As dawn breaks over the majestic peaks of Phu Kradueng National Park, the sun stretches its golden arms across the mist-laden terrain, creating a breathtaking tableau that seems plucked from a dream. Enthusiasts huddle at Pha Nok Aen viewpoint, cherishing the ethereal beauty of a new day rising in Loei province.
Yet, amidst this natural serenity, a storm of controversy brews over the proposed cable car project—a divisive topic that has once again captured the public’s attention. At the heart of the debate are concerns about sustainable development and whether the project might be a silent prelude to the exploitation of fragile ecosystems under the guise of tourism advancement.
Last month, these anxieties were reignited when the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) granted an extension for a feasibility study on the cable car. The decision followed the Budget Bureau’s approval of a significant 25.7-million-baht grant, earmarked by the Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (Dasta) to progress the design phase.
But let’s rewind a bit. The saga of the Phu Kradueng cable car dates back to 1982. Over the decades, numerous academic and private entities have conducted feasibility studies. A noteworthy moment came in 2004 when then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation, tasking Dasta with pinpointing a viable route and submitting options to the Cabinet.
Fast forward to 2012, and the fleeting whispers of renewed interest prompted the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment to revisit the plan. Yet, like an elusive butterfly, the project fluttered into temporary dormancy amid fervent opposition from environmentalists, fearful of the devastating impact overtourism might have on the park’s delicate ecosystems.
The project found new life in 2023, as the administration of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin incorporated it into their blueprint for sustainable tourism. By 2025, with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra at the helm, substantial budget support rekindled hopes that the cable car would soon transcend the pages of proposals to reality.
Director-General Attapol Charoenchansa of the DNP acknowledges the ongoing study phase, pointing to financial constraints that dampen the park’s operational potential. Despite its beauty, Phu Kradueng’s revenues in 2024 were modest, with only 66,943 visitors contributing 13.7 million baht. To address this, innovative revenue-generating strategies—including the cable car—are being considered.
European countries—Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Germany—have proposed cutting-edge construction methods that promise minimal environmental disturbance. A proposed station site has been provisionally earmarked at Pha Mak Dook cliff, strategically distanced from popular trailheads, ensuring a route that spans no more than three kilometers.
Anointed as an Asean Heritage Park in October 2023, Phu Kradueng stands as a paragon of biodiversity. Its distinctive mesa landscape and endemic flora make it a botanical Eden. Critics argue that while a cable car might leave the forest largely untouched, it risks altering the revered 4.4-kilometer hiking trail to the summit, celebrated as one of Thailand’s most picturesque ambles.
Improvements proposed within a 10-kilometer radius encapsulate road upgrades, shuttle bus systems, educational hubs, and enhanced visitor amenities. While increased access might encourage more day visits, easing the burden on limited overnight accommodations, the idea remains a double-edged sword.
Director Charoenchansa notes a dwindling tide of opposition, with local residents commencing to embrace the project, lured by the glimmering prospect of boosted tourism revenue. However, proponents remain skeptical, cautioning that the project’s convenience may inadvertently dull the park’s intrinsic appeal. Furthermore, they express doubts that the projected economic benefits will flow to neighboring communities if sustainability thresholds aren’t met.
The final concern lies with the project’s one-billion-baht price tag. Skeptics warn that with protracted payback periods and hefty maintenance costs looming, the venture could devolve from a promising tourism leap into an economic quagmire, casting a long shadow over national park management.
I think the cable car is a fantastic idea. It will boost tourism and the park could use the extra money.
But at what cost to the environment? Introducing more tourists could spell disaster for the park’s delicate ecosystems.
True, but they are using sustainable methods. Plus, more visitors mean more funds for conservation.
I think we need to prioritize nature over tourist dollars. Not everything should be about profit.
Why not use the money to improve existing trails and facilities? That way, we can enhance visitors’ experience without risking ecosystem damage.
Good point, Jane! But maybe the cable car is what we need to draw the international crowd? Hiking trails are nice, but not everyone’s into them.
True, Tommy, but the park’s beauty speaks for itself. We’ve preserved it for decades without a cable car, why change now?
If we keep adding infrastructure, the park will just become another tourist trap, losing its natural charm.
Did anyone consider the maintenance cost of the cable car? One billion baht is a lot, and if it doesn’t pay off, who’s going to cover that?
The financial risks are huge, and history has shown that not every big project works out. Look at past failed tourism infrastructures.
Everyone talks about preserving the hiking trail, but wouldn’t a cable car make visiting more inclusive for those who can’t hike?
Many European parks have cable cars, and they’re doing fine. Why is everyone so uptight about Phu Kradueng having one?
It’s not just about following Europe’s lead. Phu Kradueng’s ecosystem is unique, and any damage might be irreversible.
I agree, Emily. We can’t compare our parks directly with those in Europe. Different flora and fauna need different protections.
A cable car would renew excitement in the park. More tourism means more income for locals, a win for everyone involved.
Sounds nice, but are we so sure the income will really trickle down to local communities?
Fair point. Maybe there needs to be specific measures to ensure locals benefit. Any ideas?
While I’m skeptical, if the cable car follows ultra-sustainable practices, it might work. My hope is that it doesn’t open the door for other developments.
Honestly, opposing the cable car seems short-sighted. More visitors will lead to more awareness about the importance of preserving the park.
How about increasing park fees and using that to fund maintenance and conservation instead of this big project?
Increased fees might deter tourists. We have to find a balance between accessibility and sustainability.
The government should focus on other economic projects instead of risking these natural sites. We always end up paying for their failed ventures.