Content uploaded by Diana Mohamad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diana Mohamad on Nov 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
120
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Physical environmental impacts of island tourism development: A
case study of Pangkor Island
Diana Mohamad
1
, S. Rahman
1
,
Azizi Bahauddin
1
, Badaruddin Mohamed
1
1
Sustainable Tourism Research Cluster (STRC) & School of Housing, Building and Planning (HBP), Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
Correspondence: Diana Mohamad (email: diana_mohamad@usm.my)
Abstract
It is readily accepted that island destinations and nature based settings are fragile in encountering the physical
environment impacts induced by tourism development although this still depends very much on such variables as
the intensity of the development, the intensity of activities and the background of the visitors. This study analysed
Pangkor Island residents’ perception of physical environment impacts induced by tourism development in particular
with regard to perceived biodiversity issues. A total of 268 respondents was sampled in a field questionnaires
survey. The finding revealed that the majority of local residents who were largely dependent tourism for their were
gravely concerned with the physical environmental impacts of the tourism development, in particular, with respect
to scuba diving and snorkeling activities. The negative environmental impacts were perceived to be largely due to
the lack of experience on the part of guest snorkelers and the intensity of the snorkeling activities at certain sites.
Keywords: biodiversity issues, island destinations, Pangkor Island, tourism development, physical environmental
impacts, residents’ perception
Introduction
Water based tourism like islands, lakes, rivers, coastal, water basins and maritime is considered
everlasting market for tourism industry due to the rich natural resources and the picturesque view. In line
with the idea of establishing the maritime boundaries as one of world class tourist spots, considerable
amount of investments have been allocated for developing islands and coasts of Malaysia (Mohamad &
Mohamed, 2014). According to Othman and Mohd Rosli (2011, p. 12), four islands of Malaysia
(Langkawi Island, Pangkor Island, Perhentian Island and Tioman Island) have been internationally
recognized for their potentials in attracting tourists as well as being ‘…an important catalyst for
entrepreneurial development and small businesses performance’. This phenomenon also has be shown that
the significant increase in positive pattern of tourists’ arrival in general and visitors to marine park in
particular (Arabamiry et al., 2013). The notable changes gained from and benefits of tourism industry
development are viewed to be experienced at the expense of physical (environmental) impacts. This is
supported by Puczko and Ratz (2009, p. 458) emphasis on the effects of unsustainable and mindless
tourism activity and development on the ‘...increasing stress on destinations and in negative changes in the
destinations’ physical (environmental), economic and socio cultural characteristics’. In addition to Puczko
and Ratz’s (2009) statement, this paper takes forward the scholar Dokulil’s (2014, p 82) argument on the
complexity relationship between impacts of tourism and physical environment of a destination due to
many activities can lead to adverse (physical) environmental effects (that) are linked with the construction
of general infrastructure such as roads and airports and of tourism facilities’. Echoing the aforementioned
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
121
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
statement, this paper focuses on examine the perceptual physical environment impact among the Pangkor
Islanders specifically on biodiversity issues.
Literature review
According to Mustapha et al. (2013, p. 107), tourism industry has slipped from prominence position as a
result of ‘…economic downturn and decline in popularity of commodity products’. This is due to the
quality of the products and the experience gained by the visitors which may lead to the decline growth as
well as other possible factor like economic downturn. Tourism industry in Malaysia has shown
approximately 5.0% growth rate annually since 2007 in average (Ghaderi et al., 2012). According to
Wong (1993), islands of Malaysia were initially recognized in 1990s and since, they have provided
Malaysia ‘…with a competitive advantage in long-haul market [targeting individuals who preferred the 3S
concept as their relaxation gateaway]’ (Fathilah et al. 2011, p. 90). The basic notion of indulging in island-
based tourism is outlined by Stydilis et al. (2007, p. 955) who stated that islands emphasize on ‘...the
characteristics of separateness and difference ...given people’s desires for the difference while in pursuit of
leisure, different climates, physical environments and culture ...to further the attractiveness of islands as
tourism destinations’.
Located off the coast of the Perak State, Pangkor Island is an 18km land area with a population of
approximately 25, 000. Its charm lies in the combination of fishing settlements and resorts, of which,
offers the visitors with an exclusive opportunity to observe the fishermen lifestyle while enjoying the
quite, beautiful sandy beaches. Given the international recognition towards island tourism, notable
investments have been allocated for the purpose of developing Pangkor Island (Ivan, 2014). In Pangkor
Island case, it is learned that the tourism development undertaken is directed towards the biodiversity
values and potentials where here, Pangkor Island plays an important role in defending and sheltering the
coral reefs’ ecosystem (Abdul Razak et al., 2014). Besides biodiversity values, Pangkor Island has been
brandished with the low-key tourists destination image, whilst fishing-based activities continue to prosper
as the main industry (Othman & Mohd Rosli, 2011).
Despite the benefits and advantages offered by the tourism development, the tourism-related bodies as
well as scholars have voiced their concerns over the tourism impacts. Ap (1982, p. 666) has emphasized
this by stating that: ‘unless the often unforeseen and thus unplanned effects of tourism development can be
controlled, or at least recognized and predicted, then opposition to the development of tourism,
particularly in less developed parts of the world, is likely to increase’. To date, it is becoming increasing
difficult to ignore the adversity experienced by island-based tourism destinations. Central to the entire
discipline of island tourism development is the operation on limited resources; island tourism is bound to
face development transformation at the expense of physical, environmental, social, cultural and
biodiversity sustainability-related issues, as documented by Bardolet and Sheldon (2008). Zaie and Zaie
(2013, p 17) response to Bardolet and Sheldon’s (2008) argument is in the affirmative where in detail,
engagement in tourism industry instigated the ‘…creation of infrastructure utilities and amenities, which
are not only used by the visitors but become valuable to the local population’. Abdul Razak et al (2014, p
TOC-127) who examined the impact of water-based activities on coral reefs indicated that ‘…nearly 60
percent [of the globe’s coral reefs] are at risk due to the actions of humans [and more importantly],
scientists have found it difficult to recognize the baseline for what a reef should look like’. In another
study, Praveena et al. (2012) added that improper waste disposal system and overdevelopment in coastal
zones are few root factors contributing to coral reefs jeopardization.
Research methods
This paper employed self-administered questionnaire survey as the data collection instrument. The data
collection instrument was developed in accordance to Sunlu’s (2003) interpretation of environmental
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
122
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
impacts of tourism development (destination landscape, ecosystem management and infrastructure
development), and referring to Fredline’s (2006) work for the acceptance towards tourism development
(destination image/identity, social interaction). The instrument was divided into the following sections: [1]
personal information, [2] tourism development impact and [3] islanders perception towards tourism
development. A 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree) was adopted in questionnaire
design for all sections, excluding the first section. The second section dealt with six aspects (physical,
environmental, cultural, social, quality of life and biodiversity), whilst, the third section sought for the
status quo of tourism planning and development in Pangkor Island. The instrument was first tested for
validity and reliability where academics (lecturers and students) and public individuals were asked to
participate in the pilot study. Results showed that, in average, the instrument was completed within 25
minutes due to the complexity of the structure. Technical terms were omitted and replaced with more
practical terms as to help respondents to comprehend the statements. The finalized instrument was first
verified by the experts before used for the actual data collection, which undertaken in December 2014.
300 questionnaires were distributed and 290 answered questionnaires were successfully retrieved, which
amount to 96.7% response rate. Data cleaning resulted in 268 usable and valid questionnaires for analysis
purpose (chi square, factor, correlation, regression, correspondence), which amount to 92.4%. It is within
this paper interest to highlight that given the majority of the Pangkor Islanders are engaged in tourism
sector in addition to the island’s small size, respondents (Pangkor Islanders) for this paper are 100% of
respondents who engaged in tourism sector.
Research findings
This section addressed the physical environmental impacts of tourism industry (PI) (1: accommodation
development negatively effects the water habitat, 2: infrastructure development negatively effects the
ecosystem, 3: uncontrolled scuba diving activities negatively effects the water habitat, 4: island hopping
activities negatively effects the water habitat and 5: snorkeling activities destroys the corals) and the
islanders’ opinions toward the physical impacts (OPPI) (6: tourism benefits should be equally enjoyed, 7:
a more rapid tourism development is welcomed, 8: more tourists are welcomed, 9: tourism development
nurtures the environment, 10: tourism development pays attention to the locals’ needs and 11: tourism
development prioritizes input from the locals). These variables were studied in order to examine the
following hypotheses: [1] Pangkor Island is facing negative ecology environmental impact caused by the
tourism development and [2] the locals’ supports towards the tourism development in Pangkor Island.
Analysis on respondents’ database provides the following details: [1] majority of respondents are
school certificate holders (male 57.6%, female 58.8%), [2] 45.9% respondents engaged in food and
beverages sector, followed by 45.5% engaged in tourism attractions sector, [3] 55.6% male respondents
are single and 50.9% female respondents are married, [4] 70.5% respondents have been observing the
tourism development progress in and the impacts on Pangkor Island for at least 5 years, [5] 22.4%
respondents are the only household member who engaged in tourism industry and [6] 67.9% respondents
were born in Pangkor Island.
Table 1. Chi square results
Variables PI
[1] X
2
(5, N = 268) = .579, p = .989
[2] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 2.087, p = .837
[3] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 3.500, p = .623
[4] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 1.854, p = .869
[5] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 8.476, p = .205
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
123
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Variables OPPI
[6] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 6.480, p = .372
[7] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 12.364, p = .054
[8] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 12.545, p = .051
[9] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 13.813, p = .032
[10] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 9.035, p = .172
[11] X
2
(5, N = 268) = 6.481, p = .371
Chi square analysis was run to identify the difference in perception between locals who have observed
the tourism development impacts for at least 5 years and those who have observed the tourism
development impact for more than 5 years. From Table 1, it is learned that only variables [1] and [9] were
affected by the number of years of tourism development progress. This suggests that the remaining
variables are facing immediate consequences of tourism development, thus, this should be of interests to
the tourism-related bodies.
Table 2. Factor analysis results
Variables PI Variables OPPI
1 1
[1] .700 [6] .686
[2] .799 [7] .897
[3] .802 [8] .802
[4] .840 [9] .500
[5] .739 [10] .833
[11] .727
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
The rationale of factor analysis is to provide insights on factors that explain the variance of variables in
Table 1 and the 5-point Likert scale employed for hypotheses 1 and 2. The KMO and Bartlett’s Test for PI
was .736 and accounted for 60.48% of the variability in all 5 variables, whilst OPPI’s KMO and Bartlett’s
Test was .827 and accounted for 74.08% of the variability in all 6 variables. Assessing Table 2, all
variables for PI and OPPI accounted into one component. From Table 3, it is learned that only variable [4]
was correlated with the remaining PI’s variables (excluding variable [1]). That is to say, consequences of
negative impacts of these variables will accumulate the gravity of negative impacts on variable [4]. In case
of OPPI (Table 4), variables [6] and [8] were observed to be correlated with the remaining variables.
Therefore, attention should be given to these variables particularly their interconnection with variable [7].
Table 3. Correlation analysis results for PI
Medium strength correlations
[1] – [2]: (r = 0.690, n = 268, p = .000)
[2] – [4]: (r = 0.509, n = 268, p = .000)
[3] – [4]: (r = 0.692, n = 268, p = .000)
[4] – [2]: (r = 0.509, n = 268, p = .000)
[4] – [3]: (r = 0.692, n = 268, p = .000)
[5] – [4]: (r = 0.666, n = 268, p = .000)
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
124
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Table 4. Correlation analysis results for OPPI
Strong strength correlations
[6] – [7]: (r = 0.771, n = 268, p = .000)
[7] – [11]: (r = 0.772, n = 268, p = .000)
[8] – [7]: (r = 0.864, n = 268, p = .000)
[8] – [10]: (r = 0.746, n = 268, p = .000)
[10] – [11]: (r = 0.892, n = 268, p = .000)
Medium strength correlations
[6] – [8]: (r = 0.665, n = 268, p = .000)
[6] – [9]: (r = 0.586, n = 268, p = .000)
[6] – [10]: (r = 0.665, n = 268, p = .000)
[6] – [11]: (r = 0.593, n = 268, p = .000)
[7] – [9]: (r = 0.571, n = 268, p = .000)
[8] – [9]: (r = 0.661, n = 268, p = .000)
[8] – [11]: (r = 0.665, n = 268, p = .000)
From Table 5, it is observed that variable [4] presented a higher influence on variable [3], compared to
variable [5]. At this point, it can be said that the scuba diving activity acted as a dominant factor
contributing to biodiversity issues, followed by snorkeling activity. Results for OPPI indicated the
interconnectivity between variables [6], [7], [8] and [9]; of which, addressed the importance of tourism
benefits distribution and acceptance towards more tourism development at the expense of effective
environmental management (Table 6). At a greater extent, results for variable [9] could be read as an
indicator for a need to balance between tourism development and the destination’s environmental
longevity. Further compounding this issue was the realization of challenges in balancing the tourists and
locals’ consumption of environmental resources.
Table 5. Regression analysis results for PI
•
[1] is 48.9% explained by [2]:ß = .665, t(268) = 12.351, p .000
• [2] is 56.2% explained by [1]:ß = .561, t(268) = 12.351, p .000
• [3] is 51.7% explained by [4]:ß = .596, t(268) = 9.756, p .000
• [4] is 63.9% explained by [3]:ß = .446, t(268) = 9.756, p .000
• [5] is 45.4% explained by [4]:ß = .617, t(268) = 9.400, p .000
Table 6. Regression analysis results for OPPI
•
[6] is 63.2% explained by [7]:ß = .774, t(268) = 7.857, p .000
• [7] is 88.3 % explained [8]:ß = .444, t(268) = 11.874, p .000
• [8] is 79.3% explained by [7]:ß = .788, t(268) = 11.874, p .000
• [9] is 49.0% explained by [8]ß = .664, t(268) = 7.568, p .000
• [10] is 87.2% explained by [11]ß = .557, t(268) = 16.028, p .000
• [11] is 79.6% explained by [10]ß = .889, t(268) = 16.028, p .000
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
125
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
The following correspondence analysis sought to seek the dependency level between profiles construct
(observation on tourism development impacts: at least 5 years and more than 5 years; types of tourism
sector engaged: tourism attractions and services) and variables studied (Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10). Results
presented in Tables 7 and 8 stressed the following: tourism industry should put in practice pragmatic long-
term planning as the gravity of negative impacts on biodiversity accumulates overtime, destination
carrying capacity should be of interest to the appointed bodies though the locals welcome a higher
tourists’ arrival and the locals’ opinions should be addressed in structuring the tourism planning and
management. Against this statement, this paper supported hypothesis 1 and rejected hypothesis 2.
Table 7. Correspondence analysis results of observation on physical impacts (PI)
Profiles construct PI Pangkor Island
5 years
> 5 years
[1] Agree = .378
Agree = .660
5 years
> 5 years
[2] Agree = .355
Agree = .498
5 years
> 5 years
[3] Agree = .390
Agree = .542
5 years
> 5 years
[4] Agree = .374
Agree = .380
5 years
> 5 years
[5] Agree = .319
Agree = .444
Table 8. Correspondence analysis results of observation on physical impacts (OPPI)
Profiles construct OPPI Pangkor Island
5 years
> 5 years
[6] Agree = .479
Agree = .589
5 years
> 5 years
[7] Agree = .477
Agree = .479
5 years
> 5 years
[8] Agree = .534
Agree = .477
5 years
> 5 years
[9] Agree = .431
Strongly agree = .243
5 years
> 5 years
[10] Agree = .442
Strongly agree = .250
5 years
> 5 years
[11] Agree = .416
Strongly agree = .251
For the purpose of analysis, this paper only examined water-based and nature-based tourism
attractions; and services provided for water-based tourism activities. In case of PI, Tables 9 and 10
displayed similar pattern for tourism attractions and services. At this point, results further highlighted the
importance of revisiting the present tourism activities’ planning in order to structure a more pragmatic
approach, for the purpose of revitalizing the biodiversity. Meanwhile, similar pattern was observed for
OPPI where here, results asserted the significant influence of managing the water-based and nature-based
tourism attractions, in ensuring the biodiversity sustainability (Tables 9 and 10).
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
126
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Table 9. Correspondence analysis results of types of tourism sector engaged (PI)
Profiles construct PI Pangkor Island
Tourism attractions
Services
[1] Agree = .345
Agree = .429
Tourism attractions
Services
[2] Agree = .325
Agree = .400
Tourism attractions
Services
[3] Agree = .345
Agree = .316
Tourism attractions
Services
[4] Agree = .316
Agree = .350
Tourism attractions
Services
[5] Agree = .307
Agree = .444
Table 10. Correspondence analysis results of types of tourism sector engaged (OPPI)
Profiles construct OPPI Pangkor Island
Tourism attractions
Services
[6] Agree = .504
Agree = .500
Tourism attractions
Services
[7] Agree = .474
Agree = .429
Tourism attractions
Services
[8] Agree = .517
Agree = .476
Tourism attractions
Services
[9] Agree = .384
Agree = .450
Tourism attractions
Services
[10] Agree = .397
Agree = .500
Tourism attractions
Services
[11] Agree = .383
Strongly agree = .400
Conclusion
This paper concluded that all the discussed variables refer to foundation aspect of tourism development.
More importantly, referring to regression results, the perception towards the perceptual biodiversity issues
in Pangkor Island was stimulated by the following variables: negative impacts of accommodation
development and scuba diving activity on water habitat, acceptance towards more tourism development
and locals’ participation in tourism development planning. To this paper, the aforementioned variables
might be considered as the benchmark of the extent of tourism industry development shall taken place in a
particular tourism destination, in order to maintain the longevity of that particular tourism destination.
Despite the fact that other islands in Malaysia are probably facing the similar physical impacts of tourism
development, it is of important to realize further compounding this situation was the fact that these islands
are responding to the issue at a different phase of lifecycle. This may suggest the pressing need of
implementing a specific regulation/policy that is best suited for each island. In detail, regulations and
policies made for the other islands of Malaysia can be used as a development guideline for Pangkor
Island; nevertheless, the implementation should be monitored and complied with matters that are only
related, to a certain level.
Additionally, a number of theories have been long utilized to study the relationship between
perceptions, attitudes and tourism impact, for example, the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Social
Exchange Theory, the Butler’s Lifecycle Theory, the Community-based Tourism Theory and the
development theories (such as Modernization, Dependency and Alternative). As some of these theories
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
127
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
exclude the social values and beliefs, this study suggests complementing these theories with the Integrated
Threat Theory. This is given the importance of evaluating how people judge threats and whether their
judgments are real or just a perception.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Universiti Sains Malaysia for granting the
Research University Grant called Tourism Capacity and Impact Studies (Grant No. 1001/PTS/8660011)
that made this study and paper possible.
References
Abdul Razak IR, Yusu KN, Md Salim MAF, Mohd Salleh N (2014) Tourism sea activities that cause
damages towards coral reefs in Sembilan Islands. Tourism, Leisure and Global Change 1, TOC-123.
Ap J (1982) Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 665-690.
Bardolet E, Sheldon PJ (2008) Tourism in archipelagos: Hawai’i and the Balearics. Annals of Tourism
Research 35, 900-923.
Dokulil MT (2014) Environmental impacts of tourism on lakes. [Cited June 15, 2015]. Available from:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/limno/files/pdf/tourism-impacts-in-ansari-vol-2.pdf.
Fathilah I, Brian K, Ranjith I (2011) Host and guest perceptions of tourism impacts in island settings: A
Malaysian perspective. [Cited August 21, 2015]. Available from:
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=GWcG9Rc003UC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=island+tourism
+in+malaysia&source=bl&ots=y1cf2ny6HV&sig=kJ0IQ_LwVs4dafrH3VEBrLFncd8&hl=en&sa=X&
redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=island%20tourism%20in%20malaysia&f=false.
Fredline L (2006) Social impacts of tourism on the Gold Coast. [Cited 1
st
June 2012]. Available from:
http://crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/3-3_socialimpacts_v01_web.pdf.
Ghaderi Z, Mat Som AP, Henderson JC (2014) Tourism crises and island destinations: Experiences in
Penang, Malaysia. Tourism Management Perspectives 2-3, 79-84.
Ivan L (2014) State government to develop tourism industry in Pangkor. [Cited August 21, 2015].
Available from: http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2014/09/13/Boost-for-island-State-
govt-to-develop-tourism-industry-in-Pangkor/.
Mohamad D, Mohamed B (2014) The journey to sustain of what we have: Lessons learnt from Redang
and Perhentian Islands. Paper presented at the PSU-USM-NSTRU International Conference on Arts
and Sciences 2014, Hat Yai, Thailand, 2-3 June.
Mustapha NA, Azman I, Ibrahim Y (2013) Barriers to community participation in tourism development in
island destination. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts 5(1), 102-124
Othman P, Mohd Rosli M (2011) The impact of tourism on small business performance: Empirical
evidence from Malaysian Islands. International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(1), 11-21
Praveena SM, Siraj SS, Aris AZ (2012) Coral reefs studies and threats in Malaysia: A mini review. Rev
Environ Sci Biotechnol 11, 27-39
Puczko L, Ratz T (2009) Tourist and residents perceptions of the physical impacts of tourism at Lake
Balaton, Hungary: issues for sustainable tourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(6),
458-478.
Stylidis D, Terzidou M, Terzidis K (2007) Island tourism and its socio-economic impacts. MIBES, 954-
967.
Sunlu U (2003) Environmental impacts of tourism. In: Camarda D, Grassini L (ed) Local resources and
global trades: Environments and agriculture in the Mediterranean region, pp.263-270 (Options
Mediterraneennes: Serie A. Seminaires Mediterraneens; n. 57). CIHEAM, Bari.
GEOGRAFIA Online
TM
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 11 issue 11 (120 – 128)
128
© 2015, ISSN 2180-2491
Wong PP (1993) Island tourism development in Peninsular Malaysia: Environmental perspective. [Cited
August 21, 2015]. Available from:
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=d8bcBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=island+tourism
+in+malaysia&source=bl&ots=R8l8Sx_HBH&sig=5zWhNQvnlMSdz9cECJKkvCv_1lM&hl=en&sa=
X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=island%20tourism%20in%20malaysia&f=false.
Zaie ME, Zaie ME (2013) The impacts of tourism industry on host community. European Journal of
Tourism Hospitality and Research 1(2), 12-21.
