Tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas 9781786391322, 9781786391339, 978-1-78639-131-5, 1077268750

Citation preview

Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas

This page intentionally left blank

Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas

Edited by

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

CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK

CABI 745 Atlantic Avenue 8th Floor Boston, MA 02111 USA

Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org

Tel: +1 (617)682-9015 E-mail: [email protected]

© CAB International 2018. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Azara, Iride. Title: Tourism, health, wellbeing and protected areas / edited by Iride Azara, Eleni Michopoulou,   Federico Niccolini, B. Derrick Taff and Alan Clarke. Description: Wallingford, Oxfordshire ; Boston, MA : CABI, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references   and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017050569 (print) | LCCN 2018006696 (ebook) | ISBN 9781786391322 (ePDF) |   ISBN 9781786391339 (ePub) | ISBN 9781786391315 (hbk : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Tourism--Environmental aspects. | Ecotourism. | Tourism--Health aspects. |   Outdoor recreation--Health aspects. | Natural areas--Management. | Well-being. Classification: LCC G156.5.E58 (ebook) | LCC G156.5.E58 T69 2018 (print) | DDC 338.4/791--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017050569

ISBN-13: 978 1 78639 131 5 Commissioning editor: Claire Parfitt Editorial assistant: Emma McCann Production editor: Marta Patiño Typeset by AMA DataSet Ltd, Preston, UK Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Contents

Contributors vii List of Figures List of Tables 1

Introduction: Tourism, Health and Wellbeing and Protected Environments Iride Azara, Federico Niccolini, B. Derrick Taff, Eleni Michopoulou and Alan Clarke

x xii 1

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 3

11

Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of O˝rség National Park, Hungary Melanie K. Smith and Barbara Csurgó

26

39



Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: The Points of View of Hosts and Guests in Sila National Park Sonia Ferrari and Monica Gilli

5

Wellness Tourism as a Complementary Activity in Saltpans Regeneration Helena Albuquerque, Ana Margarida Ferreira da Silva, Filomena Martins and Carlos Costa

6

A Model for Developing Evidence-based Health Tourism: The Case of ‘Alpine Health Region Salzburg, Austria’ Georg Christian Steckenbauer, Stephanie Tischler, Arnulf Hartl and Christina Pichler

4



56

69

v

vi Contents

7



8 9

Participatory Location-based Learning and ICT as Tools to Increase International Reputation of a Wellbeing Destination in Rural Areas: A Case Study Alessio Cavicchi, Emanuele Frontoni, Roberto Pierdicca, Chiara Rinaldi, Giovanna Bertella and Cristina Santini

82

Exploring How Medical Voluntourism Contributes to Health and Wellbeing in Haiti Jennifer Thomsen and Margaret Keneman

95

The Interrelationship Between Place Symbolism, Memory and Voluntary Income Schemes (VIS): The ‘Stick up for Stanage’ Campaign Duncan Marson and Emma Pope

108

Part 2: Health and Wellbeing, Protected Areas and Tourism 10 The Visitor: Connecting Health, Wellbeing and the Natural Environment Andreas Skriver Hansen 11 Reinventing Coastal Health Tourism Through Lifestyle Sports: The Complexities of  Kiteboarding in Practice Timo Derriks 12 Revitalizing Rural Communities in Costa Rica Through Sustainable Tourism Linda A. Heyne and José Vargas Camacho 13 Experiencing a Water Sports Holiday as Part of a Rehabilitation Trajectory: Identifying the Salutogenic Mechanisms Marlijn Wagenaar and Lenneke Vaandrager 14 The Potential Role of Public Aquaria in Human Health and Wellbeing Deborah L. Cracknell, Sabine Pahl, Mathew P. White and Michael H. Depledge

125

138

149

167

178

15 Health Effects of Recreation Vehicle Noise: Laboratory Evidence for Mood and Heart Rate Jacob A. Benfield, David Weinzimmer, B. Derrick Taff and Peter Newman

190

16 A Dynamic View of Visitors: The Impact of Others on Recreation and Restorative Nature Experiences Benjamin Cherian and Jacob A. Benfield

203

17 Reconsidering the links between Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas Alan Clarke, Iride Azara, Eleni Michopoulou, Federico Niccolini and B. Derrick Taff

214

Index 217

Contributors

Helena Albuquerque, Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture, Portucalense University, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 541, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] Iride Azara, Department of Hotel, Resort and Spa Management, University of Derby, 1 Devonshire Road, Buxton, SK17 6RY, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Jacob A. Benfield, Psychological and Social Sciences, Penn State University,1600 Woodland Rd, Abington, PA 19001, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Giovanna Bertella, School of Business and Economics, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Hansine Hansens veg 18, 9019, Tromsø, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] Iacopo Cavallini, Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa Via Ridolfi, 10–56124, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Alessio Cavicchi, Department of Education, Cultural Heritage and Tourism, University of Macerata, P.le Bertelli, 1, 62100, Macerata, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Benjamin Cherian, 107 Eaton Dr, North Wales, PA 19454-3937, USA. E-mail: benjicherian@ gmail.com Alan Clarke, University of Pannonia, Egyetem Utca 10, Veszprém, 8200, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Michele Contini, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33–56127, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Carlos Costa, Department of Economy, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Aveiro, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] Deborah L. Cracknell, National Marine Aquarium, Rope Walk Coxside, Plymouth PL4 0LF, Devon, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Barbara Csurgó, Research Department for Social Integration and Social Policy Institute for Sociology, Building: B (Floor, room: 1.22), Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1097 Budapest, Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Michael H. Depledge, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Timo Derriks, Research Centre for Coastal Tourism, Edisonweg 44382, NW, Vlissingen, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

vii

viii Contributors

Sonia Ferrari, University of Calabria, Dipartimento di Scienze Aziendali e Giuridiche Campus di Arcavacata, 87036 Rende, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Ana Margarida Ferreira da Silva, Department of Economy, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Aveiro, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] Emanuele Frontoni, Department of Information Engineering (DII), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131 Ancona, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Marco Giannini, Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Via Ridolfi, 10–56124, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Monica Gilli, Dipartimento ESOMAS – Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche, Corso Unione Sovietica 218/bis, 10134 Torino, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Arnulf Hartl, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Institute für Ecomedicine Strubergasse 21, 5020 Salzburg, Austria. E-mail: [email protected] Linda A. Heyne, Ithaca College, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Hill Center G46, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Margaret Keneman, 701 McClung Tower, 1115 Volunteer Blvd, Knoxville, TN 37996-0470, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Duncan Marson, Department of Hotel, Resort and Spa Management, University of Derby, 1 Devonshire Road, Buxton, SK17 6RY, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Filomena Martins, Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Aveiro, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] Eleni Michopoulou, Department of Hotel, Resort and Spa Management, University of Derby, 1 Devonshire Road, Buxton, SK17 6RY, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Peter Newman, 801G Ford Building, Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16803, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Federico Niccolini, Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Via Ridolfi, 10–56124, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Sabine Pahl, University of Plymouth, B219, 22 Portland Square, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Devon, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Christina Pichler, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Institute für Ecomedicine, Strubergasse 21, 5020 Salzburg, Austria. E-mail: [email protected] Roberto Pierdicca, Department of Construction, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Università Politecnica delle Marche – Via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131 Ancona, Italy. E-mail: r.pierdicca@ staff.univpm.it Emma Pope, Department of Hotel, Resort and Spa Management, University of Derby, 1 Devonshire Road, Buxton, SK17 6RY, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Chiara Rinaldi, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Vasagatan 1, 40530, Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Andreas Skriver Hansen, University of Gothenburg, Viktoriagatan 13, 4th floor, Box 625, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Cristina Santini, Faculty of Agriculture – University San Raffaele, Rome – Via di Val Cannuta, 247, 00166 Roma, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Melanie K. Smith, Budapest Metropolitan University, Institute of Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality, Nagy Lajos király útja 1–9, 1148 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Georg Christian Steckenbauer, Technische Hochschule Deggendorf, European Campus RottalInn, Max-Breiherr-Straße 32, D-84347 Pfarrkirchen, Germany. E-mail: Georg.steckenbauer@ th-deg.de B. Derrick Taff, 701H Ford Building, Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16803, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Stephanie Tischler, IMC Fachhochschule Krems, Piaristengasse 1, 3500 Krems, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

Contributors ix

Jennifer Thomsen, University of Montana, Department of Society and Conservation, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Lenneke Vaandrager, Wageningen University and Research, Departement Maatschappijwetenschappen, PO Box 8130, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] José Vargas Camacho, Finca Ruta Verde, 400 Mts Norte Hotel Villa San Ignacio, Tambor 20110, Alajuela, Costa Rica. E-mail: [email protected] Marlijn Wagenaar, Wageningen University & Research, Departement Maatschappijwetenschappen, PO Box 8130, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, Netherlands. E-mail: marlijnwagenaar@ gmail.com David Weinzimmer, 10689 Sunnyside Cir, Salida, CO 81201, USA. E-mail: david.weinzimmer@ gmail.com Mathew P. White, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1. EU ecotourism and good practices. Fig. 2.2. Possible strategic model for interpreting European ecotourism effectiveness. Fig. 5.1. Conceptual framework. Fig. 6.1. Process model to develop evidence-based health tourism products. Fig. 7.1. The architecture of the ICT-based service developed for the student competition. Fig. 7.2. The total impact per single content cluster (the total impact is 873,920 – see Table 7.2). Fig. 8.1. Relationship between medical voluntourism nested within other types of voluntourism and broader tourism. This research study focuses specifically on medical voluntourism in Haiti. Fig. 9.1. Image 1: Stanage Plantation: demonstrates the physical attributes of the site for activities such as climbing and the view up to the ‘Edge’. Image 2: The view from the top of Stanage Edge: a representation of the ‘iconic’ view of the landscape on top of the ‘Edge’. Image 3: Chip Shop Buttress: incorporating aspects of Stanage’s nature, wildlife and climbing/bouldering routes. Image 4: Road side parking: shows site damage and the management/conservation issues faced, as well as the ‘ours to care for’ concept. Image 5: Stanage Pole: represents the historical and cultural significance of Stanage in terms of recreation and heritage. Fig. 9.2. Interrelationship between significant memory and voluntary sticker purchase. Fig. 9.3. Relationship between voluntary sticker purchase and photographic selection. Fig. 10.1. Kayaking in the open waters. Fig. 10.2. Training in the woods. Fig. 10.3. ‘Walking on water’. Fig. 10.4. Fruits of the sea. Fig. 10.5. Freshly caught shrimps. Fig. 10.6. Grilled mackerel on the rocks. Fig. 10.7. Covered in salt. Fig. 10.8. Clear waters. Fig. 10.9. Snorkelling selfie. Fig. 10.10. Landscape of harmony. Fig. 10.11. Becoming nature religious. Fig. 10.12. Enjoying the beach together. Fig. 10.13. Jumping from the cliffs. Fig. 12.1. Map of Costa Rica indicating the three sustainable tourism ventures featured in this chapter: Danta Corcovado Lodge, AsoProLA and Caminos de Osa. x



List of Figures xi

Fig. 12.2. Four dimensions of the CST programme. Fig. 12.3. Meryln Oviedo Sánchez, owner and operator of Danta Corcovado Lodge. Fig. 12.4. Bungalow at Danta Corcovado Lodge, constructed solely from found wood. Fig. 12.5. José Rogelio Vargas Camacho (right), co-founder of Ruta Verde Nature Tours and entrepreneurship consultant. Fig. 12.6. Yendri Suárez Chacón, president of AsoProLA, explains coffee production to study abroad students. Fig. 12.7. Community member Evelin Mena Figueroa sells ice cream at Bioley Heladería Artesenal. Fig. 12.8. Alcove at the entrance to AsoProLA lodge. Fig. 12.9. Caminos de Osa offers visitors three trails that connect family businesses in the Osa Peninsula: Gold Trail, Jungle Trail and Water Trail. Fig. 12.10. Susana Matamoros Mendoza, local coordinator for Caminos de Liderazgo and entrepreneurship consultant.

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Executive summary of the main findings from the multiple good practices analysis. ˝ rség National Park. Table 3.1. A CES Framework Summary of O Table 4.1. The number of local stakeholders interviewed. Table 4.2. Macro-variables on the levels of tourism sustainability in a green destination in 2015. Table 4.3. Survey results (percentage values). Table 5.1. Methodological framework. Table 5.2. Wellness tourism segment, products and practices. Table 5.3. Wellness tourism by region, 2012 and 2013. Table 5.4. Top 20 wellness tourism markets, 2013. Table 6.1. Results of case analyses concerning the dimensions of sustainability. Table 7.1. The international student competition programme. Table 7.2. Features and numbers of social media activities. Table 14.1. Summary of the development of studies exploring the perceived and experienced benefits of viewing aquaria. Table 15.1. Means (standard deviations), percentage reductions, and pair-wise comparisons between PANAS1 and PANAS2. Table 15.2. Means (standard deviations), percentage reductions, and pair-wise comparisons between PANAS2 and PANAS3. Table 15.3. Summary physiological data for baseline and sound conditions. Table 15.4. Paired samples t-tests between baseline and combined natural and motorized sound conditions for galvanic skin response (GSR) and heart rate (HR). Table 15.5. Significant correlations between galvanic skin response and PANAS. Table 15.6. Significant correlations between heart rate and PANAS. Table 16.1. Comparisons of mean affect ratings between conditions. Table 16.2. Positive mood measured at T1, beginning of the experiment, T2, after disgust-inducing video and T3, after the sound clip.

xii

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 well­ being 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,

 CAB International 2018. Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas (eds I. Azara et al.) 1

2

I. Azara et al.

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; D ­ olnicar 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



Introduction: Tourism, Health and Wellbeing and Protected Environments

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 N ­ iccolini, 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

3

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 well­ being 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), ecosystem 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

4

I. Azara et al.

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 b ­ enefits (­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 t­ ourism. 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



Introduction: Tourism, Health and Wellbeing and Protected Environments

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

5

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.

6

I. Azara et al.

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: Qualityof-Life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 163–183.



Introduction: Tourism, Health and Wellbeing and Protected Environments

7

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).

This page intentionally left blank

Part 1

Tourism, Protected Areas, Health and Wellbeing

This page intentionally left blank

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

 CAB International 2018. Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas (eds I. Azara et al.) 11

12

F. Niccolini et al.

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: oo generating economic benefits and wellbeing for host communities, organizations and authorities managing natural areas with conservation purposes; oo providing alternative employment and income opportunities for local communities; oo 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 CeballosLascuráin’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 socioeconomic 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



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

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,

13

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

14

F. Niccolini et al.

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 of local stakeholders, has been envisaged as crucial for the long-term success of protected area management’ (Kati et al., 2014, p. 2). Warner (1997) was the first to recognize that combining institutional and people’s participation is crucial to the pursuit of ‘sustainable orientation’. This collaboration is also necessary in order to propose a generalized model of participation based on consensus building and to prevent or resolve conflict between stakeholders who might be affected by the sustainability oriented decision making. In this perspective, Tomicevic et al. (2010, p. 1) highlighted the need to implement the participatory approach as a means of promoting the sustainable use of ­natural resources, whereas Reed (2008) found evidence that stakeholder participation can ‘enhance the quality of environmental decisions, possibly due to more comprehensive information’. There are several significant European case studies on participation in the management of PAs and ecotourism sites. A survey of regional parks in the Slovenian Alps, conducted using discriminant analysis, evidenced that the more importance is given to the factors that influence the perception of the local populations, the more significant their involvement in the process of creating, planning and managing the protected area will be (Nastran and Istenic, 2015). Bouamrane et al. (2016) highlighted some cases in France and in Africa concerning biosphere reserves that provide the possibility of continuous interaction between society and environment and require a process of active participation of different stakeholders who interact together to develop a unified proposal or a common purpose (in terms of vision, goals and actions). Finally, de Castro and Urios (2016),



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

after studying Albufera Natural Park in Valencia (Spain), propose a managerial model that could improve the governance of PAs from an institutional perspective. From these premises, and having seen the strong convergence of their core purposes, it could be argued that there is a deep and synergic relationship between PAs and ecotourism. On the one hand, PAs represent appropriate sites for developing ecotourism, given that they aim to preserve and properly manage, through a ­participatory approach, the primary attractions (natural environments) of ecotourism. On the other hand, ecotourism is centred on natural and cultural resources (considered unique by each PA), and it is developed through a strategic behaviour based on the participation of relevant stakeholders. Consequently, the development of ecotourism can find a key attractor and actor in PAs, by following both a strategic and a participatory approach.

socio-economic pressure (Micheli and Niccolini, 2013) that need to be strategically and collaboratively managed. In June 2010, the European Commission issued an important communication ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination. A new political framework for tourism in Europe’ in the aim of setting up a new strategy and action plan for retaining EU’s leading tourism position (European Commission, 2010). Despite the fact that ecotourism is not explicitly mentioned in this document, it is clear that it can play a significant role in pursuing the priorities identified by the EU. These are: •• •• •• ••

The European Context and the Charter for Sustainable Tourism European Union countries are leading tourist destinations worldwide (UNWTO, 2016), and in this context ecotourism can play a significant role in the development of long-term tourism strategy oriented to implementing the quality, sustainability and competitiveness of the sector. Despite being known mainly for its cultural, historical, artistic and archaeological tourist attractions, Europe has a wealth of and an enormous variety of natural resources. Furthermore, in Western Europe – the focus of this study – most PAs are in geographical proximity to significant cultural, historical, archaeological or artistic attractions (Dudley and Stolton, 2008). For this reason, in many European contexts there is a high potential to embed ecotourism strategy within a sort of ‘mosaic touristic vision’ that simultaneously includes the different ‘souls’ or facets of the European touristic offering: the historical, cultural (including the agricultural and the gastronomic), archaeological and more generally the heritage ones. At the same time, PAs and natural environments are often very close to urban settings and densely inhabited areas. This situation generates several types of

15

to stimulate competitiveness in the European tourism sector; to promote the developments of sustainable, responsible and high-quality tourism; to consolidate Europe’s image as a collection of sustainable, high-quality destinations; and to maximize the potential of EU financial policies for developing tourism (European Commission, 2016).

In particular, sustainable tourism is mentioned in the second priority, which also points to the responsible and high-quality characteristics of tourism. Within this framework, the ECST can arguably be considered an effective methodology, instrument and practice for implementing the abovementioned lines of action. The ECST is an initiative launched by EUROPARC, a non-profit association founded in 1973 with the aim of supporting European PAs to fulfil their role as preservers of Europe’s natural beauty. The ECST commits its signatories ‘to develop a ­common sustainable strategy and action plan’ (EUROPARC, 2015, p. 2), working in partnership with all relevant stakeholders. Therefore, the ECST is a systemic and practical management tool that enables PAs to develop tourism sustainably, from both a socio-economic and an ecological point of view. ‘The aim of all Charter projects and activities is the protection of the natural and cultural heritage, and the continuous improvement of tourism in the protected area in terms of the environment, local population and businesses as well as visitors’ (EUROPARC, 2015, p. 2). Although the ECST was launched in 1995, the first seven PAs were

16

F. Niccolini et al.

included in the Charter project network only in 2001. With over 20 years of implementation, the ECST is an ongoing process and, today, the European Charter has created many hybrid networks of organizations, centred on the 157 PAs that have benefitted from Charter activities. The networks operate in 20 different countries, involving numerous private (mainly local tourism businesses), public (mainly local/regional authorities) and non-profit organizations (EUROPARC, n.d). The ECST comprises three distinct but interlinked parts and a framework; it also includes a vision, mission and key principles. While the three parts are directed towards different key actors (the PA authority, local tourism businesses and tour operators), the framework recalls the fundaments of the ECST, such as safeguarding natural and cultural values, supporting local livelihoods and quality of life, engaging relevant stakeholders, increasing awareness and pursuing continuous improvements. Part I represents the core of the ECST. It is directed to PAs of all kinds and sets requirements to be fulfilled by PA authorities, in order for them to become signatories – or members – of the ECST and receive its formal recognition. The membership process involves five steps

(EUROPARC, 2015). These are presented in Box 2.1. Through its main elements, the second step shows the milestones of a systemic strategic process. In the case of the ECST, it is simultaneously a strategic and a participatory process. In fact, the ECST strategic process is characterized by the involvement of all relevant stakeholders who participate, understand and approve the PA authority’s strategy and action plan (EUROPARC, 2015). Consequently, the second step represents the structural link between the strategic and the participatory approaches of the ECST. Each element takes into account specific aspects. In particular, the assessment of the current situation considers: (i) natural, historical and cultural heritage; (ii) tourism and recreation infrastructures; (iii) current visitors and potential futures markets; and (iv) impacts of tourism on the environment, economy and local communities. The delineation of a strategic direction includes the three dimensions of ecotourism (environmental, social and economic) previously described. Strategic objectives include nature and heritage conservation, economic and social development, and improvement in the quality of tourism services and in the quality of life of local communities. For every strategic objective, the action plan

Box 2.1.  Five steps for obtaining ECST membership recognition. I.

Sustainable tourism forum: A sustainable tourism forum must be set up to include the PA authority, the local/regional authority, tourism businesses, and representatives, etc. in order to enable effective discourse and decision making. II. Strategy and action plan: A strategy and an action plan for sustainable tourism is required to guarantee ‘the best possible integration of tourism within the natural, cultural, economic, and social environment and its coherent development in time and space’ (EUROPARC, 2011, p. 7). The strategy and the action plan: oo contain three elements: assessment of the current situation, definition of a strategic direction, and practical action plan; oo foresee the inclusive consultation of all relevant stakeholders, who must understand and approve both the strategy and the action plan; oo cover a 5-year period; and oo constitute a separate, self-contained document. III. Evaluation: To become a member of the European Charter Network, the PA authority is required to engage in and facilitate the evaluation process. Such a process gives feedback and opinions on the PA authority’s sustainable tourism activity, and includes the verifier’s assessment of the strategy and the action plan. IV. Partnership and communication: Once it is granted membership, the PA authority is required to publicise the Charter, and engage in networking and communication events. V. Monitoring and review: Improvements, as well as results and changes in tourism performance and impact are required, since Charter membership is usually granted for a limited period of 5 years.



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

describes the concrete practices suitable for implementing that objective, detailing resources, timing and partners involved, and it suggests proposals for monitoring results. The action plan is structured around key topics and key actions that should be addressed in order to be granted membership within the Charter. A degree of flexibility is allowed in the determination of topics and actions in order to consider the site-specific characteristics of PAs. Part II of the ECST is directed towards local tourism businesses and is available to businesses in areas that receive individual recognition as Charter signatories (EUROPARC, 2015). While the involvement of relevant stakeholders is already considered in Part I, Part II takes this involvement a step further, enabling local tourism businesses working with the PA authority to receive individual recognition as Charter signatories. This recognition entails the formulation of practical applications of sustainable tourism from the local tourism business perspective. Part III of the ECST is directed to tour ­operators. Committing to the Charter’s vision, mission, principles and sustainability criteria is required of tour operators in order to be recognized under the Charter. This entails a ­ compatibility analysis of tour operators’ products according to the objectives of the PA, while working in partnership with the PA authority. Yet, as in other economic sectors today, in tourism, too, the environmental and social challenges being faced are growing. It is becoming increasingly essential to adopt an appropriate strategic and organizational approach in order to introduce a more sustainable and socially responsible orientation into sector-related activities. In this context, ecotourism can play a crucial role in guiding touristic systems towards sustainability and social responsibility. The role played by ecotourism is relevant not only for regions that are characterized by an extraordinary richness of natural resources, but also for those where natural, historical, artistic and cultural heritages are closely intertwined, as so often happens in many European tourist destinations. In this context, since the beginning of the new millennium, the European Commission has published several Communications and other documents – particularly related to Agenda 21 – aimed at bringing together competitiveness and sustainability in tourism.

17

However, after more than 15 years, few efforts have been made to evaluate the effectiveness of European progress on sustainable tourism. Within this framework, the study set out to investigate two main and interrelated research questions: are the strategic and participatory approaches really central to the effectiveness of ecotourism development? Additionally, how can the strategic and participatory approaches be effective within the process of ecotourism development? The following section presents and discusses the methodology deployed in this study.

Method: Multiple Good Practices Analysis In order to address the research questions, an exploratory study on good practices was performed, taking into consideration the role played by the strategic and participatory approach for the development of ecotourism within a PA that has been awarded recognition by the ECST. Due to the ECST structure and procedures, its (the PA’s) practices can been considered good for their ecotourism relevance, given that they have already passed the verifier’s and EUROPARC’s evaluation process. Different PAs expressed different but similarly valuable good practices as each PA presents its own site-specific characteristics. In this analysis, the term good practices was preferred over best practices, since there is no ‘best’ practice when dealing with social phenomena (Niccolini, in Morandi et al., 2013). The multifaceted reality of ecotourism and of different PAs, different strategies and participatory processes, and different cultural and local contexts made the word ‘best’ unsuitable. A more appropriate choice was the term ‘good practices’, gained from the three case studies and identified as positive actions useful in suggesting different ways of developing the strategic and participatory process within PAs. On this specific point, Niccolini, in Morandi et al. (2013), defined the term good practice as it relates to ecotourism. First, a good practice was defined as ‘a situation, experience, knowledge, know-how which has been gained in specific context and has been proven to have a high applicability in other ­circumstances, due to its effectiveness and its

18

F. Niccolini et al.

contribution in solving real problems’. Subsequently, with regard to ecotourism, good practices are seen as ‘actions and strategies suitable for being adopted – at least partially – in other contexts, due to their positive results in con­ serving natural resources and in the management of recreational activities’ (Morandi et al., 2013). Building on such definitions, the term good practices later implied connections with benchmarking. Benchmarking – ‘a process of identification, comprehension and adaptation of successful practices from organization to others around the world’ (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998) – became the modus operandi by which good practices were identified and extrapolated from the three case studies. In fact, collecting, selecting, describing and divulging good practices required an underlying process of comparison between different practices. The identification and extrapolation process needed to be guided by criteria and, thus, four criteria were identified, inspired by Overman and Boyd (1994): 1. Pragmatism: practice ability to respond and solve specific problems. 2. Innovative capacity: practice ability to implement new, creative and valuable solutions, aimed at improving the situation and solving problems. 3. Partial reproducibility: practice ability to provide careful considerations and to be, at least partially, reproduced in other contexts. 4. International valence: practice valence at an international or European level. We chose a multiple case study analysis methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013) to evaluate the role of the strategic and participatory approaches and confirm – or not – their importance in developing ecotourism, because the multiple case study analysis provides a larger picture of a complex phenomenon (Stake, 2006) such as the one under investigation. Additionally, the multiple case study method is well suited to research areas for which existing theory could be improved, and it has important strengths like novelty, testability and empirical validity, which arise from the intimate linkages with empirical evidence (Yin, 2013). Within the European Charter Network, eight PAs presenting outstanding good practice examples were identified by EUROPARC itself, to

show ‘how EUROPARC’S Charter standards can be successfully implemented in the daily routine of PAs and local stakeholders working in partnership among PAs’ (EUROPARC, 2012). From this initial group and through the benchmarking process, good practices in line with the four abovementioned criteria of pragmatism, innovative capacity, partial reproducibility and international valence were identified. As a result of this process, three PAs were then selected: the Italian Alpi Marittime Regional Park, the British Clwydian Range and Dee Valley area of outstanding national beauty (AONB), and the French Pilat Regional Park. Each case was analysed considering the following elements: 1. An assessment of the effectiveness of the ecotourism strategy, in the three dimensions, with a specific focus on the environmental perspective. 2. An assessment of the strategic and participatory approaches used (i.e. their presence and their context). 3. A wider analysis of the good practices adopted (i.e. brief description of the good practices used for implementing the two approaches).

Alpi Marittime National Park The Alpi Marittime National Park is situated in the north-western region of Italy. It was created in 1995 from the union of the Argentera Natural Park and the Lake and Forest Reserve of Palanfrè. Nowadays, it covers approximately 28,000 hectares and it encompasses three valleys and five municipalities. Key environmental indicators were identified according to two criteria: wildlife/wilderness conservation and educational activities. The first considered the protected area’s ability to increase the presence of wildlife in terms of numbers of emblematic animals in their natural habitat, while the second referred to the presence of programmes to increase awareness and understanding. Within the confines of the national park, large predators, such as the wolf and the bearded vulture, saw improvements in their standard of conservation. In addition, a dedicated project for strengthening educational activities was created; it also included



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

programmes by mountain area schools geared to teaching traditional crafts. With regard to the strategic approach, the park’s sustainable tourism orientation was considered a priority. In the Alpi Marittime Regional Park, visitor centres play a central role with the twofold purpose of minimizing the environmental impact while maximizing the ecotourism experience of guests. The park has also launched projects directed towards the improvement of additional ecotourism hospitality infrastructures. Moreover, other initiatives regard sustainable mobility, de-seasoning and the promotion of typical products. Finally, up-to-date information technologies (IT) for tourism and maxim um attention to people with disabilities were found to be important practices. Furthermore, two significant participatory initiatives were selected. The first is the creation with the Mercantour National Park of a unique, transboundary PA managed by a single organizational structure. The second is a network initiative of small enterprises called the Maritime Association of Private Entrepreneurs, whose aim is to promote and develop ecotourism. Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB The Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB is situated in the north-eastern part of Wales. The Clwydian Range was designated an AONB in 1985 and, in 2011, the Welsh Government’s Ministry of the Environment confirmed a southerly extension to include much of the Dee Valley, ultimately covering approximately 150 square miles of protected area. As in the previous case, some environmental indicators that focused both on conservation and on strengthening educational activities were chosen. First of all, the PA developed a programme to increase awareness and understanding of the significance of these areas, one that would promote good management and greater access to the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB historic places (EUROPARC, 2012). The PA was able to improve the standards of conservation of emblematic fauna species, such as the black grouse, and of cultural historic sites, such as hillforts. Regarding the strategic approach, the park’s sustainable ecotourism orientation was

19

considered a key factor. Floating ramps were used in the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB to protect archaeological sites, and highquality training was provided to the park ecotourism personnel. In addition, the presence of up-to-date IT for tourism was found to be a key element for driving educational activities. These technologies were used ‘to tell the story of how people and communities have shaped the landscape over the centuries’ (EUROPARC, 2012, p. 8). Examples of these technologies were the establishment of mobile phone audio guides on bus routes, animated reconstructions of historic landscapes accessible via mobile phones and tablets, and the building of an audiovisual room for simulated flight over the PA. Finally, a high priority was given to providing access to people with disabilities. Two significant participatory initiatives were also identified in this case study: the Heather and Hillforts Land Partnership and the audience development plan. The first involved local experts who were invited to talk about geology, archaeology, agriculture, biodiversity and cultural connections present within the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB, through the use of up-to-date technologies. The second involved the local communities – a total of nine key audiences – for the publication of booklets exploring the landscape of the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB.

Pilat Regional Natural Park The Pilat Regional Natural Park is situated in the south-eastern part of France. It is a PA of mountainous country in the Rhône–Alpes region and covers an area of approximately 65,000 hectares. The area was officially designated as a PA in 1974. Key environmental indicators were identified for wildlife and cultural resource conservation: within the park’s boundaries, initiatives were implemented for the protection of several emblematic animals, such as the European ­beaver, the otter and the Iberian wall lizard. Regarding the strategic approach, the park’s sustainable ecotourism orientation was evident. The Pilat Regional Natural Park divided its touristic products according to five themes:

20

F. Niccolini et al.

hiking, biking, products of the land, nature and snow. To offer these services, 60 mixed ­tourism products – starting from half-day excursions to week-long seminars – were created. Moreover, the park actively promotes local typical products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese and wine. Two participatory initiatives were selected: the ‘Maison du Turisme du Pilat’ and the IPAMAC network. The first is essentially a ‘body in charge of tourism information and commercialisation of the territory and the Charter Forum’ (EUROPARC, 2012, p. 7). The second consists of a group of ten natural parks in the Massif Central region. This network worked in cooperation with the French Federation of Parks to create a unique method of partnership for tour operators interested in working with the natural parks as tourist destinations. A summary of the lessons learned from the multiple good practices analysis is presented the Table 2.1. While conducting the exploratory study, some additional unexpected findings emerged from the multiple good practices study. The analysis highlighted other relevant aspects that can potentially influence the effectiveness of an ecotourism strategy. Only two out of three good practices include accessibility for persons with disabilities as an important priority; two of the three include promotion of typical products; and again, two out of three use effective and innovative up-to-date IT tools. While typical products were found to have a catalytic impact on the economic factors, the issue of accessibility was related to social factors. Finally, up-to-date IT affected cultural factors, since the aim of using such technologies was to increase education and awareness among tourists, local businesses and tour operators.

Concluding Discussions and Implications The multiple good practices analysis yielded findings on: •• ••

the role of the strategic and participatory approaches for the effectiveness of ecotourism development; and how these approaches can be effective.

The analysis theoretically confirmed (Yin, 2013) the central role played by strategic and participatory approaches to enhancing the effectiveness of the ecotourism development process within PAs. In particular, such approaches are not only important, but pivotal to the effectiveness of the ecotourism development process within PAs. The analysis also highlighted those factors that are affected by these approaches (Fig. 2.1). In addition to the economic and social factors, another factor emerged as being a crucial one: the cultural factor. This is additional confirmation for the thesis in the literature that sees ecotourism characterized by a mutual interdependence among economic and socio-cultural aspects related to the conservation of natural resources (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996; Das and Chatterjee, 2015). The analysis also identified suitable good practices to be adopted for these approaches to be effective in the ecotourism development process, while simultaneously improving the three pillars of sustainable development (ecological, economic, and social). In so doing, the ecotourism phenomenon can be effective when it is: •• ••

driven by a conservation-oriented authority like a PA; and guided by a participatory strategy like the one promoted by the ECST. The analysis confirms how ecotourism development can be enhanced mainly through the adoption of a holistic perspective, providing additional credits to previous streams of literature.

Such a perspective is not meant to include only the site-specific social, economic and environmental dimensions of ecotourism, but also the cultural one. Taking into account the latter, the analysis further evidences the role of PAs within ecotourism development. A PA can ­function as a visionary catalyst, when guided by a collaborative and strategic approach, like the one required by the ECTS. Such catalytic action is able to activate a positive and ­reinforcing loop that can improve local socioeconomic and ecological wellbeing, through a process of stakeholder engagement, as depicted Figure 2.2. This figure shows a possible model for ­interpreting the effectiveness of a European ecotourism strategy. The model shows how a PA,



Table 2.1.  Executive summary of the main findings from the multiple good practices analysis.

Alpi Marittime

Exploratory Findings Strategic Approach

Wolf, bearded Twinning with Mercantour Visitor Centres in villages vulture National Park (Joint European (minimum impact, Diploma for Protected Areas, maximum perception), Twinning Charter Common improvement of hospitality Action Plan, European infrastructure, Grouping Territorial enhancement of Cooperation, Ecotourism in sustainable mobility, the Marittime Association) de-seasoning, and differentiation

Clwydian Range Black grouse, Heather and Hillforts Land Floating ramps to protect and Dee hillforts Partnership, archaeological sites, Valley AONB Audience development plan high-quality training for (nine key audiences: graziers ecotourism personnel, etc. and landowners, etc.) Pilat Regional Park

Up-to-date IT tools Typical products

Focus on accessibility

Eco-guide

Rye, potatoes, cheese, etc.

High

Flight simulation, audio guide

×

High

European Charter Forum and Maison du Differentiation among five × beaver, Tourisme du Pilat themes (hiking, biking, otter, Iberian IPAMAC network: a group of ten products of the land, nature wall lizard natural parks in the Massif and snow); 60 mixed Central region that aim to products (from half-day create a unique method of excursions to week-long partnership between Tour seminars) Operators and Parks

Yogurt, milk, × cheese, wine, etc.

Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

Key Local Environmental Standards Participatory Approach

Source: Authors.

21

22

F. Niccolini et al.

Economic factors: • Typical production • Tourism portfolio • differentiation, etc.

Social factors: • De-seasoning • Roles to enhance local • management of economic • activities, etc.

Strategic & Protected Area Participatory approaches

Conservation, social and economic collaborative development stragety

Cultural factors: • Raising awareness • Environmental • education, etc. Fig. 2.1.  EU ecotourism and good practices. (Source: Authors.)

Ecotourism conservation and sustainable development vision

Enlist key local partners

Develop a strategic plan Social legitimization

Implement the action plan

Improve ecological, economic, and social wellbeing Fig. 2.2.  Possible strategic model for interpreting European ecotourism effectiveness. (Source: Authors.)

acting as a visionary catalyst and involving different stakeholders, can activate a propulsive system to simultaneously improve both ecological standards and economic and social wellbeing. Our proposed model can also offer concrete and useful indications for policy makers,

protected area managers and ecotourism operators that aim to implement an ecotourism strategy. The model, combining the strategic and participatory approaches in a systemic perspective, is – at least partially – transferrable to a plurality of contexts and organizations.



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research Finally, some limitations of this study should be recognized. The multiple case study analysis of a limited number of cases reveals only a partial picture of the investigated phenomena (Yin, 2013). The theoretical consolidation of the results obtained, in particular the confirmation of the synergistic relationship between participatory approach, stakeholder engagement and the effectiveness of ecotourism strategies, should be feasible only by increasing the sample of case studies observed. Increasing the number of cases analysed and obtaining a statistical relevancy of the results could confirm both the robustness and the strength of the model while, at the same time, contributing to reinforcing its applicability among other ecotourism contexts. Moreover, the analysis was limited in its applicability to specific organizations (i.e. PAs). Thus, extending the analysis to different public organizations could increase the relevance of

23

the study. In particular, the catalytic model could be tested in other public organizations that are oriented to promoting the values of sustainability and social responsibility, thus contributing to fostering a more widespread use of collaborative and participative approaches. Both of these limitations also represent open and suitable fields for future research.

Endnote 1

Another interesting instrument is the European Ecotourism Labelling Standard (EETLS). The EETLS is a set of standards linked to the criteria established by the GSTC – Global Sustainable Tourism Council – founded to harmonize existing European ecotourism labelling and ‘that serve as an «umbrella» for existing ecotourism labels or sustainable tourism labels, aiming to expand their applicability to the ecotourism market’ (ECOLNET, 2013). Practical experiences of EETLS are illustrated by Candrea and Hertanu (2015) and Ban, Iacobas and Nedelea (2016).

References Ashley, C. (2002) Methodology for pro-poor tourism case studies. PPT Working Paper no. 10, 1–23. Ban, O., Iacobas, P. and Nedelea, A. (2016) Marketing research regarding tourism business readiness for eco-label achievement (Case study: Natura 2000 Crisul Repede Gorge-Padurea Craiului Pass Site, Romania). Ecoforum 5(1), 224–234. Bouamrane, M., Spierenburg, M., Agrawal, A., Boureima, A., Cormier-Salem, M.C., Etienne, M., Le Page, C., Levrel, H. and Mathevet, R. (2016) Stakeholder engagement and biodiversity conservation challenges in social-ecological systems: some insights from biosphere reserves in western Africa and France. Ecology and Society 21(4), 25. Candrea, A.N. and Hertanu, A. (2015) Developing ecotourism destinations in Romania. A case study approach. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Economic Sciences. Series V 8(2), 163. 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. Das, M. and Chatterjee, B. (2015) Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism Management Perspectives 14, 3–16. Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., Stolton, S. and Weels, S. (2012) Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 36 pp. de Castro, M.D. and Urios, V. (2016) A Management Model for Improve the Governance of Protected Areas since an Institutional Pespective and an Empirical Case in a Spanish Natural Park. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences 4(9), 35–43. Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. (2008) Defining Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 220 pp. ECOLNET (2013) The European Ecotourism Labelling Standards (EELTS): e-Evaluation and e-Training Tools. Prisma, Athens, Greece.

24

F. Niccolini et al.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550. Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada. EUROPARC (n.d.) The European Charter Network: Working in Partnership. Available at: http://www. europarc.org/sustainable-tourism/charter-network/ (accessed 19 January 2017). EUROPARC (2011) European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas – The Charter. EUROPARC Federation, Regensburg, Germany. EUROPARC (2012) Learning from Case Studies of Certified Charter Parks in Europe. EUROPARC ­Federation, Regensburg, Germany. EUROPARC (2015) Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. EUROPARC Federation, Regensburg, ­Germany. European Commission (2010) Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. European Commission (2016) Overview of EU tourism policy. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/ sectors/tourism/policy-overview_en (accessed 11 December 2016). Goodwin, H. (2002) Local community involvement in tourism around national parks: Opportunities and constraints. Current Issues in Tourism 5(3–4), 338–360. Holden, A. (2003) In need of new environmental ethics for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(1), 94–108. Kati, V., Hovardas, T., Dieterich, M., Ibisch, P., Mihok, B. and Selva, N. (2014) The challenge of implementing the European Network of Protected Areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology 26(1), 1–10. Li, W. (2004) Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China’s nature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Tourism Management 25(5), 559–564. Libosada, C.M. (2009) Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection–concepts and practices in sustainable tourism. Ocean and Coastal Management 52(7), 390–394. Micheli, F. and Niccolini, F. (2013) Achieving success under pressure in the conservation of intensely used coastal areas. Ecology and Society 18, 4. Morandi, F., Niccolini, F., Marzo, D., Sargolini, M. and Tola, A. (2013) Organizzazione e pianificazione delle attività ecoturistiche: principi ed esperienza. Franco Angeli, Milan, Italy. Nastran, M. and Istenic, M.C. (2015) Who is for or against the park? Factors Influencing the public’s perception of a regional park: A Slovenian case study. Human Ecology Review 21(2), 93. Nyuapane, G. and Poudel, S. (2011) Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood and tourism. Annual of Tourism Research 38(4), 1344–1366. O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C. (1998) If only we knew what we knew: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review 40(3), 40–54. Overman, E.S. and Boyd, K.J. (1994) Best practice research and postbureaucratic reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4, 67–83. Reed, M.S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431. Scheyvens, R. (2000) Promoting women’s empowerment through involvement in ecotourism: Experiences from the third world. Journal of Sustainable Development 8, 232–249. Scolozzi, R., Schirpke, U., Morri, E., D’Amato, D. and Santolini, R. (2014) Ecosystem services-based SWOT analysis of protected areas for conservation strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 1–9. Sharpley, R. (2006) Ecotourism: A consumption perspective. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1–2), 7–22. Stake, R. (2006) Multiple Case Study Analysis. The Guilford Press, New York, USA. Stronza, A. (2007) The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 6(3), 210–221. Surendran, A. and Sekhar, C. (2011) A comparative analysis on the socio-economic welfare of dependents of the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) in India. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research 5(3), 361–379. TIES (2015) What is ecotourism? Available at: http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism (accessed 10 January 2017).



Organizing Ecotourism: A Study of Benchmark Protected Areas

25

Tomicevic, J., Shannon, M.A. and Milovanovic, M. (2010) Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes: case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics 12, 157–162. UN (1992) Agenda 21. United Nations, New York, USA. UN (2012) Promotion of Ecotourism for Poverty Eradication and Environment Protection. United Nations, New York, USA. UNWTO and UNEP (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers. United Nations World Tourism Association, Madrid, Spain; United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. UNWTO (2002) The British Ecotourism Market. United Nations World Tourism Association, Madrid, Spain. UNWTO (2013) UN General Assembly: ecotourism key eradicating poverty and protecting environment. Available at: http://www2.unwto.org/en/press-release/2013-01-03/un-general-assembly-ecotourismkey-eradicating-poverty-and-protecting-envir (accessed 10 December 2016). UNWTO (2016) World Tourism Barometer. United Nations World Tourism Association, Madrid, Spain. Warner, M. (1997) ‘Consensus’ participation: an example for protected areas planning. Public Administration and Development 17(4), 413–432. Wood, M.E. (2002) Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability. United Nations Publication, Herndon, USA. Yin, R.K. (2013) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.

3 

Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Case Study ˝ rség National Park, Hungary of O Melanie K. Smith and Barbara Csurgó

Introduction This chapter focuses on the relationship between tourism, wellbeing and protected areas using a cultural ecosystem services framework. Within the context of ecosystem services research, cultural ecosystem services (CES) have been relatively under-researched, partly because of the complexity of measuring intangible benefits and values (Chan et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013; Leyshon, 2014; Andersson et al., 2015). This is especially true of spirituality, aesthetics, inspiration and sense of place. Although it has been noted that more research has been undertaken on recreation and tourism in the context of CES (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013; Plieninger et al., 2013), there are still relatively few studies. Romagosa et al. (2015) also note the gap in the literature about health and wellbeing benefits in the context of protected areas compared to urban and suburban parks. This chapter therefore aims to explore the relationship between tourism, wellbeing and CES in the context of protected areas, especially national parks. A case study will be provided of the O˝rség National Park in Hungary, a protected area that attracts domestic and, increasingly, international tourists. The main aim of the case study is to demonstrate how a CES framework can be applied to a protected landscape providing new insights into local and tourism planning priorities.

26

The Wellbeing Benefits of Landscapes and National Parks The IUCN (2017) describes a protected area as ‘a clearly defined geographical space, 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’. This can include national parks, wilderness areas, community conserved areas, nature reserves and so on. As stated by De Vos et al. (2016), protected areas are increasingly expected to justify their existence through the services that they provide to society, which includes cultural services and non-material benefits. Mellon and Bramwell (2016) suggest that although the original goal of protected areas was conservation, many managers may be broadening their policy and management goals. They note that one of these policy areas might include residents’ socio-­ economic wellbeing, as well as sustainable tourism. Ideally, tourism could contribute to ­ socio-economic wellbeing through rural regeneration or reducing dependency on farming, as will be seen later in our case study of O˝rség. Ray (1998) also states that landscape systems and their associated flora and fauna are an important local resource which can be seen as key to improving the social and economic wellbeing of local rural areas.

 CAB International 2018. Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas (eds I. Azara et al.)



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

Xu and Fox (2014) describe national parks as important places for experiencing nature, noting that their designation is usually connected to aesthetics, conservation, recreation or tourism. However, common tensions exist between the conservation and recreation or tourism functions of national parks. Their research shows that those people who view nature in an ‘anthropocentric’ way will give greater priority to tourism development, whereas those who are more ‘ecocentric’ will give primacy to the natural environment. Some of these perceptions or approaches may be culturally embedded, for example, Tengberg et al. (2012) distinguish between Anglophone interpretations of landscape which are based more on visual features of landscape and Nordic concepts of landscape which include interactions between people and place. In terms of the benefits of landscapes, national parks and other protected areas for tourists, several studies have focused on happiness, health and wellbeing. Frash et al. (2016) explored, for example, the relationship between happiness and visiting parks. Their research suggested that diversity of park activities is more important than the length of time spent there, and that no one activity (e.g. fitness) makes people happier than another. Just being in the park seems to engender greater happiness. Interestingly, women reported higher happiness levels than men. Romagosa et al. (2015) talked about ‘ecosystem health’ and the health benefits of environmental protection, such as the creation of parks and protected areas. Indeed, the authors suggested that the wellbeing benefits of protected areas can be greater because of the higher degree of biodiversity, good provision of infrastructure and services. Parks and protected areas not only contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, they also provide an attractive setting for creating wellbeing for human populations and promoting health. Direct health benefits include acting as locations for physical exercise and therapeutic activities which improve mental health. Maller et al. (2009) summarized the benefits of parks and protected areas for human health and wellbeing, which included the following: ••

physical: settings for recreation, sport and other leisure activities;

•• •• •• ••

27

mental: restoration from fatigue, peace and solitude, artistic inspiration and education; spiritual: reflection and contemplation, feeling a sense of place, connecting to something greater than oneself; social: including couples, families, networks and associations’ recreational activities and events; and environmental: preservations and conservation of ecosystems.

Abraham et al. (2010) similarly summarize the wellbeing benefits of landscapes or outdoor environments in their scoping study as follows: •• •• ••

mental wellbeing: nature as restorative; physical wellbeing: walkable landscape; and social wellbeing: landscape as bonding structure.

In their research on national parks, Wolf et al. (2015) list many of the possible benefits which include physical fitness, re-engagement with nature, mental restoration and numerous other wellbeing benefits. They also question how national park managers can know which are the most beneficial activities for visitors and how best to provide them. Xu and Fox (2014) suggest that many park managers throughout the world are under increasing pressure to provide more facilities and different activities to satisfy visitor needs. Wolf et al. (2015) discuss how guided tours can be one way of helping visitors to gain access to pristine areas. Indrawan et al. (2014) also show how tours of national parks in Australia can be an effective tool for landscape management with political and financial advantages for park managers. Little (2015) argues that providing manifold opportunities for people to engage with their natural surroundings is one effective strategy for fostering human wellbeing. One way of encouraging greater engagement with national parks is to increase place attachment in order to create a sense of community identity and to encourage environmental stewardship and repeat visitation. Wolf et al. (2015) describe how the conditions for place attachment are usually specific to the place and the community. The cultural traditions or heritage of the place may be an important part of this. Teuscher et al. (2015) suggest

28

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

that sense of place contributes towards shaping peoples’ beliefs, values and commitments, but Schmidt et al. (2016) argue that place attachment and place identity have significant effects on attitudes to conservation whereas the overall construct of sense of place does not. GanglmairWooliscroft and Wooliscroft (2014) have analysed place identity and emotional attachment to place, including its symbolic importance. They discuss how national parks can form part of the identity of certain nationalities, for example, New Zealanders, as national parks cover almost one-third of the country. Their research on domestic tourists showed that the most important aspect of national park visitation was firstly the contribution to physical health followed by learning new things. Indrawan et al. (2014) describe how visitors to Australian national parks who developed strong ties with community members experienced significant improvements in wellbeing, health and other positive impacts on their lives beyond the visit. Another wellbeing element that emerged from Wolf et al.’s (2015) research on national parks was inspiration. Later in the chapter, CES are discussed as something of an ‘umbrella’ concept to research the various benefits of landscapes and national parks, and sense of place (including place attachment), cultural heritage and inspiration are three of the main categories within this concept. Another main category is recreation and (eco)tourism. Lee et al. (2014) describe how national parks and natural areas are important recreational and tourism resources, especially because of their aesthetic recreational benefits. Aesthetics is a further main category within CES, and some authors have argued that aesthetics is the most valued ecosystem service (e.g. Tengberg et al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013; Sagie, 2013; Soy-­ Massoni et al., 2016; Zoderer et al., 2016). Lee et al.’s (2014) Customer Wellbeing Index employed in the context of national parks suggests that needs can be grouped accordingly: •• ••

High-order needs include the need for selfactualization, esteem, knowledge, and beauty or aesthetics. Low-order needs include physiological, economic and social.

Their research on natural wildlife parks also included the example of increasing knowledge

or education (another main CES category). Spiritual experiences (similarly another CES) were also rated relatively highly, perhaps surprisingly, higher than relaxation or socializing. They conclude that if higher-order wellbeing needs are met, tourists are more likely to stay longer, visit more often and spend more. It could be concluded from some of the previous research that has been undertaken on the benefits of visiting protected areas like landscapes and national parks that the main elements that emerge correspond closely to the CES categories that were defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). This potentially useful framework for capturing the multiple (wellbeing) benefits of being in a protected area is discussed in the following section.

Landscapes, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) stated that cultural services and values were not recognized enough in landscape planning and management. They subsequently went on to develop the CES framework. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Chan et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013; Leyshon, 2014; Andersson et al., 2015) describes CES as ‘The non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, ­ reflection and aesthetic experiences’. Box 3.1 shows the main elements of CES according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). The difficulties of researching CES have been noted by several authors (Chan et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013; Leyshon, 2014; Andersson et al., 2015), and one of the greatest challenges has been to explain or articulate clearly what CES means (Gould et al., 2015; Riechers et al., 2016). Several recent studies have focused on the relationship between CES and wellbeing (e.g. Aretano et al., 2013; Wu, 2013; Vallés-Planells et al., 2014; Riechers et al., 2016; Blicharska et al., 2017). Pleasant et al. (2014) undertook research on ecosystems and human wellbeing and concluded that CES were the only ecosystem service category which was linked to all four ­categories of human wellbeing as provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

29

Box 3.1.  The main elements of cultural ecosystem services. •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Spiritual and religious: many societies attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems or their components. Recreation and ecotourism: people often choose where to spend their leisure time based in part on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscape in a particular area. Aesthetic: individuals find aesthetic value in various aspects of ecosystems, as reflected in support for parks, scenic drives, and selection of housing locations. Inspirational: ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore, national symbols, architecture and advertising. Sense of place: ecosystems as a central pillar of ‘sense of place’, a concept often used in relation to those characteristics that make a place special or unique as well as to those that foster a sense of authentic human attachment and belonging. Cultural heritage: many societies place high value on the maintenance of either historically important landscapes (‘cultural landscapes’) or culturally significant species. The diversity of ecosystems is one factor contributing to the diversity of cultures. Educational: ecosystems and their components and processes provide the basis for both formal and informal education in many societies. In addition, ecosystems may influence the types of knowledge systems developed by different cultures.

(Source: Authors)

framework. These were health, good social relations, security and basic material for a good life. Nevertheless, it has been stated by some authors that CES have been relatively under-researched in the context of landscapes (Norton et al., 2012; Riechers et al., 2016), despite the fact that Musacchio (2013) and Plieninger et al. (2015) argued that a better understanding of the dynamics of CES can inform landscape planning. One exception to the lack of research is Vallés-­Planells et al. (2014), whose research suggested that CES can contribute to wellbeing in the context of landscapes in terms of enjoyment through recreation and aesthetics, personal fulfilment through education, inspiration or ­ spiritual benefits, social benefits through heritage or sense of place, and last but not least, health, especially through the sense of escapism and calm. In their study of protected marine ecosystems and CES, Bryce et al. (2016) identified the following cultural wellbeing benefits: engagement and interaction with nature, place identity, therapeutic value, social bonding, spiritual value and memory/transformative value. In relation to conservation and communities, Ranger et al. (2016) describe some of the key emerging themes in the CES literature as the importance of interpretation, relational values, identities and interventions related to peoples’

connection to place. In terms of tourism research, Maciejewski et al. (2015) describe nature-based tourism as a cultural ecosystem service which can provide a key source of income to protected areas and helps to facilitate a sustainable solution to conservation. Willis (2015) suggests that in the context of tourism, understanding CES better can help to maximize opportunities for sustainable engagements with nature and lead to a better understanding of ‘non-material benefits of nature’ in relation to tourist motivations, expectations, behaviours and levels of satisfaction. Daniel et al. (2012) and Schirpke et al. (2016) noted the importance of human perceptions in the context of CES and landscapes. However, van Zanten et al. (2016) state that very few comparative landscape preference studies have been undertaken. A few recent studies have emerged (e.g. Schirpke et al., 2016; Zoderer et al., 2016), but most of these examine only one type of landscape and often only one or two categories of CES. One exception is the CES questionnaire discussed by Smith and Ram (2017), which was distributed in six different types of landscape in eight countries. Plieninger et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis of 42 CES papers showed that most papers focused on recreation and ­ecotourism services (54%) followed by aesthetic (14%) and educational (9%) dimensions.

30

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

Hernández-Morcillo et al. (2013) reviewed 42 papers and also suggested that recreation and ecotourism is the most researched CES category, while inspiration was the least investigated. It is perhaps inevitable that researchers only focus on one or two categories of CES, because as suggested by Tratalos et al. (2016) CES are so rich and multifaceted that any set of indicators is likely to measure only some of the range of services provided. Nevertheless, more integrated research would be useful, as Gould et al.’s research (2015) showed that CES values are heavily intertwined.

Research Method The following case study considers all dimensions of CES and focuses on eliciting stakeholder perceptions in the context of a national park landscape. Musacchio (2013) and Plieninger et al. (2015) argued that a CES approach identifies social values that stakeholders attach to landscapes which may not be captured otherwise. The research follows Pleasant et al. (2014) and Raymond et al. (2014) who advocate using stakeholder participation methods that focus on value elicitation and social representation. It seems that quantitative methods have been more commonly used in ecosystem services research, but that there is a growing realization that qualitative data collection methods may be more suitable for CES (Pleasant et al., 2014; Winthrop, 2014; Scholte et al., 2015). This approach follows the logic that it is not always ­possible to measure quantitatively what really matters to people (Milcu et al., 2013). A strong connection between CES, tourism and protected areas emerged from a broader research study undertaken in O˝rség National Park between 2014 and 2016, which aimed to investigate interactions between rural cultural heritage, rural re-structuring and sustainable development. O˝rség was selected as a case study because of its rich natural and cultural heritage, as well as its protected area status that provides a special framework for heritage-based tourism. Qualitative sociological and anthropological methods were used to collect data, with the main method being semi-structured interviews (Charmaz, 2014). There were altogether 40

interviewees, including national park employees, local government employees, members of local civic organizations, local artisans and those involved in tourism. The focus of the interview questions was mainly on natural and ­cultural heritage, for example, the relationship between heritage and rural identities, the benefits for communities from natural and cultural heritage, and the motivations and drivers behind local involvement in heritage-based activities (e.g. tourism). The interviews were analysed using thematic content and discourse analysis using Atlas.ti software. A grounded theory approach was applied (Charmaz, 2014) which is commonly associated with and supported by the Atlas.ti programme (Muhr, 1991). After studying the interview texts, coding and comparing them, it was clear that a significant number of themes had emerged that mirrored many of the CES categories as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). This reinforced the notion that a CES framework is an appropriate and useful one when analysing rural landscapes. Thus, the CES framework was used for further analysis and interpretation of the data, especially for establishing preferences and priorities, and for studying interrelationships between categories. A grounded theory approach is limited in the sense that it does not give equal attention to all CES categories, only those that emerge strongly. Secondly, interviewees were not asked specifically about all categories of CES from the outset – mainly cultural heritage. However, previous CES research has noted the difficulties of articulating CES in research (Gould et al., 2015) with many respondents being unfamiliar with the term(s) (Riechers et al., 2016).

˝ rség in Hungary Case Study of O O˝rség is one of ten national parks in Hungary, which cover around 10% of its territory. It is located in the territory of the historical O˝rség region, which is situated in the western part of Hungary in the south-west part of Vas and Zala counties. The territory of O˝rség National Park consists of 44 settlements and its area extends 44,000 square kilometres. Its western border location resulted in special status for the region



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

with a higher degree of control and a lower degree of development during the socialist era. As a result of this disadvantaged status, the O˝rség region has kept its traditional landscapes and settlement structure, including the shape of ˝ rség the houses and untouched nature. Thus, O National Park is rich not only in natural beauty but also folklore and cultural history. Babai et al. (2015) describe how landscapes in Central and Eastern Europe have changed ­significantly in the past few decades. After 1989, many regions became far less isolated and it became easier to find jobs in urban areas. As a result, rural areas were radically transformed, traditional land-use patterns and management methods changed, and in some cases, farming was abandoned altogether and social institutions disintegrated. The Landscape Protection Area in O˝rség was established in 1978 and an Act and law on the protection of nature came ˝ rség National Park was into force in 1982. O established in 2002 and Nature 2000 regulations were adopted in 2004. Following this, ­conservation measures became more frequent in the area and agri-environmental subsidies became available. However, such areas struggle to retain their young people. The future of ­farming in cultural landscapes will need to focus on activities that generate revenue, otherwise younger generations in peripheral regions like this one are less likely to carry on the cultural patterns (Babai et al., 2015). In Hungary, ecotourism is strongly connected to national parks (Magyar and Sulyok, 2014). In this context, ecotourism can be seen as one relationship between tourism and protected areas that may have an impact on rural development where the main focus is on providing local people with benefits from the protected area (Campbell, 1999). Several types of ecotourism services such as study trails, visitor centres and forest schools were developed in national parks in the last few decades. The number of visitors in national parks shows that protected areas are popular tourism destinations for domestic tourists, and their most popular tourism services are events, visitor centres and study trails. Data from the Hungarian Agricultural Ministry from 2013 (analysed by Magyar and Sulyok, 2014) shows that there were 51,648 visitors in O˝rség National Park in 2013. The most popular services were events and organized

31

tours, and their most popular sites are Pityerszer built heritage site which received 23,748 visitors in 2013 and Harmatfu ˝ Nature Protection Education Center with 8831 visitors in 2013 (Magyar and Sulyok, 2014). From the late 1980s onwards and most significantly after the change of the political system from 1990, O˝rség became one of the main tourism destinations for the middle classes (mostly from Budapest) demanding a ‘rural idyll’ (Bunce, 2003; Short, 2006). Urban inhabitants bought second homes in the O˝rség region and many of them stay there from spring to autumn or settled down permanently. They were the pioneers and initiators of new tourism activities. In the first period, their main service was accommodation ˝ rség has been in a rustic, rural milieu. The O regarded as an idyllic rural landscape ever since that time. Since the O˝rség National Park was established in 2002, in addition to nature protection, it has become one of the main actors for (especially sustainable and eco) tourism activities and local cultural heritage is particularly important. As the manager of the national park said: I’m talking about a kind of ecological awareness which concerns local people regardless of their generation, and it also means tourism-related ecological awareness, which concerns visitors and tourists. We have to show and teach people how to behave in such a protected area. So this is why we are actively participating in tourism. We provide pocket programmes for tourists which are focused on ecological issues as well as local communities’ traditions.

The focus on local residents as well as visitors suggests that O˝rség National Park is following the ‘anthropocentric’ conservation method (Xu and Fox, 2014), as the protected area is regarded as a space where humans and nature co-exist. The unique landscape was shaped by human cultivation and protection of built heritage and local rural traditions are a priority. The national park’s tourism policy aims to decrease tensions between socio-economic development and ecological conservation. Local tourism actors can benefit from the protected area at the same time as respecting environmental protection and sustainability. Most of the protected sites are open for visitors and the natural and cultural heritage is presented in the form of tourist trails and visitor centres. In terms of the natural attractions,

32

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

one manager of the National Parks Authority (NPA) described how: There are several bogs/marsh meadows here with highly protected sphagnum moss, which are ex lege [by law] protected natural areas, which means they could not be visited. However, in Szo˝ce, we managed to develop one of them for visitors and create a tourist route via a footbridge over the bog/marsh meadow. So it can be visited all the time, even if it is wet, and information tables are placed alongside the route to provide information on the bog/marsh meadow and related protected natural attractions.

Community development is also emphasized strongly by the NPA, and they aim to provide benefits for locals from tourism in the protected area. For example, they created a so-called special guest coordination system, which means they guide the visitors in the area through their programmes and services and present the local and cultural heritage in an ecologically sustainable way. Their activities are regarded as a driver of local tourism development both by primary and secondary local tourism actors. One guest house owner said: . . . it’s great that they organize events, it would be better if they could do even more. It is very important and good for us, because most of the visitors want events and special programmes, and the National Park has the capacity to provide them . . .

As the main organizer of local tourism events and services, the NPA involves local tourism entrepreneurs as well as local communities in their sustainable tourism activities and shares their principles through them. There are several regulations because of the protected area, but the NPA does not control and regulate local entrepreneurs and inhabitants directly. Instead, they involve them in their activities and share the benefits from the protected area including tourism services. One NPA manager explained his approach: . . . in most national parks and other protected areas, park rangers guard the area and if somebody touches or takes a protected flower it is sanctioned immediately. I had a different idea, I think it was in 2006 or 2007 when the spring snowdrops were blooming – I suggested to my colleagues to try a different method which might be more effective than to employ more and more

rangers in two shifts. A ‘Night shift is not needed’ – I said – ‘I only need two good people during the daytime who invite locals for a walk and introduce the natural treasures to them’ [. . .] Since that time many people have been queueing up to join these walks, and they are not only locals. They walk with the rangers and learn how to protect the natural heritage. It is a very new and different approach but it is more effective.

The NPA organizes tourist routes to present protected areas and also the cultural heritage of the region. These are so-called study trails, which are walking tours including walking and hiking activities, and information tables and stop-off points are placed alongside the routes. The Yellow Lily Study Train on the Tourinform webpage (http://tourinform.hu/orsegi-national-park) describes how: The walking tour departs from Velemér and follows a 6.2 kilometre path to Magyarszombatfa. Along the way, there are ample opportunities to observe the natural and cultural assets of ˝ rség, an area which is relatively the Belso˝-O unknown and not yet popular with tourists. The study trail and information provided at each stop-off point are designed to enable visitors to discover local nature, architecture, landscape and cultural history without disturbing sensitive areas.

These routes are situated in different parts of the protected area and most of them are 2- to 3-hour round tours. Natural beauty, protected fauna as well as cultural heritage are emphasized in the descriptions of the tours. Tours are also presented as family-friendly programmes. Emphasis is placed more on recreation and experiences rather than physical activities such as walking, hiking and fitness. It is important to state that the special and unique characteristics of the landscape with its protected area status are strongly emphasized in each brochure and information materials of the O˝rség region. Landscape appreciation is also encouraged through the tours. Education plays a central role in the NP’s goals and activities, including both latent and manifest forms of education. Study trails and different forms of local involvement exist in the latent forms, while there are several manifest education programmes too, such as forest schools for local and non-local pupils and



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

courses for local schools. Thematic courses and workshops are held by NPA employees in local schools. The knowledge transfer for local community is strongly emphasized by NPA. One employee stated that: When my colleagues or I go to the local kindergarten or school to hold a workshop or course and we see the children’s eyes light up, we think this is a really positive outcome. Of course, we organize forest schools for non-locals too, for urban pupils, but for locals we provide several services for free, because they are really important for us, so it should not be a question of money . . .

The national park plays a central role in regional and local development and the NPA involves local governments, local civic associations and entrepreneurs in its projects. An NPA employee stated that ‘Project successes mean that the local community believes in the cooperation and the values of the region. It can strengthen the local identity too’. Place attachment and place identity are emphasized strongly in NPA narratives. All of the interviewees from the NPA highlighted the importance of uniqueness of place in the success of their tourism development as well as other developments such as community development and identity building. The special character of the landscape, protected natural beauty and local cultural heritage are the main elements of the image of the place, and the NPA develops and promotes this image in its tourism activities. This image is also reinforced by the mainly middle- or upper-class newcomers to the area who arrived from urban areas (mostly Budapest) who yearned for a kind of ‘rural idyll’. Many of them settled in the area, although sometimes only temporally from spring to autumn, and started different kinds of tourism businesses such as restaurants, guesthouses, programme organization, etc. Place attachment is also fostered by local product development, and NPA supports high quality and traditionally produced goods and services. A special national park product label to reflect the O˝rség National Park brand was created to support and protect local products. This label symbolizes quality, aesthetics and authenticity. Most of the labelled/branded products are food items, but guest houses and artisan activities such as pottery can also acquire this label.

33

The label represents the involvement of local producers and protects their interests, but also provides a value-enhanced brand which can be used in tourism. NPA also plays a central role in cultural heritage protection. Landscape protection including natural and cultural heritage are at the centre of its narratives. Community protection and wellbeing are also strongly emphasized. Cultural heritage and local tradition are strongly connected to the place in both senses, including the entire O˝rség region as well as specific places/ villages. An NPA employee stated that: . . . thus the tourism here is not merely a form of  national park tourism which presents only protected plants and animals. People and community are also part of the landscape protection here. This landscape is created by the men who cultivated the land and use the region in a particular and unique way. Thanks to their activities we have this landscape with fields, with forest and with fruit tree gardens as well as the flora and fauna [. . .] This is why we want to focus on local community too.

The NPA not only focuses on the image of the region for tourists, but also tries to develop and strengthen the internal image and identity for local communities, local entrepreneurs and governmental bodies. Increasing the confidence of local people in their own values and capacity and valorizing local resources are at the centre of the NPA’s development strategies. The NPA supports the establishment of local historical collections and memory sites as a part of local heritage protection. Local and regional socioeconomic wellbeing is based both on the cultural heritage and protected natural area.

Discussion and Conclusion The use of a CES framework seems appropriate in the context of O˝rség National Park, which is clearly managed in an ‘anthropocentric’ way (Xu and Fox, 2014) and cultural heritage is valued just as much as the natural environment. Indeed, the two are inextricably connected in the strong sense of place and place attachment. Table 3.1 summarizes the ways in which a CES ˝ rség framework can be applied in the context of O National Park.

34

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

˝ rség National Park. Table 3.1.  A CES Framework Summary of O CES Category Related activities

Comments

Sense of place

Place attachment and place identity are emphasized strongly in NPA narratives. Promotion of a unique landscape based on natural beauty and cultural heritage

Strong emphasis on local place attachment and identity including both external and internal image Newcomer residents’ search for and reinforce a sense of place based on a ’rural idyll’

Educational

Latent forms of education such as study trails and Emphasis is placed on free local guided walks, as well as pocket programmes education focused on ecology and local cultural traditions Manifest forms of education such as Forest schools, courses and workshops for local school children and residents

Recreation/ tourism

Focus on sustainable and ecotourism Tourist routes and trails Visitor centres Information and education programmes

More emphasis on education, appreciation and aesthetics than physical exercise or fitness

Cultural heritage

Protection of built heritage and local rural traditions are a priority for the NPA Development of a food and crafts label to guarantee quality aesthetics and authenticity

Strong connection between cultural heritage, tourism, place attachment and environmental protection

Aesthetic

Natural beauty Traditional shape of houses Local crafts

Label and branding system for local products used to strengthen aesthetics and authenticity

Inspirational

Connected to the ‘rural idyll’ Aesthetics of the unique, cultivated landscape Cultural heritage including arts and crafts

The landscape inspired residents to move from urban environments and establish tourism businesses

Spiritual/ religious

Not explicitly stated beyond the (spiritual) values associated with natural landscape and cultural heritage

Environmental stewardship has emerged from the strong emotional place attachment here, which may be partly spiritual as well as cultural

Source: Authors.

The case study confirms Mellon and Bramwell’s (2016) findings on the broadening management goals of protected areas that include residents’ socio-economic wellbeing and the contribution of tourism to rural regeneration. The local sense of wellbeing (including that of newcomer residents and visitors) is closely connected to social, mental and spiritual dimensions of wellbeing, perhaps even more than physical and environmental ones. This is reflected in the emphasis on aesthetics, appreciation and education rather than exercise or ­fitness on the part of the NPA. However, environmental and ecological protection are still paramount, which is clear from the educational and tourism policies. Aesthetics of landscape is also an

important element in the desire to conserve it, and this includes the traditional settlement structure and houses. Cultural heritage is a ­central focus of the NPA, including the food items produced using traditional methods which are mostly organic and are labelled to ensure quality and maximize health benefits. Aesthetics and authenticity of crafts production are also enhanced by this labelling system. The wellbeing dimensions listed by Maller et al. (2009) as benefits of protected areas are very similar to what the O˝rség NPA summarized ˝ rség as characteristics and attractions of the O landscape. This includes physical dimensions such as recreation and leisure activities in nature, mental dimensions including peace,



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

tranquillity and relaxation. Spiritual dimensions relate mainly to the sense of place, and the social dimension is inherent in the strong bond between local residents and their positive interaction with both newcomers and tourists. This is fostered by the careful cultivation of place attachment and identity (confirming the findings of Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2014; Wolf et al., 2015) and internal and external image creation.

Practical implications In terms of the practical implications of using a CES framework for understanding and managing protected areas better, it seems that such research can help to provide a clearer picture of  local and tourist priorities and the inter­ relationships between these priorities. The findings support the work of Gould et al. (2015) that CES are closely inter-connected and cannot ­easily be studied in isolation. For example, in ˝ rség, the aesthetics and cultural the case of O heritage of the natural and cultural landscape exert a strong influence over inspiration and attachment to place, as well as the desire to ­create educational and tourism experiences that provide further wellbeing-enhancing recreational experiences. For local authorities, park

35

managers or funding bodies, it can be useful to determine where the attention (including funding) should be directed. The emphasis may be on improving local community wellbeing through increased contact with nature or through education for children. It may be on supporting local heritage sites and crafts production, which creates jobs and generates economic benefits ­ through tourism. Future studies should explore further the most important dimensions of CES, but also determine which elements of CES are closely connected and could support each other (e.g. does providing education about heritage and improving aesthetics of an ­ area increase place attachment resulting in enhanced wellbeing, the attraction of tourists and further economic benefits?). Although the interview data and grounded theory could not fully answer these questions, it provided confirmation of the usefulness of a CES framework and indicates directions for future research in this field.

Acknowledgements The case study is based on the Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Rural Development (OTKA 108628) project supported by Hungarian Scientific Research Fund.

References Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K. and Abel, T. (2010) Landscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. International Journal of Public Health 55(1), 59–69. Andersson, E., Tengö, M., McPhearson, T. and Kremer, P. (2015) Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12, 165–168. Aretano, R., Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T. and Zurlini, G. (2013) People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 112, 63–73. Babai, D., Tóth, A., Szentirmai, I., Biró, M., Máté, A., Demeter, L., Szépligeti, M., Varga, A., Molnár, A., Kun, R., and Molnár, Z. (2015) Do conservation and agri-environmental regulations effectively support traditional small-scale farming in East-Central European cultural landscapes? Biodiversity and Conservation 24(13), 3305–3327. Blicharska, M., Smithers, R.J., Hedblom, M., Hedenås, H., Mikusi4ski, G., Pedersen, E., Sandstrom, P. and Svensson, J. (2017) Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services 23, 55–70. Bryce, R., Irvine, K.N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S. and Kenter, J.O. (2016) Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 21, ­ ­258–269.

36

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

Bunce, M. (2003) Reproducing rural idylls. In: Cloke, P.J. (ed.) Country Visions. Pearson Education, ­London, UK, pp. 14–30. Campbell, L.M. (1999) Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3), 534–553. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T. and Goldstein, J. (2012) Rethinking Ecosystem Services to Better Address and Navigate Cultural Values. Available at: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ facultyresearchandpublications/52383/items/1.0132715 (accessed 10 November 2017). Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE, Thousand Oaks. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., S ­ chauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J. and von der Dunk, A. (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(23), 8812–8819. De Vos, A., Cumming, G.S., Moore, C.A., Maciejewski, K. and Duckworth, G. (2016) The relevance of spatial variation in ecotourism attributes for the economic sustainability of protected areas. Ecosphere 7(2), e01207. Frash Jr, R.E., Blose, J.E., Norman, W.C. and Patience, M. (2016) Healthy parks, happy people: An exploratory study of a county park system. Park and Recreation Administration 34(1), 84–102. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A. and Wooliscroft, B. (2014) ‘Part of me’: National parks integration into the extended self of domestic tourists. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 23(4), 360–379. Gould, R.K., Klain, S.C., Ardoin, N.M., Satterfield, T., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N. and Chan, K.M. (2015) A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 29(2), 575–586. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. and Bieling, C. (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. Indrawan, M., Yabe, M., Nomura, H. and Harrison, R. (2014) Deconstructing satoyama – The socio-­ ecological landscape in Japan. Ecological Engineering 64, 77–84. IUCN (2017) Protected areas. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about (accessed 10 November 2017). Lee, D.-J., Kruger, S., Whang, M.-J., Uysal, M. and Sirgy, M.J. (2014) Validating a customer well-being index related to natural wildlife tourism. Tourism Management 45, 171–180. Leyshon, C. (2014) Cultural ecosystem services and the challenge for cultural geography. Geography Compass 8(10), 710–725. Little, J. (2015) Nature, wellbeing and the transformational self. Geographical Journal 181(2), 121–128. Maciejewski, K., De Vos, A., Cumming, G.S., Moore, C. and Biggs, D. (2015) Cross-scale feedbacks and scale mismatches as influences on cultural services and the resilience of protected areas. Ecological Applications: A Publication of the Ecological Society of America 25(1), 11–23. Magyar, Z. and Sulyok, J. (2014) Az ökoturizmus helyzete Magyarországon. Turizmus Bulletin 15(2), 14–23. Maller, C., Townsend, M., St Leger, L., Henderson-Wilson, C., Pryor, A., Prosser, L. and Moore, M. (2009) The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context: a review of current literature. In: Social and Mental Health Priority Area, Occasional Paper Series. Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Mellon, V. and Bramwell, B. (2016) Protected area policies and sustainable tourism: influences, relationships and co-evolution. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(10), 1369–1386. Milcu, A., Hanspach, J., Abson, D. and Fischer, J. (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society 18(3), 44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (ed.) (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html (accessed 10 N ­ ovember 2017). Muhr, T. (1991) ATLAS/ti — A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology 14(4), 349–371. Musacchio, L.R. (2013) Cultivating deep care: integrating landscape ecological research into the cultural dimension of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28(6), 1025–1038. Norton, L.R., Inwood, H., Crowe, A. and Baker, A. (2012) Trialling a method to quantify the ‘cultural services’ of the English landscape using Countryside Survey data. Land Use Policy 29(2), 449–455. Pleasant, M.M., Gray, S.A., Lepczyk, C., Fernandes, A., Hunter, N. and Ford, D. (2014) Managing cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Service, 8, 141–147.



Tourism, Wellbeing and Cultural Ecosystem Services: Orség National Park, Hungary

37

Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E. and Bieling, C. (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129. Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., López-Santiago, C.A., Nagabhatla, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C.M., der Hors, D., and Huntsinger, L. (2015) The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14, 28–33. Ranger, S., Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Cumming, G., Dapling, T., Lawes, E. and Richardson, P.B. (2016) Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosystem Services 21, 344–357. Ray, C. (1998) Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 38(1), 3–20. Raymond, C.M., Kenter, J.O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N.J. and Alexander, K.A. (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 107, 145–156. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J. and Tscharntke, T. (2016) Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services 17, 33–39. Romagosa, F., Eagles, P.F.J. and Lemieux, C.J. (2015) From the inside out to the outside in: Exploring the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 10, 70–77. Sagie, H. (2013) Cross-cultural perceptions of ecosystem services: A social inquiry on both sides of the Israeli–Jordanian border of the Southern Arava Valley Desert. Journal of Arid Environments 97, 38–48. Schirpke, U., Timmermann, F., Tappeiner, U. and Tasser, E. (2016) Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators 69, 78–90. Schmidt, K., Sachse, R. and Walz, A. (2016) Current role of social benefits in ecosystem service assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 149, 49–64. Scholte, S.S.K., van Teeffelen, A.J A. and Verburg, P.H. (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics 114, 67–78. Short, B. (2006) Idyllic ruralities. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T. and Mooney, P. (eds) Handbook of Rural Studies. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp. 133–148. Smith, M. and Ram, Y. (2017) Tourism, landscapes and cultural ecosystem services: a new research tool. Tourism Recreation Research 42(1), 113–119. Soy-Massoni, E., Langemeyer, J., Varga, D., Sáez, M. and Pintó, J. (2016) The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia. Ecosystem Services 17, 43–52. Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K. and Wetterberg, O. (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services 2, 14–26. Teuscher, M., Vorlaufer, M., Wollni, M., Brose, U., Mulyani, Y. and Clough, Y. (2015) Trade-offs between bird diversity and abundance, yields and revenue in smallholder oil palm plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 186, 306–318. Tratalos, J.A., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Fish, R. and Church, A. (2016) Cultural ecosystem services in the UK: Lessons on designing indicators to inform management and policy. Ecological Indicators 61, 63–73. Vallés-Planells, M., Galiana, F. and Van Eetvelde, V. (2014) A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecology and Society 19(1), 44. van Zanten, B.T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M.J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K. and Verburg, P.H. (2016) A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services 17, 87–98. Willis, C. (2015) The contribution of cultural ecosystem services to understanding the tourism–nature–­ wellbeing nexus. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 10, 38–43. Winthrop, R.H. (2014) The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecological Economics 108, 208–214. Wolf, I.D., Stricker, H.K. and Hagenloh, G. (2015) Outcome-focused national park experience management: transforming participants, promoting social well-being, and fostering place attachment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(3), 358–381. Wu, J. (2013) Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28(6), 999–1023.

38

M.K. Smith and B. Csurgó

Xu, F. and Fox, D. (2014) Modelling attitudes to nature, tourism and sustainable development in national parks: A survey of visitors in China and the UK. Tourism Management 45, 142–158. Zoderer, B.M., Tasser, E., Erb, K.-H., Lupo Stanghellini, P.S. and Tappeiner, U. (2016) Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy 56, 251–261.

4 

Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: The Points of View of Hosts and Guests in Sila National Park Sonia Ferrari and Monica Gilli

Introduction It is widely accepted that natural protected areas (NPAs) are important tourism destinations and prime settings for the development of sustainable forms of tourism due to their very function and nature (Newsome et al., 2013; Wearing et al., 2016). Buckley (2012), Stoddard et al. (2012), Swarbrooke (1999) and Tyrrell et al. (2013) point out that sustainable tourism is a way to create value and shared benefits among parks’ stakeholders, primarily local communities. However, Ferrari and Pratesi (2012) highlight that in addition to seeing positively tourism development, it is also important that residents have a favourable view of NPAs in order to experience beneficial processes of place development. It can be argued that the attitude of the community is positive if the presence of a NPA brings significant net benefits, both in direct terms (e.g. increased revenues and growth in employment levels) and/or indirect terms (e.g. destination image enhancement, increasing notoriety, launch of an umbrella brand that promotes local productions, new contacts and experience in project management) (Keller, 2002; Aurier et al., 2005; Bell, 2008; Snyman, 2014). This is significant because the Italian context, the presence of villages in the NPAs enables the parks to offer visitors a wide range of historical, cultural and gastronomic resources, potentially amplifying the benefits for the local communities, thus increasing tourism sustainability and a positive

attitude towards parks (Unioncamere, 2014). Yet as Ferrari and Pratesi (2012) argue, there is still some hostility towards parks by some stakeholder groups within the community who perceive park restrictions and forms of control negatively. There is therefore a need to further understand the role NPAs and tourism play in place development within an Italian context. This chapter presents the case of the Sila National Park (SNP) located in southern Italy. Specifically, it discusses the results of a study that explored the vies of visitors and residents towards the current forms of tourism offered in the area, with an aim to understand the role sustainable tourism within the SNP plays in place promotion and place development (Bartelmus, 1986; Farrell, 1992; Clarke, 1997; Elkington, 1997, 1998, 2004; Boley and Uysal, 2013). In order to unpack the arguments in an orderly manner, the following section discusses the literature supporting the study. This is followed by the presentation of the methodology designed to address the aim and objectives of the research. Finally, the chapter presents the analysis of the findings and forwards the conclusions and suggestion for further research.

Sustainability in Tourism The term ‘sustainable tourism’ is complex and difficult to define (Butler, 1999). It came into use in the late 1980s as a result of the growing

 CAB International 2018. Tourism, Health, Wellbeing and Protected Areas (eds I. Azara et al.) 39

40

S. Ferrari and M. Gilli

awareness of the impact, often negative, of tourism development (Swarbrooke, 1999) and thus was mainly seen as the exact opposite of ‘mass tourism’, to which all the negative effects of tourism were attributed (Clarke, 1997; ­Mowforth and Munt, 2003). Yet, as Buckley (2012) points out, over time the concept has evolved: from an idea of tourism that does not destroy the ecosystems, to a form of tourism development that distributes the generated value among the stakeholders in a balanced way. Sustainable tourism aims to promote the expansion of an area without destroying its resources for future generations, minimizing environmental negative aspects, maximizing the positive ones and distributing value in a balanced way (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999; Spangenberg, 2000, 2002 ; Miller, 2001; Mowforth and Munt, 2003; Weaver, 2006, ­ 2010; Stoddard et al., 2012; Tyrrell et al., 2013; Molina-Azorín and Font, 2015). Ultimately, as Swarbrooke (1999, p. 19) highlights, the term sustainable tourism ‘encompasses an approach to tourism which recognizes the importance of the host community, the way staff are treated and the desire to maximize the economic benefit of tourism for the host community’. Consequently, today the main dimensions of sustainability in tourism considered by scholars are three, the so-called ‘triple bottom line’: environmental, socio-cultural and economic dimensions (Farrell, 1992; Elkington, 1997, 1998, 2004; Boley and Uysal, 2013). While aiming to promote environmental and heritage conservation, sustainable tourism development is generally viewed as a matter of quality of life, regarding various elements of people’s living conditions such as local pride, environmental education, revitalization of local culture, community’s welfare, reinforcement of social cohesion and civic pride, satisfaction of tourists and residents, minimization of the friction between hosts and guests (Bartelmus, 1986; Clarke, 1997; Pearce et al., 1990; Spangenberg and ­ Valentin, 1999; Swarbrooke, 1999; ­Spangenberg, 2000, 2002). From a strictly economic and entrepreneurial point of view, all forms of sustainable tourism should maximize the benefits in terms of income and promote the development of local enterprises (with a growth in employment and in sales of local products

and services) (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Roberts and Tribe, 2008; Garay and Font, 2012).

The Role of the Local Community It is known that the host community is one of the most important stakeholders in a tourist ­destination and that its attitudes and support for tourism change with tourist development (Doxey, 1976). In this context Peng et al. (2016) point out how the involvement of residents in tourism planning should be considered mandatory to avoid negative attitudes, giving them a sense of control and the idea of acting as keepers of local resources. Similar arguments are forwarded by Kotler et al. (2003) and Wearing and Wearing (2001), who highlight how community involvement is essential for the sustainability of tourism development. Furthermore, they stress, the role of residents is important to determine both the quality of the tourist experience and the image of the destination. Tourism enhances entrepreneurial skills and business development, simultaneously fostering residents’ perceived reduction in the sense of isolation and abandonment that is typical of poorly developed inland areas, as happens in many NPAs (Wearing et al., 2016). However, residents’ attitudes towards the increase of tourism also depends on the ‘community attachment’ of every host, namely on his/ her level of participation and social integration into community life and on the emotional attachment to the community itself (McCool and Martin, 1994). Indeed, tourism success is also predicated on the ‘goodwill of local residents’ and their levels of hospitality (Gursoy et al., 2002) as well as their involvement in processes of planning, marketing and management of tourism (Jamal and Getz, 1995). As Simpson (2001), Choi and Sirakaya (2006), Roberts and Tribe (2008) and Garay and Font (2012) highlight, if tourist development were to appear as an achievement of outside investments and, importantly, obtained by persons perceived as external to the local community, this may cause negative attitudes and resentments by residents. Consequently, any analysis of residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards sustainable tourism should include a political dimension.



Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: Sila National Park

Lastly, a final variable to consider is technological sustainability, which refers to all the ­technological innovations able to promote the development of the destination, especially information technology which facilitates the ­ reaching of larger markets and the creation of networks among companies, institutions and visitors (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006). While being highly interconnected and consequently not easy to examine and evaluate separately, it is argued that all these dimensions (environmental, socio-cultural, economic, political and technological sustainability) need to be carefully unpacked and evaluated to understand residents’ position towards sustainable tourism development in a NPA (here, for example, the SNP).

Sustainable Tourism and Benefit Sharing in Protected Natural Areas NPAs contribute to improve local communities’ wellbeing in different ways (Moyle et al., 2014; Thomsen et al., 2013). First of all, they provide direct benefits preserving biodiversity through the protection and the enhancement of delicate ecosystems, wildlife, landscapes and cultural heritage. They also offer local communities (and visitors) products and services such as environmental and health education programmes, guided tours and other outdoor recreational activities, in the meantime carrying on scientific research initiatives. Besides, natural parks can be the starting point of processes of sustainable development (Nelson and Rafal, 1997; Child, 2004), especially in terms of sustainable tourism, with positive socio-economic effects (Puhakka and Saarinen, 2013). Indeed, today NPAs are important tourist destinations (Leiper, 1990; Batra and Kaur, 1996; Eagles and McCool, 2004; Gilmore and Simmons, 2007; Wall Reinius and Fredman, 2007; Frost and Hall, 2010; Manning and Anderson, 2012). As Newsome et al. (2013), Fredman and Tyrväinen (2014), Haukeland et al. (2014) and Wearing et al. (2016) highlight, while their very nature and function make them unsuitable to mass tourism attraction, they are prime destinations for attracting more sustainable forms of tourism demand.

41

In green destinations, one of the best ways to sustainability seems to be the development of ‘slow tourism’ (Matos, 2004; Dickinson and Lumsdon, 2010; Heitmann et al., 2011; Meng and Choi, 2016), for it favours the territory from the point of view of the five sustainability aspects discussed earlier on in the chapter. This segment of the tourist market involves visitors who want to immerse themselves in the life of the local community and try to understand the visited place, know its culture and heritage and experience moments of the residents’ everyday life. These tourists avoid standard tourist packages: they want to savour the authentic aspects of places and, particularly, those that are linked with local history, traditions and culture. Besides, they have a desire to rediscover tastes and scents (MacCannell, 1973; Cohen, 1988) and prefer to stay in accommodations linked to local culture (such as B&Bs and diffuse hotels); to buy native products and enjoy ‘zero kilometre’ food,1 trying to discover the specialties of the place and showing a greater concern for the environment. Such tourism is environmentally oriented and respectful of the hosts, it promotes environmental education and attention to local culture, strengthening culture and identity of the site, together with civic pride and social cohesion. Furthermore, it increases the consumption of local products and services, encouraging the development of community ­ productivity and the spread of economic benefits among the stakeholders. Often the tourists who visit NPAs display these characteristics. The so-called ‘ecotourists’ are a highly heterogeneous segment and while they all consider nature to be an essential motivator for visiting (Strasdas, 2006; Mehmetoglu, 2007), they could also have many other interests for visiting NPAs (Blamey and Braithwaite, 1997; Ryan and Sterling, 2001; Galloway, 2002; Frochot, 2005; Beh and Bruyere, 2007; Arnegger et al., 2010; Haukeland et al., 2010; Newsome et al., 2013). In particular, while the only interest of ‘hard ecotourists’ is nature, ‘soft ecotourists’ (that are much more numerous) are also interested in local culture, food and wine, sports, etc. (Laarman and Durst, 1987; Blamey, 1995; Dolnicar, 2004; Mehmetoglu, 2006; ­Ferrari and Pratesi, 2012; Bild and Opp, 2013; Oviedo-García et al., 2017). For this reason, the strategic aims of parks and other protected areas

42

S. Ferrari and M. Gilli

are increasingly focused on tourist marketing activities aimed at understanding visitors’ attitudes, opinions and behaviour to better attract and cater for this type of demand. Building upon these considerations, and in the attempt to further understand the role sustainable tourism within an NPA plays in place development, this study also sets out to investigate visitors’ attitudes, opinions and behaviour in the SNP with an aim to assess whether this could be considered sustainable.

Research Methodology A mixed method research design was employed to address the aim and objectives of this study, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in data collection and analysis (Bryman, 2016). Structured self-administered questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used as the major primary data collection method, while the collection of secondary data completed the results. The employment of a mixed method can provide a better understanding of the problems than the use of a single approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Mixed methods are in part used sequentially (using initially a qualitative approach to develop the structured questionnaire) and in part used in triangulation, in a simultaneous perspective (Molina-Azorín and Font, 2015) (to investigate the same phenomenon through the hosts’ and guests’ points of view). A non-probability sample of about 350 visitors to the SNP was acquired each year over a period of 5 years. The survey was based on a structured self-administered fill-in questionnaire. Park rangers handed out the questionnaires in the visitor centres. A convenience sampling method was applied, focusing only on visitors to the area. The research aimed to collect as heterogeneous a sample as possible, asking visitors of different genders and ages and in different types of groups (school trips, social tourism groups, single visitors, couples, etc.). The return rate was good (only about 8% of people approached refused to answer) as it was a short questionnaire and the respondents received a park souvenir as an incentive to complete the survey.

The questionnaire was developed on the basis of in-depth interviews with SNP managers, park rangers, visitors and tour guides and on the basis of existing literature on the subject. A pre-test was performed to identify and eliminate unclear questions and/or words and other minor problems in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was produced in Italian because of the low number of foreign visitors recorded at the SNP. This could be conceived as a limit to the study. The survey addressed the following themes: (i) motivation for visiting: one question with multiple-choice answers (maximum two choices among a list of possible motivations were admitted); (ii) sources of information used in planning the holiday: one question with multiple-choice answers (with no limits in the number of answers); (iii) image of the SNP: ten questions, each with seven-point Likert scale answers, organized in a unique array form; (iv) preferred visitor activities during their stay: one question with multiple-choice answers (with no limits in the number of answers); (v) services evaluation: 14 questions, each with a seven-point ­Likert scale answers, organized in a unique array form; and (vi) visitor travel patterns (length of stay, accommodation, type of visit, prior experiences in natural parks, consciousness of being in a protected area, etc.);2 (vii) overall satisfaction: one question with seven-point Likert scale answers and another question enquiring regarding the willingness to return to the SNP (with a dichotomous answer); (viii) visitor socio-demographic profile. After an analysis of the annual data, a comparison was made between the results of the surveys carried out each year. However, to simplify the analysis, this chapter will discuss only the data referring to the last annual survey. The data have been statistically elaborated using SPSS programme; nonresponses were treated as missing values. The second part of the research project aimed at investigating the opinions of the various stakeholders living or working within the SNP. For this purpose, during the summer of 2016 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 local stakeholders. The ­interviews, lasting between 40 and 45 minutes each, were recorded, transcribed and interpreted thematically to identify the most important and recurring subjects. The selection of the



Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: Sila National Park

Table 4.1.  The number of local stakeholders interviewed. Categories

Male

Female

Total

Residents

 4

4

 8

Public managers

 3

1

 4

Associations

 3

0

 3

Tour operators

 6

0

 6

Total

16

5

21

stakeholders took into account the professional categories (by choosing the more interested in tourism and culture) and the place of residence (see Table 4.1). Among the stakeholders there were residents, public managers, sport, tourist and cultural associations’ leaders, and tour operators specialized in hospitality, leisure and the catering sector. Stakeholders were selected in different geographic areas of the SNP. Because of the small size of the surveyed population, it was not possible to take into account differences in gender or in age, either in the selection of the respondents, or in the survey results’ analysis. It must also be added that many of the residents interviewed had a profession connected with local tourism, tending therefore to express an opinion on the SNP more as entrepreneurs than as residents. This also meant that the typical complaints of  inhabitants in tourist destinations (noise, crowding, dirt, etc.) were virtually absent, as the evaluation of the negative aspects of tourism development was arguably balanced by a broader consideration of the intangible benefits deriving from hosting within a NPA. The interviews included questions on both the disadvantages/advantages of living/working within a protected area and evaluations of the SNP activities in various fields (considering economic, environmental, cultural and social aspects). As for the analysis of the results, we used a ‘thematic approach’ (Bryman, 2016) that consisted of constructing an index with themes and subthemes emerging through an overview of the transcriptions. This index allowed us to analyse each interview and to order the results in a grid, thus enabling the maintenance of a high level of analysis on a single case and to have an overview of the entire population.

43

Tourism in the Sila National Park: The Guests’ Point of View Established in 2002, the SNP is located in an inland mountainous area in the Calabria region of southern Italy. The national park comprises 73,695 hectares of forests, spread on mild ­plateaus with a great variety of flora and fauna. It is one of the richest and oldest forests of the Mediterranean basin, known since the times of the ancient Romans. Visitors can take part in a wide range of activities and sports such as horse ­riding, orienteering, nature and bird watching, nature photography, walking or mountain bike touring, cross-country and alpine skiing, sailing and canyoning. In addition, the SNP hosts within its boundaries villages rich in history, art and folklore, where it is possible to taste local food and traditional dishes. Since 2014, the SNP has become the tenth Italian UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Like many of the isolated mountainous inland areas in Italy, the SNP is affected by unemployment and depopulation. The number of residents inside the SNP is estimated at about 6500 people. The data on income and propensity to consume within the SNP show levels of consumption lower than the regional average (Ente Parco Nazionale della Sila, 2014). This is of significance considering that the Calabria region is one of the poorest and most marginalized in Europe. As for the productive industries, tertiary activities prevail (77.5% of the total), followed by construction, manufacturing, energy, water and gas (22.4%); while primary activities (mainly agriculture) play a very small part in the development of the area (1.1%). Inside the SNP, the most common services are accommodation and restaurants (48%), followed by commercial activities (47%), with a significantly lower presence of activities related to personal services (4%) and cultural and recreation services (1%) (Ente Parco Nazionale della Sila, 2014). As in all Italians parks, the SNP does not have paid entry tickets or controlled entry points thus making it impossible to know the exact number of visitors. However, every year the three visitor centres and numerous park museums welcome a great number of tourists. In 2016 the following numbers of visitors were recorded at the main visitor centres: Cupone Visitor Centre: 230,000; Monaco Visitor Centre:

44

S. Ferrari and M. Gilli

20,000; and Trepidò Visitor Centre: 10,000. Furthermore, about 16,500 visitors were registered at Giganti di Fallistro, the most important natural reserve in the SNP. Some macro-variables reflecting visitors’ preferences and behaviour during their holidays in the SNP were identified in the light of the review of the literature on the subjects of tourism and sustainability (Spangenberg ­ and ­ Valentin, 1999; Swarbrooke, 1999; Spangenberg, 2000, 2002; Miller, 2001; ­ ­Mowforth and Munt, 2003; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Weaver, 2006; Stoddard et al., 2012; Molina-Azorín and Font, 2015); ecotourism and tourism in NPAs (Laarman and Durst, 1987; Nelson et al., 1993; Blamey, 1995; Blamey and Braithwaite, 1997; Eagles and McCool, 2004; Mehmetoglu, 2006, 2007; Strasdas, 2006; Wall Reinius and Fredman, ­ 2007; Arnegger et al., 2010; Ferrari and Pratesi, 2012; Bild and Opp, 2013; Newsome et al., 2013; Puhakka and Saarinen, 2013; Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2014; Haukeland et al., 2014; Mowforth and Munt, 2015; Wearing et al., 2016; Oviedo-García et al., 2017) and of the findings of the interviews conducted in the exploratory phase. These variables were found to be strongly interrelated. The macro-variables are shown in Table 4.2: (i) Love of nature; (ii) Search for authenticity; (iii) Dynamism of the experience; and (iv) Type of stay. During 2015, 369 people were surveyed. Table 4.3 shows the data (percentage values) for every year for comparison. The comparison of the data in the different years does not show significant differences and changes in the trends. Exceptions are visitors’ origin (it is a figure that varies remarkably over the years, then returns almost to baseline); the length of stay (which grows on average) and the presence of excursionists (that is decreasing). These are arguably positive trends for the SNP that is increasingly establishing itself as a tourist destination at national level. A detailed discussion of the findings is hereafter presented.

Love of nature The indicators contained in this macrovariable are present in the case of ‘hard ecotourists’,

that is those interested exclusively in nature and biodiversity (Laarman and Durst, 1987; Blamey, 1995; Mehmetoglu, 2006; Bild and Opp, 2013). The data show that visitors are aware and have consciously chosen to spend their holidays within a park destination. However, the results of the final year of the survey confirmed that park’s visitors have other interests in addition to experiencing the natural resources of the area.

Search for authenticity As stated above, nature is not the only motivator for choosing to visit the SNP. Indeed, many respondents also indicated a desire to experience local culture, cuisine and heritage, wanting to visit mainly villages (20.7%), archaeological sites (10.5%), museums (29.3%), to enjoy local wine and food products (25%), as well as to discover traditions and crafts (26.6%). A large percentage of them wanted to taste typical products (48%) and visit the villages that are located within the SNP (25.4%), in addition to the many museums (48.4%). Interestingly, the image of the SNP was not only linked to nature (77%) and landscape (71.1%), but also recalled the idea of culture in about half of the respondents (49.6%).

Dynamism of the experience While many tourists see the area as a quiet place (71.9%) to relax away from everyday life; many of those interviewed also show an interest in sports and in the enjoyment of nature, especially in walks (82.8%) and hiking (27.3%). These last are the strengths of the SNP, being an easily accessible plateau with an extensive trail network. As previously highlighted, NPAs are multiple-use places and destinations in which some visitors/users are interested in various forms of  entertainment within a natural landscape (e.g. ranging from walking to more challenging sporting activities and off-road adventures); while others are seeking relaxation, inspiration, enjoying sightseeing in a natural area (Ryan and Sterling, 2001; Galloway, 2002; Frochot, 2005; Beh and Bruyere, 2007; Haukeland et al., 2010).



Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: Sila National Park

45

Table 4.2.  Macro-variables on the levels of tourism sustainability in a green destination in 2015. Macrovariable

Set of included variables

Indexes in the questionnaire (percentage value)

Love of nature

Interest in nature, natural resources, landscape

Main interest: visiting natural sites (71.5)

Interest in natural heritage conservation

Activities that he/she thinks to do: nature tours (63.3)

Interest in environmental matters Activities that he/she thinks to do: birdwatching (2.7) and environmental education The park makes him/her come to mind: landscape (71.1) The park makes him/ her come to mind: nature (77) He/she has been in SNP before (66) He/she has visited other national parks (77.7) He/she is aware of being in a PNA (93.4) Search for authenticity

Desire to know local culture, Main interest: knowing historical centres (20.7) heritage, history and traditions Desire to interact in a deep way with residents

Main interest: visiting archaeological areas (10.5)

Desire to try local lifestyle

Main interest: visiting museums (29.3)

Desire to know local culture

Main interest: tasting wine and food (25)

Respect for local community

Main interest: discovering old traditions/crafts (26.6)

Curiosity towards local cuisine

Activities that he/she thinks to do: tasting products (48)

Desire to know local products and crafts

Activities that he/she thinks to do: visits to historical centres (25.4) Activities that he/she thinks to do: archaeological site visits (9) Activities that he/she thinks to do: tours on the steam train (2.3) Activities that he/she thinks to do: visits to museums (48.4) The park makes him/her come to mind: culture (49.6)

Dynamism of Desire to play sports the experience

Main interest: playing a sport (15.2)

Desire to perform highly dynamic Activities that he/she thinks to do: walks (82.8) activities Desire to live extreme and dangerous experiences

Activities that he/she thinks to do: mountain bike (8.6)

Desire to relax

Activities that he/she thinks to do: trekking (27.3)

Desire to meditate and enjoy a relaxing environment

Other sports (7.8) The park makes him/her remind: calm (71.9) The park makes him/her remind: fun (17.6)

Type of stay

Type of accommodation

Hotel (35.2) Camping (8.2) Our own home (16.8) Friends/family (12.1) continued

46

S. Ferrari and M. Gilli

Table 4.2.  Continued. Macrovariable

Set of included variables

Indexes in the questionnaire (percentage value) Rented house (3.5) Other (12.5)

Length of stay

Less than 24 hours (28.5) 1–2 days (16.4) 3–5 days (26.2) 6–30 days (22.7) 1 month or more (7)

Origin

Calabria (30) Other Italian regions (69) Foreign country (1)

In line with the literature, the results of the study suggest that in the SNP there is a demand for relaxation and contemplation (arguably underestimated as there are no specific initiatives to address it) as well as demand for sporttourism experiences. In this context, the results show that investment in sports activities and in the development of a track network has been successful in catering for a type of SNP tourist demand. However, they also suggest that the SNP management organization and the local destination management organizations could better co-ordinate the different elements of the tourist offer to cater for tourists and visitors looking for relaxation and nature contemplation.

Type and length of stay The results of the survey show that visitors to the SNP are nature lovers and sensitive to environmental issues. They do not need a lot of infrastructure or invasive investments to be satisfied. They undoubtedly are sustainable tourist patterns that act in favour of biodiversity conservation and respect for the nature (Farrell, 1992; Batra and Kaur, 1996; Elkington, 1997, 1998, 2004; Swarbrooke, 1999; Gilmore and ­Simmons, 2007; Boley and Uysal, 2013). These data are also encouraging with reference to other dimensions of sustainability (i.e. economic, socio-cultural and political sustainability) as these tourists are also interested in the

local culture and heritage resources such as traditions, food, art and history. As Dolnicar (2004) and Gilmore and Simmons (2007) highlight, this type of visitor arguably represents the right target for a green destination. They are mainly ‘soft ecotourists’ (Weaver, 2006, 2010), who are interested in a diversified offer inclusive of numerous recreational and leisure services that do not have negative effects on the environment and local heritage (Haukeland et al., 2010). In this context, their presence creates multiplier economic effects and fosters positive socio-­ cultural and political effects such as a greater desire to invest in tourism by residents, community self-esteem and local pride and overall a ­better relationship among locals and tourists (Simpson, 2001; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Roberts and Tribe, 2008; Garay and Font, ­ 2012). Indeed, tourists’ appreciation and interest in local culture and authenticity promotes pride of belonging to the community and strengthens local identity, with positive effects in terms of social sustainability (Bartelmus, 1986; Clarke, 1997; Pearce et al., 1990; Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999; Swarbrooke, 1999; ­Spangenberg, 2000, 2002). In relation to the type of stay, visitors’ preferences show a good level of sustainability in their choices. Despite the high percentage of visitors preferring hotels (35.3%), the number of tourists staying in more sustainable accommodations is growing (i.e. camping or B&Bs). Additionally, encouraging sustainability indicators can be found in the very long length of stay (in the last survey 26.6% of the total declared



Sustainable Tourism in Natural Protected Areas: Sila National Park

47

Table 4.3.  Survey results (percentage values). Year

2009

2011

2012

2013

2015

Origin Calabria

30

46.2

48.6

47.8

30

Other Italian regions

63

51.4

49.2

51.5

69

Foreign countries Sample size (absolute value)

5 223

1.8 385

2.1 368

0.6 460

1 369

How long will you stay in the park?