
homestay Programme in Malaysia, Towards Developing a sustainable Community Based
Tourism: Issues, Impacts & Opportunities. 4-16 August 2009, Hotel UiTM, Shah Alam Selangor
Malaysia.
Hamzah, A. (2007). Rural homestay to enhance tourists experience. The world Tourism Conference.
UNWTO and Ministry of Tourism Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 4-6 June 2006.
Hamzah, A. (2010). ‘Malaysian Homestays From the Perspective of Young Japanese Tourist: the Quest
for Furusato’. CIPD Monograf 2. Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Hatton, M. J. (1999). Community-Based Tourism in the Asia Pacific. Canada: Canadian Cataloguing in
Publication Data, pp. 38-41.
Holden, A. (2000). Environment and Tourism. New York: Routledge.
Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists' satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting
Singapore. Tourism management, 28, (4): 965-975.
Hussin, R. & Mat Som, A. P. (2008). Ecotourism, Conservation Programme and Local Community
Participation: Conflict of Interests in Sukau Village of Sabah. Sosiohumanika: Jurnal
Pendidikan Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 1, (1): 115-140.
Hussin, R. (2006). Ecotourism Development and Local Community Participation: Case Studies of Batu
Puteh and Sukau Village in Lower Kinabatangan Area of Sabah, Malaysia. Unpublished Phd
Dissertation. University of Glasgow: United Kingdom.
Hussin, R. (2008). Ecotourism and Community Participation in the Homestay Programme of Sukau
Village: Long-term or Limited Benefits? Jurnal Sarjana, (23): 72-86.
57
Hussin, R. (2009). Ecotourism, Local Community and “Partners for Wetlands” in the Lower
Kinabatangan Area of Sabah: Managing Conservation and Conflicts? Borneo Research Journal,
3, 57-79.
Ibrahim, Y., & Razzaq, A. R. A. (2009). Homestay Program and Rural Community Development in
Malaysia. Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 7-24.
Jamaluddin, M., Othman, N., & Awang, A. R. (2012). Community Based Homestay Programme: A
Personal Experience. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 451-459.
Johan Afendi Ibrahim, Mohamad Zaki Ahmad. (2009). Homestay Program Rural Economic Growth
Catalyst, Case Study: The states North Peninsular Malaysia. PROSIDING PERKEM IV, JILID 2,
pp. 227-242.
John C. C. & Ron E. (2000). Does national culture influence customers evaluation of travel
service? A test of hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. Managing Service Quality,
10, (6): 410-419.
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
Jones, K. H, Womble, M. and Searcy, C. A. (1996). T & I Education Students: Perception Of
Cources. Journal Of Industrial Teacher Education, 34, 82-101.
Kayat, K. (2003). Exploring factors influencing individual participation in community-based
tourism: the case of Kampung Relau Homestay Program, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal
of
Tourism Research, 7, (2): 19-27.
Kayat, K. (2009) Community based tourism in developing countries. Paper presented at the
International Seminar on Community Based Tourism, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 4-5 August.
Kayat, K. (2007). Adapting Quality in Homestay Hospitality, In Azilah K. & Shaharuddin T. (Eds.).
Readings on Tourism and Hospitality (Volume II), Sintok: Universiti Utara Malaysia Press.
Kayat, K. (2013). Community-Based homestay Programmes in Langkawi: Are they successful?
Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on Tourism Research, 29- 31
Oct,
2013,
Langkawi, Malaysia. pp, 905-913.
Kayat, K., & Mohd Nor, N. A. (2006). Penglibatan Ahli Komuniti dalam Program Pembangunan
Komuniti: Homestay di Kedah. Akademika, 67, (July): 75-100.
Kayat, K., Mohd. Nor, N. A., & Mad Idris, M. A. (2004). Kemahiran keusahawanan dan keperluannya
dalam pembangunan homestay: Implikasi terhadap polisi pelancongan. In Che Ani Mad,
Mohamad Amin Mad Idris & Mohd Rushdi Idrus. (Eds.) Keusahawanan pelancongan: Potensi
dan isu-isu semasa. Sintok: Penerbit Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Kozak, M. (2001). Comparative assesment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities. Tourism Management, 22, (4): 391-401.
58
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an offseason holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260–269.
Kumar, R., Gill, S. S., & Kunasekaran, P. (2012). Tourism as a poverty eradication tool for rural areas in
Selangor, Malaysia. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12, (7): 21-26
Kunjuraman, V. (2013). Satisfaction of domestic tourist with the homestay programme in
Mesilou Village, Kundasang, Sabah. Unpublished Academic Practice. School of Social
Sciences, Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Kunjuraman, V., & Hussin, R. (2013). Satisaction of domestic tourist with the homestay programme in
Mesilou Village, Kundasang, Sabah. Proceedings of the 3rd Regional Conference on Tourism
Research, 29-31 Oct, 2013, Langkawi, Malaysia. pp, 18-27.
Mageswari Ranjanthran & Badaruddin Mohammed. (2010). Domestic Tourism: Perception of
domestic tourist on tourism products in Penang Island. Asian Journal of Management
Research, 795-816.
Mann, M. (2000). The Community Tourism Guide. Tourism concern. Earthscan.
Mapjabil, J., & Che Ismail, S. (2012). Program Homestay di Sungai Semilang, Pulau Pinang:
Pembangunan dan Perubahan Persekitaran, Dalam Mapjabil, J., & Din, K. H.(Eds.).
Pelancongan di Malaysia: Isu-isu Penyelidikan Terpilih. Sintok: Penerbit Universiti Utara
Malaysia.
Mapjabil, J., Mohd Rosli, S. A., Shuib, M., & Abdullah, S. (2011). Pembangunan program homestay di
Wilayah Utara Semenanjung Malaysia: Profil, Produk dan Prospek. Geografia-Malaysian
Journal of Society and Space, 7, (2): 20-31.
Martina, G. G. & Irene G. S. (2006). Value dimentions perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An
investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27, (93): 437452.
Matheison, A. & Wall, G.
Longman.
(1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London:
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (MOTOUR) (2012a), ETP: Transforming tourism to the new
heights.
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (MOTOUR) (2012b), Homestay statistic until December 2011, Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Tourism, Malaysia.
Ministry of Tourism Malaysia (MOTOUR). www.tourism.gov.my Accesed on 12 Nov 2013.
Mohamad Nor, S., Awang, K. W., Ismail, N. W, & Radam, A. (2012). Preliminary study on
sustainable community development through the homestay programme. In Zainal, A., Radzi,
S. M., Hashim, R., Chik, C. T, & Abu, R. (Eds). Current issues in Hospitality and Tourism
Research and Innovations. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
59
Mohamad Zaki Ahmad, Johan Afendi Ibrahim & Norria Zakaria. (2011). Homestay as a sosioeconmic
community development Agent: From UUM Tourism Management Students Perspective.
PROSIDING PERKEM VI, JILID 2, 481-493.
Mohd Salleh, N. H., Sarmidi, T., Othman, R., Hamid Jaafar, A & Md. Ramli, R. (2011).
Kepuasan dan
kesetiaan Pelancong Domestik Terhadap destinasi pelancongan Pulau Kapas. Journal of
Tropical Marine Ecosystem, (1) 10-21.
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World.
London: Routledge.
Mutinda, R., & Mayaka, M. (2012). Application of Destination Choice Model: Factors influencing
Domestic Tourists Destination Choice among residents of Nairobi, Kenya. Tourism
Management, 33, 1593-1597.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Pakshir, L., & Nair, V. (2011). Sustainability of Homestay as a form of Community-Based
Tourism (CBT): A case study o the rural community in Bavanat-Iran. TEAM Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 8, (1): 5-18.
Peaty, D. (2009). Community-Based Tourism in the Indian Himalaya: Homestays and Lodges.
Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 25-44.
Rafee, Y. M., Jussem, S. W., Awang Arshad, A. H., Hakimihalim., Siri, H., & Abol Hassan, M. Z. (2012).
Community Based Tourism-The Attractions of ‘Embhan’ community in Kampung
Semban,
Sarawak. BIMP-EAGA Journal of Sustainable Tourism Development, 1, (1): 11-20.
Reid, D. (1995). Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. London: Earthscan.
Richardson K. (2001). International Education: The Role of Homestay Hosts. Unpublished
Master thesis. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Richardson, K. (2002). The role of homestay hosts in international education, in the conference
proceedings Internationalizing Education in the Asia-Pacific
Region: Critical Reflection,
Critical Times, Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Comparative and
International Education Society, December, 2002.
Richardson, K. (2003). International Education: The quality of Homestay services, presented at the
17th IDP Australian International Education Conference, Melbourne, October 2003.
Ross, G. F. (1993). Destination evaluation and vacation preferences. Annals of Tourism Research, 20,
477-489.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1992). Client perceptions of hotels. Tourism Management, 163-168.
Scheyvens, R., & Momsen, J. H. (2008). Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Issues for Small Island States.
Tourism Geographies, 10, (1): 22-41.
Sharpley, R. (1999). Tourism, Tourists and Society. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: ELM Publications.
60
Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. J. (Eds). (2002). Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues. United
Kingdom: Channel View Publications.
Siwar, C. (2013). The role of homestays in community based tourism development in Malaysia. Paper
presented in Conference on Innovating Community Based Tourism (CBT) in Asean, Bangkok,
30-31 May, 2013.
United Nations World Tourism Organisation [UNWTO]. (2013). World Tourism Barometer –
Tourism Trends and Marketing, Madrid.
Wall, G. & Long, V. (1996). Balinese Homestays: an indigenous response to tourism opportunities. In
R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.). Tourism and Indigenus Peoples, (pp. 27-48). London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. New York: Routledge.
World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED]. (1987). Our Common
Oxford: Oxord University Press.
Future.
Yeong, G. K., Bo, W. S. & Anita, E. (2010). The Relationship between food-related personality traits,
satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, (2): 216-226.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks:
Publications.
Sage
Yong Pau Lin. (2004). Projek Miso Walai Homestay dan Penyertaan Komuniti Tempatan: Satu
Tinjauan di Mukim Batu Putih, Hilir Kinabatangan, Sabah. Unpublished Academic
Practice.
School of Social Sciences, Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Yong Pau Lin. (2010). Kajian Penyertaan Komuniti Setempat dalam Kegiatan Pelancongan di
Kampung Pukak, Kiulu, Sabah. Unpublished Master Thesis. School of Social Sciences, Kota
Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal. M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction
destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26, (1): 45-56.
on
61

sustainable community-based tourism (cbt) through homestay

Transcription

Similar documents

Community Based Tourism

INTECAP, Guatemala

www.cisscanada.com

COMMUNITY TOURISM IN ZAMBIA

Greater Gadsden, AL - Southeast Tourism Society

parques nacionales de guanacaste

Peak of everything

Phyoe Wai Yar Zar Joint Secretary General

Upper Canada District School Board

Keratan Akhbar 11 - 12 April 2016