Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas

By Alan Clarke

Around the world, there is mounting evidence that parks and protected areas contribute to a healthy civil society, thus increasing the economic importance of cultural and nature-based tourism. Operating at the intersection of business and the environment, tourism can improve human health and wellbeing as well as serve as a catalyst for increasing appreciation and stewardship of the natural world. While the revenues from nature-based activities help to make the case for investing in park and protected area management; the impacts they have need to be carefully managed, so that visitors do not destroy the natural wonders that attracted them to a destination in the first place.
This book features contributions from tourism and recreation researchers and practitioners exploring the relationship between tourism, hospitality, protected areas, livelihoods and both physical and emotional human wellbeing. The book includes sections focused on theory, policy and practice, and case studies, to inform and guide industry decisions to address real-world problems and proactively plan for a sustainable and healthy future.
Key features:
Case studies discussing best practices for park and protected area tourism development
Multi-disciplinary approach to the study of nature-based tourism
Innovative approaches including SME within protected destinations

• Language: English
• Publisher: CAB International
• Release date: May 14, 2018
• ISBN: 9781786391339

Book preview

1 Introduction: Tourism, Health and Wellbeing and Protected Environments

Iride Azara, Federico Niccolini, B. Derrick Taff, Eleni Michopoulou and Alan Clarke

This book was conceived during the international conference on ‘Tourism and Protected Areas’ (officially, Tourism Naturally), held in Italy in October 2016. The conference involved more than 150 academic and industry professionals from 28 countries. Through this international and collective perspective, this book offers a novel compilation of global, transdisciplinary contributions that demonstrate both fundamental – and partially unexplored – features of the relationship between tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas. A discussion focusing on the links between tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas is certainly not something novel in either academic or practitioner circles. Numerous authors have studied these relationships, and many experts have described the need for sustainable, responsible, tourism within the context of protected areas (e.g. Eagles et al., 2002; Jamal and Stronza, 2009; Buckley, 2012). What is less established, is how much these relationships can be symbiotic, and at the same time difficult to develop, adaptively manage and maintain to produce synergic positive, longterm effects (Jamal et al., 2014). This book deeply and clearly provides evidence to these latent aspects of the tourism-protected areas relationship. Central to this tenet is the notion that parks, protected areas and natural environments can and should play a key role in promoting individual, societal and environmental wellbeing and sustainable development (see, for example, Louv, 2005, 2011; Bowler et al., 2010), and that tourism (may this be called geological, gastronomical, nature-based, eco, wellness, medical, health oriented and so on) should not simply be a facilitator of the health and wellbeing, rather a positive force for change addressing environmental and socio-cultural concerns and sustainable development.

The concept of health (and its associated term wellbeing) has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Health, defined as ‘as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (World Health Organization, 2006) is both difficult to measure (see, for example, the criticisms forwarded by Hawks et al., 2008, Huber et al., 2011 and Dodge et al., 2012) and arguably imbued with notions of social and environmental injustice (see, for example, the interesting discussions forwarded by Jamal et al., 2014). Issues such as increased scarcity of resources, unfair wealth distribution across the world, deteriorating environmental landscapes, loss of important ecosystems as well as the emergence of new illnesses cast serious doubts on our ability globally to ever achieve a complete sense of wellbeing in the present or indeed the future. Thus, in this context it is not surprising that many scholars are calling for new healthbased approaches and paradigms that can better tackle the world’s sustainable development and wellbeing agendas (Griggs et al., 2013; Buse and Hawkes, 2015).

Tourism has affected human and the natural ecosystem’s health for centuries (Bushell, 2009, 2017; Smith and Puczkó, 2014) and, while it has often caused serious negative impacts, it has also demonstrated that it can play a significant role influencing and driving sustainable development, and improving the wellbeing and quality of life of humans, animals and the environment. This ethos is arguably encapsulated in the definition of sustainable tourism as one ‘that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities’ (UNWTO, 2010, 2016). Yet this definition is not without criticisms (see, for example, Holden, 2003 and Butler, 2015 on the new reformulations), especially because of the challenges in understanding and measuring its success against the more subjective and complex constructs of wellbeing, happiness, quality of life in relation to places, their visitors, local communities and natural environments (Crouch, 2009). An increasing amount of work is being carried out highlighting the relationship between these dimensions and tourism (see, for example, Nawijin, 2011; Puczkó and Smith, 2011; Ward Thomson and Aspinall, 2011; Dolnicar et al., 2012; Uysal et al., 2012, 2016, 2017; Chen and Petrick, 2013; McCabe and Johnson 2013; Theofilou, 2013; Bell and Ward Thomson, 2014; Filep, 2014, to name but a few). However, it is argued that much more research remains to be done to truly position sustainable tourism as a healthy approach to ecosystem development. This book responds to this need, contributing to a better understanding of the interplay between tourism, health and wellbeing in protected areas. Given the complex relationships between these topics, the need for transdisciplinary research and understanding is pertinent and necessary. Therefore, this book represents a variety of disciplines, approaching understanding of the relationships between tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas through both theoretical aspects and empirical data examinations. Attention has also been devoted to exhibiting both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. And indeed, if, on the one hand, it is true that identifying some tourism dynamics is better suited for quantitative methodologies (e.g. volume, frequency, measurable impact [both positive and negative] of tourism), on the other hand, different tourism phenomena involve constructs that may be more effectively and perhaps more innovatively explored with qualitative methodologies (e.g. place symbolism and place attachment).

Tourism and Protected Areas’ Sustainability

Tourism related to protected areas (PAs) has progressively grown in the last 100 years. It is well known that the sector has matured steadily to represent one of the world’s largest industries (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2016). Similarly, every year the number of PAs, both terrestrial and marine, has increased in the world, reaching important percentages in each continent (World Database on Protected Areas, 2018). Globally, PAs have become the most effective tools to obtain the conservation of natural resources, including natural tourist attractions; a process that unites peoples, overcoming social, economic, cultural and even religious barriers.

Both practitioners and academics demonstrate that the continued expansion of tourism activities in PAs has brought economic benefits to tourism operators. However, less is understood about whether tourism has simultaneously contributed to improve the conservation of the natural resources, as well as the social conditions of those living within or working in proximity to these places. Or alternatively, has tourism, through the consumptive nature of some activities, led to depreciated natural resources, in some circumstances to a level that defies the original intrinsic value of the areas? These discussions are not new in the context of PAs (see, for example, Wagar, 1966; Hardin, 1968), yet they have remained stubbornly current. Tourism is a sector of the global economy where in recent decades, organizations have pledged commitment to consider and strategically plan for sustainability. During the 1990s and early 2000s, sustainability became the focus of many of the most important annual meetings in the sector (e.g. the Charter for Sustainable Tourism of Lanzarote in 1995; Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry of 1996; Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism of 2002; Djerba Declaration on Tourism and Climate Change in 2003). Therefore, from a theoretical and case study point of view this book (particularly, but not exclusively, the section on tourism and the wellbeing of PAs) explores these questions through the lens of sustainability, because ultimately, in order for both ecological and human wellbeing to occur, sustainability needs to be facilitated. In this respect the multifaceted nature of sustainable tourism in and with regard to PAs is highlighted throughout the chapters. For example, in addition to achieving quality standards in the services offered, in relation to the need to protect or improve local natural and cultural heritage; respect local traditions, customs and lifestyles; and improving not just the health and wellbeing of people and the environment more globally, but also in the surrounding socio-economical systems (Micheli and Niccolini, 2013).

Ecotourism is a specific kind and philosophy of tourism that was developed almost symbiotically with the growth of PAs. The first formal definition of ecotourism is credited to Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin in the early 1980s (Sharpley, 2006). This definition (amended by the author in 1993 and subsequently adopted in its revised form by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1996), states that ecotourism is an ‘environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present) that promote conservation, has low visitor impact and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations’ (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). Thus, many chapters are devoted to exploring the challenges and possibilities that ecotourism presents for the sustainable development of PAs. However, besides ecotourism, other emerging forms of tourism in and around PAs and natural, fragile environments are featured in this book. Wellness tourism, health tourism (in all its facets), geotourism, medical voluntourism and nature-based tourism may well be different, yet they all share the belief that sustainability goals are not automatically achieved if tourism systems are left free to market forces. The market, in fact, without any regulation, almost always tends to consume excessively and to degrade resources for the benefit of current visitors and tour operators (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2010), and hence to decrease the opportunities (and the rights) of future generations to enjoy the tourism attractions of the same level of quality or health. Tourism systems must be adaptively managed and regulated to maintain sustainable practices, protecting the interests (such as health and wellbeing of social and ecological systems) of future generations. In this context, PAs represent the main ‘space’ where tourism can succeed in achieving the goal of securing the interest (such as health and wellbeing) of future generations.

Health, Wellbeing in Protected Areas

It is well known that the IUCN foresees six different types of PAs, including: nature reserve (Ia) and wilderness area (Ib); natural park (II); natural monument (III); habitat/species management area (IV); protected landscape/seascape (V); and managed resource protected area (VI). Their core purpose varies widely from wilderness protection (Ia and b), to protection and recreation of ecosystems (II) or landscapes (V), from conservation of specific natural features (III) or habitat and species (IV), to the sustainable use of natural resources (VI) (Day et al., 2012; International Union for Conservation and Nature, n.d.). The overarching or core purpose of PAs, however, is to preserve ecosystems while providing benefits to the visiting public. These benefits stem from the ecosystem services provided by these environments. As discussed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), eco-system services are categorized as provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. For example, provisioning services may include clean water and air, and cultural services may include recreation or restorative benefits (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Facilitating the management of these benefits is the premise of the majority of PAs, across the array of IUCN designations but arguably of many natural or man-made restorative and recreational environments. Increasingly land managers, tour operators, health-care providers and, more significantly, tourists are beginning to recognize that preservation of the ecosystem services stemming from our protected natural areas correlates with our livelihoods (Aronson et al., 2016). These places must be managed to allow for sustainable tourism use, while maintaining the integrity of the ecological resources within (Eagles and McCool, 2002; Hammitt et al., 2015; Manning et al., 2017). Healthy natural environments, containing resilient and biodiverse natural ecosystem services, provide also for numerous psychological and physiological benefits (Summers et al., 2012; Sandifer et al., 2015). By and large, PAs offer opportunities to experience relatively pristine nature and natural resources that promote happier and healthier humans (Russell et al., 2013). Thus, the health of the environment and human health, and the overall sustainability efforts, are inextricably linked, and a growing body of research has begun to quantify these benefits. For example, in a thorough review of this topic, Hartig and colleagues (2014) found a substantial increase in peer-reviewed publications focused on ‘greenspace and health’ over the span of two recent decades. To date, studies have found linkages to both psychological and biophysical influences as a result of contact with nature. From the early studies linking natural aesthetic features to psychological recovery and wellbeing (e.g. Hartig et al., 1991; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1995), to the more recent reviews of the literature dissecting the exact environmental features and explicit health influences (e.g. Hartig et al., 2014), we are just now beginning to understand these relationships. However, the causal associations are still unclear, and the exact linkages to PAs still need further exploration. While there is growing interest and research, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the holistic relationship between tourism, health, wellbeing and PAs.

Future development of PAs and associated tourism will rarely be based on wilderness areas (i.e. IUCN Ib), given the growing scarcity of these places beyond what has already been set aside. Instead, PAs where natural features are the output of a longer progress of proximity or coexistence with anthropic societies and activities (such as category IV and V) will likely be the focus (Hartig et al., 2014). Thus, moving from a theoretical basis to specific case study perspectives, the geographical distribution and typology of the cases chosen in this book was not done randomly. We chose to focus the attention strongly, but non-exclusively, on case studies stemming from current and future trends around these topics. Many of these case studies take place in European settings, where natural resources have always had deep and ancient ties with the social, economic and cultural dimensions and thus are subjected to different pressures for use compared with less densely populated areas such as, for example, Australia or New Zealand. Furthermore, we focus on examples of protected area tourism specifically designed to improve health and wellbeing as well as natural or man-made wellbeing experiences as important recreational and restorative spaces, exploring how their enjoyment can be affected by human presence. Significantly, the book emphasizes how through the numerous benefits humans receive (Driver, 2008), we can build life-long emotional connections with these PAs (Russell et al., 2013), simultaneously facilitating the long-term preservation and resiliency of these places (Aronson et al., 2016). Thus, we explore the important relationship that there exists between people (these may be visitors, tourists or local populations) and how new methodologies are emerging that are allowing these complex relationships to unfold.

Section Organization and Context

In view of the above considerations, the book has been divided into two sections. The first section, titled ‘Tourism, Protected Areas, Health and Wellbeing’ focuses on exploring the challenges and opportunities to achieve sustainable human and natural ecosystems’ development through tourism. Accordingly, Chapter 2 emphasizes ecotourism as a long-term strategy – based on collaborative approaches and a multi-stakeholder perspective – a kind of ‘condition sine qua non’ to build proper and effective relationships between protected area nature conservation measures and the tourism development goals of the destinations. Chapter 3 highlights the multifunctional values provided through the myriad of services that are associated with the presence of well-preserved protected area ecosystems. Chapter 4 focuses on the viability and sustainability of tourism within PAs enriching the section with the vital dyadic perspective of the main actors (hosts and guests) involved in tourism activities. Chapter 5 focuses on how specific ‘heritage’ elements, such as those with geological relevance, can (if managed accordingly) synergistically be offered through tourism programming, improving the holistic wellbeing of people and places. Chapters 6 and 7 focus on wellness and health tourism as crucial strategies in revitalizing and relaunching entire tourism destinations. Chapter 8 discusses the many ways in which medical voluntourism contributes to the health and wellbeing of Haiti, reminding us how for too many people across the world basic health needs are still a priority. The section ends with Chapter 9 which looks into the interrelationships between place symbolism, memory and voluntary income schemes. The second section of the book titled ‘Health and Wellbeing, Protected Areas and Tourism’ forwards important discussions on the intrinsic and extrinsic relationships between tourists, visitors and PAs and the health and wellbeing benefits that these and other nature-based restorative and recreational environments can have on individuals. Chapters 10 and 11, in particular, focus on examining the emotional relationship between visitors and PAs, as well as the inherent tensions and conflicts, arguing how an understanding of visitors’ experiences of protected areas can have positive implications for the management of these environments. The focus of Chapter 12 is on one of the international models for ecotourism practices, Costa Rica, showing the benefits of the country’s decision to proactively made PAs and associated tourism a priority. Chapter 13 contributes to existing literature on the benefits of going on nature-based holidays while having a disability, showing how these benefits are carried over into daily life. Finally, the last three chapters in this section (Chapters 14 to 16) show how not only nature-based tourism activities, but also animals (here marine fauna and fish in particular) as well sounds can affect visitors’ wellbeing both psychologically and physiologically. These studies are of significant importance especially in recognition of the need to increase wellbeing in people that living in urbanized environments might not be able to engage with nature. A final Chapter 17 forwards the concluding remarks and provides suggestions for further research.

References

Aronson, J., Blatt, C. and Aronson, T. (2016) Restoring ecosystem health to improve human health and well-being: physicians and restoration ecologists unite in a common cause. Ecology and Society 21(4), 39–46.

Bell, S. and Ward Thompson, C. (2014) Human engagement with forest environments: Implications for physical and mental health and wellbeing. In: Challenges and Opportunities for the World’s Forests in the 21st Century. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 71–92.

Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Knight, T.M. and Pullin, A.S. (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10(1), 456.

Buckley, R. (2012) Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2), 528–546. Buse, K. and Hawkes, S. (2015) Health in the sustainable development goals: ready for a paradigm shift? Globalization and Health 11(1), 13.

Bushell, R. (2009) Quality of life, tourism, and wellness. In: Bushell, R. and Sheldon, P.J. (eds) Wellness and Tourism: Mind, Body, Spirit, Place. Cognizant, New York, USA, pp. 19–36.

Bushell, R. (2017) Healthy tourism. In: Smith, M.K. and Puczkó, L. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Health Tourism. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 91–102.

Butler, R. (2015) Sustainable tourism: Paradoxes, inconsistencies and a way forward. In: Hughes, M., Weaver, D. and Pforr, C. (eds) The Practice of Sustainable Tourism: Resolving the Paradox, pp. 66–81.

Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas: The State of Nature-based Tourism Around the World and Guidelines for its Development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Chen, C.C. and Petrick, J.F. (2013) Health and wellness benefits of travel experiences: A literature review. Journal of Travel Research 52(6), 709–719.

Crouch, D. (2009) Constructing feelings of wellness in tourist performance. In: Bushell, R. and Sheldon, P.J. (eds) Wellness and Tourism: Mind, Body, Spirit, Place. Cognizant, New York, USA, pp. 114–124.

Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., et al. (2012) Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 1–36.

Dodge, R., Daly, A.P., Huyton, J. and Sanders, L.D. (2012) The challenge of defining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing 2(3), 222–235.

Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V. and Cliff, K. (2012) The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research 39(1), 59–83.

Driver, B. (2008) Managing to Optimize the Beneficial Outcomes of Recreation. Venture Publishing, State College, USA.

Eagles, P.F. and McCool, S.F. (2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management. CABI, Oxford, UK.

Eagles, P.F., McCool, S.F. and Haynes, C. (2002) Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Filep, S. (2014) Moving beyond subjective well-being: A tourism critique. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 38(2), 266–274.

Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N. and Noble, I. (2013) Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495(7441), 305–307.

Hammitt, W.E., Cole, D.N. and Monz, C.A. (2015) Wild and Recreation: Ecology and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.

Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G.W. (1991) Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior 23, 3–26.

Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S. and Frumkin, H. (2014) Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.

Hawks, S.R., Smith, T., Thomas, H.G., Christley, H.S., Meinzer, N. and Pyne, A. (2008) The forgotten dimensions in health education research. Health Education Research 23(2), 319–324.

Holden, A. (2003) In need of new environmental ethics for tourism? Annals of Tourism Research 30(1), 94–108.

Huber, M., Knottnerus, J.A., Green, L., van der Horst, H., Jadad, A.R., Kromhout, D., Leonard, B., Lorig, K., Loureiro, M.I., van der Meer, J.W., Schnabel, P., Smith, R. and van der Weel, C. (2011) How should we define health? British Medical Journal 343, 1–3.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (n.d.). Protected areas categories. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories (accessed 30 June 2017).

Kaplan, S. (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169–182.

Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. (2009) Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(2), 169–189.

Jamal, T., Budke, C.M. and Barradas-Bribiesca, I. (2014) Health and sustainable development: New directions forward. In: Clausen, H.B., Andersson, V. and Gyimóthy, S. (eds) Global Mobilities and Tourism Development: A Community Perspective. Aalborg University Press, Aalborg, Denmark, pp. 169–193.

Louv, R. (2005) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, USA.

Louv, R. (2011) Reconnecting to nature in the age of technology. The Futurist 45(6), 41.

McCabe, S. and Johnson, S. (2013) The happiness factor in tourism: Subjective well-being and social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 41, 42–65.

Manning, R.E., Anderson, L.E. and Pettengill, P. (2017) Managing Outdoor Recreation: Case Studies in the National Parks. CABI, Oxford, UK.

Micheli, F. and Niccolini, F. (2013) Achieving success under pressure in the conservation of intensely used coastal areas. Ecology and Society 18, 4.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, USA.

Nawijn, J. (2011) Happiness through vacationing: Just a temporary boost or long-term benefits? Journal of Happiness Studies 12(4), 651–665.

Puczkó, L. and Smith, M. (2011) Tourism-specific quality-of-life index: The Budapest model. In: Quality-of-Life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 163–183.

Russell, R., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R.K., Basurto, X., Chan, K.M.A., Klain, S., Levine, J. and Tam, J. (2013) Humans and nature: How knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38, 473–502.

Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E. and Ward, B.P. (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services 12, 1–15.

Sharpley, R. (2006) Ecotourism: A consumption perspective. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1–2), 7–22.

Smith, M. and Puczkó, L. (2014) Health, Tourism and Hospitality: Spas, Wellness and Medical Travel. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L. and Linthurst, R.A. (2012) A review of the elements of human wellbeing with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 41(4), 327–340.

Theofilou, P. (2013) Quality of life: Definition and measurement. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 9(1), 150–162.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M. (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11, 201–230.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010) Tourism and Biodiversity. Achieving Common Goals Towards Sustainability. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2016) Tourism Highlights 2016 Edition. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain

Uysal, M., Perdue, R. and Sirgy, M.J. (eds) (2012) Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities. Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, Germany.

Uysal, M., Sirgy, M.J., Woo, E. and Kim, H.L. (2016) Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tourism Management 53, 244–261.

Uysal, M., Sirgy, M.J., Woo, E. and Kim, H.L. (2017) The impact of tourist activities on tourists’ subjective wellbeing. The Routledge Handbook of Health Tourism. Routledge, London, UK. pp. 65–78.

Wagar, J.A. (1966) Quality in outdoor recreation. Trends in Parks and Recreation 3(3), 9–12.

Ward Thompson, C. and Aspinall, P.A. (2011) Natural environments and their impact on activity, health, and quality of life. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 3(3), 230–260.

World Database on Protected Areas (2018) World Database on Protected Areas. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/world-database-protected-areas (accessed 5 March 2018).

World Health Organization (2006) Constitution of the World Health Organization. Available at: www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf (accessed 15 February 2018).

Part 1

Tourism, Protected Areas, Health and Wellbeing

2 The European Protected Areas Approach to Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

Federico Niccolini, Iacopo Cavallini, Marco Giannini and Michele Contini

Introduction

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has defined sustainable tourism as ‘tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities’ (UNWTO and UNEP, 2005, p. 12). Within this broad concept, ecotourism is considered a type of sustainable tourism, which focuses on improving the conservation of natural resources and increasing environmental education.

Several influential organizations recognize that ecotourism can also produce benefits from a socio-economic point of view. The United Nations (2012) state that ecotourism has potential positive impacts on income generation and job creation, while at the same time ‘encouraging local and indigenous communities in host countries and tourists alike to preserve and respect the natural and cultural heritage’¹ (Das and Chatterjee, 2015, p. 2). To this aim, an effective ecotourism strategy requires the involvement of various stakeholders, such as resource managers, policy makers, communities and tourists themselves.

Protected areas (PAs) constitute a suitable context for developing ecotourism because they are recognized as the most effective worldwide mechanism for nature conservation, and consequently, represent a key market for tourists searching for nature (Surendran and Sekhar, 2011). In fact, PAs have become the central actors in several contexts within the ecotourism phenomenon. At the same time, the role of PAs can be further strengthened when considering the socio-economic and wellbeing effects they can exert on local territories and communities in and around them.

The stimulus provided by Agenda 21 in 1992 (UN, 1992) also encouraged some actors to enhance their commitment to promoting the ecotourism philosophy and practices. In 1995, in particular, the EUROPARC Federation – an association that supports the management of European PAs – set up the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas (hereinafter cited as ECST or the Charter). Such an initiative seems to offer an effective management tool to combine competitiveness, wellbeing and sustainability, in a triple bottom line (i.e. economic, social and environmental) approach (Elkington, 1997), through a set of overarching principles and actions. To achieve such an ambitious objective, the Charter calls for both strategic and participatory approaches at its core. Nowadays, the ECST continues its ongoing efforts in a process which has involved several ecotourism areas in Europe in over 20 years of implementation (EUROPARC, 2015).

In this research framework, a confirmatory multiple case study analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013) was performed in order to corroborate the role of strategic and participatory approaches for ecotourism development using PAs as suitable contexts. Given the multifaceted reality of each PA and of the territory surrounding it, different strategic and participatory behaviours are expressed in different concrete practices. Consequently, the effectiveness of the approaches can be enhanced by the diverse practices within the various PAs. The study aimed to address two key questions: are the strategic and participatory approaches really central to the effectiveness of ecotourism development? Furthermore, how can the strategic and participatory approaches be effective within the process of ecotourism development? The chapter firstly discusses the theoretical background to the study. It then presents the methodology deployed and illustrates the research findings. Finally, the chapter offers the discussion and forwards the conclusions, limitations and suggestions for further research.

Ecotourism Definition and Dimensions

The term ecotourism was coined nearly four decades ago and it has been continually modified and updated right up to the present (Wood, 2002; Stronza, 2007). Today ecotourism is defined as an ‘environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present) that promote conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations’ (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). It is worth noting how this definition highlights the importance of involvement by the local population. The UNWTO defined ecotourism according to several criteria as follows (UNWTO, 2002, pp. 4–5):

•   First, it encompasses ‘all nature-based forms of tourism in which the main motivation of the tourist is the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas’.

•   Second, it ‘contains educational and interpretation features’.

•   Third, it ‘is generally, but not exclusively organized by specialized tour operators for small groups while service provider partners at the destinations tend to be small, locally owned businesses’.

•   Fourth, ecotourism ‘minimizes negative impacts upon the natural and socio-economic environment’.

•   Fifth, ecotourism ‘supports the maintenance of natural areas which are used as ecotourism attractions by:

  generating economic benefits and wellbeing for host communities, organizations and authorities managing natural areas with conservation purposes;

  providing alternative employment and income opportunities for local communities;

  increasing awareness towards the conservation of natural and cultural assets, both among locals and tourists’.

It is clear that the UNWTO description of ecotourism’s characteristics includes the majority of the features already described in Ceballos-Lascuráin’s (1996) definition. It is focused on natural resources and surrounding areas, stressing their role as ecotourism attractions and the need for their conservation. The UNWTO ecotourism perspective is fully inclusive of local communities, since they are expected to benefit from the responsible management of the environment around them. The difference from previous definitions lies in the emphasis on educational features. Grounding on the UNWTO’s definition, ecotourism needs to foster an environmental awareness, consciousness and culture in local communities and ‘ecotourists’ in order to fully promote environmental and socio-economic benefits.

More recently, The International Ecotourism Society framed the definition of ecotourism in more concise terms as ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the wellbeing of the local people, and involves interpretation and education. Education is meant to be inclusive of both staff and guests’ (TIES, 2015). It can be argued that natural resource conservation has remained the core part of the definition, but other features are condensed into a few, but significant, words. First, responsibility and awareness: tourists should travel responsibly in order to minimize their social, economic and environmental impact; in other words, they need to be aware and respect the typical characteristics of the territory they are visiting. Second, the wellbeing of local people: ecotourism needs to bring objective benefits for local communities in and around natural areas. Wellbeing encompasses an enlarged perspective in which the development of the local community includes socio-economic, environmental, political and psychological aspects (Das and Chatterjee, 2015). Third, culture: ecotourism needs to involve interpretation and education, in the sense of increasing knowledge, awareness and environmental consciousness both for visitors and hosts. In this perspective, education is intended to be inclusive, underpinning the idea of a necessary overarching process of stakeholder involvement (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996).

Conceptually, it is possible to summarize the different ecotourism characteristics deriving from the points of view of the authors and institutions previously described using the triple bottom line dimensions (Elkington, 1997) identified earlier on in the chapter. Indeed, a similar viewpoint has recently been adopted in the framework adopted by Das and Chatterjee (2015).

Cultural and socio-economic dimensions

The development of ecotourism can increase both the standard of living and local business development within local communities (Ashley, 2002; Goodwin, 2002) by offering more opportunities for earning a livelihood through ecotourism-related employment. Job opportunities can range from tourism services to production systems related to such services.

The development of ecotourism can also increase social empowerment. This is described by Scheyvens (2000, p. 241) as ‘. . . a situation in which a community’s sense of cohesion and integrity has been confirmed or strengthened by an activity such as ecotourism’. Ecotourism provides direct benefits from an individual point of view. And, when such benefits are shared among the community, its sense of cohesion and integrity can be enhanced. In this perspective, education and awareness, both for hosts and tourists, are considered fundamental for preserving and respecting the traditions and cultural heritage of the community (UNWTO, 2013). This process leads individuals and the community to gain a higher esteem and greater respect for their own culture, which in turn makes them more active and capable of becoming part of the decision-making process regarding ecotourism sites.

Environmental dimension

As the direct economic benefits become widespread within the local community, individuals can be incentivized to protect the natural resources (Stronza, 2007; Surendran and Sekhar, 2011). In this process, ecotourism can ‘promote biodiversity conservation through providing economic benefits to the communities’ (Das and Chatterjee, 2015, p. 5).

The development of ecotourism relies ‘on applying green growth strategy in the ambit of tourism with an intention of sustainable use of exhaustible natural resources’ (Das and Chatterjee, 2015, p. 8). Consequently, ecotourism constitutes a solid alternative solution to the exploitative use of environmental resources (Wood, 2002; Li, 2004; Nyuapane and Poudel, 2011). In this sense, Libosada (2009) describes ecotourism as the tangible aspect of conservation, while Holden (2003) underlines its ethical dimension. According to him, ecotourism underlines the need for resource conservation while adopting a conservation-based ethic and taking into account the economic interests of all stakeholders (Holden, 2003).

The framework used for analysing ecotourism highlights ‘a mutual interdependence among the economic and socio-cultural aspects of ecotourism and conservation of natural resources’ (Das and Chatterjee, 2015, p. 14). However, there are examples of ecotourism sites that have not been successful in meeting the objective of economic and social empowerment and environmental conservation, due to a lack of proper management of the sites and poor environmental consciousness among tourists. As a matter of fact, ‘proper’ management of ecotourism sites is one of the key factors for their success. The dynamics of the three major stakeholders: (i) resource manager; (ii) community; and (iii) tourists are especially important for the success of an ecotourism site; therefore, they must be managed properly (Das and Chatterjee, 2015). Policies, management tools and a strategic approach are essential to avoid or manage conflicts between stakeholders and to ensure that all the stakeholders are involved in the development of ecotourism.

It could be argued that in order to systemically and holistically consider all of the triple bottom line dimensions and to harmoniously manage the stakeholders’ heterogeneous needs, ecotourism should be founded on a solid strategic approach.

Ecotourism, Protected Areas and Participation

Among the determinants that drive the growth of the ecotourism market, we mention the fact that tourists have become ‘greener’ and are demanding ‘environmentally appropriate tourism experiences’ (Sharpley, 2006, p. 8). Obviously, tourists represent only the demand side of the ecotourism market. On the supply side, PAs can be considered suitable (sometimes even excellent) sites mainly for their institutional mission. As a matter of fact, PAs are identified worldwide as ‘clearly defined geographical spaces, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Day et al., 2012, p. 9). From this PA definition, the deep and strong conceptual connection between ecotourism and protected areas is clearly evident.

As a matter of fact, PAs include in their mission and function several of the fundamental characteristics of ecotourism, such as:

1. They must be formally recognized by law and dedicated to specific conservation purposes.

2. To achieve their conservation goals, PAs must be properly managed, which means that all the activities must aim to influence natural systems and human activities, ranging from the careful protection of nature to the sustainable use of resources (Dudley and Stolton, 2008).

Like ecotourism sites, PAs are also expected to provide multidimensional benefits (Morandi et al., 2013; Kati et al., 2014; Scolozzi et al., 2014), in terms of maintaining local biodiversity, protecting cultural and traditional specificities, contributing to human wellbeing and wealth, and enhancing education, scientific research, recreational and socio-economic development activities. Despite these benefits, ‘the designation and management of PAs does not always proceed without conflict. Public support, and in particular the approval and participatory role