2011Cambridge Business & Economics ConferenceISBN : 9780974211428
Cambridge Business and Economics Conference (CBEC)
A holistic conceptual framework for sustainable tourism management in protected areas
Sophia Imran1, 2, Khorshed Alam1, 2 and Narelle Beaumont2, 3
1School of Accounting Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business
2Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development
3School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business
University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
Corresponding author
Sophia Imran
School of Accounting Economics and Finance
Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba
Queensland 4350, Australia.
Email: ; Ph: (+61 7) 46311363
June 27-29, 2011
Cambridge University, UK
A Holistic Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Tourism Management in Protected Areas
ABSTRACT
Protected areas (PAs) are set aside as representative areas to maintain ecological processes, genetic potential and environmental services. They also serve as tourist attractions and are sources of livelihoods for local communities in the developing countries. However, with the negative socio-environmental consequences of tourism there is a growing recognition of the need for sustainable approaches to tourism management in the PAs. While tourism has been acknowledged as a tool for conservation and for creating local livelihoods, it is widely debated that conflicting interests of multiple stakeholder groups can hinder tourism in achieving these social and environmental objectives. For transformational change in tourism management based on corporate socio-ecological responsibility, we identify key stakeholder-related factors that influence stakeholders’ participation and the domains where the integration takes place in tourism research. We further identify various organizational management models that have the potential to reduce conflicts, and to produce sustainable outcomes for tourism in PA destinations. This integrated approach to tourism research combines planning and management tools applied in these models to provide a holistic and collaborative tourism management system. We expect that this conceptual framework for PAs underscores social, economic and environmental sustainability.
Key words: Sustainable tourism, interest based negotiation, shared visioning, knowledge management, collective learning, stakeholders’ collaboration, systems dynamic modeling, integrated approach
INTRODUCTION
The concept of sustainable development and its application to tourism has received considerable attention in the recent past. However, the body of knowledge on sustainable tourism (ST) has not been transferred to the destination at operational level where it is actually needed by those who plan and manage tourism (Ruhanen, 2008). Also within the academy the conceptual elements of ST are being profusely debated (Ruhanen, 2008; Turk et al., 2009; Weaver & Lawton, 2010).
The term ST has acquired different meanings for different people (Garrod & Fyall, 1998; Hunter, 1995; Ioannides, 2001; McKercher, 1993; Ioannides, 2001). Business and management approaches dominate tourism philosophically and institutionally, and constrain tourism studies from developing new directions in culture and heritage tourism (Jamal & Choi, 2003; Jamal & Kim, 2005; Ren et al., 2010; Tribe, 2010; Ren et al, 2010). Moreover, in tourism,research suggests that scientific-positivist imperatives continue to dominate its scholarship, underpinned by neo-liberal values of “performativity, consumerism and profitability” (Tribe, 2009, p. 41) ignoring social and environmental issues. According to Farrell andTwining-Ward (2005) tourism study is structured on disciplinary lines, is largely business oriented, and frequently ignores the natural sciences and interdisciplinarity, both of which are important components of sustainable development. It is built on the idea of market-driven approaches and strategies based on technology and intense regulation that promote financial sustainability rather than environmental and socio-cultural sustainability (Adams & Jeanrenaud, 2008; Weaver, 2011).
Compared to macro level tourism, tourism research in protected areas (PAs), however, has lately drawn attention towards tourism as a tool for conservation and social development (Bushell & Eagles, 2007; Butts & Singh, 2010; Kidder & Spears, 2011, Sofield & Mactaggart, 2005). Deriving positive social and environmental benefits from tourism have given rise to the concept of sustainable tourism. There has been a shift from dominant scientific model to an ecologically sensitive green paradigm (Weaver Lawton, 2010). The inclination towards the often debated ethical and value based social and ecological concerns have influenced the PA tourism scholarship in the last two decades. However, there are very few studies in tourism literature that have assessedstakeholders’ factors to examine their implications on tourism as an integrated management systemin protected areas. New insights are gained by approaching ST in PAs as a complex and dynamic social-ecological system (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005; Walker et al., 2004) rather than viewing it simply as a tourism destination and a commercial supply and demand business enterprise.
Keeping in view the complex nature of tourism research, in the first section of the paper we recognize different stakeholder groups as the social components of SES organized at multiple levels with differing views. Key factors that influence the way these stakeholders respond to the development of a collaborative sustainable tourism management process and the social, economic and environmental challenges associated with tourism in the PAs are identified.
Keeping in perspective the human activity within the PA ecosystems, in the second section, these socio ecological systems are viewed not separately but as integrated complex adaptive systems (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005) and the meaning of integrated approach in tourism in PAs is elaborated, providing a spectrum of levels where the integration could occur within the tourism research. The development of a collaborative sustainable tourism management structure that encourages participation of multiple stakeholder groups in planning and decision making is discussed.
In the third section a need for an integrated and collaborative approach to sustainable tourism management in the PAs is presented. Based on an extensive review of existing empirical research findings key systemic tools and approaches are identifiedfor the development of aconceptual framework for a holistic collaborative sustainable tourism management system.Section four provides a conceptual framework for an integrated and collaborative sustainable tourism management process. Section five, the conclusion, underscores the importance of collaborative sustainable tourism management system and suggests further research for greater understanding of the factors needed to operationalize such a framework.
1 The Engagement of Stakeholders in the Tourism System
Researchers seem to agree that ST development in PAs supports a harmonized way of development that is ecologically responsible, socially compatible and economically viable (UNEP, 2009). However, the question that arises is how to achieve these triple bottom line objectives in the complex tourism domain, with sectoral fragmentation and with multiplicity of stakeholders having diverse interests.
Several attempts have been made to define the nature of stakeholders, but the most widely used definition is, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”(Freeman, 1984, p. 25). In the tourism context, Weaver and Lawton (2010, pp. 2-3) add to this definition and define tourism stakeholders as, “members of an interconnected network in which possibilities exist for interaction among any two or more components within the system”. The stakeholder groups depicted in Figure 1 are an integral part of the destination planning and development and can play an important role in creating ST in PAs. Therefore, the concept of ST has reordered tourism knowledge and recent research has underlined the need for cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders to influence policy and management agendas (Lovelock, 2001;Ren et al., 2010; Sijlbing, 2010).
Since stakeholders are individuals or groups of people who influence and are affected by economic, social and environmental decisions and actions, tourism management in PAs requires stakeholder participation from a diversity of knowledge, perceptions and values (Reed et al., 2009). Stakeholders will often have different interests in ecosystem services (Shepherd, 2008) which means effective management of ecosystems requires a negotiation process that develops mutual trust in issues of common interest with the objective of creating mutually beneficial partnerships (Mushove Vogel, 2005).
Faulkner (2003) asserts that the achievement of sustainable tourismobjectives hinges on the adoption of a participatory model, involving meaningful engagement of the local community, the tourism industry and the relevant government agencies in the strategic planning process. This argument is further supported in research where stakeholder participation has been identified as a prerequisite of the ST planning process (Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Hall, 2000; Ruhanen, 2008;Schianetz et al, 2007; Simpson, 2001). In this paper participation is defined as a process where individuals, groups and organisations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect them (Wandersman, 1981; Wilcox, 2003; Row et al., 2004).
Keeping in perspective the importance of stakeholders in PA tourism system, Mitchell et al.(1997) and Agle et al. (1999) identify stakeholders on the basis of four general attributes (power, urgency, legitimacy and salience). Even though these four attributes are frequently mentioned by researchers as key factors in influencing the level of engagement and collaboration among these stakeholders (Reed et al, 2009). We assert that these attributes need to be activated through other determinants to generate responsive attitudes and engagement of the stakeholders in a truly collaborative process. Factors such as the interest of the stakeholders in the environment, their understanding about sustainable tourism management and their capacity (ability and opportunity) to form collaborative structures are the key elements that determine how effective a collaborative process is. There are numerous research studies that consider these factors crucial for collaboration to thrive (Aref et al., 2010; Aref & Redzuan, 2009; Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002; Ruhanan, 2008;Schianetz et al., 2007), but there are no studies that assess the implications of these three factors on the development and implementation of a collaborative sustainable tourism management system in the protected areas.
In policy research, approaches have been developed to analyze stakeholders in order to understand their interests and influence on decision making processes (Reed et al., 2009). Questions such as to what extent the interest, understanding and capacity of stakeholder groups is related to the power, urgency, legitimacy and salience to adopt collaborative ST in the protected areas havenot been researched. Collaborative theory suggests that stakeholders should be involved in decision making process as it leads to the transformation of relationships and development of trust and understanding between participants (Reed et al., 2009).Hence, perceptions that indicate the interest and understanding of the stakeholder groups towards the environment and sustainable tourism must be well understood before policies and management plans addressing sustainability issues can be developed. Such studies can be of importance to local decision makers and tourism developers as these establish a basis for appropriate policy and management strategies (Turk et al 2009).
1.1 Key factors for effective stakeholder participation in collaborative sustainable tourism management in protected areas
Vernon et al. (2005, p. 328) define collaboration as “a number of stakeholders working interactively on a common issue or problem domain through a formal cross sectoral approach”. According to them the problem domain refers to a complex issue that cannot be solved by a single agency acting on its own, but instead requires a multi-organizational response. Tourism is inherently non linear, complex and dynamic (Dredge, 2006; McKercher, 1999; Ren et al., 2010),and therefore has to be managed adaptively. According to Schianetz et al.(2007), adaptive management approaches are based on continuous and collective learning concepts. Therefore, for ST advancement, approaches are needed that promote stakeholder collaboration and learning to ensure that sustainable development issues are incorporated in the planning and management of tourism in the destination (Schianetz et al., 2007). Bramwell and Lane (2001), likewise, assert that factors such as common interest (awareness), understanding (knowledge) and capacity (expertise and financial resources) can produce consensus and synergy leading to innovative solutions and greater level of effectiveness that would not have been achieved by the partners acting alone. Therefore, research is needed that focuses on the practical aspects in terms of identifying planning and management tools to implement the concept of ST in PAswhichencourages an active engagement process among the diverse stakeholders.
As mentioned before, it is assumed that the level of participation of the stakeholders concerned with and affected by tourism in PAs depends upon factors such as their interest, understanding and capacity,which in turn have influence on the power, urgency, legitimacy and salience of these stakeholders to get involved in the sustainable tourism managementprocess. It is, for instance, presumed that PA authorizes might have the legitimacy to protect and conserve the natural resources and to safeguard the social and economic interests of the local communities, they might not have enough interest, understanding or capacity to work collaboratively with the local communities to achieve the triple bottom line objectives of ST in the PA. Likewise the stakeholders who can exert their influence to get the ST management process rolling might only be willing to commit their time and resources if they have a high level of interest and understanding for ST development. The legitimacy of the stakeholders, in the same way, can only be effectivewhen they are actually interested and have the knowledge and capacity to claim their legitimate right to engage in ST management. Similarly, the urgency of the stakeholders to get involved in ST will only be realized if they have the capacity (opportunity) to translate their aspirations into reality. The salience of the stakeholders is possible only if they are empowered through their interest, understanding and capacity to assert their rightful involvement in the decision making, planning and implementation of ST management in PAs. According to the research findings (De Lopez, 2001; Reed et al., 2009) the development of both interest and capacity can transform the stakeholders from “crowed” (low interest, low influence) to key players (high interest, high influence).
There is therefore, a need to assess the interest, understanding and capacity of multiple stakeholders for environmental and sustainable tourism initiatives to determine how these factors affect their intention and willingness to engage in sustainable tourism development and whether the interest, understanding and capacity provide them with the power, urgency, legitimacy and salienceto actually engage in sustainable tourism development practices in the PAs.
1.2 Learning for common issues and a shared vision
Jamal and Getz (1995) emphasize the importance of a shared vision, a mutual understanding of the interdependence of the partners, the benefits to be derived and power and legitimacy of the alliance for successful collaboration. Ruhanen (2008), in her study examining the transfer of knowledge regarding sustainability to tourism destination stakeholders, notes that lack of understanding regarding sustainability and how to implement it in practice have resulted in tokenistic references to sustainable tourism development objectives. She further suggeststhat at the destination management level knowledge, management strategies and tools will be required for sustained viability of tourism. Typically this learning process involves an exchange of ideas and expertise and/or pooling of financial resources. Based on a case study in Cusco, Peruthat examines the issues concerning a collaborative approach towards tourism planning,Ladkin and Bertramini (2002)reveal that although the respondents’ belief in collaboration was evident, they lacked the shared visionto develop collaboration as a major part of the tourism development process. They identify the existence of a shared vision, or the feelings that the stakeholders are sharing a common problem which they need each other to solve,as one of the most important factors in developing collaborative approaches towards tourism. They further assert that developing networks where linkages between stakeholders become more formalized can lead to developing a shared vision and in maintaining mutual interests.
There is considerable discussion in the literature that an inherent problem in achieving ST management goals is the existence of many interest groups with varied viewpoints and there is no easy way of reconciling these to reach consensus. Conversely, a great deal of empirical research challenges this theory with the idea that interest in a common issue can generate a shared vision decreasing conflict in decision making among the stakeholders (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005; Reed et al., 2009). However, this interest in common issue needs to be reinforced by facilitating learning and by sharing knowledge and understanding of the ecological, social and economic situation to reach consensus and for achieving ST development goals. We propose that shared interest in common issues and understanding that these must be resolved for the benefit of all parties concerned can lead to the partial empowerment of the stakeholders to acquire the legitimacy and influence to participate in the planning, management and decision making process. To achieve optimal level of empowerment, the stakeholders must have the capacity to translate their strategic vision into reality.
The above discourse shows that for ST development to take place requires the commitment and skills to contribute to this learning or negotiation among stakeholders. It involves building strong and effective partnerships, understanding the social and environmental impacts of tourism and showing long term commitment to reduce environmental impacts with a sense of responsibility to the PA and its communities. Without a shared vision and the inability to identify common interests and issues,the result would be tourism development that is not sustainable (Walsh et al., 2001).Although tourism researchers and planners acknowledge the importance of creating a shared vision for tourism planning (Crouch Ritchie, 1999; Jamal Getz, 1995), it has not been identified through empirical research what conditions or tools are necessary for advancing a shared vision in a tourism destination with a diverse stakeholder mix. For a shared vision to develop, it is therefore imperative toadopt an integrated systems approach, working towards increasing awareness and collaboration by creating networks and establishing common objectives by using participatory planning techniques; building capacity in sustainable tourism management skills; buildingfinancial, managerial and administrative abilities;and creating socially, environmentally and economically resilient individuals, organizations and communities.It is argued that the creation of networks does not necessarily result in empowerment for all concerned. Complexissues of participation and inclusion remain central to the creation of equitable, sustainable,and integrated rural tourism (SexanaIlbery, 2008). A shared visioning process that involves deliberations and social learning to discover common purpose is essential for successful collaboration among the stakeholders (Decker, et al., 2005).