Business Models for Protected Areas T - George Wright · Jonathan Meade Business Models for...

Though the use of private-sectormanagement principles in public man-agement of the environment hasexpanded significantly in the past twodecades, innovations in public landmanagement have lagged consider-ably. The primary innovations havebeen wide-ranging advances in reservedesign, community conservation,ecosystem management, sustainabledevelopment, and financing mecha-nisms (Repetto 1992; The WorldBank 1997; Phillips 2000). In concert,much attention has been paid in thescientific community to the specificeffects of management decisions onresources at the field level. The resultis a focus at either too fine or too largea scale. The functional administrativeunit—a park or protected area—hasbeen ignored as the fundamental lever-age point for influencing the state ofresources in protected areas. Inessence, while park managers, particu-larly in developing countries, havereams of advice for conceptualapproaches to various problems (e.g.,species and visitor management, waterresources, community interaction),there is minimal guidance for develop-ing strategic plans, gaining financing,and identifying priorities for manage-ment (Worboys 2001; Thomas 2003).

This area of research and scholarshipgreatly needs expansion.

The administration of protectedareas, both newly created and well-established, usually follows a strict,traditional model, defined by forestersand park managers in the UnitedStates in the early 1900s (Adams1993; Clarke and McCool 1996;Sellars 1997). This is not to say inno-vation does not exist. In fact, manynon-traditional management applica-tions exist outside the U.S. where his-torical trends do not heavily influencecontemporary decision-making. Theconservation community is becomingmore interested in the development ofinnovative mechanisms for managingpublic lands that are moving awayfrom the traditional Yellowstonemodel of national parks. For example,park managers are experimenting withnon-traditional approaches to manag-ing hunting, tourism, and wildlife,including being more and more per-missive of indigenous peoples livingwithin park boundaries (Bishop,Green, and Phillips 1998).

The problem explored here is alack of organizational managementguidance for park units. This may bedue to inadequate funding levels pro-vided by managers at organizational

53Volume 21 • Number 1 2004

Jonathan Meade

Business Models for Protected Areas

Introduction

The application of private-sector solutions to policy problems in theenvironmental arena has resulted in the availability of a greater diversi-ty of tools to decision-makers and managers. While this has occurredprimarily in the remediation of pollution, such as sulfur dioxide per-

mitting programs (Chertow and Esty 1997), innovative business managementtools used to solve conservation or natural resource management problems atthe operational level have not traditionally been applied.

levels of the federal government higherthan National Park Service adminis-trators, or due to deficiencies in parkmanagement. By clarifying the alterna-tives to managing resources at nationalparks, the use of business models pro-vides for increased success in achiev-ing conservation goals. Employing thisprivate-sector tool can assist parkmanagers in the decision process ofscarce resource allocation. Thesealternative tools, however, must beevaluated through a comprehensivepolicy analysis process, such as thepolicy sciences framework. Onlythrough such an analysis can parkmanagers proceed with adequateinformation and consensus.

Very recent scholarship has begunto help define a modern model of apark or protected area (Mitchell 2003;Phillips 2003). These are criticallyimportant as park managers reassesstheir goals and core values. However,even these newly defined models tendto continue to define parks or protect-ed areas rather than offer a method foridentifying a management approach,While they incorporate the mostrecent principles of resource manage-ment, they neglect to incorporatemodern thinking in business manage-ment. The advent of an innovativepublic–private partnership in 1998between the National Park Service, theNational Parks Conservation Assoc-iation (NPCA), and several philan-thropic organizations to write busi-ness plans for national parks has sig-naled a new approach to managingparks in the U.S., adjusting the focusfrom crisis management to forward-thinking, proactive prevention of con-flict and crisis (Reinhardt andHuntsberger 2003). From this busi-ness planning experience, conceptualdevelopment of business models for

protected areas arose.The business models can be used

both to describe and prescribe parkoperations. Park managers can alsouse these models to identify more pre-cisely the requirements of park opera-tions, to focus those operations, and toimprove strategic planning. Use ofthese models can allow park managersto focus internally on results and per-formance, and externally communi-cate mission, vision, operationalrequirements, and financial needs.

In addition to enhancing manage-ment capacity, the application of busi-ness models can aid in the develop-ment of better national policies foradministering the national system ofprotected areas. While in the past,comprehensive studies of the NationalPark System have been limited by thediversity of park units, using businessmodel policy studies can go furthertowards an understanding of function-al differences between types of parksand protected areas, and therefore addsignificant value to future studieswhen guided by the groupings sug-gested here.

MethodsOverview of protected areas. The

United Nations system for categoriz-ing protected areas, which includes sixtypes, is listed in Table 1 (IUCN1994). While offering some directionfor management, the categories aregenerally vague in relation to opera-tions, activities, and infrastructure.Much like the National Park Service’sprincipal designations for nationalpark units in the U.S., shown in Table2, these designations are useful forhigh-level categorization, but offerinsufficient guidance for managementand policy decisions. Further, whileable to broadly capture the “identity”

54 The George Wright FORUM


Tabl

e 1

. IU

CN

cat

egor

ies

of p

rote

cted

are

as.


U.S

. Par

k U

nit T

ype

Des

crip

tion

Nat

iona

l Par

kT

hese

are

gen

eral

ly la

rge

natu

ral p

lace

s ha

ving

a w

ide

vari

ety

of a

ttrib

utes

, at t

imes

incl

udin

g si

gnifi

cant

his

tori

cas

sets

. Hun

ting,

min

ing,

and

con

sum

ptiv

e ac

tiviti

es a

re n

ot a

utho

rize

d.N

atio

nal M

onum

ent

The

Ant

iqui

ties

Act

of 1

906

auth

oriz

ed th

e pr

esid

ent t

o de

clar

e by

pub

lic p

rocl

amat

ion

land

mar

ks, s

truc

ture

s, a

ndot

her o

bjec

ts o

f his

tori

c or

sci

entif

ic in

tere

st s

ituat

ed o

n la

nds

owne

d or

con

trol

led

by th

e go

vern

men

t to

be n

atio

nal

mon

umen

ts.

Nat

iona

l Pre

serv

eN

atio

nal p

rese

rves

are

are

as h

avin

g ch

arac

teri

stic

s as

soci

ated

with

nat

iona

l par

ks, b

ut in

whi

ch C

ongr

ess

has

perm

itted

con

tinue

d pu

blic

hun

ting,

trap

ping

, oil/

gas

expl

orat

ion,

and

oth

er e

xtra

ctiv

e ac

tiviti

es. M

any

exis

ting

natio

nal p

rese

rves

, with

out s

port

hun

ting,

wou

ld q

ualif

y fo

r nat

iona

l par

k de

sign

atio

n.N

atio

nal H

isto

ric

Site

Usu

ally

, a n

atio

nal h

isto

ric

site

con

tain

s a

sing

le h

isto

rica

l fea

ture

that

was

dir

ectly

ass

ocia

ted

with

its

subj

ect.

Der

ived

from

the

His

tori

c Si

tes

Act

of 1

935,

a n

umbe

r of h

isto

ric

site

s w

ere

esta

blis

hed

by s

ecre

tari

es o

f the

inte

rior

, but

mos

t hav

e be

en a

utho

rize

d by

act

s of

Con

gres

s.N

atio

nal H

isto

rica

l Par

kT

his

desi

gnat

ion

gene

rally

app

lies

to h

isto

rica

l par

ks th

at e

xten

d be

yond

sin

gle

prop

ertie

s or

bui

ldin

gs.

Nat

iona

l Mem

oria

lA

nat

iona

l mem

oria

l is

com

mem

orat

ive

of a

his

tori

c pe

rson

or e

piso

de; i

t nee

d no

t occ

upy

a si

te h

isto

rica

llyco

nnec

ted

with

its

subj

ect.

Nat

iona

l Bat

tlef

ield

Thi

s ge

nera

l titl

e in

clud

es n

atio

nal b

attle

field

, nat

iona

l bat

tlefie

ld p

ark,

nat

iona

l bat

tlefie

ld s

ite, a

nd n

atio

nal m

ilita

rypa

rk. I

n 19

58, a

n N

PS c

omm

ittee

reco

mm

ende

d na

tiona

l bat

tlefie

ld a

s th

e si

ngle

title

for a

ll su

ch p

ark

land

s.N

atio

nal C

emet

ery

The

re a

re p

rese

ntly

14

natio

nal c

emet

erie

s in

the

Nat

iona

l Par

k Sy

stem

, all

of w

hich

are

adm

inis

tere

d in

conj

unct

ion

with

an

asso

ciat

ed u

nit a

nd a

re n

ot a

ccou

nted

for s

epar

atel

y.N

atio

nal R

ecre

atio

n A

rea

Tw

elve

NR

As

in th

e sy

stem

are

cen

tere

d on

larg

e re

serv

oirs

and

em

phas

ize

wat

er-b

ased

recr

eatio

n. F

ive

othe

rN

RA

s ar

e lo

cate

d ne

ar m

ajor

pop

ulat

ion

cent

ers.

Suc

h ur

ban

park

s co

mbi

ne s

carc

e op

en s

pace

s w

ith th

epr

eser

vatio

n of

sig

nific

ant h

isto

ric

reso

urce

s an

d im

port

ant n

atur

al a

reas

in lo

catio

ns th

at c

an p

rovi

de o

utdo

orre

crea

tion

for l

arge

num

bers

of p

eopl

e.N

atio

nal S

eash

ore

Ten

nat

iona

l sea

shor

es h

ave

been

est

ablis

hed

on th

e A

tlant

ic, G

ulf,

and

Paci

fic c

oast

s; s

ome

are

deve

lope

d an

dso

me

rela

tivel

y pr

imiti

ve. H

untin

g is

allo

wed

at m

any

of th

ese

site

s.N

atio

nal L

akes

hore

Nat

iona

l lak

esho

res,

all

on th

e G

reat

Lak

es, c

lose

ly p

aral

lel t

he s

eash

ores

in c

hara

cter

and

use

.N

atio

nal R

iver

The

re a

re s

ever

al v

aria

tions

to th

is c

ateg

ory:

nat

iona

l riv

er a

nd re

crea

tion

area

, nat

iona

l sce

nic

rive

r, w

ild ri

ver,

etc

.T

he fi

rst w

as a

utho

rize

d in

196

4 an

d ot

hers

wer

e es

tabl

ishe

d fo

llow

ing

pass

age

of th

e W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c R

iver

s A

ctof

196

8.N

atio

nal P

arkw

ayT

he ti

tle p

arkw

ay re

fers

to a

road

way

and

the

park

land

par

alle

ling

the

road

way

. All

wer

e in

tend

ed fo

r sce

nic

mot

orin

g al

ong

a pr

otec

ted

corr

idor

and

ofte

n co

nnec

t cul

tura

l site

s.N

atio

nal T

rail

Nat

iona

l sce

nic

trai

ls a

nd n

atio

nal h

isto

ric

trai

ls a

re th

e tit

les

give

n to

thes

e lin

ear p

arkl

ands

(ove

r 3,6

00 m

iles)

auth

oriz

ed u

nder

the

Nat

iona

l Tra

ils S

yste

m A

ct o

f 196

8.O

ther

Des

igna

tion

sSo

me

units

of t

he N

atio

nal P

ark

Syst

em b

ear u

niqu

e tit

les

or c

ombi

natio

ns o

f titl

es, l

ike

the

Whi

te H

ouse

and

Prin

ce W

illia

m F

ores

t Par

k.

Tabl

e 2

. Pri

ncip

al U

.S. N

atio

nal P

ark

Serv

ice

unit

desi

gnat

ions

.

of a protected area, they do a poor jobof describing the functional niche of apark.

While national parks are the pri-mary focus of this paper, comparisonto protected areas managed by otherfederal agencies (e.g., national forests)and their broad models for land man-agement is both useful and informa-tive. National forests, managed in theUnited States by the U.S. ForestService, preserve forested and grass-land areas with a mandate for multipleuse, including timber harvesting,hunting, fishing, and recreation. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service man-ages the nation’s wildlife refuges andgenerally allows more extensive usethan in national park units, but less sothan on the national forests. Otherland management agencies, such asthe Bureau of Land Management andthe Bureau of Reclamation, managesizable portions of the public domain,guided primarily by the concept ofmultiple use, though they provide farless infrastructure and visitor servicesthan the National Park Service, theFish and Wildlife Service, or theForest Service.

As defined by relative priorities formanagement, national park units aremanaged primarily for resource pro-tection with significant non-consump-tive visitor services, while nationalforests, Bureau of Land Managementareas, and Bureau of Reclamationlands are managed primarily formixed, consumptive, and non-con-sumptive uses. Wildlife refuges repre-sent a moderate level of use, with afocus on resource conservation andmanagement, while doing so with lessextensive visitor services than atnational parks. The models elucidatedhere may be applicable to non-parkprotected areas; however, it should be

remembered that they were developedspecifically for national parks and mayneed further refinement for othertypes of protected areas.

There are nearly 400 national parkunits administered by the U.S.National Park Service, ranging from137 years to just several months old,from less than 1 acre to 13 millionacres. Their budgets range from hun-dreds of thousands of dollars to over$50 million (National Park Service2003; Mantell 1990). The diversity isalso reflected in the variety ofresources protected by national parkunits, both natural and cultural.Indeed, one of the principles of biodi-versity conservation and the design ofnational systems of protected areas isrepresentativeness: to preserve thebest examples of what is left. Thisdiversity of purpose, size, and scopemakes management difficult. Yet, it isthe mission and vision of the ParkService and of individual park unitsthat drives the variations in businessmodels. Consequently, a singular, uni-form business model for all parks orprotected areas would not suffice.

It is the statement of purpose,derived from the National ParkService’s mission statement, that pro-vides the foundation for park opera-tions. This mission statement is oftenderived from the park’s enabling legis-lation; separate laws are enacted tocreate every national park. This legis-lation, the congressional record of dis-cussion prior to the creation of a parkunit, and the general management planserve as guidelines for overarchingmanagement principles for the park.However, these are often far too gener-al to aid park managers executingoperational decisions at the field level.

There are many business models inthe private sector, but is there one sim-


ple model to serve all park units? Theimmediate answer is no; the NationalPark System is too diverse for a simplesolution. Still, while every park’senabling legislation (and hence pur-pose) is unique, drawing parks togeth-er in functional groups instead ofdefining them by types of resources orlevels of protection serves to betterguide managers through difficult poli-cy decisions. By examining the mis-sions, strategies, and managementstyles at 60 national park unitsinvolved in business planning in theU.S. National Park Service, severalbusiness models applicable to nationalparks, both domestically and interna-tionally, have become apparent. Thesebusiness models are based on tradi-tional private-sector business models,but employ the principles of publicadministration to identify elements ofrevenue streams, markets and cus-tomers, and goods and services com-parable with the private sector. AsPaul Light suggests, nonprofits neednot necessarily become more busi-nesslike, but rather better define whatit means to be “nonprofit-like” (Light,Light, P.C. 2001). In this case, thebusiness principles best suited to fed-eral land management were adaptedfor use at the National Park Service.The six described in this paper do notrepresent the entirety of businessmodels applicable to protected areas;instead, the intent here is to begin adiscourse on those which are specifi-cally available for adoption by parkmanagers.

Competitive landscape mapping.Using a private-sector business analy-sis called competitive landscape map-ping, the potential “business” ofnational park units was identifiedusing a crosswise comparison of twofactors: resource area and services

offered. The competitive landscapeapproach graphically maps the poten-tial business focus of a company byunderstanding where competitorsfocus their business and comparingstrengths and weaknesses of severalwith many factors. Applying this to thepublic-sector management of nationalparks is not without difficulty, but thebenefits of a greater understanding ofpark management are important andachievable.

The landscape, described in Table3, shows how a sample of park unitscan be distributed according to theresource management focus, hereusing the six IUCN categories, and theservices offered, mapping how theyfocus their mission and organizationalenergies. For example, a park with sig-nificant sensitive natural resources canprovide a variety of visitor services,but should make critical choices aboutwhich ones to provide so as to limitresource impacts. Conversely, a parkwith resources that are resistant to vis-itor impacts can emphasize visitorinfrastructure development and focuson providing visitor services(McNeely, Thorsell, and Lecourant1992).

Companies can avoid competitorsin order to maximize their profits andcreate successful marketing of theirproducts (Brandenburger andNalebuff 1996). It is argued here thatsince units of a national system areintended to be unique representationsof nationally important cultural andnatural resources, they should avoidoverlap in the specific application oftheir mission and strategy. This relatesboth to national system planning aswell as from individual park perspec-tives.

In the public sector, the govern-ment provides unique services that



Whe

re D

o W

e W

ork?

Par

k R

esou

rces

and

Lev

el o

f Hum

an I

nter

vent

ion

Wha

t Do

We

Do?

Func

tion

al N

iche

Cat

egor

y I:

Stri

ct n

atur

ere

serv

e/w

ilder

ness

area

Cat

egor

y II

:N

atio

nal p

ark

Cat

egor

y II

I:N

atur

al m

onum

ent

Cat

egor

y IV

:H

abita

t/spe

cies

man

agem

ent a

rea

Cat

egor

y V

:Pr

otec

ted

land

scap

e/se

asca

pe

Cat

egor

y V

I:M

anag

ed re

sour

cepr

otec

ted

area

Fron

tcou

ntry

vis

itor

serv

ices

Gre

at S

mok

yM

ount

ains

NP

Shen

ando

ah N

PD

evil’

s T

ower

NM

Mui

r Woo

ds N

PC

ape

Hat

tera

s N

SL

ake

Mea

d N

RA

Bac

kcou

ntry

vis

itor

serv

ices

Can

yonl

ands

NP

Sequ

oia-

Kin

gsC

anyo

n N

PH

awai

i Vol

cano

esN

PJo

shua

Tre

e N

PO

lym

pic

NP

(coa

stal

unit)

Wra

ngel

l-St.

Elia

sN

P&P

Wild

life

prot

ectio

n an

dm

anag

emen

tIs

leR

oyal

e N

PY

ello

wst

one

NP

Gra

ndT

eton

NP

Oly

mpi

c N

PPa

dre

Isla

nd N

SB

ig C

ypre

ssN

PRE

S

Eco

syst

em a

ndw

ater

shed

pro

tect

ion

Dea

th V

alle

y N

PB

ig B

end

NP

Gra

nd C

anyo

n N

PY

osem

ite N

PB

adla

nds N

PE

verg

lade

s N

PO

zark

NSR

Voy

ageu

rs N

PR

edw

oods

NP

Cul

tura

l res

ourc

em

anag

emen

t and

prot

ectio

n

Mes

a V

erde

NP

Mou

nt R

ushm

ore

NM

Kew

eena

w N

HP

Low

ell N

HP

Gol

den

Gat

e N

RA

Com

mun

ityD

evel

opm

ent a

ndIn

tera

ctio

n

Gat

es o

f the

Arc

ticPR

ES

Aca

dia

NP

Apo

stle

Isla

nds

NL

Sant

a M

onic

a N

RA

Cap

e C

od N

SD

elaw

are

Wat

erG

ap N

RA

Exi

sten

ce v

alue

Ber

ing

Lan

d B

ridg

eN

PRE

SC

ape

Kru

sens

tern

NM

Nat

iona

l Par

k of

Am

eric

an S

amoa

Tabl

e 3

. Com

petit

ive

land

scap

e fo

r se

lect

ed n

atio

nal p

arks

in t

he U

nite

d St

ates

.

cannot or should not be provided bythe private sector. Still, park unitsessentially compete against eachother; they also compete with all formsof leisure and entertainment, but thispaper focuses on comparing types ofnationally administrated protectedareas. They compete for funding andvisitors, both against each other aswell as with other public and privateoptions for recreation and outdoorexperience. This can logically beextended to serve as a proxy for pri-vate-sector competitiveness, wherebypark units should strive to avoid over-lapping responsibilities for protectingand preserving the nation’s resources.That is, parks should seek to find aniche where few other parks exist,thereby maximizing the representa-tiveness of the National Park Systemand their own effectiveness. This isessentially the value proposition ofpark management: providing protec-tion for areas of national heritage (cul-tural or natural) not found elsewhere.However, the services provided mayoverlap. This is where the potential forcompetition and collaboration begins.Parks should provide those services,both visitor-related and resource man-agement, where they are strongest.Parks with competitive advantage inone or both areas should seek toexploit that advantage by focusingmanagement skills and energies.

Of course, parks also benefittremendously from each other’s exis-tence, and should generally continueto support each other through part-nerships and resource sharing. Whereparks find advantages in partnering,they should do so to improve theiroverall competitiveness. This occursoften in the private sector and meth-ods for “co-opetition” can be adaptedby the public sector (Brandenburger

and Nalebuff 1996). The purpose ofthis paper is not to argue for an antag-onistic approach to park management,but rather a concerted effort on behalfof all park managers to specialize theiroperations, and to do it in a conscien-tious manner.

Types of Business ModelsThe business models presented

here are not the only models availableto protected areas managers. Whilehistorically parks have been unable toclearly communicate their primarymanagement focus, particularly in thesetting of operational priorities, parkmanagers should not be daunted byclearly communicating their businessfocus, especially if it is different fromthe current or historical focus.

A park need not adopt a modelwith the assumption that it will be inplace forever. While long-term ecolog-ical stability should always be a highpriority, altering a business model,especially when it does not provideadequate direction or hampers goalachievement, is important and natural.For example, the entrepreneurialmodel would serve a young park well,but could be laid aside in favor of a vis-itor services model at the appropriatetime. Similarly, should importantendangered species be discovered, apark might choose to move from amulti-services model to a capitalpreservation model. Understandingwhere a park is currently and where itshould be moving towards on Figure 1(described later in this paper) is criti-cal to knowing how best to prepare forfuture funding and staffing needs. Thestrategic planning process would ide-ally inform this aspect of managementdirection.

Visitor services provider. Usingprinciples of good management, park


managers can provide a diverse set ofappropriate tourism-related services,while managing for other objectives aswell (e.g., resource protection). Assuch, the primary focus for managersadopting this model should be provid-ing high-quality visitor services.Success should be measured againstthe number of visitors and citizens thatthe park reaches and educates, thequality of these services, and the satis-faction of the visitors.

This does not mean that protectingresources is ignored in managementstrategies. In fact, the opposite mightwell be the result, as resource degrada-tion would likely impair tourism,reducing revenues. However, the deci-sion-making focus would be servingvisitors and responding to their needs.A primary goal of park managersshould be adjusting the level of servic-es to meet changing visitor demands,minimizing emphasis on resource pro-tection and management. At its mostextreme, the focused service providermodel results in a multiple-use modelbased on both consumptive and non-consumptive use of park resources byvisitors.

Practically speaking, the visitorservices provider model stimulates feerevenue maximization. Higher en-trance or user fees and other targetedvisitor charges would provide a signif-icant level of revenue, which couldthen be reinvested in infrastructuresuch as trails and visitor centers, inorder to maximize the visitor experi-ence. Additional reinvestment in inter-pretive services, signs and informationwould also enhance the visitor experi-ence, further augmenting the level ofbusiness services provided. Critical tosuccess for these types of parks is aconsistent, though not necessarilyhigh, volume of visitors. Though a

high volume can potentially have alarge impact on park resources, visita-tion that is manageable by park staffcan ensure sufficient levels of revenueand exploit economies of scale to bothcover costs and provide for reinvest-ment as infrastructure depreciates andresources are degraded. Consequent-ly, marketing would play a significantrole in the attraction and retention ofpark visitors, and so would be anemphasis area for managers.

The suite of visitor services a parkcould provide is quite diverse, andincludes both frontcountry and back-country services. Frontcountry servic-es might include a combination ofboth high levels of park- or conces-sioner-managed operations, such asformal guided walks, self-directedinterpretation, hotels, gas stations, andvisitor centers. These are the servicesmost demanded by pass-through visi-tors—those that stay only a few hours.Park infrastructure should be directedtowards ease of access through thepark as well as restroom, picnicking,and other day-use facilities. Back-country services might include wilder-ness trip planning, travel and weatherinformation, search and rescue opera-tions, and roving or informal interpre-tation. Infrastructure for backcountryservices would focus on trailhead andbackcountry camping needs.

The operational costs at parksadopting visitor services providermodels—particularly the frontcountrymodel—can be high due to several fac-tors, including significant infrastruc-ture and concentrated impacts onresources. However, the higher costsare frequently offset by the potentialfor collecting more revenues (which inturn can be used to mitigate visitorimpacts), as well as by the fact thatservices are concentrated geographi-


cally, reducing overall costs. Front-country parks can be very successful ifthe fee structures are designed to pro-vide for both immediate cost recoveryand long-term preservation of parkresources. The consequence ofneglecting the first is a precipitousdecline in visitor services due to dete-riorating infrastructure and limitedstaffing capabilities as funding levelsdrop. On the other hand, the conse-quence of not providing for the sec-ond is that the impacts on the veryresources visitors come to see—thedrawing power of the park—willincrease to the point that visitors ceaseto arrive at the park gates. Minimizingthe infrastructure costs while focusingon interpretive and other services canoffer greater flexibility from year toyear.

The ecotourism industry recog-nizes that visitors come in all shapesand sizes and bring with them adiverse set of interests (McNeely,Thorsell, and Lecourant 1992). Parksadopting a focus on visitor serviceswould do well to identify with one orseveral of these primary interests inorder to better focus park operations.If the park wants to identify primarilywith the day-use tourist, visiting forlunch with the family, then an empha-sis on frontcountry infrastructure isappropriate. On the other hand, if thepark is more interested in providingservices for the backcountry hiker,mountaineer, or explorer, then back-country trails, search and rescue serv-ices, and the like are more important.While some parks can succeed at pro-viding both of these types of servicesto visitors (see the multi-serviceprovider model below), parks thatemphasize their strengths and main-tain a focus on the long term will suc-ceed more at both managing their

operations, and achieving their mis-sion goals.

Multi-service provider. The tradi-tional national park in the UnitedStates has been providing a diverse setof services for visitors for over a centu-ry (Sellars 1997). In recent decades,the public—and public administratorsof national parks—have recognizedthat additional services parks provideto the country as a whole, as well asservices provided by the ecosystem(e.g., watershed protection and airquality preservation), are importantand should be emphasized by parksadopting this model. In contrast to thevisitor services model, the multi-serv-ice provider model is adopted to reacha much broader group of “customers.”The multi-service provider does notfocus solely on reaching a subset ofvisitors, nor on all visitors, but ratherstrives to provide services to visitorsand non-visitors, to humans and non-humans, to present and future genera-tions. This broad-based model is oneof the most difficult to implement. Forexample, Yosemite National Park pro-vides services to visitors in frontcoun-try and backcountry areas, ecosystemand watershed protection services tothe surrounding areas, and finally exis-tence value as a World Heritage site. Inthis broad suite of services, managersmust strive for a balancing of prioritiesand interests. Large parks with well-developed infrastructure can be con-sidered long-term public investmentsin intergenerational equity. Thenational, international, and genera-tional importance of the multi-serviceprovider park means that each man-agement decision and action is highlyscrutinized, and so managers in turnmust be responsive to most, if not allinterest groups. Somewhat paradoxi-cally, parks in this category have an


inward focus, and, as a consequence,are usually isolated from the surround-ing community—a result of historicbiases, a disincentive towards experi-mentation, and past negative experi-ences.

Visitor services are necessarilydiverse in order to match the nature ofthe park’s visitors. In order to providesuch an array of services, parks adopt-ing the multi-service provider modeloften require large staffs with special-ized experience and abilities, as well assignificant infrastructure. The natureof the organizational hierarchy furthercomplicates decision-making. Theinfrastructure required to service largenumbers of visitors takes time todevelop. At parks that have the neces-sary roads, buildings, and other struc-tures, maintenance requirements arequite large. In order to maintain theinfrastructure in working order, a com-prehensive cyclic maintenance pro-gram is critical. Unfortunately, mostolder parks in the United States havefailing infrastructure precisely due toinadequate cyclic maintenance pro-grams.

While infrastructure reinvestmentis key to maintaining visitor services,reinvestment in natural capital is alsoimportant to the viability of the park.This would provide for long-termgrowth and buffer against ecologicalinstability, incompleteness, resourcedegradation, and visitor impacts.Reinvestment could take the form ofeither land acquisition—not always apracticable option for large parks—orthrough resource enhancement. Landacquisition could take place eitherwithin the park or outside the park’scurrent boundaries. There are fre-quently inholdings of private propertywithin a park, some of which may rep-resent ongoing management chal-

lenges. Similarly, resource enhance-ment could take place either inside oroutside the park. Through partner-ships with the local community, parkmanagers can provide for a bufferagainst resource perturbation ordegradation; for example, by workingto improve wildlife habitat on privateproperty adjacent to the park(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).Carefully directed reinvestment in nat-ural capital can provide for stability ofthe current portfolio of resources,while avoiding the stigma of encroach-ment on private lands around thepark. In the long term, stable resourcesand environmental systems will pro-vide a better foundation for manage-ment decisions about both resourcesand visitors.

While competition can drive busi-nesses to avoid each other’s strengths,natural capital-rich parks can providea broad set of services without suffer-ing from or being disadvantaged byother parks providing similar services.This comes in part from significant“customer” support at many levels,and from the high-quality “product”that high-profile parks can provide,particularly when the resources at thepark are in fact globally unique. Still,this approach is a difficult one toimplement at small parks or thosewhere visitor impacts on naturalresources would be great.

Entrepreneurial. With the rise anddecline of the Internet technologyindustry, the concept of a “start-up”company has gained national recogni-tion. Newly created businesses, someoften still in the conceptual phase,dominated investor attention for sev-eral years. The strategic principles uti-lized to leverage funding and createimportant, lasting companies can beapplied to some park units in similar


start-up phases. The business focusfor this model—the start-up model—isto exploit the abilities of a small, flexi-ble staff to respond to visitor needsand operational requirements, whileproviding for a clear vision of thefuture of the park.

Newly established national parkunits might be provided modest start-up investment capital, and even lessoperational capital to provide visitorservices and resource protection. Thiscan generally be attributed to the factthat new parks will usually have lowlevels of visitation, and hence minimalimpacts on resources and demands forservices. Exceptions to this trendoccur where parks established for spe-cific natural or cultural restorationpurposes or when areas with existingoperations are transferred to an agencyof the federal government (e.g., fromBLM to NPS). In the United States,park establishment comes withenabling legislation, from which themission statement is derived. Despitethis fact, the possibility of poorlyimplementing the park’s mission isgreat. For example, parks created fol-lowing significant local opposition orother controversy often experienceprotracted battles with local commu-nities as animosities developed at theoutset intensify and fester.

In the United States, few new largenatural parks are being established.Consequently, new parks that mightadopt the entrepreneurial model arenot typically rich in natural capital, butrather more frequently are establishedto protect specific natural or culturalresources, such as an endemic species.This situation is quite different inmany other parts of the world wherelarge parks and reserves are still beingestablished, such as in Madagascar(Ravalomanana 2003) and Gabon

(Quammen 2003). As new lands areacquired, new resources are identified,and the mission may even expand. Forexample, a park may be establishedthrough a specific resource acquisi-tion—e.g., purchase of a historichome—with the intention of expand-ing the resource base to include otherbuildings nearby. Entrepreneurialparks might choose to adopt a high-growth model, whereby significantinvestment in infrastructure and visi-tor services would serve to establishthe park physically and socioeconom-ically. This might be of particularimportance in rural or remote areas.Further, the implementation of a high-growth approach might lead directlytowards the community businessmodel in the next stage of develop-ment, where management policywould focus on a mutually beneficialrelationship with the local community.In contrast, a “start small, stay small”approach might also be effective forentrepreneurial parks. Finding a par-ticular niche would allow the park tomaintain its presence with less capitalinvestment, and a smaller ecologicalfootprint.

These parks, due in part to theirsmall budgets and limited staff, enjoyvirtually no administrative oversight.The park staff functions with an inter-disciplinary, can-do focus, frequentlyworking with many collateral duties.One benefit of the start-up businessmodel is that the organizational struc-ture is flexible and potentially moreresponsive due a smaller staff. This,however, is tempered by the potentialfor limited diversity of knowledge,experience, or technical capacity.

The most important component ofthe entrepreneurial model is adequatestrategic thinking, particularly withrespect to future staffing and invest-


ment needs. Greater innovative fund-ing and management opportunitiesexist for the entrepreneurial park, butwithout internal or external reward forthese innovations, park managers canfall prey to managing for no net loss.

Running the organization purelyon energy can accomplish some goalsinitially, but long-term thinking isimportant to focus and refine the man-agement’s vision as the park movesinto the future. Additionally, a clearvision and strong strategic thinkingwill allow the park to succeed in thedifficult initial years by providing areinforcing idea of purpose to parkstaff. This purpose, when clearly com-municated to constituents and appro-priators, will also ensure the develop-ment of strong support for the park.Though many new businesses failwithin the first year, a permanentreservation creating a park will notlikely be reversed. Still, failures to laythe groundwork for sound manage-ment early can hamper the long-termsuccess of the park and its staff.

Capital preservation. While theabove models provide for either visitorservices as a focus or a multi-facetedapproach to providing services, thecapital preservation model empha-sizes maintaining and enhancing thenatural and cultural capital of the park(Lovins, Lovins, and Hawken 1999).While the capital preservation modeldoes not exclude visitor services,resource protection is prioritizedabove visitor services in all elements ofpark operations, and consequentlymust be integrated into decision-mak-ing.

“Natural capital” in this context isbroadly defined as the park’s collec-tion of physical and natural resourcesthat can be utilized by a corporation,agency, government, or individual.

While currency is the capital thatdrives the modern marketplace, natu-ral capital has been offered as the driv-ing force for a newly defined economy,one that incorporates depletion andreinvestment in physical and naturalresources. In order to properly valuethe resource base of a nation, protect-ed areas systems such as nationalparks should be managed with a clear,uniform understanding of the underly-ing economy. If the economy to beunderstood is the public managementof lands and resources, then naturalcapital is perhaps the most appropri-ate foundation for exploring the howand why of park management as abusiness. With complicated or non-existent market mechanisms, limitedunderstanding of the economics issuessuch as non-market valuation of envi-ronmental services (e.g., watershedprotection of water quality), naturalcapital provides a single denominationfor understanding scaled evaluation ofstrategic park management in a diverserange of park types. Using natural cap-ital as a basic currency provides an ini-tial focus for why parks are estab-lished: (a) to protect unique resourcesnot protected elsewhere, (b) to pro-vide formal protection for resourceswhere currently informally protected,and (c) to acquire important lands andassets for the purpose of restoration.The concept incorporates a paradigmshift from mere production of goodsand services upon demand in a tradi-tional market system, to a focus onproviding a continuous flow of serviceor value.

The management of parks with asingle focus on natural capital preser-vation could, in contrast to other mod-els, be considered a pure public goodsince no consumptive or extractiveactivities would be permitted (Turner


2002), though most are more typicallyclub goods. [Ed. note: “Club goods”are those provided by a voluntary clubto its members. Within the club, con-sumption of the club good by mem-bers is non-rival and non-excludable,but non-members are excluded fromenjoying it.] In contrast, visitor servic-es are a private good since they areexcludable. A business focus on long-term stabilization and preservation ofresources, as well as on enhancing nat-ural wealth, would clearly communi-cate the priorities of park managers.Often this is possible only when sucha clear mandate is provided in theenabling legislation of the park.

As mentioned, reinvestment in nat-ural capital can be a beneficial focusfor parks in preserving or enhancingtheir resources. Some parks that are inneed of restoration or managementattention may benefit from thisapproach, while others benefit from amandate to improve resources degrad-ed prior to designation, and still othersmay benefit from an approach thatproactively strives to prevent furtherdegradation. Above all, the manage-ment focus is on preservation, mainte-nance, and improvement of the stockof natural and cultural capital at thepark. Improving or acquiringresources can achieve this. For exam-ple, the restoration of an endangeredspecies, such as the reintroduction ofwolves into Yellowstone in the late1990s, would significantly enhancethe natural capital stock of a park.

An important concept that man-agers must adopt in concert with thismodel is that resources must be man-aged so they cannot be consumed,degraded, or eroded in quality orquantity. While one dollar can be trad-ed for one dollar in the private sector,it is far more difficult to trade ecologi-

cal units for others. As such, evenreplacing land for land, or species forspecies, can result in a net loss of nat-ural capital. However, where naturalresources are exchangeable managerscould permit consumption if thisimproved the natural capital of thepark. For example, consumptionmight be permitted for targeted servic-es if the goal were enhancing a differ-ent component of the ecosystem, or topreserve the quality of the entireecosystem. Prescribed fire andmechanical thinning are good exam-ples of consumption of resources topreserve an ecosystem. This meansthat managers must prevent both tem-porary and permanent impacts frominfrastructure development, visitorimpact, or ecological degradation.Visitor access might further be con-strained by limiting broad access toareas of both backcountry and front-country. This would be done, forexample, to protect an importantspecies during mating season.Maintaining this approach will cer-tainly require significant investment inmanagement, monitoring, and inven-torying of species, ecosystems, andecological variables. Without these,adequate management of parkresources cannot be achieved. An ade-quate inventory must be in placebefore major decisions are made con-cerning specific species of ecosystems.Additionally, restoration and researchare also important to continuouslyrefine management policies and pre-vent potential problems from develop-ing. This scientific feedback providesinformation to policy analysis anddevelopment, so that, ultimately, theprogram’s goals can be achieved.

Parks have always been consideredimportant for long-term preservationof natural resources; however, concur-


rent with the rise of the field of ecolo-gy, the importance of parks as vehiclesfor long-term ecological research andprotection of natural heritage has beenclearly identified (Burger, Ostrom, andPolicansky 2000). This research isanother programmatic avenue thatparks adopting this model can take toforward goals of ecological integrity.

With a specialization in resourceprotection, preservation, and restora-tion, parks adopting the capital preser-vation model may find their revenueavailability somewhat limited, particu-larly due to the reduction in visitorgate and user fee receipts. Oneapproach to offset this consequencewould be to more directly link the feefor backcountry use to the protectionof various species so visitors couldbetter identify the benefits their poten-tially higher fees have on parkresources. Alternatively, parks couldseek funding from communities bene-fiting from the indirect effect ofecosystem and watershed protection(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

In the competitive landscape, parksadopting the capital preservationmodel would find substantial room forspecialization. An example of this isthe jaguar preserve in Belize wheretourists come, not necessarily with thehope of seeing a jaguar, but more oftento simply be in the presence of them(Eagles and McCool 2002). Parkswith a high level of natural capitalcould benefit from this model by capi-talizing on the uniqueness of thepark’s resources. Marketing them-selves as a species-specific park wouldprovide focus for external communi-cations, while not confining or limitingvisitation for other reasons, andattracting specialized funding andachieve business goals of preservingresources.

Community development. In itscreation and through a long-term rela-tionship, the community park modelis designed to have a positive influenceon both the local community as well ason the professional development ofstaff. If there are important ongoingchanges in the park or its resourcesthat can be influenced using theappropriate business managementpractices, adopting this model wouldmean acknowledging the tight bond tolocal community many parks have.Currently, few park models identifysocioeconomic objectives as an impor-tant part of overall management direc-tion (Bishop, Green, and Phillips1998). Still, greater emphasis is beingplaced on integrated conservationmethods in the developing world, and,to a lesser extent, in developednations. Further, finance and econom-ic issues are increasingly moving to theforefront of discussions about impactsparks and protected areas have onlocal communities (Eagles 2003).

This model focuses on relation-ships with the communities outsidepark boundaries in order to supportthe achievement of the park’s mission.The more interaction with local citi-zens, community groups, and busi-nesses, the better integrated the parkcan be in the surrounding communityand the better opportunities for mutu-al improvement. Principles of sustain-able development usually applied toparks and protected areas in develop-ing nations are appropriate to thismodel. One particular aspect of com-munity interaction that is critical tosuccessful park management with thisbusiness model relates to planning(Dixon and Sherman 1990; Machlisand Field 2000). For example, fluctua-tions in seasonal tourism can greatlyaffect small towns found near the


entrances to national parks, oftencalled “gateway communities.” Assuch, planning for major park infra-structure disturbances, for example,should be coordinated with the com-munity to help prevent significant lossof revenue. Overall, park managersmust reach out not only to local com-munity leaders in order to preventproblems and enhance resource stew-ardship, but should also involve otherfederal, state, and local land managers,including specific private citizens, sothat impacts to resource protectioncan be minimized (Machlis and Field2000).

The interaction with the communi-ty can potentially result in arrange-ments where consumptive use of parkresources, such as hunting at a nation-al preserve, are permitted. Includingthese uses can result from ongoing his-toric uses or their reinstatement.These are very difficult policy deci-sions, and so parks with high levels ofnatural capital—irreplaceable andirreparable features—should avoidconsumptive use of park resources,especially if they contradict the park’smission. This model could be success-ful at parks with moderate to low levelsof natural capital where “experimenta-tion” can take place.

With the community model, thereare many opportunities for parks tomaintain a local or regional focuswhile providing substantial and high-quality services to visitors. The com-petitive landscape is open to parkswith important but not irreplaceableresources to be utilized to developrelationships with surrounding com-munities. In general, many park unitshave failed to develop long-term, pro-ductive relationships with gatewaycommunities and regional organiza-tions. Consequently, the opportunity

for many newer parks to take chancesand explore new ground is ripe for thelarge number of parks units in themiddle range of budget, visitation, andresource availability.

One characteristic of the transfor-mation model is a high degree of flexi-bility on the part of the staff and man-agement. This is most likely a conse-quence of a number of factors, butinvariably staff at these parks are mid-career or rising stars in the organiza-tion, those with a particular interest inimproving parks willing to take achance. The result is that moderatelysized parks, not typically in the publiclimelight, can serve as a provingground for young park managers.With smaller budgets, and a more flex-ible staff organizational structure, parkmangers can hone their skills with lessto lose.

The community park model wouldbe most applicable to those parks withmoderate visitation, localized to thestate or region, and with relativelymodest budgets. While this modelwould be an option for parks witheither cultural or natural resources orboth, the important characteristic isthat the resources are important to thelocal community in the long-term.

This model is perhaps the mostflexible, and innovative, next to theentrepreneurial model. As such, theoptions for developing new revenuestreams are far greater than with otherbusiness models. For example, themyriad of potential partnerships withorganizations, schools, and otheragencies could be leveraged to eitherincrease funding or shift some of thefinancial burden of operations to thepartner organization. For example,while a local chamber of commercemight help obtain new private dona-tions to be used to develop a visitor


center, a neighboring university mightcommence research the park requiresbefore making policy decisions.

Focused-service provider. Whilethe models discussed so far havefocused on broad management goalsand strategies, there are many parkswhere more specific strategies andobjectives are necessary for effectivepark management. These parks, oftensmall in acreage and visitation, needmore specific guidance. Unfortunately,the value of the guidance found, forexample, in the park’s enabling legisla-tion either becomes diminished overtime, thereby stagnating management,or else is insufficiently specific for thedevelopment of park operations.

As with any park business model,the primary management goal forfocused-service providers should bethe long-term stabilization of parkresources and revenue streams.However, this is even more importantfor this model, for two reasons. First,focused-service or niche parks simplyare not as competitive for most fund-ing sources, so dependable funding isimperative to long-term preservationof park resources, as well as to consis-tent visitor services. Second, the mis-sions of focused parks are inherentlynarrow, so a management approach forthe longer term is most appropriate.Still, neither of these factors precludesgrowth in services, nor a change froma focused business model to a broaderone; rather, they reflect a prioritybeing placed on key strengths of staffor a highly focused purpose.

National parks serve the collectivegood by providing environmental,educational, and tourist services toboth visitors and non-visitors, for thisgeneration and future ones. Focused-service parks perhaps embody thisprinciple more than any other busi-

ness model. The consequence of pro-viding services to a very small subsetof the population is that the value ofthe park is heavily weighted to exis-tence values. Still, managers shouldfocus operational energies on provid-ing for specific requirements of thevisitor base.

While the park’s resources areimportant to visitors from the presentgeneration, they are perhaps evenmore important as representative ofintergenerational equity. For example,remote wilderness parks, thoughattracting only modest visitation, havea purpose rooted in the preservationof a core national value and key ele-ments of our natural history.

Long-term relationships withfriends’ groups and partner organiza-tions are very important for thefocused-service park, but since theseparks do not necessarily require sub-stantial amounts of operational fund-ing to run the park, the partnershipsdo not have to be based on financialrelationships. Rather, partnershipswith friends’ groups can take the formof bartered services, such as interpre-tation and historic maintenance.These friends’ groups can alsobecome tightly linked to membershiporganizations that support and utilizethe park. Strategies for the focused-service park might include develop-ment of membership-specific re-sources and programs. For example,where repeat visitation is significant,the park might choose to create amembership program whereby mem-bers would gain additional benefits.With a dedicated and somewhatfocused visitor base, these parks drawconsistent visitation, but are not likelyto experience significant growth orexpansion. Other parks that couldbenefit from adopting this model


include small sites located near citiesor town centers. By definition, thefocused-service park protects andinterprets very unique resources.

Revenue streams might be limiteddue to specialization, but competitionis also limited for the same reasons. Ifcompetition is limited, the focused-service park might be presented withfunding options not available to otherparks. However, focused-service parksmay find themselves poor competitorsfor the larger, more traditional fundingsources, particularly governmentappropriations. For example, a smallpark with high local but low nationalvisibility might be an excellent com-petitor for donations from local citi-zens interested in the relevance of thesite to local natural history, whilesimultaneously be a very poor com-petitor for a national funding source.

When viewing the competitivelandscape, similar conclusions can bedrawn about overall competitiveness.With potentially very high levels ofnatural capital, focused-service modelparks may compete well for specialistvisitation and funding, but poorly forlong-term capital development fromcentral offices.

Comparison of ModelsThe several models discussed

above represent only a few potentialdirections that park managers can takein orienting park operations. Eachpark, with its uniquely determinedestablishment, must choose how bestto serve the public interest. Modelscan be changed, adapted, set aside,and renewed. While the multi-serviceprovider and visitor services providermodels provide a framework for well-developed parks to consider a broadsuite of services to be delivered to anequally diverse group of visitors, the

focused-service, community develop-ment, and entrepreneurial modelsprovide business frameworks for parkswith a far narrower focus. The entre-preneurial and the capital preservationmodels, while not divergent from cur-rent (though unstated) managementapproaches at many national parks,represent an identification of a specificfocus, not narrowed by the type ofservices as mentioned above, butrather by the time horizon: short forthe entrepreneurial, long for the capi-tal preservation model.

In Table 3, several parks aremapped according to business servic-es and the resources protected usingthe IUCN classification of protectedareas. This table is functionally a com-petitive landscape, a tool frequentlyused in the private sector to identifyhow and where a business shouldoperate in relation to its competitors.By comparing the types of protectedarea—mission, objective, or manage-ment focus—to the types of servicesoffered, the relationship to other pro-tected areas can be identified. Thiscould also be done using the set ofU.S. park designations or other group-ings. The goal is to better understandwhere the park can best succeed.Table 4, a comparison of the variousbusiness models offered here, waslargely derived from examining Table3 and Figure 1.

In Figure 1, the several businessmodels are mapped according to natu-ral and traditional capital (financial)assets. The location of models can beused to better understand the require-ments of a type of park, as well as thebest possible combination for success.Tracking along the development stageaxis gives an indication of the level oforganizational growth, and, to a cer-tain extent, financial resources



B

usin

ess

Mod

el(e

xam

ple)

Mis

sion

Ele

men

tiN

atur

al o

r C

ultu

ral

Cap

ital

Bus

ines

s Fo

cus

Val

ue P

ropo

siti

onM

arke

t Opp

ortu

niti

esR

even

ue S

ourc

eB

udge

tV

isit

atio

n

Vis

itor S

ervi

ces

(She

nand

oah

NP)

Vis

itor

serv

ices

Cul

tura

lO

ffer v

isito

r ser

vice

s an

d w

ell-

deve

lope

d fr

ontc

ount

ryin

fras

truc

ture

; alte

rnat

ivel

ypr

ovid

e de

stin

atio

n to

uris

mse

rvic

es

Eco

tour

ism

Nat

iona

l / In

t’l fo

cus

Fam

ily v

acat

ion

Mod

erat

e gr

owth

Bas

e fu

ndin

gFe

e re

venu

eC

once

ssio

ns

$3M

to$3

0MU

p to

$3M

Mul

ti-se

rvic

ePr

ovid

er(Y

osem

ite N

P)

Bot

hB

oth

Hig

h pr

ofile

, cro

wn

jew

els;

long

-ter

m p

rote

ctio

n an

d vi

sito

rse

rvic

es; h

igh

degr

ee o

fin

fras

truc

ture

, sig

nific

ant

pres

sure

to p

rese

rve

reso

urce

sin

tact

Nat

iona

l / In

t’l fo

cus

Con

gres

sion

alco

mm

ittee

sL

ow g

row

th

All

$10M

to$3

0MU

p to

$3M

Cap

ital

Pres

erva

tion

(Eve

rgla

des

NP)

Res

ourc

epr

otec

tion

Eith

er o

r bot

hPr

otec

t res

ourc

es fr

omde

grad

atio

n, re

stor

e da

mag

edre

sour

ces,

long

-ter

m re

sear

chop

port

uniti

es

Nat

iona

l / In

t’l fo

cus

Eco

tour

ism

Des

tinat

ion

tour

ists

Env

iron

men

tal N

GO

sL

ow to

mod

erat

e gr

owth

Bas

e fu

ndin

gPr

ojec

t fun

ding

Don

atio

nsG

rant

s

$1M

to $

8ML

ess

than

$500

K

Focu

sed-

Serv

ices

(Isl

e R

oyal

e N

P)E

ither

Cul

tura

lPr

ovid

e ad

equa

te, b

ut li

mite

dvi

sito

r ser

vice

s to

targ

et m

arke

t;pr

otec

t spe

cial

ized

reso

urce

s

Loc

al, r

egio

nal o

rna

tiona

lL

imite

d to

spe

cial

tygr

oups

Low

gro

wth

Bas

e Fu

ndin

gD

onat

ions

<$2M

Ent

repr

eneu

rial

(Mar

sh-B

illin

gs-

Roc

kefe

ller N

HP)

Eith

erE

ither

Imm

edia

te p

rote

ctio

n of

reso

urce

s; lo

ng-t

erm

deve

lopm

ent o

f vis

itor s

ervi

ces

Loc

al p

artn

ersh

ips

Hig

h gr

owth

Bas

e fu

ndin

gPr

ojec

t fun

ding

Don

atio

ns

<$1M

Les

s th

an$1

00K

Com

mun

ity(L

owel

l NH

P)B

oth

Eith

er o

r bot

hSu

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t with

high

deg

ree

of in

tegr

atio

n w

ithin

loca

l com

mun

ity; a

dmin

istr

ativ

epr

ovin

g gr

ound

for N

PS s

taff

Loc

al &

regi

onal

Mod

erat

e to

hig

h gr

owth

All

$1M

to $

5M$2

50K

to$1

M

Tabl

e 4

. Des

crip

tion

of b

usin

ess

mod

els

for

natio

nal p

arks

.

required for management. The naturalcapital assets—species, ecosystems,watersheds—vary among parks, andshould be positively factored intomanagement approaches. While someparks should be inviolate reserves,many can accommodate modest levelsof infrastructure development. Openlyaddressing what level of “quality” theresources of a protected area shouldbe at can be a healthy and necessaryprocess for park managers.

Adopting Business ModelsChoosing the right business model

is a critical step towards effective parkmanagement. It should take placeprior to major management decisions,though this may not be possible at allparks. The choice of business modelshould involve stakeholders from bothinside and outside the park, includingcore staff, local community represen-

tatives, and others. However, it mustbe remembered that as a national park,the business model must fit the needsof the National Park Service and servethe interests of the nation.

There are many paths to take inorder to choose the right businessmodel. No single method is suggestedhere. However, there are many factorsto consider, including enabling legisla-tion, mission, visitor carrying capacity,infrastructure capabilities, revenueand funding expectations, and staffcapacity. Carefully evaluating each ofthese, and deciding on a model willallow park managers to face difficultpolicy and management decisionswith the support of a vision for the roleof the park. Ultimately, this role isdefined by the method by which man-agers feel they can be succeed, be it interms of providing visitor services,ecological services, or community


Figure 1. Graphical representation of six business models and the relationship to natural cap-ital and stage of business development.

services.One important step to take before

adopting a business model is the eval-uation of both the customer base, or inthis case a stakeholder analysis, andsubsequently, a competitive landscapeanalysis. Finally, the park should eval-uate its current and potential areas ofstrength—that is, what it is that thepark does well.

Parks that would benefit fromapplying the visitor services providerbusiness model include those with sig-nificant, consistent levels of visitation.The high levels of demand offer stabil-ity, particularly if funding were moreintimately tied to fee receipts. Thismodel is also appropriate for parksestablished with a particular focus onvisitors. At the opposite end of thespectrum is the capital preservationmodel, focused more clearly onresource protection. In short, thechoice between these two is a choicenot between visitors and resources,but which has higher priority whenconflict arises.

The multi-service provider modelattempts to strike a balance betweenthese two extremes. It is most appro-priate for those parks with a wide vari-ety of options for visitor services, aswell as significant natural and culturalresources. These parks will need sub-stantial funding, owing to infrastruc-ture and the high cost of resourcemanagement. Yet fee revenues fromvisitor and gate receipts is often anoption for supplementing basic fund-ing. With a diversity of services, man-agers should attempt to exploit a rangeof revenue sources to enhance stabilityand long-term reliability. High visibili-ty can aid competitiveness for thesefunding sources from both appropriat-ed and non-appropriated sources.Parks adopting this model can also

focus on enhanced visitor fee receiptsthrough balanced and appropriate feestructures. Managers should, however,be cautioned against adopting thismodel as a “safe” choice; it is not safe,but rather the most difficult to imple-ment. The focused-service provider,on the other hand, offers specific visi-tor services that, while not limited inscale, are limited in scope. Focused-service providers do only a few thingsfor visitors, but do them very well.Some examples might be a park thatoffers only alpine mountaineeringservices. Management would focus onmeeting the needs of this very special-ized group.

Parks that might benefit from theentrepreneurial model include small,newly established parks that canexploit a wide variety of revenue mod-els simultaneously, as well as leveragemultiple skill sets from a limited num-ber of employees. Those able to takechances and experiment with differentapproaches are able to adopt thismodel with success; however, thismodel demands flexibility in staffcapabilities and attitude. Still, well-established parks can also benefit fromthis kind of approach if the leadershipis able to motivate staff to takechances, and if the political environ-ment is amenable to experimentationand a “non-traditional” style.

The community model might bestbe identified with the current trendtowards community-based conserva-tion. While more frequently imple-mented in developing nations, com-munity-based conservation certainlyhas a place in developed nations’ pro-tected areas. Park managers mostinterested in extended relationshipswith community organizations andmembers would do well to bring theminto the decision-making process as


soon as possible. Allowing externalparties to gain buy-in can prevent larg-er problems down the road. Indeed,with the rising focus on collaborationin conservation, currently this modelis perhaps the most popular. However,the community-based model is notwithout its limitations, and parks with-out the opportunity for innovativeexperimentation should approach itwith caution, as is also the case withthe entrepreneurial model. This is notto say that parks with sensitiveresources or endangered species can-not embrace this model. Rather, byextending decision-making to non-park staff, managers must more fullybalance priorities and interests outsidepark boundaries.

The capital preservation model’sfocus on preserving resources lendsitself to implementation in remotewilderness areas, or those where visi-tor services would not be expected tobe extensive. Those parks with verysensitive or irreplaceable resourcesmight also benefit by clearly focusingon enhancing them through restora-tion or species recovery.

SummaryWhile there are many business

models available to park managers,almost no parks are currently employ-ing a model to help direct their opera-tions. Instead, managers rely on singu-lar adherence to the National ParkService’s mission, which, whileimportant and effective in guiding theagency as a whole, does not give man-agers enough guidance in prioritizingoperations, policies, and activities on adaily basis. Aligning strategic parkmanagement to the business modelsoutlined here, and perhaps using abusiness plan to do so, would aid man-agers in clarifying operational focus

and achieving mission and strategicgoals.

By choosing a model, a clear visionfor the business services to be provid-ed can be offered by managers toemployees, the public, and otherstakeholders. Still, adopting a businessmodel for a national park or protectedarea does not preclude changing thatmodel at a future time; many business-es do just that as they enter new phas-es of development. Figure 1 demon-strates that as protected areas developtheir natural and capital assets, theymay need to change their businessmodel in order to better compete.Broader strategic planning incorporat-ing local, regional, and national con-stituent groups could be used to peri-odically adjust park management innew directions.

The information presented here isuseful to both developed and develop-ing nations; however, developingnations would benefit from greaterexploration of a national businessstrategy or a national system of pro-tected areas (including identifying themission and vision for the managingagency) before embarking on businessmanagement approaches for individ-ual parks and protected areas. Thiswould clarify the purpose of a nationalsystem of protected areas, preventingthe piecemeal cobbling together ofparks of disparate types and missions.

There are several elements ofadapting business principles tonational parks that were not exploredin depth here, but an understanding ofwhich is critical to the overall evolu-tion of protected areas management.First, the models outlined here weredeveloped primarily with nationalparks in mind. Other protected areaswhere more intensive consumptiveactivities are permitted might find


these models too limiting, and so morework on the development of addition-al business models for these types ofprotected areas may prove useful.Other models would have to considerthe nature of the use of public goodsby subsets the population (e.g., timbercompany salvage permits) as it relatesto the balanced provision of servicesto a potential “market.” In this regard,research on types of resource extrac-tion on public lands would be usefulto help guide the development ofother business models for protectedareas.

Second, a further exploration ofpartnership models could prove usefulto some protected areas where jointmanagement by a multi-agency organ-ization exists, particularly in situations

where management direction is pro-vided both by government and non-governmental actors. In addition, rev-enue models are generally limited indeveloped nations to in-countrysources, but even so there are diversefunding outlets for national parks. Theprimary limitations for U.S. nationalparks are federal restrictions on solic-iting donations from individuals orcorporations. This simple fact makes afriends’ group a virtual necessity.While the National Park Foundationserves to coordinate much of the inter-action between park units and thephilanthropic community, there aresignificant outlets for additional fund-ing development locally and regional-ly.


ReferencesAdams, D.A. 1993. Renewable Resource Policy: The Legal-Institutional Foundations.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Bishop, K., M. Green, and A. Phillips. 1998. Models of national parks. Scottish Natural Heritage

Review 105. (Perth: Scottish Natural Heritage.)Brandenburger, A., and B. Nalebuff. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.Burger, J., E. Ostrom, and D. Policansky. 2000. Protecting the Commons: A Framework for

Resource Management in the Americas. Washington, D.C.; Island Press.Chertow, M., and D.C. Esty. 1997. Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of

Environmental Policy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Clarke, J.N., and D.C. McCool. 1996. Staking Out the Terrain: Power and Performance Among

Natural Resource Agencies. Albany: State University of New York Press.Dixon, J.A., and P.B. Sherman. 1990. Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look at Benefits and

Costs. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Eagles, P.F.J. 2003. Emerging trends in park tourism: the emerging role of finance. The George

Wright Forum 20:1, 25–57.Eagles, P.F.J., and S.F. McCool. 2002. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning

and Management. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing.IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Light, Light, P.C. 2001. “Nonprofit-like”: tongue twister or aspiration? Nonprofit Quarterly 8:2.Lovins, A.B., H.L. Lovins, and P. Hawken. 1999. A road map for natural capitalism. Harvard

Business Review (May–June). Reprint no. 99309.Machlis, G.E., and D.R. Field, eds. 2000. National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and

Policy in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Mantell, M.A. 1990. Managing National Park System Resources: A Handbook on Legal Duties,

Opportunities, and Tools. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.McNeely, J., J. Thorsell, and H.C. Lecourant. 1992. Guidelines: Development of National Parks

and Protected Areas for Tourism. UNEP-IE/PAC Technical Report series No. 13. New Yorkand Madrid: United Nations Environment Program and World Tourism Organization.

Mitchell, B. 2003. International models of protected landscapes. The George Wright Forum 20:2,33–40.

National Park Service. 2003. Budget Request Fiscal Year 2004. Washington, D.C.: National Park


Service.Phillips, A. 2000. Financing Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Best

Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series no. 5. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.———. 2003. Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm of protected areas. The George

Wright Forum 20:2, 8–32.Quammen, D. 2003. Saving Africa’s Eden. National Geographic 204:3, 50–75.Ravalomanana, M. 2003. Address of Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana to the Fifth

World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa.Repetto, R. 1992. Earth in the balance sheet: incorporating natural resources in the national

income accounts. Environment (September), 13–45.Reinhardt, F., and B. Huntsberger. 2003. National Parks Conservation Association. Harvard

Business Review, N9-703-045.Sellars, R.W. 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University Press.Thomas, L., and J. Duff. 2003. Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. Best

Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series no. 10. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Turner, R. 2002. Market failures and the rationale for national parks. The Journal of Economics

Education 33:4, 347–356.Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation

in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Worboys, G., M. Lockwood, and T. De Lacy. 2001. Protected Area Management: Principles and

Practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.The World Bank. 1997. Five Years After Rio: Innovations in Environmental Policy.

Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monograph Series no. 18.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Jonathan Meade, National Park Service, Office of the Comptroller, 13461Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171; [email protected]

1

Business Models for Protected Areas T - George Wright · Jonathan Meade Business Models for...

Documents

Transcript of Business Models for Protected Areas T - George Wright · Jonathan Meade Business Models for...