EVALUATION OF CANOPY TOURISM

IN
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
AND
SABAH
MARKUS SEIBEL Global Canopy Programme (GCP)

Research Associate to the GCP John Krebs Field Station

MÖCKERNSTR. 71 Wytham Oxford OX2 8QJ

10965 BERLIN United Kingdom

GERMANY

26.09.2006

Funded with the generous support of the UK’s

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Global
Opportunities Fund.
Summary

Malaysia can be considered a pioneering country in canopy tourism activities. Nevertheless,

canopy tourism development towards a stand alone product still is in the beginning phase.
Correspondingly research on canopy tourism as such was difficult. It was the main objective
of this survey to give an estimate of the future socio-economic value of rainforest canopy
tourism for Malaysia. Following the general ecotourism criteria, socio-cultural and
environmental issues were also addressed. Furthermore, the potential of canopy tourism to
raise awareness towards rainforests was assessed. An assessment of canopy tourism activities
generally meant an evaluation of a rainforest tourism offer which the canopy activity was part
of.

It was not possible to establish in how far canopy tourism is a contribution to the conservation
of tropical rainforests by being a direct alternative to deforestation. Above all, the potential to
raise awareness towards rainforests and thus contribute to the conservation of rainforests was
pointed out. It was emphasized that canopy tourism is an opportunity to create a unique
rainforest experience. However, more often than not this potential is not fully realized yet,
making canopy tourism merely a recreational adventure.

Whereas it was not possible to evaluate socio-cultural effects and benefits through canopy
tourism at the national level, the socio-economic situation has been analyzed intensively. No
participative models for local community integration in canopy tourism activities exist in
Malaysia yet. Benefits to local communities in rainforest tourism including canopy tourism
activities could be mainly identified at the indirect level. Often a canopy facility attracts
visitors to a rainforest area who then also make use of other activities offered by the local
communities. In other cases part of the revenue created by a rainforest tourism facility
including canopy tourism was shared with the local communities through the local authorities.
Benefits often depend on where a facility is located and whether any local villages are nearby.

Besides addressing these issues the report also focuses on the future potential of canopy
tourism in Malaysia. To use this potential with regard to the above mentioned issues,
recommendations for future development of sustainable canopy tourism and future research
are given at the end of the report.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
Acknowledgements
Objectives
Methodology
Limitations

2 Tourism at the National Level 4

Tourism: development, markets and policies
Ecotourism as seen by the different stakeholders
Forests – responsibilities and protection

3 Canopy Tourism at the National Level 9

Situation of canopy tourism in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah
Recognition of canopy tourism
Criteria for canopy tourism and instruments of accreditation
Future potential of canopy tourism
Socio-economic and socio-cultural effects and benefits through canopy tourism
Environmental effects and benefits through canopy tourism
Raising awareness towards rainforests through canopy tourism

4 Case Studies 18
Taman Negara National Park – Kuala Tahan/ Pahang State
Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest – Kulim/ Kedah State
Crocker Range Park - Mahua Tambunan/ Sabah State

5 Conclusion 27
Recommendations
Future research

Works Cited 31
Appendix 32
1 Introduction ____

This report presents the findings of a preliminary survey on the effects and benefits of canopy
tourism activities in Malaysia. The survey was conducted on behalf of the Global Canopy
Programme (GCP), the leading international co-ordinating body for forest canopy research,
education and conservation.

Acknowledgements

Local collaborators on the survey were Robert Francis Peters of the Institute for Tropical
Biology and Conservation, University Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and Prof. Dr. Mohammed
Shahwahid of the Rainforest Academy, University Putra Malaysia (UPM). Dr. Richard
Denman of The Tourism Company functioned as advisor for the preparation of the survey and
interpretation of the findings for this report. The author of the report wishes to acknowledge
the help and support of those mentioned as well as all the people interviewed during the actual
fieldwork.1 This study was funded by the Global Opportunities fund of the UK Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.

Objectives

Rainforest canopy tourism takes place at the “last biotic frontier” of this planet.2 Presumably
the ecosystem with the highest biodiversity on earth, the rainforest canopy nevertheless is
seriously threatened by deforestation. Canopy tourism can be seen as an approach to provide a
sustainable economic alternative to resource depletion and thus contribute to the conservation
of endangered forest areas. It was the main objective of this survey to give an estimate of the
future socio-economic value of rainforest canopy tourism for Malaysia. Therefore, four main
fields were addressed during the survey in Malaysia:

• Situation and future potential of canopy tourism

• Socio-economic and socio-cultural effects and benefits through canopy tourism
• Environmental effects and benefits through canopy tourism
• Raising awareness towards rainforests through canopy tourism

1
For a list of the interviewees see the appendix.
2
Erwin 1983, 14ff.
Methodology

Because canopy tourism is a new field of research, this survey contained a considerable
amount of exploration and thus a qualitative approach was chosen. Canopy tourism in
Malaysia was assessed at the national and at the local level. At the national level expert talks
were conducted with representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
governmental organizations (GOs), and representatives from the tourism industry. At the local
level different canopy tourism sites were visited and evaluated. Where possible, talks were
held with representatives of the local communities and local conservation and tourism bodies.3
The guiding questions of the expert interviews and talks were developed from the Québec
Declaration on Ecotourism and the Australian National Ecotourism Accreditation Program
(NEAPIII) and also from fieldwork data from an evaluation of canopy tourism in Costa Rica.4
Furthermore, a preparatory workshop was held prior to this study with the GCP and Richard
Denman of The Tourism Company.

Limitations

The fieldwork section of the survey was limited to a period of three and a half weeks.
Therefore this study is considered a preliminary assessment. Research permits are needed in
Malaysia for every step taken, therefore collaboration and good communication with local
counterparts and a thorough, long term preparation are very important. Various difficulties in
communication occurred and were solved during fieldwork. It is important to note such
experiences when addressing the improvement of future research in Malaysia.

Another difficulty arises from the differences between Peninsular Malaysia and the Malaysian
states in Borneo in terms of policies and attitudes. The assessment at the national level
conducted in Peninsular Malaysia does not necessarily account for Borneo, as well. Hence,
Sabah will be mentioned specifically where necessary. Fieldwork was conducted in
Peninsular Malaysia and in Sabah/ Borneo. In Peninsular Malaysia expert talks were held with
NGOs, GOs and the private sector; furthermore four case studies on particular canopy tourism
facilities were conducted. In Sabah it was only possible to talk with representatives from the
private sector; in addition two case studies and a visit to a potential canopy tourism site were
conducted there. Therefore, the results from the work in Peninsular give a more complete

3
For a complete list of persons interviewed and sites visited see the annex.
4
See WTO 2002: Québec Declaration on Ecotourism: [www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/
IYE/quebec/anglais/declaration.html, 01.05.2005]; Ecotourism Australia: NEAP III:
[http://www.ecotourism.org.au/eco_certification.asp, 19.06.2005], Seibel 2005.
picture on canopy tourism whereas the results from Sabah rather focus on the potential of
future canopy tourism activities. No research took place in Sarawak/ Borneo, as no research
contacts existed in this state. The report therefore does not claim to give an assessment on
canopy tourism for the whole of Malaysia.
2 Tourism at the National Level ____ ____

This chapter looks at the national scope of tourism in Malaysia, then focuses on ecotourism
and the recognition of this tourism segment by the different stakeholders interviewed. Finally
Malaysia’s protected areas system with regard to forest areas will be explained briefly.

Tourism: development, markets and policies

The tourism industry in Malaysia is considered a key foreign exchange earner. According to
the Ministry of Tourism (MOTOUR) about 10% of direct benefits to Malaysia's economy
come from tourism. In terms of foreign exchange earning tourism is the second largest sector
after manufacturing. In 2003, tourism made up 6.6% of Malaysia’s GDP and 50.1% of the
exports of services.5

The tourism chapter of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, part of Malaysia’s National Mission to
become a developed country by 2020, aims at positioning Malaysia as a leading global tourist
destination. During the period of the Eighth Malaysia Plan (the years 2000 to 2005), tourist
arrivals increased at an average rate of 10% per annum, more than 70% of foreign tourists
came from ASEAN countries. Foreign exchange earnings from tourism increased by an
average of 12.4% per year for the same period. Employment in the tourism industry grew at
an annual rate of 2.9% during that time.6

The tourism strategy of the Ninth Malaysia Plan will concentrate on “fully realising the
tourism potential as an important source of growth in terms of foreign exchange earnings,
entrepreneurship development and employment generation.”7 Whereas the Eighth Malaysia
Plan focused on developing a more robust tourism industry, the Ninth Malaysia Plan gives
priority to sustainable tourism development.

Tourist arrivals are projected to grow annually by 8.4% until 2010; tourist receipts are
expected to rise at an annual average of 13.9%. ASEAN countries will remain the largest
source of foreign tourist arrivals and will thus be a focus of regional cooperation. Further
emphasis will be given to international long-haul markets as well as domestic tourism.

5
See Basic Indicators for Malaysia of the WTO-Tourism Factbook on the internet:
[http://titania.wtoelibrary.org/vl=5018914/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-
bin/wtourtfbaccess.pl?title=9886&filename=45801002004200601.pdf, 01.09.2006]
6
See Ninth Malaysia Plan on the internet: [http://www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/html/english.htm, 29.08.2006]
7
Ibid, 200
MOTOUR will continue to be the leading force in developing the tourism industry through
promotion and marketing. The public sector will concentrate on upgrading and maintaining
existing tourism facilities, as well as providing and improving tourism related infrastructure.
For this RM 1.8 billion are allocated in the Ninth Malaysia plan, whereas the expenditures on
tourism of the Eighth Malaysia plan amounted to roughly RM 800 million.8 The private sector
plays an important role in Malaysia’s tourism development. The government supplies tourism
infrastructure and facilities to encourage private entrepreneurs to run those and develop
innovative tourism products and services.

According to MOTOUR no detailed statistics beside figures on tourism arrivals and tourism
receipts exist for Malaysia yet. A National Tourism Satellite Account is planned and should
be operating by the end of 2007. The TSA could provide a helpful source of data in due
course, which could be used alongside further dedicated research on canopy related tourism.

Ecotourism as seen by the different stakeholders

The main aim of Malaysia’s tourism development is the promotion of the country’s cultural
and natural heritage. Therefore one of the country’s major tourism products is the
development of ecotourism, guided by the National Ecotourism Plan.

According to MOTOUR ecotourism and nature tourism make up about 15% of Malaysia’s
tourism market. Accordingly, RM 200 million of the Ninth Malaysia Plan’s tourism budget
are allocated to ecotourism. In comparison, under the Eighth Malaysia Plan RM 75.3 million
was allocated to ecotourism development.

Malaysia’s ecotourism strategy is defined in the National Ecotourism Plan. This plan was
developed by WWF Malaysia and Héctor Ceballos-Lascuráin of IUCN, among others in
1996. It is the objective of this instrument to assist the Government of Malaysia at the federal
and state level in the development of the country’s ecotourism potential. “The national
ecotourism plan is intended to serve both as an appropriate instrument within the overall
sustainable development of Malaysia, and as an effective tool for conservation of the natural
and cultural heritage of the country.”9 Besides developing a broad ecotourism strategy and
listing potential ecotourism sites the plan comes up with 21 Action Plans, ranging from the
definition of ecotourism through legal changes to monitoring and finance.

8
RM stands for Ringit Malaysia which is the Malaysian currency. According to the Central Bank of Malaysia,
on 15 February 2007, 3.4965 RM equalled 1 US$. See Bank Negara Malaysia on the internet:
[http://www.bnm.gov.my/, 16.02.2007]
9
National Ecotourism Plan 1996, iii.
The National Ecotourism Plan provides a very comprehensive instrument to guide Malaysia’s
ecotourism development. Still, most government departments and agencies as well as tour
operators are promoting a form of nature tourism that has little regard to its impact. There
seems to be some confusion about the terminology of ecotourism and what this kind of
tourism actually is. Following the definition of Ceballos-Lascuráin, who actually coined the
term, ecotourism is:
Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed areas, in order to
enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features, both past and present)
that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-
economic involvement of local populations.10
Nature tourism, in return is travel in natural areas without necessarily following the aim of
sustaining and protecting those areas and their inhabitants.11

The Ministry of Tourism works with the term ecotourism, following the National Ecotourism
Plan. MOTOUR sees itself as the national umbrella, giving out recommendations and
guidelines, allocating money and promoting the product. The responsibilities in return are
seen with the individual states and the local stakeholders, who have to come up with
initiatives and innovations.

The Forestry Department, besides being responsible for timber production forests, is also in
charge of recreational forests, talks about ecotourism when a local entrepreneur embarks on a
tourism activity there. Those recreational forests are considered community forests which
everyone has access to. A written policy on local community integration is in preparation.
According to the Forestry Department ecotourism in their forests has to be done by operators
from the local communities.

The interviewees from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), which is in
charge of ‘protected areas of national interest’, used the terms ecotourism, nature tourism and
adventure tourism interchangeably. All three terms were understood as aiming at
conservation, interpretation and integration of local communities.

Over the years the term ecotourism seems to have been misused in Malaysia by operators who
labelled their operation ecotourism without following the common guidelines of the concept.
According to WWF Malaysia and the Malaysia Nature Society (MNS) local operators who
follow the concept of ecotourism, therefore prefer the term nature tourism to distance
themselves from that kind of greenwashing. According to their representatives both NGOs

10
Ceballos-Lascuráin 1993, 5ff.
11
See Strasdas 2001.
have shown that eco-friendly tourism, which benefits conservation and integrates local
communities, is possible in Malaysia.

This has been denied by some of the tour operators interviewed. They stated that a fully
environmentally friendly operation would not be financially viable. Furthermore integration of
local communities was considered very difficult due to a lack of education and missing
foreign language skills.

The stakeholders of the local communities who were interviewed during the various fieldtrips
were very open towards ecotourism. Involvement in tourism was widely considered an
opportunity to development and little negative experiences seem to have been made. At the
same time ideas and concepts of ecotourism varied considerably.

The implementation of the national ecotourism guidelines on state and local level seems to be
difficult in Malaysia. According to WWF Malaysia, only Sabah has actually developed a State
Ecotourism Plan out of the national guidelines. In spite of the existence of a national
ecotourism plan for about ten years ecotourism development seems to be seen still in its
beginning phase. Thus the ecotourism market very much is still ‘high visitor volume - low
admission’ based. The admission fee to national parks ranges between RM1 and RM 5 per
person plus an additional photo camera fee of another RM 5. Different explanations were
given: As ecotourism is still considered in the developmental phase, there seems to be a belief
to grow first and improve quality later. Then there are apprehensions that tourists wouldn’t
come anymore if higher prices were introduced. This also concerns two tier pricing with a
lower price for Malaysian nationals and a higher price for international visitors. Furthermore,
there is the concept that certain natural environments should be accessible to the public. The
Department of Wildlife and National Parks for example sees it as its social obligation to keep
prices low, so everyone can visit its parks.

Although the implementation of the National Ecotourism Plan seems difficult, it does provide
a policy justification and framework into which sustainable canopy-based ecotourism could fit
in the future.

Forests – responsibilities and protection

In order to understand the protected areas system of Malaysia with regard to forest areas, a
basic understanding of land ownership issues in Malaysia is necessary. Land and everything
on that land, e.g. trees and wildlife, belongs to the individual states which in case of
conservation divide it into different categories. Land with features of national interest will be
managed by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). The DWNP has State
Offices which are under the auspices of the federal department.

The states run protected areas as state parks; in case of forests the respective State Forestry
Departments are responsible for those areas. Those departments are not under the
responsibility of the federal department. But the Federal Forestry Department (FD) is in
charge of the national strategy for the protection of forests in Peninsular Malaysia. FD
differentiates between so called recreational forests and timber production forests. Tourism
and other recreational activities only take place in recreational forests. Only a very small
percentage of forest is owned privately. So no privately run rainforest tourism in private forest
reserves could be detected during this survey.

Still, if a tourism activity takes place in a public protected forest area in general it is privately
run. It is the belief in Malaysia, that private entrepreneurs can run such an operation more
efficiently than the government. The interviewees in the DWNP as well as in the Forestry
Department stated that both organizations aim at giving the tourism concessions to local
operators.

The situation in Sabah is somewhat different. Sabah and Sarawak have their own land
ownership policies which were prerequisite to joining the Malaysian Federation in 1963.
Theoretically everyone in Sabah can claim ownership of a certain piece of land from the state
government for 99 years. Nevertheless, protection of forest areas is managed by governmental
authorities. Sabah has its own Forestry Department which is independent of the federal
authority. National parks in Sabah are under the auspices of Sabah Parks. The authorities in
charge of the forest areas visited in Sabah for this survey are Sabah Parks and Yayasan Sabah.
Like in Peninsular Malaysia tourism activities in those areas are handed over to private
operators.
3 Canopy Tourism at the National Level ________

This chapter focuses on the current situation and future potential of canopy tourism in
Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah at the national level. Thereby, particular emphasis is laid on
environmental and socio-economic effects of canopy tourism as well as its potential to raise
awareness towards rainforests.

Information for this chapter was obtained through expert talks with representatives from
governmental organizations, NGOs and the private sector:

• Governmental organizations: Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP),

Forestry Department, Ministry of Tourism (MOTOUR), Forest Research Institute of
Malaysia (FRIM)
• Nongovernmental organizations: World Wildlife Fund Malaysia (WWF), Malaysia
Nature Society (MNS)
• Private Sector: Tour operators, hotel management

Informal talks were held with people from the local communities and with tourists.
Furthermore observations in situ contributed to the information presented here.

Given that canopy tourism is not recognized as a stand alone product in Malaysia, often it was
very difficult to conduct talks which completely focused on this tourism segment. Mostly it
was necessary to talk about rainforest ecotourism in general to then ascertain in how far this
would also apply to canopy tourism.

Situation of canopy tourism in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah

According to the different stakeholders interviewed during fieldwork seven canopy tourism
facilities exist in Peninsular Malaysia; four facilities exist in Sabah. All those facilities are
bridges, either suspended between tree platforms or metal towers. Of the eleven facilities five
were in operation during time of evaluation. The others were closed for maintenance or are
still under construction. No information was obtained for Sarawak.

Malaysia can be considered the pioneering country for canopy tourism activities in Asia. The
first walkway which was used for tourism purposes was built in Poring Hotsprings in 1990 by
Illar Muul, who then continued building walkways in various countries worldwide. The
facility in Sungai Sedim and the one still under construction in Sepilok are massive
freestanding steel constructions. All the other walkways are made of platforms built around
the trunks of massive rainforest trees like Compassia or Dipterocarp. Those platforms are
connected by suspension bridges which, depending on length, carry between one and four
people at a time. In Malaysia this system is called canopy walkway whereas the system using
metal poles or towers instead of trees is called a treetop walk.

Figure 1: Existing canopy tourism facilities and those under construction in Peninsular Malaysia and
Sabah. Source: own compilation, map based on CIA World Fact Book.

All canopy facilities in Malaysia are in public protected areas, either under state or federal
administration. Accordingly, in most cases the land is owned by the public sector while the
operation of the facility is undertaken by private enterprises (e.g. under contract or
concession). Hence different stakeholders are responsible for the respective walkways.
Funding for the walkways almost always comes from the federal side, as canopy walkways
are considered features which enhance Malaysia’s reputation as a tourism destination. And
often the public landowner retains responsibility for maintenance of the facility. Treetop
walks are much more expensive than canopy walkways but need not as much maintenance as
the latter. This separation of maintenance (public sector) and operation (private sector) seems
to be a concerning weakness as it could lead to insufficient duty of care to public safety and
ecological standards through split responsibilities. Financial issues and possible benefit of
canopy tourism activities will be looked at more closely below and in the chapter with the
case studies.
 Canopy Tourism Facilities in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah

Name of protected Governmental Status of

State Type of facility
area/ Location agency responsible operation

Taman Negara Wildlife

Pahang Canopy walkway In operation
National Park Department
Taman Negara Wildlife
Pahang Canopy walkway Planned
National Park Department
Taman Negara Wildlife Under
Kelantan Canopy walkway
National Park Department reconstruction
KETENGHA
Taman Negara (Land
Terenganu Canopy walkway Planned
National Park Development
Authority)
Sungai Sedim
Kedah Forestry
Recreational Kedah Treetop walk In operation
Department
Forest
Forest Research
Institute of Kuala Lumpur Canopy walkway FRIM In operation
Malaysia (FRIM)
Malacca Botanical Malacca Forestry Closed for
Malacca Canopy walkway
Garden Department maintanance
Commonwealth Selangor Tourism Permanently
Selangor Canopy walkway
Park Board closed
Selangor
Agriculture Park Zip Line Rope
Selangor Department of Planned
Shah Alam Course
Agriculture
Penang Forestry Closed for
Penang Hill Penang Canopy walkway
Department maintenance
Penang National Wildlife
Penang Canopy walkway Planned
Park Department
Penang National Wildlife
Penang Treetop walk Planned
Park Department
Poring Hotsprings/
Mt. Kinabalu Sabah Canopy walkway Sabah Parks In operation
National Park
Borneo Rainforest
Lodge/ Danum Canopy walkway
Sabah Yayasan Sabah In operation
Valley
Conservation Area
Under
Maliau Basin Sabah Canopy walkway Yayasan Sabah
construction
Rainforest
Sabah Forestry Under
Discovery Centre Sabah Treetop walk
Department construction
Sepilok
Crocker Range
Park Mahua Sabah Canopy Walkway Sabah Parks Planned
Tambunan

Figure 2: Existing and potential canopy tourism facilities in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah.
 Source: own compilation, map based on CIA World Fact Book.

Recognition of canopy tourism

In spite of the number of existing canopy tourism facilities and potential for more facilities in
the future, canopy tourism is not considered a standalone product in Malaysia. Much more it
is viewed as one of the icons of the rainforest or part of a bigger package selling the rainforest
experience. The rainforest, thereby, is seen as one of Malaysia’s natural assets which is
considered a recreational forest for domestic tourism. In Malaysia’s effort to become a leading
global tourist destination the rainforest is furthermore increasingly promoted as a natural
heritage of the country.

Hence canopy tourism is not marketed as a single attraction in Malaysia. The tourist
information in Peninsular Malaysia only provided information on Taman Negara; in Sabah
information only existed for Poring Hotsprings. Even in those cases there was not information
specifically on canopy activities but on the whole activity offered in the respective area.

Looking at travel guides like Lonely Planet or Rough Guide Malaysia, canopy tourism is not
mentioned in detail either. Same accounts for the internet. Information on canopy tourism in
Malaysia there can only be found if the respective location is also typed into the search
engine. Basically it is right now very difficult to get comprehensive information on canopy
tourism being outside Malaysia and even within the country getting this information requires
some effort.

The fact that canopy tourism is not considered a standalone product in Malaysia also made
research more difficult. In most cases it was not possible to conduct interviews specifically on
canopy tourism. In most cases it made more sense to talk about ecotourism and then consider
canopy tourism part of it.

Criteria for canopy tourism and instruments of accreditation

Because canopy tourism is not considered a standalone product, the authorities in Malaysia do
not see the need for criteria regarding the sustainability of canopy tourism. Accordingly, no
such instrument exists and likewise there is also no instrument of accreditation. The
Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) has its own ecotourism criteria for its
parks and facilities. Therefore, no special canopy tourism criteria are taken into consideration.
Same applies to the Forestry Department, which is in the process of developing ecotourism
criteria for its areas. Because it is not clear yet whether those criteria are sufficient in an
ecotourism sense, no statement can be made whether those criteria would be sufficient were
they to be applied to canopy tourism. The Ministry of Tourism (MOTOUR) sees the Forestry
Department responsible for the sustainability of canopy tourism and therefore does not see the
need for developing criteria itself. Nevertheless MOTOUR is open to recommendations on
sustainable canopy tourism to be developed in the future.

Future potential of canopy tourism

There is considerable interest in the expansion of canopy tourism and it is believed to offer
future potential. This potential is interpreted rather differently by the stakeholders
interviewed. MOTOUR does not see the need for new facilities, as it prefers to diversify the
ecotourism offer. For some reason the potential of canopy tourism activity as ‘high quality
and high admission - low visitor volume product’ is not being recognized yet. Still there is
interest in future recommendations on canopy tourism including instruments of accreditation.

Figure 3: Potential canopy tourism facilities in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah.

Source: own compilation, map based on CIA World Fact Book.

The DWNP and the Forestry Department both are in the process of planning possible new
facilities, as shown in figures 1-3. The Forestry Department and the local operator of the
Sungai Sedim treetop walk are thinking about diversifying their offer by adding further
attractions like zip lines. One more canopy walkway is envisioned in Taman Negara/ Kuala
Tahan beside the existing one. A more direct integration of local communities and a stand
alone situation of a canopy tourism activity seem to be possible in such a scenario.12 A canopy
walkway and a treetop walk are planned in Penang National Park. Furthermore, a French
company plans to install a zip line treetop rope course in Agricultural Park Shah Alam in
Selangor State.

In Sabah, where two facilities exist right now and two more are under construction, Sabah
Parks thinks about building a facility in Crocker Range Park. This park has been established
recently and its subsection Mahua Tambunan is about to develop tourism activities similar to
Poring Hotsprings. A canopy walkway would be one way to add a further attraction to this
subsection of the park. The communities of the surrounding villages are also interested to take
part in local ecotourism activities.13

Almost all interviewees see the value of canopy tourism to be an alternative to logging or
palm oil production. Simultaneously they stated that the potential of canopy tourism has not
been fully realized yet. The private sector mainly sees further potential to capitalize on canopy
tourism as a product. In this regard canopy tourism is foremost seen as a way to add a further
attraction to the rainforest. WWF and Malaysia Nature Society both stressed that canopy
tourism has not been fully used yet to benefit conservation. Foremost those stakeholders
criticized that canopy tourism in Malaysia is rather used for recreational purposes than for
rainforest interpretation and raising awareness towards tropical rainforests.

Socio-cultural effects and benefits through canopy tourism

The evaluation of socio-cultural effects addresses possible changes in the life of local
communities through tourism activities. No statement can be made on socio-cultural effects
and benefits with regard to canopy tourism at the national level. Only the forest areas of
Taman Negara National Park and FRIM are inhabited by indigenous communities, the Orang
Azli. Possible effects and benefits here will be discussed in the respective case studies.

Socio-economic effects and benefits through canopy tourism

Effects and benefits through canopy tourism towards local communities can rather be
observed and discussed at the socio-economic level. This addresses changes in the economic
situation of the local communities. Even here it proved very difficult to find a direct

12
For more detail see case studies and the section on socio-economic and socio-cultural effects and benefits
through canopy tourism.
13
A fieldtrip including a workshop with local community leaders on potential canopy tourism has been
undertaken in Crocker Range. Please see the case study on Crocker Range Park.
connection to canopy tourism. As discussed in the ecotourism chapter deficits can be found in
the implementation of the general ecotourism criteria at the local level, including the
integration of local communities.

The Forestry Department (FD) and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP)
stipulate that contractors/ concessionaires have to share benefits with local communities. As a
result, theoretically concepts of benefit sharing with local communities exist. In practice there
are no specific criteria or monitoring processes to ensure that this happens in canopy tourism
activities. Likewise, there are no projects yet where local community involvement with, and
benefit from, canopy walkway development has been clearly built into the process. As with
other ecotourism facilities the FD follows the policy to also hand the walkways in its forest
areas over to local entrepreneurs. Whereas there is no set rule towards integrating local
communities into a canopy tourism project, the local operators running the facilities have to
share benefits with the local communities. The DWNP enforces and monitors local integration
in tourism activities in its protected areas. No concept regarding canopy tourism exists yet and
the DWNP walkway in Taman Negara National Park is operated and maintained by the
Wildlife Department itself. The interviewees from the Wildlife Department suggested that the
planned facilities in Taman Negara and Penang National Parks could be handed over to local
contractors/ concessionaires for operation.

With the current admission structure such a facility alone wouldn’t be of great benefit to local
communities. Receipts from the existing facilities often equal the expenditures necessary for
maintenance of the facilities and wages to the employees. The benefit from such a facility to
the local communities therefore rather comes from making the rainforest more attractive in
general which in turn leads to a higher number of visitors who will use other tourism offers
possibly run by local operators.14

The Ministry of Tourism (MOTOUR) which also promotes the National Ecotourism Plan
does not have a special concept for creating benefit to local communities through canopy
tourism. According to the representative interviewed there is a special fund for local
communities who want to get involved in tourism. Furthermore micro credit programs exist
which focus especially on women. Whereas MOTOUR believes that ecotourism can be a very
important aspect to enhance income of the local communities, allocation of those funds very
much depends on the initiative from the community.

14
For detailed examples see the case studies on Taman Negara and Sungai Sedim.
The interviewees of the private sector expressed concern that indigenous and local
communities lack the knowledge and education to run an ecotourism or even canopy tourism
project. On the other hand, WWF and Malaysia Nature Society (MNS) have shown that
community ecotourism initiatives are possible. Both NGOs see ecotourism activities in
rainforests as alternatives to logging. They also see the potential of integrating local
communities in canopy tourism activities but the feasibility of such a project has to be proven
yet.

Whereas it proved difficult to give a general assessment of socio-economic benefits through

canopy tourism at the national level, the case studies give examples where such benefit exists.

Environmental effects and benefits through canopy tourism

Direct environmental effects through canopy tourism very much depend on the way a facility
is built. A treetop walk built with steel towers causes bigger damage on the ground (e.g.
erosion, the likely cutting of trees) than a walkway suspended from tree platforms. Those
platforms on the other hand have to be maintained constantly to avoid damage to the tree
trunk through e.g. strangling or chafing. According to the different stakeholders such damage
can be avoided or at least reduced by maintaining the facilities properly and encouraging
ecologically friendly conduct of the visitors. Illar Muul for example provided the operators of
the walkways he built in Malaysia with recommendations on maintenance and desirable
visitor conduct.15

Indirect environmental impact through canopy tourism is much harder to identify. Such
impact includes damage caused by infrastructure surrounding the facility or a high tourism
volume in the area caused by the attraction of canopy tourism. As canopy tourism cannot be
evaluated as a stand alone product in Malaysia, such impact could not be evaluated at the
national level. The case studies in the following chapter provide some insight into the general
impact people have while participating in a rainforest tourism activity.

All stakeholders agreed that canopy tourism can be considered a tool for the conservation of
tropical forests. It was not possible to clearly identify in how far canopy tourism provides a
direct alternative to logging because all the areas where rainforest and canopy related tourism
activities take place are forest areas which are reserved for recreational activities. Those
forests are in most cases owned and funded by governmental agencies (DWNP and FD) and it
is their mission to make recreation in those forests available and affordable to everyone.

15
See Muul 1992.
Hence, admission to those tourism offers is not equivalent to the actual costs which arise from
running such an operation. The income which is associated to rainforest and canopy related
tourism activities therefore cannot be compared directly with revenues coming from logging
or palm oil. This does not mean, however, that the concept of the walkway providing a more
sustainable livelihood is not really relevant. The contribution of canopy tourism to
conservation in Malaysia is therefore seen through raising awareness towards tropical forests.
A canopy tourism facility has the potential to make local people generally more aware of the
economic value of the forest and its natural assets. Further research will be necessary to allow
a direct economic comparison between a canopy tourism activity and activities like logging or
palm oil production.

Raising awareness towards rainforests through canopy tourism

Raising awareness and appreciation towards a protected area is considered one of the main
criteria of the ecotourism concept.16 All interviewees agreed that canopy tourism can create a
unique experience which is very different from being in the rainforest on the ground. This
experience can lead to a better understanding among tourists and local communities which
helps raising the awareness towards the forest, a concept almost all interviewees pointed out.

At the same time the majority of the interviewees stated that the potential of canopy tourism
to raise awareness is not fully used in Malaysia yet. Interpretation was criticized to be
minimal or even nonexistent. This statement is backed up by observations in situ. None of the
facilities visited offered actual interpretation by guides on the walkway; in three cases
signboards provided some interpretation. Furthermore, in most cases the amount of visitors
allowed on the walkway at a time was much higher than suggested by the general ecotourism
criteria. Various tourists complained about having been rushed through the walkway and not
having had enough time to enjoy the rainforest. Besides not providing proper interpretation,
opening hours of most walkways were from eight to five o’clock, whereas wildlife is best
seen at dusk or dawn. Therefore canopy tourism in Malaysia was criticized by some
interviewees as being more of a recreational adventure than a true rainforest experience.

Hence, all interviewees of governmental institutions as well as those of NGOs stressed the
need for an improvement of interpretation. The Forestry Department is in the process of
developing an interpretative program for canopy tourism and the DWNP offers training to
naturalist guides in general which in turn is financed by MOTOUR. This shows that on the

16
See Arbeitsgruppe Ökotourismus cited in: Ellenberg et Al. 1997, 56f.
one hand the importance of interpretation is recognized whereas on the other hand the
development of an interpretative program at least with regard to canopy tourism seems to still
be in the beginning stage.
4 Case Studies ____ ____ ____

During the field visit six canopy tourism facilities and one potential site were visited. Three
sites will be discussed in this chapter. Two are situated in Peninsular Malaysia and one in
Sabah. Information was obtained through observations in situ as well as through expert
interviews and informal talks with local stakeholders and visitors.

Taman Negara National Park – Kuala Tahan/ Pahang State

Covering an area of 4.344 km², Taman Negara National Park is the largest protected forest
area in Peninsular Malaysia. The administrative responsibility of the park is distributed
between the sultans of the three states Pahang, Kelantan and Terenganu as trustees. As a
protected area of national interest the park is managed by the Department of Wildlife and
National Parks (DWNP) at the federal level. The main gate to the park is in Kuala Tahan/
Pahang; more than two thirds of the visitors enter the park at this entrance. Right at the
entrance is the privately run Mutiara Taman Negara Resort, where the majority of the visitors
stay. Across the river, which is the national parks’ boarder, lies the village Kuala Tahan. In
the village there are a few guesthouses, restaurants and shops; two new resorts have opened
recently. Down by the river several floating restaurants run by local entrepreneurs offer
simple but good food. They are also the starting point for boat rides and the numerous guided
tours into the national park offered by the local community. The major attraction of the
national park is the rainforest itself which can be experienced through various activities like
jungle hikes or boat rides. One of the most popular activities is the canopy walkway which is
located a 30 minute hike away from park headquarters. The 600m walkway was built by Illar
Muul in 1991 one year after he had opened the first walkway to the public in Poring
Hotsprings/ Sabah. The walkway in Kuala Tahan lies in Pahang state and is under
responsibility of DWNP whereas the park covers land in two more adjoining states. It
certainly is a major attraction and the main question here is to which extent the walkway is
acting as a draw for visitors at the moment compared with just the park as a whole. When
asked about this, about 50% of the tourists stated that knew about the walkway beforehand
and said it was one of the main reasons to come to the park. The other half stated that they
either had not known about the walkway or would have come to the park anyway.
Nevertheless, almost each visitor to the park also visits the walkway. Therefore, it is difficult
to assess benefits and effects solely caused by the walkway.
 • Financial issues: The Taman Negara walkway was funded by the Ministry of
Tourism. The first 100 meters, which were built by Illar Muul, cost RM 300,000.
DWNP staff then continued building the walkway. No information was given on those
costs. Maintenance costs depend on what kind of maintenance takes place, which is
not done on a regular schedule. No information was given on those costs either but
they seem to be rather high because the need for maintenance in the tree platform
system is generally high. DWNP counts the number of visitors to the walkway without
producing comprehensive visitor statistics. According to DWNP and the local guide
association basically every visitor to the park also visits the walkway. In 2004, 53,616
people entered the park through Kuala Tahan.17 Admission to the walkway is RM 5 for
adults and RM 3 for children. The maximum earnings from admission thus could be
estimated as about RM 250,000 per year. Park admission, which is RM 1 per person,
camera admission (RM 5) and walkway admission go directly to Pahang state.
Maintenance costs are covered by the operational budget of the park, which is partly
financed by the Taman Negara Trust Fund. The main contributor to the fund is
Mutiara Taman Negara. The operator of the resort is the only non-local company and
runs its operation on national park land. Mutiara Taman Negara does not pay any rent
but instead gives 1.5% of its annual turnover to the fund. According to park officials,
1.5% of the turnover in 2005 equaled RM 130,000. This means on the other hand that
the full turnover of Mutiara exceeded RM 8 million.

• Socio-cultural issues: Socio-cultural issues concern the indigenous forest dwelling

Orang Asli in the park as well as the local people in Kuala Tahan village. The Orang
Asli have nothing to do with the canopy walkway but visits to their dwelling places
happen frequently as part of the jungle tours offered. Responsible for the situation and
wellbeing of the Orang Asli is not the DWNP but the Orang Asli Welfare Department.
Possible negative socio-cultural effects in Kuala Tahan village are avoided by constant
communication between all stakeholders. According to the local guide association,
tourism has changed the situation in the village but no severe negative changes took
place so far.

• Socio-economic issues: Up to 152 people can be employed at park headquarters Kuala

Tahan. At the moment of evaluation only 92 people worked there full time. Some of
those people also work at the walkway; doing maintenance, collecting entrance fees

17
See DWNP 2004, 85ff.
 and taking care of security. The DWNP does not offer tourism activities. Activities
like guiding and boat rides are done by the local people from Kuala Tahan. They are
organized in the local guide and boating association to be then trained and authorized
by the DWNP to work in the national park. They are not employed by the DWNP but
work as private entrepreneurs who charge their customers directly. The DWNP
established the policy that only local people work in the national park. Subject to this
rule is also Mutiara Taman Negara. The company employs between 140 and 150
people, 95% come from the area. According to the local guide association earnings
from tourism make up for the main income of Kuala Tahan village, either through
boating, guiding, hospitality or direct employment in the park. It is not possible which
contribution comes directly from the walkway. Like with the other examples described
here, the walkway functions as a major activity which attracts many visitors to the
park.

• Environmental issues: Direct environmental impact of the walkway is relatively

little. Maintenance should be done on some of the bracelets around the trees which the
park management planned to still do this year. Environmental impact rather happens
indirectly due to high visitor numbers. According to Stecker, the carrying capacity of
park headquarters at Kuala Tahan was already exceeded in 1995.18 Today visual
impact is obvious; including littering, pollution of the river and erosion of the
footpaths. Directly at the walkway a clearing has been cut into the forest to
accommodate the people queuing to go onto the walkway. This kind of overcrowding
seems to be unavoidable as long as no visitor management and reduction of visitor
numbers are introduced.

• Raising awareness: High visitor numbers can also be made responsible for deficits in
the quality of rainforest interpretation. The walkway can be visited with or without
guidance but even in case of a guided tour the guides wait for their guests on the
ground in order to avoid overcrowding on the walkway. Many tourists complained
about being rushed through without having been given time to really experience the
rainforest canopy. The potential to use the walkway to offer a unique experience
beyond the mere adventure does not seem to be acknowledged yet. Nevertheless, the
setting of the walkway presents a unique opportunity to offer such an experience. The
quality of interpretation very much depends on the guides. The DWNP as well as the

18
See Stecker 1996, 15f.
 local guide association see the need for improvement; so new training measures are
envisioned. However, no interpretative program focusing on the canopy exists yet.
Furthermore the opening hours of the walkway make it impossible to experience the
rainforest at dusk or dawn, where chances of seeing wildlife are highest. Raising
awareness of local communities is done through school projects. No special canopy
program exists for those projects, either.

• Future potential: The DWNP aims at diversifying the tourism activities in Taman
Negara. Kelantan and Terenganu states also want to increase their benefit from
tourism in the park. A walkway exists at the national park entrance in Kelantan; this
walkway is currently under reconstruction to be reopened for the Visit Malaysia in
2007. Terenganu also plans to build a walkway in its part of the national park.
Currently, those two park entrances are not promoted heavily and therefore mainly
attract local visitors. To avoid further visitor concentration in Kuala Tahan spreading
tourism activities to those areas seems to be the obvious approach. In Kuala Tahan
itself the DWNP is considering building a second walkway. The officials recognize the
potential of operating the walkway privately and encouraging a higher level of local
community participation. Due to its social obligation to ensure access to the rainforest
for everyone, the DWNP does not see the possibility to increase admission to the
existing walkway to then reduce the amount of visitors. It also seemed unimaginable
to park officials and employees of the DWNP administrations to introduce two tier
pricing with a lower price for Malaysian nationals and a higher price for international
visitors. Such a model could be applied to a possible new facility. Hence a new facility
could benefit from the existing tourism infrastructure and function as a best practice
example of sustainable canopy tourism.

Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest – Kulim/ Kedah State

The treetop walk in Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest falls within the responsibility of Kedah
State Forestry Department. The walkway was designed by an Australian company and built
by a local company in 2001 to add an additional attraction to the recreational forest. Other
attractions include camp sites, a river for swimming and white water rafting and hikes up Mt.
Bintang. According to the operator the 2000m walk is the longest of that kind in the world; it
is a massive circular construction with steel towers connected by bridges. Right after opening
a tree fell onto one of the bridges and part of the construction had to be rebuilt. This year the
facility reopened, part of the tourism offer is still to be developed.

• Financial issues: Funding for the walkway came from the federal Ministry of
Tourism, which handed it over to the local authorities. Initial costs to build it were RM
5 million. Due to its massive construction regular maintenance costs for the walkway
are low. Admission is RM 10 for adults and RM 6 for children. Having only reopened
recently it is not possible yet to give an overall figure on visitor numbers, revenue and
break even point and the officials running the facility were not able to give any
projections.

• Socio-cultural issues: No indigenous communities are living in the Sungai Sedim

forest. Correspondingly no criteria for socio-culturally sensitive conduct exist. It
remains to be seen in how far a possible increase in tourism activities will affect the
surrounding villages. Benefits from increased visitor numbers to surrounding villages
can rather be found in a socio-economic context.

• Socio-economic issues: The state Forestry Department handed all ecotourism

activities in Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest over to a local operator. This operator
does not have to pay a rent or lease for the tourism infrastructure including the
walkway. Instead 30% of his revenue goes to the local district authorities. Other direct
benefits include employment in the facility. Twelve people worked there during
evaluation. Because the treetop walk is only one of the tourism activities offered, it is
difficult to quantify its sole contribution to the local communities. Given that it is the
longest treetop walk in the world it has the potential to raise the attractiveness and
economic value of the forest considerably. Indirect benefit comes from food and
souvenir stalls local people set up along the road to the facility. This road is too narrow
right now for big coaches to pass through, so the local authorities plan to enlarge it.
This improvement of the road infrastructure can be seen as an improvement of the
living conditions of the local communities. Because of the reasons given here, the
communities living in the surrounding villages should be benefiting from increased
visitor numbers to the park.

• Environmental issues: A path for construction and the foundations of the steel towers
had to be cut into the forest, increasing the danger of erosion. During the visit the
exposed forest ground was visible from the treetop walk. The operator of the walkway
expressed his intention to plant trees along the construction path. The walk itself gave
 the impression of being very much in the open instead of being inside the rainforest
canopy. No rules addressing environmental issues have been established yet.

• Raising awareness: No full rainforest interpretation program has been developed for
the walkway yet because it only reopened recently. Signboards along the walkway
offer basic information on names of trees and animals. To use the walkway’s full
potential to create a unique rainforest experience it an interpretative program should be
developed here. At the moment many local groups visit the facility. The facility’s
manager was not able to specify the exact number but he stated that a large part of
those visitors were school classes. Hence, the walkway has great potential to raise the
awareness of the local people towards the rainforest through school projects and
similar programs.

• Future potential: Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest is situated an hours’ drive from
Penang Island, a major Malaysian tourist attraction. The park’s officials are planning
to promote the park on the island and organize bus trips to Sungai Sedim Recreational
Forest. Therefore, Sungai Sedim Recreational Forest has the potential to attract foreign
as well as local tourists. The treetop walk certainly will be a major attraction among
the things offered at the facility. Taken into consideration that it is promoted as the
longest treetop walk in the world, it has to potential to act as a major draw to the park.
According to estimates by the operator, even without promotion, 3000 people visited
the walkway in the first three months after reopening. The officials at Sungai Sedim
have great plans to expand the canopy activities by also offering other canopy
activities like a zip line adventure. The challenge will be to ensure the quality of the
rainforest experience offered so it does not turn into a mere adventure tourism activity.

Crocker Range Park - Mahua Tambunan/ Sabah State

Crocker Range Park has been established in the 1980s; its subsection Mahua Tambunan
opened in June 2003. Crocker Range Park is under the auspices of Sabah Parks. The region
around Mahua Tambunan, formerly called the ‘rice bowl’ of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah’s capital,
is about to lose economic relevance because a new road is built further south through the
Crocker Range. Local stakeholders think that ecotourism activities similar to Poring
Hotsprings could give the region around the substation an economic push.

• Ecotourism potential: As with many recreational forest areas in Malaysia right now
only a path from the headquarters of the substation leads into the forest. It ends at a
 waterfall where it is possible to rest and make a fire. Sabah Parks plans to build
different kinds of accommodation at the headquarters of the substation; a canopy
walkway would be one way to add a further attraction.

• Participation of local communities: Sabah Parks has identified ecotourism and

community tourism potential in the surrounding villages, named Mahua, Patau and
Narayat. As of yet there is no tourism activity but the communities of those villages,
mostly indigenous people of the ethnic group Kadazan Dusun, are interested to take
part in such activities. A group discussion was conducted with the leaders of those
villages. The villagers want to offer community based tourism activities which they
control, instead of becoming dependent on professional outside tourism operators.

• Canopy tourism potential: Canopy tourism is not part of their main agenda but it is
seen as a possible added attraction. The discussion showed that canopy tourism on
village land alone would not be possible anyway because all the big trees were cut
down. All big trees, i.e. a primary rainforest structure most suitable for a canopy
tourism facility, are on Crocker Range Park land. This is where a potential walkway
would have to be built. Considering the examples of the existing facilities, such an
option would again integrate local communities merely at the employment or
operational level. A possible option would be to install a walkway from village land
into park land. The facility could be operated in a partnership between government
agencies, the private sector and local communities which could benefit from the
operational and marketing expertise of those stakeholders. The local communities
could bring in their indigenous knowledge and should be participants of the operation
at the planning, operational and management level. No such project has taken place in
Malaysia to date. Considering that tourism activities in the area are just about to begin,
a canopy tourism project with local community participation could function as a best
practice example for sustainable canopy tourism in Malaysia.

To complete the picture, the other facilities visited in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah will be
described briefly. The information gathered on those facilities varies considerably. Therefore
it is difficult to directly compare the facilities:

• Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM)/ Kuala Lumpur: The FRIM

walkway was also built by Illar Muul in 1991 for research purposes. Tourism activities
began, when Malaysia Nature Society began bringing students to the walkway. Initial
costs for building the walkway were about RM 300,000; funding came from the
 German Agency for Technical cooperation GTZ. Admission to the walkway is RM 5
per person. RM 60,000 were earned in 2005. Per year about RM 30.000 are spent on
maintenance. Those costs do not include wages to employees working at the walkway,
which equal another RM 24,000. No model for distributing benefits exists and no local
communities live around FRIM. Sometimes Orang Asli, who live in the forest are
employed for maintenance. Like in Taman Negara, the walkway can be visited alone,
even in case of a guided tour no interpretation is done on the walkway. Information
leaflets for the walkway exist and signboards on the walkway provide basic
interpretation, depicting the names and ecologic functions of some of the major trees
of the forest. Nevertheless, FRIM lays its main focus on interpretation on the ground.
The walkway’s potential for education and a unique rainforest experience has not been
fully realized yet.

• Malacca Botanical Garden: The canopy walkway in Malacca Botanical Garden was
built in 2001 for RM 250,000. Maintenance costs around RM 20,000 per year. Up to
2000 people visit the walkway per year, mainly school children and governmental
officials. Admission is RM 5 for adults and RM 3 for children. The money goes
directly to Malacca State. The only secondary benefit goes to a kiosk outside the
botanical garden. The main purpose of the walkway is to allow visitors to see flora and
fauna from a different perspective. However, Malacca Botanical Garden is more of a
park than a natural forest. On top of that no interpretation is offered at all. Right now
the walkway is closed for maintenance. No information was given when it will be
reopened.

• Poring Hotsprings/ Mt. Kinabalu National Park/ Sabah: Poring Hotsprings is part
of Mt. Kinabalu National Park and is an hour’s drive away from national park
headquarters. The main attraction of the facility are the hotsprings which were built by
the Japanese during WW II. Furthermore there is an orchid and a butterfly garden,
different kinds of accommodation, a restaurant and the canopy walkway itself. The
walkway was built by Illar Muul in 1990 and is the first facility of this kind to open
the canopy to the public. All the tourism facilities in Poring Hotsprings are operated by
Sutera Sanctuary Lodges, a private company which runs all the tourism facilities in the
protected areas of Sabah Parks. Admission to the walkway is RM 5, bringing a photo
camera costs RM 5 more; no further information on financial issues was provided.
Like in FRIM, signboards provide basic interpretation depicting the names and
ecologic functions of some of the major trees of the forest, but no guided tours are
 offered at all. Poring Hotsprings is situated at the end of a road which obviously only
exists for getting there. Opposite the entrance of the facility the road is lined with
about ten handicraft stalls, a few local restaurants and grocery shops and two hostels. It
can be said that the village more or less exists because of the tourism facility. Benefit
to local communities thus comes from employment with Sutera and through secondary
effects in the adjoining village.

• Borneo Rainforest Lodge - Danum Valley Conservation Area/ Sabah: Danum

Valley Conservation Area lies in the middle of a vast logging concession which is
managed by Yayasan Sabah. This foundation consists of governmental organizations,
research institutions and the private sector and comes under the authority of the
Sabahan government. Borneo Rainforest Lodge (BRL) was built in 1994 to offer a
high standard all inclusive rainforest experience after the nearby Danum Valley Field
Station became popular with tourists. BRL has a 100m canopy walkway which is part
of the tourism package but not the sole attraction. About half of the visitors knew
about the walkway in advance, for those the walkway was one of the reasons to visit
BRL. Whereas BRL only offers guided tours, no interpretation takes place on the
walkway. After maintenance has been neglected over the last years, the walkway will
be redone this autumn. No local communities or forest dwelling people live in Danum
Valley. Thus the only socio-economic benefit of BRL comes through employment in
the facility.
5 Conclusion _____ ____

The results of this survey show that canopy tourism in Malaysia is not considered a stand
alone product. Nevertheless, potential for more canopy tourism was identified and there was
great interest in future development of this tourism segment among the stakeholders
interviewed.

In the concluding chapter of the survey the value and potential of canopy tourism will be
addressed. Furthermore, recommendations for sustainable canopy tourism will be given as
well as recommendations on further research.

The value of canopy tourism

All stakeholders agreed that canopy tourism has the potential to be a valuable tool for
community benefit and rainforest conservation. The ecological value of canopy tourism is
mainly seen in its potential to raise awareness towards rainforests, even though this potential
has not been fully realized yet. It was not possible to clearly establish canopy tourism as a tool
to produces revenue which is higher than the revenue from logging and palm oil production.19
However, this does not mean in reverse that canopy tourism does not have the potential to be
an economic alternative to those sources of income. In various cases the canopy walkway’s
presence has made local people generally more aware of the economic value of the forest.

The socio-economic potential to create benefit for local communities through canopy tourism
exits but has not been fully realized yet, either. Still, different sources of benefit exist. The
case studies showed that right now the sources of benefit are mostly of secondary kind or can
be found at the employment or operational level. Government departments like the Forestry
Department or the Department of Wildlife and National Parks are working on instruments of
benefit sharing with local communities. The local communities interviewed for this survey
showed great interest in participating in rainforest canopy tourism activities aimed at
rainforest conservation and benefit sharing.

19
As it was described in this report this is mainly due to the Malaysian practice of separating recreational forest
and timber production forests as well as administrative approaches to tourism in conservation areas.
Recommendations

There is considerable interest in the expansion of canopy tourism and it is believed to offer
future potential as a major tourism attraction. Taken into consideration that canopy tourism is
not considered a stand alone product, a tourism offer to get into the canopy should be
integrated with the overall idea of visiting Malaysia to enjoy the country’s forests and other
natural assets. Looking at examples from other countries like Costa Rica such a development
ought to be accompanied by a set of guidelines addressing sustainability in order to avoid an
uncontrolled growth of this tourism segment. Given that the canopy tourism development is
still in its infancy and no such criteria exist yet, Malaysia could take on a pioneering role in
the development of such criteria. Cooperation between NGOs, GOs, academic institutions and
canopy tourism projects should ensure the feasibility and quality of measures and guidelines
for sustainable canopy tourism.

In order to create a unique high quality rainforest experience, canopy tourism should be the
major attraction of a rainforest tourism offer, possibly combined with other activities like boat
rides or jungle hikes. To highlight the uniqueness of the forest canopy, the range of activities
on the walkway should be extended. This recommendation includes special guided tours,
birding offers at dusk and dawn and also night hikes where the terrain allows it. To offer such
a range of activities, a ‘high price – low visitor volume’ approach is recommended. This
includes the introduction of two tier pricing with a lower price for Malaysian nationals and a
higher price for international visitors. This approach would differ considerably from the
understanding of ecotourism governmental organisations advocate so far in Malaysia.
Evidence from other ecotourism destinations shows that foreign tourists are prepared to pay
for a high quality experience. In order to also enable local visitors to still take part in such an
activity, lower admission to local people and foreigners is recommended.

Rules and techniques established to reduce negative environmental impact during construction
and operation of a canopy tourism facility are suggested. Carrying capacity studies and
regular independent monitoring should ensure that no negative environmental impact takes
place. Noise impact should be avoided.

Canopy tourism should be of socio-economic value to the local communities. Participatory

mechanisms should be established in order to integrate local communities in the process of
planning and carrying out the canopy tourism project. Whereas in theory, most ideally an
ecotourism project should be entirely in the hands of the local communities, in practice such
an approach often is not feasible to its full extent and no such approach has been chosen in
Malaysia regarding a canopy tourism activity. Therefore, this report suggests a model of
community participation which functions as a partnership between the communities,
government agencies and the private sector’s operational and marketing expertise.

In order to create a unique rainforest experience and thus raise awareness towards rainforests
the quality of eco-education and interpretation should be emphasized, focusing on
interpretation of the ecosystem as a whole and taking the forest canopy into account.
Guidelines for rainforest interpretation could be developed in cooperation between
MOTOUR, DWNP, Forestry Department, academic institutions and the local communities
who in some cases are in the possession of very valuable indigenous knowledge. Furthermore,
scientific research at the walkway facility could become a source of interpretative and
educational material. The integration of local communities in a high quality canopy tourism
project very much depends on the quality of training and education. In each canopy tourism
activity eco-educational elements should be included. The ecosystem and its canopy have to
be emphasized as a whole, canopy tourism merely being the vehicle, which makes this
experience possible.

Future research

It is recommended to get a better picture on canopy tourism activities in Malaysia. Statistical

data on rainforest and canopy tourism activities have to be improved and research should be
extended to Sarawak to get an understanding of effects and benefits of canopy tourism for the
whole of Malaysia. Especially the facilities under construction and those still to be developed
present an important field of future research. Besides analyzing effects and benefits, research
could also be extended into developing recommendations and strategies for sustainable
canopy tourism.

Further research is necessary to establish canopy tourism as a tool which produces revenue
which is higher than the revenue from logging and palm oil production. For this, the actual
costs for establishing and running a canopy tourism facility, including a ‘high price – low
visitor volume’ approach have to be compared to the actual revenue coming from logging or
palm oil production.

This report concludes in suggesting action based research through a pilot project. This entails
developing a canopy tourism project on one site with clear adherence to sustainability
principles and community engagement, and closely documenting the process, progress and
results. Potential new facilities as pointed out in the report could be presented as best practise
examples of such an approach. NGOs like Malaysia Nature Society or WWF Malaysia have
successfully undertaken community ecotourism projects. It is therefore suggested to use their
expertise for a canopy tourism project of this kind.
Works cited

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1993:
Overview on Ecotourism around the World: IUCN's Ecotourism Program. Paper presented at
2nd World Congress on "Tourism for the Environment", Isla Margarita, Venezuela, 5ff.

CIA World Fact Book on the internet:

[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html, 20.09.2006]

Denman, R. 2001:
Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. The Tourism Company/ WWF
International.

DWNP 2004:
Annual Report Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Kuala Lumpur.

Ellenberg, L., Scholz, M., Beier, B. 1997:

Ökotourismus: Reisen zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie. Heidelberg.

Erwin, T. 1983:
"Tropical forest canopies: the last biotic frontier" in: Bulletin of the Entemological Society of
America. 29, 14 – 19.

MOCAT (Ministry of Culture, Arts and Tourism) 1996:

National Ecotourism Plan. Kuala Lumpur.
Muul, I. 1992:
Canopy Walkway Management and Maintenance. FRIM/ GTZ. Kuala Lumpur.

National Ectourism Accreditation Program NEAP III on the internet:

[http://www.ecotourism.org.au/eco_certification.asp, 19.06.2005]

Ninth Malaysia Plan on the internet: [http://www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/html/english.htm,

29.08.2006]

Seibel 2005:
Evaluation von Canopy Tourism. Unveröffentlichte Staatsexamensarbeit. Humboldt-
Universität zu Berlin.

Stecker, B. 1996:
Ecotourism: Potential for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Tropical Forests. Eschborn.

Strasdas, W. 2001:
Ökotourismus in der Praxis. Studienkreis für Tourismus und Entwicklung e.V. Ammerland.

WTO 2002: Québec Declaration on Ecotourism im Internet: [http://www.world-

tourism.org/sustainable/IYE/quebec/anglais/quebec-eng.pdf, 05.04.2005]

WTO-Tourism Factbook, Basic Indicators for Malaysia on the internet:

[http://titania.wtoelibrary.org/vl=5018914/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-
bin/wtourtfbaccess.pl?title=9886&filename=45801002004200601.pdf, 01.09.2006]
Appendix

Expert Interviews conducted during Fieldwork

Organisation Name Function Location and date
Director
Urban Forestry and
Forest Research Institute Kuala Lumpur
Dr. Noor Azlin Yahya Recreation Programme
of Malaysia (FRIM) 26-07-2006
Forestry and
Conservation Division
Marketing Manager
Kota Kinabalu
Sea Walking Borneo Francis S. P. Liew Retired Deputy Director
04-08-2006
of Sabah parks
Borneo Rainforest Lodge BRL Danum Valley
Isabelo Garcia Resident Manager
(BRL) 08-08-2006
Executive Assistant to Kota Kinabalu
Borneo Nature Tours Gavin Sham
General Manager 09-08-2006
Kota Kinabalu
Borneo Eco Tours Dr. Albert Theo Director
09-08-2006
Federal Forestry Assistant Director of Kuala Lumpur
Azman A. Rahman
Department Community Forests 10-08-2006
Department of Wildlife
Director Kuala Lumpur
and National Parks Dr. Zaaba Zainol Abidin
Ecotourism Division 11-08-2006
(DWNP)
Department of Wildlife Superintendent
Mohd Taufik B. Abd Kuala Tahan
and National Parks Taman Negara National
Rahman 14-08-2006
(DWNP) Park
Kuala Tahan
Mutiara Taman Negara Nasarimah Othman Accounts Manager
14-08-2006
Local Guide Association Kuala Tahan
Chu Hamzah President
Kuala Tahan 14-08-2006
Petaling Jaya
WWF Malaysia Kevin Hiew Wai Phang Director, Special Project
16-08-2006
Malaysia Zoological Aquarium Officer
Kuala Lumpur
Society Teresa Ong Former Nature Guide at
16-08-2006
Zoo Negara FRIM walkway
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia Nature Society Dr. Loh Chi Leong Executive Director
17-08-2006
Undersecretary
Ministry of Tourism Policy, Planning & Kuala Lumpur
Dr. Junaida Lee Abdullah
Malaysia (MOTOUR) International Affairs 18-08-2006
Division
 Canopy Tourism Facilities visited during Fieldwork

Name of protected Date of

State Type of facility Status of operation
area/ Location observation

24-07 to 26-
Taman Negara
Pahang Canopy walkway In operation 07.2006
National Park
13-08 to14-08-2006
Forest Research
Institute of Kuala Lumpur Canopy walkway In operation 26-07-2006
Malaysia (FRIM)
Poring Hotsprings/
01-08 to 02-08-
Mt. Kinabalu Sabah Canopy walkway In operation
2006
National Park
Crocker Range
Potential Canopy
Park Mahua Sabah Potential 05-08-2006
Tourism Site
Tambunan
Borneo Rainforest
Lodge/ Danum Canopy walkway 06-08 to 07-08-
Sabah In operation
Valley 2006
Conservation Area
Sungai Sedim
11-08 to 12-08-
Recreational Kedah Treetop walk In operation
2006
Forest
Malacca Botanical Closed for
Malacca Canopy walkway 15-08-2006
Garden maintenance