trends in protected areas - PATA Sustainability & Social Responsibility

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS

Hum Bahadur Gurung


Disclaimer The technical reports present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be of value to industry, government or other researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre’s (STCRC’s) Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the reports or by the authors if you contact them do not necessarily state or reflect those of the STCRC. While all reasonable efforts have been made to gather the most current and appropriate information, the STCRC does not give any warranty as to the correctness, completeness or suitability of the information, and disclaims all responsibility for and shall in no event be liable for any errors or for any loss or damage that might be suffered as a consequence of any person acting or refraining from acting or otherwise relying on this information. We’d love to know what you think of our new research titles. If you have five minutes to spare, please visit our website or click on the link below to complete our online survey.

STCRC Tech Report Feedback National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Entry Author: Gurung, Hum Bahadur. Title: Trends in protected areas / Hum Bahadur Gurung. ISBN: 9781921785023 (pbk.), 9781921785528 (pdf) Subjects:

Protected areas—Australia—Management. Biodiversity conservation—Australia. Ecotourism—Australia.

Other Authors/Contributors: CRC for Sustainable Tourism. Dewey Number: 333.720994

Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2010 All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to: General Manager, Communications and Industry Extension or Publishing Manager, [email protected] First published in Australia in 2010 by CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Cover images courtesy of Tourism Australia, Tourism WA (Margaret River), Tourism NT and SATC Printed in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland)

Acknowledgements Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program, funded this research. Thanks are extended to Professor David Simmons, Dr Patricia Geale and AJ Bromley from STCRC, and Professor Ralf Buckley, Associate Professor Catherine Pickering and Dr Guy Castley from Griffith School of Environment, for their assistance and constructive comments on the draft research project.

ii


CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ___________________________________________________________ II SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________ V OBJECTIVES ____________________________________________________________________ V METHODOLOGY ________________________________________________________________ V KEY FINDINGS __________________________________________________________________ V FUTURE ACTION ________________________________________________________________ VI CHAPTER 1: INTERNATIONAL TRENDS__________________________________________ INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS _______________________________________ PARADIGM SHIFT IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT __________________________________ SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT _________________________________________________________________ TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREA GOVERNANCE __________________________________________ PROTECTED AREAS—TOURISM LINKAGES____________________________________________ TRENDS AFFECTING TOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS ___________________________________ EMERGING TREND OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN PROTECTED AREAS ___________________________

1 1 3 5 5 6 7 8

CHAPTER 2: AUSTRALIAN TRENDS______________________________________________ 9 TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA’S PROTECTED AREAS _________________________________________ 9 VISITATION TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA’S PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________ 10 EMERGING TREND OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN PROTECTED AREAS AND RECREATIONAL VALUES _ 13 WORK DONE BY STCRC ON PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________________ 14 Visitation management models and frameworks ____________________________________ 15 Visitor impacts and sustainability _______________________________________________ 15 Best practice benchmarks and sustainable marketing of tourism _______________________ 16 Interpretation and education ___________________________________________________ 16 CHAPTER 3: GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ____________________________________________ KNOWN AND UNKNOWN TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS ________________________________ TRENDS IN VISITOR USE OF PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________________ VISITOR SATISFACTION AND HUMAN RESOURCES _____________________________________ TRENDS IN MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE _______________________________________ Shifting tourism market and immigration policy ____________________________________ Links of public private partnership in protected area tourism __________________________ BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES AND CLIMATE CONSEQUENCES _____________________________ RESEARCH OUTPUTS TO OUTCOMES _______________________________________________

17 17 18 18 19 20 20 21 21

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS____________________________________________________ 22 REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________ 23 AUTHOR ______________________________________________________________________ 28

iii


List of Figures Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 ___________________________________ 2 Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas ___________________________________ 3 Box 3: Governance of protected areas _________________________________________________________ 6 Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004)____________________________________ 7 Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas __________________________________________________ 10 Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends ________________________________________ 10 Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism ________________________________________________________ 12 Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors ____________________________ 13

List of Tables Table 1: A trend of the paradigm shifts in Protected Area Management adapted from Phillips (2003) _______ 4 Table 2: Marine parks and protected areas, Australia and external territories __________________________ 9 Table 3: Visitation to National Parks and Revenue Generated _____________________________________ 11 Table 4: Numbers of Visitors to National Parks 1998–2002 _______________________________________ 11 Table 5: Examples of STCRC research focused within protected areas in Australia _____________________ 14 Table 6: ‘The IUCN protected area matrix’: a classification system for protected areas comprising both management category and governance type. ___________________________________________________ 20

List of Boxes

Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 ___________________________________ 2 Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas ___________________________________ 3 Box 3: Governance of protected areas _________________________________________________________ 6 Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004)____________________________________ 7 Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas __________________________________________________ 10 Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends ________________________________________ 10 Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism ________________________________________________________ 12 Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors ____________________________ 13

List of Plates Plate 1: The average air temperature in Nepal has risen by one degree Celsius with elevation areas like Namche Bazaar (3440 metres) in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest National Park) warming the most since the mid 1970s due to climate change. ___________________________________________________________________________ 8

iv


SUMMARY Objectives Three primary objectives drive this research project: • review literature on management and visitor trends in protected areas internationally • review the work done by STCRC in Australian protected areas • identify what is known about visitor trends in protected areas and what is not known.

Methodology •

• •

This study relied mainly on secondary data sourced directly from previous research projects conducted by the STCRC in protected areas in Australia to review the management and visitor trends in national parks and other protected areas to review management practices, visitors, economic benefits, environmental impacts, education and interpretation and destinations marketing. An extensive literature review on the evolution of, and paradigm shifts in, management of protected areas and trends in visitation of domestic and international tourists in protected areas internationally. An expert consultation was conducted to identify the trends in protected areas in Australia and internationally.

Key Findings Protected area agencies around the world have dual roles of ensuring the conservation of biodiversity and protection of natural and cultural heritage while providing opportunities for quality outdoor recreational experiences. Protected areas are major destinations for both domestic and international visitors for a wide range of tourism and recreational activities and play a crucial role in ensuring sustainability across the three primary sectors—environmental, socio-cultural and economic. Meeting this triple bottom line is the basis of sustainable human development. This has been demonstrated in many protected areas where biodiversity conservation has been ensured through the participation of multiple stakeholders, especially communities, private sector and NonGovernmental Organisations. Governance of protected areas worldwide influences the conservation objectives and visitation in national parks and other protected areas. Currently, four different types of governance influence conservation objectives in protected areas. The multiple roles of national parks and other protected areas agencies worldwide and in Australia are complicated because they are managed not by single central governments, but are the responsibility of individual state and territory governments. However, all have the same objective to conserve biodiversity and the primary focus of all agencies has been increasingly on delivering quality services to both domestic and international visitors. National parks and other protected areas exist within a dynamic social and political setting that is sometimes difficult to understand and challenging to predict. In view of the international trends in protected areas, 16 important trends will influence the planning and management of national parks and other protected areas internationally in the 21st century. Trends in visitation patterns in Australia and internationally is hampered by a lack of good quality time series visitor data in all protected areas. Unfortunately, very few national parks in Australia have an adequate level of detailed visitor data. At present, the extent to which visitor monitoring occurs in most parks is variable and is not a high priority for management agencies despite the availability of internationally well-tested visitor impact and monitoring tools, frameworks and processes. Park visitation data in Australia’s protected areas highlight variable trends. Over 84 million people visit protected areas each year contributing significantly to the $70 billion tourism industry. Approximately 1.4 million international tourists visited protected areas in 2005–2006, where iconic sites such as Kakadu and UluruKata Tjuta National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park stand out as key destinations. However, visitation to the Great Barrier Reef has been relatively stable over the past ten years, as has visitation to Kakadu which peaked in 1999 at 183 483 visitors and declined to 148 903 visitors in 2002. Contrastingly, visitation to Uluru-Kata Tjuta has nearly doubled in the past 14 years, from 175 000 visitors in 1987 to just fewer than 400 000 visitors in 2002. A similar trend appeared in international visitation to Australian parks which declined from 49% in 1998 to 43% in 2002. However, identifying visitation trends in Australia’s protected areas is

v

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS problematical because there is no consistent system for collecting or analysing data or for gathering information on the revenue generation of visitation. The emerging trend of climate change internationally has threatened mountain tourism in recent years. The use of resorts in mountainous national parks for adventure tourism and skiing is changing due to shorter and unpredictable winter snow falls and longer summers. Nevertheless, national parks and other protected areas present a best option for retaining natural ecosystem resilience, reducing threats, and protecting refuges and other critical habitats for wildlife to adapt to climate change.

Future Action This report concludes that there are no systematic and consistent methods and processes to measure the visitation trends in protected areas internationally and in Australia. A number of recommendations are therefore proposed. • A worldwide database to measure visitation trends in protected areas should be developed to inform policy makers and protected area management agencies globally because a lot of these ‘trends’ are not currently being monitored at a global level by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) or World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). • A review of the current practice of information collection, analysis, publication and dissemination mechanisms of protected areas and tourism management agencies across Australia is essential for development of megatrends in visitor use of national parks and protected areas in Australia. It is imperative to develop a comprehensive, nationally consistent system for measuring the condition and trends with particular reference to how many visitors there are, which areas do they visit, and what activities are they engaged with in both terrestrial and marine parks. • The close relationship between tourism marketing and immigration in Australia is not a particularly wellresearched area in the tourism industry. Information on the emergence of new tourism markets and increasingly diversified products to cater for emerging markets should be developed. • Both domestic and international visitors are concentrated in iconic protected areas in Australia. Additional research is needed to determine their carrying capacity and the required financial and human resources to cope with the increasing demands on parks services and recreational activities. • Understanding visitor demand for parks and protected areas should be the focus of future systematic and strategic studies in collaboration with protected area management agencies, the tourism industry and STCRC to transfer research outputs into outcomes of economic, environmental and social benefit to Australia. • There is a need to identify best practices of sustainably managed tourism destinations in Australia and worldwide to learn from the best practices in protected area tourism.

vi


Chapter 1

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS International Trends in Protected Areas Protected areas are earth’s unique terrestrial and marine places devoted to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Biodiversity conservation in protected areas is not a new, but evolving concept. The idea of protecting natural or semi-natural areas dates back thousands of years where areas were set aside mainly as hunting reserves (Wright & Mattson 1996; Mulongoy & Chape 2004). However, McNeely (2005, p. 3) argues that ‘the fundamental point is that protected areas are not “set aside”, but rather are designated to provide or support a wide range of ecosystem services that benefit various interest groups’. Furthermore, protected areas have social, cultural and religious values particularly in indigenous societies. In many indigenous communities, many places were protected because they were considered as homes of gods, resting places for the dead or places for religious, spiritual and sacred sites (Mulongoy & Chape 2004; Gokhale 2005; McNeely 2005). It was only in the latter half of the 19th century that nature conservation or protection without hunting or for aesthetic values was recognised. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has defined a protected area as ‘an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means’ (IUCN, 1994 p.7). The term ‘national park’ was first used in 1872 when the Yellowstone National Park was established in the United States and is seen as the start of the modern concept of protected area management in the world (Wright & Mattson 1996). Inspired by the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park, many other countries started protecting sites such as Royal National Park in Australia in 1879, Banff National Park in Canada in 1885, Tongariro National Park in New Zealand in 1887, Udjun Kulon National Park in Indonesia in 1915, Virunga National Park in Zaire in 1925 and Kruger National Park in South Africa in 1926 (Stevens 1997; Mulongoy & Chape 2004). In the decades that followed, what had started as a trickle rapidly became a ‘flood’ as new protected areas were established in numerous countries around the world; such that today more than 113 000 protected areas covering over 12 per cent of the earth’s terrestrial habitats have been established (Steiner 2003; Mulongoy & Chape 2004; Worboys 2007b) (Figure 1).

1


Figure 1: International trends in establishment of protected areas 1872–2006 The IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has proposed six categories of Protected Areas (Box 1). Trends in biodiversity conservation and protected area management is changing significantly influenced by global political economies, economic development and community empowerment (Buscher & Whande 2007). Co-management or collaborative management (McNeely et al. 1990; Reid et al. 2004; BorriniFeyerabend 2006; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2006; Schumann 2007) is widely discussed in recent protected area management literature. Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 Areas managed mainly for: Category I: Strict protection—i.e. 1a) Strict Nature Reserve, and 1b) Wilderness Area Category II: Ecosystem conservation and protection—i.e. National Park Category III: Conservation of natural features—i.e. Natural Monument Category IV: Conservation through active management—i.e. Habitat/Species Management Area Category V: Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation—i.e. Protected Landscape/Seascape Category VI: Sustainable use of natural resources—i.e. Managed Resource Protected Area Source: Phillips (2004)

As the number of protected areas increased the conventional views of securing bastions of protection shifted profoundly, with important implications for both conservation and development. Much of the rhetoric on the fringes of mainstream development theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s, such as appropriate and small-scale technologies, local empowerment, popular participation, democratisation, and devolution of power, moved to centre stage (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). These theories have influenced the conservation and development processes since the 1980s exemplified by the emergence of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs). The popular use of ICDPs has been applied to a diverse range of initiatives ranging from those with a common goal of linking biodiversity conservation and tourism across protected areas to those linking socioeconomic development (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Johannesen 2004). In practice, ICDPs usually target both the protected areas and local communities to reduce pressure on natural habitats and resources (MacKinnon 2001).

2

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS The linkages established between conservation and community development were an innovative approach to find new solutions to the persistent problem of park/people conflicts.

Paradigm Shift in Protected Area Management Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (1997) have concluded from an extensive review of the current approaches to biodiversity conservation and protected area management that three distinct intellectual paradigms are currently practised worldwide. The classic/authoritarian, the neo-populist and the new liberal approaches are said to have had a profound influence on both international conservation and development discourses, and on the actual policies in different countries (Vihemaki 2003). While the classical ‘top-down’ approach was popular during the beginning of the conservation movement, worldwide the ‘bottom-up’ neo-populist strategy is regarded as a participatory or community-based approach to conservation and protected areas management which is pro people (Geoghegan & Renard 2002; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; Nepal 2005). The liberal paradigm has emerged in recent years to address the public-private partnership in protected area management which is gaining increasing momentum as an alternative strategy to expand conservation networks (Muir-Leresche & Nelson 2000; Roper 2000; Reid et al. 2004; Ipara et al. 2005). The paradigm shift away from exclusive or classic biodiversity conservation approaches to the neo-populist and liberal approaches has become a popular strategy since the 1980s in the light of contemporary social perspectives (Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997; Jeanrenaud 2002). This has resulted in an increasing number of community-based approaches to protected areas management in recent years (Murphree 1994; Kellert et al. 2000; Müller-Böker & Kollmair 2000; Mugisha 2002; Mogelgaard 2003; Pathak et al. 2004; e.g. Bajracharya et al. 2006). The paradigm shift (Box 2) is the outcome of more than three decades of interaction between parks and people, including indigenous communities around the protected areas, globally and is supported by other studies demonstrating that local communities have the capacity to develop ingenious social and cultural mechanisms that foster sustainable use and mediate environmental impacts (Stevens 1997). Conservation seems more likely to be effective when protected areas are partnerships in which local communities and indigenous peoples share responsibility and where resource management reflects appreciation of the importance of local knowledge, values, and conservation practices and supports, maintains, and builds on these through dialogue rather than coercion (Stevens 1997, Ipara et al. 2005). Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas In this changing world, we need a fresh and innovative approach to protected areas and their role in broader conservation and development agendas. This approach demands maintenance and enhancement of our core conservation goals, equitably integrating them with the interests of all affected people. In this way the synergy between conservation, the maintenance of life support systems and sustainable development is forged. We see protected areas as vital means to achieve this synergy efficiently and cost-effectively. We see protected areas as providers of benefits beyond boundaries—beyond their boundaries on a map, beyond the boundaries of nation-states, across societies, genders and generations.

Source: (www.iucn.org/wpc 2003)

The new conservation thinking and reconceptulisation of conservation are based on ideas of sustainable development, poverty reduction, utilisation and ecological dynamics (Brown 2003; Hazlewood et al. 2004; Lockwood & Kothari 2006). However, the complementarities and conflicts between environmental sustainability and human development continue to be the subject of heated academic and policy debates (Fabricius et al. 2001; Brown 2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). Phillips (2004) has succinctly compared the past and current trends (Table 1).

3


Table 1: A trend of the paradigm shifts in protected area management adapted from Phillips (2003)

Objective

Governance Local People

Wider Context

Perceptions

Management Techniques

Finance Management Skills

As it was—protected areas were:

As it is becoming—protected areas are:

Established mainly for spectacular wildlife and/or scenic landscape protection

Often set up for scenic, economic, and cultural reasons

Managed mainly for visitors and tourists

Managed with local people in mind

Valued as wilderness

Valued for the cultural importance of so-called wilderness

About protection Run by central government Planned and managed without regard to local opinions

Also about restoration and rehabilitation Run by many partners Run with, for, and in some cases by local people

Developed separately managed as ‘islands’

Managed to meed the needs of people Planned as part of national, regional, and international systems

Viewed primarily as a national asset

Developed as ‘networks’ (strictly protected areas, buffered and linked by green corridors) Viewed also as a community asset

Viewed only as a national concern Managed reactively within short timescale

Viewed also as an international concern Managed adaptatively in long-term perspective

Managed in a technocratic way Paid for by taxpayer Managed by scientists and natural resource experts

Managed with political considerations Paid for from many sources Managed by multi-skilled individuals

Expert-led

Drawing on local knowledge

The challenge to meet both conservation and development goals requires pro-people conservation initiatives since they are mutually interdependent (Jeanrenaud 2002) and this has supported the paradigm shift in the management of protected areas worldwide. People-oriented conservation projects have greater potential to reconcile biodiversity conservation interests with local communities’ livelihood needs if they are implemented holistically and in an integrated manner with a high level of transparency (Gurung 2006). Recent conservation approaches have focused on local participation and development as a means to establish community support, while still addressing the immediate need to curb ongoing species extinction and the shortcomings of the classic park model (Newmark & Hough 2000 in Spiteri & Nepal 2006). Participatory governance systems that embrace multiple stakeholder engagement in protected area management systems have been one of the most important developments in the toolbox of sustainable living as this adopts a balanced approach to strengthening a nation’s network of protected areas (McNeely et al. 2005). Habitat fragmentation and degradation present significant barriers to wildlife species that need to move to new habitats (Taylor & Figgis 2007). The recent trend of protected area networks worldwide is connectivity conservation, linking existing national parks into a landscape-scale mosaic of conservation areas and corridors (Buckley et al. 2007). For example, the most notable policy formulation in recent years in Nepal has been based on building up regional cooperation and promoting ecoregional conservation through the creation of a single functioning landscape through the restoration and maintenance of forest corridors that will provide linkages to protected areas in Nepal and its neighbouring countries India and China (NPC & MOPE 2003; WWF 2003). No system of protected area can achieve its full potential if protected areas become isolated fragments surrounded by incompatible land uses (Sandwith & Lockwood 2006).

4


Sustainability and the Role of Indigenous Communities in Protected Area Management The role of protected areas in protecting biodiversity and achieving simultaneous sustainable economic and social outcomes has been recognised in recent years. Sustainability science has emerged as a growing academic discipline since the globally accepted definition of sustainable development was coined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987). Protected areas play a crucial role in ensuring sustainability across three primary sectors environmental, socio-cultural and economic. Meeting this triple bottom line is the basis of sustainable human development (HMG/NPC & UNDP 2005). This has been demonstrated in many protected areas where biodiversity conservation has been ensured through the participation of multiple stakeholders, especially communities and NGOs. Indigenous people and their communities have vital roles in protected area management as they have traditional holistic resource management systems (Collins 2001). Howitt et al. (1996, p. 19) have argued that ‘it is increasingly imperative, in terms of social justice, equity, international legal standards, cultural diversity and ecological sustainability, that indigenous and tribal peoples have opportunities to at least influence, if not control, the resource management systems that affect their lives and traditional territories’. Local communities have traditionally embedded conservation principles as part of their indigenous environmental knowledge (Hunn 2006). Furthermore, cultural and religious values and beliefs are regarded as important elements of the conservation process (West & Brockington 2006). Thus, there is a need for greater understanding of cultural and religious values as well as their contribution in protected area management (Macdonald 2004). Cultural and religious values have also strong link to sustainable community development (Macleod & Gurung 1997). Any understanding of the relationship between culture and conservation must begin from an appreciation of the ways in which systems of beliefs and values are derived through experience (Macdonald 2004). Conservation is concerned about maintenance and sustainability of the natural environment, however, many local communities who live in the rural areas of developing countries have suffered from the establishment of protected areas (Ghimire & Pimbert 1997). However, it is argued that conservation is able to respond to the social needs of people while maintaining ecological harmony, and is entirely compatible with the growing demand for ‘people-centred’ development that achieves a wider distribution of benefits to entire populations (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980). This proposition has been supported by researchers (e.g. Sharma & Wells 1996; Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997; Jeanrenaud 2002) who recognise that the synergy between biodiversity conservation and human welfare is unproblematic. The mission of protected areas, particularly in developing countries, has expanded from biodiversity conservation to improving human welfare over the past thirty years (NaughtonTreves et al. 2005). The conservation discourse at the local level has proven that human welfare can be addressed by adopting decentralised, flexible and locally negotiated programmes (Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997). The debate surrounding poverty, livelihoods, environment and conservation draws mainly on local case studies, particularly on the impacts to protected areas (Lobe 2005; Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006; Weber 2006; Upton et al. 2008). Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation are fundamental goals and are part of the policy agenda of many international agencies and conservation authorities to make conventional protected areas relevant to first and third world countries (Agrawal & Redford 2006). Previous studies (Mishra 1982; McLean 1999; Müller-Böker 2000; Straede & Helles 2000; McLean & Straede 2003; Castley et al. in press-c) have outlined solutions to the potentially contradictory concepts of biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development as well as the strategies to resolve parks and people conflict in protected areas. While such studies are useful to draw the attention of park authorities, the social processes that make conservation efforts ‘work’ have often been overlooked. Innovative strategies to meeting biodiversity conservation and socio-economic objectives are therefore crucial to maintain both social and environmental sustainability (Castley et al. in pressb). Traditional fortress conservation, or ‘fences and fines’, approaches to protected area management are frequently ineffective in achieving both conservation objectives, and sustainable community development goals (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Brown et al. 2002).

Trends in Protected Area Governance Governance exerts a major influence on the achievements of management objectives, effectiveness, equity and sustainability of protected areas. The IUCN/WCPA (2003) recognises at least four broad governance models applicable to all IUCN protected area categories (Box 3).

5

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Box 3: Governance of protected areas IUCN recognises four broad types of governance of protected areas, any of which can be associated with any management objective: • • • •

governance by government shared governance private governance governance by indigenous peoples and local communities.

Participatory governance in developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia, has increasingly been promoted as providing varied approaches to protected area management including biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction (UNDP 2002). There is an emerging global trend that governments have entrusted the management/conservation of protected areas to the private sector and NGOs through a devolution of authority (Roper 2000; Secaira et al. 2005). This innovative and flexible approach to management has reduced the burden of governments investing limited resources to conservation (Plaut 2003). Over the past 30 years, African countries such as Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa have altered their legal frameworks to give full control over the use of wildlife to the private owners of the land on which the wildlife are located (Muir-Leresche & Nelson 2000). In South Africa, this has seen an increase in the establishment of private wildlife reserves through co-management for conservation and social objectives (Fay 2007; Lindsey et al. 2007). However, in many African countries (e.g. Kenya) wildlife conservation is still constrained by traditional top-down approaches and existing conservation laws and policies impact negatively on the communities’ indigenous rights as well as their participation in wildlife conservation (Ipara et al. 2005). The protected area management transition from centrally planned government management to active community participation started as a ‘fences and fines’ approach and gradually moved toward social conservation creating buffer zones which are largely designed to provide direct resource benefits to local communities around conservation areas (Heinen & Shrestha 2006). Local communities have been encouraged to participate in the management roles since the mid 1980s to bring a synergy between tourism, national parks and local communities (Nepal 2000).

Protected Areas—Tourism Linkages Maintaining biodiversity and using protected areas as economic tools through recreation and tourism have proven particularly challenging. Two key areas require attention, firstly reconciling the needs and aspirations of local people with protected area management and secondly, reconciling the economic opportunities offered by nature tourism with their associated ecological threats (Wells & Sharma 1998, p. 226). Protected areas have high economic value and provide ecological services. However, identifying a protected area’s goods and services, determining who values those goods and services, and measuring these values is not always a straightforward process (WCPA/IUCN 1998). Protected areas provide a wide range of goods and services including recreation and tourism, biodiversity (forest, wildlife, non-timber forest products), water resources that are not always possible to measure in financial terms. However, the ‘user pays’ philosophy for use of protected area services has been increasingly applied in recent years (Fuest & Kolmar 2007). This could generate a significant financial capital to manage and maintain parks and other protected areas. There is a strong linkage between protected area management and tourism. Nature-based tourism has become increasingly significant not only protecting biodiversity but also generating financial capital from a range of services. Wearing and McDonald (2002) have emphasised that ecotourism appears to have global appeal as a means of securing sustainable income for many rural communities. It will also benefit protected areas and associated communities when meaningful participation and enterprise development is incorporated to secure their livelihoods (Goodwin & Roe 2001; IUCN 2003). Tourism in protected areas therefore offers significant opportunities to indigenous and local communities in the developing world acting as a useful tool to reduce poverty (Morris & Vathana 2003; Chok et al. 2007) while integrating conservation and development (Godde 1989; Kollmair et al. 2005). For example, the lower Mekong region—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam (Carew-reid 2003), Annapurna region in Nepal (Pobocik & Butalla 1998; Nepal 2007) and Saint Katherine in Egypt (Grainger 2003) have some of the largest protected areas linked to sustainable tourism efforts and are recognised as regional engines for sustainable rural development.

6


Trends Affecting Tourism in Protected Areas Protected area management agencies are facing a number of issues in managing tourism and visitor use in national parks and reserves (Gilligan & Allen 2004). National parks and protected areas exist within a dynamic social and political setting that is sometimes difficult to understand and challenging to predict (Eagles 2004). In view of the international trends in protected areas, Eagles (2004) identified 16 important trends affecting tourism that will influence the planning and management of parks and protected areas internationally (Box 4). Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004) Trend 1: Park visitation will increase. Trend 2: Park tourism leads to increased public participation and collaboration. Trend 3: Increasing education levels in society lead to demands for increasing sophistication in park management and park services. Trend 4: A population shift in the developed world towards increasing numbers of older citizens results in significant change in activities, settings and experiences sought by visitors. Trend 5: Increased accessibility of information technology means that potential, current and past visitors will be better informed and knowledgeable about what leisure opportunities exist, the current state of management and the consequences of management actions. Trend 6: Increasing availability of information technology profoundly influences park visitation. Trend 7: Advances in the technology of travel and reductions in costs result in increased demand for park and protected area opportunities distant from one’s residence. Trend 8: The increase in park area, number of parks, and park visitation exceeds the capability of many park management institutions. Trend 9: Park management shifts gradually from government agency structures, with centralised financial control, to parastatal forms, with flexible financial management. Trend 10: Park management funding increasingly shifts from government grants to park tourism fees and charges. This results in higher levels of visitor focus in management. Trend 11: Parks and park agencies develop increased sophistication in their understanding and management of park visitation and tourism. Trend 12: Foreign aid and grants from NGOs increasingly fund biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism development in developing nations in order to promote sustainable development that provides both conservation and economic benefit. Trend 13: Park tourism may be damaged by war and civil unrest, especially in Africa and parts of Asia. Trend 14: The world’s international travel will be strongly affected by decreasing supplies of oil and gas and large increases in energy cost in the second decade of the 21century. Trend 15: Global climate change will affect many parks and much park tourism. Global climate change will be one the most important environmental issues affecting parks and tourism in the 21st century. Trend 16: Parks further develop as cultural icons.

7


Emerging Trend of Climate Change in Protected Areas Climate change will affect many aspects of the world’s biodiversity and ecosystems (see Trend 15 in Box 4). The emerging international trends reveal that warming of the climate system is now considered unequivocal, with observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. Average global temperatures have increased 0.74°C over the last century (1906–2005) and consistent with global trends, average maximum temperature across Australia has increased 0.6°C (Hyder Consulting 2008). The immediate impacts are seen in tourism and outdoor recreation activities particularly in mountainous regions. For example, Mt. Everest is reverting to a rocky mountain landscape as opposed to one characterised by snow capped peaks (Shahi 2008). According to a study carried out by the International Centre for Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the glacier cover in mountain regions worldwide has decreased significantly in recent years as a result of warming (Ibid). Snow-based tourism has been the principle activity and economic contributor in most alpine regions in Australia and internationally. However, more recently there is an increasing focus on summer tourism in these regions and the associated activities being undertaken. The weather is becoming increasingly unpredictable due to changes in climate bringing shorter winter periods with variable snowfalls and extended summer periods (Becken & Hay 2007). As a result snow-based tourism is in an extremely vulnerable position. Nonetheless, there are both risks and opportunities in mountain tourism due to the emerging changes in global climate. Recreational activities and visitation trend in protected areas will change significantly due to the unavoidable climate change.

Plate 1: The average air temperature in Nepal has risen by one degree Celsius with elevation areas like Namche Bazaar (3440 metres) in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest National Park) warming the most since the mid 1970s due to climate change.

8


Chapter 2

AUSTRALIAN TRENDS Trends in Australia’s Protected Areas Australia is believed to be the most diverse of the 17 recognised mega diverse countries for vertebrates and the fifth most diverse for plants (Sattler & Taylor 2008). Australia is also the driest inhabited continent in the world. Recognising the need to protect and conserve the natural and cultural heritage, Australia set up a nationwide network of parks and reserves called the National Reserve System (DFAT 2008). At present the National Reserve System includes over 9000 parks and other protected areas both marine and terrestrial covering over 900 000 square kilometres, or more than 11 per cent of the continental land mass (Department of Environment and Heritage 2002 cited in Wardell & Moore 2004a; Tonge et al. 2005; Worboys 2007a). In 1994, Australia adopted the IUCN definition of a protected area as well as the internationally recognised IUCN six tier system of categories to describe the management intent as a basis for documenting Australia's various types of protected areas (Table 2). As noted earlier, the general worldwide trend is occurring towards greater decentralisation (Inglis et al. 2005). Table 2: Marine parks and protected areas, Australia and external territories 1997 Category IA Category IB Category II Category III Category IV Category V Category VI Category not specified Total

2002

2004

no.

ha.

no.

ha.

no.

ha.

16 0 16 0 80 7 23 6

2 779 192 0 69 080 0 586 334 4 716 993 35 426 842 46 910

18 2 24 0 106 0 38 0

15 207 232 202 2 151 068 0 12 045 534 0 35 236 024 0

26 2 47 9 99 0 29 0

14 689 494 202 15 072 908 345 17 347 773 0 24 715 160 0

148

38 908 358

188

64 640 060

212

71 825 882

Note: Includes marine, national oceanic islands and external territory protected areas Source: Department of the Environment and Heritage 2007 (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS 2008)

Under the Australian constitution, the creation and management of public protected areas are the responsibility of state governments. However, six national parks, two botanic gardens and twenty seven marine parks are managed by the Australian government (DFAT 2008). Partnerships and co-management in Australia’s protected areas are emphasised particularly with aboriginal communities in recent years for effective management. A growing number of state government managed parks and reserves are now being managed with their indigenous owners. In addition, indigenous people have voluntarily declared 24 Indigenous Protected Areas on their lands, covering more than 200 000 square kilometres (DFAT 2008). According to Sattler and Taylor (2008) only modest growth in extent occurred over the period 2004 to 2006 with the protected area system growing by 1.1%, from 10.5% to 11.6% of Australia’s total land area. Almost all of this growth (0.97%) was in interim protected areas that have yet to be gazetted. For strictly protected areas within this total, there was an increase of 1%, from 7.3% to 8.3% over the same period. Growth was highly variable among jurisdictions (Box 5) over the period 2004 to 2006 (Sattler & Taylor 2008).

9

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas > The Australian Capital Territory increased its protected areas by 869 hectares (0.7%) as a result of new nature reserves and small additions to existing reserves. The Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2006 figures show a net decline, but this was entirely due to boundary realignments resulting in removal of areas that were mistakenly included in 2004. > In New South Wales, the Western Regional Assessment has led to the reservation of a further 350 000 hectares in the poorly conserved Brigalow Belt South bioregion. Despite this progress, New South Wales still has several bioregions that are a high priority for reservation. > The Northern Territory showed a small increase in strictly protected areas, and tied with New South Wales in having the third highest growth in extent of all protected areas, primarily due to the Australian Government Indigenous Protected Areas Programme. > South Australia showed significant growth in strictly protected areas. However, the total area protected actually decreased due to corrections of boundaries of two large protected areas in the northeast. > Tasmania reported an increase largely due to the inclusion of covenanted private protected areas in CAPAD 2006 for the first time. > Western Australia was the top performer in terms of growth of total extent of protected areas, with strictly protected areas increasing by 2% from 6.8% to 8.8% of the state’s area, and all protected areas increasing by 2.4%. However, this growth was mostly due to the fact that many new protected areas created before 2004 were withheld from CAPAD 2004 awaiting resolution of legal uncertainties. > Queensland showed small decline in categories V-VI which was due to transfer of Category VI Forest Reserves to Category II National Parks under the State Forests process.

Visitation Trends in Australia’s Protected Areas Australia now receives over 84 million visitors to its protected areas each year making up a significant proportion of its $70 billion tourism industry (DITR 2003 cited in Wardell & Moore 2004a). The multiple roles of national parks and other protected area agencies in Australia is complicated because they are managed not by a single federal agency, but are the responsibility of individual state and territory governments (Wearing et al. 2007). However, the primary focus of all agencies has been increasingly on delivering quality services to the public and visitors. Being definitive about trends is problematical because there is no consistent system for collecting or analysing data on visitation to national parks or other protected areas in Australia, or for gathering information on the revenue generation of visitation. Visitor data are currently collected by various agencies through entry permits, camping fees and other sources. A mixed bag of trends (Box 6) in park visitation have been noted in recent years (Steffen 2004). Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends Park visitation data display highly variable trends. Visitation to the Great Barrier Reef has been relatively flat over the past ten years, as has visitation to Kakadu which peaked in 1999 at 183 483 and declined to 148 903 in 2002. But visitation to Uluru-Kata Tjuta has nearly doubled in the past fourteen years, from 175 000 in 1987 to just under 400 000 in 2002. National Visitor Surveys by the Bureau of Tourism Research show that the percentage of domestic overnight trips to parks has declined from 14 % in 1998 to 11.5% in 2002. A similar trend is evident from International Visitor Surveys, which show a decline in international visitors going to parks and bushwalking from 49% in 1998 to 43% in 2002. In contrast, anecdotal information from park managers indicate that most parks are seeing increased numbers of visitors and that these visitors expect higher levels of service, including interpretation and education.

10

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS According to Steffen (2004) in 2001/02 there were an estimated 84 million visits to national parks, including the Great Barrier Reef, generating an estimated $54 million in direct revenue for protected area management agencies (Table 3). Table 3: Visitation to National Parks and Revenue Generated State Commonwealth, Parks Australia Commonwealth, Great Barrier Reef (GBR)* New South Wales Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia TOTAL

Visitation to National Parks (Millions) 1.5 1.6 22.0 5.2 13.0 2.2 1.3 27.0 9.8 83.6

Revenue from visitation ($ million) 9.76 6.46 12.50 0.00+ 7.96 6.55 2.10 5.00 3.21 53.54

(Source: Parks agencies December 2002) * GBR- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority + No entrance fee

A similar study by Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) provided some indicative visitation statistics for national parks and other protected areas over the period 1998 to 2002 (Table 4) but it is difficult to discern any general trends within these data. Consistent data over this period was only available for national parks in Western Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and those under the control of the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Great Barrier Reef and in these areas there has been a general increase in visitor numbers over this period. Table 4: Numbers of Visitors to National Parks 1998–2002 Jurisdiction ACT Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta New South Wales Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

1998 95 052 526 943 20 000 000 (1997) 2 956 648 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 100 185 1 628 647

2000 146 928 560 583 22 000 000 3 098 426 n/a 3 747 400 (2001/2) 1 240 000 (2001) 26 800 000 (2001/2) 8 293 875 1 667 407

2002 175 760 532 376 n/a 3 048 421 13 000 000 3 799 350 (2002/3) 1 350 000 24 900 000 (2002/3) 8 354 050 1 833 777

According to Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) the following trends in visitation to national parks and protected areas across Australia have been noted: • the bulk of visitors are domestic tourists (i.e. Australians residents) • a high proportion of international visitors do include national parks on their travel itinerary in Australia— but there is evidence that this proportion has dropped • different parks have different visitor profiles • parks that offer an iconic experience have a greater ability to draw international and interstate visitors.

11

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Over the period from 1997 to 2007, international visitor arrivals in Australia grew at a compound annual growth rate of 5.2% a year to reach 5.6 million (TFC 2008). However, a trend that could be of some concern is that the proportion of international visitors visiting protected areas has been declining since 1998, when 49% of international visitors visited national parks. The numbers of international visitors to national parks peaked at 1.97 million in 2000, which represented 45% of all international visitors. Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) revealed that the major factors influencing international visitors’ decision to visit Australia are to experience Australia’s 1) nature, landscape and wildlife (46%), and 2) coastline and beaches (39.5%). It has also been revealed that the propensity to visit protected areas varies greatly between different international visitors. Generally, European, North American and North-East Asian visitors have a greater tendency to visit national parks than visitors from other countries, particularly South-East Asian. Wildlife tourism plays an important role in the Australian domestic market where the majority of encounters with wildlife were in national parks (44.3%) or in other natural settings (12.9%) (Fredline 2007). Today, a key challenge of a successful tourism industry is the ability to recognise and deal with a change across a wide range of behavioural, environmental and technological factors and the way they interact (Dwyer et al. 2008). Global trends (Box 7) affecting tourism are globalisation and long-term economic, social, political, environmental and technological change which bring both opportunities and challenges (Dwyer et al. 2008).

Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism Globalisation and long-term economic trends • A growing world economy • Globalisation • Possible breaks to growth (what does this mean?) • What about global marketing? Social trends • Ageing populations • Urbanisation • Changing social structures in developed economies • Health • Aspirations and expectations • Values and lifestyles • Changing work patterns • Gender • Education Political trends • Existing and emerging global players • Terrorism • Health risks and security • Haves vs have nots • Governance • Political Islam • Impact of climate change Environmental trends • Climate change • Depletion of natural resources • Loss of biodiversity Technological trends • Competitive strategy and information and communication technology

12


Emerging Trend of Climate Change in Protected Areas and Recreational Values National parks and other protected areas present a best option for retaining natural ecosystem resilience, reducing threats, and protecting refuges and other critical habitats that will be needed by Australia’s native animals and plants to adapt to climate change (Sattler & Taylor 2008). They are major tourist destinations for recreation and tourism with around 1.4 million international tourists visiting in 2005–2006, including approximately 193 000 at Kakadu and more than 350 000 at Uluru-Kata Tjuta (Director of National Parks 2006 cited in Hyder Consulting 2008). The development of protected areas as major destinations for different recreational activities will have significant impacts due to the emerging trend of climate change. A number of passive and active recreational activities are popular while visiting national parks and protected areas including: • Sightseeing • Camping • Socialising with friends and family/picnic • See wildlife/experience nature • Canoeing • Horse riding • Bush walking (both short walk and long walk) • Mountain biking • Swimming • Skiing • Fishing The understanding of visitation patterns is important when assessing social and environmental impacts of visitor use of protected areas (Pickering 2008). Systematic recording of visitor trends including determining how many visitors, when they come, where they go, and what they do in parks and protected areas is found to be problematic in both developed and developing countries. However, a growing numbers of policy documents and reports suggest that climate change represents a major threat for the maintenance of biodiversity and natural eco systems. Hyder Consulting (2008) have forecast the potential impacts of climate change on recreational and socio-cultural values (Box 8). Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors Impacts of climate change on recreational values As an example, climate change may impact on the recreational values of protected areas in the following ways: • an increase in temperatures and the incidence of hot days (over 35° C), negatively affecting visitor comfort, including increased incidence of heat stress in visitors and staff • an increase in the frequency and intensity of fire, resulting in closure of park areas (for visitor safety) and damage to infrastructure • increases in rainfall events leading to flooding will restrict access to some park areas, and may therefore reduce visitor satisfaction. Impacts of climate change on socio-cultural values As an example, climate change may impact on the socio-cultural values of protected areas in the following ways: • an increase in extreme rainfall, temperatures and extreme events may exacerbate natural erosive processes on cultural values such as rock art • increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns may increase the transmission of mosquito borne diseases • climate change may indirectly disadvantage traditional practices, including fishing and hunting through changes to flora and fauna.

13


Work Done by STCRC on Protected Areas A wide range of studies on tourism and protected areas has been carried out by STCRC. Over 50 studies on protected areas alone have been carried out since 2004. This report briefly summarises (Table 5) the major research areas under different themes that reflect the management frameworks, issues, park visitation, impacts, interpretation and education, best practice and marketing in Australia’s protected areas. Table 5: Examples of STCRC research focused within protected areas in Australia Issues/Themes Governance/Management - Partnership and collaboration - Licensing nature tourism operators Parks Visitation - Predicting visitation intensity - Tourism Pressure Index (TPI) - Visitor management models, frameworks and processes - Visitor use data in protected areas, guiding principles of visitor monitoring systems - Visitor characteristics and activities in alpine area - Sustainable management of visitor use of protected areas - Visitor monitoring in mountain parks/impact of climate change on mountain tourism - Visitor use and satisfaction - Megatrends understanding tourism to 2020

Research in Protected Areas (Griffin & Vacaflores 2004; Laing et al. 2008) (Genter et al. 2007)

(Hadwen & Arthington 2008) (Brown et al. 2006) (Wardell & Moore 2004b)

(Johnston & Growcock 2005) (Tonge et al. 2005) (Thomas et al. 2005) (Archer & Griffin 2004) (Dwyer et al. 2008)

Impacts/ Benefits/Sustainability - Development of a ‘toolkit’ to assess economic value - Economic values/benefits of tourism in protected areas - Socio-economic impacts - Environmental/Vegetation impacts - Sustainable management of visitor use

(Wood et al. 2006) (Cairns 2003; Carlsen & Wood 2004; Mules et al. 2005; Tremblay & Carson 2007) (Northcote & Macbeth 2008) (Pickering & Hill 2007) (Tonge et al. 2005)

Interpretation and Education - Interpretation evaluation kit - Applying persuasive communication theory

(Ham & Weiler 2005) (Beeton et al. 2005)

Best Practice Benchmarks - Integrated park management models - Sustainable design in remote areas—‘low-impact nature-based tourism’ - Technology use Sustainable Marketing - Ecological marketing - Social marketing - Demarketing

14

(Inglis et al. 2005) (Beyer et al. 2005)

(Inglis et al. 2005; Wearing et al. 2007)


Visitation management models and frameworks Brown et al. (2006) and (Castley et al. in press-a) reviewed a wide range of management models, frameworks and processes to assist with the management of visitors and their impacts in protected areas available both in Australia and worldwide. These frameworks, models and processes differ in the extent to which they: • use behaviour regulation—carrying capacity • use site modifications—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) • determine standards, then monitor sites and adjust management accordingly—Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) • understand the relationships between ecological impacts and visitors—and Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) and Visitor Impact Management (VIM) • understand visitors—Visitor Activities Management Process (VAMP) • understand visitor experience in planning and use of stakeholder involvement—Tourism Optimisation Management Model (TOMM) Furthermore, tourism specific models such as the Tourism Futures Simulator (TFS) have been developed as a framework for visitor management. Brown et al. (2006) revealed that Australian protected areas agencies appear to be less familiar with, and use protected area management tools less than their North American counterparts. One of the challenges to the adoption of various models within Australia is the diversity of protected area designations, jurisdiction, and management authorities. Hadwen and Arthington (2008) have stated the broad applicability of the Tourist Pressure Index (TPI), a predictive model of visitor numbers at key sites within a protected area. The attraction of protected areas has increased dramatically over the last few decades. Wardell and Moore (2004b) developed guiding principles for visitor monitoring systems, data collection, data storage and data application with a recent review of visitor monitoring by protected area agencies in Australia and New Zealand. This review acknowledged that there are always a number of constraints, such as human resources, finances and politics, in developing appropriate monitoring systems. Previous studies (e.g. Griffin & Vacaflores 2004) have also acknowledged that a thorough examination of trends in visitation levels and patterns in Australia is hampered by the lack of good quality time series visitor data in all states and territories. Unfortunately, very few parks in Australia or overseas have an adequate level of detailed visitor data (Newsome et al. 2002a; Cole and Wright 2004; Leung and Monz 2006 cited in Pickering and Hill 2007). At present, the extent to which visitor data collection occurs in most parks is variable and depends on the staff and financial resources of the park, its popularity and the degree to which visitation is seen as either a threat or an opportunity to meeting the management objectives for the park (Buckley 2003). Indeed, parks are generally short on financial resources and are often under-staffed. In addition, staff can often lack the skills to design and implement visitor monitoring programmes.

Visitor impacts and sustainability Evaluation of economic, social and environmental benefits of tourism in protected areas is vital for sustainable development. Wood et al. (2006) developed a ‘toolkit approach’ to assess the economic value of tourism to protected areas. Case studies (e.g. Cairns 2003; Tremblay & Carson 2007) reveal that tourism generates significant revenue in both the Top End and Northern Territory regions, where about $58.1 million is generated annually from the Watarrka and Kakadu National Parks which are regarded as the major destinations for international visitors. Furthermore, the economic value of tourism in the Australian alps (e.g. Mules et al. 2005) and in Western Australia’s national parks, marine parks and forests (e.g. Carlsen & Wood 2004) suggest that tourism and recreation could be regarded as a benefit to the protected areas. Protected areas are a key mechanism to conserve biodiversity (Pickering & Hill 2007). However, tourism and recreation in protected areas have both direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment that may ultimately compromise biodiversity conservation objectives. The environmental impacts are generally focused on the impacts of tourism infrastructure and activities, principally trampling, camping, introduction of exotic species and off-road vehicles. The impacts are influenced by the type of infrastructure, amount of use, type of activity and behaviours of tourists, timing/seasonality of recreational activities and the characteristics of the vegetation communities and local environment (Pickering & Hill 2007). For example, horse riding has biophysical impacts that can affect the amenity and environmental quality of protected areas (Pickering 2008).

15

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Visitor monitoring in the high mountains and alpine areas are crucial to assess the negative impacts created by human use. A study in the Kosciuszko alpine area has revealed that most visitation to the region was unevenly distributed throughout the non-winter period, with public and school holidays being the peak periods (Johnston & Growcock 2005). However, the emerging trend of climate change internationally could threaten future mountain tourism, particularly during peak winter periods (Pickering 2007). The use of national parks in the mountains and resorts has traditionally been closely tied to the ski industry with many businesses relying heavily on visitation by skiers (Thomas et al. 2005).

Best practice benchmarks and sustainable marketing of tourism Environmentally sustainable development principles and practices generally guide remote area sustainable tourism facilities (Beyer et al. 2005). A sustainable marketing strategy is required to attract both domestic and international visitors to reverse the declining trend particularly prevalent in international visitors. The guiding principles for the sustainable marketing of visitation in protected areas are developed based on the ‘Five Rs’ model (Wearing et al. 2007, p. 14) are: Responsible

Sustainable marketing of protected areas should be designed and undertaken in a responsible and ethical manner.

Realistic

To be sustainable, marketing of protected areas should be done in a manner that disseminates realistic images and information to existing and potential visitors.

Regional

Sustainable marketing of protected areas should be designed and used in a regional context.

Research

Research is a fundamental building block of sustainable marketing and should be carried out and integrated into marketing planning and strategies.

Relationships

Cooperative relationships between relevant land management, industry and community stakeholders can benefit all.

Interpretation and education Effective interpretation, education and communications tools and strategies are essential for visitor management in protected areas. Ham and Weiler (2005) designed a toolkit to evaluate site interpretation which could also be used to evaluate specific interpretative programmes. In Australian protected areas, messages delivered via on-site signage, brochures, websites and other non-personal interpretive media have developed to managing visitors’ behaviours and activities that may damage the natural environment (Beeton et al. 2005).

16


Chapter 3

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE Known and Unknown Trends in Protected Areas Chapter three draws together the key trends from chapters one and two discussing what is known and what is not known about trends in protected areas. This does not represent a comprehensive review but reflects trends which are indicative of the recent trends in protected areas in Australia and internationally. Protected area managers worldwide face the challenge of conserving natural and cultural heritage for future generations, ensuring that conservation values are not degraded by the present generation’s use and appreciation of these areas (Gilligan & Allen 2004) and to ensure a sustainable environmental and socio-economic future. The review of related literature in the previous two chapters revealed that protected area agencies are generally focused on delivering parks services to visitors and implementing the day-to-day management activities and there is a huge information gap among these agencies because there is no formal mechanism to share information. The current trends in protected areas show that visitation is concentrated in a few iconic sites. Information is needed to sustainably manage these iconic destinations to monitor visitation trends, their satisfaction and impacts on the natural environment. Trends of visitor use, satisfaction, management and governance, and biodiversity conservation in protected areas in Australia are vital in the decision-making processes. Environmental education and professional parks interpretation is a key agent for sensitisation and education of park visitors. Education and interpretation are known to be a crosscutting management tool for the long-term integration of these issues for the development of sustainable tourism destinations in Australia’s protected areas (Figure 2).

Resource/ Biodiversity

Visitor Satisfaction

EE

Governance

Visitor Use

Tourism

Figure 2: Relationship among visitation use, satisfaction, governance and resource conservation and the role of environmental education (EE)

17


Trends in Visitor Use of Protected Areas As indicated in Box 4 current visitation trends in national parks and other protected areas are expected to increase worldwide. However, the limited data (Table 3 and 4) from Australia shows that despite some areas showing increased visitation others are relatively stable or decreasing. More importantly though is the lack of a nationally consistent mechanism for measuring trends in tourist visitation. Meaningful trends can be identified and the significance of protected areas to national leisure and tourism activities can be more accurately determined if nationally agreed standardised monitoring tools are used. Sharing of information between protected area management agencies is problematic due to the lack of coordination mechanisms. However, the Tourism in Australia’s Protected Areas Forum (TAPAF) which is an informal information-sharing collaboration between representatives of protected area management agencies and tourism agencies across Australia (Hillman 2004) has been an encouraging step forward for improving information sharing. A comprehensive, nationally consistent system for measuring the condition and trends of visitation in national parks and protected areas, its coasts and ocean ecosystems is not in place. As with many other environmental issues, Australia seems to have adopted a strange and ambiguous blend of developed and developing country politics, policies and practices (Buckley 2004). To date visitors from New Zealand, USA, JAPAN, UK and its close political and cultural allies dominate international visitors to Australia. However, the strong economy in developing countries such as China, India, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and other developing countries are emerging as a new market for the Australian tourism industry. This trend is likely to grow rapidly as the largest inbound growth market is expected to be China with an annual average growth of 15.7% which is followed by other Asian countries (7.2%) and the USA (5.4%) (Tourism Australia 2006a cited in Dwyer et al. 2008). The expected growth of tourism in Australia’s protected areas also could bring a change in existing trends in the characteristics of its growth. The emerging trend is that an increasing and aging Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998 cited in Gilligan & Allen 2004) will have an impact on patterns of visitor use and demands on protected areas. McDougall et al. (2004) stated that understanding demand affects the ability to deliver high quality products to meet market demand and the issue of the inconsistent approaches to collecting data within and between states hinders comparative analysis. An integrated national plan with a more accurate and consistent approach to measuring visitor numbers is not in place and should be developed and implemented in all states and territories.

Visitor Satisfaction and Human Resources Protected areas in Australia, from the outback to mountains and along the coasts are major attractions for international, interstate and local visitors. The visitor trends in protected area indicate that the highest numbers of international and domestic tourists visit certain iconic protected areas. For example, Kakadu and Watarrka National parks and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park attract many more international visitors compared to other national parks and protected areas. Similarly, New South Wales (NSW) protected areas attract more than 20 million visitors each year which are dominated by NSW residents exploring their own state. Quality tourism experiences with a wide range of recreational services can only be delivered with significant investment of both financial and human resources. Most national parks and other protected areas lack the logistics and trained human resources. Surprisingly, few parks have up to date, accurate records on visitor numbers. In many cases this deficiency relates to institutionalised and/or logistical constraints on data collection, collation and analysis (Eagles et al. 2000; Watson et al. 2000; Marion and Farrell 2002 cited in Pickering and Hill 2007). It is unknown if the management capacities of national parks and other protected areas will be able to respond to the growing and complex park management issues. However, advancement in information, communication and technology provide park visitors with a great deal of information and flexibility in deciding among various destinations.

18

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Growing visitor numbers in national parks and other protected areas can influence the ecological integrity across a wide range of natural ecosystems. Predictive visitor models such as the Tourist Pressure Index (Hadwen & Arthington 2008) might be able to identify affected destinations/sites before deleterious impacts occur. Currently, the existing park level assessments do not provide adequate details of the importance (and consequences) of high and/or variable visitation (and associated impacts) to specific sites. By generalising visitation across the entire park, managers are left with insufficient information as to where impacts might be occurring and when, how often and why. Roads, trails, waterways and campsites (in addition to different management zones) focus visitor activities within key sites (Watson et al. 2000; Eagles et al. 2002 cited in Pickering and Hill 2007). It is at these sites that visitor impacts are most likely to occur and, therefore, where they are most effectively monitored. However, for the most part visitor monitoring programmes are not in place, which make it difficult to measure the magnitude of visitation impacts. Whilst visitor numbers, timing and distributions can give an idea of the magnitude of visitation as an environmental pressure, information on the activities undertaken by visitors provides us with the greatest opportunity to design targeted monitoring programmes. Although a wide range of studies would have their own significance, an integrated study from the perspective of recreation ecology is required to monitor the visitor impacts on the natural environment and ecosystems.

Trends in Management and Governance Governance and resource use policies in protected areas significantly influence the visitation use pattern and the delivery of different recreational activities in Australian and global protected areas. Governance and management regimes across Australia are diverse which influences the management plans of the 9000 parks and protected areas. However, the institutional mechanism with regard to both vertical and horizontal policy linkages and coordination among different states and territories in terms of monitoring domestic and international visitors in protected areas are not known. Indigenous protected areas are growing worldwide and in Australia in recent years. Indigenous community cultures are regarded as important tourism products in protected areas especially in global world heritage sites. The participation of indigenous communities to promote culturally sustainable tourism is seen as a key driver to sustain the tourism industry while collaborative indigenous management strategies are vital to cope with the global climate change consequences. The economic benefits from protected area tourism to the indigenous communities as stakeholders in management of protected areas are unknown. The IUCN protected area definition and management categories are ‘neutral’ about type of ownership or management authority. In other words, the land, water and natural resources in any management category can be owned and/or directly managed by governmental agencies, NGOs, communities, indigenous peoples and private parties—alone or in combination. To date no specific study has been carried out in Australia to identify the four governance types outlined earlier in this report. There is an urgent need for a review of the governance of protected areas, which will influence the policies and recreational activities in national parks, and other protected areas in consideration with the management categories in the following matrix (Table 6). Protected area agencies need to categorise the governance models, which might benefit future tourism and conservation efforts within these areas.

19


Table 6: ‘The IUCN protected area matrix’: a classification system for protected areas comprising both management category and governance type.

Community conserved areas— declared and run by local communities

D. Governance by indigenous peoples & local communities Indigenous peoples’ conserved areas and territories— established and run by indigenous peoples

…by for profit organizations (e.g. individual or corporate land-owners)

…by non-profit organisations (e.g. NGOs, universities, cooperatives)

C. Private governance

Declared and run by individual land-owner

Joint management (pluralist management board)

Collaborative management (various forms of pluralist influence)

B. Shared governance

Transboundary management

Government-delegated management (e.g. to an NGO)

Sub-national ministry or agency in change

Protected area categories

A. Governance by government Federal or national ministry or agency in charge

Governance types

I a. Strict Nature Reserve Ib. Wilderness Area II. National Park III. Natural Monument IV. Habitat/ Species Management V. Protected Landscape/ Seascape VI. Managed Resource Protected Area Source: adapted from Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004

Shifting tourism market and immigration policy International tourism grew at around 5% during the first four months of 2008—one percent above the long-term trend (www.unwto.org 2008). All subregions had positive results with fastest growth in the Middle East, Northeast and South Asia, and Central and South America. Australia has a forecast for a high potential market from newly industrialised countries but international tourism was relatively insignificant compared to Australia’s 12.5 billion education export industry. The arrival of international students in Australia has significantly boosted Australia’s economy due to the changes in immigration policy. Furthermore, compared to the rest of the world, Australia is highly dependent on immigration for population growth. The estimated resident population of Australia is currently at 20.9 million and in 2006, almost 24% of the Australian population was born overseas (Seetaram 2008). This reflects a multi-cultural Australian population and will certainly demand diverse tourism products. The close relationship between tourism marketing and immigration in Australia is not a particularly well researched area in the tourism industry and future research in this area is urgently needed to provide valuable information on the emergence of new tourism markets to promote increasingly diversified products to cater for those markets.

Links of public private partnership in protected area tourism There is a growing interest in stakeholder collaboration in tourism planning and protected area management. Information is unavailable on the growing trend of public private partnerships (PPP) to explore partnerships and links with state governments, private sector, conservation agencies and communities for the establishment of nationally recognised protected areas and acceptable visitation monitoring frameworks. Visitor oriented approaches to tourism and visitor management, with a focus on monitoring and researching visitor motivations and satisfaction, can impact upon the way communities value and regard protected areas.

20


Biodiversity Resources and Climate Consequences Chapter one outlined the potential trends likely to affect tourism in protected areas as a result of global climate change. The world’s international travel will be strongly affected by decreasing supplies of oil and gas and large increases in energy cost in the second decade of the 21st century. The emerging trend of climate change will further affect travel costs internationally and could result in decreased visitation by international visitors. This suggests that visitation by domestic visitors may increase significantly. As discussed previously, global climate change will affect biodiversity and parks resources but also the potential of these protected areas to provide for recreational opportunities. Global climate change will be one of the most important environmental issues affecting parks and tourism particularly in alpine and mountains in the 21st century. The climate change consequences pose a serious threat to human wellbeing and protected areas but it is unknown how well the parks and protected area agencies are prepared to respond to the changing social needs and environmental conditions. Becken and Hay (2007) stated that climate change is anticipated to lead to a new pattern of favoured and disadvantaged ski tourism regions in the alpine Europe. Similar trends are expected in the Australian Alps. This has the potential to significantly change the visitation patterns and recreational activities but more information is needed to predict the future trends. The emerging trend of impacts of climate change in protected areas and buffering nature against climate change should also be focus of future research efforts.

Research Outputs to Outcomes A wide range of case studies commissioned by the STCRC (Table 5), provide area specific findings that are useful for protected area managers. However, they appear to be poorly disseminated academic works and it is unknown to what extent the various protected area management agencies have integrated and incorporated the research outputs for the improvement of park management effectiveness. Previous studies have identified internationally practised and well tested visitor impact and monitoring tools, frameworks and processes such as ROS, LAC, VIM, VAMP, VERP and TOMM but there is a need to assess how well they are practised by the parks authorities in Australia.

21


Chapter 4

CONCLUSIONS This report concludes that there are currently no systematic and consistent methods and processes to measure the visitation trends in protected areas internationally and in Australia. Protected area management agencies are often poorly funded and commonly concentrate their activities towards park management and give less priority to research and integrated park monitoring. The tourism industry and tour operators are largely driven by commercial market forces, and there appears to be little coordination or linkages among protected area management agencies and other stakeholders engaged in tourism and park management. Furthermore, several constraints have influenced the collation of regular and systematic visitation monitoring in protected areas. Protected areas and tourism trends influence the selection of target markets, decisions on product development, and the overall market positioning of the destinations. Human pressures on protected areas are continuing to intensify, because of global population growth and associated economic and political changes. Reviewing tourism and protected area linkages and trends are therefore a crucial step for the maintenance of biodiversity conservation and economic prosperity. The emerging climate change trends and the associated impacts in national parks and other protected areas bring many unanswered questions and tend to be the greatest challenge for management agencies in the 21st century. The current knowledge and information gaps are influenced by many factors including the management strategies and governance models of parks and protected areas. This review of recent trends in protected areas and tourism provides useful information for research institutions, government agencies and industry partners engaged in tourism and protected area management and encourage greater study in the assessment of the sustainable use of national parks and protected areas by tourists. This study is a snapshot of general trends of protected area in Australia and internationally. There is a need for further studies on the trends of visitors across the national parks and other protected areas worldwide and Australia to find the current information gaps, challenges and megatrends.

22


REFERENCES Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, Development and Biodiversity Conservation: Shooting in the Dark. Bronx, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society. Archer, D., & Griffin, T. (2004). Visitor Use and Satisfaction in Barrington Tops National Park. Gold Coast: STCRC. Bajracharya, S. B., Fulley, P. A., & Newton, A. C. (2006). Effectiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 32(3), 239–247. Barrett, C. B., & Arcese, P. (1995). Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 23(7), 1073– 1084. Becken, S., & Hay, J. E. (2007). Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities. Clevedon: Channel Views Publications. Beeton, S., Weiler, B., & Ham, S. (2005). Contextual Analysis for Applying Persuasive Communication Theory to Managing Visitor Behaviour: A Scoping Study at Port Campbell National Park. Gold Coast: STCRC. Beyer, D., Anda, M., Elber, B., Revell, G., & Spring, F. (2005). Best Practice Model for Low-Impact Nature Based Sustainable Tourism Facilities in Remote Areas Gold Coast: STCRC. Blaikie, P., & Jeanrenaud, S. (1997). Biodiversity Conservation and Human Welfare. In K. B. Ghimire & M. P. Pimbert (Eds.), Social Change & Conservation (pp. 46–70). London: Earthscan Publications Limited. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2006). Collaborative Management of Protected areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context Retrieved 3rd April, 2006, from www.snvworld.org Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Johnston, J., & Pansky, D. (2006). Governance of Protected Areas. In M. Lockwood, G. Worboys & A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing Protected Area: A Global Guide. Gland, Switzerland: Earthscan. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., & Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland: IUCN and Cardiff University. Brown, D., Malla, Y., Schreckenberg, K., & Springate-Baginski, O. (2002). From Supervising ‘Subjects’ To Supporting ‘Citizens’: Recent Developments in Community Forestry in Asia and Africa. London: The Overseas Development Institute. Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., & Seber, D. (2006). Managing Australia's Protected Areas: A Review of Visitor Management Models, frameworks and Processes. Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiers in Ecology Environment, 1(9), 479–487. Buckley, R. (Ed.). (2004). Tourism in Parks: Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: Griffith University. Buckley, R.C. 2003. Pay to play in parks: an Australian policy perspective on visitor fees in public protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 56–73. Buckley, R., Arthington, A., Connolly, R., Gleeson, B., Kitching, R., Low, T., et al. (2007). Climate Response: Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia. Gold Coast and Brisbane: Griffith University. Buscher, B., & Whande, W. (2007). Whims of the Winds of Time? Emerging Trends in Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Management Conservation and Society, 5(1), 22–43. Cairns, J., John. (2003). The Unmanaged Commons: A major challenge for sustainability ethics. The Social Contract, 136–145. Carew-reid, J. (2003). Protected areas as engines for good governance and economic reform in the Lower Mekong region Parks, 13(3), 5–14. Carlsen, J., & Wood, D. (2004). Assessment of the Economic Value of Recreation and Tourism in Western Australia's National Parks, Marine Parks and Forests. Gold Coast: STCRC. Castley, J. G., Hill, W., Pickering, C., Hadwen, W., & Worboys, G. L. (in press-a). An Integrated Framework for Developing Ecological Indicators of Visitor use of Protected Areas. Castley, J. G., Knight, M. H., & Gordon, J. B. (in press-b). Making conservation work: innovative approaches to meeting biodiversity conservation and socio-economic objectives, an example from the Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa. In Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation in Southern Africa Castley, J. G., Patton, C., & Magome, H. (in press-c). The changing face of South African National Parks: Making 'conventional' parks relevant to first and third world society. In Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation in Southern Africa. Cernea, M. M., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement. World Development, 34(10), 1808–1830.

23

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Chok, S., Macbeth, J., & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical Analysis of 'Pro-Poor' and Implications for Sustainability. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits?: Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty reduction. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications. Collins, J. (2001). Indigenous People and Protected Areas. In G. Worboys, M. Lockwood & T. De Lacy (Eds.), Protected Area Management. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. DFAT. (2008). About Australia: Australia's protected areas. Canberra: Australian Government. Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2008). Megatrends Understanding Tourism to 2020: Analysis of key drivers for change Gold Coast: STCRC. Eagles, P. F. J. (2004). Trends Affecting Tourism in Protected Areas: Working Papers of the Finish Forest Research Institute 2. Fabricius, C., Koch, E., & Magome, H. (2001). Towards Strengthening Collaborative Ecosystem Management: Lessons from Environmental Conflict and Political Change in Southern Africa. Journal of The Royal Society of New Zealand, 31(4), 831–844. Fay, D. A. (2007). Mutual Gains and Distributive Ideologies in South Africa: Theorizing Negotiations between Communities and Protected Areas Human Ecology, 35, 81–95. Fredline, L. (2007). An Analysis of the Domestic Wildlife Tourism Market in Australia. Gold Coast: STCRC. Fuest, C., & Kolmar, M. (2007). A theory of user-fee competition. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 497–509. Genter, S., Beckwith, J. A., & Annandale, D. (2007). Licensing Nature Tourism Operators in Western Australia: Business Impediments and Recommendations. Gold Coast: STCRC. Geoghegan, T., & Renard, Y. (2002). Beyond community involvement: Lessons from the insular Caribbean Parks, 12(2), 16–27. Ghimire, K. B., & Pimbert, M. P. (1997). Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of Issues and Concepts. In K. B. Ghimire & M. P. Pimbert (Eds.), Social Change & Conservation (pp. 1–45). London: Earthscan Publications Limited. Gilligan, B., & Allen, C. (2004). Resource and Visitor Management in NSW National Parks. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University. Godde, P. (1989). Community Based Mountain Tourism: Practices for Linking Conservation with Enterprise. In P. Godde (Ed.), Synthesis of an Electronic Conference of the Mountain Forum: The Mountain Institute. Gokhale, Y. (2005). Sacred Groves as Biocultural Heritage in Karnataka, India. In U. R. Sharma & P. B. Yonzon (Eds.), People & Protected Areas in South Asia. Kathmandu: Resources Himalaya Foundation and IUCN Goodwin, H., & Roe, D. (2001). Tourism, Livelihoods and Protected Areas: Opportunities for Fair-trade Tourism in and Around National Parks. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 377–391. Grainger, J. (2003). 'People are living in the park'. Linking biodiversity conservation to community development in the Middle East region: a case study from the Saint Katherine Protectorate, Southern Sinai. Journal of Arid Environment, 54, 29–38. Griffin, T., & Vacaflores, M. (2004). A Natural Partnership: Making National Parks a Tourism Priority. Gold Coast: CRC Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. Gurung, G. S. (2006). Reconciling Biodiversity Conservation Priorities with Livelihood Needs in Kangchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal (Vol. 23). Zurich: University of Zurich and WWF Nepal Programme. Hadwen, W., & Arthington, A. (2008). Where Do They Go?: Predicting visitation intensity at local tourist sites within protected areas. Gold Coast: STCRC. Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2005). Interpretation Evaluation Tool Kit: Methods and Tools for Assessing the Effectiveness of Face-to-face Interpretive Programs. Gold Coast: STCRC. Hazlewood, P., Kulshrestha, G., & McNeill, C. (2004). Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Reduction to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In D. Roe (Ed.), The Millennium Development Goals and Conservation (pp. 143–166). London: IIED. Heinen, J. C., & Shrestha, S. K. (2006). Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical Profile of the Protected Area System of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(1), 41–58. Hillman, R. (2004). Principles for Managing Commercial Tour Operators in Australia's Protected Areas. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks: Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: Griffith University. HMG/NPC, & UNDP. (2005). Nepal Millennium Development Goals Progress Report 2005. Kathmandu: HMG and UN. Howitt, R., Connell, J., & Hirsch, P. (1996). Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples. In R. Howitt, J. Connell & P. Hirsch (Eds.), Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunn, E. (2006). Meeting of minds: how do we share our appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge? Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 12, 143–160. Hyder Consulting (2008). The impacts and management implications of climate change for the Australian government's protected areas [electronic resource]. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

24

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Inglis, J., Whitelaw, P., & Pearlman, M. (2005). Best Practice in Strategic Park Management: Towards an Integrated Park Management Model. Gold Coast: STCRC. Ipara, H. I., Akonga, J. J., & Akama, J. S. (2005). The tenure factor in wildlife conservation International Journal of Environmental Studies, 62(6), 643–653. IUCN. (2003). Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Durban, South Africa: IUCN. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1980). World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland. Jeanrenaud, S. (2002). People-Oriented Approaches in Global Conservation: Is the Leopard Changing its Spots? London: IIED and IDS. Johannesen, A. B. (2004). Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs): Illegal hunting, wildlife conservation and the welfare of the local people. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Johnston, S. W., & Growcock, A. J. (2005). Visiting the Kosciuszko Alpine Area: Visitor Numbers, Characteristics and Activities. Gold Coast: STCRC. Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community Natural Resource Management: Promised, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705–715. Kollmair, M., Gurung, G. S., Hurni, K., & Maselli, D. (2005). Mountains: Special places to be protected? An Analysis of worldwide nature conservation efforts in mountains. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 1, 1–9. Laing, J., Wegner, A., Moore, S., Weiler, B., Pfueller, S., Lee, D., et al. (2008). Understanding Partnerships for Protected Area Tourism: Learning from the Literature. Gold Coast: STCRC. Lindsey, P., Alexander, R., Mills, M. G. L., Romanach, S., & Woodroffe, R. (2007). Wildlife Viewing Preferences of Visitors to Protected Areas in South Africa: Implications for the Role of Ecotourism in Conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(1), 19–26. Lobe, J. (2005). Connecting Nature, Power and Poverty. Inter Press Service Retrieved 5 May, 2008, from ipsnews.net/news Lockwood, M., & Kothari, A. (2006). Social Context In M. Lockwood, A. Kothari & G. L. Worboys (Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London: Earthscan. Macdonald, K. I. (2004). Conservation as Cultural and Political Practice Policy Matters, 13, 6–17. MacKinnon, K. (2001). Integrated conservation and development projects- can they work? Parks, 11(2), 1–5. Macleod, H., & Gurung, H. B. (1997). Culture and Religion: Important Lessons for Sustainable Living. In J. Fien (Ed.), Teaching for a sustainable world: international edition. Brisbane: Griffith University. McDougall, R., Testoni, L., Hall, N., Murray, F., & Switzer, M. (2004). Opportunities for Developing Natural and Cultural Heritage Tourism in Australia. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks: Australian Initatives. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University. McLean, J. (1999). Conservation and the Impact of Relocation on the Tharus of Chitwan, Nepal. Himalayan Research Bulletin, XIX (2), 38–44. McLean, J., & Straede, S. (2003). Conservation, Relocation and the Paradigms of Park and People ManagementA Case Study of Padampur Villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 509–526. McNeely, J. A. (2005). Building Broader Support for Protected Areas. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Friends for Life: New partners in support of protected areas (pp. 1–10). Gland and Cambridge: IUCN. McNeely, J. A., Miller, K. R., Reid, W. V., Mittermeier, R. A., & Werner, T. B. (1990). Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, WRI, Conservation International, WWF, World Bank. McNeely, J. A., Redford, K. H., & Carter, A. S. (2005). A Taxonomy of Support: How and Why New Constituencies are Supporting Protected Areas. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Friends for Life: New Partners in Support of Protected Areas (pp. 11–20). Cambridge: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Mishra, H. R. (1982). A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management Vs. The Needs of the Local People in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In J. McNeely & K. R. Miller (Eds.), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society (pp. 197–205). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mogelgaard, K. (2003). Helping People, Saving Biodiversity: An Overview of Integrated Approaches to Conservation and Development. Population Action International. Morris, J., & Vathana, K. (2003). Poverty reduction and protected areas in the Lower Mekong region. Parks, 13(3), 15–22. Mugisha, A. R. (2002). Evaluation of community-based conservation approaches: The management of protected areas in Uganda Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Florida, Florida. Muir-Leresche, K., & Nelson, R. H. (2000). Private Property Rights to Wildlife: The Southern African Experiment. Harare: University of Zimbabwe, University of Maryland and ICER. Mules, T., Faulks, P., Stoeckl, N., & Cegielski, M. (2005). The Economic Value of Tourism in the Australian Alps. Gold Coast: STCRC. Müller-Böker, U. (2000). State Interventions in Chitwan: On the Historical Development of a Region in Southern Nepal. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 5(2), 173–200.

25

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Müller-Böker, U., & Kollmair, M. (2000). Livelihood Strategies and Local Perceptions of a New Nature Conservation Project in Nepal: The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project. Mountain Research and Development, 20(4), 324–331. Mulongoy, K., & Chape, S. (2004). Protected areas and biodiversity: An overview of key issues. Cambridge: UNEP/WCMC/CBD. Murphree, M. W. (1994). The Role and Institutions in Community-Based Conservation. In D. Western & M. Wright (Eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in the Community-Based Conservation (pp. 403– 427). Washington: Island Press. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The Roles of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 219– 252. Nepal, R. C. (2005). Integrated Conservation and Development Projects - A Case Study of Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal: Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. Nepal, S. K. (2000). Tourism, National Parks and Local Communities. In R. W. Butler & S. W. Boyd (Eds.), Tourism and National Parks. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Nepal, S. K. (2007). Tourism and Rural Settlements: Nepal's Annapurna Region. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 855–875. Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2008). Socio-economic Impacts of Sanctuary Zone Changes in Ningaloo Marine Park: A Preliminary investigation of effects on visitation patterns and human usage. Gold Coast: STCRC. NPC, & MOPE. (2003). Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. Kathmandu: HMG. Pathak, N., Bhatt, S., Tasneem, B., Kothari, A., & Borrini-Feyerabent, G. (2004). Community Conserved Areas: A Bold Frontier for Conservation Briefing Note 5 (pp. 1–8): IUCN-CEESP. Phillips, A. (2004). The history of the international system of protected area management categories. Parks, 14(3), 4–14. Pickering, C. (2007). Climate change and other threats in the Australian Alps. Paper presented at the Protected Areas: buffering nature against climate change, Sydney. Pickering, C. (2008). Literature review of horse riding impacts on protected areas and a guide to the development of an assessment program. Gold Coast: ICER, Griffith University. Pickering, C., & Hill, W. (2007). Impacts of Recreation and Tourism on Plants in Protected Areas in Australia. Gold Coast: STCRC. Plaut, M. (2003). Africa's Wildlife to be Privatised. Retrieved 15 November, 2005, from www.bbc.co.uk Pobocik, M., & Butalla, C. (1998). Development in Nepal: The Annapurna Conservation Area Project. In C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Harlow: Longman. Reid, H., Fig, D., Magome, H., & Leader-Williams, N. (2004). Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia. Conservation and Society, 2(2), 377–409. Roper, M. (2000). On the way to a better state? The role of NGOs in the planning and implementation of protected areas in Brazil. GeoJournal, 52, 61–69. Sandwith, T., & Lockwood, M. (2006). Linking the Landscape. In M. Lockwood, G. Worboys & A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London: Earthscan. Sattler, P., & Taylor, M. (2008). Building Nature's Safety Net 2008: Progress on the Directions for the National Reserve System. Sydney: WWF-Australia. Schumann, S. (2007). Co-management and 'consciousness': Fisheries' assimilation of management principles in Chile. Marine Policy, 31, 101–111. Secaira, E., Lehnhoff, A., Dix, A., & Rojas, O. (2005). Delegating Protected Area Management to an NGO: The Case of Guatemala's Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve. Washington: USAID. Seetaram, N. (2008). Immigration and Tourism Demand: Evidence from Australia. Paper presented at the CAUTHE 2008: Where the Bloody Hell Are We?, Gold Coast, Australia. Shahi, P. (2008). Snow capped Everest turning into rocky mountain. The Kathmandu Post. Sharma, U. R., & Wells, M. P. (1996). Nepal. In E. Lutz & J. Caldecott (Eds.), Decentralisation and Biodiversity Conservation (pp. 65–75). Washington DC: The World Bank. Spiteri, A., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Incentive-Based Conservation Programs in Developing Countries: A Review of Some Key Issues and Suggestions for Improvements. Environmental Management, 37(1), 1–14. Steffen, C. (2004). Parks and Tourism Partnerships: An Industry Perspective. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks: An Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University. Steiner, A. (2003). Trouble in paradise. New Scientist, 180 (2417), 21. Stevens, S. (1997). Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Straede, S., & Helles, F. (2000). Park-people conflict resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Buying time at high cost? Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 368–381.

26

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS Taylor, M., & Figgis, P. (2007). Protected Areas: buffering nature against climate change- overview and recommendations. Paper presented at the Protected Areas: buffering nature against climate change, Proceedings of a WWF and IUCN World Conservation on Protected Areas Symposium, 18–19 June 2007, Canberra. TFC. (2008). Tourism Forecasting Committee Forecast 2008 Issue 1 Canberra: Tourism Research Australia. Thomas, P., Russell, R., & Triandos, P. (2005). Visitor Monitoring in Mountain Parks and Resorts: Summer Mountain Tourism, Victoria. Gold Coast: STCRC. Tonge, J., Moore, S., Hockings, M., Worboys, G., & Bridle, K. (2005). Developing Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Visitor Use of Protected Areas in Australia. Gold Coast: STCRC. Tremblay, P., & Carson, D. (2007). Tourism and the Economic Valuation of Parks and Protected Areas: Watarrka National Park, Northern Territory. Gold Coast: STCRC. UNDP. (2002). Democratic governance for human development. In Human Development Report. New York: UNDP. Upton, C., Ladle, R., Hulme, D., Jiang, T., Brockinngton, D., & Adams, W. M. (2008). Are poverty and protected area establishment linked at a national scale? Oryx, 42, 19–25. Vihemaki, H. (2003). Forest Conservation in the East Usambaras - the web of political, social and ecological factors in shaping the conservation policies and its outcomes. Paper presented at the Conference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. from URL|. Wardell, M. J., & Moore, S. A. (2004a). Collection, Storage & Application of Visitor Use Data in Protected Areas: Guiding Principles and Case Studies Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2004. Wardell, M. J., & Moore, S. A. (2004b). Collection, Storage and Application of Visitor Use Data in Protected Areas. Gold Coast: STCRC. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. WCPA/IUCN. (1998). Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Wearing, S., Archer, D., & Beeton, S. (2007). The Sustainable Marketing of Tourism in Protected Areas: Moving Forward: Sustainable Tourism CRC. Wearing, S., & McDonald, M. (2002). The Development of Community-based Tourism: Re-thinking the Relationship Between Tour Operators and Development Agents as Intermediaries in Rural and Isolated Area Communities Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 191–206. Weber, J. (2006). The 'guilty' are not the poor! Policy Matters, 14, 27–36. Wells, M. P., & Sharma, U. R. (1998). Socio- Economic and Political Aspects of Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal. International Journal of Social Economics, 25(2/3/4), 226–239. West, P. C., & Brockington, D. (2006). An Anthropological Perspective on Some Unexpected Consequences of Protected Area Conservation Biology, 20(3), 609–616. Wood, D., Glasson, J., Carlsen, J., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Economic Evaluation of Tourism for Natural Areas: Development of a Toolkit Approach. Gold Coast: STCRC. Worboys, G. (2007a). Managing Australia's protected areas for a climate shifted spectrum of threats. Paper presented at the Protected Areas: Buffering nature against climate change, Proceedings of a WWF and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas symposium, 18–19 June, Canberra. Worboys, G. L. (2007b). Evaluation Subjects and Methods Required for Managing Protected Areas. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast. Wright, R. G., & Mattson, D. J. (1996). The Origin and Purpose of National Parks and Protected Areas. In R. G. Wright (Ed.), National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection (pp. 3–14). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science, Inc. WWF. (2003). WWF Nepal Programme Annual Report 2002-2003. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal Programme. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS. (2008). Summary of Protected Areas. Retrieved 18/8/2008 www.iucn.org/wpc. (2003). The Durban Accord. Retrieved 18/08/2008 www.unwto.org. (2008). World Tourism Barometer. Retrieved 5/9/08

27


AUTHOR Hum Bahadur Gurung Hum B. Gurung has recently completed his PhD investigating participatory governance in protected area management in Nepal in the School of Environment, Griffith University, Australia. He has been associated with the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) of the National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal from 1986 to 1996 as Conservation Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Conservation Education and Extension Officer. He worked for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as National Programme Manager of the Sustainable Community Development Programme, known as Nepal Capacity 21 between 1997 and 2004. His research interests include participatory action research and community-based approaches for environmental education, sustainable development and tourism management in protected areas and published journal articles, conference papers and book chapters. Hum has also provided consultancy services to UNDP, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Nepal Programme.

28

• Travel and tourism industry • Academic researchers • Government policy makers

N

COLLABORATION

TI

INDUSTRY P ARTNERS

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

ON

OVA

O I T

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INN

A C O M M UNIC

COMMERCIALISE

UTILISE • New products, services and technologies • Uptake of research finding by business, government and academe • Improved business productivity • Industry-ready post-graduate students • Public good benefits for tourism destinations

UNIVERSITY P ARTNERS

C O M M E R C I A L I S AT I O N

EC3, a wholly-owned subsidiary company, takes the outcomes from the relevant STCRC research; develops them for market; and delivers them to industry as products and services. EC3 delivers significant benefits to the STCRC through the provision of a wide range of business services both nationally and internationally.

TOURISM NT NORTHERN TERRITORY AUSTRALIA

KEY EC3 PRODUCTS

Chairman: Stephen Gregg Chief Executive: Ian Kean Director of Research: Prof. David Simmons CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd Gold Coast Campus Griffith University Queensland 4222 Australia ABN 53 077 407 286 Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171 Website: www.crctourism.com.au Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop Email: [email protected]

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) is established under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. STCRC is the world’s leading scientific institution delivering research to support the sustainability of travel and tourism—one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries.

Introduction STCRC has grown to be the largest dedicated tourism research organisation in the world, with $187 million invested in tourism research programs, commercialisation and education since 1997. STCRC was established in July 2003 under the Commonwealth Government’s CRC program and is an extension of the previous Tourism CRC, which operated from 1997 to 2003.

Role and responsibilities The Commonwealth CRC program aims to turn research outcomes into successful new products, services and technologies. This enables Australian industries to be more efficient, productive and competitive.

The program emphasises collaboration between businesses and researchers to maximise the benefits of research through utilisation, commercialisation and technology transfer. An education component focuses on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.

STCRC’s objectives are to enhance: •

the contribution of long-term scientific and technological research and innovation to Australia’s sustainable economic and social development;

•

the transfer of research outputs into outcomes of economic, environmental or social benefit to Australia;

•

the value of graduate researchers to Australia;

•

collaboration among researchers, between searchers and industry or other users; and

•

efficiency in the use of intellectual and other research outcomes.