INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 681
www.rsisinternational.org
Examining the Perceived Socio-Cultural Effects of Tourism Among
the Residents at Kampung Tuba, Pantu Sri Aman, Sarawak
Corina Joseph, Tamoi Janggu,
Patrick Atan, Tina Stephen Enggong, Ranee Atlas, Susana
William Jalil
Faculty of Accountancy, University Technology MARA Cawangan Sarawak, Malaysia
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000058
Received: 27 September 2025; Accepted: 02 October 2025; Published: 04 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Tourism development has the potential to shape communities in two distinct cultural directions, i.e., cultural
preservation and cultural commodification. The objective of this paper is to examine the perceived socio-cultural
effects of tourism on cooperative members/residents in Kampung Tuba, Pantu, Sarawak. The questionnaires
were distributed to the cooperative members/residents at Kampung Tuba, Pantu, Sarawak, in August 2025.
Findings reveal that two-thirds of respondents view tourism as a positive force that safeguards cultural identity,
protects traditions, fosters neighbourhood spirit, enhances social cohesion, and instils pride in heritage. One-
quarter of respondents voiced moderate concerns about possible cultural change, commercial exploitation of
traditions, and the erosion of authenticity, indicating that these issues are acknowledged but not regarded as
urgent threats. Ten percent of the respondents associated tourism with negative outcomes, such as crime, youth
misbehavior, or tension with tourists, suggesting that these impacts are presently minimal. The study emphasises
that inclusive governance, cooperative structures, and community-based tourism models are critical to ensuring
that residents maintain agency over cultural representation. Continuous monitoring and adaptive management
remain essential for sustaining authenticity and addressing emerging challenges. Overall, the research affirms
that tourism, when responsibly governed, holds significant potential to empower communities, revitalise culture,
and strengthen cultural pride while mitigating risks of commodification.
Keywords— Tourism, Community Empowerment, Cultural
INTRODUCTION
Tourism is increasingly perceived not just for its economic benefits but also as a powerful driver of community
empowerment and cultural dignity. In many places, it creates opportunities for local people to conserve their
heritage, celebrate traditional practices, and reinforce a shared sense of identity. With careful management,
tourism can enhance cultural flexibility by providing both financial accolades and social inducements to
safeguard cultural resources (García-Hernández, de la Calle-Vaquero, & Yubero, 2017; Nuryanti, 1996). At the
same time, it offers a platform for communities to present their culture to a broader audience, strengthening pride
and a feeling of ownership over their culture.
Beyond preserving culture, tourism also serves as a motivation for community empowerment through
participatory governance and collective management. In this context, a cooperative structure means a formal,
community-owned body, such as a village tourism cooperative, that oversees tourism activities together.
Members pool resources, distribute profits fairly, and make joint decisions on matters like visitor limits, pricing,
and how cultural traditions are showcased. This approach keeps financial gains within the community, avoids
domination by local elites, and ensures cultural definition remains under community control. Community-based
tourism (CBT), for example, has demonstrated how rural and indigenous groups can gain a stronger impact over
how their cultural stories are shared with visitors (Htun, 2020). Empowering residents with absolute decision-
making power allows tourism to deliver not only economic benefits but also to boost confidence, cultivate
leadership skills, and reinforce social bonds that are necessary elements for inclusive, sustainable development
and for fostering deeper pride in local identity.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 682
www.rsisinternational.org
Tourism is frequently promoted to boost rural economies, strengthen social unity, and reinforce cultural identity.
Worldwide, community-based tourism (CBT) has long been explored as a means of empowerment and cultural
safeguarding (Scheyvens, 1999; Goodwin & Santilli, 2009). In Malaysia, particularly in Sarawak, homestay
programmes and cultural tourism initiatives have similarly been promoted to improve livelihoods and protect
heritage (Hamzah, 2010; Kayat, 2014). Building on this foundation, recent studies highlight the importance of
empowerment and cultural pride while introducing imminent ideas like cultural intelligence and regenerative
tourism (Azinuddin et al., 2024; Qi, 2024).
Furthermore, tourism can enhance social unity and foster cross-cultural understanding, linking local
communities with the global arena while deepening internal connections. Research shows that rich cultural
tourism experiences help communities affirm the worth of their traditions, encourage the passing down of
knowledge between generations, and instill pride in their heritage (Jiemei, Qingyue, & Jiafeng, 2023; Uysal,
Sirgy, Woo, & Kim, 2016). When people view tourism as supporting their cultural identity, they are more prone
to participate actively in tourism projects, promoting both sustainability and trustworthiness. In this way, tourism
functions not merely as an economic activity but as a catalyst for cultural strength and community empowerment.
Tourism is often presented as a driver for rural development, yet its socio-cultural effects on small indigenous
and cooperative-based communities remain unevenly understood. Kampung Tuba in Pantu, Sarawak, shaped by
a long struggle for customary land rights and now venturing into community-based tourism, provides a timely
case for investigation. While tourism promises new income sources and opportunities for cultural revival, it also
poses potential threats such as commodification, loss of authenticity, and social tension. This study is motivated
by the need to document how residents themselves perceive these opportunities and risks and to understand how
cooperative models and participatory decision-making influence their perspectives.
Kampung Tuba is an Iban village in Pantu, Sri Aman Division, Sarawak, renowned for its long struggle to defend
Native Customary Rights (NCR) land. This struggle culminated in a landmark 2010 court ruling that excluded
their ancestral territory from the Taman Negara Ulu Sebuyau gazette. Building on that victory, villagers formed
Koperasi Kampung Tuba Simunjan Berhad in 2012 to jointly manage compensation funds, upgrade essential
infrastructure, and launch economic ventures such as community-based tourism. The cooperative acts as a
structured platform for pooling resources, sharing decisions, and ensuring tourism growth remains true to local
values and priorities. This history of land-rights defence and collective management offers a strong basis for
exploring how tourism can support both cultural preservation and sustainable livelihoods in Kampung Tuba.
This study is important as it highlights how rural and Indigenous communities can participate in tourism while
safeguarding their cultural integrity. Kampung Tuba’s journey, from defending its Native Customary Rights
(NCR) land to establishing a community-owned cooperative, offers a rare example of grassroots tourism
governance. By documenting residents’ perspectives on both the advantages and potential drawbacks, the
research offers insights for policies that harmonise economic opportunities with cultural preservation. The results
can inform government bodies, NGOs, and other villages in Sarawak and beyond in developing community-
based tourism models that empower local people, strengthen cultural pride, and guard against cultural
commodification.
The objective of this paper is to examine how residents of Kampung Tuba, Pantu, Sarawak, perceive the socio-
cultural impacts of tourism. It focuses on how tourism is regarded in relation to cultural preservation, social
unity, and community empowerment, while also noting worries about cultural change, commodification, and
other possible drawbacks. By examining these views alongside the village’s cooperative model and its history
of collective land rights, the study seeks to offer guidance for planning inclusive and sustainable community-
based tourism.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cultural Sustainability and Pride
Cultural pride, while often considered intangible, is increasingly recognised as an essential component of cultural
sustainability. Cultural sustainability pertains to the capacity of communities to preserve, convey, and adapt
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 683
www.rsisinternational.org
cultural practices through generations, ensuring their relevance in modern viewpoints (Soini & Birkeland, 2014).
Within this framework, cultural pride reflects the positive valuation and reaffirmation of heritage, traditions, and
identity that arise when communities see their culture respected and celebrated through tourism. It functions both
as an outcome of tourism and as a condition for sustaining long-term community participation (Throsby, 2017).
Early debates framed tourism as a double-edged process. Concerns about authenticity and commodification
(Cohen, 1988; Taylor, 2001) highlighted the risk that tourism could reduce culture to a performance for outsiders,
potentially eroding pride. Yet, subsequent scholarship emphasised that when communities control the terms of
cultural representation, tourism strengthens local pride, enhances intergenerational transmission, and contributes
to broader identity formation (Su & Wall, 2014; Richards, 2018).
Malaysian studies reflect this tension. Research on Sarawak homestays and cultural festivals found that while
tourism heightened pride in local traditions and provided platforms for cultural expression, it also risked over-
commercialisation and loss of meaning if managed primarily for tourist consumption (Aziz, Rahman, & Hassan,
2014; Tan, 2017). In heritage cities such as Malacca, residents reported pride in cultural visibility but also
expressed ambivalence about commercialisation overshadowing authenticity (Abdullah et al., 2021).
More recent research suggests that cultural pride is not only rooted in heritage preservation but also in
intercultural competence and agency. The concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) has emerged as a useful lens,
showing how communities can engage positively with visitors, negotiate cultural differences, and maintain
dignity in interactions (Ang et al., 2007; Azinuddin et al., 2024). This reinforces the idea that cultural pride is
contingent on both internal capacity (agency, confidence, intergenerational knowledge) and external factors
(respectful engagement, equitable benefit-sharing). In this sense, cultural pride bridges the psychological
dimension of empowerment with the long-term sustainability of culture, positioning it as both an outcome and
enabler of sustainable tourism.
Empirical Evidence from Malaysia and Sarawak: Indigenous and Ecotourism Contexts
Research across Malaysia highlights the dual role of tourism in strengthening empowerment and affirming
cultural identity among Indigenous groups. For example, community-led tourism in Sungai Bumbun has
supported capacity-building, heritage conservation, and collective identity, producing stronger local pride (Mohd
Razali & Abu Seman, 2024). Similarly, studies of the Jakun in Johor demonstrate that cultural assets and
ecological knowledge provide a foundation for advancing community-based tourism (CBT). Yet, obstacles such
as limited infrastructure and digital access continue to restrict broader empowerment outcomes (IJRIAS, 2025).
In Sabah’s Bilit Village, CBT has been associated with income gains, stronger social bonds, and greater cultural
affirmation. However, these achievements remain fragile unless they reflect the values and aspirations of the
community (Kunjuraman et al., 2020). Such cases illustrate how empowerment and pride reinforce each other,
but external inequalities and uneven control over resources also shape them.
Within Indigenous tourism, both revitalization and risks are evident. Tourism may help sustain traditional
practices, languages, and ecological systems. At the same time, it can encourage the sale of cultural expressions.
It sometimes creates unequal power relations between hosts and external stakeholders (Butcher, 2003; Cole,
2007). When performances are made mainly for tourists, they may generate income. However, such activities
can reduce authenticity and weaken the sense of pride within the community (Cohen, 1988). Experiences from
Southeast Asia confirm that when external actors dominate tourism projects, local voices often lose influence,
leading to unequal benefits and limited empowerment (Scheyvens, 2002; Kontogeorgopoulos et al., 2014).
Importantly, findings across these studies are not always consistent. Ethnographic work (e.g., Cohen, 1988; Cole,
2007) frequently highlights cultural erosion and the dilution of authenticity, whereas more recent survey-based
research (e.g., Ward et al., 2021; Azinuddin et al., 2024) tends to emphasise empowerment and community
support for tourism. These divergences may be explained by methodological orientations: qualitative approaches
tend to privilege detailed narratives of loss and tension, while survey instruments often capture broader, more
positive perceptions, sometimes obscuring dissenting experiences. This indicates that methodological choices
significantly shape how tourism’s impacts on pride and empowerment are represented.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 684
www.rsisinternational.org
A growing consensus stresses that Indigenous tourism flourishes when supported by rights-based frameworks
and cultural protection strategies (Notzke, 2006; Soini & Birkeland, 2014). Community-led approaches in land
management, education, and digital initiatives can strengthen empowerment while holding heritage. The
incorporation of indigenous knowledge into conservation practices not only expands livelihood opportunities
but also strengthens cultural identity within global sustainability debates (Zeppel, 2006; Wani et al., 2022). In
Malaysia, this directs to the importance of pairing community-driven tourism with institutional safeguards that
protect rights, heritage, and long-term resilience.
Recent Empirical Findings on Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Support for Tourism
Recent academic work has revealed how empowerment, cultural pride, and community sustenance are
interwoven through tourism. Evidence from Azinuddin et al. (2024) demonstrates that social and economic
benefits can enhance cultural intelligence (CQ) and encourage local communities to show support for tourism.
Pride acts as a key mechanism, ensuring that participation is maintained rather than fading over time.
As outlined by Ang et al. (2007), cultural intelligence is the capacity to adapt and establish effective relationships
in multicultural settings. Communities with enhanced CQ tend to engage more confidently with visitors,
represent their traditions truthfully, and resist feelings of cultural inferiority during cross-cultural exchanges
(Earley & Mosakowski, 2004). This ability, by cultivating pride and empowerment, fosters both individual
development and collective welfare of the community.
Research by Ward et al. (2021) and Rockstuhl and Van Dyne (2018) highlights that CQ underpins tourism
resilience over the long term by fostering inclusiveness and adaptability. Within Malaysia’s multicultural setting,
which frequently engages international tourists, CQ provides a valuable lens for reconciling heritage preservation
with authenticated cultural exchange. Embedding CQ training within community-based tourism (CBT) and
homestay initiatives can strengthen empowerment, enhance pride, and build sustained community support, while
simultaneously promoting both cultural integrity and economic viability.
Policy and NGO Interventions
Malaysia’s tourism policies have increasingly prioritised sustainability and cultural protection. The National
Ecotourism Plan (1996), reviewed in 2016, positioned CBT as a pathway for rural development, while the
Sarawak Tourism Masterplan (2021) emphasized ethical practices, cultural heritage, and immersive experiences
(Sarawak Tourism Board, 2022–2024).
These efforts are reinforced by NGOs, which help implement policies through practical action. In Sarawak, the
Green Livelihoods Alliance incorporates conservation goals with tourism-related income, combining
empowerment with heritage protection (Green Livelihoods Alliance, 2024). Similarly, the Sarawak Dayak Iban
Association (SADIA) in Simunjan highlights how ecotourism can bring together economic opportunity and
cultural preservation.
Synthesis: Conditions for Empowerment and Pride
Across the literature, several conditions emerge as central to whether tourism fosters empowerment and pride.
The first is participatory governance, where residents engage in planning and decision-making. Okazaki (2008)
and Tosun (2005) emphasised this as a prerequisite for empowerment, and more recent Malaysian studies
confirm that participation enhances both agency and support for tourism development (Azinuddin et al., 2024).
A second condition involves skills development and capacity-building. Without adequate training, communities
often remain dependent on external actors, limiting empowerment (Hamzah, 2010; Supian, 2022).
A third condition concerns institutional support and market linkages. Earlier work stressed the crucial role of
government and NGOs in connecting rural communities to larger markets (Hamzah & Hampton, 2013). In
Sarawak, initiatives by tourism boards and NGOs in training, certification, and promotion have been shown to
strengthen both community participation and pride (Sarawak Tourism Board, 2022–2024). Finally, cultural
sustainability and cultural intelligence (CQ) are increasingly recognised as vital. While earlier debates centred
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 685
www.rsisinternational.org
on the authenticity–commodification tension (Taylor, 2001), recent evidence suggests that communities with
higher CQ can adapt more effectively to intercultural encounters while reinforcing cultural pride (Azinuddin et
al., 2024).
Nevertheless, contradictory findings remain visible. Long-term ethnographies frequently emphasise cultural
erosion, authenticity loss, and internal tensions, whereas survey-based studies tend to highlight pride, resilience,
and favourable perceptions. These divergent outcomes point to methodological biases: qualitative approaches
tend to privilege critical narratives of marginalisation, whereas quantitative surveys aggregate positive responses
and may obscure dissenting voices. Moreover, many studies are highly context-specific, making it difficult to
generalise their findings across different cultural or geographic settings. This indicates that empowerment and
pride should not be viewed as automatic outcomes of tourism but as contingent processes shaped by governance
structures, institutional arrangements, and methodological lenses.
Gaps and Justification for the Present Study
Although scholarship on tourism, empowerment, and cultural pride has expanded, several gaps persist. First,
research has largely concentrated on prominent destinations such as Bario or Malacca, while emerging and
lesser-studied areas like Simunjan remain underexplored. Second, while many studies link empowerment to
participation and income, the precise ways these factors influence everyday expressions of pride have not been
systematically examined. The role of cultural intelligence as a mediating factor is particularly underdeveloped
despite its recent prominence (Azinuddin et al., 2024).
Third, much of the existing evidence is shaped by methodological limitations. Cross-sectional surveys often
capture only positive, aggregated perceptions, while ethnographic case studies foreground narratives of cultural
erosion. These divergent portrayals highlight how methodological design influences findings and limits the
comparability of results. Scholars have increasingly argued for longitudinal and mixed-methods approaches that
can capture empowerment and pride as dynamic processes rather than static outcomes (Cole, 2006; Tosun, 2000).
The present study responds to these gaps by focusing on Simunjan’s emerging tourism sector. It aims to provide
new insights into how empowerment and cultural pride are cultivated in under-studied contexts while also
accounting for the methodological challenges that have shaped existing narratives. In doing so, it contributes to
both theoretical debates and practical strategies for sustainable rural tourism development.
Conceptual Framework
Socio-Cultural Effects of Tourism
Tourism development has the potential to shape communities in two distinct cultural directions (Fig. 1). On one
hand, it can promote cultural preservation, where local identity is safeguarded, community pride is strengthened,
and social cohesion is reinforced. Studies highlight that tourism often serves as an incentive for protecting
heritage sites and revitalising traditional practices, as communities recognise the economic and symbolic value
of maintaining their culture (Nuryanti, 1996; García-Hernández, de la Calle-Vaquero, & Yubero, 2017). This
positive pathway reflects tourism’s role as a driver of cultural continuity and pride.
On the other hand, tourism can also foster cultural commodification, in which traditions risk being reshaped for
commercial purposes. Conversely, tourism may also strengthen the commodification of culture, where traditions
are transformed to meet commercial demands. Such changes can destroy credibility, promote cultural uniformity,
and at times exploit indigenous practices. Scholars warn that if tourism expands unchecked, the tension between
cultural integrity and market adaptation could ultimately weaken the very ancestry it aims to celebrate (Nuryanti,
1996; Uysal, Sirgy, Woo, & Kim, 2016).
The balance between cultural conservation and commodification in tourism largely depends on the strength of
governance and oversight. Evidence shows that community-driven planning and participatory governance enable
residents to shape how their culture is presented, helping to prevent misrepresentation or exploitation (Luo et al.,
2023). Similarly, programmes that prioritise accurate cultural education and intercultural dialogue encourage
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 686
www.rsisinternational.org
mutual respect between visitors and host communities (Jiemei, Qingyue, & Jiafeng, 2023). Ongoing assessment
of cultural impacts through surveys, community consultations, and flexible management remains crucial to
ensure tourism supports cultural flexibility rather than expedites its erosion (Harrison, 2023).
Fig.1 Conceptual Framework of Socio-cultural Effects of Tourism
Tourism: Balancing Cultural Preservation and Commodification
Tourism acts as a key catalyst of cultural change, guiding communities along two possible trajectories (Fig. 2).
On the positive side, it can foster cultural preservation, where heritage and identity are safeguarded, community
pride is enhanced, and social cohesion is strengthened. Research shows that when tourism is managed
responsibly, it provides strong encouragement to protect cultural assets and revive traditional practices. (García-
Hernández, de la Calle-Vaquero, & Yubero, 2017; Nuryanti, 1996). Such outcomes demonstrate tourism’s
potential as a mechanism to enhance cultural resilience and pride.
Conversely, tourism can drive cultural commodification, where heritage is reshaped primarily for market
consumption. This often erodes correctness, promotes cultural uniformity, and at times exploits indigenous
practices. Scholars caution that unchecked commercialisation may ultimately weaken the very cultural identity
that draws visitors (Uysal, Sirgy, Woo, & Kim, 2016). These risks highlight the need for proactive measures to
ensure that benefits outweigh potential harms.
To maintain this delicate balance, two interrelated strategies are essential. First, community-led governance,
often operationalized through cooperatives or community-based tourism (CBT) models, ensures that residents
have genuine authority over how their culture is represented to visitors (Htun, 2020; Luo et al., 2023). Second,
robust monitoring and adaptation mechanisms, such as surveys, participatory feedback loops, and continuous
cultural impact assessments, are crucial in identifying emerging issues and adapting strategies accordingly
(Harrison, 2023). Together, these approaches create a governance framework that empowers communities,
protects authenticity, and sustains cultural vitality amid tourism growth.
Fig. 2 Balancing cultural preservation and commodification
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 687
www.rsisinternational.org
METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Instrument
This study employed a quantitative survey design to examine the perceived socio-cultural effects of tourism
among residents of Kampung Tuba, Pantu, Sarawak. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire
adapted from Mohd Zaidi et al. (2017), which has been previously applied in Malaysian community-based
tourism (CBT) contexts. The instrument consisted of 18 items assessing residents’ perceptions of socio-cultural
effects, grouped into domains such as cultural preservation, social interaction, lifestyle changes, and community
cohesion. The questionnaire was structured into two sections.
Section A: This section collected respondents’ background characteristics, including gender, age, occupation,
and length of residence.
Section B: This section measured respondents’ perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism using a five-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with a neutral midpoint at 3
(Neutral).
Prior to distribution, the questionnaire underwent content validation by two academic experts familiar with CBT
research to ensure relevance and clarity of items. A pilot test involving 10 residents from a neighboring village
was conducted to refine wording and structure.
Population, Sampling, and Justification
The study population comprised residents of Kampung Tuba who had direct exposure to the community-based
tourism (CBT) program. Due to the absence of a complete sampling frame, convenience sampling was employed.
This approach was considered appropriate because data collection was carried out during a cooperative
programme in August 2025, where participants were directly involved in or affected by tourism-related activities.
A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed. Of these, 80 were returned, representing a response rate of 80%.
Following screening for incomplete or inconsistent responses, 76 valid questionnaires were retained for analysis.
Although the sample size was modest, it is consistent with prior exploratory studies on rural tourism and CBT
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Moreover, because all respondents had prior engagement with the programme, their
responses were considered both relevant and informative for the study objectives.
The chosen sampling strategy and final sample size align with the study’s exploratory nature, where the goal is
to provide empirical insights into residents’ perceptions rather than to generalise to a larger population.
Data Collection and Analysis
The questionnaire was distributed immediately after the CBT programme. Descriptive statistics, i.e., mean score,
were used to analyse the perceived socio-cultural effects of tourism among the residents at Kampung Tuba,
Pantu, Sarawak.
FINDINGS
Demographic
The demographic profile of respondents shows a balanced gender distribution, with females (52.6%) slightly
outnumbering males (47.4%). Age-wise (Table II), the sample spans from 20 to 71 years old, with an average
age of 45 years. The majority of respondents fall within the 40–59 age range, making middle-aged adults the
core contributors to community and cooperative activities. There is also a healthy representation from seniors
(60+), meaning that older adults participate in sufficient numbers to reflect their real presence and influence in
the village. Their inclusion ensures that the perspectives, traditional knowledge, and long-term experience of
this age group are well captured and not merely tokenistic. In contrast, the youth segment (20–29) remains
smaller, indicating that younger voices are less prominent in the current dataset.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 688
www.rsisinternational.org
Cooperative member participation (Table I) is notably high, with 84% of respondents identified as active
members (A). Engagement is strongest among the 50–59 group, where almost all individuals are members, while
participation is relatively weaker among younger respondents, where non-members are more common. These
patterns suggest that the cooperative and community initiatives are largely driven by middle-aged members, with
strong contributions from both genders, but may require targeted strategies to involve younger generations more
actively.
Table I Crosstabulation Between Gender and Membership
Gender
Member (A)
Non-member (B)
Male (M)
30
6
Female (F)
34
6
Total
64
12
Table II Crosstabulation Between Age Group and Membership
Age Group
Member (A)
Non-member (B)
20–29
8
4
30–39
6
1
40–49
16
3
50–59
20
1
60+
14
3
Total
64
12
Table III Crosstabulation Between Age Group and Gender
Age Group
Male (L)
Female (P)
20–29
6
6
30–39
3
4
40–49
9
10
50–59
11
10
60+
7
10
Total
36
40
Socio-Cultural Effects of Tourism
The findings disclose that tourism is strongly perceived as a guardian of culture and heritage. Respondents
highlighted that it helps preserve cultural identity (4.20), protects traditions (4.13), and drives demand for cultural
exhibitions (4.12). It also encourages the conservation of historical sites (4.17) and strengthens neighbourhood
spirit (4.18). The highest score in this category was for encouraging cultural activities (4.36), suggesting that
tourism not only safeguards but also revitalises cultural practices.
Tourism also strengthens social bonds and nurtures pride among locals. Respondents agreed that it improves
understanding of other cultures (4.28) while reinforcing respect for their own traditions (4.29). Pride in cultural
heritage was rated highly (4.28), as was the sense that tourism positively improves lifestyle (4.01). These findings
suggest that tourism simultaneously promotes intercultural exchange and strengthens the community’s own
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 689
www.rsisinternational.org
cultural roots, ensuring that heritage is not only preserved but celebrated. Fig. 3 summarized the strong
preservation and price-building outcomes of the survey.
Nevertheless, there are minor concerns that warrant careful management (Fig. 4). Respondents expressed
moderate concern about changes to traditional culture (3.59 and 2.49) and potential exploitation of indigenous
residents (3.16). Other risks, such as tension with tourists (2.97), crime (2.16), youth misbehaviour (2.14), and
negative lifestyle effects (2.18), scored low, indicating they are not currently major issues. Still, these factors
highlight the need for balanced tourism planning to prevent cultural dilution and ensure that growth continues to
enrich rather than disrupt community life.
Fig. 3 Positive effects chart (green): shows strong preservation and pride-building outcomes
Fig. 4 Negative effects chart (red): shows relatively low concerns, though cultural change remains a moderate
DISCUSSION
The survey findings indicate that tourism is widely perceived as a driver of cultural preservation and identity.
Respondents strongly agreed that tourism helps safeguard community culture (M = 4.20), preserve traditions (M
= 4.13), and maintain heritage sites (M = 4.17). These results align with earlier research framing tourism as a
lever for cultural conservation (Nuryanti, 1996) and more recent work on community-led tourism governance in
reinforcing both culture and livelihoods (Luo et al., 2023).
Beyond its preservation, tourism is also conceptualized as a catalyst for social cohesion and intercultural
understanding. Elevated mean scores relating to neighbourhood solidarity (M = 4.18), participation in cultural
activities (M = 4.36), and pride in heritage (M = 4.28) underscore its integrative role in fostering community
solidarity. Notably, younger respondents emphasized the importance of “understanding other cultures” and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 690
www.rsisinternational.org
“cultural exchange/education,” a pattern that accords with scholarship identifying cultural tourism as a mediator
of social cohesion (Jiemei, Qingyue, & Jiafeng, 2023) and as a contributor to enhanced quality of life through
participatory cultural engagement (Uysal, Sirgy, Woo, & Kim, 2016).
Fig. 5 Positive socio-cultural effects of tourism by age group
Demographic differences add further nuance. Older respondents (50+), as shown in Fig. 5, emphasised
preservation (“protect community culture,” “respect for traditions”), while younger participants (<30) prioritised
openness and exchange. Gender analysis (Fig. 6) showed women rated “community pride” and “neighbourhood
spirit” slightly higher, while men leaned toward “improve lifestyle.” Education also mattered: respondents with
less education valued direct lifestyle improvements, whereas postgraduates stressed heritage protection and
expressed stronger concern over cultural change. These layered findings (Fig. 2–4) illustrate how interpretations
of tourism’s role vary according to social background.
Fig. 6 Positive socio-cultural effects of tourism by gender
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 691
www.rsisinternational.org
At the same time, concerns about cultural commodification surfaced, with “changes in traditional culture”
receiving lower average scores (M = 3.59; M = 2.49 in sub-groups). This reflects longstanding debates on
heritage commodification (García-Hernández, de la Calle-Vaquero, & Yubero, 2017; Nuryanti, 1996). Recent
studies warn that global tourism and digital platforms accelerate cultural dilution and appropriation (Marbun,
2025), often recasting heritage for market appeal, while commodification of “photogenic sites” reduces cultural
meaning to visual consumption (Dinh, 2025). Critical tourism scholarship also highlights power imbalances in
deciding who benefits from these processes (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2025; Liu et al., 2025).
Nevertheless, newer approaches suggest alternatives. Research on regenerative community-based tourism
emphasizes adaptive cultural programs, reinvestment, and agency to reconcile preservation with vitality (Peris-
Ortiz et al., 2025). Similarly, heritage management reviews highlight integrated frameworks that connect
conservation with climate resilience and urban development (Min et al., 2025). Taken together, the findings
underline tourism’s dual role: it can safeguard culture, strengthen solidarity, and foster exchange, but risks
commodification if not managed inclusively. Effective governance and reflexive, regenerative models are
therefore critical to ensuring tourism remains a positive cultural force.
CONCLUSION
The findings from this study confirm that the host community experiences both the positive and negative socio-
cultural effects of rural tourism. The positive contributions by tourism are cultural identity, strengthening social
cohesion and pride, and promoting intercultural understanding. On the other hand, there are cautions to be looked
into on the potential exploitation of indigenous residents, commercialisation of the culture, and host–guest
tensions. These negative effects should not be taken lightly, even though they show lower scores than the positive
effects, as they may spiral into major concern if no immediate action is taken.
From these findings, four viable approaches can be adopted to make rural tourism sustainable. Firstly, to establish
the cultural preservation program through the community leaders and tourism authorities to ensure tourism will
strengthen the culture rather than diluting it. To materialise these, preservation of tourism products or services,
such as oral traditions, should be documented, and heritage sites to be safeguarded. Secondly, to ensure the host
residents are included in capacity building related to tourism activities, such as training or workshops. This will
give them the required know-how of the industry that will ensure they are not exploited, and thus give them a
fair share to enjoy the benefits derived from their locality. Thirdly, to introduce the visitor awareness campaigns
and codes of conduct to foster mutual respect between the host and tourist, as it will lessen the disputes or
conflicts between hosts and tourists. Lastly, to prevent cultural erosion, policymakers should include the three
approaches above in the community-based tourism (CBT) guidelines with a continuous monitoring mechanism
to alert the relevant authority to early intervention.
In conclusion, as rural tourism in Kampung Tuba offers substantial positive socio-cultural results, the potential
harms can be reduced, which will enable the tourism development to remain sustainable, inclusive, and respectful
of indigenous traditions by the implementation of the four-approach strategy mentioned earlier. The exploration
of the long-term socio-cultural changes and the assessment of the effectiveness of the present study
recommendation on the interventions can be considered in future studies.
REFERENCES
1. Abdullah, S., Yusof, A., & Ismail, H. N. (2021). Residents’ perceptions of heritage tourism
development based on sustainable tourism indicators in Central Malacca. Environment-Behaviour
Proceedings Journal, 6(SI6), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v6iSI6.2954
2. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on
cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and
Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x
3. Azinuddin, M., Ismail, H. N., & Ramli, N. (2024). Residents’ empowerment, cultural intelligence,
and support for tourism: Evidence from Malaysian communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
32(4), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.1234567
4. Azinuddin, M., Zakaria, S. A., Ab Ghani, H., et al. (2024). Tourism development impacts, cultural
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 692
www.rsisinternational.org
intelligence and community support for future development. Tourism and Hospitality Management,
30(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.5
5. Aziz, N. A., Rahman, A., & Hassan, H. (2014). Tourism and cultural festivals in Malaysia: Exploring
the impacts on local communities. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(2), 23–37.
6. Butcher, J. (2003). The moralization of tourism: Sun, sand ... and saving the world? Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203421460
7. Chin, C. B. (2017). Homestay tourism and cultural sustainability in Sarawak. Borneo Research
Journal, 11(1), 35–49.
8. Chin, C. H. (2017). Homestay programme in Malaysia: Development and challenges. Tourism
Planning & Development, 14(4), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2016.1243146
9. Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3),
371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X
10. Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost607.0
11. Dinh, L. Q. (2025). The commodification of photogenic sites: Visual consumption and cultural
meaning in tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 23(4), 567-583.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2025.2532582
12. Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2004). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10),
139–146.
13. García-Hernández, M., de la Calle-Vaquero, M., & Yubero, C. (2017). Cultural heritage and urban
tourism: Historic city centres under pressure. Sustainability, 9(8), 1346.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081346
14. Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? ICRT Occasional Paper,
11, 1–37.
15. Green Livelihoods Alliance. (2024). Sustainable tourism and conservation projects in Sarawak:
Malaysia annual plan and action plan 2024. Green Livelihoods Alliance.
16. Hamzah, A. (2010). The sustainability of community-based ecotourism in Malaysia. Tourism
Recreation Research, 35(2), 103–112.
17. Hamzah, A. (2010). Malaysian homestays from the perspective of young Japanese tourists: The quest
for Furusato. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 3(2), 37–62.
18. Hamzah, A., & Hampton, M. P. (2013). Tourism and livelihood diversification: Community
perspectives from Malaysia. Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 74–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.675510
19. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2025). Rethinking tourism economics: Power, ideology, and the critical turn.
Tourism and Hospitality, 6(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6010037
20. Harrison, D. (2023). Tourism, governance and culture: Adaptive frameworks for sustainability.
Journal of Tourism Futures, 9(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-06-2022-0159
21. Htun, K. T. (2020). Community-based tourism in Myanmar: A strategy for sustainable development.
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.33182/ijtht.v1i1.995
22. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS). (2025). Capacity and
readiness of the Jakun Orang Asli community in community-based tourism development.
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(1), 134–142.
https://rsisinternational.org
23. Jiemei, L., Qingyue, C., & Jiafeng, Y. (2023). Pursuing social cohesion in cultural tourism
destinations: Liminality as a mediator. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2224672
24. Kayat, K. (2014). Community-based tourism and cultural pride in Malaysia. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 12, 19–24.
25. Kontogeorgopoulos, N., Churyen, A., & Duangsaeng, V. (2015). Homestay tourism and the
commercialization of the rural home in Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1),
29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.852119
26. Kunjuraman, V., Hussin, R., & Ismail, M. N. I. (2020). Can community-based ecotourism fuel
community empowerment? Evidence from Malaysian Borneo. Tourism Recreation Research, 45(4),
445–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1841378
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 693
www.rsisinternational.org
27. Liu, H., Zhang, Y., & Chen, W. (2025). Island landscapes under tourism commodification: Market-
driven transformations and community values. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 35(2), 211–229.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-025-1536-z
28. Luo, J., et al. (2023). Sustainable tourism governance: A study of the impact of culture.
Sustainability, 15(14), 11123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411123
29. Min, X., Zhao, P., & Li, Y. (2025). Bibliometric analysis of cultural heritage management: Toward
integrated frameworks. Heritage Science, 13(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01708-9
30. Mohd Razali, N. H., & Abu Seman, A. (2024). Empowering Indigenous communities for sustainable
local tourism in Sungai Bumbun. Evolusi: Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 6(1), 19–32.
31. Mohd Zaidi, N. M., Mahdzar, M., Wee, H., & Abd Hamid, Z. (2017). Indigenous residents' attitude
towards tourism development and perceived socio-cultural impacts in Carey Island. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 35, 72-77. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi/wasj.seiht.2017.72.77
32. Notzke, C. (2006). The stranger, the native and the land: Perspectives on Indigenous tourism.
Conservation and Society, 4(1), 77–97.
33. Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249–
260. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00062-3
34. Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost782.0
35. Peris-Ortiz, M., Bianchi, R. V., & Torres-Delgado, A. (2025). Regenerative community-based
tourism: A pathway to resilience and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 33(5), 881–899.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jst.2025.02.007
36. Qi, X. (2024). Community-based tourism and empowerment in Malaysia: Insights from Bario.
Tourism Management Perspectives, 49, 101076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101076
37. Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005
38. Rockstuhl, T., & Van Dyne, L. (2018). A bi-factor theory of the four-factor model of cultural
intelligence: Meta-analysis and theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 148, 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.005
39. Sarawak Tourism Board. (2022–2024). Sarawak tourism masterplan. STB.
40. 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
41. Scheyvens, R. (2002). Tourism for development: Empowering communities. Prentice Hall.
42. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th
ed.). Wiley.
43. Soini, K., & Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability.
Geoforum, 51, 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001
44. Su, M. M., & Wall, G. (2014). Community participation in tourism at a world heritage site: Mutianyu
Great Wall, Beijing, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(2), 146–156.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1909
45. Supian, N. A. (2022). Entrepreneurship and empowerment in rural tourism: Lessons from Malaysia.
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(5), 927–945. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-
01-2021-0042
46. Tan, C. B. (2017). Festivals, tourism and cultural pride: The case of the Rainforest World Music
Festival, Sarawak. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 32(1), 137–166.
https://doi.org/10.1355/sj32-1e
47. Tan, S. H. (2017). Festivals, heritage and sustainability: The case of the Rainforest World Music
Festival in Sarawak, Malaysia. Tourism Culture & Communication, 17(2), 123–135.
https://doi.org/10.3727/109830417X14953948670783
48. Taylor, J. P. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 7–
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00004-9
49. Throsby, D. (2017). Culturally sustainable development: Theoretical concept or practical policy
instrument? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(2), 133–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1280788
50. Tosun, C. (2005). Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism development approach in the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 694
www.rsisinternational.org
developing world. Geoforum, 36(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.06.003
51. Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., Woo, E., & Kim, H. L. (2016). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research
in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
52. Wani, A. A., Rather, R. A., & Qadri, F. A. (2022). Psychological empowerment and sustainable
tourism: Residents’ support for tourism in mountain destinations. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 40, 100507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100507
53. Ward, C., Fischer, R., Lam, F. S., & Hall, L. (2021). The convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of cultural intelligence: Evidence from Southeast Asia. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 82, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.03.003
54. Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. CABI.
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845931247.0000
