tourism conservation model

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Developing ecotourism sustainability maximization (ESM) model: a safe minimum standard for climate change mitigation in the Indian Himalayas

Smriti ashok.

1 Faculty, Department of Architecture and Planning, National Institute of Technology Patna, Ashok Rajpath, Mahendru, Patna, Bihar 800005 India

Mukund Dev Behera

2 Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences (CORAL), Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302 India

Hare Ram Tewari

3 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302 India

Chinmoy Jana

4 Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management (IISWBM), College Square (W), Kolkata, 700073 India

Associated Data

Recently, ecotourism has been identified as an adaptation strategy for mitigating climate change impacts, as it can optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery, and livelihood benefits and generate new opportunities for the sustenance of the economy, environment, and society of the area endowed with natural resources and cultural values. With the growing responsibility at the global level, ecotourism resource management (ERM) becomes inevitable for its sustainable requirements. The integration of ecological and socio-economic factors is vital for ERM, as has been demonstrated by developing an Ecotourism Sustainability Maximization Model for an area under study, that is the Yuksam-Dzongri corridor (also known as Kangchendzonga Base Camp Trek), in the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve (KBR), Sikkim, India. This model is based on the earlier developed ecotourism sustainability assessment (ESA) framework by the authors, which is based on the hierarchical relationship among ecotourism principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers. Employing such relationships, this paper attempts to maximize ecotourism sustainability (ES) as a function of its sustainability principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers, subject to the constraints identified through the safe minimum standard (SMS) approach by employing linear programming. Using 58 indicators as decision variables and 114 constraints, the model resulted in a maximum level of achievable ES with a score of 84.6%, allowing the resultant optimum values of the indicators to be maintained at the operational level. A central tenet of the model is the collective responsibility and adoption of a holistic approach involving the government, tourists, tourism enterprises, and local people.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10661-022-10548-0.

Introduction

Biodiversity and conservation of cultural diversity through ecotourism is a viable tool to meet the objectives of the convention on biological diversity (CBD, 1992 , 2018 ; UNDESA, 2021 ; UNEP, 2002 ). Ecotourism as a part of sustainable tourism is firmly positioned in the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With the potential to contribute, directly or indirectly, to all the 17 SDGs, ecotourism has been included as a target in goals #8, #12, and #14 (WTO-UNDP, 2017 ). Ecotourism can be a prominent factor in achieving the targets of SDG 13–Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact due to its ability to produce new opportunities for the economy, environment, and society of the area endowed with natural and cultural resources. This has been proved in some areas where ecotourism is accepted as an adaptation strategy for mitigating the impacts of climate change on local communities, such as around the protected areas in Ghana, the Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan, etc. (Jamaliah & Powell, 2018 ; Agyeman, 2019 ). Ecotourism holds a 7% share of the international tourism market of 903 million tourist arrivals and tourist receipts of US$856 billion suggests a 2007 estimate by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). “Tourism Towards 2030,” UNWTO’s ( 2011 , 2015 ) long-term outlook and an assessment with quantitative projections estimate that with an average annual growth until 2030, international tourist arrivals worldwide are expected to grow to 1.8 billion, indicating the likely worth of ecotourism.

Ecotourism is a major income-generating ecosystem service which adds to both biomass accumulation and biodiversity recovery to mitigate the global climate change impact. Biomass accumulation results in a net increase in standing biomass in forest areas and attracts more ecotourists (Di Sacco et al., 2020 ). A study by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – TEEB ( 2009 ) initiative estimated the value of tropical forest ecosystem services to be USD 6120/ha/year, based on data from 109 studies, where recreation and tourism contributed 6.2%. Through this role, ecotourism can provide alternative sources of livelihood opportunities and support the locals to meet the challenges posed by climate change. Thus, it is extremely effective for sustainable development, yet, over the years many adverse impacts of ecotourism have been observed in the form of trail proliferation and widening, vegetation-cover loss, exposed tree roots, soil erosion, littering at recreation sites, water contamination, unsightly, and dangerous construction, the occurrence of landslides, degradation of trekking routes, climate change-induced fires, etc. (Sirakaya et al., 2001 ; Newsome et al., 2002 ; Page & Dowling, 2002 ; Jiang, 2009 ; NITI Aayog, 2018 ).

To conserve the environmental resources, these red signals should be continually monitored to identify any negative environmental impact and corrective measures can be taken to restore the balance (Ashok et al., 2017 ; Eraqi, 2007 ; Popova, 2003 ). In this regard, ecotourism needs to be made sustainable itself through the Sustainability Monitoring Methodology, so that it can take care of environmental and cultural resources and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; educating communities, tourism stakeholders, and tourists on how to prepare for and adapt to climate change and protect the environment. We have identified–BellagioSTAMP-2009, developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) as a guide to the Societies’ initiative toward measuring the progress of sustainable development based on its eight principles for sustainability assessment and measurement (IISD, 2009 ). Among its eight principles, the “Framework and Indicators of Sustainability Assessment” describes that for developing a sustainability assessment procedure, the following four steps are required–(i) a conceptual framework that identifies the domains within which core indicators to assess progress are to be identified, (ii) standardized measurement methods wherever possible, in the interest of comparability, (iii) step 3 – the most recent and reliable data, projections, and models to infer trends and build scenarios, and (iv) step 4 – comparison of indicator values with targets, as possible (IISD, 2009 ; Pinter et al., 2012 ).

Realizing the effectiveness of the BellagioSTAMP-2009 guidelines and being cognizant of the fact that there is no scientific method for ecotourism sustainability, the authors are in the process of developing a comprehensive methodology for the assessment of ecotourism’s sustainability namely, “Ecotourism Sustainability Assessment Method–ESAM” through a series of studies, namely–Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3, and Stage 4. As duly discussed below, the first two stages have already been developed, while work is in progress for the last two. Stage 1 gave the “conceptual framework,” i.e., the development of the ecotourism sustainability assessment (ESA) framework–a set of principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers to guide the measurement of the progress of the ecotourism sustainability (ES) (Ashok et al., 2017 ). Wherein, stage 2 offered a “standardized method” mentioned as–the development of the Ecotourism Sustainability Maximization (ESM) model , to set the target for achieving the maximum level of ES, which is the main objective of this paper.

The objectives are as follows: (a) to understand the impact of the global shutdown on tourists’ arrivals during COVID-19, (b) to determine the decision variables (DVs) for operationalizing the ecotourism sustainability principles at the destination level, based on the identified linear relationship among the principles, criteria, and indicators–verifiers of the already developed ESA framework, (c) to maximize the sustainability of the ecotourism destinations, despite their ecological and social constraints impeding the achievement of ecotourism sustainability, (d) to estimate the optimum value of the decision variables, i.e., ESIs for defining the use level of the resources at the ecotourism destinations, and (e) to understand the application of the optimum value of the decision variables obtained through the ESM model for the sustainability of the ecotourism destination.

The study site chosen is “Yuksam-Dzongri Corridor of West District of Sikkim Himalaya, India” with the intent to validate each step of the ESAM methodology–to obtain the necessary data on verifiable evidence, obtained through scientific data collection and periodic observation methods. The development of the ESM model is not mere empirical research, it has a strong scientific, mathematical, and theoretical base in the form of the well-established safe minimum standard approach, ecological constraints, linear equations, C&I approach, and BellagioSTAMP, etc. (Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1952 ; Perring, 1991 ; Colfer et al., 1995 ; Wright et al., 2002 ; IISD, 2009 ; Pinter et al., 2012 ).

ESM model–concepts

Ecotourism resource management (erm).

Ecotourism resource management (ERM) aims at the efficient management of ecotourism resources . It consists of natural (geographical position, microclimatic conditions, the existence of wildlife, vegetation, natural beauty, geo-morphologic structure, etc.) and cultural resources (local people, dress, food, dance/music events, festivals, architectural heritage, etc.) which collectively attract tourists from all over the world (Boley & Green, 2016 ; Eraqi, 2007 ; Kiper, 2013 ). Thus, it requires limiting the use–level of ecotourism resources, which can be managed through the safe minimum standard (SMS) approach, proposed by many scholars to help achieve the goal of sustainable ecotourism development (Perring, 1991 ; Pigram, 1990 ).

Safe minimum standard approach

The term “SMS” was first coined by Ciriacy-Wantrup ( 1952 ) for the conservation of renewable resources. This approach is defined as a collective choice process that prescribes protecting a minimum level or safe standard of a renewable natural resource unless the social costs of doing so are somehow excessive or intolerably high (Berrens et al., 1998 ). It is a “socially determined dividing line between moral imperatives to preserve and enhance natural resource systems and the free play of resource trade-off” (Toman, 1994 ; Munasinghe & Shearer, 1995 ). The SMS is a policy that eliminates the risk of catastrophic outcomes in the management of natural resources and can be used to develop the “Ecological Sustainability Constraints.” These constraints can impose direct restrictions on resources–using economic activities by deciding the level of environmental resources’ use within a limit, to achieve sustainability in the field of tourism development (Perring, 1991 ; Pigram, 1990 ).

Application of ERM and SMS through the ESA framework

The concepts of ERM and SMS can be applied to an ecotourism destination through some framework to help establish a symbiotic relationship among people, natural resources or biodiversity, and tourism activities and help to make it sustainable. In this regard, the “C&I approach”–which is used as an abbreviation for the entire hierarchy of principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers (PCIV), has been applied. This offers a structured approach toward defining the means and objectives of achieving sustainability of ecology, economy, and society and calculating the progress of sustainability at the destination level (Colfer et al., 1995 ; Wright et al., 2002 ). Here, the ESA framework can help implement the above goals, as it has been developed using the C&I approach, as discussed below.

Structure of the ESA framework

The ESA framework has been developed using the C&I (PCIV) approach, which provides the theoretical basis for the development of the present ESM model. It states that ES depends upon its four fundamental principles–Sp I to Sp IV. These ecotourism sustainability principles are dependent on 8 ecotourism sustainability criteria– C 1 to C 8 , which further have a dependence upon 58 ecotourism sustainability indicators (ESIs)– X 11 to X 58 and their corresponding 58–verifies. The 58–verifiers can provide the status of their corresponding ESIs by collecting field-level information (as mentioned in Table ​ Table1) 1 ) (Ashok et al., 2017 ; Kumari, 2008 ; Kumari et al., 2005 ). This framework can be a powerful tool for sustainable ecotourism development and management, provided it computes the optimum values of ESIs using a “Resource Optimization Model.”

Nomenclature used for the Principles, Criteria, Indicators, and Verifiers, developed under the Ecotourism Sustainability Assessment (ESA) Framework, and calculated weights and Ecotourism sustainability constraints for ESIs (DV-Decision Variable)

ARW average relative weight (average relative weight calculated for Indicators, obtained from the subject (Ecotourism) experts and ecotourism key stakeholders), AAV average acceptable value (acceptable value of indicators obtained from ecotourism key stakeholders), ADV average desirable value (desirable value of indicators obtained from ecotourism key stakeholders)

Resource optimization model through stakeholders’ participation and application of linear programming

ERM necessitates the decision of the optimal management of environmental and socio-cultural resources to restrict their use level and guide ecotourism on the path of sustainability. Ecologically constrained optimization models have been developed by Walter and Schofield ( 1977 ) and Bertuglia et al. ( 1980 ) for the optimal management of wilderness recreation resources. However, these optimization models have not used any serious moral and social discourse while deciding on the use of environmental resources within a limit, which can provide the solution to the issue of “where to stop?” in ecotourism development.

To fulfill this, the stakeholders’ participation approach was adopted to define the use level of ecotourism resources in the study area, in the form of acceptable and desirable values of indicators for ES. The “acceptable value” of indicators refers to the acceptable levels of use of resources, which are primarily a matter of judgment (scientific or societal) based on reproductive rates, habitat conditions, market demand, and so forth (Munasinghe & Shearer, 1995 ). While the essence of “desirable value” refers to maintaining desirable conditions over time to attain intergenerational equity, which should be reflected in the system’s long To fulfill this, the stakeholders’ participation approach was adopted to define the use level of ecotourism resources in the study area, in the form of acceptable and desirable values of indicators for ES. The “acceptable value” of indicators refers to the acceptable levels of use of resources, which are primarily a matter of judgment (scientific or societal) based on reproductive rates, habitat conditions, market demand, and so forth (Munasinghe & Shearer, 1995 ). While the essence of “desirable value” refers to maintaining desirable conditions over time to attain intergenerational equity, which should be reflected in the system’s long-term stability (Prabhu et al., 1999 ). These location-specific inputs (which may also differ at different time intervals) can be used as lower and upper limit values of decision variables while formulating the linear equation. As linear programming can provide an optimal solution for a real-life problem with given constraints. It facilitates optimal allocation of resources by minimizing (e.g,. maybe overall cost of production, the adverse impact on environment, etc.) or maximizing (e.g., maybe level of sustainability of environment, customer satisfaction) its overall goal to find the solution to a problem. Thus, it can provide a simultaneous solution to three basic problems of the economy, i.e., (a) optimum allocation of productive resources, (b) efficient utilization of these resources, and (c) realizing a balance between the different sectors of the economy to generate maximum benefit (Bertuglia et al., 1980 ; Overton, 1997 ; Walter & Schofield, 1977 ). Here, this method has been applied to maximize “ecotourism-sustainability” to defining the “use level of ecotourism resources” at the optimum level under several practical constraints.

Study area description

The study area is the Yuksam-Dzongri Corridor, KBR, near the Rathong Glacier (4380 m) of the Himalayan mountain region in India (Fig. ​ (Fig.1). 1 ). The tourists data showed a rise in ecotourism over 5 times, from 1964 tourists in 1990–1991 to 10490 visitors in 2009–2010. It also showed a decline in tourist arrivals during 2011–2013 due to the earthquake in the KBR in September 2011 (Bhardwaj, 2011 ; HMI, 2018 ). Tourist arrivals further increased to 9951 during 2019 before dropping to an almost negligible level due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. ​ (Fig.2 2 ).

Location map of the study area showing West District of Sikkim. Some points of tourist attractions along the trekking route are overlaid on satellite image of Kangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve

Sharp decline in Tourists Arrival can be seen in 2020, coinciding with Covid-19. However, Regression based extrapolation up to 2030 predicts a fast reversal–trend and forecast after COVID-19. Data Source: 1990–2006 (Tambe et al., 2011 ), 2008–2019 (KNP-RO (Kangchendzonga National Park, Range Office), 2019 ), Yuksam, West District, Sikkim

Methodology

Influence of covid-19 on ecotourism.

To assess the influence of COVID-19 on ecotourism at the destination and forecast the possible recovery from the terrible situation, the trend equation using the regression method was applied to the tourists’ arrival data up to 2019 and to the pandemic-impacted data of 2020. Depending on various other factors, the number of tourists is expected to rise by 2024–2026 ( S1 ; Fig. ​ Fig.2). 2 ). The projection was done in two stages.

Estimation of tourists’ arrival

This stage derived inspiration from two studies: (1) a global survey by the UNWTO’s panel of tourism experts on international tourist arrivals in different geographies across the globe (UNWTO, 2021 ), and (2) a comprehensive study conducted by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), India upon the impact of COVID-19 on Indian household income and tourism recovery (NCAER, 2021 ). We devised two scenarios for the estimation of recovery of tourism using the Delphi method. It is an iterative and consensus-building approach to soliciting opinion and judgment by a group of experts on a particular topic and a much-used method in multiple studies related to tourism recovery forecasts (Zhang et al., 2021 ).

• #1. Scenario 1–recovery “up to 2024”
• #2. Scenario 2–recovery “later than 2024”

After completing the first and second rounds of the Delphi survey, 5-point scores were given by the experts for calculating the final values. The second estimation was based on a mix of the experts’ viewpoints (UNWTO, 2021 ) followed by the experts’ opinion pooling in two Delphi rounds.

Forecasting of the tourist arrival based on trend equation using regression

Based on the above estimation of tourist arrivals from 2020 to 2026, further 4 scenarios (S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4) of forecasting tourist arrivals have been done by applying trend equation using regression analysis in IBM SPSS (statistical package for social scientists), 20.0. Scenarios S-1 and S-2 are based on estimated tourist data, and scenarios S-3 and S-4 are based on the percentage of estimated tourist data (Figs. ​ (Figs.2; 2 ; S1 ).

Development of the ESM model

Considering a linear relationship among the principles, criteria, and indicators, the linear programming (LP) model was applied to develop a decision-making structure to maximize the ES as a function of ecotourism principles, criteria, indicators, and corresponding verifiers. To model a linear problem, first, the decision variables were established. Here, the DVs have been determined from the ESA framework. ecotourism sustainability (ES) depends on 58 ecotourism sustainability indicators (ESIs) and their corresponding verifiers at the operational level. These 58 ESIs are considered DVs of the model (Ashok et al., 2017 ). The relative weights for the ESIs (decision variables) were obtained by implying both the Top-Down and Bottom-up approaches through the participation of subject matter (Ecotourism) experts and local key stakeholders in two stages.

Relative weight using top-down and bottom-up approach

The top-down approach refers to the application of the Delphi technique, where 19 subject matter experts ( n = 14 for 2003–2004; n = 5 for 2013) of multi-disciplinary backgrounds participated in allotting relative weights (between 0 and 100) to the sustainability principles of ecotourism (Sp I to Sp IV ). These values were calculated and their mean values were accepted. Further, all the criteria related to each principle received a pro-rated weight of that particular principle based on the priority ranking given to them by the experts. Then, their mean values were accepted as relative weight factors for criteria (Fig. ​ (Fig.3 3 ).

Broad outline for development of ecotourism sustainability assessment (ESA) Framework and Ecotourism Sustainability Maximization (ESM) Model

The bottom-up approach refers to the participation of local key stakeholders ( n = 10 for 2003–2004; n = 4 for 2018–2019) in allotting the priority ranking to the indicators (ESIs- X 11 to X 86 ) to operationalize their receptive criteria. Secondly, the weight for each criterion obtained in Stage I is assumed as 100 and then is distributed among the related indicators depending upon their priority ranking given by the local experts. Subsequently, the weights calculated for individual indicators are multiplied by the final weight factor of their respective criterion to obtain the relative efficacy of a particular indicator ( S 2 ). Finally, the relative weights for indicators (ESIs) are calculated and mean values are accepted for the model (Table ​ (Table1; 1 ; Fig. ​ Fig.4 4 ).

Methodology adopted for the development of the Ecotourism Sustainability Maximization Model

Developing linear equations for the model

The ESA framework entails that ES is based on its four key principles, i.e., (i) protection of natural and cultural resources ( Sp I ), (ii) generation of socio-economic benefits to the local community ( Sp II ), (iii) generation of environmental awareness ( Sp III ), and (iv) optimum satisfaction of touristic aspirations ( Sp IV ). These four principles have been operationalized through the different combinations of criteria like Sp I by C 1 , C 2 , C 4 , C 6 , and C 8 ; Sp II by C 1 and C 4 ; Sp III through C 4 and C 7 ; and Sp IV through C 1 , C 5 , C 7, and C 8 . These criteria can be operationalized through their respective indicators (Ashok et al., 2017 ; Kumari et al., 2005 ). Based on the relationship between the components of the ESA framework, the equation was formulated to define the objective function of the model. Ecotourism Sustainability (ES) is dependent upon 4 principles, which can be formulated as:

• W i = Weight for the i th principle of ecotourism sustainability
• Sp i = Ecotourism principles

Subsequently, the 4-principles ( Sp I , Sp IV ) depend upon the 8-criterion ( C 1 , C 8 ) occurring in different combinations for each of the principles. This is formulated as:

where W ij = Weight of j th criteria for i th principle.

Using Eqs. ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 5 ) in Eq. ( 1 ) where weight allocated for C 1 to C 8 can be combined ( S2 ), it can be presented as:

The 8 criteria ( C 1 , C 8 ) depend upon their respective indicators ( X 11 , X 86 ) (ESA framework; Ashok et al., 2017 ). This can be formulated as:

• X ij means j th indicator for i th criteria
• w ′ ij means weight for X ij

Formulation of the objective function

In the present model, the maximization of ecotourism sustainability has been defined as the objective function. ES depends upon four principles, namely, Sp I and Sp IV (Eq. ( 1 )). These four principles depend upon many criteria (Eqs. ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), and ( 5 )). Further, these criteria depend upon several indicators (Eqs. ( 7 ), ( 8 ), ( 9 ), ( 10 ), ( 11 ), ( 12 ), ( 13 ), and ( 14 )). Finally, ES depends upon 58 indicators, considered as the DVs for the model. Among the 58-DVs, 13 have a negative impact on the sustainability of ecotourism but the remaining ones have a positive impact. As maximization of ecotourism sustainability is the objective of the model, the following equation was formulated to obtain the OV of indicators (Eq. ( 15 )).

Development of ecotourism constraints and sustainability indicators

58 bounded constraints were based on the desirable and acceptable values of the DVs (Table ​ (Table1), 1 ), while 56 others were identified based on the dependence of each variable on others (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). The acceptable and desirable values obtained by consulting local experts were used as bounded constraints (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). These values were used as lower and upper bounds in the model, respectively.

Other constraints developed by identifying the dependency of each Ecotourism Sustainability Indicator (Decision Variables)

In the case of decision variables having a positive impact

where m ij = the minimum value of the decision variable required for ecotourism sustainability, X ij = decision variable, and M ij = maximum value of decision variable are desirable for ecotourism sustainability.

For example, for the indicator X 11 = 22% ≤ X 11 ≤ 40.5%.

In the case of decision variables having a negative impact.

The negative impact of DVs indicates that when these DVs increase, the ecotourism sustainability will decrease, therefore,

where m ij = the minimum value of decision variable desirable for ecotourism sustainability, X ij = decision variable, and M ij = maximum value of decision variable acceptable for ecotourism sustainability.

For example, for indicator X 16 the acceptable and desirable values may be presented as 9.80% ≤ X 16 ≤ 4.90%. The growth of exotic plants is very harmful to the indigenous plant communities because the alien plants compete with them for space, light, nutrients, and water (Newsome et al., 2002 ). So, less than 4.90% growth of weeds is desirable for the ES, while up to 9.80% of the growth of weeds (from the base year of 1995) is acceptable for the study area. The key stakeholders have allotted acceptable and desirable values for each DV. Their mean values were calculated and have been accepted for the model as constraints (lower and upper bounds for decision variables) in the model (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Other constraints

The dependency of each indicator was identified on other indicators, and respective weights were assigned. For example, wildlife sighting depends on the availability of clean water ( X 13 ) and the abundance of forest resources ( X 14 ). The abundance of these resources depends upon the involvement of the younger generation in the conservation of natural resources ( X 86 ), which requires the transfer of traditional resource conservation knowledge to the younger generation ( X 85 ). This is only possible when the local population is aware ( X 71 ) and empowered ( X 81 ) to protect resources. Along with this, it also requires government regulatory policy regarding the protection of natural resources ( X 41 ). Such dependency has been taken as the basis of the following equation.

The above equation indicates the dependency of decision variable X 11 on the other variables, namely, X 13 , X 14 , X 41 , X 71 , X 81 , X 85 , and X 86 . It also means that the value of X 11 should be less than the sum of individual weights of the above 7 which are 0.09, 0.09, 0.14, 0.18, 0.16, 0.22, and 0.12, respectively. Similarly, the dependency of each indicator was identified and assigned their respective weights. These equations were used as constraints in the model (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

The objective function was solved for 58 DVs in total, subject to a set of 114 constraints, by using the traditional simplex method for single objective linear programming with the help of the QSB software (Jana et al., 2004 ) through the Eq. ( 15 ).

Results and discussions

Trend equation regression analysis generated four scenarios for the recovery of tourist arrivals, namely, S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4, in the study area. These scenarios estimated the recovery period (for tourists’ arrival) of 4 years, 4–5 years, 6 years, and 5–6 years, respectively to reach the level of 2019. Among these four scenarios, the best forecasting has been shown in scenario 2, where the mean square error is minimal, i.e., 234.82 and estimates the recovery by 2026, increasing the tourists’ number up to 10,040 by then and eventually to 15,940 by 2030 (Fig. ​ (Fig.2; 2 ; S1 ). The prediction curve shows a sharp decline in tourist arrivals in 2020 due to the situation created by COVID-19. However, regression-based extrapolation has shown a fast recovery in tourist arrivals by 2026, as the prediction is based on the actual tourists’ data from 2001 to 2019. This is reflected in the linear trend from “2001 to 2010” and “2012 to 2019” (Fig. ​ (Fig.2). 2 ). The sharp decline in tourist arrival in 2011 and 2020 due to the occurrence of the 2011 earthquake in the area and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) proved that any kind of excessive use or abuse of “ecotourism resources” or a “dreadful pandemic” like situation may not only limit the potential tourism earnings in this area but also in the entire state of Sikkim in future (Singh & Bhutia, 2020 ). Moreover, the Yuksam-Dzongri trekking corridor falls under the alpine and sub-alpine vegetation zone of the Indian Himalayas, which needs utmost care to protect its sensitive biodiversity and possibly mitigate any probable adverse impact of climate change. In such a situation, the optimum value of decision variables (ESIs) obtained by the ESM model can act as a protective cover for controlling the use levels of ecotourism resources, thus maximizing the site’s sustainability afterward, if adopted.

With 58 indicators and 114 constraints (Eq. ( 15 )), the ESM model revealed the maximum level of ecotourism sustainability at a score of 84.6%. This value was further cross-checked on the barometer of sustainability/measure of success (BoS/MoS) scale (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Based on the BOS scale, it can be construed that if an ecotourism destination achieves 80–100% (level 5) sustainability, it can be deemed to be a sustainable ecotourism destination. Further, the model derived the optimum value of the ecotourism sustainability indicators–ESIs (Table ​ (Table4), 4 ), which means that the above level of ecotourism sustainability (84.6%) can only be achieved if the destination restricts the utility level of the environmental resources up to its optima.

Ecotourism sustainability performance scale

Optimum values of Decision Variable (ESIs) achieved from modeling using linear programming; 84.6% level of eco-tourism sustainability was achieved through the model

DV represents decision variables, OV represents optimum, ESIs represent ecotourism sustainability indicators

Now the question occurs that how the model derived “optimum values” of ecotourism sustainability indicators can help achieve sustainable ecotourism development? How it can manage the ecotourism resources so that specific types of natural and cultural attractions of the ecotourism destinations are maintained? In this regard, the authors identified three ways that can be useful for the authorities or ecotourism-site managers (i.e., in the case of Study Area the Forests and Environment Department; Tourism Department; Police Check-Post, Yuksam, as well as the CBO namely–Kangchendzonga Conservation Committee) can maintain the destination’s ecological sensitivity while sustainably managing ecotourism, as discussed below.

Relative contributions of criteria to achieve ecotourism sustainability

While scrutinizing the relative contributions of criteria in achieving 84.6% of ES, the contributions of “ C 1 ”– “maintenance of ecosystem health,” “ C 4 ”– “enabling environment and environmental awareness generation” and “ C 7 ”– “people’s participation” are a prerequisite for sustainable management and were found to be the maximum. This suggests that other criteria must support the fulfillment of the above criteria, but it does not undermine the importance of others. The next–highest contributions are of “ C 2 ” and “ C 8 ” which refer to preserving cultural diversity through the maintenance of the local culture and the use of indigenous ecological knowledge for ecotourism development and management. If the above-mentioned five criteria are supported by the adoption of carrying capacity “ C 6 ” norms, then it can provide an excellent base for the last two criteria, “ C 3 ”– “livelihood generation” and “ C 5 ”– “visitor satisfaction” ( S3 ).

Operationalisation of ecotourism sustainability principles through criteria and indicators

The first principle of ecotourism– “protection of natural and cultural resources,” Sp I , offers a challenge to ecotourism to develop its tourism capacity and the quality of its products without affecting the very environment that maintains and nurtures it. This requires the adoption of resource conservation values during the decision-making, which is possible by adopting the OV of indicators as guidelines. The contribution of “ C 1 ” “maintenance of ecosystem health,” towards achieving a sustainability score on the BoS/MoS scale was found the highest so it should be accorded the highest priority during any ecotourism development and management decision-making. This criterion is followed by “ C 2 ”– “maintenance of local culture,” “ C 6 ”– “carrying capacity,” “ C 4 ”– “enabling environment and environmental awareness generation,” “ C 7 ”– “people’s participation” and “ C 8 ”– “conservation management using traditional knowledge” ( S3 ).

While assessing the OV of ESIs (Table ​ (Table4; 4 ; Fig. ​ Fig.5a–h), 5 a–h), it can be construed that the optimum value of some indicators, viz. X 13 , X 14 , X 1 5 , X 16 , X 1 7 , X 1 8 , X 19 , X 111 , X 21 , X 23 , X 26 , X 27 , X 42 , X 43 , X 44 , X 63 , X 64 , X 72 , and X 85 are falling under the range of 80–100%. Next to these, are some indicators, viz. X 12 , X 110 , X 22 , X 24 , X 45 , X 46 , X 61 , X 62 , X 65 , X 71 , X 75 , X 84 , and X 86 have OV between 60–80%. These are followed by indicators X 11 , X 25 , X 41 , X 73 , X 74 , and X 76 having 40 to 60%. Lastly, values of a few indicators viz. X 48 , X 81 , and X 82 fall between 20–40%. In line with the guideline provided by the Quebec declaration on ecotourism (QDE, 2002 ) the OV of indicators emphasizes prioritizing critical components, as these are vital for maintaining the flow of ecosystem services. The relative contribution of criteria as per the ESA Framework and the relative contribution of ESIs as per the optimum value achieved by the ESM model can guide the ecotourism management authority.

a – h Optimum value achieved for 58 indicators with eight criteria; a. Maintenance of ecosystem health. b Maintenance of local culture. c Livelihood generation. d Enabling environment and environmental condition. e Tourists’ satisfaction. f Carrying capacity. g People’s participation. h Conservation management through indigenous knowledge

Likewise, principle I, the relative contribution of criteria as per the ESA framework and the relative contribution of ESIs as per Optimum Value achieved by the ESM model, has been analyzed for principles II, III, and IV for operationalizing the ecotourism sustainability principle in the study area mentioned in the supplementary document ( S 4 ). This can guide the ecotourism management authority to implement the optimum value of ESIs to restrict the use level of ecotourism resources in the area.

Application of optimum value of ESIs to restrict the utility level of ecotourism resources

The ecotourism management authority or site-managers can manage their destination’s valuable and sensitive resources for ecotourism based on the optimum value achieved by the model.

Supporting indicators for criterion C 1 (maintenance of healthy ecosystems)

Ecotourism management authorities or site managers need to restrict the use level of resources depending on the positive and negative impact of ESIs on the ES. Criterion, C 1 was objectively measured by examining its related indicators based on its OV resulting from the model (Fig. ​ (Fig.5a; 5 a; Table ​ Table4). 4 ). In the case of “availability of fresh water (rivers, streams, lakes)” ( X 13 ), the OV obtained was 96.5%. Hence the mountain ecosystem can be designated as healthy if pure water is abundantly available throughout the year. If 100% of the “religious and heritage sites” ( X 14 ), then it is presumed that the rich biodiversity and culture of the mountain ecosystem could be preserved. As the presence of ecosystem-specific plants, which represent the “unique ecosystem features (endemic species: floral and faunal)” ( X 15 ), are critical for the maintenance of the mountain ecosystem, their extent of occurrence should optimally be 98%. In the case of the “occurrence of the endangered/threatened species” ( X 18 ), the OV arrived was 96.5%, which calls for more conservation efforts from the part of forest department without which many species might become extinct and disturb the balance of the ecosystem. In the case of the composite indicator “status of civic amenities” ( X 110 ), the OV was 76%, which implies that even if only 76% of the population has access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities and 76% of solid waste generated is disposed of, then the destination can also be considered sustainable (Table ​ (Table4; 4 ; Fig. ​ Fig.4 4 ).

In the case of negative indicators, i.e., “presence of exotic species (flora and fauna)” ( X 16 ), the OV derived was 4.9%, while for “growth in livestock population” ( X 17 ), the value obtained was 7%. This entails that beyond this level, any growth in weeds and livestock population may prove devastating for the region (Chettri et al., 2002 ). The OV for “RCC use in tourism infrastructure development” ( X 19 ) was derived as 5.2%, which depicts that beyond this level, RCC construction can have harmful effects on ecological health. This has been experienced in many destinations (Hunter & Green, 1995 ). “Occurrence of natural hazards” ( X 111 ), creates great imbalances in the functioning of the ecosystem and destructs the human life support system as well. Its value has also come close to the minimum desirable of 4.5% (Table ​ (Table4; 4 ; Fig. ​ Fig.5a). 5 a). The optimal values of indicators obtained by the model are of great importance.

Likewise, the optimal values of indicators obtained by the model are of great importance and are presented in Table ​ Table4 4 and Fig. ​ Fig.5b, 5 b, c, d, e, f, g, and h. If applied, they can help in achieving the maximum level of ecotourism sustainability at the operational level.

Under complex situations, having a multitude of interests among the stakeholders, i.e., tourists, locals, NGOs, tour operators, etc., the ESM model can prove to be an ideal solution as it adopts the SMS approach to define the acceptable and desirable values of indicators, referred to as, DVs by involving all stakeholders. Here, the ESM model can be considered an executable decision-making tool as it calculates the optimum value of 58 DVs to achieve 84.6% of ES, which falls under the Sustainable Category (80–100%) on the MoS Scale defined by Prescott-Allen ( 2001 ). If adopted, the ESM model can control the uses of ecotourism resources at the operational level and can also support the local community to sustain their livelihood even in the case of climate change in Himalayan regions as predicted by IPCC ( 2022 ).

Extended use of the results of the ESM Model can only be useful when (a) it is substantially validated, and (b) its applicability (in terms of the performance of the ESIs at the operational level) is assessed on a temporal level. Based on the availability of the field data, the authors will be duly validating and assessing the applicability of the ESM model which may logically be developed as the 3rd and 4th study series in the process of developing an ESAM as per the guidelines given by the BellagioSTAMP 2009. In addition to this, the authors also want to integrate their 4 stage study series of the ESAM with a web-based geospatial platform, to make it a more comprehensive tool for ecotourism sustainability assessment and monitoring. This tool would be assessing the level of ecotourism sustainability based on the spatial information collected for 58 ESIs. Among the 58 ESIs, spatial data for 11 indicators, related to the first criterion, “C1–maintenance of ecosystem health,” can be generated through satellite imagery and its derived products. The spatial data for the rest of the 47 indicators related to seven criteria ranging from “C2–maintenance of local culture” to “C8–conservation management using traditional/indigenous knowledge system” can be generated through crowdsourcing involving ecotourism stakeholders, i.e., tourists, local people (ecotourism service providers, CBOs, tour operators, etc.), government Tourism departments. Thus, it can fulfill the target of SDG 12. b, which mentions “developing and implementing tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism” by fulfilling SDGs 8.9 (ensuring jobs, promotion of local culture and tourism products) and 15 (Protecting, restoring, and managing biodiversity in the terrestrial ecosystem) identified by the report of working group II sustainable tourism in the Indian Himalayan region (NITI Aayog, 2018 ). Through the application of the above “monitoring tool,” deforestation can be controlled, carbon stock can be maintained and the biodiversity-rich areas will be undisturbed so they will regenerate. In turn, it will help optimize biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits and can play an important role in taking urgent action to mitigate climate change for achieving the targets of SDG 13 in the Indian Himalayan regions.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Declarations

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Smriti Ashok, Email: [email protected] , Email: moc.liamg@kohsaitirmsrd .

Mukund Dev Behera, Email: ni.ca.pgktii.laroc@arehebdm .

Hare Ram Tewari, Email: moc.liamg@marerahirawet .

Chinmoy Jana, Email: moc.oohay@anajyomnihc .

• Agyeman, Y. B. (2019). Ecotourism as an adaptation strategy for mitigating climate change impacts on local communities around protected areas in Ghana. Handbook of Climate Change Resilience . Cham: Springer. Retrieved February 21, 2022, from 10.1007/978-3-319-71025-9_159-1
• Ashok S, Tewari HR, Behera MD, Majumdar A. Development of ecotourism sustainability assessment framework employing Delphi, C&I and participatory methods: A case study of KBR, West Sikkim, India. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2017; 21 :24–41. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2016.10.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berrens RP, Brookshire DS, McKee M, Schmidt C. Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: Two case studies from the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Land Economics. 1998; 74 (2):147–161. doi: 10.2307/3147047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertuglia CS, Tadei R, Leonardi G. The optimal management of natural recreation resources: A mathematical model. Environment and Planning. 1980; 13 :69–83. doi: 10.1068/a120069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhardwaj, M. (2011). Magnitude 6.8 quake in India, several dead . Reuters. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-quake-india-idUSTRE78H19D20110918
• Boley BB, Green GT. Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: The “potential” for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. Journal of Ecotourism. 2016; 15 (1):36–50. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2015.1094080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). Convention on biological diversity text . Retrieved September 4, 2021, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
• CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018). The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development technical note in: biodiversity is essential for sustainable development . Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.cbd.int/development/doc/biodiversity-2030-agenda-technical-note-en.pdf
• Chettri N, Sharma E, Deb DC, Sundriyal RC. Impact of firewood extraction on the tree structure, regeneration and woody biomass productivity in a trekking corridor of the Sikkim Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development. 2002; 22 (2):50–158. doi: 10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0150:IOFEOT]2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ciriacy-Wantrup SV. Resource conservation, economics, and policies. University of California Press; 1952. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colfer C, Prabhu R, Wollenberg E. Principles, criteria and indicators: Applying Ockam’s Razor to the people - forestlink. Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Sacco A, Hardwick KA, Blakesley D, et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology. 2020; 27 :1328–1348. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15498. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eraqi MI. Ecotourism resources management as a way for sustainable tourism development in Egypt. Tourism Analysis. 2007; 12 :39–49. doi: 10.3727/108354207780956681. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• HMI - Himalayan Mountaineering Institute. (2018). Darjeeling . Retrieved September 11, 2018, from https://hmidarjeeling.com
• Hunter C, Green H. Environmental impact of tourism. In: Hunter C, Green H, editors. Tourism and environment: A sustainable relationship? Routledge Publication; 1995. pp. 10–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• IISD - International Institute of Sustainable Development. (2009). Sustainability assessment and measurement of sustainability principle . Retrieved September 18, 2018, from  https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2021-08/bellagio-stamp-brochure.pdf
• IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, sixth assessment report, the working group II . Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf
• Jamaliah MM, Powell RB. Ecotourism resilience to climate change in Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2018; 26 (4):519–536. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1360893. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jana C, Mahapatra SC, Chattopadhyay RN. Block level energy planning for domestic lighting-a multi-objective fuzzy linear programming approach. Energy. 2004; 29 (11):1819–1829. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang Y. Evaluating eco-sustainability and its spatial variability in tourism areas: A case study in Lijiang County, China. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 2009; 16 (2):117–126. doi: 10.1080/13504500902808628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiper, T. (2013). Role of Ecotourism in Sustainable Development. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.), Advances in landscape architecture . INTECH. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from https://www.intechopen.com/books/citations/advances-in-landscape-architecture/role-of-ecotourism-in-sustainable-development
• KNP-RO (Kangchendzonga National Park, Range Office). (2019). Tourist Arrival in Yuksam, West District, Sikkim - from 2008–2019, KNP- Range office, Forest and Environment, Sikkim .
• Kumari S. Identification of potential ecotourism sites, sustainability assessment and management in geospatial environment. Kharagpur, India: Indian Institute of Technology; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumari S, Tewari HR, Inbakaran R. Development of ecotourism sustainability assessment framework: A case study of Kanchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India. The Indian Geographical Journal. 2005; 80 (2):87–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Munasinghe M, Shearer W. Defining and measuring sustainability. UNU and The World Bank; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• NCAER - National Council of Applied Economic Research. (2021). India and the Coronavirus Pandemic: Economic losses for households engaged in tourism and policies for recovery . India: Ministry of Tourism. Retrieved Januray 25, 2022, from https://www.ncaer.org/study_details.php?pID=84 . Submitted draft report.
• Newsome D, Moore SA, Dowling RK. Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. Channel View Publications; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• NITI Aayog. (2018). Report of working group II sustainable tourism in the Indian Himalayan region. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from https://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Doc2.pdf
• Overton, M. L. (1997). Linear programming, draft for encyclopedia Americana, December 20, 1997 . Retrieved September 24, 2007, from http://cs.nyu.edu/overton/g22_lp/encyc/node1.html
• Page SJ, Dowling RK. Themes in tourism. Harlow: Pearson education limited; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pandey, D. N. (2000). The measure of success for sustainable forestry: Theory, methods and applications to pursue progress towards sustainability. Training Manual Prepared in IIFM, Bhopal. Himanshu Publication, New Delhi, India
• Perring C. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. 3. New York: Columbia University Press; 1991. Reserved rationality and the precautionary principle: Technological change, time and uncertainty in environmental decision making. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pigram JJ. Sustainable tourism policy considerations. Journal of Tourism Studies. 1990; 1 (2):2–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinter L, Hardi P, Martinuzzic A, Halla J. Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators. 2012; 17 :20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popova N. Eco-tourism impact/success indicators: Baseline data 2002. Sofia, Bulgaria: Kalofer Pilot Region of Central Balkan National Park; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prabhu R, Colfer CJP, Dudley R. Guidelines for developing, testing and selecting criteria and indicators for sustainable management. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prescott-Allen, R. (1997). Barometer of sustainability: measuring and communicating wellbeing and sustainable development. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from http://hdl.handle.net/10625/54761
• Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The wellbeing of nations . Island Press and International Development Research Centre. Retrieved August 27, 2005, from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-5474-201-1-DO_TOPIC.htm
• QDE - Québec Declaration on Ecotourism. (2002). World Ecotourism Summit (vol. 22). Québec City, Canada. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/quebec-declaration.pdf
• Singh, R., & Bhutia, K. (2020). COVID -19: With community support and solidarity, Sikkim weathers a lockdown . Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://science.thewire.in/health/sikkim-covid-19-community-support-solidarity-lockdown-tourism
• Sirakaya E, Jamal TB, Choi HS. Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In: Weaver DB, editor. Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing; 2001. pp. 411–432. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tambe, S., Bhutia, K. S., & Arrawatia, M. L. (2011). Mainstreaming ecotourism in Sikkim’s economy . Retrieved June 20, 2022, from http://www.sikkimforest.gov.in/docs/Ecotourism/Mainstreaming%20Ecotourism%20in%20Sikkim%E2%80%99s%20Economy.pdf
• The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity -TEEB. (2009). TEEB climate issues update . Retrieved April 10, 2022, from http://teebweb.org/publications/other/teeb-climate-issues/
• Toman MA. Economics and 'sustainability’: Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics. 1994; 70 (4):399–413. doi: 10.2307/3146637. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNDESA - United Nation-Department of Economic and Social Affairs Development. (2021). Sustainable tourism . Retrieved July 30, 2021, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabletourism
• UNEP. (2002). Sustainable Tourism Development Guidelines: UNEP principles on the implementation of sustainable tourism and the CBD sustainable tourism development guidelines for vulnerable ecosystems . Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.uneptie.org/PC/tourism/policy/cbd_guidelines.htm
• UNWTO. (2011). International Tourists to Hit 1.8 Billion by 2030 . Retrieved July 30, 2021, from https://www.unwto.org/archive/global/press-release/2011-10-11/international-tourists-hit-18-billion-2030
• UNWTO. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development . Retrieved September 18, 2018, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
• UNWTO. (2021). International tourists arrivals: Scenarios for 2021 . Retrieved August 8, 2021, from https://www.unwto.org/taxonomy/term/347
• Walter GR, Schofield JA. Recreation management: A programming example. Land Economics. 1977; 53 (2):212–225. doi: 10.2307/3145925. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright PA, Alward G, Colby JL, Hoekstra TW, Tegler B, Turner M. Monitoring for forest management unit scale sustainability: The local unit criteria and indicators development (LUCID) test (management edition) Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service; 2002. p. 54. [ Google Scholar ]
• WTO- UNDP - World Tourism Organization, & United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Tourism and the sustainable development goals – Journey to 2030 . Madrid: UNWTO. Retrieved July 30, 2021, from  https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284419401
• Zhang H, Song S, Wen L, Liu C. Forecasting tourism recovery amid COVID-19. Annals of Tourism Research. 2021; 87 :103149. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2021.103149. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Mini review article, protected area tourism and management as a social-ecological complex adaptive system.

• Conservation Social Science Lab, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States

This article presents a mini review of systems and resilience approaches to tourism analysis and to protected area management, and of how the Social-Ecological Complex Adaptive Systems (SECAS) framework can help link them together. SECAS is a unique framework that integrates social theories (structuration) and ecological theories (hierarchical patch dynamics) and examines inputs, outputs, and feedback across a variety of hierarchically nested social and ecological systems. After an introduction to the need for continued theoretical development, this article continues with a review of the origins and previous applications of the SECAS framework. I subsequently highlight how complex adaptive systems and resilience have been presented in the literature as a way to separately study (1) protected area management, (2) protected area tourism/ecotourism, and (3) land-use change in adjacent forest and agricultural landscapes. The purpose of this article is to build on the frameworks described in this literature and link them through the SECAS framework. I populate the SECAS framework with components identified in the literature on protected area management, ecotourism, and land-use change to present an example of a full systems perspective. Each component also represents a hierarchically nested system, such as a governance system, health system, or transportation system. I conclude with a three-step (5-part) multi-scale and temporal method for SECAS research derived from hierarchy and structuration theories.

Introduction

In their review of the connections between ecotourism and conservation, Stronza et al. (2019) identify a number of research elements that are frequently missing; sometimes these are conducted independently, but it is necessary to conduct them together for rigorous evaluation. These elements include: (1) gathering longitudinal data ( Zambrano et al., 2010 ; Hunt et al., 2015 ), (2) addressing issues of scale ( Hunt and Stronza, 2009 ), (3) studying community outcomes beyond economic impacts ( Lupoli et al., 2015 ), (4) participatory evaluation ( Castro-Arce et al., 2019 ), and (5) addressing the larger social context driving land-use change and deforestation ( Geist and Lambin, 2002 ). Special issues on systems and resilience approaches to protected area management ( Cumming et al., 2015 ; Cumming and Allen, 2017 ) and nature-based tourism ( Morse et al., 2022a ) and the articles therein (i.e., Maciejewski and Cumming, 2016 ; Arlinghaus et al., 2022 ) have advocated for the further development of social-ecological systems (SESs) and resilience frameworks, and for research that explicitly considers hierarchical dynamics and feedback loops and incorporates analysis that considers protected areas and surrounding landscapes where tourism and conservation occur. This article builds on these frameworks and links the bodies of literature on tourism, protected areas, and landscape change through a Social-Ecological Complex Adaptive Systems (SECAS) framework.

The SECAS framework was originally developed to enable an interdisciplinary team to assess the social and ecological impacts of Costa Rica's Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program ( Morse, 2007 ; Morse et al., 2009 , 2013 ). Ecosystem services are the benefits that people receive from ecosystems, including production (e.g., food, fiber, and timber), regulation (e.g., carbon sequestration and water purification), and cultural services (e.g., aesthetics, tourism, and spiritual services; MEA, 2005 ). In 1996, Costa Rica passed a Forestry Law (no. 7575) that prohibited converting natural forests to other land uses and established one of the first programs that paid landowners directly for providing several environmental services, including watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and aesthetic values ( Morse et al., 2009 ). Costa Rica targeted the PES program toward a system of biological corridors that linked national parks and other conservation areas. These corridors generally consisted of areas with high forest cover and agricultural land use that were privately owned but located in poorly developed areas of the country. The PES program was designed to enhance conservation and improve local household and community livelihoods in the regions outside of protected areas. Our team research was conducted in the San Juan–La Selva Biological Corridor in northern Costa Rica, where some of the highest concentrations of private forests mixed with agricultural lands connect the highlands of the central volcanic range, including Braulio Carrillo National Park, Volcan Poas National Park, Juan Castro Blanco National Park, and several forest reserves through lowland areas to the Indio Maiz Biological Reserve in Nicaragua along the San Juan River ( Morse et al., 2009 ). A framework was needed to organize our project, which examined how a social conservation policy (PES) could influence landowners' decisions on land use (to reforest pasture or maintain natural forest on their farm), which would then change the land cover (farm by farm) across the landscape over time to have an impact on the desired ecosystem services ( Morse et al., 2013 ). The framework was clearly required to incorporate social and ecological system factors and hierarchical multi-scale considerations (policy-to-household and farm-to-landscape) that changed over time. We needed a SECAS framework.

The initial development of the complex adaptive system (CAS) concept came from ecology ( Holling, 1973 ; Hartvigsen et al., 1998 ; Levin, 1999 ; Gunderson and Holling, 2002 ). CASs are characterized as dynamic, unpredictable, non-linear, multi-scale systems with multiple interacting components, and a lack of central control ( Berkes et al., 2003 ; Norberg and Cumming, 2008 ). A CAS is defined by the presence of a network of interactions and relationships among the multiple components ( Meadows, 2008 ; Preiser et al., 2018 ). CASs adapt over time through recursive interactions and feedback between components, and between components and their environment, leading to emergent or novel patterns ( Levin, 1998 ; Walker et al., 2004 ). CASs are open systems, and dynamic interactions occur across multiple scales, allowing them to self-organize, often into nested hierarchies ( Folke et al., 2005 ). CASs are considered to be non-linear, meaning that cause and effect are not always proportional, and small changes can lead to bigger impacts (or vice versa) on other components or on the whole system ( Levin et al., 2013 ). Interactions can take the form of slow or fast variables and can occur across spatial scales ( Gunderson and Holling, 2002 ). Non-linearity leads to complexity, unpredictability, and uncertainty within and about the system ( Walker et al., 2006 ). The term adaptive indicates that a CAS can change, evolve, and self-organize over time in response to feedback ( Preiser et al., 2018 ). Similar to ecological systems, social systems have multiple interacting components across multiple scales, are dynamic, and change over time ( Berkes et al., 2003 ). SESs are considered to be inextricably linked, and together, these systems are considered to be CASs ( Gunderson and Holling, 2002 ; Berkes et al., 2003 ; Folke, 2006 ; Norberg and Cumming, 2008 ; Preiser et al., 2018 ). The concept of resilience is a way to frame SECAS that explicitly recognizes uncertainty, complexity, and change ( Walker et al., 2006 ). Resilience has been defined as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and maintain the same identity or the same function, structure, and feedbacks ( Walker et al., 2006 ). Resilience also describes the degree to which a system can self-organize and its ability to build its capacity to adapt or learn ( Carpenter et al., 2001 ). Resilience has become a goal in managing CASs ( Lew et al., 2016 ).

Managing protected areas and tourism as complex adaptive systems

Social-ecological systems, complex adaptive systems, and resilience have been promoted as frameworks for research on and management of protected areas and for tourism based in protected areas ( McKercher, 1999 ; Farrell and Twining-Ward, 2004 ; McCool et al., 2013 ; Cumming et al., 2015 ; McCool and Bosak, 2016 ; Bosak, 2019 ). To address biodiversity conservation and protected area management, Cumming et al. (2015) proposed a framework to capture the multi-scale SESs that extend beyond the boundaries of protected areas into the “functional landscapes” (nearby forests, farms, and communities) necessary for conservation and support of the protected area. The authors build on Ostrom (2009) SES framework and address some of the concerns for application by adding five hierarchical levels (patch, protected area, protected area network, national, and international/global) and highlighting temporal dynamics and cross-scale interactions ( Cumming et al., 2015 ). Research from an ecosystem conservation perspective expands the interests in protected area management beyond the administrative boundaries of the area into human-dominated landscapes, as linked SESs focus on cross-scale feedback ( Maciejewski and Cumming, 2016 ), ecological solidarity ( Mathevet et al., 2016 ), and resilience ( Cumming and Allen, 2017 ).

In a seminal article reconceptualizing theoretical frameworks in tourism, Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) specifically identify the need to fully consider SESs and frame research around the process, transition, or journey of dynamic complex adaptive systems. The authors draw parallels from CASs in ecology with tourism systems, introduce the concept of resilience, and develop their own Complex Adaptive Tourism Systems (CATS) model to address tourism systems more comprehensively ( Farrell and Twining-Ward, 2004 ). Strickland-Munro et al. (2010) also assesses protected area tourism and local community interactions as multi-scale embedded CASs with two case studies in national parks in South Africa and Australia. Following others, the author emphasizes the importance of resilience thinking ( Walker et al., 2006 ) in understanding continually adapting tourism systems ( Plummer and Fennell, 2009 ). Strickland-Munro et al. (2010) develops a four-step model for research that includes (1) system definition, (2) past system change, (3) current system state, and (4) monitoring of change. Lew (2014) and Lew et al. (2016) emphasize the importance of spatial scale and of an understanding of fast and slow variables; they also emphasize how a resilience perspective will help in placing focus on adaptive management within ever-changing tourism CASs. McCool et al. (2013 , 2015) and McCool and Bosak (2016) argue that framing protected area management and tourism research from a systems perspective (employing the frameworks of SES, CAS, and resilience) is essential in order to counter past reductionist perspectives and provide managers with meaningful leverage points to target resilience-building in these systems. These articles also discuss the difficulties involved and the need to work with the public and use systems frameworks to make sense of dynamic and complex contexts ( McCool et al., 2013 ), address the challenges of systems work ( McCool, 2022 ), and identify bridges and barriers to conducting interdisciplinary research ( Morse et al., 2007 ). McCool et al. (2015) provide a set of six “complexity practices” to help frame CASs and manage them toward resilience, namely, (1) building situational awareness, (2) investing in personal relationships, (3) appreciating the power of networks, (4) identifying and using leverage points, (5) employing different forms of knowledge, and (6) learning continuously.

The social-ecological complex adaptive systems framework

The Social-Ecological Complex Adaptive Systems (SECAS) framework was designed based on the fundamental principles of the CAS framework ( Gunderson and Holling, 2002 ; Berkes et al., 2003 ; Levin, 2005 ). It was designed to be multi-scale and to integrate across dynamic and non-linear social and ecological systems, with inputs and outcomes across scales and systems ( Morse et al., 2013 ). Visually and conceptually, the framework was based on research by Grimm et al. (2000) on change in land use and land cover, and on research by Ostrom (2007) on linked SESs. Theoretically, our research group used structuration theory from the social sciences to explain social CASs ( Giddens, 1984 ; Stones, 2005 ), because humans can and do act with foresight and intent, meaning that social and ecological systems are fundamentally different in terms of the drivers of self-organization ( Walker et al., 2006 ). Structuration theory had been identified by others as suitable for linking social and ecological systems ( Bebbington, 1999 ; Scoones, 1999 ; Scheffer et al., 2002 ; Westley et al., 2002 ), and we elaborated on and updated their contributions to include revisions to structuration theory made by Stones (2005) . “A defining characteristic of structuration theory is that through recursive social practice or action, social systems (structures) influence the activity of individuals, who in turn, produce, transform, or otherwise reaffirm those same structures constantly producing and reproducing society” ( Morse et al., 2013 . p. 58). We retain the descriptors “social” and “ecological” (SE) in front of “CAS” in order to highlight the differences in terms of drivers of self-organization. On the ecological side of the SECAS framework, we applied the theory of hierarchical patch dynamics (HPD), where each patch (farm) is nested in a dynamic patch mosaic (landscape), which is again nested in a higher-level patch mosaic (at the national level; Pickett and White, 1985 ; Wu and Loucks, 1995 ; Morse et al., 2013 ).

A base SECAS model that demonstrates the linking of social and ecological systems across scales is presented in Figure 1 . The left-hand side of the model represents hierarchically nested social systems, and the right-hand side represents ecological systems in terms of nested patch mosaics. The top of the model illustrates the inputs to an action, and the bottom half represents the outcomes of that action. Actions are modeled as having outcomes that impact both systems and all levels simultaneously, as each is a nested part of the other. In the CAS framework, our knowledge of external social and ecological systems is seen as incomplete, and the outcomes of our actions may be intended or unintended ( Morse et al., 2013 ).

Figure 1 . Base SECAS model.

Since the inception of the SECAS framework ( Morse, 2007 ), I have collaborated with others to place existing recreation models into a systems perspective and to integrate them with a cultural recreation ecosystem services perspective ( Morse et al., 2022b ). McCool et al. (2013) recognize that many of the tools used to manage outdoor recreation are linear and reductionist and do not take a systems approach. The SECAS model has been applied to outline how a number of these recreation tools and constructs, such as the recreation experience model, beneficial outcomes, the recreation opportunity spectrum, limits of acceptable change, and constraints theory, could all be framed together into a unified systems perspective ( Morse, 2020 ). A second application of the SECAS model to recreation is in examining how the field of outdoor recreation research and the concept of recreation ecosystem services could be better integrated ( Morse et al., 2022b ). This work has further integrated components of recreation management into the SECAS framework, extended the framework to consider outdoor recreation and the corresponding tools and theory as they apply to nature tourism, and added protected area and protected area management as a third dimension. Furthermore, the article presents the idea of transformation at the center of the recreation experience to highlight the experiential and dynamic nature (as a process or journey) of outdoor recreation and nature tourism ( Morse et al., 2022b ). While this last application of the SECAS framework does address protected areas and their management, it still considers the entirety of the tourism system in individual boxes on the social side of the model. The current article conceptualizes the tourism system in accordance with the literature on tourism systems and protected area systems, and integrates this with a meta analysis of the drivers of land-use and land-cover change to further frame the ways in which the landscape changes around a protected area with tourism.

SECAS for protected area management and nature tourism

Once the general model is understood, it must be populated with variables that are important to the relevant research questions across scales and systems. If i want to understand the interactions between tourism, conservation, protected area management, and the environment as a SECAS, i need to understand the drivers of agriculture and forest management in the functional landscapes outside of protected areas, how the tourism system impacts local communities and protected areas, and even how the tourist navigates the system through components of the traditional tourism industry. I began by identifying and consolidating the major subsystems identified in the literature on land use and land cover outside protected areas ( Geist and Lambin, 2002 ), items mentioned as critical for ecotourism as a form of tourism closely associated with protected areas ( Honey, 2008 ; Fennell, 2020 ), and items mentioned in the protected area and tourism CAS literature that was reviewed. The major change to the SECAS model is to move beyond generic two-dimensional representations of social and ecological systems and identify the many other social systems that are important for conservation and tourism around a protected area. I identified 12 major component categories of social systems from the literature (others could be included); these are presented in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . Major tourism and protected area component categories.

Each social subsystem could be modeled as a nested hierarchy with inputs and outcomes, as in the current SECAS framework (all subsystems could make up their own hierarchically nested “side” of the original framework). With all the subsystems included together, the model would be visualized as a sphere with a funnel or hourglass through the middle. For example, park management is its own hierarchically nested social system, from the management of an individual setting (patch), to an individual park, to the park system across a country, to its implications at the global level ( Morse et al., 2022b ). Governance systems are frequently hierarchically nested. Similarly, tourism accommodations are a hierarchically nested social system with different types and amounts offered at different scales. Ecological systems could similarly be expanded to address watersheds, habitats, and biodiversity as hierarchically nested systems. The side-by-side stepped framework captures the dynamic system with inputs, outcomes, and feedback pathways in two dimensions, while the 12-piece pie chart shows all the different subsystems and how they come together across scales. This view from the top ( Figure 2 ) can be imagined as an open hourglass, seen from above: the center is where all the different variables come together to form a tourism experience and where the sand flows down to the next level to produce outcomes for all the different systems. Feedback loops refill the top half with sand, enabling the process to continue recursively, as tourism, park management, and conservation are part of a continually updated SECAS (input, action, outcome, and feedback).

How to study the SECAS

Where in the system, or what scale, you want to focus your analysis is dependent on the research question at issue. HPD ( Wu and Loucks, 1995 ) has a multi-scale analysis protocol of “enveloping,” while structuration theory ( Giddens, 1984 ; Stones, 2005 ) has “methodological bracketing.” Both approaches indicate that multiple levels of analysis are needed to understand a CAS, including the external environment, which provides the conditions for any action/disturbance, and the mechanism that describes how and why things happen at a lower level. Stones (2005) developed methods for analysis of actors' conduct and for context analysis from Giddens's (1984) methodological brackets, and these approaches help in representing the steps for analysis that we outline below. These steps address items from the four-step model of Strickland-Munro et al. (2010) and the six “complexity practices” proposed by McCool et al. (2015) . These steps extend these previous models by adding temporal analysis (historical and future), a purposefully scaled analysis, and multiple viewpoints. The steps also address each of the five components that were identified as lacking in rigorous studies on tourism and conservation systems by Stronza et al. (2019) . The steps can be used for both social and ecological systems analysis.

Step 1. Context analysis

The context analysis is designed to examine enabling and constraining conditions of the external context for actions ( Stones, 2005 ). This step helps to define the system. Context analysis should be derived from both the researchers' perspectives (from the outside looking in) and the actors' perspectives (from the inside looking out; Stones, 2005 ).

Past system change: the researcher's historical perspective

To understand how systems change (a slower process) and the influence of feedback over time, a more historical perspective is needed. Examination of the “intermediate temporality” would allow reflection on how social systems enabled or constrained or reacted to different actors' actions ( Stones, 2005 ). This can be done through literature reviews, policy analysis, and other external analyses. Similar historical analysis can be done for land use change, biodiversity trends, and other ecological assessments.

Building situational awareness

It is also important to obtain multiple perspectives of the current situation at the systems level. For example, interviews, focus groups, and group mapping exercises with government agricultural agencies, non-governmental conservation organizations, and protected area managers can provide new insight as to the specific social systems variables (i.e., policies, markets, and land tenure) that are influencing the system ( Morse et al., 2013 ). This level of analysis helps to build personal relationships and understand power relations and social networks ( McCool et al., 2015 ). Parallel analyses with many of these same groups can explore environmental issues in that local context identifying underlying and proximate drivers, feedback, and change.

The actors' perspective

It is critical to conduct interviews, surveys, and discussions with individual actors or local groups (e.g., landowners, tourism lodge operators, tourism employees, and community committees) about what they believe are the external enabling and constraining conditions (e.g., policies, markets, and land tenure) that are influencing their decisions ( Morse et al., 2013 ). This is the perspective of the actor looking out at the system. For example, Lupoli et al. (2015) developed a rapid assessment tool to capture local community desires regarding volunteer tourism in their community. This process will also help to build personnel relationships, assess the network of actors, provide an understanding of the relevant power relationships and social norms, and begin to identify leverage points ( McCool et al., 2015 ). An understanding of local or traditional ecological knowledge for both farm and landscape management and conservation can be obtained in this phase.

Step 2. Conduct analysis: the actors' perspectives on why they take action

A conduct analysis is an assessment of the knowledgeability, motivations, capabilities, and desires of the actors themselves (landowners, park managers, ecolodge operators, etc.) and how these are translated into action ( Stones, 2005 ). The environmental parallel here is the ecological beliefs and perceptions of ecological outcomes that lead to actors' actions. A protected area manager will be able to explain why they took particular land management actions, and a landowner will likely be able to present the environmental benefits (food production, timber harvest, and so on) and costs (erosion, loss of biodiversity in habitats) that their actions might cause. This is a critical step in identifying leverage points, or those places in a system where intervention might have the greatest impact toward the development of more resilient systems ( Berkes et al., 2003 ).

Step 3. Monitoring change and learning continuously

Understanding the system, developing networks, and identifying leverage points will help with identifying and understanding the relationships among the variables in the system, but understanding the system is only the beginning. A SECAS is characterized by feedback, non-linearity, and uncertainty, indicating that any single assessment at any given time will only provide part of the picture. Adaptive management is a form of continuous learning that can inform management toward the building of more resilience in the target systems, and the steps described above will inform managers of the networks involved and develop the linkages and networks that can facilitate communication and interventions ( Plummer and Fennell, 2009 ). In the same way that one must look back to understand context, long-term monitoring and an adaptive management approach are needed.

Case studies often “[treat] tourism as a separate enclave from its larger social and environmental system, which is anathema to the complex systems approach of resilience” ( Lew, 2014 , p. 14). To examine protected area management, landscape conservation, and tourism, we need a framework that can capture the entirety of these dynamic and evolving systems, including inputs, actions, outcomes, and feedback. This article has presented the SECAS framework as an organizational concept that can help in framing the multiple systems and subsystems that can drive change and resilience. The major components of the systems of protected area tourism and conservation have been highlighted, along with steps that can help in identification of the specific elements in the systems that can be used to leverage resilience. I hope that the SECAS framework and this article can be used as a springboard for applied analysis and a baseline for further theoretical development.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all my previous collaborators for earlier development of the SECAS model.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

WM declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Arlinghaus, R., Riepe, C., Theis, S., Pagel, T., and Fuhitani, M. (2022). Dysfunctional information feedbacks cause the emergence of management panaceas in social-ecological systems: The case of fish stocking in inland recreational fisheries. J. Outdoor Recr. Tour . 38, 10045. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2021.100475

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev . 27, 2021–2044. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Bosak, K. (2019). “The tourism system,” in A research agenda for sustainable tourism , eds. S. F., McCool, and K., Bosak (MA, USA: Edward Elger Publishing, Northampton) 14–20. doi: 10.4337/9781788117104.00022

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., and Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement; resilience of what to what? Ecosystems . 4, 765–781. doi: 10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9

Castro-Arce, K., Parra, C., and Vanclay, F. (2019). Social innovation, Sustainability and the governance of protected areas: revealing theory as it plays out in practice in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Plan. Manag . 62, 2255–2272. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1537976

Cumming, G. S., and Allen, C. R. (2017). Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory. Ecol. Applic. 27, 1709–1717. doi: 10.1002/eap.1584

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cumming, G. S., Allen, C. R., Ban, N. C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H., Cumming, D. H. M., et al. (2015). Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach. Ecol. Applic. 25, 299–319. doi: 10.1890/13-2113.1

Farrell, B. H., and Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Ann. Tour. Res . 31, 274–295. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.002

Fennell, D. A. (2020). Ecotourism. 5th edition. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429346293

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change . 16, 253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour . 30, 441–473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Geist, H. J., and Lambin, E. F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience . 52, 143–150 doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)0520143:PCAUDF2.0.CO;2

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., and Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience . 50, 571–584. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)0500571:IATLTO2.0.CO;2

Gunderson, L., and Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems . Washington DC: Island Press.

Google Scholar

Hartvigsen, G., Kinzig, A., and Peterson, G. (1998). Complex adaptive systems: use and analysis of complex adaptive systems in ecosystem science: overview of special section. Ecosystems . 1, 427–430. doi: 10.1007/s100219900036

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System . 4, 1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development . Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Hunt, C., and Stronza, A. (2009). Bringing ecotourism into focus: Applying a hierarchical perspective to ecotourism research. J. Ecotour . 8, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/14724040802283202

Hunt, C. A., Durham, W. H., Driscoll, L., and Honey, M. (2015). Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. J. Sustain. Tour . 23, 339–357. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2014.965176

Levin, S. (2005). Self-organization and the emergence of complexity in ecological systems. BioScience . 55, 1075–1079. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)0551075:SATEOC2.0.CO;2

Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A. S., Norberg, J., De Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., et al. (2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ . 18, 111–132. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X12000460

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems . 1, 431–436. doi: 10.1007/s100219900037

Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons . Reading, Massachusetts, USA: Perseus Books.

Lew, A. (2014). Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning. Tour. Geogr . 16, 14–22. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2013.864325

Lew, A. A., Ng, P. T., Ni, C. C., and Wu, T. C. (2016). Community sustainability and resilience: similarities, differences and indicators. Tour. Geogr . 18, 18–27. doi: 10.1080/14616688.2015.1122664

Lupoli, C., Morse, W. C., Bailey, C., and Schelhas, J. (2015). Indicator development methodology for volunteer tourism in host communities: creating a low cost, locally applicable, rapid assessment tool. J. Sustain. Tour . 23, 726–747. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1008498

Maciejewski, K., and Cumming, G. S. (2016). Multi-scale network analysis shows scale-dependency of significance of individual protected areas for connectivity. Landsc. Ecol . 31, 761–774. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0285-2

Mathevet, R., Thompson, J. D., Folke, C., and Chapin, F. S. (2016). Protected areas and their surrounding territory: socialecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. Ecol. Applic. 26, 5–16. doi: 10.1890/14-0421

McCool, S. F. (2022). Thinking like a system in the turbulent world of outdoor recreation management. J. Outdoor Recr. Tour . 38, 100484. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2021.100484

McCool, S. F., and Bosak, K. (2016). Reframing Sustainable Tourism. Dordrech: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-7209-9

McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., and Breen, C. (2015). “Benefiting from complexity thinking,” in Protected Area Governance and Management , eds. G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (Canberra, ANU Press) 291–326. doi: 10.22459/PAGM.04.2015.10

McCool, S. F., Nkhata, B., Breen, C., and Freimund, W. A. (2013). A heuristic framework for reflecting on protected areas and their stewardship in the 21st century. J. Outdoor Recr. Tour . 1, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2013.03.002

McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tour. Manage . 20, 425–434. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00008-4

MEA (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1 . New York: Island Press.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Force, J. E., and Wulfhorst, J. D. (2007). Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecol. Soc . 12, 1–8. doi: 10.5751/ES-02082-120208

Morse, W. C. (2007). “Chapter 2: Social Ecological Structuration,” in Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: Conservation and production decisions within the San Juan – La Selva Biological Corridor. Dissertation. University of Idaho and Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigatión y Enseñaza (CATIE) in Costa Rica. 8–69.

Morse, W. C. (2020). Recreation as a social-ecological complex adaptive system. Sustainability . 12, 753. doi: 10.3390/su12030753

Morse, W. C., McLaughlin, B., Wulfhorst, J. D., and Harvey, C. (2013). Social ecological complex adaptive systems: A framework for research on payments for ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst . 16, 53–77. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0178-3

Morse, W. C., Schedlbauer, J. L., Sesnie, S. E., Finegan, B., Harvey, C. A., Hollenhorst, S. J., et al. (2009). Consequences of environmental service payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican Biological Corridor. Ecol. Soc . 14, 1–23. doi: 10.5751/ES-02688-140123

Morse, W. C., Selin, S., Cerveny, L. K., and Blahna, D. (2022a). Introduction to sustainably managing outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism as social-ecological complex adaptive systems. J. Outdoor Recr. Tour . 38, 100519. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2022.100519

Morse, W. C., Stern, M., Stein, T., and Blahna, D. (2022b). Recreation as a transformative experience: Synthesizing the literature on outdoor recreation and recreation ecosystem services into a systems framework. J. Outdoor Recr. Tour . 38, 100492. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2022.100492

Norberg, J., and Cumming, G. S. (2008). Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future . New York: Columbia University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 104, 15181–15187. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702288104

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science . 352, 419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133

Pickett, S. T. A., and White, P. S. (1985). The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics . Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

Plummer, R., and Fennell, D. A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: prospects for adaptive co-management. J. Sustain. Tour . 17, 149–168. doi: 10.1080/09669580802359301

Preiser, R., Biggs, R., De Vos, A., and Folke, C. (2018). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecol. Soc . 23, 46. doi: 10.5751/ES-10558-230446

Scheffer, M., Westley, F., Brock, W. A., and Holmgren, M. (2002). “Dynamic interactions of societies and ecosystems—linking theories from ecology, economy, and sociology,” in Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems , eds. L. H., Gunderson, C. S. Holling (Washington: Island Press).

Scoones, I. (1999). New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for fruitful engagement? Ann. Rev. Anthropol . 28, 479–507. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.479

Stones, R. (2005). Structuration Theory . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-0-230-21364-7

Strickland-Munro, J., Allison, H. E., and Moore, S. A. (2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Ann. Tour. Res. 37, 499–519. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.001

Stronza, A. L., Hunt, C. A., and Fitzgerald, L. A. (2019). Ecotourism for conservation? Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour . 44, 229–253. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033046

Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., and Schultz, L. (2006). A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc . 11, 13. doi: 10.5751/ES-01530-110113

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc . 9, 5. doi: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Westley, F., Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Holling, C. S., and Gunderson, L. H. (2002). “Why systems of people and nature are not just social and ecological systems,” in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , eds. L. H., Gunderson, C. S. Holling (Washington: Island Press) 103–119.

Wu, J., and Loucks, O. L. (1995). From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol . 70, 439–466. doi: 10.1086/419172

Zambrano, A. M. A., Broadbent, E. N., and Durham, W. H. (2010). Social and environmental effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: the Lapa Rios case. J. Ecotourism. 9, 62–83. doi: 10.1080/14724040902953076

Keywords: system, protected areas, tourism, complex, adaptive

Citation: Morse WC (2023) Protected area tourism and management as a social-ecological complex adaptive system. Front. Sustain. Tour. 2:1187402. doi: 10.3389/frsut.2023.1187402

Received: 16 March 2023; Accepted: 19 July 2023; Published: 01 September 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Morse. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Wayde C. Morse, morsewc@auburn.edu

Tourism and Conservation – Sustainable Models and Strategies

• Environment
• Published: Undated

How useful was this resource?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this resource useful...

Share us on social media!

Description

This Solimar International toolkit includes two different publications developed with support of USAID aimed at linking tourism and conservation in a sustainable way including six conservation models that link sustainable tourism, biodiversity conservation, and community development and a framework for responding rapidly to crises originating for tourism and visitation.

“ Solimar International ;   Undated;   Tourism and Conservation – Sustainable Models and Strategies;   BTRP-ID:  2476″

Like this Resource?

• [email protected]

Report an entry

• Open access
• Published: 17 March 2023

Natural world heritage conservation and tourism: a review

• Zhenzhen Zhang 1 , 2 ,
• Kangning Xiong 1 , 2 &
• Denghong Huang 1 , 2  

Heritage Science volume  11 , Article number:  55 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4456 Accesses

8 Citations

Metrics details

The trade-off and synergy between heritage conservation and tourism has become the focus of natural world heritage research. To gain a better understanding of the global researches on natural World Heritage conservation and tourism, we comprehensively reviewed relevant peer-reviewed research literature based on Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). We find that (1) the theoretical research of natural heritage conservation and tourism has gone through a process from emphasizing the protection of heritage value to pursuing the synergy of heritage protection and tourism development; (2) the main research methods include investigation research methods, indirect research methods and experimental research methods; (3) "3S" technology (remote sensing, geographic information system, global positioning system), three-dimensional laser scanning technology, virtual reality (VR) technology, augmented reality (AR) technology, holographic projection technology and other modern technological means are applied to the protection and tourism development of natural properties; (4) the common coordinated development models include ecological science tourism, community participation in tourism, ecological compensation model, world heritage—buffer zone—surrounding areas coordinated protection model and so on. We analyzed the research progresses through (1) the theories proposed in the literature, (2) the main methods applied to address the issues on natural heritage conservation and tourism, (3) the technologies applied in the researches and (4) the coordinated models of heritage conservation and tourism. Furthermore, we put forward the following research prospects: (1) systematically explore the conservation methods and theories based on world heritage criteria; (2) formulate corresponding conservation systems and ecological restoration standards for different types of world heritage; (3) give full play to the complementary advantages of various research methods and reveal the mutual feedback mechanism between tourism and heritage conservation; (4) develop ecological restoration technology based on biodiversity restoration, establish radial ecological corridor, and expand the benign ecological environment of the properties to wider periphery; (5) build ecological compensation development models based on the perspective of heritage tourism and value realization of world heritage.

Introduction

Natural world heritage sites are natural landscapes recognized by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and inscribed on the World Heritage List, with Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) such as containing aesthetic importance, representing major stages of earth's history, representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes, containing the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity [ 1 ]. As the type of protected area with the highest and most representative OUV in the world [ 2 , 3 ], how to pass on the value of the world heritage through heritage display and solve the livelihood problem of the residents is a problem worthy of study.

For many years after the birth of Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) in 1972, conservation was the sole goal of World Heritage, but as time passed, World Heritage gradually established its status as an important tourist destination, and UNESCO’s policy on World Heritage also no longer limited to conservation, but also sustainable tourism [ 4 ]. The purpose of heritage conservation is to preserve their OUV and pass them on intact to the next generation [ 5 ]. The ideal goal of heritage tourism is to awaken people’s attention and respect for cultural history and natural landscapes through tourism activities [ 6 ]. Therefore, heritage tourism is the best way to give full play to the functions of natural World Heritage, which can promote scientific research, social supervision and financial support for heritage conservation, and is also a sustainable way for the social and economic development of natural heritage sites [ 7 ]. However, the unreasonable utilization of tourism resources will lead to the imbalance of resource supply and demand [ 8 ]. In its World Heritage Outlook report, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) pointed out that tourism impact has always been in the top three threats [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. How to coordinate the relationship between World Heritage conservation and tourism development has always been a hot issue of academic and government attention [ 12 , 13 ].

Currently, international organizations and scholars have carried out a series of fruitful studies, covering the impact of tourism activities on heritage conservation, community residents’ perception of heritage tourism, and changes in the landscape pattern. Among them, the community and tourists are the focus of related research. Natural World Heritage sites are often very fragile. To maintain a certain balance between social ecosystems and natural ecosystems, it is important not only to minimize human disturbance, but also to make tourists aware of the need to protect the OUV and to participate in the conservation and promotion of heritage value [ 14 ]. The sustainability of community livelihoods is the premise of World Heritage conservation, and ecotourism is an important form of enriching the livelihoods of community residents in heritage sites [ 15 ]. Locally-driven responsible and sustainable tourism management in and around World Heritage properties can complement other sources of growth, so as to promote economic diversification between tourism and non-tourism activities. This will strengthen social and economic resilience in a way that also helps protect the OUV of properties [ 16 ]. In addition, some scholars have also paid attention to the impact of tourism activities on the biodiversity [ 17 ], water [ 18 ], geology and landform [ 19 , 20 ] of natural World Heritage sites.

Meanwhile, scholars have systematically sorted out and summarized the concept, research methods, authenticity and integrity, heritage management, stakeholders, knowledge systems and development trends of heritage tourism from the theoretical level [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. It is worth noting that the research on tourism and conservation of natural World Heritage is a field in which natural ecosystems and social ecosystems are highly intertwined, involving tourism, aesthetics, geomorphology, ecology, geography and other disciplines. There are research bottlenecks in terms of theory, method, technology, model and so on. The existing articles indicate that the studies on the conservation and tourism of natural World Heritage start from the theoretical perspective, and most of them are macro-heritage studies, rarely distinguishing between cultural heritage and natural heritage. The research methods are mainly based on questionnaire survey and interview with tourists and community residents, lacking the application of experimental monitoring methods. The comprehensive understanding of related research has not been fully formed in the academic circles.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of natural heritage protection and tourism since the World Heritage Convention came into being half a century ago, we reviewed the relevant research progress of theories, methods, technologies and models from the perspective of the systematic chain from theoretical understanding to practical application, and proposed future research directions based on the research progress. The theory about natural World Heritage conservation and tourism is the understanding of objective things and their laws, and the related theory research will help us understand the law of this study field. The generation and development of the methods depends on our theoretical understanding of related researches. Through the analysis of the methods, it will help to promote our theoretical understanding, and also better guide us to use technical means to improve the heritage protection and tourism sustainability in natural sites. Conducting the analysis of related technologies can effectively promote us to adjust the methods of recognizing natural World Heritage conservation and tourism in practice, thus promoting the development of theory. Meanwhile, technology is a practical means to accelerate the promotion of heritage protection and sustainable tourism. The analysis of related models in this study is the summary of different development paths and practical experiences, reflecting the development models of natural sites in different scenarios. It is expected to provide references for more natural World Heritage sites in the cooperation between heritage protection and tourism.

Materials and methods

The acquisition of journal papers was conducted based on the available databases including Web of Science (WOS) ( https://www.webofscience.com ) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) ( https://www.cnki.net/ ). To obtain higher quality and more representative articles, we restricted the databases of paper sources during retrieval. In WOS, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) were taken as the retrieval databases. In CNKI, Science Citation Index (SCI), the Engineering Index (EI), Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI), Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) source journals were taken as retrieval databases. Acknowledging that the literature on both heritage conservation and tourism in natural World Heritage sites is sparse and our desire to get a wider review, we also included different synonyms. The search item was “them”. The first search terms was set as “natural heritage”, the second search term was set as “tourism”, and the third terms were set as “conservation” or “protection” or “preservation”. The deadline set for our retrieval was December 31, 2022 (Fig.  1 ).

The process of the literature search and screening

Firstly, based on the search conditions above, 610 and 144 articles were found in WOS and CNKI, respectively. Then, we set two inclusion criteria: (1) the research them must include both heritage tourism and conservation; (2) the research object must be natural World Heritage site(s) or mixed site(s). Articles without heritage protection or heritage tourism are discarded. Researches about cultural World Heritage, built heritage, intangible cultural heritage, national parks, geoparks, natural reserves or other contents without natural World Heritage are also considered irrelevant and excluded. We decide whether an article meets our inclusion criteria by reading the title, abstract, keywords, and even the full text of the article. After screening based on our inclusion criteria and deduplication, 115 and 85 related articles were obtained from WOS and CNKI, respectively. In term of languages, the final obtained articles include Chinese (85 articles), Croatian (1 articles), English (101 articles), Portuguese (2 articles), Russian (1 articles), Spanish (9 articles), Ukrainian (1 articles).

It is worth noting that the number of search results and the final screening results varied greatly, especially in WOS. This may be because when subject is used as the search term in WOS, any one or more of the titles, abstracts, author keywords and keywords plus contain natural, heritage, conservation or protection or preservation and tourism articles will be retrieved. As a result, there are some documents that are not related to the research topic, such as cultural heritage, protected areas, national parks, natural resources, in the search results.

Research progress

The theoretical research on natural heritage protection and tourism has gone through a process from emphasizing heritage value protection to pursuing synergy between heritage conservation and tourism development.

The theoretical exploration of World Heritage protection started from Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Operational Guidelines). It states that cultural properties must meet the conditions of authenticity, and all properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List shall satisfy the conditions of integrity [ 1 ]. But some scholars believe that the two principles of authenticity and integrity should not be separated and both natural properties and cultural properties should meet these two principles [ 26 ]. Since the number of natural properties is much higher than that of cultural properties, related researches on two principles are mostly focused on cultural properties, while little on natural properties. As an important tool for conservation of properties and then enhance their integrity, as well as create linkages between properties and the wider area that surrounds them [ 27 ], buffer zones are also a vital theory to analysis the relationship between heritage protection and sustainable development [ 28 ].

With the advancement of researches, scholars have gradually realized that the value display and community development are important ways for the sustainable protection and management of world heritage [ 29 ]. Heritage corridor is the product of the joint development and interaction of American greenway movement, scenic road construction and regional heritage conservation concepts [ 30 ]. This theory takes into account the balance of linear heritage protection, community economic development and natural ecosystems. It is suitable for linear heritage such as the Silk Road, but not for nonlinear heritage. To explore the synergy theory of heritage protection and tourism applicable to a wider range, scholars have carried out research from different perspectives such as natural ecosystems, tourists, and community residents. Moreover, as one of the core theories of tourism geography, tourism man-land relationship theory focuses on the interaction between human tourism activities and geographical environment[ 31 ]. It is also an important guiding ideology for the study of sustainable development of natural heritage[ 32 ]. Wen [ 33 ] proposed to use ecological theory and experience economy theory to stimulate tourists’ cognition of heritage value, thereby promoting the coordinated development of protection and tourism in karst world natural heritage sites. In addition, the introduction of symbiosis theory [ 34 ], sustainable livelihood framework [ 35 ], life cycle assessment theory [ 36 ] and other theories have further enriched researches on world heritage conservation and sustainable tourism.

Based on the data sources, the main research methods used in researches on natural world heritage conservation and tourism can be divided into three categories: investigation research methods, indirect research methods, and experimental research methods. Among them, investigation research methods refer to methods that get data from questionnaires [ 37 ], interviews [ 38 ], field observations [ 39 ] and other similar ways; indirect research methods refer to methods that get data from websites [ 40 ], articles[ 41 , 42 ], yearbooks [ 43 ], institutions [ 44 ] and other similar ways; experimental research methods refer to methods that get data through computer experiments such as remote sensing (RS) and geographic information system (GIS) [ 45 ], or ground sample monitoring like sample plot [ 46 ] and online tracer test [ 18 ], or other similar methods. As the most commonly used method for related studies, the first two types of methods are mostly used in humanities research, such as stakeholder attitudes towards heritage conservation and tourism and their influencing factors. The third type of method is mostly used in natural research, such as the impact of heritage tourism on soil, vegetation, and water ecology in heritage sites. Table 1 shows some representative specific methods, data sources, core content and references of these methods.

The vast majority of relevant studies obtain data through questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders such as tourists and residents, as well as in-direct data from websites, reports, institutions and so on. Few scholars obtain data through monitoring experiments or geographic information technology in natural heritage sites. Long-term experimental monitoring research is even more blank. No studies have been found that combined experimental monitoring methods with questionnaire interviews or geographic information technology. This brings great difficulty to the collaborative research and management of natural heritage tourism and protection.

Investigation and research methods used in related researches include in-depth interviews and fieldwork, landscape sensitivity assessment, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Delphi method, structural equation modelling (SEM), travel cost method, contingent valuation method, perception survey, open-ended interviews, principal component analysis (PCA), system dynamics model, what is not there (WINT) analysis and convergent parallel mixed method. The advantages of these methods are: (1) quantitative analysis of each element can enhance the persuasiveness of the analysis results; (2) it is helpful to find potential relationships between different variables through model analysis; (3) access to deep insights and emotional reflections. The disadvantages are: (1) bias in interpretation of results by investigators and respondents; (2) the acquired data is highly subjective, especially in questionnaires and interviews. These methods are suitable for researches on attitudes, willingness and choices of stakeholders, such as local community and visitors.

Indirect research methods used in related researches include SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, carbon footprint, literature review and expert interview, AHP, fuzzy mathematical methods, official evaluations analysis, panel data analysis, propensity score matching, static model of tourism environment capacity, grounded theory, literature review and website analysis. The advantages of these methods are: (1) simple and easy to operate; (2) easy to obtain the required data; (3) low research cost. But the data of these methods often face problems of poor data correlation, poor timeliness and low reliability. These methods are suitable for theoretical analysis researches and researches with low requirements on data timeliness and resolution.

Experimental study methods used in related researches mainly include two categories: geographic information technology and experimental monitoring. Specifically, these methods contain remote sensing, GIS, global static partial equilibrium model, landscape pattern index, high-resolution online tracer test, and investigation method of sample plot. Geographic information technology can quickly obtain spatiotemporal data of large-scale study areas, which is suitable for monitoring and research of natural heritage sites. But it needs to be combined with ground monitoring survey data to increase the precision of its analysis results. The results obtained by the ground monitoring method are the most objective and accurate among all methods, but usually require higher professional knowledge of operators, and are time-consuming and costly.

Technologies

Compared with cultural World Heritage sites, natural properties are often more difficult to display and manage, with large area and complex natural and man-made influencing factors. The introduction of 3S technology (remote sensing, geography information systems, global positioning systems), 3D laser scanning technology, virtual reality (VR) technology, augmented reality (AR) technology, holographic projection technology, computer digital technology and other modern technical means is conductive to the digital construction, post-disaster landscape restoration and ecological restoration, and efficient manage of natural World Heritage sites.

Spatial information technology with 3S technology as the core has become the main technical means of current resource and environmental investigation and analysis [ 78 ]. The conservation and tourism researches on aesthetic value (criterion vii) and geological and landform value (criterion viii) conservation and tourism of natural World Heritage sites mostly use this technology. Zhou et al. [ 79 ] revealed the relationship between the tourism development process and the landscape pattern of the natural property based on multi-period remote sensing images. Xiao et al. [ 80 ] carried out an evaluation of the impact of tourism project construction on the aesthetic value of heritage landscapes based on GIS perspective analysis. Furthermore, remote sensing images are also widely used to measure and interpret the changes of the geological hazards area and the scale of disaster[ 81 ], as well as vegetation' reconstruction [ 82 , 83 ]. The use of 3S technology can effectively monitor the changes in the ecological environment, and is an important technical means for the conservation of natural properties. Researches using this method are relatively mature, but most of them focuses on the ecological change of a single property and the impacts analysis of infrastructure construction, urbanization and other human activities. There are few coupling studies on tourism and heritage ecological changes, and the horizontal comparative study between heritage sites is still blank.

3D laser scanning technology has the characteristics of fast scanning speed, strong initiative, high precision and low cost, which provides a new technical means for cave measurement [ 84 ]. Zhou et al. [ 85 ] discussed the morphological characteristics and control factors of Miao Chamber, which was included on the World Heritage Tentative List of China in 2019, based on terrestrial laser. Using 3D laser scanning technology to carry out cave measurement and imaging, mapping and analysis can effectively promote the popularization of the scientific value of cave heritage sites and the improvement of tourism quality.

Through technical means such as VR, AR and holographic projection technology, tourism products and tourism experiences can be extended to the field of virtual tourism [ 86 ], and the interactive experience of heritage tourism can be enhanced. In addition, the application of computer digitization technology has further promoted the efficient management of heritage tourism. Shilin Karst strengthens the informatization of geological heritage conservation and tourism management through the construction of smart platforms such as video surveillance, call center system, and GIS system [ 87 ]. Chen [ 88 ] built the tourism management system of the natural World Heritage site based on ASP.NET, WWW information service site technology, Browser/Server model, and SQL database system. Digital construction and smart tourism under the premise of protecting heritage value are the general trend of heritage tourism development and an effective management model.

Based on different research perspectives, scholars have proposed the ecological popular science tourism development model, the community participation tourism model, the ecological compensation model, the World Heritage-buffer zone-peripheral area coordinated protection model and other collaborative model of natural World Heritage conservation and tourism.

Wen [ 33 ] constructed an ecological popular science tourism development model based on the landscape spatial structure and morphological characteristics of the natural World Heritage site from the perspective of tourists. This model not only emphasizes the realization and acquisition of ecological popular science tourism, but also focuses on the management of various elements of the tourism, so as to facilitate its continuous development, rather than being limited to the existing ecological popular science tourism activities. But the specific implementation paths of this model still need further study.

Yang [ 89 ] proposed the natural heritage protection model of “feeding farmers through travel” from the perspective of the community. This type of model can effectively improve the income, conservation willingness, sense of belonging and education level of community residents, and is applicable to all World Heritage sites. However, in practice, this model often has problems such as lack of participation in decision-making, economic benefit distribution that is out of sync with the economic development of heritage sites, and the lack of effective guarantees for economic participation [ 90 ].

To solve these problems, Duan and Li [ 73 ] proposed to use the ecological compensation model to coordinate the protection of heritage values and the protection of indigenous interests. Their research method is to use the global static partial equilibrium model of Costanza et al. [ 91 ] to obtain landscape change information by interpreting remote sensing images, and to assess the ecological assets and depletion of natural ecosystems. On this basis, Fu [ 92 ] proposed a multi-ecological compensation mechanism for karst natural heritage sites by combining interviews with community residents and questionnaires on tourists, taking into account the interests of all stakeholders.

The conservation of World Heritage is inextricably linked to its buffer zone and wider peripheral areas, especially in karst-type natural World Heritage Sites. Due to the special above-ground-underground dual structure and complex hydrological system of the karst areas, the coordination and protection of the buffer zone and its surrounding areas is crucial to the sustainable development of the karst sites. Xiong et al. [ 93 ] constructed the World Heritage-buffer zone-peripheral area coordinated protection model (Table 2 ). This model organically combines World Heritage conservation, the prevention and control of rocky desertification with the development of surrounding communities, and promotes the sustainable development of natural World Heritage sites in karst areas.

Future research directions

Systematically explore the conservation methods and theories based on world heritage criteria.

Aiming at the problem of fragmented analysis and problem-oriented research in the studies of World Heritage conservation, it is an urgent need to systematically explore heritage conservation methods and theories based on World Heritage criteria. The World Heritage Budapest Declaration adopted by the World Heritage Committee in 2002 pointed out that an appropriate and reasonable balance should be sought between heritage conservation, sustainability and development [ 94 ]. Scholars’ understanding of World Heritage conservation and tourism has gone through three stages: conflict theory, reconciliation theory and synergy theory [ 95 ]. However, due to the huge disparity in the number of cultural heritage sites and natural heritage sites, scholars’ research on heritage conservation mostly focuses on cultural heritage, and less on natural heritage. Most of the related studies are fragmented analysis or problem-oriented research, or regard natural properties just as a special study area like other protected areas, with little characteristics of the World Heritage. The systematic theories and methods for heritage conservation has not yet formed. With the increasing number of world heritage sites and the trend of human and natural life community, researches on the theories and methods based on World Heritage criteria and classified conservation of heritage values are imminent.

Formulate corresponding conservation systems and ecological restoration standards for different types of properties

Aiming at the problem of unclear objects of heritage protection and restoration degree of World Heritage, the protection systems and ecological restoration standards of different World Heritage types need to be discussed. Since the birth of World Heritage Convention in 1972, World Heritage has a history of fifty years. However, what exactly are the World Heritage site to protect, how to protect them, and to what extent to restore the damage that has occurred, how to restore? These problems still plague scholars and heritage managers in actual researches and conservation management practices. UNESCO World Heritage Center and scholars agree that the core element of World Heritage is OUV, which includes three aspects: satisfying World Heritage criteria, authenticity/integrity, and protection and management. We must protect the carrier that embodies the OUV of World Heritage sites. But what elements are contained in each World Heritage criterion or the OUV carrier of each type of World Heritage has become a broad issue that has not been discussed. Scholars tend to study the protection of things that can be seen and felt in the short term, such as water quality, vegetation coverage and vegetation types, species diversity, protection of buildings and rock paintings, post-earthquake recovery, cave microorganisms and so on. Little attention has been paid to things whose changes can only be perceived over a long period of geological history, such as the preservation of landform values. In addition, the extent to which OUV should be protected and restored after being destroyed are also unclear, which hinders the researches on heritage conservation and the effectiveness of practice in solving practical problems.

Give full play to the complementary advantages of various research methods and reveal the mutual feedback mechanism between tourism and heritage conservation

The main research methods used in related researches are investigation research methods, indirect research methods, and experimental study methods. Related researches mostly use the first two types of methods. The vast majority of relevant studies obtain data through questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders such as tourists and residents. However, natural World Heritage sites are protected areas dominated by natural ecosystems, and the importance of experimental study methods, such as experimental monitoring and geographic information technology, in the mutual feedback research on heritage value conservation and tourism cannot be ignored. While these methods are rarely used in current research. Long-term series of experimental monitoring studies or studies that combine these types of methods are even more blank. Each kind of method has its own advantages and disadvantages. In future researches, the three kinds of methods should be combined, together with the heritage database constructed by long-term experimental monitoring, to deeply analyze the mutual feedback mechanism between heritage conservation and tourism.

Develop ecological restoration technology based on biodiversity restoration

In response to the problem of land degradation around the natural properties, ecological corridors need to be built through species diversity restoration to expand the benign outward influence of heritage ecology. There are many land degradation phenomena around natural World Heritage sites. On the one hand, due to the requirements for protection and management attributes when applying for the title of World Heritage, areas with better natural environment are often included in the scope of World Heritage when the boundary is delimited. While the buffer zone and its surrounding ecological environment are poor or disturbed by human activities. On the other hand, due to the requirements of the World Heritage Convention on the protection and management, environmental protection in World Heritage sites is generally given great attention, while the ecological environment of the buffer zone is often neglected, weakening the buffering effect of the buffer zones. Unreasonable tourism activities, infrastructure construction and urbanization in the buffer zones have accelerated the pace of land degradation. Vegetation is the most basic part of a terrestrial ecosystem, and all other organisms depend on it [ 96 ]. Species diversity is the manifestation of biodiversity at the species level, which can represent the structural complexity of biological communities, and reflects the structure type, organization level, development stage, degree of stability and habitat level of the community [ 97 , 98 ]. It is one of the key contents for future research to develop a series of ecological restoration technologies based on biodiversity restoration. It can be realized by building the radial ecological corridor connecting the World Heritage sites, buffer zones and their periphery, and driving the restoration of species diversity through vegetation restoration, so as to expand the benign ecological environment of the properties to wider periphery.

Build ecological compensation development models based on the perspective of heritage tourism and value realization of world heritage

Most of the World Heritage sites are important tourist attractions due to their high-grade tourism resources and outstanding scientific value. However, how to achieve these outstanding values has not yet been answered. In addition, stakeholders have different impacts on the ecological environment due to different ways of participating in tourism. Different travel models and behaviors of tourists, and different ways of providing tourism-related services (such as homestays, picking, hiking, rafting) will have different contribution values to the ecological degradation of tourist destinations. Ecological compensation can enhance the conservation awareness and protection behavior of tourism stakeholders, thereby promoting ecological protection and ecological restoration. As one of the effective ways to balance social benefits, economic benefits and environmental benefits, it has been widely valued by scholars and managers since it was proposed [ 99 ]. In the past, scholars have studied the ecological compensation mechanism, impact factors, and compensation methods of forest resources, wetland resources, grassland resources and so on. Some scholars paid attention to ecological compensation from the perspective of community residents and farmers' livelihoods. However, few attentions have been paid to targeted ecological compensation studies in natural World Heritage sites [ 100 , 101 ]. Thus, aiming at the problem of ecological degradation caused by the unbalanced distribution of benefits from tourism and unclear paths to realize the heritage values, researches on ecological compensation mechanism based on tourism perspective and value realization path of World Heritage are needed.

Conclusions

This literature review summarized the research progress of natural world heritage conservation and tourism from the perspectives of theory, method, technology and model, and proposed future research directions.

Our findings indicate that the UNESCO World Heritage Center and IUCN are the main force of the theory research, and put forward important theories such as authenticity, integrity, buffer zone, and sustainable tourism of heritage sites. Scholars have also introduced heritage corridor theory, ecological theory, experience economy theory, actor network theory, symmetry theory, sustainable livelihood framework, life cycle assessment theory, carbon footprint and so on into related researches from the perspective of social science. In future researches, we should pay more attention to the particularity of world heritage, and focus on theoretical and methodological research based on different world heritage value standards.

We also found that the vast majority of current research uses social science research methods, especially questionnaires and in-depth interviews. In addition, mathematical modeling methods are also common methods in related research. Only a few scholars use experimental monitoring or geographic information technology methods to carry out research from the perspective of natural science. No studies have been found that combine these types of methods. In future research, attention should be paid to the combination of long-term experimental monitoring data of natural heritage sites with social science and geographic information technology to build a natural heritage monitoring database to promote in-depth research and scientific management of natural heritage.

In terms of technology, scholars have used modern technical means including 3S technology, 3D laser scanning technology, virtual reality technology, augmented reality technology, holographic projection technology, and computer digital technology to promote the digital construction, smart tourism and post-disaster landscape restoration and ecological restoration in heritage sites. In future researches, ecological restoration technologies based on biodiversity restoration should also be paid attention to. And radial ecological corridors should be constructed to connect properties, buffer zones and their periphery, so as to expand the benign ecological environment of the natural properties to the buffer zones and wider peripheral areas.

Regarding the coordinated model of natural world heritage conservation and tourism, scholars have proposed models such as ecological popular science tourism development, community participation in heritage tourism, ecological compensation, and coordinated protection of property, buffer zone and peripheral areas. The core starting points are stakeholders' participation in heritage tourism, distribution of heritage tourism income and heritage zoning.

Furthermore, we put forward the following research prospects: (1) systematically explore the conservation methods and theories based on world heritage criteria; (2) formulate corresponding conservation systems and ecological restoration standards for different types of world heritage; (3) give full play to the complementary advantages of various research methods and reveal the mutual feedback mechanism between tourism and heritage conservation; (4) develop ecological restoration technology based on biodiversity restoration, establish radial ecological corridor, and expand the benign ecological environment of the properties to wider periphery; (5) build ecological compensation development models based on the perspective of heritage tourism and value realization of world heritage.

However, this study still has some limitations. Firstly, the research theme of world natural heritage protection and tourism involves the interdisciplinary integration of ecology, environmental science, tourism and other disciplines. Although we used some synonyms to cover more publications in this field, the retrieval results may still be incomplete due to the complexity and limitations of literature database and search methods. The search results of related articles in this study are subject to uncertainty but have little influence on the exploration of research progress and future research directions of natural World Heritage conservation and tourism in terms of the overall direction of research development. Monographs, newspapers, patents, technical reports and other types of literature, as well as articles in other literature databases may further clarify our findings. Finally, there is a certain degree of subjectivity in articles inclusion and subject analysis.

Availability of data and materials

The data presented in this study are openly available in [China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)] at [ https://www.cnki.net/ ] and Web of Science (WOS) at [ https://www.webofscience.com ].

Abbreviations

Web of Science

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Outstanding Universal Value

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Science Citation Index Expanded

Social Sciences Citation Index

Emerging Sources Citation Index

Science Citation Index

The Engineering Index

Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index

Chinese Science Citation Database

Remote Sensing

Geographic Information System

Analytic hierarchy process

Structural equation modelling

Principal component analysis

What is not there

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

China Entrepreneur Investment Club

National aeronautics and space administration

Remote sensing, geography information systems, global positioning systems

Three Dimensions

Virtual reality

Augmented reality

UNESCO WHC. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ . 2021–07–31.

Magin C, Chape S. Review of the world heritage network: biogeography, habitats and biodiversity. IUCN/UNEP-WCMC. 2004

UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN. Preparing World Heritage Nominations (Second edition, 2011). Paris; 2011.

Lyck L. World heritage as tourism destination drivers. In: Pechlaner H, Smeral E, editors. Tourism and leisure, vol. 3. 1st ed. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler; 2015. p. 203–22.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Thomas L, Middleton J. Guidelines for management planning of protected areas. Gland and Cambridge; 2003.

Feng J. World Heritage tourism: between ideal and reality. Tourism Tribune. 2012;27(4):4–5.

Google Scholar  

Wang J. Problems of tourism and geology: a new field of study in protecting and utilizing the world natural heritages. J Yunnan Normal Univ (Hum Soc Sci Edn). 2006;2:130–5.

Tao W. Research on the sustainable tourist development of “world heritage” in China. Tourism Tribune. 2000;5:35–41.

Osipova E, Shi Y, Kormos C, Shadie P, Zwahlen C, Badman T. IUCN world heritage outlook 2014: a conservation assessment of all natural world heritage sites. Gland: IUCN; 2014. p. 64.

Osipova E, Shadie P, Zwahlen C, Osti M, Shi Y, Kormos C, Bertzky B, Murai M, Van Merm R, Badman T. IUCN world heritage outlook 2: a conservation assessment of all natural world heritage sites. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2017. p. 92.

Book   Google Scholar  

Osipova E, Emslie-Smith M, Osti M, Murai M, Åberg U, Shadie P. IUCN world heritage outlook 3: a conservation assessment of all natural world heritage sites, November 2020. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 90pp; 2020.

Wu B, Li M, Huang G. A study on relationship of conservation and tourism demand of world heritage sites in China. Geogr Res. 2002;21(05):617–26.

Wang Q, Zhang H. Factor of community residents in tourism development and management of world heritage site: an analysis based on literature. J Tianjin Univ Commer. 2022;42(02):26–32. https://doi.org/10.15963/j.cnki.cn12-1401/f.2022.02.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

UNESCO WHC. UNESCO World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Tookit. Paris; 2014.

Zhang C. Ecotourism based on world natural heritage sites: the role and status of communities. Tour Tribune. 2021;36(9):7–8. https://doi.org/10.19765/j.cnki.1002-5006.2021.09.004 .

UNESCO. Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the world heritage convention. 2015. https://whc.unesco.org/en/sustainabledevelopment/ . Accessed 19 Nov. 2015.

Ma J. Biodiversity protection strategy under the background of ecological environment threshold and the tourism carrying capacity: according to the core of the world natural heritage Wulingyuan scenic area as an example. Econ Geogr. 2016;36(04):195–202. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2016.04.027 .

Yu Z, Yuan D, Yang P, Li L, Xie S. Influences of tourism activities on hydrochemistry of karst groundwater revealed by principal component analysis and on-line monitoring technique. Acta Geoscientica Sinica. 2016;37(2):232–40.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Deng Y, Meng Q, Lv Y, Luo S, Pan M. Characteristics of geological heritage landscapes in Guilin and their protection and development strategies. Carsologica Sinica. 2021;40(5):783–92.

Qiao X, Xiao Y, Du J, Tang Y, Xiao W, Zheng X, Zhang M. Tufa landscapes in the key scenic areas of the Jiuzhaigou natural world heritage site: a critical review and future research needs. Earth Environ. 2022;50(02):202–18. https://doi.org/10.14050/j.cnki.1672-9250.2022.50.033 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhang C, Bao J. A literature review of heritage tourism and heritage management abroad. Tour Sci. 2004;4:7–16. https://doi.org/10.16323/j.cnki.lykx.2004.04.002 .

Leng Z, Zhang T. Research progress in China’ s world heritage site tourism and it’ s prospect. Hum Geogr. 2009;24(6):111–5.

Pourfaraj A, Ghaderi E, Jomehpour M, Ferdowsi S. Conservation management of geotourism attractions in tourism destinations. Geoheritage. 2020;12:80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00500-4 .

Nowacki M. Heritage interpretation and sustainable development: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2021;13(8):4383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084383 .

Zhang J, Xiong K, Liu Z, He L. Research progress and knowledge system of world heritage tourism: a bibliometric analysis. Herit Sci. 2022;10:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-022-00654-0 .

Zhang C, Xie N. The principles of authenticity and integrity and the conservation of the world heritage. J Peking Univ (Philos Soc Sci). 2003;2:62–8.

Martin O, Piaatti G. World heritage and buffer zones. Davos: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones; 2009. p. 51–2.

Xiong K, Zhang Z, Xiao S, Di Y, Xiao H, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu S. Impact of Guinan Railway construction on the geomorphologic value of the Libo-Huanjiang karst world heritage site. Trop Geogr. 2020;40(3):466–77. https://doi.org/10.13284/j.cnki.rddl.003225 .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Jaafar M, Ahmad AG, Barghi R. Community participation in world heritage site conservation and tourism development. Tour Manage. 2017;58:142–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.016 .

Wang JM, Li F. A literature review of linear heritage. Southeast Cult. 2016;01:31–8.

Huang Z, Huang R. The theoretical perspective and academic innovation of tourism geography based on human-environment interactions. Geogr Res. 2015;34(01):15–26.

Bao G. The preservation and exploitation of the World Heritage based on the man-land system theory: a case study on Three Parallel Rivers. J Yunnan Univ Financ Econ. 2005;01:77–81.

Wen D. The development model of ecological and popular science tourism in Guilin Karst world natural heritage site. J Guilin Norm Coll. 2019;33(01):7–12. https://doi.org/10.16020/j.cnki.cn45-1302/z.2019.01.002 .

He F. Study on the symbiosis between the preservation and tourism development of world heritage sites. Master Dissertation, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou; 2007.

Su MM, Wall G, Xu K. Tourism-induced livelihood changes at Mount Sanqingshan world heritage site, China. Environ Manage. 2016;57(5):1024–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0672-8 .

Yuan H, Nie Kx, Xu Xy. Relationship between tourism number and air quality by carbon footprint measurement: a case study of Jiuzhaigou Scenic Area. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28:20894–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12068-1 .

Peng J, Wang J. Study on the value orientation of tourists and heritage conservation and development in the Libo karst world natural heritage site. Guizhou Ethn Stud. 2011;32(1):59–64. https://doi.org/10.13965/j.cnki.gzmzyj10026959.2011.01.034 .

Ramón-Cardona J, Peña-Miranda DD, Sánchez-Fernández MD. Critical analysis of a world heritage site in terms of conservation and tourism promotion: the case of “Ibiza, biodiversity and culture” (Ibiza, Spain). Sustainability. 2021;13(23):13250. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313250 .

Marrosu GM, Balvis T. Environmental impact assessment in climbing activities: a new method to develop a sustainable tourism in geological and nature reserves. Geoheritage. 2020;12:11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00427-w .

Ma J, Li X, Sun K. Study on sustainable development of world natural heritage of Huanglong scenic and historic interest area. Resour Dev Market. 2013;29(05):546–9.

Cai J. Operation mechanism of eco-tourism and stakeholders: a case study of a world natural heritage. Chongqing Soc Sci 2015; (12), 33–38. Doi: https://doi.org/10.19631/j.cnki.css.2015.12.004

Zhang Q, Deng Z, Chen H. Research on physical fitness tourism resource development and environmental protection innovation during strategic opportunity for ecological civilization: take world heritage sites in China as example. J Beijing Sport Univ. 2016;39(12):28–36. https://doi.org/10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2016.12.005 .

Chen Y. Analysis of the tourism ecological footprint in Wulingyuan world nature heritage site. Sci Silvae Sinicae. 2013;49(2):139–45.

Yu X, Zhou Y, Shen G, Xiong G, Xu W, Xie Z. Tourism environmental carrying capacity of Shennongjia world natural heritage site. Ecol Sci. 2018;37(1):158–63. https://doi.org/10.14108/j.cnki.1008-8873.2018.01.021 .

Li Y, Du G, Kuang W. Risk of secondary disaster and its impact on nature reserves and natural heritages in Jiuzhaigou earthquake area. Bull Soil Water Conserv 2019; 39(2), 301–308+325.

Gong J, Lu L, Jin X, Nan W, Liu F. Impacts of tourist disturbance on plant communities and soil properties in Huangshan Mountain scenic area. Acta Ecol Sin. 2009;29(5):2239–51.

Liu X, Yang Z, Chen X. The impact of tourism on landscape vision in nature heritage area: case of Kanas nature reserve. Ecol Econ. 2012;2:80–4.

Huang J, Xiao H, Li C, Jiang E. The coordination modes of ecological tourism in prohibition development zones of the juncture area of Hunan, Guangdong and Jiangxi provinces: a case study of the world natural heritage Danxia Mountain. Acta Geogr Sin. 2013;68(6):839–50.

Li D, You Y, Luan F, Chen X. A research of tourism landscape resources evaluation and protection for Bogda world natural heritage site. World Reg Stud. 2015;24(1):159–67.

Qi Q, Zhang J, Yang Y, Lu S, Zhang H. On environmental attitudes and behavior intention of tourists in natural heritage site: a case study of Jiuzhaigou. Tour Trib. 2009;24(11):41–6.

Ren Q, He B, Chen X, Han J, Han F. The mechanism and mediating effect of the “perception–emotion–behaviour” chain of tourists at world natural heritage sites—a case study from Bayanbulak, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12531. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312531 .

Nian S, Zhang H, Mao L, Zhao W, Zhang H, Lu Y, Zhang Y, Xu Y. How Outstanding Universal Value, service quality and place attachment influences tourist intention towards World Heritage Conservation: a case study of Mount Sanqingshan national park. China Sustain. 2019;11(12):3321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123321 .

Cao K, Yang L. The Interaction between residents’ participation, tourism perception and their environmental protection awareness: Xinjiang Bogda nature heritage site as an example. J Xinjiang Univ (Philos Soc Sci). 2020;48(6):23–32. https://doi.org/10.13568/j.cnki.issn1000-2820.2020.06.003 .

Roslan ZB, Ramli Z, Razman MR, Asyraf MRM, Ishak MR, Ilyas RA, Nurazzi NM. Reflections on local community identity by evaluating heritage sustainability protection in Jugra, Selangor. Malays Sustain. 2021;13(16):8705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168705 .

Wang J, Wu J, Luo J, Xu G. Ethical matrix research on multi-value management of national parks: based on the investigation of Taining world natural heritage site. Fujian Trib. 2017;08:165–71.

Chen W. Evaluation of ecological popular science tourism resource value based on TCM and CVM methods: taking Guilin karst world natural heritage site as an example. Soc Sci. 2019;1:69–75.

Luo F, Zhong Y. Ecotourist segmentation in Wulingyuan world heritage site: a perspective from environmental attitude and environmental behavior. Econ Geogr. 2011;31(2):333–8. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2011.02.026 .

Huang W, Meng F, Xu Y. An empirical study on the impact of tourists’ environmental attitude on their environmental behaviors: a case study in Wulingyuan scenic spot in Zhangjiajie, a world natural heritage site. J Jishou Univ (Soc Sci). 2016;37(5):101–8. https://doi.org/10.13438/j.cnki.jdxb.2016.05.015 .

Wang Z, Yang Z, Cao K, An Q, Liu Q, Wang C. Community cognition on the protection of world natural heritage and its affecting factors: a case study in the Kalajun world natural heritage site. Arid Zone Res. 2016;33(6):1311–7. https://doi.org/10.13866/j.azr.2016.06.23 .

Fang R, Zhang J, Xiong K, Woo KS, Zhang N. Influencing factors of residents’ perception of responsibilities for heritage conservation in world heritage buffer zone: a case study of Libo Karst. Sustainability. 2021;13(18):10233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810233 .

Streifeneder T, Omizzolo A. The dolomites UNESCO world heritage: visitors’ mobility behaviour and acceptance of regulatory measures. Eco Mont-J Protect Mt Areas Res. 2017;9(special issue):93–7.

Tu H-M. Sustainable heritage management: exploring dimensions of pull and push factors. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198219 .

Akbar I, Yang Z, Han F, Kanat G. The influence of negative political environment on sustainable tourism: a study of Aksu-Jabagly world heritage site. Kazakhstan Sustain. 2020;12(1):143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010143 .

Yang C. Dynamic study on tourism environment carrying capacity of the karst natural world heritage property: a case study of Shibing Karst. Master Dissertation, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.27048/d.cnki.ggzsu.2020.000881

Yttredal ER, Homlong N. Perception of sustainable development in a local world heritage perspective. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):8825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218825 .

Akash JH, Aram IA. A convergent parallel mixed method of study for assessing the role of communication in community participation towards sustainable tourism. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01959-z .

Vaughn S, Michael E. Tourism and sustainability in the evaluation of world heritage sites, 1980–2010. Sustainability. 2016;8(3):261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030261 .

Lin Y, Lin B. Tourism effect of world heritage sites and its impact on heritage protection: evidence from tourist arrivals and tourism revenues in China. Bus Manage J. 2017;39(9):133–48. https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2017.09.009 .

Castillo-Manzano JI, Castro-Nuo M, Lopez-Valpuesta L, Zarzoso Á. Assessing the tourism attractiveness of world heritage sites: the case of Spain. J Cult Herit. 2020;48(6):305–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2020.12.005 .

Huang W, Wang L, Chen Q. Assessment on the promotion effect of China’s world heritage tourism based on PSM. J Arid Land Resour Environ. 2018;32(11):188–94. https://doi.org/10.13448/j.cnki.jalre.2018.354 .

Xu C, Huang L. The structure of tourism image value perception of South China Karst natural heritage site: research based on online community user reviews. J Nat Sci Hunan Norm Univ. 2020;43(4):26–34.

Mitova R, Borisova B, Koulov B. Digital marketing of bulgarian natural heritage for tourism and recreation. Sustainability. 2021;13(23):13071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313071 .

Duan J, Li Y. An Assessment of ecological capital and compensation for Yunnan Shilin world heritage site. Resour Sci. 2010;32(4):752–60.

Chen Y, Xiong K, Xiao S, Xiao H. Spatiotemporal change of landscape pattern and driving factor in Chishui Danxia property of China Danxia world natural heritage. Res Soil Water Conserv. 2018;25(6):314–21. https://doi.org/10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2018.06.045 .

Ren J, Yang P, Wang J, Yu Z, Zhang Y, Zhan Z, Chen F, Zhang H, Liu D. Influences of tourism activities on evolution of physicochemical parameters in karst groundwater and its conceptual model: a case study of Jinfoshan Shuifang spring in the world natural heritage site. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin. 2018;27(1):97–106.

Yang P, Zhan Z, Ming X, Chen F, Ren J, Deng S, Hong A. Hydrochemical variation of the karst groundwater impacted by the contaminant discharge from a tourism hotel. J Lake Sci. 2019;31(2):416–28.

Zhou F, Ding F, Yang C, Ran J, Wu P. Effects of tourism disturbance on the plant diversity of typical karst forest. Hubei Agric Sci. 2012;51(7):1337–40. https://doi.org/10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2012.07.004 .

Yang C. Sensitivity analysis of eco-geological environment in the Huangshan scenic area based on 3S technology. Master Dissertation, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei.20113.

Zhou N, Huang Z, Lin Z. Landscape pattern change of Wulingyuan world natural heritage tourist destination. Geogr Res. 2008;4:734–44.

Xiao S, Xiao H, Wu Y. Assessment of construction project on the aesthetic values of world heritage landscape based on GIS viewshed analysis: a case study of Wulingyuan World Natural Heritage Site. J Guilin Univ Technol. 2020;40(3):516–22.

Run C, Xinyi G, Jie D, Xiao H. Monitoring of disturbance on ecological environment caused by earthquake and post-disaster reconstruction at Heye village area of Jiuzhaigou using the high-resolution remote sensing imageries. Quat Sci. 2020;40(5):1350–8. https://doi.org/10.11928/j.issn.1001-7410.2020.05.22 .

Xu Z, Liu J, Yu K. Discussion on the key techniques for post-disaster forest vegetation’s reconstruction based on RS and GIS. Acta Agric Univ Jiangxiensis. 2009;31(03):437–40.

Tang D, Zou S. Advances in regeneration of plants after earthquake in giant pandas’ habitat. Ecol Sci. 2019;38(06):178–83.

Tang M, Quan H, Liao L, Zhang Z, Xu T. Three-dimensional laser scanning detection of the Bishuiyan karst cave in Hezhou city and its tourism development model. Miner Resour Geol. 2018;32(6):1121–6.

Zhou W, Bottazzi J, Tan M, Fan Y, Fu L, Wang D. Mechanism of Miao Chamber in Ziyun county based on terrestrial laser scanning and structural analysis. Carsologica Sinica. 2021;40(6):965–76.

Lin G, Zheng J. Research on intelligent scenic spot navigation system based on AR technology. J Jiamusi Vocat Inst. 2019;9:55–6.

Bao J. Discussion on the protection model of Shilin world heritage site. World Herit. 2017;4:138–9.

Chen T. Based on B/S of Shilin tourist attractions management system of design and realization. Master Dissertation, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu. 2017

Yang B. Promote the sustainable development of tourism by feeding agriculture with tourism in Shilin karst. Tour Overv. 2015;24:226–7.

Tian S, Yang G. A study on the tourism development mode of natural heritage site under community participation: an analysis of the integrated development mode in Jiuzhaigou and its enlightenment. Bus Manage J. 2012;34(2):107–17. https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2012.02.014 .

Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, SuttonkBelt PM. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;387:253–60.

Fu Y. Study on ecosystem services and ecological compensation of world natural heritage site: with a special reference to Shibing and Libo-Huanjiang components of South China Karst, Master Dissertation, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang. 2021. Doi: https://doi.org/10.27048/d.cnki.ggzsu.2021.000172

Xiong K, Li G, Wang L. Study on the protection and sustainable development of South China Karst Libo world natural heritage site. Chin Landsc Archit. 2012;28(8):66–71.

Li W, Min Q, Sun Y. Discussion on the scientific research of natural and cultural heritage. Geogr Res. 2006;4:561–9.

Wang J, Li K. World heritage and tourism development: conflict, reconciliation, synergy. Tour Trib. 2012;27(6):4–5.

Jia K, Yao Y, Wei X, Gao S, Jiang B, Zhao X. A review on fractional vegetation cover estimation using remote sensing. Adv Earth Sci. 2013;28(7):774–82.

Qi L, Peng Z, Zhang X, Zhou J, Cai C, Wang Z. Species diversity and biomass allocation of vegetation restoration community on degraded lands. Chin J Ecol. 2007;11:1697–702.

Li R, Wang L, Sheng M, Guo J. Plant species diversity and its relationship with soil properties in karst rocky desertification succession. Res Soil Water Conserv. 2016;23(5):111–9. https://doi.org/10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2016.05.012 .

Li X, Feng Y. Practice and enlightenment of tourism ecological compensation in world heritage sites. Geogr Res. 2015;21:278–9. https://doi.org/10.14097/j.cnki.5392/2015.21.159 .

Xiong C, Yao J, Zhao X, Chen H. Research on willingness to pay for tourists’ ecological compensation based on extended theory of planned behavior: take Tianshan Tianchi world natural heritage site as an example. Areal Res Dev. 2020;39(3):111–7.

Fu Y, Xiong K, Zhang Z. Ecosystem services and ecological compensation of world heritage: a literature review. J Nat Conserv. 2021;60:125868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.125968 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Guizhou normal university. We would also like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful and productive comments on the manuscript.

This research was funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Planning Key Project of Guizhou Province (Grant No. 21GZZB43), the Key Project of Science and Technology Program of Guizhou Province (Grant No. 5411 2017 Qiankehe Pingtai Rencai) and the China Overseas Expertise Introduction Program for Discipline Innovation (Grant No. D17016).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Karst Science, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, 550001, China

Zhenzhen Zhang, Kangning Xiong & Denghong Huang

State Engineering Technology Institute for Karst Desertification Control, Guiyang, 550001, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors are contributed to the manuscript. Conceptualization, ZZ and XK; methodology, ZZ; validation, ZZ; formal analysis, ZZ; data curation, ZZ; writing—original draft preparation, ZZ; writing—review and editing, ZZ, XK and HD; visualization, ZZ and HD; project administration, XK; funding acquisition, XK. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kangning Xiong .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhang, Z., Xiong, K. & Huang, D. Natural world heritage conservation and tourism: a review. Herit Sci 11 , 55 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00896-6

Download citation

Received : 23 September 2022

Accepted : 28 February 2023

Published : 17 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00896-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Natural world heritage
• Ecological tourism
• Conservation
• Collaborative research
• Literature review
• Protected area

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

• INTELLIGENT TRAVEL

Why Conservation Tourism Matters

First, they fell in love with each other—then with the fauna of Africa.

National Geographic explorers-in-residence Dereck and Beverly Joubert have spent the past three decades captivating audiences with their rare footage and photographs of big cats.

Now, they’re taking aim at a different kind of challenge: conservation tourism. By occupying land that might otherwise be poaching grounds, the husband-and-wife team’s Great Plains Conservation safari camps in Botswana and Kenya give lions, leopards, elephants, and other wildlife a chance at survival. At least for now.

Here’s a look at what motivates these wildlife heroes, and what they’re planning next:

Q: why conservation  .

A: Our connection to Africa travels beyond tourism, beyond the photography we make. We cannot be at peace if we let species go extinct. Ultimately, conservation is about securing land.

How can tourism help?  

One conversation can lead to a massive change.

A year ago, we sat across the table from a Chinese guest. He asked us to describe the problem with African wildlife in a sentence. Our answer: “We use, abuse, shoot, and eat wildlife.”

“Who are the culprits?” he asked. “Mostly the Chinese,” we said.

After debating this topic, we have formed a lasting friendship and a commitment to make a film together for the Chinese market. He’s also funding a feature film, starring Christian Slater, about rhino horn laundering in China.

What’s next?  

This year we will move 100 rhinos from the highest poaching zone (South Africa) to the lowest (Botswana) while also distributing DNA—diversifying our rhinos’ asset portfolio, so to speak.

• Nat Geo Expeditions

The initiative, called Rhinos Without Borders , is the largest move of rhinos in history. And we will keep going.

Can you imagine an Africa without animals?

Landscapes are simply space unless they are filled with life.

Extinctions are the beginning of the end—missing pieces in a mosaic that erode us, and the land itself.

Katie Knorovsky   (on Twitter @TravKatieK ) is an editor at large at National Geographic Traveler . This piece first appeared in the magazine’s April   2015 issue.  

FREE BONUS ISSUE

Related topics, you may also like.

Dementia-friendly tourism is on the rise—here’s why it’s so important

What you need to know about volcano tourism in Iceland

5 ways to experience Indigenous tourism in the US

As Amsterdam bows out, what will be the new capital of cannabis tourism?

This airline is now weighing passengers — but why?

• History & Culture
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Balancing tourism and conservation: analysing the sustainability of tourism in the city of Naples through citizen perspectives

• Open access
• Published: 21 November 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Massimo Aria   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8517-9411 1 ,
• Luca D’Aniello 2 ,
• Valentina Della Corte 3 &
• Francesca Pagliara 4  

849 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This research aims to assess how residents perceive the impact of tourism on different dimensions, including the economy, environment, culture, society, and politics. Tourism plays a key role in stimulating a city’s economy. Nevertheless, it also presents challenges for residents, influencing their quality of life and mobility. Recently, the city of Naples (South of Italy) has emerged as a favorite destination for tourists in search of art, history, and landscapes. By gathering insights from the community through the administration of a questionnaire, the study provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted effects of tourism development in Naples. A theoretical model was estimated using a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to validate the formulated hypotheses regarding the relationship between six factors used to measure residents’ perception of tourism. Results provide a valuable resource for public administrations, helping them adopt effective strategies to address the impact of tourism on residents and mitigate its negative effects.

Similar content being viewed by others

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

Ben Purvis, Yong Mao & Darren Robinson

Impact of tourism development upon environmental sustainability: a suggested framework for sustainable ecotourism

Qadar Bakhsh Baloch, Syed Naseeb Shah, … Asia Umar Khan

The impact of Iran’s urban heritage on sustainability, climate change and carbon zero

Fatemehalsadat Afsahhosseini

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The tourism industry is a rapidly expanding and substantial sector that makes a significant contribution to the global GDP (Morrison 2023 ; Dileep and Pagliara 2023 ). While tourism can bring benefits such as increased income, employment opportunities, improved infrastructure, and the promotion of local culture, it can also lead to adverse effects such as rising living costs, escalating property prices, congestion, and crime (Deery et al. 2012 ; Látková and Vogt 2012 ). Previous research has deeply explored residents’ perspectives on tourism development, highlighting their recognition of both the positive and negative impacts (Vareiro et al. 2013 ). These perceptions significantly influence residents’ support or opposition to tourism. Factors influencing these perceptions, such as economic gains, economic involvement, community attachment, environmental attitudes, and participation in the planning process, have been thoroughly examined in existing literature (Andereck and Nyaupane 2011 ; Nicholas et al. 2009 ).

According to the Tourism Forecast 2023 report (Demoskopika 2023 ) published by the Demoskopika Institute, a research institute with over 20 years of expertise in economic and social research, market surveys, and opinion polls conducted on behalf of businesses, public and private entities, as well as local and national institutions, Italy is expected to reach a record-breaking 442 million overnight stays. The tourism industry in Campania, a region in southern Italy, is set to surpass pre-pandemic levels, with Pompeii standing out as a notable case. The archaeological site has already surpassed its visitor numbers from 2019 within the first two months of this year. Overall, tourism success is growing in 2023, following the national trend. As tourism remains the primary source of income for the region, signs of recovery are evident. The Demoskopika Institute predicts nearly 6 million arrivals for the current year, representing a 13.1% increase compared to the previous year.

Actually, the city of Naples serves as the main attraction for regional tourism. Naples serves as a major regional tourist attraction, drawing visitors from both Italy and around the world. Its allure lies in the city’s distinctive blend of art and daily life. Despite the pandemic’s challenges, CNN acknowledged Naples as one of the 22 dream destinations for 2022, highlighting the need to understand residents’ perspectives on tourism development. Given tourism’s significant role in Naples’ economy, policymakers and developers must assess its impact on residents.

This research significantly contributes to the theoretical literature by providing a valuable understanding of the implications associated with tourism development. It aims to analyze the impact of tourism on Naples by investigating the perceptions of its residents from economic, environmental, cultural, social, and political viewpoints. To accomplish this, a survey was conducted, involving the administration of a questionnaire to the citizens of Naples. Insights from residents’ opinions hold significant value in shaping policies and services aimed at promoting tourism, leveraging its benefits, and mitigating potential negative consequences. The article begins with a literature review, providing an overview of the analyzed theme and presenting a list of hypotheses formulated for the theoretical model. The statistical methodology and the estimation of the theoretical model are then described, followed by a discussion of the results. Finally, the study concludes with findings, implications, and considerations for future research.

2 Literature review and research hypothesis

Since the 1970 s, several studies have been published, aiming to comprehensively examine residents’ reactions to tourism in their communities. These investigations have been guided by the principles of Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Sharpley 2014 ), which assumes that individuals make decisions about engaging in exchanges based on the evaluation of the rewards and costs involved (Emerson 1976 ).

Scholars have made significant efforts to gain insights into the dynamics of social exchange between the tourism industry and residents by employing a range of variables. Through the lens of SET, researchers have delved into the connection between residents’ perceptions of their ability to control tourism and their level of support for tourism development (Ap 1992 ). Furthermore, extensive studies have been conducted to examine how the interplay of exchange factors not only shapes attitudes toward tourism but also profoundly influences the perceptions of residents regarding the impacts of tourism on their community (Jurowski et al. 1997 ). These investigations have provided valuable and carefully analyzed findings in the field of tourism research.

The effects of tourism, both positive and negative, have been identified as potential determinants of residents’ responses to tourism development (Andereck et al. 2005 ). The relationships between tourism development and its economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts strongly influence the perceptions of residents towards the industry. These impacts play a crucial role in determining the willingness of the community to engage in a reciprocal relationship with the tourism sector (Stylidis et al. 2014 ).

However, the SET framework has been found to yield contradictory findings (Emerson 1976 ). On one hand, some researchers have observed that significant variables related to tourism’s impacts can predict personal benefits and influence how residents react to tourism development (Andereck and Nyaupane 2011 ). On the other hand, several studies have not been able to establish such relationships (Ko and Stewart 2002 ; Diedrich and García-Buades 2009 ), trying to explain this inconsistency as the absence of mediating variables in the SET-based framework. Specifically, the direct link between residents’ cognition, such as their positive and negative attitudes towards tourism’s impacts, and their behavior, such as supporting or opposing tourism development. Over recent years, several factors have been identified as crucial in explaining residents’ support for tourism development (Andereck and Nyaupane 2011 ; Nunkoo et al. 2013 ; Látková and Vogt 2012 ). These factors includes personal benefits, level of trust, and power distribution among stakeholders. By incorporating these elements, a more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between residents and tourism development becomes evident. Considering the multifaceted impacts of tourism allows for a holistic understanding of its dynamics with the local community.

Existing research shows that residents typically express support for the development of tourism in their local community when they perceive the potential positive effects (Látková and Vogt 2012 ; Nicholas et al. 2009 ; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2012a ; Rasoolimanesh and Jaafar 2017 ). In this regard, tourism can bring about beneficial outcomes for communities, including the enhancement of employment opportunities, improvement of living standards, and development of infrastructure. Additionally, tourism contributes to the availability of recreational and entertainment facilities while promoting and preserving local culture. These positive impacts are further supported by the economic advantages derived from an increase in the number of visitors (Andereck et al. 2005 ; Deery et al. 2012 ; Ko and Stewart 2002 ). Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge the potential adverse effects associated with inbound tourism, which encompass escalating living expenses and property prices, overcrowding, traffic congestion, and an increase in crime rates (Deery et al. 2012 ; Ko and Stewart 2002 ; Látková and Vogt 2012 ). To address this dual nature of tourism’s impact, recent studies have examined the influence of factors on residents’ perceptions of tourism as determinants key, such as community attachment (Gursoy et al. 2002 ; Látková and Vogt 2012 ), community involvement (Nicholas et al. 2009 ; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017 ), environmental attitudes (Gursoy et al. 2002 ; Nicholas et al. 2009 ), cultural attitudes (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017 ), and economic costs and benefits (Ko and Stewart 2002 ; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2015 ).

Citizen engagement in public policy plays a crucial role in shaping positive perceptions of tourism. The level of community attachment among residents significantly influences their attitudes toward tourism and their support for its development. Their active participation aligns with the core principle of sustainable tourism that emphasizes the involvement of local people and communities in tourism activities (Nagarjuna 2015 ). According to (Moghavvemi et al. 2017 ), residents with a strong sense of community attachment are more likely to be engaged and exposed to the impacts of tourism, making it an effective predictor of their attitudes towards tourism development. Additionally, community attachment provides a foundation for developing tourism offerings while also manifesting as a desire to preserve the existing state and protect heritage assets from damage or degradation (Cisneros-Martínez et al. 2018 ; MacKenzie and Gannon 2019 ).

The inclusion of citizens in the decision-making process not only contributes to the reverence for their traditional lifestyle and values but also to enhances the local economy (Timothy 1999 ; Lindberg and Johnson 1997 ; Sheldon and Abenoja 2001 ). By engaging in tourism activities, local communities can maximize the economic benefits (Inskeep 1991 ). In line with these findings, we propose the following hypotheses by considering the potential positive and negative impacts of citizen engagement in public policy on various aspects of tourism, including economic, cultural, and environmental factors:

Hypotheses 1

Citizen engagement in public policy positively influences the economic benefit impact.

Hypotheses 2

Citizen engagement in public policy negatively influences the economic cost impact.

Hypotheses 3

Citizen engagement in public policy positively influences the cultural impact.

Hypotheses 4

Citizen engagement in public policy negatively influences the environmental impact.

The perceptions of residents regarding tourism’s cultural impact are strongly influenced by their environmental and cultural attitudes (Woosnam et al. 2018 ). Within this context, residents may develop a sense of ownership towards their local area and cultural heritage. Therefore, they express concerns about the environmental consequences resulting from the influx of tourists and the potential loss of their local culture (Cisneros-Martínez et al. 2018 ).

The level of attachment that residents feel towards their local area and cultural heritage can substantially impact their perception of the economic benefits derived from tourism. As the economic benefits increase, residents tend to become more aware of the negative factors associated with tourism that might affect the environment and, consequently, their local living area. Several studies highlight that residents who perceive greater personal benefits from tourism tend to develop more positive attitudes towards it and are more inclined to support its growth and development (Jurowski et al. 1997 ; Lankford 1994 ; Liu et al. 1987 ; McGehee and Andereck 2004 ; Perdue et al. 1990 ; Wang and Pfister 2008 ). Accordingly, the following hypotheses is developed:

Hypotheses 5

The cultural impact positively influences the economic benefit impact.

Hypotheses 6

The economic benefit impact negatively influences the environmental impact.

Tourism often brings about an enhancement in the quantity and quality of recreational and entertainment facilities accessible to residents. From a socio-cultural standpoint, it can also contribute to the preservation of traditional arts and culture (Jaafar et al. 2017 ; Rasoolimanesh et al. 2017 ). Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the socio-cultural impact of tourism development is not always exclusively positive. Negative consequences, such as noise and crime, have been frequently identified as issues associated with tourism (Beisle and Hoy 1980 ; Garland et al. 1985 ; Hammad et al. 2017 ; Haralambopoulos and Pizam 1996 ; Kang and Lee 2018 ). Furthermore, the environment is significantly affected by tourism development. While tourism revenue can enhance existing attractions and contribute to new investments in destinations (Perdue et al. 1987 ; Liu et al. 1987 ), there are adverse environmental consequences primarily observed during tourist influxes such as, overcrowding, traffic congestion, and pollution (Andereck et al. 2005 ; Mason 2020 ; Brida et al. 2011 ; Brunt and Courtney 1999 ; Liu et al. 1987 ). Considering the discussed aspects of tourism’s impacts, it becomes evident that a relationship between the social costs associated with tourism and its environmental impact exists. Taking into account the preceding discussions, we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypotheses 7

The social cost impact positively influences the environmental impact.

The impact of tourism on the economy, as perceived by residents, has been extensively studied, particularly in terms of personal economic benefits (Andereck et al. 2005 ; Lankford and Howard 1994 ; Lepp 2008 ; Milman and Pizam 1988 ; Pizam 1978 ). Tourism’s economic effects can be positive, generating employment opportunities, attracting investments, and creating favorable conditions for small businesses (Abdollahzadeh and Sharifzadeh 2014 ; Garland et al. 1985 ; Hammad et al. 2017 ; Kang and Lee 2018 ; Liu et al. 1987 ). However, residents also recognize the economic costs associated with tourism (Beisle and Hoy 1980 ; Garland et al. 1985 ; Ryan and Montgomery 1994 ). Economic difficulties impact residents’ perceptions and their willingness to support tourism development (Hateftabar and Chapuis 2020 ). Some of these costs include higher prices for goods and services due the imported inflation and rising demand (Bull 1991 ; Látková and Vogt 2012 ), as well as potentially rising taxes that government needs to finance costly tourism infrastructure (Stynes 1997 ). These costs are often perceived by residents due to inefficient management of tourist flow, positively impacting the social cost. In light of the previous considerations, the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypotheses 8

The economic cost impact positively influences the social cost impact.

Drawing from the aforementioned discussions, a theoretical path diagram has been proposed to establish a connection between six dimensions (i.e., citizen engagement in public policy, economic benefit impact, economic cost impact, cultural impact, social cost impact, and environmental impact) to study their relations and obtain a comprehensive understanding of resident perceptions of tourism (Fig.  1 ).

Theoretical path diagram

3 Research methodology

A structured questionnaire was administered to Naples’ citizens between December 2022 and January 2023 through mixed modes (CAWI and CAPI). The questionnaire consisted of two filtering questions to determine if the respondents were residents of the city or had lived (studied or worked) in Naples. These questions were designed to streamline the data collection process and ensure participants had genuine knowledge and engagement with the city beyond their residential status.

The questionnaire was divided into six sections to measure different aspects of residents’ perceptions of tourism in the city. The first two sections focused on the economic benefit and cost of tourism respectively. The second section assessed the negative environmental effects of tourism, including cultural heritage preservation, waste management, pollution, and loss of green spaces. The third section examined the positive cultural effects of tourism, such as fostering cultural pride and preserving local traditions and identity. The fourth section investigated the social cost of tourism, including vandalism and crime rates. The last section focused on political considerations and priorities related to tourism development, including the involvement of regional authorities, citizen participation, and improvement areas. Participants rated their agreement with statements using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The questionnaire included also a section on socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and education level. In addition, participants were also asked about their employment status, if they worked in the tourism industry, and the Naples municipality of residence in which they reside. Students from the Faculties of Engineering and Economics of the University of Naples Federico II assisted in distributing the questionnaires.

Out of 3017 distributed questionnaires, 2563 valid responses were received from residents, resulting in an 85% response rate. In Table 1 , the scale items used to measure each construct in the theoretical model are presented.

4 Modelling process

The appropriate statistical approach to estimate our theoretical model is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

SEM includes two primary families of techniques: covariance-based techniques, exemplified by Joreskog’s Linear Structural Relations (LISREL), and variance-based techniques, where Partial Least Squares Path Modeling stands out as the preeminent representative.

SEM comprises two essential components: the measurement model (outer model) and the structural model (inner model). The measurement model specifies the relationships between latent variables and their corresponding indicators or items. Conversely, the structural model delineates the relationships between the theoretical constructs or latent variables (Nunkoo et al. 2013 ; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2012b ). To avoid hypotheses on data distribution and sample size, we employed the non-parametric approach PLS-SEM (Wold 1975 ) to assess our theoretical model. PLS-SEM works with small sample sizes, does not require distributional assumptions, and exhibits a high level of statistical power (Hair Jr et al. 2014 ) estimating both reflective and formative items (Götz et al. 2009 ). In addition, PLS-SEM has been applied across various research domains, including project management, knowledge management, information systems, transportation, customer satisfaction, and tourism (Ciavolino et al. 2022 ; Aria et al. 2018 ; Memon et al. 2019 ; Ciavolino et al. 2015 ; Aria and Sacco 2023 ; Cepeda-Carrion et al. 2018 ; Cheah et al. 2019 ; Hong et al. 2023 ; Pagliara et al. 2023 , 2021 ; Hamid et al. 2023 ).

In this study, we employed a two-step approach: (i) an exploratory analysis to investigate the latent structures underlying the dimensions of tourism’s impact on the residents of Naples; (ii) confirmatory composite analysis (CCA) within the PLS-SEM framework to validate the scales used for measuring each dimension (Ciavolino et al. 2022 ). CCA is a relatively new and emerging method for confirming the measurement model in the context of PLS-SEM (Hair et al. 2019 ; Henseler et al. 2016 ; Schuberth et al. 2018 ). We employed a reflective model for all constructs when estimating PLS-SEM, in alignment with Nunkoo’s research (Nunkoo 2015 ; Nunkoo et al. 2012 ). The analyses were performed using the SEMinR R package version 2.3.2 (Hair Jr et al. 2021 ) and SmartPLS software version 4.0.9 (Ringle et al. 2015 ).

5.1 Sample description

The sample analyzed in this study included 2563 residents of Naples, with 47.6% women and 50.41% men. Most of the respondents fell between 18-44 years old (57.63%), while only 0.55% were over 85 years old. The 25.32% of participants held a degree, while 22.32% completed middle school. The largest percentage of respondents (33.63%) were employed, followed by students (15.33%), and retirees (7.84%). Only 14.05% of the participants worked in the tourism industry, while the remaining 85.95% did not. To assess the general perception of tourism in Naples, participants were asked whether they perceived it as a cost or a benefit. The findings revealed that a substantial majority (95.67%) of respondents viewed tourism in Naples as a benefit.

To investigate potential differences in perceptions of tourism development across different areas of Naples, respondents were asked to indicate which of the 10 municipalities they resided. By examining the questionnaire response rate in each district, it was found that approximately 10% of the residents in each area responded, indicating a balanced distribution of responses across the city.

5.2 Examining the structural model

Six Principal Component Analyses (PCAs) were conducted on the items of each reflective construct to assess their unidimensionality (Hair et al. 2010 ). The eigenvalues of the first two components are presented in Table 2 , providing confirmation that the unidimensionality of each construct has been successfully validated.

To evaluate the theoretical model, two primary steps were taken. The first step involved performing CCA on the measurement model.

This initial phase focused on assessing the indicator loadings and their significance, resulting in standardized loadings ranging from 0.4 to 0.708 (Hulland 1999 ). According to (Hair et al. 2017 ), it is recommended to exclude reflective indicators that have a loading below 0.4. In line with the principles of PLS, it is logical to eliminate an indicator only if it exhibits limited reliability and its removal would significantly improve the composite reliability (Pagliara et al. 2021 ). Furthermore, the significance of each loading was assessed using bootstrapping procedures (Hair et al. 2012 ). The associated t-statistic should exceed ±1.96 for significance in a two-tailed test at the 5% level. Based on the above, the item CEPP1 was subsequently removed due the loading value below the threshold of 0.4 and the model was restimated. Results are presented in Table 3 .

Then, the assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement model was evaluated. Reliability was measured by the traditional criterion of Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) , an internal consistency index assuming that all indicators are equally reliable (i.e., equal outer loadings on the construct). An internal consistency reliability value greater than 0.7 in the early stages of research and values greater than 0.8 or 0.9 in more advanced stages of research are considered satisfactory (Henseler et al. 2016 ), whereas a value below 0.6 indicates poor reliability. Nevertheless, Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) is sensitive to the number of items in the scale and generally underestimates the internal consistency reliability. Hence, it is more appropriate to apply two different measures of composite reliability, that is, Jöreskog’s \(\rho _C\) (Werts et al. 1974 ) and the Dijkstra–Henseler’s \(\rho _A\) ones (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015 ). For the model validity, two complementary aspects are considered: the convergent validity and the discriminat validity. The first one evaluates how much a set of indicators represents the same underlying construct. The second one evaluates how much a construct is truly distinct from the other constructs of the model. To assess convergent validity, Fornell and Larcker (Fornell and Larcker 1981b ) suggest using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). An AVE value of 0.50 or higher indicates sufficient convergent validity, meaning that the construct can explain more than half of the variance of its indicators on average. Conversely, an AVE of less than 0.50 indicates that, on average, more error remains in the items than the variance explained by the construct.

As reported in Table 4 , the composite reliability and Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) values validate a strong internal consistency across all constructs. Acceptance of all model reliability values and confirmation of convergent validity for all constructs are evident as indicated by the AVE values surpassing 0.5 of responses across the city.

Discriminant validity was assessed using three measures: (i) the Fornell and Larcker criterion, (ii) the Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, and (iii) cross-loading. The Fornell-Larcker criterion, as explained by Fornell and Larcker (Fornell and Larcker 1981a ), evaluates discriminant validity by comparing the amount of variance captured by a construct (AVE) with the shared variance among other constructs. The square root of the AVE for each construct should exceed the correlation involving the constructs. The HTMT, proposed by (Henseler et al. 2016 ), examines validity through the ratio of heterotrait correlation (HT) to monotrait correlations (MT) for each construct. Heterotrait correlation represents the average correlations of indicators across constructs that measure different phenomena, while monotrait correlations are the correlations of indicators within the same construct. A suggested threshold for this measure is 0.90. The third criterion assumes that each indicator’s loading should surpass all of its cross-loadings (Chin et al. 1998 ). This criterion emphasizes that each indicator should have a stronger association with its corresponding construct than with other constructs. Findings provided in Table 5 (Fornell and Larcker criterion), Table 6 (HTMT ratio of correlations), and Table 7 (Cross-loadings) indicate that discriminant validity is established according to all three criteria.

After assessing the measurement model for reliability and validity, the second step involved testing the structural model. The goodness of fit of the PLS-SEM structural model reflects the disparity between observed values and the expected values based on the model. A fundamental criterion for evaluating the structural or inner model is the coefficient of determination (R \(^2\) ) of the dependent or endogenous latent variables. According to Chin (Chin et al. 1998 ), R \(^2\) values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 in PLS-SEM path models can be considered substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively. If the inner path model explains an endogenous latent variable using only a few independent or exogenous latent variables (e.g., one or two), a "moderate" R \(^2\) value may be deemed acceptable. The R \(^2\) values for all endogenous latent variables are presented in Table 8 .

Additionally, Table 9 provides the estimation of the path coefficients, while Fig.  2 visually represents the tested model with the b coefficients and R \(^2\) values. The individual path coefficients can be interpreted as linear bivariate correlation coefficients, similar to the standardized beta coefficients in ordinary least square regressions. A p -value of \(\le 0.05\) indicates that the coefficient significantly deviates from zero. Structural paths that align with the anticipated algebraic signs offer partial empirical validation of the theoretically assumed relationships between latent variables. On the other hand, paths with algebraic signs contrary to expectations do not support the a priori formulated hypotheses. To determine the statistical significance of the results, confidence intervals and p -values for path coefficients were obtained using the bootstrap procedure (Tenenhaus et al. 2005 ).

Structural model estimation displaying b coefficients and R \(^2\) values. Dashed path indicates a non-significant relationship between two constructs. Supported hypotheses are in bold. Source: Authors’ elaboration

6 Discussion of results

In this study, a model was developed to assess residents’ perceptions regarding tourism development in the city of Naples. This type of evaluation requires latent variable models, specifically PLS-SEM. Firstly, the results support the hypothesis that citizen engagement in public policy has a negative influence both on the economic cost impact (H2) and environmental impact (H4). In addition, citizen engagement in public policy has a positive influence on the cultural impact (H3). Secondly, the study finds that economic cost impact positively influences the social cost impact (H8). In addition, findings show that the social cost impact positively influences the environmental impact (H7).

On the other hand, several hypotheses were rejected. The study did not find a significant positive relationship between citizen engagement in public policy and economic benefit impact (H1). Similarly, the hypothesis regarding the positive influence of cultural impact on economic benefit impact (H5) was not supported. Finally, no significant positive relationship between economic benefit impact and environmental impact (H6) was verified.

7 Conclusions

Community residents, as important stakeholders, are significantly affected by tourism activities and play a crucial role in tourist destinations. Their perceptions are essential for crafting effective tourism strategies. Without the support and engagement of the local community, achieving sustainable tourism remains elusive (Lee and Jan 2019 ; Nunkoo et al. 2013 ). Thus, understanding residents’ perspectives on tourism is fundamental to establishing a solid foundation for responsible tourism planning (Sharpley 2014 ).

Our findings provide valuable insights into citizens’ participation in public policy. While Hypothesis 1 was rejected, indicating no significant association between residents participation and increased economic benefits, the other three hypotheses were all confirmed. Notably, Hypothesis 3, with a substantial path coefficient value ( b =.409), suggests that citizens’ engagement in public policy positively influences cultural attitudes. When residents are actively involved in decision-making processes to manage tourism impacts, there is a significant increase in their cultural appreciation. This, in turn, strengthens their cultural pride and contributes to the preservation of local festivals, traditions, and attractions. The study highlights the importance of citizen involvement in implementing tourism policies and their role in safeguarding the cultural heritage of the community. Results of Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 support the positive impact of resident involvement in policymaking. This active participation can lead to a reduction in the negative economic cost ( b =−.276) and the negative effects on the environment ( b =−.100) associated with tourism. Through active participation in public policy, residents actively contribute to identifying and implementing measures that effectively mitigate the economic costs associated with tourism. Furthermore, their commitment and focus on these issues catalyze the creation of services and initiatives aimed at reducing the adverse environmental impacts within the local community.

Our study also highlights the significant association between social costs and environmental impact. A robust association between social costs and environmental impact was observed, as evidenced by the high path coefficient value ( b =.798), strongly confirming Hypothesis 7. Acts of vandalism, rising crime rates, and overcrowding in local areas experienced by residents contribute to amplifying the negative effects of tourism on the environment. Essentially, as incurred costs increase, the likelihood of initiating policies to protect the local environment and preserve community well-being effectively decreases. Furthermore, Hypothesis 8 was confirmed, suggesting that an increase in economic costs inevitably leads to an increase in social costs ( b =.240). These significant insights shed light on the intricate relationship between social costs, environmental impact, economic costs, and tourism development.

Moreover, the importance of implementing sustainable policies and practices to address the social and environmental costs associated with tourism is evident. The implications of this study hold significant value for public administrations as they gain valuable insights into adopting effective strategies. These strategies are designed to address the impact of tourism on residents and mitigate any adverse effects.

Accordingly, the estimation of the indirect effects presented in Table 10 highlights the crucial roles played by economic cost impact and social cost impact as mediators in the context of tourism development, emphasizing two key aspects:

The importance of involving citizens’ in public policy for decision-making.

A significant indirect relationship links citizen engagement in public policy with social cost impact through economic cost impact. This finding highlights a meaningful association between these variables within the model. Specifically, the negative coefficient ( b = −.066) suggests that an increase in citizen engagement in public policy is associated with a decrease in economic cost impact, which, in turn, leads to a decrease in social cost impact. When citizens are actively engaged in public policy related to tourism, there is a potential to reduce the economic costs associated with tourism meaning that their engagement have a say in cost-effective policies or regulations, resulting in more efficient resource allocation. The negative relationship between economic cost and social cost suggests that as the economic cost impact decreases due the involvement of residents in decision-making processes, the social cost impact also decreases. In practical terms, if tourism-related economic costs are managed more effectively, there may be fewer negative social consequences for the community. For instance, fewer economic costs might translate to reduced congestion, pollution, or strain on public services, all of which contribute to lower social costs. Then, a significant indirect relationship between citizen engagement in public policy and environmental impact through a sequential path involving economic cost impact and social cost impact was emerged.The negative coefficient ( b = −.052) implies that as citizen engagement in public policy increases, it leads to a decrease in cconomic cost, which, in turn, leads to a decrease in social cost, and ultimately results in a decrease impact on the environment. Actively involving citizens can not only lead to economic savings but also have a positive impact on both social and environmental aspects. It emphasizes the potential for tourism policies to be designed and implemented in ways that contribute to sustainability across multiple dimensions These findings imply that actively involving citizens in public policy related to tourism can have a positive influence not only on economic aspects but also on social well-being. Engaging citizens may lead to more efficient and sustainable tourism practices, ultimately benefiting both the local economy and the quality of life for residents.

The significance of monitoring and addressing negative environmental, economic, and social impacts.

Concerning the relationship between economic cost impact and environmental impact through social cost impact, the positive coefficient ( b =.188) suggests that an increase in economic cost leads to an increase in social cost, which, in turn, leads to an increase in environmental impact. The economic costs are associated with tourism increase, leading to higher social costs. They include expenses related to infrastructure development, maintenance, and services required to support tourism. As these costs rise, they can contribute to social burdens such as congestion, increased pollution, or a strain on public resources. The positive relationship between social cost impact and environmental impact suggests that increased social costs, potentially arising from higher economic costs, are linked to more significant environmental consequences. This implies that as social costs related to tourism rise, there is a corresponding increase in environmental impacts, including pollution or habitat disruption. Policymakers and stakeholders need to consider the potential ripple effects of economic policies on both social well-being and the environment. Balancing economic growth with social and environmental sustainability is a complex challenge in the tourism sector.

In summary, residents’ awareness of tourism’s diverse impacts significantly affects their daily lives. They desire active participation in public initiatives to mitigate these effects, which fosters greater attention, care, and commitment. This, in turn, contributes to the preservation of their territory and culture. Public administrations can proactively work to preserve the well-being and cultural heritage of local communities while ensuring a sustainable and positive tourism experience for all stakeholders involved.

8 Limitations and further perspectives

This study has several limitations that allow further attention in future work. Potential other key variables that may influence residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact on supporting tourism will be integrated into the proposed model. Future studies could delve into in-depth interviews or focus groups to identify additional factors in this model and examine their role in this relationship. Moreover, it would be valuable to include perspectives from different interviews such as immigrants or individuals strongly linked to the tourism sector. By incorporating these diverse viewpoints, a more comprehensive understanding of the topic can be achieved, allowing the results to extend beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, to gain deeper insights into the perceptions of residents regarding the impact of tourism, it may be worthwhile to assess potential heterogeneity in the data based on socio-demographic characteristics. Evaluating how these factors influence residents’ attitudes can help to understand how different segments of the population are affected by tourism. For instance, delving into variables such as gender, age, or educational background can shed light their potential influence on residents’ perceptions of tourism’s impact and how these factors might shape their overall viewpoint regarding tourism. An investigation into these dimensions of heterogeneity has the potential to uncover notable disparities in resident attitudes, providing valuable insights that can inform the development of precisely targeted policy interventions.

Abdollahzadeh, G., Sharifzadeh, A.: Rural residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: a study from Iran. Int. J. Tour. Res. 16 (2), 126–136 (2014)

Article   Google Scholar  

Andereck, K.L., Nyaupane, G.P.: Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. J. Travel Res. 50 (3), 248–260 (2011)

Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C., Vogt, C.A.: Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 32 (4), 1056–1076 (2005)

Ap, J.: Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 19 (4), 665–690 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90060-3

Aria, M., Capaldo, G., Iorio, C., Orefice, C.I., Riccardi, M., Siciliano, R.: Pls path modeling for causal detection of project management skills: a research field in national research council in Italy. Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 11 (2), 516–545 (2018)

Google Scholar  

Aria, M., Sacco, D.: Determinants of using digital banking services: an analysis of user satisfaction through TAM and UTAUT models with PLS-SEM. Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 16 (1), 97–121 (2023)

Beisle, F., Hoy, D.: The perceived impact of tourism by residents: a case study in Santa Maria, Columbia. Ann. Tour. Res. 19 , 665–690 (1980)

Brida, J.G., Osti, L., Faccioli, M.: Residents’ perception and attitudes towards tourism impacts: a case study of the small rural community of Folgaria (Trentino-Italy). Benchmark. Int. J. 18 (3), 359–385 (2011)

Brunt, P., Courtney, P.: Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 26 (3), 493–515 (1999)

Bull, A.: The economics of travel and tourism: Melbourne: Pitman. Bull The Economics of Travel and Tourism 1991 (1991)

Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Cillo, V.: Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management. J. Knowl. Manag. 23 (1), 67–89 (2018)

Cheah, J.H., Ting, H., Ramayah, T., Memon, M.A., Cham, T.H., Ciavolino, E.: A comparison of five reflective-formative estimation approaches: reconsideration and recommendations for tourism research. Qual. Quant. 53 , 1421–1458 (2019)

Chin, W.W., et al.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods Bus. Res. 295 (2), 295–336 (1998)

Ciavolino, E., Aria, M., Cheah, J.H., Roldán, J.L.: A tale of pls structural equation modelling: episode I-a bibliometrix citation analysis. Soc. Indic. Res. 164 (3), 1323–1348 (2022)

Ciavolino, E., Carpita, M., Al-Nasser, A.: Modelling the quality of work in the Italian social co-operatives combining NPCA-RSM and SEM-GME approaches. J. Appl. Stat. 42 (1), 161–179 (2015)

Ciavolino, E., Ferrante, L., Sternativo, G.A., Cheah, J.H., Rollo, S., Marinaci, T., Venuleo, C.: A confirmatory composite analysis for the Italian validation of the interactions anxiousness scale: a higher-order version. Behaviormetrika 1–24 (2022)

Cisneros-Martínez, J.D., McCabe, S., Fernández-Morales, A.: The contribution of social tourism to sustainable tourism: a case study of seasonally adjusted programmes in Spain. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (1), 85–107 (2018)

Deery, M., Jago, L., Fredline, L.: Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: a new research agenda. Tour. Manage. 33 (1), 64–73 (2012)

Demoskopika.: Flussi turistici. arrivi e presenze in crescita nel 2023. Technical report, Demoskopika (2023)

Diedrich, A., García-Buades, E.: Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tour. Manag. 30 (4), 512–521 (2009)

Dijkstra, T.K., Henseler, J.: Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 39 (2), 297–316 (2015)

Dileep, M.R., Pagliara, F.: Transportation systems and tourism. Transp. Syst. Tour. 1–25. Springer (2023)

Emerson, R.M.: Social exchange theory. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 2 (1), 335–362 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50 (1981)

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics (1981b)

Garland, B., West, S., et al.: The social impact of tourism in New Zealand. Massey J. Asian Pac. Bus. 1 (1), 34–39 (1985)

Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., Krafft, M.: Evaluation of Structural Equation Models Using the Partial Least Squares (pls) Approach, Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, pp. 691–711. Springer (2009)

Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., Uysal, M.: Resident attitudes: a structural modeling approach. Ann. Tour. Res. 29 (1), 79–105 (2002)

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R.: Multivariate data analysis . Cengage learning. Hampshire, United Kingdom (2019)

Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., Gudergan, S.: Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (2017)

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J., Black, W.C.: Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. vol. 7 (2010)

Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 , 414–433 (2012)

Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)

Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N.P., Ray, S.: The seminr package. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook, pp. 49–74 (2021)

Hamid, M., Ng, S.I., Jo Ann, H.J.A., Abd Rahman, A.A.R.: How memorable is halal tourism in Japan and the United Kingdom? Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 16 (1), 139–164 (2023)

Hammad, N., Ahmad, S.Z., Papastathopoulos, A.: Residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism in Abu Dhabi, United Arab emirates. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 11 (4), 551–572 (2017)

Haralambopoulos, N., Pizam, A.: Tourism’s perceived social impacts: the case of Samos (1996)

Hateftabar, F., Chapuis, J.M.: How resident perception of economic crisis influences their perception of tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 43 , 157–168 (2020)

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A.: Using pls path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (1), 2–20 (2016)

Hong, K.T., Ng, S.I., Ho, J.A., Wong, S.C., Rathakrishnan, T.: Stakeholder’s perception on Malaysia’s edu-tourism sustainability performance. Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 16 (1), 50–79 (2023)

Hulland, J.: Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (2), 195–204 (1999)

Inskeep, E.: Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Wiley, Hoboken (1991)

Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Ismail, S.: Perceived sociocultural impacts of tourism and community participation: a case study of Langkawi Island. Tour. Hosp. Res. 17 (2), 123–134 (2017)

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., Williams, D.R.: A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. J. Travel Res. 36 (2), 3–11 (1997)

Kang, S.K., Lee, J.: Support of marijuana tourism in Colorado: a residents’ perspective using social exchange theory. J. Destin. Market. Manag. 9 , 310–319 (2018)

Ko, D.W., Stewart, W.P.: A structural equation model of residents’ attitudes for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 23 (5), 521–530 (2002)

Lankford, S.V.: Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. J. Travel Res. 32 (3), 35–43 (1994)

Lankford, S.V., Howard, D.R.: Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Ann. Tour. Res. 21 (1), 121–139 (1994)

Látková, P., Vogt, C.A.: Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. J. Travel Res. 51 (1), 50–67 (2012)

Lee, T.H., Jan, F.H.: Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tour. Manag. 70 , 368–380 (2019)

Lepp, A.: Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community with no prior tourism experience: the case of Bigodi, Uganda. J. Sustain. Tour. 16 (1), 5–22 (2008)

Lindberg, K., Johnson, R.L.: Modeling resident attitudes toward tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 24 (2), 402–424 (1997)

Liu, J.C., Sheldon, P.J., Var, T.: Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 14 (1), 17–37 (1987)

MacKenzie, N., Gannon, M.J.: Exploring the antecedents of sustainable tourism development. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 31 (6), 2411–2427 (2019)

Mason, P.: Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Routledge, London (2020)

Book   Google Scholar  

McGehee, N.G., Andereck, K.L.: Factors predicting rural residents’ support of tourism. J. Travel Res. 43 (2), 131–140 (2004)

Memon, M.A., Salleh, R., Mirza, M.Z., Cheah, J.H., Ting, H., Ahmad, M.S.: Performance appraisal satisfaction and turnover intention: the mediating role of work engagement. Manag. Decis. 58 (6), 1053–1066 (2019)

Milman, A., Pizam, A.: Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Ann. Tour. Res. 15 (2), 191–204 (1988)

Moghavvemi, S., Woosnam, K.M., Paramanathan, T., Musa, G., Hamzah, A.: The effect of residents’ personality, emotional solidarity, and community commitment on support for tourism development. Tour. Manag. 63 , 242–254 (2017)

Morrison, A.M.: Marketing and Managing Tourism Destinations. Taylor & Francis, UK (2023)

Nagarjuna, G.: Local community involvement in tourism: a content analysis of websites of wildlife resorts. Atna J. Tour. Stud. 10 (1), 13–21 (2015)

Nicholas, L.N., Thapa, B., Ko, Y.J.: Residents’perspectives of a world heritage site: the pitons management area, st. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 36 (3), 390–412 (2009)

Nunkoo, R.: Tourism development and trust in local government. Tour. Manag. 46 , 623–634 (2015)

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H.: Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (2), 997–1023 (2012)

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H.: Structural equation modelling and regression analysis in tourism research. Curr. Issue Tour. 15 (8), 777–802 (2012)

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., Gursoy, D.: Public trust in tourism institutions. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (3), 1538–1564 (2012)

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., Gursoy, D.: Use of structural equation modeling in tourism research: past, present, and future. J. Travel Res. 52 (6), 759–771 (2013)

Pagliara, F., Aria, M., Castelluccio, A., Tartaglia, M., D’Aniello, L.: Planning the future of rail in the post-COVID era. Transp. Plann. Technol., 1–26 (2023)

Pagliara, F., Aria, M., Russo, L., Della Corte, V.: A theoretical model linking the development of the transportation system with citizens’ trust in government actors. Pap. Reg. Sci. 100 (1), 273–285 (2021)

Pagliara, F., Russo, L., Aria, M.: Measuring retailers’ perceptions of new metro stations inauguration. Land Use Policy 104 , 105349 (2021)

Perdue, R.R., Long, P.T., Allen, L.: Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Ann. Tour. Res. 14 (3), 420–429 (1987)

Perdue, R.R., Long, P.T., Allen, L.: Resident support for tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 17 (4), 586–599 (1990)

Pizam, A.: Tourism’s impacts: the social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. J. Travel Res. 16 (4), 8–12 (1978)

Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M.: Sustainable tourism development and residents’ perceptions in world heritage site destinations. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 22 (1), 34–48 (2017)

Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., Ahmad, A.G.: The effects of community factors on residents’ perceptions toward world heritage site inscription and sustainable tourism development. J. Sustain. Tour. 25 (2), 198–216 (2017)

Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., Ramayah, T.: A revised framework of social exchange theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 16 , 335–345 (2015)

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: Smartpls 3. boenningstedt. SmartPLS GmbH: 2015 (2015)

Ryan, C., Montgomery, D.: The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tour. Manag. 15 (5), 358–369 (1994)

Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.: Confirmatory composite analysis. Front Psychol 9 , 2541 (2018)

Sharpley, R.: Host perceptions of tourism: a review of the research. Tour. Manag. 42 , 37–49 (2014)

Sheldon, P.J., Abenoja, T.: Resident attitudes in a mature destination: the case of Waikiki. Tour. Manag. 22 (5), 435–443 (2001)

Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., Szivas, E.M.: Residents’ support for tourism development: the role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tour. Manag. 45 , 260–274 (2014)

Stynes, D.J.: Economic impacts of tourism: a handbook for tourism professionals. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Tourism Research Laboratory, pp. 1–32 (1997)

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M., Lauro, C.: PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 48 (1), 159–205 (2005)

Timothy, D.J.: Participatory planninga view of tourism in Indonesia. Ann. Tour. Res. 26 (2), 371–391 (1999)

Vareiro, L.M.D.C., Remoaldo, P.C., Cadima Ribeiro, J.A.: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Curr. Issue Tour. 16 (6), 535–551 (2013)

Wang, Y., Pfister, R.E.: Residents’ attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in a rural community. J. Travel Res. 47 (1), 84–93 (2008)

Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L., Jöreskog, K.G.: Intraclass reliability estimates: testing structural assumptions. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 34 (1), 25–33 (1974)

Wold, H.: Path Models with Latent Variables: The Nipals Approach, Quantitative Sociology, pp. 307–357. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1975)

Woosnam, K.M., Draper, J., Jiang, J.K., Aleshinloye, K.D., Erul, E.: Applying self-perception theory to explain residents’ attitudes about tourism development through travel histories. Tour. Manage 64 , 357–368 (2018)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. Filomena Stravolo and Dr. Rita Luise for their contributions to the development of this work.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cintia 21, 80126, Naples, Italy

Massimo Aria

Department of Social Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Vico Monte della Pietà 1, 80138, Naples, Italy

Luca D’Aniello

Department of Economics, Management and Institutions, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cintia 21, 80126, Naples, Italy

Valentina Della Corte

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125, Naples, Italy

Francesca Pagliara

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by MA, LD, FP, and VDC; data collection and analysis were performed by MA, LD. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MA and LDand all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Aria .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aria, M., D’Aniello, L., Della Corte, V. et al. Balancing tourism and conservation: analysing the sustainability of tourism in the city of Naples through citizen perspectives. Qual Quant (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01774-w

Download citation

Accepted : 15 October 2023

Published : 21 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01774-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Tourism impact
• Citizens’ perceptions
• Tourism development
• Tourism sustainability
• Structural equation models

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Creating conservation communities and empowering biocultural leaders committed to renewing and growing our unity with nature.

The Panama Sustainable Tourism Model

An open-source template towards regenerating our planet’s ethno- and biodiversity.

By David Meerman Scott and Dario Jhangimal

Cover photo: @Panama.Naturaleza

Perhaps one of the most valuable tips a Panamanian guide has ever received was nothing more than a signed photo. “To Chief Antonio,” wrote Astronaut Jim Irwin on a picture of him standing on the moon next to the Apollo 15 lunar roving vehicle. “Thanks for preparing us for this trip.” It was among several thank you notes that the late Indigenous Emberá Chief Antonio Zarco received from the likes of astronauts Neil Armstrong, John Glenn, and countless other graduates of a jungle survival program that he led for many years for the US Air Force and NASA .

“As we set out two and a half years ago to scale up and transform Panama’s tourism and hospitality industry, the life-changing experiences of the US astronauts, in contact with the biocultural heritage of the Emberá, were foremost on our minds,” said Iván X. Eskildsen , Minister of Tourism for the Republic of Panama . “As a nation with a 500-year history dominated by a focus on inter oceanic commerce, at that time Panama was far from making it onto any of the 10 Hottest Destinations lists. We were too late to even consider entering the beds-and-beach-amenities race. So we decided, let’s focus on our natural strengths.”  

Panama is a crossroads of extraordinary biological and cultural diversity linking the American continents and bridging two great oceans rich in significant world history. The country is home to 100 years of top-level scientific field work led by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). The STRI presence includes 12 Research Facilities, including Barro Colorado in Panama, considered the most intensively studied tropical forest in the world.

“Our first step, with the enthusiastic support of President Laurentino Cortizo Cohen , was to update the Tourism-Conservation-Research (TCR) model implemented in 1999 by Dr. Hana Ayala ,” said Minister Eskildsen. “We fully embraced her pioneering vision of focusing on tourism as an economic catalyst for the conservation of our natural and cultural heritage , through scientific research. We set out to achieve nothing less than a paradigm shift for a broader and more inclusive tourism model, one that showcases the extraordinary ethnodiversity and biodiversity of the country. Thanks to outstanding infrastructure and ease of access for tourism throughout the Panamanian isthmus, we could offer compelling business opportunities while aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

While traditional tourism models that focus on sun and beach, shopping, casinos, and hotel resorts will continue in Panama, this solid alternative is an inclusive and appealing proposal for the “discerning traveler,” estimated to exceed 500 million travelers worldwide, and considered one of the fastest growing segments in the tourism industry. The discerning traveler is seeking transformative and regenerative travel experiences over amenities. They are drawn to travel with a purpose , getting involved in improving the lives of local people and communities.  

By generating sustainable income to vulnerable communities, the Panama model allows for the ongoing management of forest and marine environments, which generates non-carbon benefits and mitigates the effects of climate change as outlined in Article 5 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement.

This newly updated model fosters intercultural exchange; both the host community and the traveler are enriched by the experience. This effect is maximized by encouraging visitors to respect the communities’ heritage as well as the surrounding nature. It strengthens indigenous groups and local communities’ sense of identity and value through economic participation, and also aims to bring science closer to ancestral knowledge through tourism . This can be accomplished as science considers the importance of the biocultural heritage of the indigenous people. 

Comprising less than 5% of the world’s population, indigenous people protect 80% of global biodiversity . Biocultural heritage is important to preserve the last wild place on Earth, the carbon sinks that, in a delicate balance, still absorb enough carbon to compensate for the contaminating way of life of industrialized countries. 

“Our ambition is to implement this tourism economic model as an open-source template that contributes to the regeneration of our planet’s ethno- and biodiversity ,” said Minister Eskildsen. “Because of Panama’s unique characteristics, we believe it is the ideal location to promote and lead this effort.” 

Panama ‘s tourism model is now being recognized internationally. Because of the work empowering local communities, the country was chosen as the top global destination in the 2021 Newsweek Future of Travel Awards . The Panama model has also been highlighted in the United Nations World Tourism Organization Future of Tourism World Summit, and the Panama Sustainable Tourism Master Plan was identified by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as an innovative vision of how to face sustainable tourism for the future. 

Panama has recently achieved the ambitious 30×30 ocean protection goal by expanding the marine protected area of Cordillera de Coiba, and a new law in Panama grants nature the “right to exist,” in a groundbreaking policy that goes into effect in 2023.

Recently, in February 2022, in the Republic of Panama, tourism leaders from different parts of the world signed the Declaration: “ Transformation towards the Future of Tourism “, a commitment for public and private sector leaders to work together and seize the opportunity, placing sustainability and inclusion at the center of the restart and recovery of tourism. 

From the declaration, a Panamanian initiative based on the “Panama Sustainable Tourism Model,” we can conclude that the future of the planet is in the collaboration of all members of the civilized world, and that tourism has the potential to bring ancestral wisdom of local and indigenous communities closer to the most advanced scientific and economic knowledge, generating valuable economic development for these communities  and priceless experiences for the traveler . The benefits of that approach can be put into service for the long-term management of integrated ecosystems. At the same time, the Declaration also makes clear the signatories’ commitment to advance the “transformation towards a carbon-neutral and more socially resilient tourism economy.”

“Thanks, Chief Zarco, for preparing us for this trip.”

About the authors

David Meerman Scott ’s latest books—WSJ bestseller:

· Fanocracy: Turning Fans into Customers and Customers into Fans

· The New Rules of Marketing  and  PR (7th edition)

· Standout Virtual Events: How to create an experience that your audience will love.   

He is a member of the Geoversity Foundation Global Advisory Board and has traveled to Panama each year for the past decade to help draw attention to climate change.

Dario Jhangimal Advisor to the Minister of Tourism Government of Panama

He became an advisor to the Minister of Tourism in 2019 and he is focused on the implementation of creative strategies to economically empower local communities to preserve their cultural identities, ecosystems, and the environment through tourism. This award-winning innovative model fosters tourism as an economic driver that addresses the preservation and regeneration of the delicate and life-giving ecosystems while combating poverty and inequalities—positively contributing to climate change.

• “ A Hero’s Journey into Panama’s Future of Biocultural Renewal “, by Nathan Gray, June 8, 2021, Stanford University’s The Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) Blog
• “ Building a Culture of Reverence: Insights from the Jungle to Deep Space ”, by Dr. Michael A. Schmidt, July 22, 2021, Stanford University’s The Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (MAHB) Blog
• Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI)

Privacy Overview

Business cards.

• Why We’re Different
• Join Our Team
• Strategic Alliances
• Why Tourism
• Strategic Planning
• Tourism Development
• Workforce Development
• Destination Management
• Destination Marketing
• Solimar DMMS
• Creative Portfolio
• Testimonials
• Tourism for Development Blog
• Case Studies
• Useful links

Solimar’s Six Models that Link Tourism to Conservation, Part I

Written by SolimarInt on September 26, 2018 . Posted in Uncategorized .

Solimar’s Six Models that Link Tourism to Conservation, Part I

One of the ways that tourism benefits destinations is by augmenting conservation efforts. After conducting an analysis of both internal and partner projects, Solimar has identified six principal sustainable tourism models that link tourism to conservation:

1. Improve Tourism Operations and Guidelines:

This model emphasizes limiting or reversing the negative consequences on nature that can result from tourism. There are three principal strategies for improving tourism operations and guidelines to promote conservation efforts:

a. Promote Sustainable Tourism Guidelines with Visitors

By promoting a ‘code of conduct’, destinations can ensure that visitors, for example, do not leave trash, pick endangered flora, or use flash photography where it might be harmful or startling to wildlife. It is important that these codes of conduct are communicated effectively through signage, pamphlets, interpretive guides, or even on websites and social media so visitors have an understanding of conservation before they arrive. Myanmar, new to hosting significant numbers of tourists, provides a great example of a visitor code of conduct with their ‘ do’s and don’ts ‘ campaign.

b. Promote Sustainable Tourism Guidelines within the Travel Industry

By promoting effective guidelines within the travel industry, local businesses and organizations can work together to limit their impact on the natural environment. Agreeing upon certain standards, preferably before a destination attracts large numbers of tourists, can maintain the natural beauty of an area before it’s too late. For example, businesses and organizations can work together to establish best practices for responsible seafood harvesting, responsible souvenir gathering, and responsible boating practices. Solimar International worked extensively with businesses and organizations in Bocas del Toro , Panama to guide the establishment of acceptable practices related to natural conservation.

c. Promote Sustainable Tourism Guidelines within Protected Areas

Promoting conservation efforts within protected areas requires significant interaction from a wide range of stakeholders, both public and private. Example guidelines to follow may include limiting camping to select areas within a park or limiting the number of fish to be taken from rivers or lakes each day. Once a plan has been formulated, effective promotion is imperative to the success of the plan.

2. Increase Tourism Awareness and Constituencies:

This model moves beyond simple education about tourism impacts to emphasize the active role that both visitors and residents can play in conservation efforts. This model incorporates three principal strategies to augment conservation efforts:

a. Increase Awareness and Conservation Support of Local Residents

It is important that conservation efforts begin with locals, as residents are as much of a conservation threat as tourists. Lack of awareness, lack of economic alternatives, and long-standing traditions are often reasons locals engage in damaging practices such as unsustainable extraction of resources. Ways to increase awareness and reverse damaging actions include teaching environmental education classes with local groups or organizing a local festival to celebrate the very resource being damaged. In Latin America, sea turtle educational classes and festivals have been organized to raise awareness about the importance of sea turtle conservation and the damaging effects of poaching their eggs.

b. Increase Awareness and Conservation Support of Visitors

Guides are vital to informing visitors about threats to conservation and explaining to the visitors how they can help whether that be through a donation or “ adoption ” programs. Programs such as these can help visitors develop an attachment to an area, increasing the likelihood of a donation, and also to spread the word about the importance of conservation when they go home.

c. Link Benefits of Sustainable Tourism to the Community as a Whole

As local residents see benefits from sustainable tourism increase, the likelihood of long-term sustainable practices increases, too. Direct beneficiaries include tour guides, hotel managers, and chefs while indirect beneficiaries include family members of direct beneficiaries as well as operators of ancillary services such as construction companies or grocery stores. Non-employment-based ways the tourism industry can benefit communities includes the organization of local clean-up events, improving sanitary services, or hosting volunteers.

3. Increase Income Diversification

If local residents realize sustainable tourism presents a livelihood, they are more likely to behave according to sustainable tourism principles. Two main strategies for assisting conservation evolve according to this model:

a. Target Resource Extractors with Sustainable Tourism Employment

It may seem counterintuitive, but poachers can become optimal tour guides. Poachers often know a lot about a particular animal and can share stories and knowledge on a unique level. “Reformed” poachers often provide a unique human interest story as tourists are very interested in how and why their behavior changed. Resource extractors are much more likely to change if tourism provides an increased wage through tips, salary, or a year-end profit sharing program.

b. Developing Tourism Products that Directly Mitigate a Conservation Threat

An optimal situation occurs when new products, jobs, and revenues develop and directly support conservation efforts. Local residents can create arts and crafts out of old newspaper, cans, bottles or other upcycling methods and sell them to visitors, eliminating solid waste and creating revenue simultaneously. Artificial coral reef creation has been effective in attracting divers and photographers away from susceptible natural coral reefs, where damage from tourists is common.

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council provides a framework for destinations seeking to develop a sustainable tourism strategy. Many of their guidelines apply to the conservation-related ideas discussed in this post. For a more detailed look at these tourism conservation models, be sure to download Solimar’s Tourism and Conservation Toolkit . Check back soon for Part of 2 Solimar’s Six Models that Link Tourism to Conservation.

You are using an outdated browser. This page doesn't support Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Problematizing tourism for conservation: an eco-cultural critique on sustainability.

• 1 Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
• 2 Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
• 3 Sociology and Urban Sociology, Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

Nature conservation has often been depicted as an effective policy measure to redress the ongoing environmental problems across the globe. The need to ensure sustainability for people’s secured subsistence has rendered nature conservation an indispensable scheme in the tourism development policy. It is evident that during the last couple of decades, the notion of “conservation” has become less established whilst tourism development has been prioritised as a profit making venture by both the national and international agencies. Numerous solutions have been prescribed by international organisations adopting tourism as an “immense potentiality” which mostly represented a sustainability effort for the local development and environment. South Asia in general and Bangladesh, in particular, are no different, since policy for nature conservation has been misplaced and misread to reach sustainability goals, as it has always been connected with the tourism development agenda. From a systematic literature review, it was found that the use of natural resources by local people was exemplified as a threat to sustainability where the relations between conservation and tourism became a policy issue. The paper intends to problematise the mechanism of tourism policies for nature conservation or conservation policies for tourism development that overlooks the local eco-cultural management practice for sustainability. Along with the environmental discourses, an eco-cultural critique on sustainability was employed.

Introduction

From time immemorial, nature has been transformed into a resource for the livelihoods of human-beings. The growing transformation of nature for needs and development has generally overlooked “the fundamental principles of environment that is widely responsible for the environmental cost” ( Duffy, 2013 , 605-626). Crises, for instance global warming, climate change, food scarcity and increasing levels of poverty, in South Asia have been presented as grounds for environmental ruin. It is now evident that these challenges have gradually been increasing as a result of human-led actions. The use of resources for the local subsistence in developing countries who are only dependent on the local ecology has often put pressure on the remaining natural resources ( Adams, 2004 ). This has made it necessary to employ various approaches and interventions from a number of global and local interest groups and alliances from regional and international conservation authorities at different levels. Redressing human-made environmental challenges through biodiversity conservation is now reckoned as a prime global concern ( Takacs, 1996 ). Over the last few years in South Asia, conservation goals have been redesigned in order to improve human wellbeing in general, which is collectively pronounced to be “development.” The term “conservation” is currently a leading term in the global environmental discourse that increasingly impacts tourism development as a policy issue. The contextualisation of natural resource for human use, the effects of its degradation and the methods proposed by conservancy groups to counteract this have a profound effect not only on the ecology but also on the livelihoods and wellbeing of local communities in poverty-stricken countries of South Asia ( Wood, 1996 ; Dubey, 2007 ; Banik et al., 2008 ). Nevertheless, applications of the solutions of the degraded environmental issue are problematic for resource conservation. Perhaps, this context has facilitated conservation to take “a relevant public policy issue where concern for other environmental issues has been subject to the ‘issue-attention cycle’” ( Kusmanoff et al., 2017 , 160-165; Hannigan, 2006 , 39).

During the last couple of decades, the global development and conservation actors have paid attention on trying to come together to promote tourism as one of the major policies to approach the dual challenges of retaining sustainability and sponsoring community wellbeing in the resourceful ecological zone ( Liu, 2003 ; Hall, 2011 ). Ensuring sustainability for people’s secured subsistence rendered nature conservation an indispensable scheme in the tourism development policy. It is evident that during the last couple of decades, the notion of “conservation” has become less established whilst tourism development has been prioritised as a profit-making venture by both the national and international agencies. Numerous solutions have been prescribed by the international organisations adopting tourism as an ‘immense potentiality’ which mostly represented by a sustainability effort for the local development and environment. South Asia in general and Bangladesh, in particular, are no different since policy for nature conservation has been misplaced and misread to reach sustainability goals, as it has always been connected with the tourism development agenda. It is conventionally asserted that the use of natural resources by local people was exemplified as a threat to sustainability where the relations between conservation and tourism became a policy issue. The plan and process are commonly taken for granted as a solution to the conservation and development questions since they demand financing from the global actors where counteracting opinions and aspirations are almost absent. Additionally, tourism became a potential contributor to the issues that are significantly driving the environmental loss, for instance, overexploitation, change in habitat, climate change, pollution and extra-terrestrial species ( Hall, 2010 , 253-266; GFANC, 1997 ). The corporate actors appreciate that it is essential to evaluate how nature-based tourism validates its importance to connect the people with nature in an ecosystem. Thus, tourism became a favorable market-led mechanism in conservation practices. In the policy and practice of conservancy agencies, [eco]tourism is viewed as “one of the supportive frontiers of biodiversity for utilization of the bio-ecological resources of an area” ( Bashar, 2018 , 1-10). On the other hand, the politics of conservation treating tourism as an another possible action to discourage local communities from uninterrupted access to natural resources weakens the local capacity and position. This paper attempted to problematise the normative tourism policy for conservation or vice versa through an eco-cultural critique as the indigenous people in South Asia in particular are dependent on the natural resources of their surroundings, nurture forestlands as the part of their lives, and connect their non-material aspects such as customs, rituals, traditions and social actions with the hill ecological system. Soini and Dessein (2016) proposed a framework of “culture as sustainability,” and in this study we suggest an eco-cultural perspective for connecting tourism with culture and sustainability. We delineated the intertwined relations between tourism and conservation and the challenges of cultural sustainability. Tourism policies, which are disseminated by development actors to establish sustainability, help to understand the neo-liberal practice that construct subjective discourses to devalue the local wisdom and capacity about environmental resource management with a nature-culture nexus.

Research methodology

The research methodology is based on the critical and systematic literature review of a broader framework of sustainability discourses in the context of tourism and conservation practices in a cultural setting. A substantial number of scientific articles, books, national and international policies, reports, speeches and international meeting protocols were reviewed and reevaluated by a systematic analysis on tourism and its politics. As sustainability discourses deconstruct a culture-specific way of development, culture becomes instrumental in raising questions about the politics of tourism when conservation policy devalues the eco-cultural practice of natural resource management that reflect a sense of local identity ( Soini and Dessein, 2016 ). We introduced local “cultural practices” as a methodological tool to analyze the potentials and problems of tourism through conservation policy and to understand the sustainability paradox. An eco-cultural critique was theoretically applied to the issues concerning the concepts and notions of tourism and conservation.

Culture as a channel for sustainability

Notions of “tourism sustainability” and “sustainable tourism development” became vague and contested terms since the word “sustainability” was first pronounced in Brundtland’s report ( Soini and Dessein, 2016 , 1-12). Culture and sustainability have different meanings and contextual connotations. How culture influences sustainability is still an unexplored issue. Understanding how culture can be a channel for promoting sustainability rather than a hurdle is crucial to the development of “cultural sustainability.” Few studies have conceptualised the concepts together as “cultural sustainability” to evaluate it as part of social sustainability ( Chiu, 2004 ; Cuthill, 2009 ; Vallace et al., 2011 ; Soini and Dessein, 2016 ). It is instrumental to incorporate ‘culture’ in sustainability discourse, as most of the sustainable development goals are embedded with culture-induced human actions and behaviours. In fact, sustainability is not only a process, system or strategy, but a state of mind of the people who are within it. According to post-modern critiques, as culture is viewed as prerequisite for local development, culture-embedded experiences and aspirations of locals need to be accounted for environmental or social sustainability ( Vallace et al., 2011 ). This leads to an eco-culturally resourceful and sustainable society. For instance, eco-cultural sustainability was initiated in the ‘Tourism National Policy-2010’ to strengthen the local economy for national contribution in Bangladesh ( MoCAT, 2010 ) “while also ensuring and enhancing traditional cultural values and protecting the integrity of the natural environment” ( Pickel-Chevalier and Ketut, 2016 ; cited in Nogués-Pedregal et al., 2017 , 88-108). However, Hof and Blazquez-Salom (2015 , 770-796; cited in Bianchi, 2018 , 88-102) challenged the state’s tourism policy that signified that the nature-culture based tourism model has progressively been restructured towards sustainability through better planning and projects. Rather, the mechanism of tourism development constitutes a “sustainability fix” masking the interest of capital by eco-culture friendly tourism and thereby the intensified use of scarce natural resources ( Bianchi, 2018 , 88-102). In principle, “nature-culture basis tourism allows neoliberalism to turn the very crises it has created into new sources of accumulation that conceals the contradictions between economic growth and environmental sustainability” ( Duffy, 2015 , 529-543; Büscher et al., 2012 ). One of the core justifications for nature-culture based tourism is that nature and culture can be conserved or saved because of their “market value,” and hence they can be commodified ( Büscher et al., 2012 , 4-30; cited in Duffy, 2015 , 529-543). For instance, when tourism is well established, cultural values and customs are in danger, because of market competition. It grows an individuality which is not the local communal behavior for South Asian indigenous communities. Collectivisation is broken up and class divisions increase as is evident in the empirical study of South Asian scholars ( Shiva, 1993 ; Shiva, 1997 ; Dubey, 2007 ; Rasul and Manandhar, 2009 ; Ahmed, 2017 ; Hettiarachchi, 2019 ; Rahman, 2019 ). The development of unplanned tourism in South Asia has had an impact on the sense of belongingness attached to the places, and the reciprocal relations between nature and indigenous communities ( Sajib, 2022 , 273-285). Tourism is mostly a driving force of transformation that sometimes engenders in local cultural wellbeing, and the commodification of culture and nature contributes to vanish the real cultural behaviours of indigenous communities (cited in Sajib, 2022 , 273-285; Bunten, 2008 ; King and Stewart, 1996 ; Kirtsoglou and Theodossopoulos, 2004 ). For instance, Escobar (2008 , 169) illustrates that “such development policies and resource management tendencies of economic gain not only create challenges for the local people and their traditional knowledge of management but wreak havoc on local practices and have serious negative consequences for local sustainable food sources, sustainable development and environmental practices, and local ecosystems” (cited in Datta, 2015 ). Several scholars from Bangladesh ( Chakma, 2008 ; Ahmed, 2017 ; Roy, 2020 ) showed how public and private agencies validate state forest conservation policies over indigenous communities. National and regional agencies sensitise that the resource use patterns of indigenous people in Bangladesh affect the sustainability of livelihoods as well as environmental degradation. Thus, tourism became the best alternative solution to distract from the people’s dependency on forest resources and for local development.

Branding tourism for conservation

Nowadays, tourism is defined as a “developmentalizable” entity and it becomes the largest global industry based on its contribution to global GDP, the increase of employment rate, and the offerings of its profitable services ( Cole, 2008 ; Dalcher, 2017 ). Biodiversity-enriched countries, for instance, are coming across a very fast tourism development: “23 of them record over 100 percent growth in the last 10 years, and more than 50 percent of these receive over 1 million international tourists per year; 13 percent of biodiversity hotspot countries receive over 5 million international tourists per year” ( Christ et al., 2003 , vi; UNEP and CI, 2003 ). Through the tourism, the conservation of nature is mostly reckoned as a sustainable practice for the global and local actors in the context of mitigating global environmental loss and improving local livelihoods. Moreover, shaping “environment,” “nature,” “wilderness” or “biodiversity” as a “common good” and placing a value on “natural capital” has come to be gradually more noticeable in global political debates since the 1980s ( Streimikiene et al., 2021 ; Costanza et al., 1997 , 253-260; Van Koppen, 2000 , 300-318). There is a long-lasting argument about how to associate nature conservation with poverty reduction and tourism development in local communities ( Adams et al., 2004 , 1146-1149; Scuttari et al., 2021 ; Wells and McShane, 2004 , 513-519). The community conservation policies and actions are frequently shaped as “win–win” prospects with environmental and socio-economic gains ( Chaigneau and Brown, 2016 , 36). Conservation and tourism development are mostly slowed down by contested notions of sustainability in a local community ( Streimikiene et al., 2021 ; Keep, 2008 , 311-321). However, the notion of tourism sustainability is by no means refuted, as if its significance is spontaneous or recognizable, although the idea of sustainable tourism is adopted with blurred meaning ( Hunter, 1997 ; Ponton and Asero, 2018 ). In fact, sustainable tourism now “represents an unstable paradigm, its meaning contested between interested social actors such as the tourist companies, advertisers, environmental pressure groups, local communities and, last but not least, consumers” ( Ponton and Asero, 2018 , 45-62). In an increasing number of cases, it is observed that tourism provides an insufficient supply of capital for conservation and supports local communities as well as an economic stimulation to take care of natural resource ( Scuttari et al., 2021 ; Streimikiene et al., 2021 ). The connection between tourism and biodiversity is not always optimistic, especially while tourism development takes place with a lack of proper management structures and policies in order to foster nature conservation and distribute visible profits to local communities. Conservation and tourism sometimes do not succeed while the local concerns and their inherent capabilities and experiences for the sustainable prospect are not considered as valuable ( Bologna and Spierenburg, 2015 , 119-138). It is believed that “biodiversity conservation associated with community and nature-based tourism stimulates many other nature-friendly businesses” ( Donlan, 2005 , 913-914).

Critiques of the development models prescribed by international donors stated that foreign aid and structural adjustment schemes to stimulate tourism and development have mostly not succeeded in dealing with environmental crises ( Shiva, 1993 ; Oliver-Smith, 2010 ). The concept of the tourism development overlooks the necessity of nature conservation, whereas economic development is given urgent importance. Generally, the two notions of “sustainability” and “development” have, to some extent, conflicting connotations: ‘Sustainability’ indicates stability and coexistence, but “development” denotes progress and transformation ( Robinson and Picard, 2006 ; Giddens, 2009 ). Therefore, environmentalists are captivated by the “sustainability” approach, whereas public and private enterprises emphasise “development,” typically indicating GDP growth ( Giddens, 2009 ). It is evident that conservation and development with tourism are not only unsuccessful in their plans and actions but also not characteristically relevant and have, in fact, sustained poverty in many cases ( Harrison, 2008 , 851-868). However, another paradigmatic shift in development currently focuses on nature-friendly pro-local tourism strategies. The shift along with “nature” demanding to “repay its way” and for local people to be deliberately engaged in conservation policies has directed to materialise “ecotourism” as an added liable practice of nature-friendly tourism in South Asia. It endorses biodiversity conservation and also generates economic value for local people living in poverty. In the seventh assembly of the UNCSD in 1999, UNEP stressed that “the involvement of local communities in tourism development and operation appears to be one important condition for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity” ( Christ et al., 2003 , 4). Commitments of global and governmental actors in accordance with the CBD guidelines have been endorsed to strengthen the movement on “Sustainable Tourism in Vulnerable Ecosystems by creating tourism and biodiversity more cooperative to each other, involving local or indigenous communities, and developing infrastructure and resolving land disputes” ( UNEP and CI, 2003 , 27). They are critically important for the sustainability of tourism, “influencing not only tourism development itself but also controlling other forms of development that might be detrimental to the economic sustainability of tourism in the short or long term” ( Mowforth and Munt 2015 , 1-476; Fennel, 2008 , 9; Christ et al., 2003 ).

There is a long-standing debate on whether tourism is a stable means of conservation or not, whether it takes care of the plants and animals in their natural habitats, whether it is likely to bring together conservation with the expansion of corporate values and income, and whether tourism can decrease regional migration and other concerns that locals are currently encountering. One specific issue is that tourism is overvalued and can serve as a further means for developing social, economic or environmental scenarios but it cannot be the best one. Adams (2003 , 108), for instance, claims that “on the one hand, if it can be shown even on economic grounds the case for conservation makes sense, all to the good. On the other hand, it might not often be so good if conservation-economists suddenly asking the rules to be changed back so that the game can be replayed on stronger grounds.” Assessing the effects of tourism on nature and culture, however, is notably multifaceted and contested. Tourism is portrayed as benign to some extent, and often as the “only potential” or the only sustainable substitute for a nature-protective and resource-inclusive development approach in South Asia. In practice, it often appears that tourism is branded as an economic “ladder” in the discourse of those who highlight the issue of the sustainability of any conservation policy. On the contrary, there is an argument that extreme dependency on measurable values of nature conservation through tourism is a “slippery slope” ( Adams, 2003 , 108). However, alternative tourism (such as community-based tourism, nature-based tourism, pro-poor tourism, responsible tourism, ecotourism and sustainable tourism) for instance, is largely believed to mutually develop the livelihoods of local people and environmental sustainability. It is proposed that “returns to nature encourage people to disinvest in other means of livelihood, particularly livestock and cultivation, thereby reducing the ‘degrading’ effects of these forms of land-use while sustaining incomes” ( Powell, 1998 , 121). However, if the earnings from tourism remain marginal, and even without culture-specific needs connecting to livelihoods and means of earnings, it is implausible that local people will perceive nature as an alternative way of living. In fact, such beliefs might eventually lead to the “individualizing and profit-maximizing ideology of neoliberalism” ( Sullivan, 2006 , 105-135). Following Sullivan (2006) , Fletcher (2011 , 443-461) depicts with a neo-liberal critique that “sustainable tourism practices are accessible mainly for a ‘transnational capitalist class’ and serve to sustain capitalism more broadly” (cited in Hanna et al., 2015 ).

Discourses conducted in the public domain have a strong impact on how local people are involved in policy issues, and adjustments surrounded by the conservation and sustainable tourism discourse also have effects for public commitment in conservation policy. How conservation is valued, measured and meant to policy makers and local people as well, is often influenced by the tourism policy discourses with which it interacts ( Gustafsson, 2013 , 39–54; Coffey, 2015 , 1-20). Public environmental policy for conservation, for example, sustainability and ecotourism, is usually a liability of governments as signatories to the CBD-1992, even though it is largely assigned to local governments or local authorities that may have separate priorities and goals ( CBD, 1992 ). This makes tourism policy for conservation characteristically political in nature. It is important to conservation NGOs as well; few of them have visible involvement in conservation plans and actions, but the majority are engaged in conservation advocacy. However, the manifestations of nature and culture is a form of the political approaches along with tourism and conservation policy. Therefore, it is taken for granted that tourism will protect nature, produce profit or support people, supply basic materials, and promote an aesthetic or moral way of thinking about nature conservation. Though particular attention is currently devoted to local wisdom in conservation discussions, specifically in article 8j of the CBD, this is not enough and “mostly misleading that ground reality is hardly valued in its own languages or it is defunctionalized to support the western conservation policy” ( Shiva, 1997 , 1-148). For example, Escobar (1998 , 53-82) doubted that “biodiversity does not exist in an absolute sense. Rather, it anchors a discourse that articulates a new relation between nature and society in global contexts of science, cultures, and economies.” However, the development, through conservation and sustainable tourism, is never problematised, albeit critics have increasingly drawn attention to the impracticality of balancing the preconditions of economy and environment in the current policy structures ( Escobar, 1999 , 1-30).

South Asian context

South Asia consists of five regions: 1) India 2) southern islands of Sri Lanka and the Maldives 3) northern mountain area from Kashmir to Nepal and Bhutan 4) the east, Bangladesh 5) the west, Pakistan and Afghanistan ( Hettiarachchi, 2019 , 2). The world’s best marine resources (coral reefs of Maldives), seashores (Cox’s Bazar) and mangrove zones (Sundarbans) are situated in the territory. Rasul and Manandhar (2009 , 187–207) asserted that “its centuries old civilizations, rich and unique cultural and biological diversity, diverse and vast array of geographic features, attractive oceans and beaches, mangrove forests, mountain ranges including the great Himalayas, the Karakorum and the HinduKush mountains and, above all, very hospitable people, make the region a very attractive place for intra-regional as well as international tourists.” Ohmae (1995) termed the territory a “natural economic zone.” For example, with the Annapurna Tourism Development Project and the Bhakthipur Conservation Project in Nepal, it initiated an effective tourism model, tendering its unique nature and heritage conservation, community benefit, and sustainable funding features ( Hettiarachchi, 2019 , 4). Through its ‘Tourism Earth Lung’ initiative, Sri Lanka developed its conservative position towards becoming a decarbonised tourism destination by 2018 ( Hettiarachchi, 2019 , 5).

Tourism became an area of cooperative interest for SAARC in the late 1980s ( Rasul and Manandhar, 2009 , 187–207; Timothy, 2003 ; Dubey, 2007 ). With the backing of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), it designed a comprehensive Tourism Development Plan (TDP) to develop tourism. The major goals of the TDP are: “to promote eco-tourism in order to reduce poverty, and to facilitate private sector investment in tourism” ( Rasul and Manandhar, 2009 , 187–207). Nevertheless, tourism has not contributed to the wellbeing of locals or nature conservation as expected in South Asia. Poverty remains a major problem, often affecting marginalised rural populations that depend on some of the most biodiverse landscapes for their livelihoods ( Regional Report, 2018 , 210-291). The challenges facing nature conservation are, therefore, rapid economic growth and rising consumption, as well as poverty and marginalisation. In addition, tourism has a particular impact on the underprivileged indigenous locals in South Asia. Hill and forest areas are widely accepted places for tourism, but these places are especially vulnerable because local wisdom relating to natural resource management is ignored. For instance, tourism gradually instigates dislocation, heightens living expenses, prevents access to resources, creates socio-cultural disorder, and ultimately marginalises local people. The highly environment-sensitive countries in South Asia, such as the Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan, developed the nature-based tourism industry. A crucial issue is that if these countries are successfully developing tourism to generate an income source for local people and are mitigating these needs with natural resources, why are people in these countries poverty-stricken even now?

Natural resources in Bangladesh have significantly contributed to the national economy in the context of livestock, agriculture, forestry, fishery and nature-based tourism. Bashar (2018 , 1-10) reported that “the largest mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, provides livelihood and employment for half a million households and more than 60 million people depend on aquatic resources every day, and 60 percent of the country’s protein requirement is met through fish consumption.” However, its natural resources are vulnerable due to a transformation from local subsistence to a national cash economy. Forest land-grabbing in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) for tourism development is a good example of this. The development and promotion of tourism has not been responsive enough to the potential implications for the natural and cultural heritage of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is currently pursuing new schemes under the national environmental policies in order to balance sustainable resource use. Moreover, Bangladesh has signed conservation-related “Multilateral Environmental Agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and the obligations of CBD Bangladesh has made 1st National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in 2006 and 2nd NBSAP (2016–2021) in 2015 to steer biodiversity conservation endeavors” ( Faisal, 2018 ). It has also framed guidelines, policies and legal charters connected to biodiversity and tourism. These are: National Conservation Strategy (2016–2031), Bangladesh Biodiversity Act 2017, National Tourism Policy 2010, The Tourism Vision 2020, National Forest Policy 2016 and Ecologically Critical Areas (ECA) Rules 2017 ( Faisal, 2018 ). The National Sustainable Development Strategy and the Seventh Five-Year Plan of the country have unambiguously highlighted the biodiversity conservation concerns posed by nature-based tourism ( Faisal, 2018 ; Rasul and Manandhar, 2009 , 187–207). Many biodiversity-rich areas have been made into Botanical Gardens, Safari Parks, Eco-Parks, Fish Sanctuaries, Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks to promote conservation and the sustainable use of resources for economy ( Faisal, 2018 ). In Bangladesh, alarming threats to biodiversity include “rapid and unplanned urbanization, conversion of forests and wetlands into tourism spot, unsustainable use and over exploitation of natural resources in tourism destination, uncontrolled tourism” ( Faisal, 2018 ) in the landscape of environmentally sensitive, ecologically valuable and biologically diverse protected areas (e.g., in CHT, Cox’s Bazar and St. Martin Island) ( Sajib et al., 2022 , 89-103). It is evident that this conservation-through-tourism policy has not only contributed to environmental loss, but has fuelled socio-environmental crisis, in which locals have become double victims as they have been widely represented as solely responsible for local environmental damage ( Sajib et al., 2022 , 89-103).

Blaming the victims

There is a growing tendency to generalise and blame local people for socio-environmental crises in all spheres due to their visible interactions with environmental resources ( Sajib et al., 2022 , 273-285). Local people are deliberately characterised as a threat to biodiversity, as a challenge to be controlled, rather than as local actors to be involved and measured. Local people, for instance, the indigenous communities of CHT in Bangladesh, in the context of identity recognition are redefined in terms of ownership and participation. Locals should be involved in conservation plans and policies as influential actors who are able to perceive and value the economic significance of nature and who can hence conserve it for their own interest. This viewpoint is often overlooked and underestimated in the current projections of measuring and interacting with nature. It furthermore displaces local communities, which are disregarded as stakeholders as meticulously characterised by market-induced actors. Thus, locals become less able to perform the significant role of being valuable “eco-cultural subjects” ( Goldman, 2007 ) as designed by conservation benefits. It has been suggested that indigenous people serve as “para-biologists” and can save the wildlife by employing their traditional knowledge, and support conservation efforts by conducting their own observations and measurements ( Escobar, 1998 ). Nevertheless, local communities are often excluded from the dialogue about conservation and development policy. It appears that local culture and knowledge are not considered to have any value added power, and are characterised as a barrier to conservation and development. As stated by Brown (2002 , 6) “the conservation-orientated literature traditionally viewed local community welfare and development as directly conflicting with the objectives and practice of biodiversity conservation.” There is no attention paid to local livelihoods in poorly protected regions and the indigenous people of CHT, for instance, are often forced to leave their land in the name of conservation. Locals are persuaded that “fortress conservation” or the “fences and fines” policy is the best way to protect biodiversity ( Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000 , 1421-1438). For example, the indigenous people in CHT have lived in a certain area for a long period of time but have been obliged to depart their locality because it has been closed off by the government as an extremely restricted zone that is in danger and needs immediate action. It would seem that since poverty and conservation are considered to be different policy areas, the connection between locals and their locality is neglected. Action against these oversights new policy is installed with the target “to increase benefits from alternative livelihood activities as a way to reduce the threat to conservation from local people” ( Berkes, 2007 , 15188-15193). One of the most powerful and convincing strategies is the application of a buffer zone near to a core zone, with the consequence that the core zone meets high-level safeguards so as to conserve the ecosystem ( Ramus and Montiel, 2005 , 377-414). To ensure conservation entrance into this zone is restricted, and to provide economic alternatives, such as tourism, local people can access the buffer zone for their subsistence. Nevertheless, the ground reality of access to resources for subsistence contests this discourse. One of the flaws of this model is that it is not clearly associated with changing the behaviour of local people, since they are not responsive to the value of nature conservation ( Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000 ). However, both the environment and local culture is impacted by tourism since they are often projected as commodities for tourists; for example, following the introduction of tourism in CHT, Mowfurth and Munt (2015 , 1-476) described the “zooification” of indigenous culture. The ethnic groups in South Asia and other indigenous communities around the world have been subjected to “zooification.” People and their cultures are projected as “untouched” or even “primitive” describing to originality which is a trading spot for tourism agencies ( Mowforth & Munt, 2015 ). With the discourse of “living in harmony with nature” ( Ulloa, 2005 ), the tourism market has succeeded in allowing tourists to ignore the poverty of indigenous people. The tourism business advertises culture as a commodity to tempt tourists to experience another world, for example, as an “exotic,” “sensualised” and “naturalised” “other.” Indigenous cultures and people characterise the way to sustainability through “living in harmony with nature” ( Ulloa, 2005 ). In indigenous terrains of South Asia, nature conservation policy, with tourism as the preferred method, has habitually been formed on totalitarian approaches, which on the whole has not contributed to producing long-lasting livelihoods for locals, creating a sense of marginalisation and inequality, which is hardly ever an effective ground for nature conservation plan and policy ( Timothy, 2003 ; Rasul and Manandhar, 2009 ). Therefore, it could be argued that tourism has failed to connect the distance between nature and culture and has reproduced the “othering” of nature, presenting nature as separate from society.

This study made an attempt not only to provide an eco-cultural critique of contemporary approaches to conservation within the tourism and development framework, but also to problematise the market-induced policy discourses on sustainability, where environmental values were explicitly measured in economic solutions. In this paper, conservation has been problematised as a policy issue signifying a dominant connection between nature and culture, and constituting a linkage of actors through which tourism and conservation are articulated and negotiated. This study suggested that conservation and tourism policies are not as impartial as they are designed to be, and the challenges need to be identified in respect to applying these policy structures to sustain conservation and development. Conservation and tourism are aimed at money-making projects for seeing and using nature. Regardless of its uncertainty, the formulation of a nexus between nature and culture represents an alternative policy context for tourism and conservation. Categorising natural diversity as an environmentally distinct phenomenon and problematising the conceptualisations, views, principles and politics of various policy actors, the paper contributed to identifying the drawbacks of orthodox conservation policy. Many critics ( Philipp, et al., 2022 ; Fennel, 2008 ; Sullivan, 2006 ; Wells, 1995 , 319-333) argued that approaches towards interconnected “conservation and tourism policies tend to misplace the ‘conservation’ vision, with misreading over whether conservation or tourism is the way or the end.” The relationship between conservation and tourism has more commonly been revealed to be biased in support of the policy actors, and in contrast to the local communities. Moreover, cultural issues of sustainability in tourism development are connected to the impact of local community wellbeing. The contribution of tourism to the nature-culture nexus still needs to be reviewed through empirical and theoretical observation. Finally, it can be argued that eco-cultural behaviour, rituals and practices are customarily influential in redressing the challenges of the three pillars of sustainability which lead to sustainable development if properly addressed by the culturally embedded tourism policy.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This paper was presented in an International conference on “Kaleidoscope of Sustainability” in 2021, organised by Coordinator of the PhD programme in Environmental Sustainability and Wellbeing, University of Ferrara, Italy. All authors acknowledge the Coordinator and conference committee that encouraged them to publish the article. The corresponding author would especially like to thank his Supervisor and co-supervisors.

Adams, C. (2003). “Pitfalls of synchronicity: A case study of the caicaras in the atlantic rainforest of southeastern Brazil,” in Ethnographies of conservation: Environmentalism and the distribution of privilege . Editors D. G. Anderson, and E. Berglund (New York: Berghahn ), 108.

Google Scholar

Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., et al. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149. doi:10.1126/science.1097920

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, W. M. (2004). Against extinction, the story of conservation . London: Earthscan .

Ahmed, H. S. (2017). Tourism and state violence in the Chittagong hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Electron. Thesis Diss. Repos. 4840, 1–189. Available from: https://ir.libuwo.ca/etd/4840 (Accessed August 1, 2020).

Banik, N., Biswas, B., and Criddle, K. R. (2009). Optimum currency area in SouthSouth Asia: A state space approach. Int. Rev. Econ. Finance 18, 502–510. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2008.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bashar, M. A. (2018). Vision on biodiversity: Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Bangladesh. J. Biodivers. Conservation Bioresour. Manag. 41, 1–10. doi:10.3329/jbcbm.v4i1.37871

Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 10439, 15188–15193. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702098104

Bianchi, R. (2018). The political economy of tourism development: A critical review. Ann. Tour. Res. 70, 88–102. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2017.08.005

Bologna, S. A., and Spierenburg, M. (2015). “False legitimacies: The rhetoric of economic opportunities in the expansion of conservation areas in southern africa,” in Institutional arrangements for conservation and tourism in eastern and southern africa: A dynamic perspective . Editor V. R. Van der Duim (Dordrecht: Springer ), 119–138.

Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J. 1681, 6–17. doi:10.1111/1475-4959.00034

Bunten, A. C. (2008). Sharing culture or selling out? Developing the commodified persona in the heritage industry. Am. Ethnol. 35 (3), 380–395. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00041.x

Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2012). Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat. Social. 23 (2), 4–30. doi:10.1080/10455752.2012.674149

CBD (1992). Convention on biological diversity . Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (Accessed November 02, 2022).

Chaigneau, T., and Brown, K. (2016). Challenging the win-win discourse on conservation and development: Analyzing support for marine protected areas. Ecol. Soc. 21, 36. doi:10.5751/es-08204-210136

Chakma, B. (2008). Assessing the Chittagong hill Tracts peace accord. Asian Profile 36 (1), 93–106.

Chiu, R. L. H. (2004). Socio-cultural sustainability of housing: A conceptual exploration. Hous. Theory Soc. 21, 65–76. doi:10.1080/14036090410014999

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., and Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: Mapping tourism’s global footprint . Report of Ecotourism Department of Conservation International (CI) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 1–66.

Coffey, B. (2015). Unpacking the politics of natural capital and economic metaphors in environmental policy discourse. Environ. Polit. 25, 1–20. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1090370

Cole, S. (2008). Tourism, culture and development in Hopes, dreams and realities in Eastern Indonesia . Clevedon: Channel View Publications .

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0

Cuthill, M. (2010). Strengthening the “social” in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 18, 362–373. doi:10.1002/sd.397

Dalcher, S. (2017). The year of sustainable tourism for development: A mapping of csr activities in the transportation sector to the sustainable development goals of the united Nations . B.Sc. thesis (Chur: University of Applied Sciences HTW Chur ).

Datta, R. (2015). Land-water management and sustainability: An indigenous perspective in Laitu Khyang community, Chittagong hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh . Doctoral Thesis (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan ).

Donlan, J. (2005). Rewilding North America. Nature 43618, 913–914. doi:10.1038/436913a

Dubey, M. (2007). SAARC and South Asian economic integration. Econ. Political Wkly. 7, 1238–1241.

Duffy, R. (2015). Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: Concealing contradictions. Tour. Geogr. 174, 529–543. doi:10.1080/14616688.2015.1053972

Duffy, R. (2013). The international political economy of tourism and the neoliberalisation of nature: Challenges posed by selling close interactions with animals. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20, 605–626. doi:10.1080/09692290.2012.654443

Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: Place, movements, life, redes . Durham: Duke University Press , 169.

Escobar, A. (1999). After nature: Steps to an anti-essentialist political ecology. Curr. Anthropol. 401, 1–30. doi:10.1086/515799

Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Political Ecol. 5, 53–82.

Faisal, A. M. (2018). Biodiversity: Challenge and policy recommendations . Available from: www.theindependentbd.com/arcprint/details/150848/2018-05-22 (Accessed May 22, 2022).

Fennel, D. (2008). Ecotourism . Cornwall, UK: TJ International Ltd , 9.

Fletcher, R. (2011). Sustaining tourism, sustaining capitalism? The tourism industry’s role in global capitalist expansion. Tour. Geogr. 13 (3), 443–461. doi:10.1080/14616688.2011.570372

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (1997). Biodiversity and tourism: Conflicts on the world’s seacoasts and strategies for their solution . Berlin: Springer-Verlag .

Giddens, A. (2009). Global politics and climate change . Oxford: Polity Press .

Goldman, M. (2007). Tracking wildebeest, locating knowledge: Maasai and conservation biology understandings of wildebeest behavior in northern Tanzania. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 25, 307–331. doi:10.1068/d0505

Gustafsson, K. M. (2013). Environmental discourses and biodiversity: The construction of a storyline in understanding and managing an environmental issue. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 10, 39–54. doi:10.1080/1943815x.2013.769455

Hall, C. M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance. From first- and second-order to third-order change. J. Sustain. Tour. 19 (4-5), 649–671. doi:10.1080/09669582.2011.555555

Hall, C. M. (2010). Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change? J. Herit. Tour. 54, 253–266. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2010.517843

Hanna, P., Johnson, K., Stenner, P., and Adams, M. (2015). Foucault, sustainable tourism, and relationships with the environment (human and nonhuman). GeoJournal 80, 301–314. doi:10.1007/s10708-014-9557-7

Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology . 2nd ed. London: Routledge , 39.

Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor tourism: A critique. Third World Q. 295, 851–868. doi:10.1080/01436590802105983

Hettiarachchi, C. (2019). “South Asia as a tourism orbit formulating a regional tourism strategy,” in Strengthening physical, emotional and economic linkages in South Asia, A consortium of South Asian think tanks (COSATT) project , 1–12. Available from: www.neweraforsrilanka.org/south-asia-as-a-tourism-orbit-formulating-a-regional-tourism-strategy-2/ (Accessed November 12, 2022).

Hof, A., and Blázquez-Salom, M. (2015). Changing tourism patterns, capital accumulation, and urban water consumption in Mallorca, Spain: A sustainability fix? J. Sustain. Tour. 23 (5), 770–796. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.991397

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Ann. Tour. Res. 244, 850–867. doi:10.1016/s0160-7383(97)00036-4

Kepe, T. (2008). Land claims and co-management of protected areas in SouthSouth Africa: Exploring the challenges. Environ. Manag. 41, 311–321. doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9034-x

King, D. A., and Stewart, W. P. (1996). Ecotourism and commodification: Protecting people and places. Biodivers. Conservation 5, 293–305. doi:10.1007/bf00051775

Kirtsoglou, E., and Theodossopoulos, D. (2004). They are taking our culture away: Tourism and culture commodification in the Garifuna Community of Roatan. Critique Anthropol. 24 (2), 135–157. doi:10.1177/0308275X04042650

Kusmanoff, A. M., Fidler, F., Gordon, A., and Bekessy, S. A. (2017). Decline of ‘biodiversity’ in conservation policy discourse in Australia. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 160–165. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.016

Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. J. Sustain. Tour. 116, 459–475. doi:10.1080/09669580308667216

Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism (2010). National tourism policy-2010 . Available from: https://mocat.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/mocat.portal.gov.bd/policies/a7a55206_b33a_4034_b7da_b266c5802553/National%20Tourism%20Circular-2010.pdf (Accessed October 20, 2022).

Mowforth, M., and Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability. Development, globalisation and new tourism in the third world . 4th ed. London: Routledge , 1–476.

Nogués-Pedregal, A. M., Travé-Molero, R., and Carmona-Zubiri, D. (2017). Thinking against "empty shells" in tourism development projects. Etnološka Trib. 47 (40), 88–108. doi:10.15378/1848-9540.2017.40.02

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of nation state: The rise of regional economics . New York: Free Press .

Oliver-Smith, A. (2010). Defying displacement: Grassroots resistance and the critique of development . Austin: University of Texas Press .

Philipp, J., Thees, H., Olbrich, N., and Pechlaner, H. (2022). Towards an ecosystem of hospitality: The dynamic future of destinations. Sustainability 14, 821. doi:10.3390/su14020

Pickel-Chevalier, S., and Ketut, B. (2016). “Towards sustainable tourism in bali,” in Mondes du tourisme hors-série , 1–21. doi:10.4000/tourisme.1187

Ponton, D. M., and Asero, V. (2018). Representing global cruise tourism: A paradox of sustainability. Crit. Approaches Discourse Analysis across Discip. 101, 45–62. Available from: www.cadaadjournal.com .

Powell, N. (1998). Co-management in non-equilibrium systems: Cases from Namibian rangelands . Uppsala: Agraria 138, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences , 121.

Rahman, M. S. U. (2019). Co-Management for tourism development and community wellbeing: The case of hill Tracts, Bangladesh . Digital Thesis (Lincoln, UK: Lincoln University ). Available from: https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/10711 (Accessed September 8, 2022).

Ramus, C. A., and Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus. Soc. 444, 377–414. doi:10.1177/0007650305278120

Rasul, G., and Manandhar, P. (2009). Prospects and problems in promoting tourism in SouthSouth Asia: A regional perspective. South Asia Econ. J. 101, 187–207. doi:10.1177/139156140901000108

Regional Reports (2018). LARGER THAN TIGERS: Inputs for a strategic approach to biodiversity conservation in Asia . South Asia Paper, 210–291. Available from: op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8ed5fdcb-b187-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (Accessed November 14, 2022).

Robinson, M., and Picard, D. (2006). Tourism, culture and sustainable development . Paris: UNESCO Publishing .

Roy, R. D. (2020). A requiem for the discordant accord: Exhuming or reviving the Chittagong hill Tracts agreement of 1997 . The Daily Star. Available from: https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/requiem-the-discordant-accord-2004289 (Accessed November 16, 2022).

Sajib, S. M. S., Islam, S. A. M. Z., and Sohad, M. K. N. (2022). Rohingya influx and socio-environmental crisis in southeastern Bangladesh. Int. J. Community Soc. Dev. 4 (1), 89–103. doi:10.1177/25166026211067604

Sajib, S. M. S. (2022). Nicknaming tourism as development: Commercialization of culture and nature in CHT, Bangladesh. J. Tour. Cult. Change 20 (1-2), 273–285. doi:10.1080/14766825.2021.1966022

Salafsky, N., and Wollenberg, E. (2000). Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Dev. 288, 1421–1438. doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(00)00031-0

Scuttari, A., Ferraretto, V., Stawinoga, A. E., and Walder, M. (2021). Tourist and viral mobilities intertwined: Clustering COVID-19-driven travel behaviour of rural tourists in South tyrol, Italy. Sustainability 13, 11190. doi:10.3390/su132011190

Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge . Boston, MA: South End Press , 1–148.

Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Biodiversity, biotechnology and agriculture . New Delhi: Zed Press .

Soini, K., and Dessein, J. (2016). Culture-sustainability relation: Towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 8, 167–172. doi:10.3390/su8020167

Streimikiene, D., Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E., and Simanavicius, A. (2021). Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustain. Dev. 29, 259–271. doi:10.1002/sd.2133

Sullivan, S. (2006). The elephant in the room? Problematising ‘new’ (neoliberal) the elephant in the room? Biodiversity conservation. Forum Dev. Stud. 33, 105–135. doi:10.1080/08039410.2006.9666337

Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .

Timothy, D. J. (2003). Supranationalist alliances and tourism: Insights from ASEAN and SAARC. Curr. Issues Tour. 63, 250–266. doi:10.1080/13683500308667956

Ulloa, A. (2005). The ecological native: Indigenous peoples’ movements and eco-governmentality in Colombia . New York: Routledge .

UNEP and CI (2003). Tourism and biodiversity –mapping tourism’s global footprint . Available from: www.unep.fr/scp/tourism/ (Accessed November 25, 2022).

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., and Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum 42, 342–348. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.01.002

van Koppen, C. (2000). Resource, arcadia, lifeworld. Nature concepts in environmental sociology. Sociol. Rural. 403, 300–318. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00150

Wells, M. (1995). “Biodiversity conservation and local development aspirations: New priorities for the 1990s,” in Biodiversity conservation . Editor C. A. Perrings (Dordercht: Kluwer ), 319–333.

Wells, M. P., and McShane, T. O. (2004). Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33 (8), 513–519. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.513

Wood, M. E. (1996). “The evolution of ecotourism as a sustainable development tool,” in The sixth international symposium on society and natural resource management (State College, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University ). 18-23 May. 1996.

Keywords: tourism, conservation, sustainability, eco-cultural critique, problematization

Citation: Sajib SMS, Nicolli F and Alietti A (2022) Problematizing tourism for conservation: An eco-cultural critique on sustainability. Eur. J. Cult. Manag. Polic. 12:11094. doi: 10.3389/ejcmp.2022.11094

Received: 08 August 2022; Accepted: 02 December 2022; Published: 28 December 2022.

Copyright © 2022 Sajib, Nicolli and Alietti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: S M Sadat al Sajib, [email protected]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

People also looked at.

At WiseTour, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What Is Conservation Tourism?

Conservation tourism, also known as ecotourism , is characterized by travel practices that minimize environmental waste, encourage conservation and educate travelers about the needs of the environment. The conservation process typically begins with a conscientious approach to planning and packing for trips. At the travel destination, conservation might take the form of recycling and saving energy and water. Some ecotourism tours deliver in-depth information about animals that are in danger of extinction, such as bats and elephants. In some cases, funds that are generated through ecotourism activities are utilized to preserve the local environment and economy.

Careful preparing and packing for travel are important first steps in conservation tourism. Staying longer in a destination helps save fuel, in contrast with taking numerous trips of shorter duration. Selecting hotels that recycle newspapers, aluminum cans and plastic bottles is another consideration for minimizing waste. Packing carefully and leaving behind unnecessary items helps tourists to travel light and save fuel. Before leaving home, unplugging all unused electronic devices also saves energy.

While the participating travelers are touring and staying in a new destination, conservation tourism typically involves limiting waste. Asking the hotel to refrain from washing the towels and sheets daily is a way to save water and energy. Buying locally grown groceries limits the pollution and energy usage associated with transporting food from faraway locations. Walking and biking to travel spots or using public transportation helps reduce fuel usage. Limiting the use of plastic plates and utensils by washing and reusing them saves water and reduces landfill waste.

Conservation tourism sometimes involves organized wildlife tours. Animals that are beneficial and important to the preservation of the ecosystem typically are the focus of such organized activities. For example, bats, which are often considered dangerous or intimidating, are the focus of some wildlife tours that seek to educate members of the public. Elephant conservation tours are another example of efforts to increase exposure to endangered species . Through learning about their diseases, behaviors and habitats, tourists gain a deeper understanding of and appreciation for these animals.

Economic and social benefits also are an integral part of conservation tourism. By attracting large groups of people to less-frequented areas, local residents often benefit from more sustainable economies. Additional jobs are often created in locations where tour guides, instructors, bus drivers and other personnel are needed to assist tourists. Funds from ecotourism activities, in some cases, are used to preserve endangered species and protect the flora and fauna of the location.

AS FEATURED ON:

Related Articles

• What Is Fuel Conservation?
• What Is Garden Tourism?
• What Is Coral Conservation?
• What Are Conservation Holidays?
• What Is Reptile Conservation?
• What Is Ocean Resources Conservation?
• What Is Gorilla Conservation?

Discuss this Article

Post your comments.

• By: cheri131 Conservation tourism might focus on animals in danger of extinction, such as bats.