Grant information: This research was supported by the Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

According to the UNWTO (2023), tourism is a key sector of the economy, a staple of regional development and socio-economic transformation, and plays an important role in border and remote areas. Cross-border areas are usually represented by cultural contact as an environment of cultural multiplicities and ethnic mobility, as well as the proximity of geopolitics, which forms unique tourist environments (Timothy, 2001). The border areas of Thailand have become increasingly important in the Southeast Asian context as more appealing tourist destinations, which can shift the point of tourist arrivals and initiate inclusive development. This is witnessed in the Sangkhlaburi district, located at the border between Thailand and Myanmar, where the Karen, Mon, and Burmese ethnic groups are found in a single area. The Karen hill tribe has rich and dynamic traditions and religious beliefs, as well as unique knowledge systems, which significantly improve its cultural tourism value. Although Sangkhlaburi has rich tangible and intangible heritage, the development of tourism has not been even, being limited by weak infrastructure, weak institutional frameworks, and limited involvement of the local communities in the planning of their tourism (King & Parnwell, 2011). COVID-19 also disrupted existing tourism systems, further catalyzing the broader turn to sustainability, local tourism experiences, and community-based approaches (Gössling, Scott, & Hall 2020; McKinsey & Company 2021). In the New and Next Normal world, Sangkhlaburi has to confront not only challenges but also opportunities to redefine its destinations’ tourism model in a way that involves maintaining the cultural identity and improving the resilience of the Sangkhlaburi community (Butler, 1980).

This study aims to analyze transformations in cultural tourism in a Karen hill tribe village in terms of stakeholders’ roles and interactions, as well as the level of involvement of the local community and the governance system. It examines the links among the variables involved in tourism development within a borderland environment and how local communities participate in decision-making, maintain their cultural identity, and design tourism activities (Teo & Chee, 2018). This study is placed in the larger context of the post-pandemic world, contributing to the debate on the sustainable and inclusive development of tourism and analyzing the potential role of culturally sensitive and participatory approaches in promoting the sustainability of tourism in peripheral and indigenous destinations (UNWTO, 2018).

The theoretical underpinning of this research is an interdisciplinary body of knowledge comprising borderland tourism, cultural heritage, authenticity, governance, and community-based development. Increasingly, researcher Timothy (2001) has shown that political boundaries at the same time are barriers to tourism movement and providers of possible mobility, resulting in dynamic zones where geopolitical and cultural processes overlap. Based on this view, van Houtum and Strüver (2002) redefined borders as socially constructed places that generate hybrid cultural identities: ‘contact zones’ where changes in social and cultural identity are continually negotiated. The lessons learned help improve the understanding of the complexities of the tourism development process in a multiethnic borderland area like Sangkhlaburi. In the academic field of tourism, the issue of cultural authenticity has been placed at the center. Cohen (1988) turned the traditional sense of authenticity on its head by proposing a new one—emergent authenticity—that emerged as a theory of authenticity that has proven very useful for understanding how such identity is socially constructed and negotiated rather than consolidated and established. This is further expanded by Wang (1999), who suggested the term constructive authenticity, in which cultural tourism is seen as a tool to reinforce identity and intercultural and inter-generational/cultural exchange when communities are actively involved in building their own stories. Richards (2011) also argued that cultural tourism will not be sustainable unless communities have control over the image and the interpretation of their heritage. Timothy and Boyd (2003), Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990) and Echtner and Ritchie (1993) have all studied on heritage tourism as a resource and a management problem, whereas García-Hernández et al. (2017) pointed out its dangers when it is an issue of too many tourists at cultural heritage sites. The concept of cb tourism has garnered much academic interest as a way to apply local empowerment, cultural protection, and economic profit to develop local communities. Murphy (1985) proposed an external growth paradigm as a model for practice and a shift from externally driven growth to locally driven growth.

A case study of CBT success reveals unsurpassed opportunities for livelihood improvement and cultural conservation (Goodwin and Santilli, 2009). Okazaki (2008) developed a CBT model that focuses on participative processes and equitable benefits. Kontogeorgopoulos (2021) found local leadership, institutional support from the outside, and the existence of favourable enabling conditions to be the key factors for a successful CBT in Thailand. The governance of sustainable tourism has been studied by Bramwell and Lane (2011), Jamal and Getz (1995) and Arnstein (1969) whose citizens participation ladder serves as a model to measure the level of civic involvement. This study was conducted under the policy background of the BCG Economy Model (Ministry of Tourism and Sports, 2022) in Thailand, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery plans (Gössling et al., 2020; UNWTO, 2022; McKinsey & Company, 2021). Authentic representation of local culture vs. tourism commodification served as the core facets of the theme, captured by four works cited, all by authors working at the interface of communication and tourism: destination marketing and digital communication (Hays et al., 2013; Morgan et al., 2011; MacCannell, 1976; Smith, 2009).

The qualitative and interpretive paradigm was used in this study to generate an in-depth understanding of the experiences of the stakeholders relating to the transformation of cultural tourism in the Karen hill tribe village in Sangkhlaburi District Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Considering the exploratory nature of the research questions and the need to take a nuanced look at social processes, cultural dynamics, and institutional relationships, which are not easily quantified, qualitative inquiry was found to be the most suitable type of study. The study was conducted from February to May 2024. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 purposefully selected key informants comprising three groups: government officials from the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) headquarters and the Kanchanaburi office (12); provincial officials from the Tourism Authority of Thailand Kanchaburi (6), Karen provincial board of tourism (n = 3), and Mon provincial board of tourism (n = 2); and community leaders from the Karen, Mon, and Burmese ethnic groups (n = 5). A detailed description of the key informants is presented in Table 1. A purposive sampling method was used to ensure representation throughout the levels of governance and the community. The interviews took between 60 and 90 minutes, with participants consenting to have the interview recorded.

Participant observation of cultural sites and tourism attractions in various areas of Sangkklaburi District, semi-structured interviews conducted at cultural and tourist sites and systematic review of the documents such as national and provincial tourism plans, tourist promotion materials and community-based tourism project reports were added to semi-structured interviews. In addition, semi-structured interviews were supported by non-participant observation of cultural sites and touristic attractions in various districts of Sangkhlaburi district and systematic review of documents such as national and provincial tourism plans, Tourist promotion materials and community-based tourism project reports. Cross-checking these data sources helped increase the comprehensiveness of the findings and made them credible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All data were thematized following the six-step process of thematic analysis developed by Braun and Clarke (2006). Data source triangulation, member checking, and reflexive journaling (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018) were used to gain trustworthiness. Ethical approval was obtained before data collection (No. COE 66/011 – institutional ethics), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The research team assigned each rating as a score to the theme using an ordinal 5-point scale involving different levels of intensity and occurrence of the theme in responses of the participants ranging from Very Low (1) to Very High (5) with “Not Significant” and “Strongly Significant” valuing at the lowest and highest levels respectively. These scores allowed for a systematic comparison between stakeholder groups and thematic dimensions, adding to the qualitative interpretive analysis.

The findings show that the Karen Hill Tribe community (Sangkhlaburi) is experiencing a multi-faceted and complex transformation in tourism. The identified thematic dimensions are interrelated and include cultural and spiritual identity, challenges in governance, infrastructure limitations, challenges in marketing, and the potential of CBT. The descriptive statistics of each thematic dimension are detailed in Table 2 for all 23 respondents and are useful for understanding and adding depth to the qualitative data.

The mean scores assigned to each thematic dimension are shown for the three stakeholder levels in Figure 1. Specifically, Cultural and Spiritual Identity had the highest mean score (M = 4.17, SD = 0.78) for all groups, indicating the consistent acceptance of cultural heritage as the most basic element of the destination to which the tourism appeal is connected. CBT Potential was rated second highest overall (M = 3.78, SD = 0.85), while Provincial Officials showed the greatest appreciation for CBT as a development pathway (M = 4.00). Infrastructure Issues (M = 3.61, SD = 1.31) and Governance Issues (M = 3.57, SD = 1.20) were rated equally, meaning that both were perceived as serious issues but not a hindrance. Marketing Limitations had the weakest mean of all areas (M = 3.22, SD = 1.17), but there were significant differences between groups.

A horizontal bar chart of the overall mean scores across the five thematic dimensions is shown in Figure 2, the center of the scale shown as a reference line. The scores for all five themes exceeded the midpoint, indicating that most respondents agreed the themes were at least moderately important. It is noteworthy that Cultural and Spiritual Identity is the highest ranked in terms of ratings, as in qualitative results, it has been shown as the irreplaceable core of the tourist values of the destination, confirming what was previously found in many other dimensions of the destination.

Each thematic dimension resulted in widely distributed scores (not shown individually), with some perception of the dimension at all score levels and varying percentages of people feeling a certain level at each score level ( Figure 3). For Cultural Identity, 78% of respondents scored 4 or 5, showing good convergence on this scale. The scores for the three issues (Governance, Infrastructure, and Marketing Limitations) are far more spread, and this is the only true divergence between the different stakeholder groups, as these three issues are perceived differently by different stakeholder groups, largely due to their institutional positions and direct experience with the issue (Dharawanij & Yaiyong, 2026). The agro-tourism development direction of community-based tourism is also quite concentrated with high CBT Potentials (3–5), and here, there is also the consensus that it is a viable and good development direction, with no respondent giving it a score below 3.

A radar chart that juxtaposes the three stakeholder groups’ mean score profiles on all five dimensions is shown in figure 4. Government Officials had the highest ratings for Governance Issues (M = 4.08) and were aware of the institutional problems of coordination and gaps in policy implementation. There is a low governance score (M = 2.50) for provincial officials, which may be due to a focus on operational aspects or satisfaction with the coordination mechanisms at the provincial level. The perceived lived experience of physical inaccessibility, as rated by Community Leaders, was the highest of all groups (M = 4.00). The differences in perceptions of governance between the national and provincial governments, as shown in the radar chart above, are also identified as one of the key governance failures in sustainable tourism contexts by Bramwell and Lane (2011).

The dot plot in Figure 5 shows individual ‘respondent scores’ for each theme, colored by each stakeholder group, with horizontal lines representing group means. This plot depicts the variation within the group that the aggregate means obscured. Within the Government Official group, some TAT administrators scores are still fairly varied, for example, 3 versus 5 in the Governance Issues case, which suggests varying institutional perspectives and impressions of the effectiveness of planning. In the case of Marketing Limitations, individual scores for every group are spread out over the entire five scale points, indicating the lack of institutional consensus regarding the extent to which this constraint is unlikely.

Table 3 presents a complete picture of the five thematic dimensions that combine the quantitative scoring pattern with the key qualitative issues identified by thematic analysis and selected quotations from the representatives. The figures and this table show that all five dimensions are recognized as important, but cultural identity is the area with the highest consensus, and CBT is undoubtedly the area with the most consensus, while tourism development, governance, and infrastructure are the most structural problems and constraints.

The theoretical discussion relates these findings to the existing literature. The continued strong rating of Cultural and Spiritual Identity as the key dimension also aligns with Cohen's (1988) emergent authenticity model and Richards' (2011) notion of the need for communities to have interpretative agency over their heritage for cultural tourism to be sustainable. The stakeholder dimension in each of the three dimensions of governance perceptions diverges most strongly in the dimension of Governance Issues, which speaks to Arnstein (1969) ‘s ladder of citizen participation’ and the perspective of governance coordination failures through the lens of Bramwell and Lane (2011). However, as noted earlier, the high CBT Potential scores across all groups are indicative of the work of both Murphy (1985) and Okazaki (2008), who developed frameworks for community-centered development efforts. Likewise, the within-group variability observed in Figure 5 suggests the contextual and positional nature of tourists’ governance perceptions identified by Jamal and Getz (1995). The infrastructure findings are similar to those of Sharpley (2002) and UNWTO (2019), while the marketing findings agree with those of Hays et al. (2013) and Morgan et al. (2011), who pointed to the importance of electronic presence as a competitive weakness of peripheral destinations.

This study had a few limitations. First, due to the qualitative interpretive design method used and the context of the setting (the Sangkhlaburi area), the results may not be statistically generalized to other locations within the borderland tourism region. The thematic scores presented in Figures 1–5 and Tables 2–3 are qualitative data derived from 23 purposively selected key informants on that scale and should be interpreted as a reflection of the intensity and frequency of themes and not as an established psychometric instrument. In applying this framework in other contexts, a contextual assessment should be undertaken to confirm the applicability of the identified dimensions. Second, some of the stakeholder groups represented in the sample were not directly engaged, such as domestic and international tourists, private sector operators, and non-governmental organizations. Future studies, including survey studies that involve more respondents, would allow for more reliable inferential comparisons to be made based on these perspectives. Third, the cross-sectional design means that perceptions were observed at one time; scores would indeed benefit greatly from longitudinal studies to see how scores change over time as a result of governance changes or CBT interventions. Further research priorities include comparative research with other ethnic minority tourism destinations within the mainland Southeast Asian region to look for regional generalizability, further exploration of digital technologies and social media platforms to increase the sharing of community-led tourism experiences and measuring and evaluating participatory governance structures and how these influence the generation of measurable community-level benefits.

This study explored the changing phenomenon of cultural tourism in a Karen Hill Tribe village in the Sangkhlaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand. Based on qualitative information derived from deepening insights through 23 key informant (KI) interviews and aspects of thematic scoring, this study sheds light on five interrelated dimensions that are important in the context of a culturally dispersed border area linked to tourism transformation: cultural and spiritual identity, institutional challenges of governance, infrastructure and accessibility issues, tourism marketing constraints, and tourism potential of the communities. The empirical findings that emerged throughout the five figures and the three tables point to the same perception of Cultural and Spiritual Identity as the main factor of tourism appeal (M = 4.17), followed by CBT Potential (M = 3.78), which offers the maximum consensus and is considered the most accepted pathway of development. Structural constraints are most marked in terms of Government Issues (M = 3.57) and Infrastructure Issues (M = 3.61) and are revealed in the stakeholder group comparisons as key differences in perceptions of governance issues among government officials, provincial officials, and community leaders. This study emphasizes how cultural identity and spiritual heritage serve as commodities in the tourism industry and as dynamic and vibrant expressions of sustainable social and cultural living and intergenerational continuity. Sensitive, collaborative, and community-based tourism management, viewed as the engine of local cultural revitalization and economic empowerment, can be a partner in cultural change. The governance dimension reveals a significant disconnect between national and provincial tourism policy and its local implementation, which requires the creation of participative planning platforms and multi-stakeholder committees, along with mechanisms for formalizing the community voice. This research contributes to the understanding of the significance of tourism development strategies that prioritize the conservation of culture, population welfare, and environmental sustainability in the backdrop of Thailand’s BCG Economy Model and its post-pandemic tourism recovery.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee in accordance with the Kasetsart University Research Ethics Committee (Approval Code: COE 66/011). The study received ethical clearance prior to data collection, and the authors acknowledge the governing bodies of Sangkhlaburi District, as well as all community members and local officials, for their valuable support and cooperation throughout the research.

•  Arnstein SR: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1969; 35(4): 216–224. Publisher Full Text
•  Ashworth GJ, Tunbridge JE: The tourist-historic city. Belhaven Press; 1990.
•  Bramwell B, Lane B: Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011; 19(4–5): 411–421. Publisher Full Text
•  Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text
•  Butler RW: The concept of a tourism area life cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Can. Geogr. 1980; 24(1): 5–12. Publisher Full Text
•  Cohen E: Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1988; 15(3): 371–386. Publisher Full Text
•  Denzin NK, Lincoln YS: The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications; 5th ed . 2018.
•  Echtner CM, Ritchie JRB: The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. J. Travel Res. 1993; 31(4): 3–13. Publisher Full Text
•  García-Hernández M, De la Calle-Vaquero M, Yubero C: Cultural heritage and urban tourism: Historic city centres under pressure. Sustainability. 2017; 9(8): 1346. Publisher Full Text
•  Goodwin H, Santilli R: Community-based tourism: A success? ICRT Occasional Paper 11. International Centre for Responsible Tourism & GTZ; 2009.
•  Gössling S, Scott D, Hall CM: Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020; 29(5): 1–20.
•  Hays S, Page SJ, Buhalis D: Social media as a destination marketing tool: Its use by national tourism organisations. Curr. Issue Tour. 2013; 16(3): 211–239. Publisher Full Text
•  Jamal TB, Getz D: Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Ann. Tour. Res. 1995; 22(1): 186–204. Publisher Full Text
•  King VT, Parnwell MJG: World Heritage Sites and domestic tourism in Thailand: Social change and management implications. South East Asia Res. 2011; 19(3): 381–420. Publisher Full Text
•  Kontogeorgopoulos N: Community-based tourism in Thailand. ASEAS. 2021; 14(1): 3–21.
•  Lincoln YS, Guba EG: Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications; 1985; vol. 9. : 438–439. Publisher Full Text
•  MacCannell D: The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. University of California Press; 1976.
•  McKinsey & Company: Reimagining travel: Thailand tourism after the COVID-19 pandemic.2021, November 30. Reference Source
•  Ministry of Tourism and Sports: Tourism statistics and performance: Thailand 2022 (Annual report). Ministry of Tourism and Sports; 2022.
•  Morgan N, Pritchard A, Pride R: Destination brands: Managing place reputation. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2nd ed2011.
•  Murphy PE: Tourism: A community approach. Routledge; 1985.
•  Okazaki E: A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008; 16(5): 511–529. Publisher Full Text
•  Richards G: Cultural tourism trends in Europe: A context for the development of cultural routes.Morpeth KD, Poole CAN, editors. Cultural tourism in a changing world. Channel View Publications; 2011; pp. 21–39.
•  Sharpley R: Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: The case of Cyprus. Tour. Manag. 2002; 23(3): 233–244. Publisher Full Text
•  Smith MK: Issues in cultural tourism studies. Routledge; 2nd ed2009. Publisher Full Text
•  Teo J, Chee HY: In focus: Malaysia – Reinvigorated opportunities. HVS Singapore; 2018.
•  Timothy DJ: Tourism and political boundaries. Routledge; 2001.
•  Timothy DJ, Boyd SW: Heritage tourism. Pearson Education; 2003.
•  UNWTO: Tourism and rural development. World Tourism Organization; 2018.
•  UNWTO: Sustainable tourism development guidelines. World Tourism Organization; 2019.
•  UNWTO: Rethinking tourism: From crisis to transformation – World Tourism Day 2022 report.2022. Reference Source
•  UNWTO: Tourism highlights. United Nations World Tourism Organization; 2023.
•  van Houtum H , Strüver A: Borders, strangers, doors and bridges. Space and Polity. 2002; 6(2): 141–146. Publisher Full Text
•  Wang N: Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Ann. Tour. Res. 1999; 26(2): 349–370. Publisher Full Text
•  Dharawanij N, Yaiyong A: The Alternative Cultural and CBT Tour Routing in Sangkhlaburi, Kanchanaburi, Thailand: Karen Hill Tribe Village. Dataset. figshare. 2026. Publisher Full Text

Grant information

Copyright

© 2026 Dharawanij N and Yaiyong A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Version 1

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Jul 2026

Comment