Ảnh hưởng của vốn xã hội đến lợi ích của người dân địa phương trong phát triển du lịch sinh thái tại các vườn quốc gia vùng đồng bằng sông hồng và duyên hải đông bắc tóm tắt tiếng anh

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The thesis necessity
1.1.1. Theoretical aspect
The ecotourism term attached with responsible tourism tendency
“seeing, enjoying but not damaging” (Orams 1995) has been notified
since 1980s. Ecotourism is different from other types of mass tourism in
the way of developing sustainability, supporting efforts in environmental
presevation and education, and bringing about benefits for local people
(Wood, 2002). Since its appearance, ecotourism has been researched
from various perspectives.
Previous studies emphasized ecotourism as a responsible and ideal
tourism to achieve sustainable development goal. Also, the exploration of
ecotourism should take notice of its effects on the effectiveness of
ecotourism development. One important factor ensuring the success of
ecotourism is the local people’s involvement attached with their benefits
(Sharpley and Telfer, 2008). Therefore, analyzing factors having effects
on ecotourism development also means evaluating these factors’ effects
on local people’s benefits when they participate in tourism development.
Among different factors influencing ecotourism development, social
capital is a quite new one, which has been researched since 2000. Unlike
other capital sources, social capital is an “unphysical source” established
from cooperative relationships of social networks, which are built up
based on trust, norms and regulation sharing and reciprocity. Also, it has
a significant distraction to participants.
Under the context of developing ecotourism attached with local
people’s participation, studies on the relationship between ecotourism and
social capital are essential, which aim at promoting benefits for local
people through developing values based on their social capital source.
Previous studies on the relationship between social capital and
ecotourism (Foucat, 2002; Sawatsky, 2003; Jones, 2005; Nguyen, 2007;

Okazaki, 2008; Liu et.al, 2011; Marcinek and Hunt, 2015; Musavengane,
2017, etc) focused on the effects of social capital on certain specific
benefits for local people. Thus, there is a lack of studies on a
comprehensive evaluation of social capital on economic, socio-cultural
and environmental benefits as well as the enhancement of local people’s
position. In fact, this is a concerning aspect to develop ecotourism in a
responsible basis, which ensures the philosophy of sustainability. Thus,
this thesis has theoretical meaning, which contributes to the knowledge of
social capital and its relationship with benefits for local people in
developing ecotourism.

2
1.1.2. Practical aspect
Since 1990s, there have been various successful models of ecotoursim
development, such as those in America, Canada, Belize, Kenya,
Australia, Thailand and Japan, etc. Although it appeared later than other
types, ecotourism is assessed by UNWTO as the highest growing with 10
- 15%/year (Sharpley, 2006). The effectiveness of ecotoursim
development in reality shows its “advantages” in bringing about
potentials of preservation and local livelihood cooperation as well as
achieving these two objectives based on sustainable development. In
Vietnam, ecotourism development is trendy in National parks, especially
in Cát Bà, Cúc Phương, Ba Vì, etc located in Red river delta and north
east coast area. However, the role and benefits for local people are not
clear. This is partially because social capital of these people in
communities of National parks is not strong and their relationship with
other stakeholders is not effective. Due to those rationales, the author
selected the thesis on “Effects of social capital on local people’s benefits
from the development of ecotourism of national parks located in Red
river delta and north east coast”. This aims at filling in the “gap” of

theory; and providing suggestions for policy makers, managers, local
people and relevant stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of
ecotourism in practice through social capital for the community.
1.2. Researh objectives
1.2.1. General objectives
To analyze and investigate the effects of social capital on local
people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism in national parks in
Red river delta and north east coast.
1.2.2. Specific objectives
(1) To determine elements of social capital, which have an influence
on benefits for local people in the development of ecotourism in national
parks. Then, it is the foundation for building up the theoretical framework
(model) and research hypothesis.
(2) To identify, test and analyze influencing level of social capital
elements on different benefits (politics, economy, socio-culture and
environment) of local people in the development of ecosystem in
National parks in red river delta and north east coast.
(3) To analyze the inluencing level of demography on the benefit for
local people from the development of ecosystem in National parks in red
river delta and north east coast.
(4) To seek for solutions and recommendations based on the research
results so that these suggestions can help to increase social capital and


3
improve benefits of local people in the development of ecosystem in
National parks in red river delta and north east coast.
1.3. Research questions
Question 1: What are elements of social capital that put an effect on
the benefits (politics, economy, socio-culture and environment) of local

people from the development of ecosystem in national parks? In addition
to the studied elements, are there any “new” ones identified and
discovered in the influence of social capital on local people from the
development of ecotoursim in national parks?
Question 2: How differently do different elements influence on
benefits (politics, economy, socio-culture and environment) of local
people from the development of ecosystem in national parks in red river
delta and north east coast?
Question 3: Are there any differences among National parks in Red
river delta and north east coast regarding effects of social capital on local
people’s benefits from the development of ecotoursim? If yes, how
different are they?
Question 4: Which elements of control variable (social capital) have
influence on benefits of local people from the development of ecotourism
in Red river delta and north east coast? Are there any differences among
these elements in terms of influencing level and tendency?
Question 5: Which elements of socail capital need to be improved
and increased to help local people gain better benefits from ecotoursim
development?
1.4. Research subject and scope
1.4.1. Research subject
- Research subject: Effects of social capital on local people’s benefits
from the development of ecotourism.
1.4.2. Research scope
- Content: This study concentrates on exploring the relationship,
analyzing and testing effects of social capital’s elements on benefits of
local people in the development of ecotoursim.
- Location: The research focuses on the area with participation and
benefits of local people in ecotoursim development in National parks of
Ba Vi, Cat Ba and Cuc Phương (belonging the Red river delta and north

east coast).
- Duration: Mainly in the period from 2013 to 2017 (secondary data
collection) and 2016 - 2017, early 2018 periods (primary data collection)
1.5. Thesis organization
- Chapter 1: Introduction to the thesis

4
Chapter 2: Theroretical basis and literature review on effects of
social capital on benefits of local people in the development of
ecotourism
- Chapter 3: Research methods
- Chapter 4: Research results
- Chapter 5: Discussion on research results and
recommendations, solutions
CHAPTER 2: THERORETICAL BASIS AND LITERATURE
REVIEW ON EFFECTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL ON BENEFITS
OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ECOTOURISM
2.1. Theories on social capital
2.1.1. Definition of social capital
According to various studies, social capital term appeared the first
time in 1916 by Hanifan. So far there have been different ways of
understanding this term. However, in general, social capital can be
defined as one type of “special resource” with “social” identity of human
beings, social capital is established through relationships between
individuals or groups (organization/society), improved through
reciprocity and sharing, cooperation and partnership of social networks
which are based on trust and respect for regulations, norms aiming at
bringing about benefits for individuals /groups when they participate and
invest in relationships institutionalized to some extent.

2.1.2. Typical features of social capital
First, social capital derives from participation in social networks or
investment in relationships of individuals/ groups in order to achieve
benefits for them as well as their groups. Second, social capital is
considered as a “resource”, bringing about either economic or noneconomic benefits, which cannot be measured by “physical” tools,
“tangible” values but “intangible”, “non-physical” elements of trust,
norms, cooperation and responsibility for the groups. Third, social capital
is maintained and developed through internal and exteral interactions of
the networks. Forth, social capital is a “chain” - “missing link” in
developing sustainably, improving position and bringing about sociocultural benefits for the community.
2.1.3. Measurement elements for social capital
Social capital is comprised of various elements. Different studies have
had different perspectives and discoveries on these elements. However,


5

6

the basic ones cover trust, reciprocity, sharing, norms/rules, cooperation
and social networks/connectedness.
Although social capital is not a new research trend, recently, it has
been explored based on the relationship with tourism development. In this
thesis, the author only selected certain elements of social capital
depending on their appropriateness with the research objectives, subject
and context, which would help to figure out and test effects of social
capital on benefits of local people in the development of ecotourism.
These elements are sorted out through consultancy with experts and
selection of their popularity in previous studies.

by Lascurain (1983, 1987) which puts an emphasis on experiences
improving visitors’ awareness and developing effectiveness attached with
the rule of preservation; and by World Ecotoursim Association (1991,
2015) which focuses on natural sustainability, culture attached with
lecturing activities and environmental education. From my own
perspective and inheritance from revious studies, I define ecotourism as a
type of tourism based on attracting values of neglected natural resources
and unique local culture;it is attached with great involvement of local
people and relevant stakeholders; there are environmental education and
lectures as well as preservation activities; there is promotion of tourism
business activities in local area at small scale with low consumption
(resources), which still satisfy experiencing demand and improve visitors’
awareness; at the same time, it helps to bring about economic, sociocultural and environemental benefits as well as improve the position of
local people and relevant stakeholders.
2.2.2. Studies on the development of ecotourism
2.2.2.1. Studies on the appearance and development of ecotourism
Studies by Wood (2002), Obenaus (2005), Weaver and Lawton
(2007), Cobbinah (2015), Chandel and Mishra (2016), etc show that the
development of ecotoursim has experienced changes and supplimentaries,
which are reflecting more and more apparently the typical features of a
responsible and sustainable type of tourism.
2.2.2.2. Studies on features, rules and instructing tools of ecotourism
development
Features and rules of ecotourism were integrated in the research by
Butler (1992). Then, there have been different studies on rules providing
specific instructions on ecotourism development for relevant
stakeholders. A set of rules for implementation of ecotourism has been
largely recognized, which was issued in 1990 by World Association of
Ecotoursim and amended in 2015. In these rules, there is an emphasis on
“the key pillar” of ecotourism development, which is not only attached

with preservation, participation and benefits for local people, but also
focuses on elements of lectures, explanations and environmental
education.
2.2.2.3. Studies on factors influencing ecotourism
Studies on factors that have an influence on ecotourism development
aim at improving those with positive effects and minimizing those with
negative effects. This is carried out through sustainable management
tools. Discussing these influencing factors, there are three main aspects:
(1) elements leading to ecotourism development (Jamal et al., 2006); (2)
elements affecting effectiveness of ecotourism development (Fennell,
1999; Fennell and Dowling, 2003) and (3) elements influencing benefits

Table 2.1: Summary of social capital elements researched in tourism
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Author,
published
year
Foucat (2002)
Jones (2005)
Liu

et
al
(2005)
Zhao et al
(2011)
Park et al
(2012)
Baksh et al.
(2013)
Gaitho (2014)
Marcinek and
Hunt (2015)
Musavengane
(2017)

Elements of social capital
Trust

Reciprocity,
sharing

X
X
X

X

X

x

X
X

Cooperation

Social
networks

x
X
X

X

X

x

x

x

X

X

X

X

Norms

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

Others
X1,2
X1

X

X3

x
X

X4

X

Source: Compiled by the author
In particular:
X: the same studied element
x: compatability
X1: conflict and linkage
X2: Power, equality and decision making
X3: Involvement of local community
X4: Local institutions, attitude and awareness of community
2.2. Literature review on effects of social capital on benefits of local
people in the development of ecotourism
2.2.1. Definition of ecotoursim
Ecotourism has been researched since 1980s. There have been
numerous definitions so far. The most frequently cited concepts are given


7

8

of local people participating in ecotourism development (Shemshad and
Mohammadi, 2012; Kombo, 2016).
2.2.2.4. Studies on participation of relevant stakeholders in the

development of ecotourism
Stakeholders of ecotoursim development is also a “topic” for
different researchers (Honey, 1985; Drake, 1991; Brandon, 1993; Wood,
2002; Drumm and Moore, 2005…). Among previous studies, the model
of essential partners for the success of ecotoursim development given by
Drumm and Moore (2005) is mentioned much more than others. In this
model, the authors emphasized the participation of main subjects such as
non-governmental organizations, local authorities, tourism businessmen,
local people and other supporting groups/organizations.
2.2.2.5. Studies on the role of local people in the development of
ecotoursim
The participation of the community is the bottom – up approach to
promote the positive role if local people who are provided with the right
to explore, manage and develop ecotourism (Kiss, 2004; Nelson, 2004;
Boonzaaier and Philip, 2007; O’Neill, 2008; Mensah et al, 2013). The
participation from normal role to managers, investigators owners of the
resources and activities of ecotoursim development can not only bring
about great benefits in terms of socio-economy, environment, social
welfare; but also provide “added” benefits for stakeholders. Especially,
the provision for local people with those rights would help to improve
their position, voice and benefits (Salafsky and Wollenberg; 2000;
Sultana, 2009).
2.2.3. Factors measuring benefits of local people in ecotoursim
development
Political benefits of local people when they participate in ecotourism
(according to Scheyvens (1999), Jones (2005)) are chances to raise their
voice and solve mutual problems as fairly as possible; give their ideas in
making decision in the mutual forusm of the community.
Economic benefits: are physical beneits (converted to money, items,
assets, etc) reflecting the purpose and objective motivation of the

community in joining the development of ecotourism. The most direct
economic benefits are prodiving jobs and increasing income as well as
improving infrastructure for local people (Yacod et. al, 2008; Kiper et. al,
2011; Scheyvens, 1999).
Socio-cultural benefits not only help to preserve local cultures but
also bring about other benefits: jobs, social welfare (education,
healthcare, etc), raise awareness of the community and promote the
cooperation within the community as well as social networks.

Environmental benefits, from the perspective of researching local
people’s benefits in ecotourism development, environmental benefits are
helping local people to gain more knowledge or having behavior,
initiatives protecting the environment (Tran and Walter, 2014).
2.2.4. Studies on the effects of social capital on local people’s benefits
in the development of ecotoursim
Social capital has an influence on the benefits of local people in the
development of ecotourism. In fact, previous studies (Foucat, 2002;
Sawatsky, 2003; Liu et. al, 2005; Jones, 2005; Zhao et. al, 2011; Park et.
al, 2012…) proved that in order to develop ecotourism, it would be
essential to effectively cooperate between local people and stakeholders.
This cooperation was considered as the “central” factor ensuring the
success of cooperation network. The main objectives of ecotourism
development are preserving resources and bringing about benefits to the
community. To achieve those objectives, it is essential to obtain the belief
of local people in local authorities and stakeholders as well as the
support, sharing and cooperation between them. The development is in
the long run only when these relationships are based ont trust and
commitment to respect rules and norms of the society/community. In any
community, if local people strongly cooperate and join in social
networks, it will receive many more benefits from tourism than the

community, in which people are incooperative or restricted to group
activities and there are no supporting associations/organziations for local
community development (Claiborne, 2010). A community with low
background knowledge would “prevent” local people from gaining
objectives and benefits from ecotourism development (Kamuti, 2014).
Therefore, communities with advanced knowledge will have more
conditions, favors and benefits from tourism development.
In order to provide the influencing relationship between social capital
and benefits of local people in ecotoursim development, this thesis
consolidated relevant studies (diagram 2.4) to reveal this relationship
with different results in different contexts and objectives. Along with the
basement of previous theories, in-depth interviews with experts and local
people in National parks, the author created the research frame, in which,
there is a new element/ scale identified based on this study entitled
“Particiaption in implementing regulations on operational management of
ecotoursim in National parks”.
2.5. Research frame
Based on analysis, comments and evaluation on good and bad
points of each study; research subject, scope covering the exploration,
description and analysis into effects of social capital elements on local


9

10

people’s benefits in ecotourism development in National parks of Red
river delta and north east coast; and selection of experts’ contributions,
the author designed research frame as presented in diagram 2.4.
H1

BENEFITS OF LOCAL COMMUNITY
FROM ECOTOURISM DEVEOPMENT

SOCIAL CAPITAL
- Trust
- Sharing
- Norms
- Cooperation
- Social networks
Participation
in
implementing
regulations
operational management of
ecotourism in national parks

Politcial benefits
H1a
H1b

Economic benefits

H1c
H
1d

Socio-cultural
benefits

Environmental benefits

Demographic features: age,
gender, ethnic, background
knowledge, main job, average
income

H2a,b,c,d

Diagram 2.4: Research model on effects of social capital on local
people in ecotourism development in National parks of Red river and
north east coast
Source: Compiled and designed by the author
Table 2.5: Research hypothesis
Symbol
Hypothesis
H1: Social capital has positive effects on benefits of local people from
ecotourism development
H1a
Social capital has positive effects on political benefits
H1a1
Trust has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a2
Sharing has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a3
Norms have parallel effect on political benefit
H1a4
Cooperation has parallel effect on political benefit
H1a5
Social networks have parallel effect on political benefit
H1a6
Participation in implementing regulations on operational management

of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on political benefit
H1b
Social has positive effects on economic benefits

H1b1
H1b2
H1b3
H1b4
H1b5
H1b6
H1c
H1c1
H1c2
H1c3

Trust has parallel effect on economic benefit
Sharing has parallel effect on economic benefit
Norms have parallel effect on economic benefit
Cooperation has parallel effect on economic benefit
Social networks have parallel effect on economic benefit
Participation in implementing regulations on operational management
of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on economic benefit
Social capital has positive effects on socio-cultural benefits
Trust has parallel effect on socio-cultural benefit
Sharing has parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit
Norms have parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit

H1c4
H1c5

Cooperation has parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit
Social networks have parallel effect on socio- cultural benefit

H1c6

Participation in implementing regulations on operational management
of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on socio- cultural
benefit
Social capital has positive effects on environmental benefits
Trust has parallel effect on environmental benefit
Sharing has parallel effect on environmental benefit

H1d
H1d1
H1d2
H1d3
H1d4
H1d5
H1d6

Norms have parallel effect on environmental benefit
Cooperation has parallel effect on environmental benefit
Social networks have parallel effect on environmental benefit
Participation in implementing regulations on operational management
of ecotourism in National parks has parallel effect on environmental
benefit
H2: Demographical features of local people which have controlling influence on
benefits of local people from ecotourism development
H2a
Demographic features have controlling influence on political benefit

H2b
Demographic features have controlling influence on economic benefit
H2c
Demographic features have controlling influence on socio-cultural
benefit
H2d
Demographic features have controlling influence on environmental
benefit

Source: Compiled by the author

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. Research design
3.1.1. Selection of research methods
This thesis combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. In
particular, qualitative methods aim at exploring, discovering information


11

12

related to features of social capital, status and development benefits of
ecotourism under the context of research context; identifying brief
compatibility within scales and their relationships; collecting information
to give comments and explain research results. Quantitative methods aim
at analyzing the reliability of the scales and the exporatory factor, and
testing research model and hypothesis.
3.1.2. Research process

3.2. Qualitative research
- Qualitative methods: the thesis applies: observation, interview with
focus group and in-depth interview.
- Interviewees: these are local people participating in activities of
ecotourism in National parks in Ba Vì, Cúc Phương and Cát Bà (18
interviewees). Also, there are interviews with representatives of Board of
management of national parks, local authorities (6 interviewees) and
interviews with experts (11 researchers related to ecotoursim and social
capital). Focus group interview is carried out with 03 groups, each of
which has 06 poeple who are local ones in research places.
- Data analysis: All information is collected based on each specific
content (encoding) to give a mutual conclusion; results are gathered and
compared with the theoretical model to build up the official model and
hypothesis, at last, the qualitative results are used to present explanation
to the effects and complex relationships which are not explained by the
quantitative model.
3.3. Quantitative research
- Research sample: This thesis uses the convenient sampling method
with selection and categorization. The sampling is carried out based on
criterion of exporatory factor analysis and multiple regression; the
research sample’s size is 323.
- Measuring scale:
+ Social capital measuring scale (independent variable): trust,
reciprocity and sharing, norms, cooperation, social networks and
participation in the implementation of operational management
regulations on ecotourism at National parks.
+ Benefit measuring scale (dependent variable): benefits of
politics, economy, socio-culture and environment.
+ Demography measuring scale (control variable).
- Data analysis: SPSS 23.0 is used to insert data and analyze research

model through different steps: reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha - CA),
convergent valiadity and discriminant validity (EFA), multiple regression
to test the relationship and effects of social capital and control variable of
demography on benefits of local people in the development of
ecotourism.

Phase 1
Theore
tical
overvie
w

Step1: Theoretical overview of
social capital and benefits of
local people from ecotourism
development
Step4: Pilot study at
national parks

Phase 2
Pilot
study

Step 2: Initial model and
theory construction

Step 3: Design of qualitative question and
planned questionnaire

Step5: Interview with experts, determination of new

scale
Step 6: Official research model
and survey questionnaire

Step7a: Official
quantitative
survey (n = 323)

Step7b:
Analysis into
reliability of
scale

Step7c:
Exporatory factor
analysis (EFA)

Phase 3
Official
research

Deletion of variables with
low correlation (<0.3)

Delete low factors
loading item (<0.5)

Step7d: Adjusted model and hypothesis

Qualitative

quationnaire
to interview
expert and
local people
to explain
research
results more

Step 7e: Regression

Model and hypothesis
testing

Step8: Comment on research results and
propose solutions and recommendations.

Diagram 3.1: Research process map
Source: Compiled and designed by author

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS
4.1. Sample description
Initially, the research design expected sampling size of 323 with
collected data from local people joining ecotourism in National parks of


13

14

Cuc Phuong, Cat Ba and Ba Vi. The gathered data covered 318 qualified

responses (97,3%) to be officially analyzed.
4.2. Evaluation on measuring scales by Cronbach’s alpha
The results of testing the scales’ reliability show that all scales are
qualified with CA from 0.631 to 0.800. However, 02/47 of observed
variables are excluded due to low correlation with general variable
(<0.3).
4.3. Exporatory factor analysis (EFA)
Table 4.5: EFA into measuring scales of social capital
Factors
Observed
Name
variable 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 (*new name/variable)
LT1
.716
LT2
.798
Trust
LT3
.701
LT4
.667
CS1
.626
CS2

.769
Reciprocity and sharing
CS3
.685
CS4
.698
CM1
.726
Rule based
CM2
.646
norms*
CM3
.742
Norms
CM4
.708
Social
norms*
CM5
.778
HT1
.751
HT2
.695
Cooperation
HT3
.602
HT4
.612

ML1
.806
Social networks
ML2
.818
ML3
.716
QC1
.835
Particiaption in
implementation of operational
QC2
.867 management regulation in

The analysis shows that there are 07 factors extracted with
cumulative of variance: 60,8% (the model is compatible with data
variations). However, there are 03/25 observed variables loaded with 2
factors at factor loading variance < 0.3, so, they are excluded, the rest 22
variables are qualified with factor loading from 0.602 to 0.867 and
devided into 07 groups. Norms are devided into 2 specific groups under
new names. The factor of particiaption in the implementation of
operational management regulations in National parks is a new qualified
variable with quite high factor loading (>0.8).
Table 4.7: EFA into benefit measuring scales of local people in the
development of ecotourism
Factors
Observed
Name
variables 1
(* new name)

2
3
4
5

National parks*

Source: Results from survey, observation by the author

CT1
CT2
CT3
CT4
KT2
KT3
KT5
XH1
XH2
XH3
XH4
XH6
XH7
XH8
MT1
MT2
MT3

.616
.794
.800

.759

Political benefits
.735
.843
.764

Economic benefits
.635
.807
.808
.679

Socio-cultural
benefits of
individual/
household*

.748
.756
.721

Sociocultural
benefits

Socio-cultural
benefits of
community*

.735

Environmental
.749
benefits
.780
Source: Results from survey, observation by the author
Data analysis shows that 05 factors are extracted with cumulative
of variance: 64,77%. However, 03/20 variables are excluded, the rest 17
are qualified with factor loading from 0.6016 to 0.808 and devided into
05 groups. Factor of socio-culture is devided into 2 specific groups and
given new names.


15

16

4.4. Adjusted research model and hypothesis
After the measuring scales’ reliability is tested and the exporatory
factor is analyzed; the research model is adjusted as the following:

Evaluation on effect of social capital on political benefits of local
people in the development of ecotourism (LY1), result of regression:
LY1i = 0.150 (LT)i + 0.165 (HT)i + 0.273 (ML)i + 0.136 (QC)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that LT (trust), HT (cooperation), ML (social
network) and QC (participation in implementing operational management
regulations on ecotourism in National parks) have effects on LY1
(political benefits). All of these effects are positive with top down
ranking as ML, HT, LT và QC.
4.5.3. Test on model of social capital’s effects on economic benefits
Evaluation on effect of social capital on economic benefits of local

people in the development of ecotourism (LY2), result of regression:
LY2i = 0.231 (QC)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that only QC (participation in implementing
operational management regulations on ecotourism in National parks) has
positive impac on LY2 (economic benefits).
4.5.4. Test on model of social capital’s effects on socio-cultural benefits
for individual/household
Evaluation on effect of social capital on socio-cultural benefits of
individual/household in the development of ecotourism (LY3), result of
regression:
LY3i = 0.268 (LT)i + 0.165 (HT)i + 0.139 (ML)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that only LT (trust), HT (cooperation) and social
networks (ML) have impacs on LY3 (socio-cultural benefits for
individual/household). All of these effects are positive with top down
ranking as LT, HT và ML.
4.5.5. Test on model of social capital’s effects on socio-cultural benefits
for community
Evaluation on effect of social capital on socio-cultural benefits of
community in the development of ecotourism (LY4), result of regression:
LY4i = 0.249 (HT)i + 0.159 (ML)i + 0.188 (QC)i + ei
Meaning 5% shows that HT (cooperation), ML (social networks) and QC
(participation in implementing operational management regulations on
ecotourism in National parks) have effects on LY4 (socio-cultural
benefits of community). All of these effects are positive with top down
ranking as HT QC and ML.
4.5.6. Test on model of social capital’s effects on environmental
benefits
Evaluation on effect of social capital on environmental benefits of
community in the development of ecotourism (LY5), result of regression:

H1
BENEFITS OF LOCAL
PEOPLE IN DEVELOPMENT
OF ECOTOURISM
Political benefits
SOCIAL CAPITAL
- Trust
- Sharing
- Regulatory norms
- Social norms
- Cooperation
- Social networks
Implementation
of
operational
management
regulation on ecotourism in
National parks

H1a
H1b
H1c
H
1d
H
1e

Economic benefits

Socio-cultural benefits

for individual/ household

Socio-cultural benefits
for community

Environmental benefits
Demographic features:
Age,
gender,
ethnic,
background
knowledge,
main job, average income.

H2 a, b, c,d,e

Diagram 4.1: Adjusted research model of effects of social capital on
ecotourism development in National parks in Red river delta and
north east coast
Source: Compiled and designed by author
Hypothesis for the adjustment of measuring scales for norms and
socio-cultural benefits is presented in table 4.8 of the thesis.
4.5. Regression analysis (hypothesis testing)
4.5.1. Population regression test
Evaluation on effects of social capital on local people’s benefits in the
development of ecotourism (LY), result:
LYi = 0.511 (VXH)i + ei
So, meaning of 5% shows that social capital has positive effect on
local people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism.
4.5.2. Test on model of social capital’s effects on political benefits

LY5i = 0.142 (LT)i + 0.150 (CMQT)i + 0.147 (CMXH)i + 0.200 (QC)i + ei


17

18

Meaning 5% shows that LT (trust), CMQT (regulatory norms), CMXH
(social norms), QC (participation in implementing operational
management regulations on ecotourism in National parks) have effects on
LY5 (environmental benefits). All of these effects are positive with top
down ranking as QC, CMQT, CMXH và LT.
Table 4.15: Results from regression analysis into tests of effects of
social capital on benefits for local people in the development of
ecotoursim

for local people in National parks. The results are presented in diagram
4.3

No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Factors
of social
capital

VXH
LT
CS
CMQT
CMXH
HT
ML
QC

Effects of
social capital
on benefits

%

Beta for benefit standard
Politics

Economy

Order

25,9 %
10,7
3
No effect

2,0
6
2,6
5
12,4
2
15,2
1
7,6
4

.430
.150
.165
.273
.136

.260
.231

Sociocultural
for
individu
al/house
hold

.272
.268
.165
.139

-

Sociocultural
for

Environment

community

.360
.249
.159
.188

.306
.142
.150
.147

.200

Source: Research results by author
4.5.7. Test on effects of demography variable
The research uses regression model with dummy variables to test
the level and direction of social capital’s effect on local people. The
results show that 04 factors of demography having effects are ethnic,
knowledge, income and main job. Age and gender do not have any effect.
Factors of demography having control effect on 04 groups of benefits
which are politics, economy, socio-culture of the community and
environment, whereas they do not have effect on benefits of socio-culture

for individual/household. Noticeably, effect of income on political and
socio-cultural benefits are contrastive, which is also the influencing
direction of income on environmental benefits. The research uses
ANOVA tool to compare influencing level of demographic groups on
different benefits (Detailed results are presented at 4.5.7.2. of the thesis).
4.5.8. Analysis and comparison of social capital’s effects on local
people’s benefits in National parks in Cuc Phuonng, Cat Ba and Ba Vi
The research conducts regression with each data file of a National
park to compare effects of factos of social capital on groups of benefits

Diagram 4.3: Influecing level of social capital on benefits for local
people in the development of ecotourism in National parks in Cuc
Phuong, Ba Vi and Cat Ba
Source: Research results by author
In general, national park has the highest effects on benefits for local
people in the development of ecotourism is in Ba Vi (28,8%), the lowest
number is in Cuc Phuong (13,3%), the number in Cat Ba is similar to that
of Ba Vi (25,1%). However, specific effects of social capital’s factors on
local people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism in different
national park is different (Results are presented at 4.5.8. of the thesis).
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH RESULTS DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, SOLUTIONS
5.1. Research results discussion
Based on the research results, following conclusions are given:
- There are 06 factors of social capital, which have effect on benefits
for local people in the development of ecotourism in National parks in
Red river delta and north east coast. These factors are trust, regulatory
norms, social norms, cooperation, social networks and participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in national
parks. Benefits for local people in developing ecotourism with effects

from social capital cover benefits of politics, economy, socio-culture of
individual/household, socio-culture of community and environment.
- Influencing level of factors of social capital on local people’s
benefits in developing ecotourism is arranged with the top down order of


19

20

(1) Social networks, (2) Cooperation, (3) Trust, (4) participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in national
parks, (5) social norms, and (6) regulatory norms. It is notified that
research results for not record that sharing and reciprocity has effect on
local people’s benefits in the development of ecotourism.
- Influencing factors have differences among groups of benefits:
• Social capital’s factors with top down influence on political
benefits are social networks, cooperation, participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in
national parks and trust.
• Except for the factor of participation in implementation of
operational management on ecotourism in national parks, other
factors have no effect on economic benefits
• Trust, coopeation and social networks have effect on socio-cultural
benefits for individual, household.
• Factors putting effects on socio-cultural benefits for the community
are cooperation, social networks and participation in
implementation of operational management on ecotourism in
national parks.
• Factors putting effects on environmental benefits are trust,

regulatory norms, social norms and participation in implementation
of operational management on ecotourism in national parks
5.2. Solutions to improve social capital in order to increase benefits
for local people in the development of ecotourism in national parks in
Red river delta and north east coast
5.2.1. Promoting cooperative relationships in the community
- In addition to encouraging and supporting local people to actively
participate in doing tourism business, Management Boards of National
parks should have direction and tool to help them change their mindset,
apply their advantages, actively cooperate with tourism enterprises to set
up tour on environmental education, natural exploration, ethnic speciality
discovery, etc in order to widely serve domestic and international tourists.
Relationships with business, NGOs and community supporting agencies
should be kept in touch through a regular connective network, which
helps to update information thanks to a leader being in charge of
developing relationships to create continuous cooperation.
- Specific solutions to enhance cooperative network and promotion are
establishing agency for advertising, ecotourism association in national
parks in Red river delta and north east coast which should have flexible
mechanism, connect with specialized units of local and central areas in
terms of toursim and forestry management.

5.2.2. Enhancing cooperative social networks with relevant partners
- In order to promote cooperation in the community, firstly, it is
essential to increase job opportunities and creat chances for local people
to exchange and share their ecotourism business.
- In order to increase job opportunity and income for local people, at
first, Management Board of national parks have to actively support local
people with joining in tourism business, involving in management board
and gaining market orientation, receiving investment in tourism product

based on the improvement of unique tourism values of national parks.
- Second, in order to provide local people with chances to cooperate,
share information through ecotourism activities, it is suggested to expand
tourism business to potential areas in Natioanl parks and approve
mechanism for household to cooperate to supply toursim service and
product.
5.2.3. Better applying management regulations in National parks
- Management boards in national parks should more effectively use
these regulations to achieve double objectives in improving business
performance of ecotourism in national parks and living standard of local
people. This is the aspect that can bring about a lot of benefits concerning
economy, environment for the community and partially promote benefits
in terms of socio-culture and politics.
- During the process of applying mechanism, national parks should
have policies on encouraging local people to develop ecotoursim.
However, business cooperation in spending forest for rent has not been
consistently implemented, which requires more detailed and open
instructions. At the same time, management boards should be stricter in
enhancing private sector of ecotourism within the allowance of
preservation rules. A big disadvantage of national parks is their limited
plans on training human resource, so, the quality of labor is quite low.
Thus, boards of management, authorities and local people should
cooperate with training departments and experts on tourism to organize
conferences, workshops and training courses for local people; support
local people to apply for foreign sponsorship to implement programs
improving community competence.
5.2.4. Some other solutions
- In addition to the above solutions, maintaining trust and ensuring
respect for principles and standards in the community will continue to be
given adequate attention.

- In order for local people to be aware of the benefits of ecotourism


21

22

development and their role in respecting standards in the community,
respect the principles of environmental protection to help them contribute
to conservation and their life quality enhancement, the management
board of national parks and local authorities should have a mechanism to
preserve traditional culture values which are meaningful in serving
tourism and helping the community to be linked with relationship
network in order to provide tourists with services.
- Moreover, it is essential to take care of living standard of local
people joining in tourism and apply reasonable policies for them;
encourage individual/ group/ household to have innitiatives and become
pioneers in developing ecotourism. These actions will empower local
people so that they have batter awareness in developing ecotourism in a
more active and effective manner.
5.3. Proposals and recommendations
5.3.1. Proposals to relevant partners
Based on fundamental theories on relationships between relevant
partners in general and those in ecotourism in particular; consideration of
reality in developing ecotourism in Red river delta and north east coast,
the thesis proposes the nedd to improve relationships among partners as
presented in diagram 5.1. In order for this model to work well, there should
be a clear and specific mechanism, which can better develop the role of
certain important partners, especially, local people- the core of the model.

5.3.2. Recommendations
5.3.2.1. Regarding departments of ecotourism management and
development in national parks
- There should be documents giving more specific instructions and
reviews to encourage ecotoursim development in national parks through
implementing policies. It is essential to consistently apply “Regulations
on operational management of ecotoursim in national parks”.
- It is suggested to review and complete general strategies, polcies on
developing ecotoursim attached with preservation in nationwide, and key
ecotourism areas should be linked with typical priorities in National
parks.
5.3.2.2. Regarding local authorities and management boards in national
parks in Red river delta and north east coast
- They should promote activities of researching, traning human
resource, cooperating with relevant sectors to prioritize mechanisms of
policies, capital attracting investment in ecotourism in national parks.
- They should simplify administrative procedure, be cooperative in
negotiations to agree on policies in terms of lending forest for toursim
purpose in national parks of Cat Ba, provide opportunities for local
people to manage and develop ecotourism in national parks of Ba Vì, and
apply mechanism for cooperative development business for national
parks of Cuc Phuong.
5.4. Thesis’ new contributions
- Applying a theoretical framework (relatively comprehensive) for
influencing relationships between social capital and local people’s
benefits in developing ecotourism under the context of national parks in
Red river delta and north east coast.
- Pointing out clear differences in benefits (politics, economy, socioculture and environment) for local people in developing ecotourism.
These benefits are affected by different factors of social capital and
demography.

- Identifying new factor having effect on local people’s benefits in
developing ecotourism, which is “participation in implementing
operational management regulations in national parks”.
- Adjusting certain research scales (norms and socio-cultural benefits)
so that they are suitable for research context. Each scale is devided into
two new groups.
- Using the combination between qualitative and quantitative methods
to explore, test models and answer new research questions.

Local
authority

Management
boards of
National park

Ecotoursim
businessmen

Local
people

Ecotourists

Local
association of
toursim

Non-governmental
organization

(NGOs)

- NGOs of environment
- NGOs for the community
- Other organizations and
volunteers.

Diagram 5.1: Model of relationships among relevant partners in
ecotourism development in national parks
Source: proposed and researched by the author


23

24

- Helping managers and relevant partners to evaluate the role of social
capital as well as its effect on benefits for local people in developing
ecotourism. Then, there are strategies, plans, actions to develop
ecotourism more effectively.
5.5. Limitations and future research direction
- Sample is collected by convenient method, thus, despite efforts in
gathering data of 3 national parks in Red river delta and north east coast,
it is impossible to avoid limitations of variances in sample size of each
national park and representation of local area. As a result, there might be
sample which does not ensur representation and generalization.
- Social capital is a difficult term which is used mainly in in developed
countries, thus, when this term is translated into Vietnamese, it is hard to
ensure the original meaning (so, English term is used at the same time for
reference)

- Certain results have not been satisfactorily explained despite the
usage of quantitative methods (this might partially be due to
“intangibility” of social capital in different contexts). Thus, this is still a
topic for further “excavation” in the future.

participation in implementing operational management of ecotourism in
national parks; increased socio-cultural benefits for individual/household
result from trust, cooperation and social networks; increased sociocultural benefits for community are consequences of social capital on
participation in implementing operational management of ecotourism in
national parks; increased coopeation, social networks and environmental
benefits are partially because of social capital effect on participation in
implementing operational management of ecotourism in national parks,
respect for norms and trust. Based on these results, there are suitable
solutions and recommendations to improve social capital and local
people’s benefits in ecotourism development in national parks in Red
river delta and north east coast.
Moreover, the thesis also tests effects of 04 factors of demography on
local people’s benefits from developing ecotourism, which cover ethnic,
knowledge, income and main job. Demographic factors having control
effect on 04 groups of benefits are politics, economy, socio-culture of
community and environment, except for socio-culture of
individual/household.
Based on quantitative approach, the research can evaluate reliability of
measuring scales, analyze discovered factor, perfrom regression and give
conclusion about different influencing level of factors making up social
capital, which is in relation with local people’s benefits in ecotourism
development in national parks in Red river delta and north east coast. At
the same time, the thesis can partially explain this relationship based on
qualitative results. However, the research does not achieve high
generalization due to limited sample. Future studies should confirm the

general rule when they are multipled in other areas. In short, this thesis
provides a clear picture of social capital effects on ecotourism
development in national parks in Red river delta and north east coast –
one of areas with apparent advantages for ecotourism development in
Vietnam.

CONCLUSION
Being in compliance with previous studies on the effect of social
capital on ecotourism (Foucat, 2002; Jones, 2005; Liu et.al, 2005; Gaitho,
2014; Park et.al, 2012; Marcinek and Hunt, 2015, etc), this study
confirms the important role of social capital in bringing about benefits for
local people in developing ecotourism, which cover politics, economy,
socio-culture and environment.
Social capital is comprised of different factors, of which the most
popular ones mentioned and researched in the field of ecotourism are
trust, sharing, cooperation, social networks. These are also independent
measuring scales inherited for this research. In addition, under the
research context, there is an exploration and identification of new
measuring scale “Participation in implementing operational management
of ecotourism in national parks”. Thanks to measuring scale test and
development, the thesis proves the reliability and importance of these
scales in improving benefits for local people in ecotourism development
in national parks. Research results show that increased political benefits
are evidences of effects of social networks, cooperation, trust and
participation in implementing operational management of ecotourism in
national parks; similarly, increased economic benefits are linked with