Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2023/Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park in Taiwan: Indigenous-run Ecotourism

From UBC Wiki

Summary of Case Study

In academia, the Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park is recognized as a model of successful community-based tourism established by the Tsou people of Saviki through sovereign claims, autonomous management, cultural revival, and ecological restoration. This case study provides a research background for Indigenous-run ecotourism. This case study briefly outlines the history of Taiwan's Indigenous people, analyzes the benefits and potential risks of the Tanayiku Natural Park, and discusses the asset-based community development approach and successful community-based ecotourism, ultimately offering recommendations for both the Tanayiku Natural Park and Indigenous-run ecotourism.

Keywords

Keywords: eco-tourism, Indigenous people, asset-based community development, ecological restoration

Introduction

The Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park, established and legally owned by the Formosan Tsou community, is currently under the management of the Tanayiku Development Committee (TDC). Recognized as one of Taiwan's premier tourist destinations, deeply connected with Formosan heritage, Tanayiku stands as a symbol of successful community-based ecotourism. In academia, Indigenous-run ecotourism is described as an effective form of geopolitical resistance (Hipwell, 2009). The park exemplifies the crucial role that the Formosan people can play in protecting the natural environment and promoting economic development.

Description

  • Geographic Information

Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park (hereafter ‘Tanayiku’), near the Formosan Tsou village called Saviki, is in the Alishan Mountains district of southern Taiwan, 70 km east of the city of Chiayi. It is centered around Tanayiku Creek, an 18-kilometer-long tributary of the Zhengwen River. It covers approximately 1,000 hectares. In terms of biodiversity, it is rich in featuring extensive, undisturbed forests and rare wildlife not commonly found elsewhere on the island. The diverse range of plants and animals in this area has been well-documented, highlighting its ecological significance (Hipwell, 2009).

  • An Explanation on Terminology

‘Formosan’ is the first international recognized name of Taiwanese, which refers to the island’s aboriginal or indigenous peoples. The word “Formosan” is locative, while differentiating the islands’ original peoples from the ‘Taiwanese’, principally Han Chinese settlers who have arrived from China over the past 10 centuries (Hunter, 2020).

  • History of Formosan Taiwan

The development challenges Formosan faced are linked to historical multiple colonizations, Hunter demonstrated the historical colonization on Taiwanese island:

  1. The Chinese (the first wave of colonization): Starting as early as the eleventh century, Fujianese and Hakka migrants from China came to the island, which led to sustained conflict with Formosans, who were either assimilated, killed, or driven off the plains and escaped to the surrounding mountains.
  2. The History of the Han Chinese Ming and Qing dynasties [insert dates]: The subsequent administration by Han Chinese Ming and Qing dynasties further reifies the results of deterritorialization. The Qing categorized Formosans as being ‘assimilated’ and ‘uncultured’. The former term referred to those Formosan people who had met three conditions: employment as couriers, delivery people or other service to the Chinese government, enrollment of male children in the public schooling system, and paying taxes; ‘uncultured’ Formosan people were those unconquered nations living in the mountains beyond the edge of plains, who would commonly kill intruders or even launch raids against the undefended plains settlements of ‘assimilated’ and of foreign settlers (Brown, 2004).
  3. The History of Japanese Administration: Following the end of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895, Taiwan was ceded to Japan according to the Treaty of Shimonoseki, with Japanese colonial rule lasting until the end of World War II in 1945. Initially, Japan's occupation of Taiwan was driven by geostrategic considerations, but over time, the island's food and natural resources increasingly attracted the attention of Japanese colonizers, with Taiwan gradually becoming an indispensable link in their resource supply chain. Japan's increasing demand for timber, especially camphor, quickly led to conflicts with the unconquered Formosan communities in the mountainous regions. In some cases, the Japanese established peaceful trade relationships with Formosan nations, formally recognizing land tenure and cultural sovereignty. However, in other instances, the Japanese were more brutal, relocating Formosan villages, kidnapping women, and depleting the forests of valuable timber. Formosan people were forced to adopt Japanese names and children were taught Japanese in schools (Arrigo, 2002).
  4. The Han Chinese (the second wave of colonization): In 1949, following Mao Zedong's Communist Revolution that overthrew the Nationalist government, Chiang Kai-Shek led his army and up to 2 million Han Chinese refugees to Taiwan. The establishment of the Nationalist regime represented a further dispossession for the Formosan people, not only in terms of land, but also linguistically and culturally. Under Nationalist rule, the language in schools was changed to Mandarin Chinese, and Formosan people were forced to change their names again to Han Chinese names. Additionally, the Formosan people suffered from environmental racism, including the dumping of nuclear waste, which had devastating impacts on the Formosan people. Furthermore, prolonged logging and mining activities led to severe environmental issues, including soil erosion and flooding problems (2020).

Tenure arrangements

  • Overview of Current land Ownership

The Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park's land tenure is now collectively owned by the Tsou community, who also autonomously manage it. In recent years, Taiwan has increasingly recognized the land rights of indigenous peoples and has implemented several laws and policies to protect these rights. For example, the Constitution of the Republic of China states: "The State shall, in accordance with the will of the ethnic groups, protect the status and political participation of the indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the State shall provide assistance and encouragement for the development of their education, culture, transportation, water conservation, health, medical care, economic land, and social welfare. Measures for these shall be established by law. The same shall apply to the people in the Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu areas (Government of China, 2019)." This demonstrates the Taiwanese government's recognition of indigenous people and reserved lands, advocating respect and protection for the development of indigenous communities. However, it is also crucial to note that there may be disparities between traditional territories and legally recognized territories (Scheyvens, 1999).

  • Historical Context of Land Tenure

The changes in land ownership rights of the Tsou people in Taiwan have been significantly influenced by various colonial and political shifts. Starting from the 11th century, the first wave of immigrants from China began occupying and cultivating land, marking the gradual loss of land use rights for the indigenous people. The subsequent rule of the Han Chinese during the Ming and Qing dynasties further exacerbated the displacement of indigenous populations, categorizing them into 'assimilated' and 'uncultured' groups, further marginalizing the indigenous people and confirming the loss of land ownership rights for the Tsou. The period of Japanese rule from 1895 to 1945 was marked by both peaceful trade and brutal suppression. During this time, Japan returned land ownership rights to the Tsou, but also implemented cultural assimilation and resource plunder. The second wave of Han Chinese colonization in 1949, which stemmed from the influx of refugees from the Nationalist government, led to another loss of land ownership rights for the Tsou people (Brown, 2004).

Administrative arrangements

  • The Origins of the Form of the Tanayiku Development Committee (TDC)

The TDC originated as a response to the need for structured management and preservation of the Tanayiku area.

In the late 1970s, thousands of Han Chinese entered the Saviki Tsou territory, previously restricted by the Nationalist government, seeking economic and leisure opportunities. This influx led to intense fishing in the area, particularly targeting alpine carp, especially the Kooye Minnow. By the mid-1980s, the fish population in the Tsou streams was nearly depleted. In response, the Tsou community established the Tanayiku Development Committee in 1985 to strengthen collective management of the Tanayiku Creek.

  • Management Structure of TDC

Tsou community uses an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach by affirming traditional cultural precepts and rules and eco-cultural assets, such as the protection and respect of non-human beings. community participation has been successfully mobilized and social capital strengthened. Finally, the Tsou have successfully shaken off the mantle of disempowerment cultivated by generations of colonization.

  • Operational strategies

The TDC has adeptly combined ecological stewardship and park maintenance strategies in the Tanayiku area, with a focus on both conservation and community engagement. By establishing the "Treaty of Shanmei Tanayiku Stream Conservation Self-management," also known as the "Tanayiku Environment Law," the TDC effectively banned fishing in the creek until 1995, which was crucial for replenishing nearly depleted fish populations (Hipwell, 2009). Concurrently, the committee undertook park maintenance initiatives, including training locals as guides and conservation officers, and constructing essential infrastructures like a performance hall, parking lots, a wall and gate, food stands, open-air restaurants, a traditional gazebo, and an administration office. These efforts not only enhanced the visitor experience but also improved the park's safety and management capabilities, striking a balance between ecological conservation and the promotion of cultural and natural heritage (Hipwell, 2007).

Affected Stakeholders

  • Local Residents

The local community is mostly directly affected stakeholders.Their economic, cultural, and entertainment life are closely related to the environment of their territory. Their quality of life and welfare would be affected by policy adjustments, environmental changes, and local development (Chang et al., 2011).

  • Tanayiku Development Committee (TDC)

TDC is the entity responsible for managing the territory. TDC is organized by Tsou groups representing their identity and needs (Tang and Tang, 2001). Thus, the TDC’s decisions and activities influence the community development and environment in this area. It is significant that the Tsou have refused any assistance from the Taiwan government and academia in setting up plans or operating Tanayiku. They see acceptance funding and advice as a means of losing control in management.

  • Taiwanese Government

Taiwanese government here mainly dedicated to both the Taiwan Tourism Bureau and Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Government regulation and control over the mountainous territories were primarily implemented in the 1970s (Cheng et al., 2020), but such interventions were not well received by the Tsou people, leading to a lack of government involvement in the management of the TDC thereafter. Instead, the government has focused more on collaborating with the academic community to conduct research on ecotourism and livelihood issues. This includes studies like the ecotourism site survey conducted in 1997 and other related research.

Interested Stakeholders

  • Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

This includes Taiwan's Indigenous Peoples Commission, which focuses on the culture, livelihood, and preservation of natural ecology in indigenous reserves. Additionally, the Taiwan Ecotourism Association is involved, with their focus on Taiwan's ecotourism planning, exploration of ecotourism sites, itinerary planning and promotion, itinerary evaluation, guidance for ecotourism communities, ecological tourism resource surveys, ecological guide interpretation and educational training, and organizing ecotourism seminars. Besides local NGOs in Taiwan, international NGOs have also shown interest in the Tanayiku Natural Park.

  • Research Institutions

There is an increasing focus in research on indigenous-led ecotourism (Ryan & Huyton, 2002). The Tanayiku, managed by the Tsou people, has provided an excellent case study for this area of research. Concurrently, recent studies have also raised thought-provoking questions regarding indigenous-run tourism, such as the significance of new knowledge for indigenous communities, the necessity of government intervention, and the differences in indigenous perspectives on various issues. These studies are of particular relevance to the management approaches of the Tsou community.

  • Local and national Enterprises

Local and national enterprises consistently exhibit potential interest in the Tanayiku Natural Park, especially as ecotourism opens up more opportunities for tourists to access Tanayiku. On one hand, this can bring benefits, including potential economic collaboration, resource sharing, and market expansion. However, it is crucial to be cautious of potential harms, including impacts on community relations, culture, and the environment (Yi-fong, 2010).

Assessment

  1. The Benefits of the Tanayiku Ecotourism
  • Economic Benefits to Local People

The development of Tanayiku ecotourism has increased employment opportunities, enhanced community income, and boosted local business activities. The tourist site provides direct employment for 180 local residents, including conservation officers, guides, gatekeepers, and performers in cultural shows. Additionally, the TDC has fostered economic development around the Saviki village, leading to the establishment of many restaurants and guest houses. The TDC also allocates a portion of its profits to provide higher education scholarships for Tsou youth and purchases textbooks, materials, and equipment for local schools. Furthermore, handicrafts produced by the elder's craft group, funded by the TDC, are sold to tourists (Yi-fong, 2010).

  • Ecological benefits to the local environment

Ecological Benefits Enhanced Managed by the Tsou, Tanayiku ecotourism has halted hunting activities in the territory, protecting varieties of alpine carp, especially the Kooye Minnow (Tang and Tang, 2001). This management has led to the reconstruction of the aquatic ecosystem in the Tanayiku area and the restoration of the Tanayiku Creek. Furthermore, sustainable practices and environmental education have positively impacted the local environment.

  • Improvement in livelihoods

The development of Tanayiku ecotourism has markedly enhanced community empowerment and cultural preservation. Offering employment and educational opportunities has empowered the local populace, fostering a sense of self-reliance and agency (Colton & Whitney-Squire, 2010). Moreover, emphasizing traditional practices and cultural elements in tourism has been key in preserving the Tsou people's cultural heritage, ensuring their traditions and customs are upheld and celebrated.

2. The Potential Risks in Tanayiku Ecotourism

  • Cultural Commodification

A significant risk in Tanayiku ecotourism is cultural commodification. This phenomenon occurs when the Tsou are encouraged to present a romanticized "traditional" cultural facade to outsiders, including alterations to traditional customs and even culinary traditions to satisfy tourists' demands (Ivanova & Buda, 2020). Such practices could lead to a dilution of the depth and essence of the culture, resulting in a superficial and stereotyped portrayal of culture to cater to commercialization and tourist expectations. In the long term, this could adversely affect the authenticity and continuity of Tsou culture, with cultural features and meanings potentially being oversimplified or misinterpreted to fit market demands.

  • Environmental Pressure

Tanayiku ecotourism also faces risks related to environmental pressure. This includes the deterioration of air quality, an increase in garbage problems, landslides precipitated by the development of County Road 129, and the loss of biodiversity. Moreover, habitat destruction (such as soil compaction and water pollution) and disturbance to wildlife are important concerns. With the increase in tourist numbers and expansion of tourism facilities, the natural environment might suffer damage, threatening the ecological balance and potentially challenging the long-term sustainability of tourism (Djuwendah et al., 2023). Therefore, effective environmental management and protection measures are essential to maintain the appeal and ecological health of Tanayiku ecotourism.

  • Social Costs

In terms of social costs, a significant issue faced by the Indigenous-run ecotourism is the potential widening of the wealth gap. The TDC controls approximately $900,000 in net profit annually (Hipwell, 2009). However, their system of property rights and economic relations has not been subjected to effective community scrutiny and control. This situation could lead to an uneven distribution of resources, exacerbating economic inequality within the community. The lack of transparency and community involvement might diminish trust and support for development projects among Tsou Peoples, thereby impacting the overall well-being and harmony of the community (Stainton, 2020).

Discussion

  1. Discussing Tanayiku’s development approach: the ‘asset-based community development’ (ABCD) in Tanayiku

The establishment of the Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park by Saviki Tsou demonstrates the beneficial results that can be achieved through adopting ABCD theory to development. The ABCD theory highlights that community assets extend beyond material assets to include other valuable community assets such as collective knowledge, social networks, or traditional arts. If these community assets are identified and utilized, they may lead to more profound and lasting outcomes for community development (Friedmann, 2007). Leveraging eco-cultural assets, including conservation principles and respect for non-human entities, the Tsou in Saviki successfully engaged the community and enhanced social capital. In the creation of the Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park, the Saviki Tsou not only focused on environmental preservation but also delved into and highlighted their unique cultural values and traditional wisdom. This ABCD approach, integrating both environmental and cultural aspects, not only fostered sustainable development of the park but also provided a platform for community members to showcase and perpetuate their cultural identity, thereby further solidifying community cohesion and sense of identity (Smith, 1996; Hipwell, 2009).

2. Discussing the Community-based Ecotourism

According to Hipwell (2007), community-based tourism must meet six criteria: Hipwell (2007) identifies six essential criteria for community-based ecotourism: (1) the community should manage tourism activities independently, without needing external help, (2) there should be widespread and active participation from various community members, (3) the tourism should offer concrete benefits to the host community, (4) it should contribute to an equitable and overall improvement in the community's quality of life, (5) it should foster the preservation of conservation values, and (6) it should support the enhancement or preservation of the cultural environment. The Tanayiku Natural Park is autonomously managed by the TDC, operating independently without any external support from the Taiwanese government. This arrangement ensures direct community involvement, particularly from the Tsou people, who actively participate in the park's tourism activities. Annually, the park generates approximately $900,000 in net profit mainly generated from tickets' prices (Hipwell, 2009). These earnings are strategically utilized by the TDC to fund initiatives such as youth scholarships and craft shops for the elderly. This financial allocation not only aids in preserving cultural heritage and ecological conservation but also significantly contributes to the overall development of the community. Through these findings, we can find that the Tanayiku Natural Park is aligned with the criteria of a successful CBET.

Recommendations

  • Fully assessing the assets available within the community, in accordance with the principles of ABCD theory, might support Indigenous-run tourism.
  • Understanding the importance of community engagement and empowerment. The land tenure and identity pride among the community is critical for the long-term success and sustainability of development projects (Lemelin & Blangy, 2009).
  • Policy advocacy that emphasizes cultural and environmental values is crucial. Advocating for the legal recognition of land rights, as well as traditional culture and knowledge, is vital for supporting traditional conservation practices.
  • Practices of sustainable tourism should not only aim to promote tourism but also prioritize environmental sustainability (Timothy & White, 1999). When the sole focus is on economic gain, there is a considerable risk of disrupting both environmental and social capital, including the potential for elite capture (Rosalina et al., 2023).




This conservation resource was created by Course:FRST522.


References

Arrigo, L.G. (2002). In the name of progress. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 26(2). Retrieved Dec 10, 2023, from http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/arrigo/name-progress

Brown, M. (2004). Is Taiwan Chinese? https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520231818.001.0001

Bayrak, M. M. (2022). Does Indigenous tourism contribute to Indigenous resilience to disasters? A case study on Taiwan’s highlands. Progress in Disaster Science, 14, 100220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100220

Chang, J., Su, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). The creative destruction of Ainu community in Hokkaido, Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.597576

Cheng, T.-J., Haggard, S., & Kang, D. (2020). Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: The bureaucracy. East Asian Development: New Perspectives, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315038155-4

Chen, V. Y.-C., Lin, J. C.-L., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2019). Assessment and improvement of wetlands environmental protection plans for achieving sustainable development. Environmental Research, 169, 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.015

Colton, J. W., & Whitney-Squire, K. (2010). Exploring the relationship between Aboriginal tourism and community development. Leisure/Loisir, 34(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2010.521321

Djuwendah, E., Karyani, T., Wulandari, E., & Pradono, P. (2023). Community-based agro-ecotourism sustainability in West Java, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.0304.v1

Friedmann, J. (2007). The wealth of cities: Towards an assets‐based development of newly urbanizing regions. Development and Change, 38(6), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00461.x

Government of China. (2019, November 20). [Constitution of the People's Republic of China]. Retrieved from https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html

Hunter, W. C. (2020). Syncretism and Indigenous cultural tourism in Taiwan. Annals of Tourism Research, 82, 102919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102919

Hipwell, W. T. (2007). Taiwan Aboriginal ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 876–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.04.002

Hipwell, W. T. (2009). An asset‐based approach to Indigenous development in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2009.01402.x

Ivanova, M., & Buda, D.-M. (2020). Thinking rhizomatically about Communist heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 84, 103000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103000

Lemelin, R. H., & Blangy, S. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on Aboriginal ecotourism. Journal of Ecotourism, 8(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040902730581

Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and Aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(01)00073-1

Rosalina, P. D., Dupre, K., Wang, Y., Putra, I. N., & Jin, X. (2023). Rural tourism resource Management Strategies: A case study of two tourism villages in Bali. Tourism management perspectives, 49, 101194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101194

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5177(98)00069-7

Smith, V. L. (1996). The four hs of tribal tourism: Acoma — a pueblo case study. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2(34), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1603(199609)2:3/4<295::aid-pth55>3.3.co;2-5

Stainton, M. (2020). The politics of taiwan aboriginal origins. Taiwan, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003075530-2

Timothy, D. J., & White, K. (1999). Community-based ecotourism development on the periphery of Belize. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2–3), 226–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683509908667853

Tang, C.-P., & Tang, S.-Y. (2001). Negotiated Autonomy: Transforming Self-Governing Institutions for Local Common-Pool Resources in Two Tribal Villages in Taiwan. Human Ecology, 29(1), 49–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4603384

Yi-fong, C. (2010). The Indigenous ecotourism and social development in Taroko National Park area and San-chan tribe, Taiwan. GeoJournal, 77(6), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9373-7

Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2023/Tanayiku_Natural_Ecology_Park_in_Taiwan:_Indigenous-run_Ecotourism&oldid=815831"