2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Cambridge Business and Economics Conference (CBEC)
A holistic conceptual framework for sustainable tourism management in protected areas
Sophia Imran1, 2, Khorshed Alam1, 2 and Narelle Beaumont2, 3
1
School of Accounting Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business
2
Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development
3
School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business
University of Southern Queensland, Australia.
Corresponding author
Sophia Imran
School of Accounting Economics and Finance
Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba
Queensland 4350, Australia.
Email: Sophia.Imran@usq.edu.au; Ph: (+61 7) 46311363
June 27-29, 2011
Cambridge University, UK
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
1
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
A Holistic Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Tourism Management in Protected
Areas
ABSTRACT
Protected areas (PAs) are set aside as representative areas to maintain ecological
processes, genetic potential and environmental services. They also serve as tourist attractions and
are sources of livelihoods for local communities in the developing countries. However, with the
negative socio-environmental consequences of tourism there is a growing recognition of the need
for sustainable approaches to tourism management in the PAs. While tourism has been
acknowledged as a tool for conservation and for creating local livelihoods, it is widely debated
that conflicting interests of multiple stakeholder groups can hinder tourism in achieving these
social and environmental objectives. For transformational change in tourism management based
on corporate socio-ecological responsibility, we identify key stakeholder-related factors that
influence stakeholders’ participation and the domains where the integration takes place in tourism
research. We further identify various organizational management models that have the potential
to reduce conflicts, and to produce sustainable outcomes for tourism in PA destinations. This
integrated approach to tourism research combines planning and management tools applied in
these models to provide a holistic and collaborative tourism management system. We expect that
this conceptual framework for PAs underscores social, economic and environmental
sustainability.
Key words: Sustainable tourism, interest based negotiation, shared visioning, knowledge
management, collective learning, stakeholders’ collaboration, systems dynamic modeling,
integrated approach
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
2
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
INTRODUCTION
The concept of sustainable development and its application to tourism has received
considerable attention in the recent past. However, the body of knowledge on sustainable tourism
(ST) has not been transferred to the destination at operational level where it is actually needed by
those who plan and manage tourism (Ruhanen, 2008). Also within the academy the conceptual
elements of ST are being profusely debated (Ruhanen, 2008; Turk et al., 2009; Weaver &
Lawton, 2010).
The term ST has acquired different meanings for different people (Garrod & Fyall, 1998;
Hunter, 1995; Ioannides, 2001; McKercher, 1993; Ioannides, 2001). Business and management
approaches dominate tourism philosophically and institutionally, and constrain tourism studies
from developing new directions in culture and heritage tourism (Jamal & Choi, 2003; Jamal &
Kim, 2005; Ren et al., 2010; Tribe, 2010; Ren et al, 2010). Moreover, in tourism, research
suggests that scientific-positivist imperatives continue to dominate its scholarship, underpinned
by neo-liberal values of “performativity, consumerism and profitability” (Tribe, 2009, p. 41)
ignoring social and environmental issues. According to Farrell and Twining-Ward (2005) tourism
study is structured on disciplinary lines, is largely business oriented, and frequently ignores the
natural sciences and interdisciplinarity, both of which are important components of sustainable
development. It is built on the idea of market-driven approaches and strategies based on
technology and intense regulation that promote financial sustainability rather than environmental
and socio-cultural sustainability (Adams & Jeanrenaud, 2008; Weaver, 2011).
Compared to macro level tourism, tourism research in protected areas (PAs), however,
has lately drawn attention towards tourism as a tool for conservation and social development
(Bushell & Eagles, 2007; Butts & Singh, 2010; Kidder & Spears, 2011, Sofield & Mactaggart,
2005). Deriving positive social and environmental benefits from tourism have given rise to the
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
3
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
concept of sustainable tourism. There has been a shift from dominant scientific model to an
ecologically sensitive green paradigm (Weaver & Lawton, 2010). The inclination towards the
often debated ethical and value based social and ecological concerns have influenced the PA
tourism scholarship in the last two decades. However, there are very few studies in tourism
literature that have assessed stakeholders’ factors to examine their implications on tourism as an
integrated management system in protected areas. New insights are gained by approaching ST in
PAs as a complex and dynamic social-ecological system (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005; Walker
et al., 2004) rather than viewing it simply as a tourism destination and a commercial supply and
demand business enterprise.
Keeping in view the complex nature of tourism research, in the first section of the paper
we recognize different stakeholder groups as the social components of SES organized at multiple
levels with differing views. Key factors that influence the way these stakeholders respond to the
development of a collaborative sustainable tourism management process and the social, economic
and environmental challenges associated with tourism in the PAs are identified.
Keeping in perspective the human activity within the PA ecosystems, in the second
section, these socio ecological systems are viewed not separately but as integrated complex
adaptive systems (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005) and the meaning of integrated approach in
tourism in PAs is elaborated, providing a spectrum of levels where the integration could occur
within the tourism research. The development of a collaborative sustainable tourism management
structure that encourages participation of multiple stakeholder groups in planning and decision
making is discussed.
In the third section a need for an integrated and collaborative approach to sustainable
tourism management in the PAs is presented. Based on an extensive review of existing empirical
research findings key systemic tools and approaches are identified for the development of a
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
4
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
conceptual framework for a holistic collaborative sustainable tourism management system.
Section four provides a conceptual framework for an integrated and collaborative sustainable
tourism management process.
Section five, the conclusion, underscores the importance of
collaborative sustainable tourism management system and suggests further research for greater
understanding of the factors needed to operationalize such a framework.
1 The Engagement of Stakeholders in the Tourism System
Researchers seem to agree that ST development in PAs supports a harmonized way of
development that is ecologically responsible, socially compatible and economically viable
(UNEP, 2009). However, the question that arises is how to achieve these triple bottom line
objectives in the complex tourism domain, with sectoral fragmentation and with multiplicity of
stakeholders having diverse interests.
Several attempts have been made to define the nature of stakeholders, but the most widely
used definition is, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of
the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). In the tourism context, Weaver and
Lawton (2010, pp. 2-3) add to this definition and define tourism stakeholders as, “members of an
interconnected network in which possibilities exist for interaction among any two or more
components within the system”. The stakeholder groups depicted in Figure 1 are an integral part
of the destination planning and development and can play an important role in creating ST in
PAs. Therefore, the concept of ST has reordered tourism knowledge and recent research has
underlined the need for cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders to influence
policy and management agendas (Lovelock, 2001; Ren et al., 2010; Sijlbing, 2010).
Since stakeholders are individuals or groups of people who influence and are affected by
economic, social and environmental decisions and actions, tourism management in PAs requires
stakeholder participation from a diversity of knowledge, perceptions and values (Reed et al.,
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
5
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
2009). Stakeholders will often have different interests in ecosystem services (Shepherd, 2008)
which means effective management of ecosystems requires a negotiation process that develops
mutual trust in issues of common interest with the objective of creating mutually beneficial
partnerships (Mushove & Vogel, 2005).
Faulkner (2003) asserts that the achievement of sustainable tourism objectives hinges on
the adoption of a participatory model, involving meaningful engagement of the local community,
the tourism industry and the relevant government agencies in the strategic planning process. This
argument is further supported in research where stakeholder participation has been identified as a
prerequisite of the ST planning process (Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Hall, 2000; Ruhanen, 2008;
Schianetz et al, 2007; Simpson, 2001). In this paper participation is defined as a process where
individuals, groups and organisations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect
them (Wandersman, 1981; Wilcox, 2003; Row et al., 2004).
Keeping in perspective the importance of stakeholders in PA tourism system, Mitchell et
al. (1997) and Agle et al. (1999) identify stakeholders on the basis of four general attributes
(power, urgency, legitimacy and salience). Even though these four attributes are frequently
mentioned by researchers as key factors in influencing the level of engagement and collaboration
among these stakeholders (Reed et al, 2009). We assert that these attributes need to be activated
through other determinants to generate responsive attitudes and engagement of the stakeholders
in a truly collaborative process. Factors such as the interest of the stakeholders in the
environment, their understanding about sustainable tourism management and their capacity
(ability and opportunity) to form collaborative structures are the key elements that determine how
effective a collaborative process is. There are numerous research studies that consider these
factors crucial for collaboration to thrive (Aref et al., 2010; Aref & Redzuan, 2009; Ladkin &
Bertramini, 2002; Ruhanan, 2008; Schianetz et al., 2007), but there are no studies that assess the
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
6
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
implications of these three factors on the development and implementation of a collaborative
sustainable tourism management system in the protected areas.
In policy research, approaches have been developed to analyze stakeholders in order to
understand their interests and influence on decision making processes (Reed et al., 2009).
Questions such as to what extent the interest, understanding and capacity of stakeholder groups is
related to the power, urgency, legitimacy and salience to adopt collaborative ST in the protected
areas have not been researched. Collaborative theory suggests that stakeholders should be
involved in decision making process as it leads to the transformation of relationships and
development of trust and understanding between participants (Reed et al., 2009). Hence,
perceptions that indicate the interest and understanding of the stakeholder groups towards the
environment and sustainable tourism must be well understood before policies and management
plans addressing sustainability issues can be developed. Such studies can be of importance to
local decision makers and tourism developers as these establish a basis for appropriate policy and
management strategies (Turk et al 2009).
1.1 Key factors for effective stakeholder participation in collaborative sustainable tourism
management in protected areas
Vernon et al. (2005, p. 328) define collaboration as “a number of stakeholders working
interactively on a common issue or problem domain through a formal cross sectoral approach”.
According to them the problem domain refers to a complex issue that cannot be solved by a
single agency acting on its own, but instead requires a multi-organizational response. Tourism is
inherently non linear, complex and dynamic (Dredge, 2006; McKercher, 1999; Ren et al., 2010),
and therefore has to be managed adaptively. According to Schianetz et al. (2007), adaptive
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
7
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
management approaches are based on continuous and collective learning concepts. Therefore, for
ST advancement, approaches are needed that promote stakeholder collaboration and learning to
ensure that sustainable development issues are incorporated in the planning and management of
tourism in the destination (Schianetz et al., 2007). Bramwell and Lane (2001), likewise, assert
that factors such as common interest (awareness), understanding (knowledge) and capacity
(expertise and financial resources) can produce consensus and synergy leading to innovative
solutions and greater level of effectiveness that would not have been achieved by the partners
acting alone. Therefore, research is needed that focuses on the practical aspects in terms of
identifying planning and management tools to implement the concept of ST in PAs which
encourages an active engagement process among the diverse stakeholders.
As mentioned before, it is assumed that the level of participation of the stakeholders
concerned with and affected by tourism in PAs depends upon factors such as their interest,
understanding and capacity, which in turn have influence on the power, urgency, legitimacy and
salience of these stakeholders to get involved in the sustainable tourism management process. It
is, for instance, presumed that PA authorizes might have the legitimacy to protect and conserve
the natural resources and to safeguard the social and economic interests of the local communities,
they might not have enough interest, understanding or capacity to work collaboratively with the
local communities to achieve the triple bottom line objectives of ST in the PA. Likewise the
stakeholders who can exert their influence to get the ST management process rolling might only
be willing to commit their time and resources if they have a high level of interest and
understanding for ST development. The legitimacy of the stakeholders, in the same way, can only
be effective when they are actually interested and have the knowledge and capacity to claim their
legitimate right to engage in ST management. Similarly, the urgency of the stakeholders to get
involved in ST will only be realized if they have the capacity (opportunity) to translate their
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
8
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
aspirations into reality. The salience of the stakeholders is possible only if they are empowered
through their interest, understanding and capacity to assert their rightful involvement in the
decision making, planning and implementation of ST management in PAs. According to the
research findings (De Lopez, 2001; Reed et al., 2009) the development of both interest and
capacity can transform the stakeholders from “crowed” (low interest, low influence) to key
players (high interest, high influence).
There is therefore, a need to assess the interest, understanding and capacity of multiple
stakeholders for environmental and sustainable tourism initiatives to determine how these factors
affect their intention and willingness to engage in sustainable tourism development and whether
the interest, understanding and capacity provide them with the power, urgency, legitimacy and
salience to actually engage in sustainable tourism development practices in the PAs.
1.2 Learning for common issues and a shared vision
Jamal and Getz (1995) emphasize the importance of a shared vision, a mutual
understanding of the interdependence of the partners, the benefits to be derived and power and
legitimacy of the alliance for successful collaboration. Ruhanen (2008), in her study examining
the transfer of knowledge regarding sustainability to tourism destination stakeholders, notes that
lack of understanding regarding sustainability and how to implement it in practice have resulted
in tokenistic references to sustainable tourism development objectives. She further suggests that
at the destination management level knowledge, management strategies and tools will be required
for sustained viability of tourism. Typically this learning process involves an exchange of ideas
and expertise and/or pooling of financial resources. Based on a case study in Cusco, Peru that
examines the issues concerning a collaborative approach towards tourism planning, Ladkin and
Bertramini (2002) reveal that although the respondents’ belief in collaboration was evident, they
lacked the shared vision to develop collaboration as a major part of the tourism development
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
9
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
process. They identify the existence of a shared vision, or the feelings that the stakeholders are
sharing a common problem which they need each other to solve, as one of the most important
factors in developing collaborative approaches towards tourism. They further assert that
developing networks where linkages between stakeholders become more formalized can lead to
developing a shared vision and in maintaining mutual interests.
There is considerable discussion in the literature that an inherent problem in achieving ST
management goals is the existence of many interest groups with varied viewpoints and there is no
easy way of reconciling these to reach consensus. Conversely, a great deal of empirical research
challenges this theory with the idea that interest in a common issue can generate a shared vision
decreasing conflict in decision making among the stakeholders (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005;
Reed et al., 2009). However, this interest in common issue needs to be reinforced by facilitating
learning and by sharing knowledge and understanding of the ecological, social and economic
situation to reach consensus and for achieving ST development goals. We propose that shared
interest in common issues and understanding that these must be resolved for the benefit of all
parties concerned can lead to the partial empowerment of the stakeholders to acquire the
legitimacy and influence to participate in the planning, management and decision making
process. To achieve optimal level of empowerment, the stakeholders must have the capacity to
translate their strategic vision into reality.
The above discourse shows that for ST development to take place requires the commitment and
skills to contribute to this learning or negotiation among stakeholders. It involves building strong
and effective partnerships, understanding the social and environmental impacts of tourism and
showing long term commitment to reduce environmental impacts with a sense of responsibility to
the PA and its communities. Without a shared vision and the inability to identify common
interests and issues, the result would be tourism development that is not sustainable (Walsh et al.,
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
10
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
2001). Although tourism researchers and planners acknowledge the importance of creating a
shared vision for tourism planning (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Jamal & Getz, 1995), it has not been
identified through empirical research what conditions or tools are necessary for advancing a
shared vision in a tourism destination with a diverse stakeholder mix. For a shared vision to
develop, it is therefore imperative to adopt an integrated systems approach, working towards
increasing awareness and collaboration by creating networks and establishing common objectives
by using participatory planning techniques; building capacity in sustainable tourism management
skills; building financial, managerial and administrative abilities; and creating socially,
environmentally and economically resilient individuals, organizations and communities. It is
argued that the creation of networks does not necessarily result in empowerment for all
concerned. Complex issues of participation and inclusion remain central to the creation of
equitable, sustainable, and integrated rural tourism (Sexana & Ilbery, 2008). A shared visioning
process that involves deliberations and social learning to discover common purpose is essential
for successful collaboration among the stakeholders (Decker, et al., 2005).
2 What Integrated Approach Actually Implies in Sustainable Tourism Research?
A number of theories and models surrounding the tourism phenomenon have been posed,
each grounded in numerous disciplines and methodologies, developed over shifting paradigms,
and seeding a vast and eclectic array of tourism knowledge (Scarpino, 2011). There are numerous
references in tourism research, especially research on tourism in PAs, which assert that to achieve
sustainability tourism must be holistic and integrated in its approach. However, there are very
few studies that actually clarify the meaning of the term ‘integrated’. For instance, a number of
researchers argue that the need for integrated sustainable tourism is ever present to reconcile the
conflicting economic, environmental and social factors (Dodds, 2007; Manning 1999; Ritchie,
1999). There are few references to what facets need to be integrated and how and at what level
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
11
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
this integration takes place within a complex tourism system. There are some exceptions,
however, where the researchers have indicated what an integrated approach in tourism actually
implies. Jamal and McDonald (2011), for instance, in their study on heritage tourism illustrate the
need for an integrated theoretical framework of the micro-individual and macro-social context,
drawing from diverse disciplines. Similarly Weaver (1999), Mitchell and Reid (2001), Mitchell
and Eagles (2001) emphasize the importance of a high degree of community integration in
tourism planning, management and ownership for sustainable tourism outcomes. Other studies in
sustainable tourism research emphasize integrating environmental, economic and cultural
concerns into the tourism industry (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; EU, 2002; Priestly et al.,
1996; Saxena & Ilbery, 2008; Stabler, 1997; Stem et al., 2003; Wahab & Pigram, 1997).
We attempt to identify the various domains where this integration occurs within the
complex tourism system. The integrated nature of complex tourism scholarship is depicted in
Figure 2, presenting the integration in the different domains mentioned above. Each of these
integrated domains could inform tourism research and management processes. It is recognized
that these domains are not considered separately as discrete domains. Rather each domain
overlaps and interacts with the other due to their interrelationships.
We can perceive this integration taking place in theory as theoretical integration, whereby
different theoretical perspectives are integrated to inform the research. These theories and
concepts from other fields “when tossed into the tourism studies cauldron…can yield something
different and distinctive” (Tribe, 2010, p. 12). The combination and synthesis of different yet
interdependent theories such as complexity, stakeholder, collaboration and sustainability theories
has enriched and opened innovative doors for tourism research. Informed by these theories the
field though still very much dominated by positivist/post-positivist paradigms, is transitioning
towards constructivist/interpretivist perspectives (Tribe, 2010).
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
12
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
The domain of disciplinary integration provides a holistic view of tourism system. This
integration at disciplinary level clearly indicates the complex nature of tourism as, according to
Tribe (2010), it has borrowed concepts and terminology from established disciplines. Many
disciplines are employed to investigate tourism and fill the knowledge gaps created by its
complex, fragmented and nonlinear nature (Keske & Smutko, 2010; Koutra, 2010, Schianetz &
Kavanagh, 2007). Figure 3 illustrates how concepts adopted from other traditional disciplines are
affiliated with tourism themes and have enriched scholarship in tourism research.
Referring back to figure 2, the systems domain depicts the integration of human and
natural systems (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005). The natural and social systems often termed as
social-ecological systems (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005) depict
sub-systems that are in mutual interaction. Therefore systems integration postulates that socioecological and tourism systems need to be viewed and studied not separately but as integrated
socio-ecological systems. This is particularly important for the study of tourism in ecologically
fragile PAs that are highly dependent on their natural resources (Honey, 1999). Integration in PA
tourism scholarship at systems level, therefore, provides a greater understanding of the
interactions between ecosystems and social systems and a detailed knowledge of systems
behavior and its subsequent influence on tourism sustainability.
Ideological integration integrates social, economic and environmental values and ethics for a
sustainable approach to tourism management. Such integration views the interdependence of the
social and environmental systems. Unlike judging nature with only instrumental values whereby
its worth is determined only by its usefulness to humans it provides intrinsic rights to nature,
especially focusing on ecological sustainability as the wellbeing and continuity of the tourism in
PAs is inextricably linked with the preservation of nature. In other words the focus shifts from
atomistic (individual centered), (Bergman, 1998), anthropocentric or biocentric worldview to
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
13
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
holistic (earth centered) worldview. Such a holistic approach integrates and recognizes the
intrinsic and instrumental values of species, ecosystems, and the biosphere and emphasizes the
importance of protecting the ecosystems in which those species live.
Organizational integration refers to the networks and partnerships that emerge for an effective
sustainable tourism system. Estevão and Ferreira (2009) call this integration a tourism cluster and
define it as a geographic concentration of companies and institutions interconnected in tourism
activities. Porter (2000) describes a cluster as a geographically close group of interconnected
companies, suppliers, service providers and associated institutions, linked by analogy and
complementarity. Organizational integration therefore, emphasizes the need to plan and structure
organizations as interdependent organizational networks (Patricia & Carlos, 2010). Research has
shown that organizational integration during the planning process leads to enhanced socioecological benefits thus increasing the potential for tourism sustainability (Walsh et al., 2001;
Weaver & Lawton, 2010).
Management integration informed by disciplinary integration facilitates in determining the
policy, planning and management related aspects of tourism. Since the achievement of
sustainable tourism objectives depends on the adoption of a participatory model (Murphy, 1985).
An integrated management process involving the meaningful engagement of the community,
along with tourism stakeholders and relevant government agencies is necessary for establishing a
collaborative approach among the multiple stakeholders with varying and common interests in
the destination’s future (Faulkner, 2002). According to Faulkner (2002) such a collaborative
management system underpins the integration of tourism with other sectors of the economy along
with an understanding of the inter-relationships and synergies between socio-cultural and
environmental dimensions.
3 Tools and Methods for Planning and Management of Tourism in PAs
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
14
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Among diverse methodological approaches and perspectives to tourism, the majority are macrocentric, only a few have explored representing tourism systems at the micro-level (Scarpino,
2011). It has become vital for tourism destinations and stakeholders to have access to sound,
applicable, realistic models and tools that enable new ways of promotion of sustainable tourism
development at the micro-level.
To advance sustainability in PA tourism, tools and methods are needed that promote stakeholders
collaboration and enhance collective learning by sustaining systemic awareness (Schianetz et al.,
2007; Horochocoski & Moisy, 2001; Weaver & Lawton, 2010). Saxena (2005) conceptualises
tourism destinations as “learning regions”, to illustrate how interactions amongst actors provide a
context for learning and provide relational capital for different actors to enable greater learning
and co-operation; a concept that has been fostered by international organisations such as the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UNESCO (Cooke, 1997;
OECD, 2001). Such a perspective underscores the need for a transition from an “individualist to a
more collective orientation” (Faulkner, 2002, p. 6) that can occur from the development of
learning organizations. The concept of learning organizations must be based on an integrated
systems (social, environmental and economic) approach to management with organizational
culture and values that support collaborative sharing of knowledge and encourage participation of
all stakeholders in the process (Karagiannis & Apostolou, 2004). Within a learning organization
stakeholders concentrate on applying and testing methods and tools to increase their own skills
and a shared understanding of how PAs function, how to promote collective awareness of
eventual economic, social, and environmental risks and impacts, and how risks can be minimised
and/or countered (Schianetz et al, 2007). The concept of learning organizations is influenced by
Habermas’s (1987) concept of communicative rationality where people seek to reach shared
understanding and cooperate to solve a common problem on the basis of discussion and
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
15
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
consensus as opposed to instrumental rationality where the goal is to take control by changing
reality (Reed et al, 2009).
Research has shown that organizational integration during the planning process leads to enhanced
socio-economic benefits thus increasing the potential for tourism sustainability (Welsh et al.,
2001, Weaver and Lawton, 2010). According to Horochocoski and Moisy (2001), for
collaboration to be possible the tourism system must be based on participation. If the level of
participation is either rudimentary or non-existent then meaningful involvement, or ultimately
achieving STD, becomes less likely. Similarly, the articulation of a shared vision among the
stakeholders is envisaged as being the initial and most critical step in the consultative process as
it represents a consensus among stakeholders and provides a focus for the strategic planning
process and a vehicle for mobilising cooperative action (Faulkner, 2002).
Interest in and understanding of a common issue can involve stakeholders in interest
based negotiation in a very meaningful way (Ritchie, 2000). Due to the complex nature of
tourism it is difficult to adopt conventional approaches such as problem solving. A planning
approach referred to as interest based negotiation represents an alternative approach to consensus
based tourism planning. It is a planning tool in which the collaboration process is explicitly
driven by all stakeholder groups having an active and proven interest in ensuring the
environmental, economic and social wellbeing of the PA. Ritchie (2000. p. 48) defines a sector as
“a grouping of stakeholders (individuals and/or organizations) having a common, yet distinctive
set of interests concerning the protection and usage of the region”. Interest based negotiation
provides a negotiation process where in contrast to traditional positional bargaining the process
focuses on basic interests. Stakeholders build on the understanding of each other’s interests to
develop a common vision that brings together ecological, economic and social values.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
16
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Karagiannis and Apostolou (2004) assert that learning organizations create systems and
processes to use knowledge management tools and to integrate these into the fabric of their daily
operations. As mentioned earlier, knowledge management facilitates shared learning among
stakeholders and helps stakeholders to reach a shared vision and recognize that they face a
common problem and therefore negotiate their conflicting interests to agree collectively on
action. Knowledge management used as a foundation for learning organizations has been found
to promote communication between SH groups and stimulate organizational learning (Schianetz
et al, 2007). In a truly collaborative management process people-centred participation is
encouraged which builds the capacity of the stakeholders and empowers them to engage in
interest based negotiations to achieve sustainability objectives. According to Reed (2008) it
requires selecting relevant tools that view participation as a process in the context of long term
relationships where stakeholders develop mutual trust and respect as they learn from each other
to negotiate potential solutions and not non negotiable positions. In other words, interest in
common issues rather than in personal agendas motivates the spirit of participation and interest
based negotiations. The participants should have the power of knowledge and understanding to
influence the decision and capacity to engage effectively with the decision (Reed, 2008; Richards
et al., 2004). This may involve educating participants and developing their knowledge and
capacity to meaningfully engage in the tourism management process in PAs.
It is becoming recognized that an effective knowledge management system must be based
on a systems approach to management that facilitates assimilation of new knowledge into the
tourism management system, supports collaborative sharing of knowledge across functions and
encourages full participation of all the stakeholders in the process. Without those basic elements
as a foundation, it is unlikely that any knowledge management effort would succeed. The value
of treating the destination as a system is that it helps to break down the complexity and provides a
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
17
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
framework for understanding interrelationships within the system (Garvin, 2000). Knowledge
management can serve as the basis for strong sustainable tourism associations and networks that
explicitly link local actors and develop positive attitudes and knowledge in stakeholders towards
biodiversity conservation and social cohesion (Saxena & Ilbery, 2008). According to Saxena &
Ilbery (2008, p. 236), networks enable actors to “search for, obtain, and share resources, engage
in cooperative actions for mutual benefit, develop collective vision, diffuse ideas, and mobilize
resources”. USAID (2007) findings of the research in Cartagena, Colombia show that creation
of networks and alliances which integrate community organizations, protected areas managers,
local government representatives and tourism operators is a key factor for active participation,
building commitment and establishing common objectives. Participatory planning techniques,
such as interest based negotiations and knowledge management, can help communities to take
ownership of and responsibility for tourism operations which benefit conservation as well as
local economic development. The results of the research in Oyacachi, Ecuador showed the need
to develop and utilize fundraising skills. Also evident was the need for ongoing training to
improve the quality of tourism services and to ensure effective management over the long term
USAID (2007). Continual education and outreach to stakeholders regarding the benefits of
conservation and the links between tourism and conservation is essential.
Schianetz et al (2007) suggest systems dynamic modelling as a tool for collective learning
processes. The findings of the research study by them show that systems dynamic modelling
promotes communication between SH groups and stimulate organizational learning. They
maintain that such a tool allows the stakeholders to concentrate on increasing their skills and a
shared understanding of how PAs function. The focus therefore shifts from achieving ST in PAs
to creating a collaborative tourism system within the PAs which promotes learning among
stakeholders about how to enhance the concept of ST continuously through a shared vision and
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
18
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
knowledge management. This approach is echoed by Weaver (2006) who asserts that it is
unrealistic to insist that ST must not negatively affect the environment or host communities as
even ST can have social and environmental impacts on the destination. It is, therefore more
reasonable to assess whether ST practices are consistent with the best practice knowledge.
Therefore, “an emphasis on sustainability in intention is thus more realistic than an insistence on
sustainability in outcome” (Weaver, 1999. P. 794).
Schianetz et al (2007) assert that in fragmented and complex tourism system systems
dynamic modeling can be an effective tool in establishing such a knowledge base, consequently
increasing the interest of the stakeholders in the importance of the environment and its natural
resources on which they rely. As mentioned in section 2 such an interest will subsequently
translate into their urgency and legitimacy to protect and conserve it. Their enhanced
understanding can give them the power to participate in ST development. Their improved
capacity will provide the power, urgency, legitimacy and salience to plan, initiate and implement
a collaborative ST development process that integrates social, economic and environmental goals.
Tourism thus becomes a tool for conservation, economic development and sustainable
livelihoods. Although the concept of learning organizations and effectiveness of tools such as
systems dynamic modelling and knowledge management that promote learning organizations,
have been used and tested in other sectors, their implementation within PA tourism has been little
discussed or researched (Schianetz et al, 2007).
The promotion of collaboration and the implementation and maintenance of networking
infra-structures are fundamental to information exchange between different organisations to
allow for more effective learning organizations. According to (Schianetz et al. (2007) although
the theory of building learning organizations and learning regions is accepted worldwide,
implementation within tourism destinations has been little discussed and/or researched. In
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
19
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
particular, there is a need to explore the effectiveness of tools such as systems dynamic modelling
for implementation and maintenance of the learning organizations that have been promoted and
tested in other sectors.
3.1 Transformation in tourism scholarship
Contemporary tourism research has provided useful insights into tourism as an inherently
non-linear, complex and dynamic system (Mckercher, 1999). Therefore the tourism system in
PAs has to be viewed as a complex social and natural system that is interdependent and non
linear with interactions and feedbacks at many different levels. The integration of tourism
research at various levels, shown in the previous section, clearly emphasises the non-linearity and
interconnectedness of the tourism system in PAs (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008; Schianetz et al,
2007; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005) that has to be planned, managed and assessed using non
linear tools such as shared visioning, interest based negotiations, knowledge management,
resilience analysis, and systems dynamic modelling (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005).
Such tools can help in understanding the structures and patterns of interaction within and
between the protected area tourism systems to explore and increase their resilience and adaptive
capacity (Folke et al, 2002; Walker et al, 2004). The tourism research in PAs has started
incorporating knowledge from other non-linear theories and disciplines such as ecosystem,
sustainability, stakeholders, and complexity theories to facilitate a transition from linear tools and
approaches to nonlinear ones to move towards a transition to ST development.
As a result of this transformative scholarship, some old concepts are giving way to new
ways of approaching issues in tourism research. A linear, mechanistic worldview that envisions
the need to own, command and control from the top (hard systems approach) is being replaced by
more organic structures based on alliances, partnerships and collaboration (soft systems
approach). Figure 4 represents the transition of this world view and methodological approaches in
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
20
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
the tourism scholarship that encourage adaptive co-management approach for governance of
social-ecological systems in which rights and responsibilities are jointly shared. The focus shifts
from mainly economic and profits-related business objectives to a focus on learning, synthesis of
different knowledge systems and collaboration, system resilience and sustainability (Resilience
Alliance, 2010; Saxena, 2008; Folke et al, 2002). This has involved a move from management
tools that change and stabilize the system to management tools that promote learning and
enhance resilience of the system (Resilience Alliance, 2010)
4 A Conceptual Framework for Collaborative Sustainable Tourism Management System
Keeping in view the above discourse, we present a conceptual framework that is constructed
around the concept that tourism in PAs needs to be viewed as not just a tourist destination but as
a social-ecological system (SES) (Resilience Alliance, 2010; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008). PA
tourism management issues have to be visualised not just as ecological or social issues, but as
multiple integrated systems in which ecosystems are integrated with human society with
interactions at cultural, political, social, economic, ecological, and institutional levels (Schianetz
& Kavanagh, 2008).
The conceptual framework in figure 5 represents cross-scale interactions that reflect an
integrated triple bottom line policy and management framework that can promote interactions
across organizational levels. Each of the components and activities in the framework corresponds
with each other. For instance, collaboration of SHs is dependent on their level of interest
understanding and capacity to get involved in collaborative sustainable tourism management. As
Wilcox (2003) suggests, people care about what they are interested in, and become committed
when they feel they can achieve something. It requires a shared vision to mutually develop a
planning and management system that gives them the power, legitimacy and salience to engage in
and practically apply planning and management tools and methods to achieve social, economic
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
21
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
and environmental sustainability. The findings of the components in the conceptual framework
such as knowledge management and systems dynamic modelling can help reveal factors that may
be wearing away or enhancing resilience in the system and provide a road map for most suitable
options for sustainable tourism development.
Rather than dwelling upon the possible conflicts between stakeholders and positional
bargaining, the conceptual framework in figure 5 identifies a planning and management system
that has the potential to encourage positive, synergistic relationships among the stakeholders. It
allows for a visual presentation of a holistic tourism system that reflects integration at systems,
organizational and management levels to achieve the social, economic and environmental goals
of ST. While the conceptual framework presented points towards the importance of concepts
such as partnerships, collaboration and empowerment for achieving shared vision and collective
learning, it has to be supported by a set of effective tools and procedures in order to bridge the
gap between theory and practice. Some of these tools are discussed in section 3.
Before any planning takes place it is important to assess the interrelationship between the
interest, understanding and capacity of the stakeholders and their intention to get involved in
collaborative sustainable tourism management. In other words, it is important to determine how
their level of understanding, interest and capacity affects their intention to get involved in
collaborative sustainable tourism process and whether their interest, understanding and capacity
influences their power, urgency, legitimacy and salience to actually engage in such a process.
Wilcox (2003) asserts that power of the stakeholders depends on who has information
(knowledge and understanding) and money, confidence and skills (capacity). He further suggests
that it is unrealistic to expect stakeholders suddenly to develop the capability to make complex
decisions and become involved in major projects. They need training and opportunity to learn
formally and informally, to develop confidence, and trust in each other. Tools mentioned in
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
22
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
section 3 can promote collective leaning, trust and commitment in stakeholders for achieving a
common objective.
Surveying the interest, understanding and capacity of the stakeholders in conservation and
tourism can assist in determining their receptivity to collaborative sustainable tourism
management. It can provide a baseline to build a network of support for and participation in
tourism assessment, planning and implementation process. Similarly it requires the integration of
planning and management tools to develop a collaborative sustainable tourism management
model that is based on integration at the systems level (social, economic and environmental) and
organizational level (PA authorities, tourism agencies, local communities).
The framework illustrates that PA destinations have to be conceptualized as learning
organizations (Saxena & Ilbery, 2005). In order to do so, the management options have to move
from conventional tools such as passive consultation and problem solving to interest based
negotiations and knowledge management for the implementation and enhancement of collective
learning that encourages systemic understanding by promoting shared visioning. The
collaboration of stakeholders in Figure 5 suggests that tourism planning and management in PAs
should involve multi-stakeholder partnerships of community organizations, the PA authority, and
tourism operators. Coordination and open communication are critical and necessary elements of
the participatory process. Capacity building for developing technical skills in tourism
management, as well as managerial, administrative and financial capabilities, is needed to
empower community members to establish tourism businesses.
A collaborative sustainable tourism management system approach to tourism planning
and management, therefore, entails the satisfaction of certain prerequisites. These include: good
coordination and open communication, capacity building for developing technical skills in
tourism management, and managerial, administrative and financial capabilities to establish
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
23
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
tourism businesses, expanding opportunities for stakeholders, preparing them to work in
collaboration with each other through networking and building alliances.
5 Conclusions
This paper began with a general understanding of the complex tourism system and the
integrated nature of tourism research, and explored a diversity of approaches and perspectives
and tools in tourism system, providing an outline of the transition from most traditional to more
recent models. The paper drawing on research insights from complex adaptive systems proposed
the development of a collaborative sustainable tourism management system. It is clear from the
conceptual framework that as a complex system, a large collection of activities and factors must
be managed simultaneously for tourism to be sustainable as a means of promoting triple bottom
line sustainability at the PA (micro) level. It is envisioned that the conceptual framework for
collaborative sustainable tourism management system can be used as a springboard for more
informed stakeholder and policy decision-making at the PA level.
The paper also implied that although tourism research has shown a shift from reductionist and
disciplinary approach to interdisciplinary systems thinking, at the destination level these
theoretical concepts are not being translated into practice. Further research is needed to gain
better understanding of the factors that influence stakeholders support for the adoption of
planning and management strategies that promote systems thinking, participation and networking
among the stakeholders in PA destinations. In addition the factors that influence the stakeholders
support could be further investigated to identify the barriers and opportunities for collaboration
and the development of an integrated sustainable tourism management system at the destination
level. On the basis of the findings profound planning and management changes would be
required at destination level to foster collaborative sustainable tourism management system in
PAs.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
24
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Finally, the creation of a collaborative sustainable tourism management system grounded in
systems thinking, complexity theory and sustainability is proposed in order to generate a
thoughtful holistic representation of a micro-tourism system in PAs. It is envisioned that the
conceptual framework and the planning and management tools identified will be useful for
tourism stakeholders for the contribution these tools can make towards advancing tourism
systems research.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
25
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
References
Adams, W. M. & Jeanrenaud, S. J. (2008). Transition to Sustainability: Towards a Humane and
Diverse World. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Jeffrey A. S. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of
stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(5): 507-525.
Aref, F., Redzuan, M., Gill, S.S., Aref, A. (2010). Assessing the level of community capacity
building in tourism development in local communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3 (1), 8290
Aref, F., Redzuan, M.B. (2009). Community capacity building for tourism development. Journal
of Human Ecology, 27(1), 21-25
Bergman, D.L. (1998). Conflict of atomism and creationism in history. IVth International
Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Common Sense Science,
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/conflict_of_atomism_and_creationism_in_hist
ory.pdf
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2001). Attitudes in the Danish tourism industry to the roles of
business and government in sustainable tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3,
91-103
Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development
of rural areas: Vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management 25: 71–79.
Bushell, R., Staiff, R., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007). Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond
boundaries. CABI Press, 1-11
Butts, T., & Singh, S. (2010). Sustainable tourism as a tool for conservation and protection of the
Amazon rainforest in Guyana? Sustainable tourism, 2(2), 173-185
Caffyn, A., & Jobbins, G. (2003). Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the
development and management of coastal tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2, 3), 224–245
Decker, D.J., Raik, D.B., Carpenter, L.H., Organ, J.F., Schusler, T.M. (2005). Collaboration for
community based wildlife management. Urban Ecosystems, 8, 227-236
Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: Lessons from the case of
Calviá, Spain, Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296 -322
De Lopez, T.T., 2001. Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream
National Park, Cambodia. Environmental Management, 28, 47–60.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
26
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism Management,
27, 269–280
Estevão, C., & Ferreira, J. (2009). Regional competitiveness of tourism cluster: A conceptual
model proposal. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 14853, posted 25 April
2009. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14853/
European Union (EU). (2002). Links between the sustainable development of tourism and
regional/spatial planning. Council of Europe Publishing. Strasbourg, Cedex
Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Seven Steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the
context of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 109-122
Faulkner, B. (2003). Rejuvenating a maturing destination: The case of the Gold Coast. In B.
Faulkner, L. Fredline, L. Jago, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Progressing tourism research (pp. 34-86),
Clevedon: Channel View Publications
Bill Faulkner, B. (2002). Rejuvenating a maturing tourist destination: The case of the Gold Coast,
Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project, CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd
Folke, C., Colding, J., & Berkes, F. (2002). Building resilience for adaptive capacity in socialecological systems. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds), Navigating social-ecological
systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(8), 18-33
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Garvin, D. A. (2000) Learning in Action. A guide to putting the learning organization to work,
Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press
Gössling, S. (2009). Carbon neutral destinations: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 17, 17–37
Hall, C. M. (2000). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective. In B.
Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism, collaboration & partnerships: Politics, practice and
sustainability (pp. 247–271). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. In: Lifeworld and system. A critique
of functionalist reason, vol. 2. Beacon Press, Boston
Horochowski, K., & Moisey, R. N. (2001). Sustainable tourism: The effect of local participation
in Honduran ecotourism development. In S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism,
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
27
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
recreation and sustainability: Linking culture and the environment (pp. 163-175). Wallingford,
UK: CABI Publishing
Ioannides, D. (2001). Sustainable development and the shifting attitudes of tourism stakeholders:
toward a dynamic framework. In S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and
sustainability: linking culture and the environment (pp. 55-76). Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing
Jamal, T., & Choi, H. (2003) The Researcher’s Gaze: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices
Concerning Qualitative Research, Anatolia, 14(2): 143-159
Jamal T., & Kim, H. (2005). Bridging the interdisciplinary divide: Towards an integrated
framework for heritage tourism research, Sage Publications London Tourist Studies, 5 (1), 55-83
Jamal, T., & McDonald, D. (2011). The short and long of collaborative planning in the mountain
resort destination of Canmore, Canada, Current Issues in Tourism, 14(1), 1-25
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals
of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204
Karagiannis, D., Apostolou, A. (2004). Knowledge management in eco-tourism: a case study.
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3336. PAKM, 508 -521
Keske, C., Smutko, S. (2010). Consulting communities: using audience response system (ARS)
technology to assess community preferences for sustainable recreation and tourism development,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 951-970
Kidder, N. B., & Spears, D. L. (2011). Tourism: A tool for biodiversity conservation in the Cape
Horn region, Paper presented at the 16th Graduate Students Research Conference, Huston Texas,
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston School of
Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Koutra, C. (2010). Rapid situation analysis: A hybrid, multi-methods, qualitative, participatory
approach to researching tourism development phenomena', Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:
8, 1015 — 1033
Manning, T. (1999). Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tourism Management, 20, 179–181.
McCool , S. F., Moisey R. N. (2001). Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: linking culture and
the environment: CABI Publications, New York
McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20, 425-434
Mitchell, R.K., Bradley, R. A., & Donna, J. W. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy
of Management Review, 22 (4), 853-886
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
28
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Mitchell, R. E., P. F. J. Eagles. (2001). An integrative approach to tourism: Lessons from the
Andes of Peru. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(1), 4-28.
Mitchell, R.E., Reid, D.G. (2001). Community integration: Island tourism in Peru. Annals of
Tourism Research 28 (1), 113-39
Murphy, P. (1994). Tourism and sustainable development, in Theobald, W. (Ed.) Global
Tourism: The new decade, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 274-290
Mushove, P., Vogel, C. (2005). Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for conservation
area management. Global Environmental Change 15: 184-198
Lovelock, B. (2001). Interorganisational relations in the protected area-Tourism policy domain:
The influence of macro-economic policy. Current Issues in Tourism, 4 (2), 253-274
Patricia, R., Carlos, C. (2010). The potential of management networks in the innovation and
competitiveness of rural tourism: A case study on the Valle del Jerte (Spain). Current Issues in
Tourism, 13(1), 75-91
Porter, M. (2000). Location, competition and economic development: Local clusters in a global
economy, Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 7-20
Priestly, G., Edwards, J., & Coccossis, H. (1996). Sustainable tourism? European experiences.
Wallingford: CABI
Reed, M. S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.
Biological Conservation 141, 2417-2431
Ren, C., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2010) Constructing tourism research: A critical inquiry.
Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 885-904
Resilience Alliance. (2010). Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: Workbook for
practitioners. Version 2.0 Online: http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Claire, H.
Q., Lindsay, C. S. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for
natural resource management, Journal of Environmental Management 90 1933-1949
Ritchie, J.R. (1999). Policy formulation at the tourism/environment interface: Insights and
recommendations from the Banff-Bow Valley study. Journal of Travel Research 38 (2), 100-111.
Rosenfeld, S., & Stabler, M. (1997). Tourism and sustainability: Principles to practice.
Wallingford: CABI.
Row, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L.J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference in science.
Technology and Human Values, 29, 88-121
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
29
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Ruhanen, L. (2008). Progressing the sustainability debate: A knowledge management approach to
sustainable tourism planning. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(5), 429-455
Saxena, G., & Ilbery, B. (2008). Integrated rural tourism: A border case study. Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(1), 233-254
Scarpino, M. (2011). Tourism systems: An analysis of the literature for improved sub national
development,
Cooperative
Research
Center
in
Tourism,
http://www.conferencedevelopments.com/files/Scarpino.pdf
Schianetza, K., Kavanaghb, L., & Lockington, D. (2007). The learning tourism destination: The
potential of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism
destinations, Tourism Management, 28(6), 1485-1496
Sijlbing, H. A. (2010) Does sustainable tourism offer solutions for the protection of the
Amazon rainforest in Suriname? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 2(2), 192-200
Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to
sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4 (1), 3–41
Sofield, T.H.B., & Mactaggart, R. (2005). Tourism as a tool for sustainable development in
transition economies. Paper presented at the GRM International Conference, Development
Learning in Transition Environments
Stem C., Lassoie, J., Lee, D., Deshler, D., & Schelhas, J. (2003). Community participation in
ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society and Natural
Resources, 16:413–427.
Tribe, J. (2009). Philosophical issues in tourism. Clevedon: Channel View
Tribe, J. (2010). Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism
Research, 37(1), 7-33
Turk, E.S., Ingram, L., Harrill R. (2009). Resident typologies within the integrative paradigm of
sustaincentric tourism development. Tourism Analysis, 3, 531-544
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2009) Sustainable coastal tourism: An
integrated planning and management approach. Priority Actions Programme
USAID. (2007). Tourism, protected areas and communities: Case studies and lessons learned.
The parks in peril program, The Nature Conservancy, USAID, Alex C. Walker Foundation,
Servicios Ecosistemicos publication
Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policy making: Local
sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (2), 325-345
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
30
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Wahab, S., & Pigram, J. (1997). Tourism development and growth: The challenge of
sustainability. London: Routledge.
Walsh, J. A., Jamrozy, U., Burr, S. W. (2001). Sense of place as a component of sustainable
tourism. pp. 195-216. In McCool, S. F., Moisey R. N. Tourism, recreation, and sustainability:
linking culture and the environment: CABI Publications, New York
Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community organizations. Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science, 17, 27-58
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
Weaver, D. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), 792-816
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice, Oxford U.K. Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann
Weaver, D. (2011). Can sustainable tourism survive climate change? Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19 (1), 5–15.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2010). Tourism management (4th ed.). Milton, Australia: John Wiley
& Sons
Wilcox, D. (2003). The guide to effective participation. Retrieved from
http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
31
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Host communities
PA authority
government
Tourists
Local government
Tourism sector
operators
sector
NGOs
International agencies
Local businesses
Figure 1: The complex tourism stakeholders system in PAs. Adapted from (Weaver & Lawton,
2010)
Integration in tourism research
Disciplinary
Theoretical
Different
theories
inform
tourism
research
It
becomes
interdiscip
linary in
nature
Systems
Influenced
by these
theories
and
disciplines
it
incorporate
s the triple
bottom line
approach
Ideological
Based on
an
integrated
systems
approach
it
integrates
human
with non
human
values
Figure 2: Domains of integration in tourism research
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
32
Organizational
To achieve
the
generational
equity it
emphasizes
partnerships
and
networks
with diverse
sectors and
stakeholder
groups
Management
It integrates
social,
economic and
environmental
indicators and
management
tools to achieve
sustainable
tourism
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Figure 3: Disciplinary integration in tourism research. Adapted from Weaver et al (2010)
From Linear tools and strategies
To non-linear tools and strategies
Purely scientific enquiry
Reflexive and relational enquiry
Hard systems thinking
Soft systems thinking
Passive consultation
Active engagement
Problem solving
Shared visioning
Conflict resolution
Interest based negotiations
Destination management
Adaptive co-management
Achieving stability
enhancing resilience
Figure 4: Evolution and transition of concepts in tourism scholarship
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
33
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
Integrated
Social,
economic and
environmental
(TBL) policy &
mgt.
framework
CSTM
ISBN : 9780974211428
Planning
Partnerships
for
Destination mgt.
Tourism demand mgt.,
Interpretation & education, Visitor
management
Use of resources
Human, environmental and
economic
Conservation
Wildlife, cultural, water and land
resources, waste disposal,
recycling, energy consumption
Distribution of
benefits
Economic incentives for locals, local
products and markets,
Legislation
Subsidies, incentives, regulations,
taxes, conservation fund
Practice
Evaluation
Collaboration of stakeholders
Strategic mgt.
Capacity building
Environmental impact assessment,
recruitment of local staff, training
and skills development, financial
planning and mgt., performance
indicators
Knowledge mgt.
Interest
understanding
and capacity of
the
stakeholders in
a common
issue
Power
Collective learning
Shared vision
Leads to
Empowerment
Sharing and tapping
resources
Systems dynamic
modeling
Legitimacy
Influence
Salience
Figure 5: A collaborative sustainable tourism management system (CSTMS) model
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
34