Balancing Protection and Community Development Through Institutional Arrangement in Tun Sakaran Marine Park, Sabah, Malaysia

  • Nor Azlina Abu BakarEmail author
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


The study focuses on critical analysis of how people relate to the institutional environment, which influences the relationships among ecotourism, community development, and conservation of parks and protected areas. It is crucial to examine the livelihoods impacts of park establishment on communities living within the park and the strategies undertaken to cope with changes. A sustainable livelihoods (SL) approach was adopted as a framework to analyse the relationships among institutional processes and organizational structures (i.e. native customary rights, institutional arrangement), livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. In-depth household surveys and stakeholder interviews were undertaken during three months of fieldwork. Although Tun Sakaran Marine Park (TSMP) has many attributes and potential to be suitable for ecotourism development, it was found that the local communities are not involved in ecotourism although dive operators are bringing divers and snorkelers to the park on a daily basis. Therefore, institutional support should be strengthened if ecotourism is to balance protection and become a livelihood strategy in TSMP.


  1. Baumann, P. (2000). Sustainable livelihoods and political capital: Arguments and evidence from decentralisation and natural resource management in India. ODI Working Paper, (p. 136). London: ODI.Google Scholar
  2. Cahn, M. (2002). Sustainable livelihoods approach: concept and practice. 3rd Biennial Conference of the International Development Studies Network of Aotearoa, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  3. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS.Google Scholar
  4. Department for International Development (DFID). (1999, February 24). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Retrieved from
  5. Doolittle, A. (2005). Property and politics in Sabah, Malaysia (North Borneo): A century of native struggles over land rights, 1881–1996. In Nature and Culture Series. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  6. Farrington, J. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods, rights, and the new architecture of aid. In Natural Resources Perspective (p. 69). London: ODI.Google Scholar
  7. Mcneely, J. A. (1995). Expanding partnership in conservation. Washington DC: Island Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Nepal, S. K. (2002). Involving indigenous peoples in protected area management: Comparative perspectives from Nepal, Thailand, and China. Environmental Management, 30(6), 748–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ostrom, E. (2003). How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(3), 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Palys, T. S., & Atchison, C. (2008). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.Google Scholar
  11. Rosendo, S., Brown, K., Joubert, A., Jiddawi, N., & Mechisso, M. (2011). A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saat, G. (2003). The identity and social mobility of Sama-Bajau. Sari, 21, 3–11.Google Scholar
  13. Salm, R. V., & Clark, J. R. (1984). Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide for planners and managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  14. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Institute of Development Studies: University of Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simpson, M. C. (2007). An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on community development and sustainable livelihoods. Community Development Journal, 44(2), 186–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. SIP Management Plan. (2001). Semporna Islands project (SIP) management plan. Sabah: European Community.Google Scholar
  18. Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., & De Lacy, T. (2005). Protected area management: Principle and practice. Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and ArchitectureUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations