Threshold of Sustainability Tourism Eng Final

8/4/2019 Threshold of Sustainability Tourism Eng Final

1/44

A Quick GuideFOR PROTECTED AREA PRACTITIONERS

The Threshold o Sustainabilityfor Tourism within Protected Areas:


2/44


3/44

The demand or nature-based tourism has sharply increased over the past decade, and the

UN World Tourism Organization projects that this growth will continue into the next decade

and beyond (UNWTO, 2010). Natural ecosystems, rom the highest mountain orests to coral

rees, rom Antarctica to Siberia and the Amazon to the Serengeti, are attracting more

visitors than ever beore. This growth can provide a range o potential benets, including

increased revenues or improving natural resource protection, contributions to economic

development, the creation o local jobs and opportunities or research and education.

By providing these benets, nature-based tourism can also create a constituency or support

among local communities, the tourism industry, and visitors, which can in turn result in

greater political and nancial support or protected area objectives.

This burgeoning demand presents an enormous, largely unullled opportunity or protected

areas to generate unds or conservation. However, nature-based tourism also brings costs

and threats to natural capital in protected areas, thereby undermining the long-term benets

o their protection and management. The natural capital o a protected area is the entirety

o its natural ecosystems including physical attributes and biodiversity. This natural capital

yields a fow o valuable ecosystem goods or services such as water catchment, erosion

control and recreational opportunities. Tourism has been identied as a threat in many

protected areas across Latin America and the Caribbean (Drumm et al., 2007). For example,

Introduction


4/44

UNESCO cited uncontrolled tourism in the Galapagos Islands National Park as a reason or

its addition to the World Heritage in Dangerlist in 2009. Visitor congestion in Ngorongoro and

other East Arican protected areas has led to the disruption o mammal behavior, threatening

these areas long-term integrity and diminishing the overall quality o the visitor experience.

In order to ully realize the benets o tourism, urgent action is required to mitigate and

prevent the tourism-related threats that erode natural capital and, thereby, the long-term

social and economic benets it oers.

In many protected areas around the world, the existing approach to tourism management

in protected areas is leading to irreparable damage to natural capital. This Quick Guide

introduces a tourism management ramework called the threshold of sustainability. It is

designed to enable managers to take rapid action to mitigate the most critical threats, while

beginning to lay a solid nancial oundation or tourism within protected areas. By improving

tourism management, protected area planners will simultaneously achieve many o the

actions included in the Convention on Biological Diversitys Programme o Work on Protected

Areas, including preventing and mitigating protected area threats, using protected area

benets to reduce poverty, developing sustainable nance mechanisms, strengthening

management capacity, and improving overall management eectiveness.


5/44

TheThresholdofSustainabilityforTourismw

ithinPro

tectedAreas

5

ContentsIntroduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Nature-based tourism in protected areas: an opportunity and a threat ...................... 6

The threshold o sustainability in tourism management .................................................... 9Step 1: Identiy threatened natural capital, key threats,

and key management issues ...................................................................................... 11

Step 2: Identiy ecient actions to address critical tourism-related threats ............ 16

Step 3: Assess tourism nances in the protected area .................................................... 19

Step 4: Assess the broader enabling environment ............................................................26Step 5: Develop and implement a communications strategy .........................................28

Step 6: Implement actions and monitor results ..................................................................30

Key lessons learned .....................................................................................................................33

Case study: Ecuador ....................................................................................................................35

Case study: Dominican Republic .............................................................................................38Reerences ......................................................................................................................................40


6/44

A

QuickGu

ideforProtectedAreaPractitioners

6

Tourism is one o the principal objectives o many protected areas, and is one o protected areasmost valuable contributions to human wellbeing. However, tourism is increasingly becominga threat to biodiversity and the benets o natural capital. Aquiers become depleted, rees,lakes and rivers become polluted with untreated sewage, migratory bird habitats are lost to

inrastructure, and wildlie is disturbed. Together with increased congestion, these negativeimpacts may diminish the quality o the visitor experience, and may jeopardize tourisms potentialto contribute signicantly to the conservation o natural capital within protected areas.

At the same time, tourism is largely ailing to achieve its potential or generating nancial benetsor protected area systems. Even where protected areas have established mechanisms orgenerating revenue, and ees are close to air market value, those revenues are inrequentlyreinvested in even minimal protected area management. Consequently, the potential o protected

area-based tourism to contribute to economic development is undermined.

Protected area systems ace a crit ical situation in which policy makers increasingly promotetourism within protected areas even while managers lack the basic capacity to manage theimpacts o current visitor numbers. At the core o this dilemma is the concept o a thresholdof sustainability. This is the point at which the management capacity o a protected area issucient to mitigate the most critical tourism-related threats, such that public use is limited tothe parameters o sustainability o the natural capital within the site.

This threshold is reached by ensuring that protected area managers have a minimum annualoperating budget to maintain a critical level o specic tourism management activities. A centralidea to the concept o the threshold o sustainability is that in order to address the growing

nature-based tourism in protected areas:

an opportunity and a threat


7/44

TheThresholdofSustainabilityforTourismw

ithinPro

tectedAreas

7

threats rom tourism, managers must identiy these threats and develop eective ways to addressthem, while policy makers must create an enabling environment in which tourism generates thenecessary level o unding or eective management. Once the threshold o sustainability is

reached, tourism can begin to realize its enormous potential benets to communities, to localeconomies, and to the protected areas themselves.

This approach can be applied in situations where a long-term tourism management plan does notexist, where a plan exists but ails to address tourism adequately, or where a plan exists, but is notimplemented.

The aim o this Quick Guide is to provide protected area managers with a ramework or

responding rapidly to crises originating rom tourism and visitation. They will do this by shitingexisting resources to acilitate short-term interventions that establish specic tourism managementcapacities, and through short- to medium-term actions that optimize the fow o tourism spendingin protected areas.

The ramework is designed to helpmanagers identiy and characterize thethreats that place natural capital at risk,

develop strategies or investment intourism management, monitor theireectiveness, and estimate theirnancial costs and requirements orimplementation. This approach is notintended to replace long-term tourismmanagement planning, but rather tohelp initiate it. It is intended to enable

rapid action to address criticalexisting threats in the short term, whilealso allowing protected area managersto develop the skills, experience andnancial capacity needed to makelonger term planning more eective.The Ecotourism Development Manualseries (Drumm and Moore, 2005)

published in the TNC/USAID Parks inPeril program provides comprehensiveguidance on ull-scale tourism manage-ment planning or protected areas.

The threshold o sustainability is aboutputting in motion a eedback loop ortourism, visitor satisaction, investment

and management capacity that createsa virtuous cycle. An appropriate initialinvestment in basic tourism managementcapacity leads to eective management

Increasing impactsand degradation

from tourism-relatedactivities

Decreasing impactsand degradationfrom tourism-related

activities

Increasing visitorsatisification, increasingwillingness to pay high

entrance fees, reducedvolume of tourists promoted

Decreasing visitorsatisfaction, increasing

unwillingness to payhigh entrance fees, highervolume of tourists promoted

Decreasing revenue

combined with increasingmanagement challenges

Decreasing ability of

managers to addresstourism impacts andprevent threats

VICIOUS CYCLE

IN PROTECTED

AREA TOURISM

VIRTUOUS CYCLE

IN PROTECTED

AREA TOURISM

Increased revenue and

investment combinedwith decreasingmanagement challenges

Increased ability of

managers to addresstourism impacts andprevent threats


8/44

A

QuickGu

ideforProtectedAreaPr

actitioners

8

practices that will sustain the natural capital that visitors come to see, creating a more robustand viable tourism sector, as well as generating revenues that are reinvested into protectedarea management. Higher levels o visitor satisaction promote demand and allow park managers

to charge adequate park entrance ees, and to continue to investment in management capacity.

When there is inadequate investment in visitor management, a vicious cycle is set into motion.In this scenario, tourism-related activities degrade natural capital, leading to decreased visitorsatisaction. This leads to either lower prices or ewer visitors. As a result, revenues are likely todecrease, as well as investment in management, which in turn will lead to even more degradationand urther decline in visitor satisaction.

The threshold o sustainability approach to addressing tourism-related threats within protectedareas is about identiying the minimum level o investment required to achieve the managementcapacity sucient to set in motion the virtuous cycle, and to reverse the vicious cycle inprotected area-based tourism.


9/44

TheThresholdofSustainabi

lityforTourismw

ithinPro

tectedAreas

9

The threshold of sustainabilityramework enables protected area managers to dene the minimumamount o investment in tourism management capacity that is needed in order to ensure thehealth and viability o biodiversity and other natural capital, and to maintain high quality tourismexperiences within a protected area. While tourism and public use management are generally

included in most PA management plans, less than a third o all protected areas globally even havea management plan (Ervin et al., 2010). Even when there is a tourism or public use component inthe management plan, it is requently underunded and impractical. Park managers and sta otenlack the appropriate skills and experience to implement visitor management plans. Consequently,tourism is increasingly identied as a key threat in a large majority o protected areas worldwide(Leverington and Hockings, 2008; Drumm et al., 2007). The threshold of sustainabilityrameworkprovides a ast and relatively simple approach that enables planners to halt the erosion o naturalcapital and acilitate the long-term sustainability o nature tourism in protected areas, even in the

absence o a ull management plan.

The threshold of sustainabilityramework is derived rom a set o actions that are widely adoptedby NGOs and governments alike, called the Open Standards or the Practice o Conservation.This cycle includes dening key threats, identiying appropriate strategies, implementing thesestrategies, using the results to adapt and improve, and learning rom the process (CMP, 2007).It is also an approach that integrates a nancial rationale at the outset, enabling decision makersto better understand the nancial implications o the existing management practices, and to

contrast these with the nancial potential o establishing a model based on sustainable ecosystemmanagement (Flores, 2010).

the threshold of sustainability in

tourism management


10/44

A

QuickGu


actitioners

10

The basic components o the threshold of sustainabilityramework include both conservationmanagement and nancial analysis. Protected area managers rarely address these twocomponents in an integrated ashion. They oten come rom a orestry or biology background

and do not necessarily have the skills or nancial analysis, while nancial managers andaccountants rarely comprehend the realities o conservation management. The lack o integrationo management and nance lies at the heart o the problem o tourism-based degradation withinprotected areas. Depending on the resources and time available to a protected area manager,the threshold of sustainabilitycan be applied in either a streamlined, rapid assessment andresponse mode, or in a longer two-year time rame that will include a greater level o nancialanalysis and stakeholder engagement.

The components o the threshold o sustainability concept include:

Stp 1: Idti tatd ata apita, t st itia tis-atd tats,ad aat isss: Identiy threatened, tourism-related conservation objectives,the impact that tourism and other threats are having on them, and identiy the extent to whichprotected area sta are able to prevent and mitigate these threats.

Stp 2: Idti fit atis t addss itia tis-atd tats:Identiy which strategies will be most eective at addressing tourism-related threats.

Stp 3: Assss tis fas i t pttd aa: At a minimum in the rapidresponse mode, identiy the nancial gap between existing and required unds and identiypotential revenue sources and nancial mechanisms. I resources and time permit, then beginto build the nancial case or increasing unds available or protected area management byalso estimating the economic impact o tourism on the destination, and identiying potentialcomplementary opportunities, such as tourism concessions and co-management opportunities.

Stp 4: Assss t ad ai vit: Assess the legal, regulatory,

institutional, administrative and policy environment and assess the extent to which thisenvironment enables eective management o tourism within protected areas. This shouldbe done to dierent extents in both the rapid response and long-term planning situations.

Stp 5: Dvp ad ipt a iatis stat: Although communicationand participation is important at every point o the threshold of sustainabilityramework,accumulation o the breadth o inormation in Steps 1-4 requires development o a ormalcommunications strategy to help win the support o key audiences and change policies.

Stp 6: Ipt atis ad it sts: Establish basic inrastructure andcapacities needed to 1) achieve minimum management eectiveness, 2) implement new undingmechanisms, and 3) monitor results, including the impact o threats, the status and trends obiodiversity health, community benets, and the eectiveness o management interventions.


11/44

Th

eThresholdofSustainabilityforTourismw

ithinPro

tectedAreas

11

Identify conservation objectives and tourism attractionsthat are threatened

Understanding threats requires an understanding o the key aspects o the natural capital o the

protected area that are being aected. These may have socio-cultural importance, such as a viewo a natural monument or waterall, or an archeological site; they may have ecological importance,such as a species, critical habitat or migratory birds, a natural community, ecosystem, or ecologicalprocess; or they may have economic importance, such as an ecosystem service including drinkingwater or sheries. Key eatures to consider are those that are important to achieving the overallprotected area objectives and to maintaining a high quality visitor experience. Sometimes thesemay overlap, but oten they do not. For example, tourism-related activities could aect the habitat oendangered species that are not well-observed or important to the majority o visitors, but are very

important to the protected area objectives. Similarly, tourism-related activities could result in trail-side litter which may have a low ecological impact, but will have a signicant impact on visitor expe-riences. It can be very helpul to consult with an experienced guide or tour operator when evaluatingthe impacts o threats on visitor experience, as well as to review visitor comments and complaints.

Identify key tourism-related threats

In identiying tourism-related threats, the rst step is to understand and describe the activitiesthat are causing the threats and the motivation or the activities. Tourism-related threats includethreats that are caused by individual and group tourist behavior (such as riding motorized vehiclesin sensitive wetlands or arid lands), by the broader tourism industry (such as buildings and overuseo aquiers), and by tourism policies (such as the number o tourists who are allowed to visitsensitive areas).

step 1:

identiy threatened natural capital, keythreats, and key management issues


12/44

A

QuickGu


actitioners

12

Ater identiying the most critical tourism-related threats to these conservation objectives, thenext step is to rank them on a scale o 1 to 5, and then repeat the process or threats to the visitorexperience. The latter can be easily identied through inormal consultation with tour operators

or experienced guides, and through reerence registers o visitor comments or complaints. Inassessing ranks, it may be useul to consider compatibility o the activity with managementobjectives, the severity o the threat, and how extensive it is. The highest ranked threats will bethe ones you will want to address most urgently.

In order to ully understand tourism-related threats, it is useul to know how many visitors thereare, where they come rom, when they come, why they come, how much they spend, what theyspend it on, and how satised they are with their experience. These data can be gathered through

visitor surveys. A local university can oten be engaged to help with design and implementationo the survey.

Depending on the scope o the assessment, managers may also want to consider external threatsto key eatures that are important or tourism within protected areas. For example, inappropriateorest harvesting within a protected area (e.g., through concessions or by a orestry department)can have signicant impacts on tourism. While many such threats may be beyond the scopeo protected area managers to address, including them in the analysis will provide a more

comprehensive evaluation and acilitate uture planning.

Part o identiying and understanding threats is identiying their underlying root causes thedrivers that cause or contribute to the threats. For example, inadequate trash disposal and wasteacilities can result in trailside litter, inappropriate concession policies can contribute to illegaluse o motorized vehicles, and inappropriate hotel policies can contribute to excessive light, airand water pollution that can disrupt wildlie (such as migratory bird habitat), damage ecologicalprocesses, and degrade the tourism experience.

Participation in this process o tour operators who depend on the resource or their businesssuccess is useul, or example by creating a small team including a protected area managerand a tourism operator.

The gure (on the next page) shows a simple way to conceptualize the diverse natural capital andtourism-related threats that can occur within a protected area both to conservation objectivesand to tourism attractions themselves and provides examples o each, including threats that are

driven by tourist behavior, and by inappropriate tourism inrastructure and policies.


13/44

Th


ithinPro

tectedAreas

13

Identify key management issuesThe next component o this step is to identiy management issues that enable or even exacerbatethreats and interere with opportunities or improving management. There are numerousassessment tools to help managers identiy management strengths and weaknesses at siteand system levels (e.g., Ervin, 2003; Stolton et al., 2007).

For example, i a key tourism-related eature in a protected area is an extension o woodland that

is critical habitat or the cerulean warbler, the manager might identiy the critical threats as: 1)inappropriate siting o large hotels, creating noise and excessive light that disturbs roosting; and2) inappropriate camping and outdoor recreational vehicle practices that disturb eeding.Each o these threatswould have a suite o potential management issuesassociated with them.

Quiet natural experience: Noisepollution (e.g. from motor vehicles)

Wilderness experience:Trailside littering

Plant commnunities/habitat:Soil erosion from trampling

Coral Reefs: Inappropriate

diving and snorkeling

Wildlife viewing: Inappropriatewildlife viewing practices(e.g., visitors are tooclose, too many, too loud)

Bird habitat: Excessive fuel woodconsumption

Vegetation: Trampling insensitive ecosystems

Coral Reefs: Inappropriatediving and snorkeling

Bird nesting: Inappropriate wildlifeviewing practices (e.g., visitors aretoo close, too many, too loud)

Target species: Inappropriate

feeding of wildlife, creatingproblem individuals

Natural systems: Introducinginvasive alien species throughhorses, hiking shoes, boats

Freshwater biodiversity: Overuseof freshwater resources

Coral reefs: Excessive waste waterand water pollution

Migratory birds: Destruction ofimportant habitat (e.g., mangrove)for tourism infrastructure

Sensitive areas: Inappropriately sitedbuildings, roads and other infrastructure

Sea turtles or migratory birds:

Inappropriate lighting

Native fish: Fish stocking practices

Freshwater systems: Excessivewaste water and water pollution

Clean beaches: Solid wastedisposal and sewage

Coral reefs: Anchoringpractices of boats

Viewscapes: Air pollution

(e.g., from motorized vehicles) Wilderness experience. Inappropriately

sited buildings, roadsand other infrastructure

Star gazing: Inappropriate lighting

CONSER

VATION

OBJECTIVE

S

ATTRACTIONSIMPORTANT

forhighqualityvisitorexperience

TOURIST BEHAVIOR TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE, POLICIES

TOURISM-RELATED THREATS

Examples o dierent types o tourism-related threats


14/44

A

QuickGu


actitioners

14

For example, management issues related to inappropriate lighting on buildings may have todo with the lighting practices and policies o tourism inrastructure beyond the protected areaboundaries. Management issues related to inappropriate camping and recreational vehicle

practices have to do with poorly zoned public use areas, absence o trained tour guides,inadequate control and registration o tour operators, insucient patrolling by park guards,or inadequate visitor education.

Each o these management issues can be addressed by a range o possible actions. However, tobe strategic and ecient, and to ocus on the minimum investment required to sustain tourismand biodiversity within protected areas, managers must rank the most important managementissues i.e., those that are causing the most harm.

SEA TURTLES(viewing them inthe water, observing

nesting behavior)

INAPPROPRIATE VISITOR

VIEWING BEHAVIOR

(too close to nests, use of

lights to attract)

JET SKIS (primarilyto view sea turtlesin the water)

LIGHTING ON

BUILDINGS(bright lights attract turtles)

POACHING OF

TURTLE EGGS

(primary for local sale)

INAPPROPRIOATE

FISHING (using nets thatmistakenly catch sea turtles)

INADEQUATE PATROLLING

NO VISITOR EDUCATION

NO AWARENESS-BUILDINGOF HOTEL MANAGERS

LACK OF INVOLVEMENTOF COMMUNITIES inlivelihood opportunities

INSUFFICIENT COMMUNITYENGAGEMENT

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE/TOURISM-RELATED FEATURE

KEY TOURISMRELATED THREATS MANAGEMENT ISSUES


15/44

Th


ithinPro

tectedAreas

15

By identiying the most important tourism-related threats, the range o management issues andweaknesses or each, and the underlying causes or each o these weaknesses, managers canidentiy a small subset o the most important management weaknesses and underlying causes

and actions that can address multiple threats. Typically these include: improving inormation,education and interpretation; better application o regulations and enorcement; better basicinrastructure; systematic monitoring o indicators; and sucient sta numbers and capacities.At the end o these initial three steps, the manager will have identied the important conservationobjectives and tourism eatures that are threatened by tourism. He or she will also have identiedthe main tourism-related threats to these targets and eatures, and will have applied a simpleranking o their signicance. S/he will also have identied specic tourism management issues

that limit managers actions to reduce threats.

This table shows another presentation o possible results, with rankings applied to the most criticalthreats and to the most important management weakness. For another example, see the end o thenext section.

Conservation objective/tourism feature

Tourism threats Management issues

Migratory bird nesting area Trampling of vegetationby visitors (5)

Human waste (3)

No visitor information orinterpretation program (5)

Lack of basic infrastructure (3)


16/44

A

QuickGuideforProtectedAreaPractitioners

16

As illustrated in the table at the end o this section, there will likely be a variety o actions andstrategies or addressing each o the impacts and management issues identied. The key is toocus on the most cost-eective actions that are likely to have the greatest short-term impact

in reducing or eliminating a threat. The minimum tourism management capacity to achieve thethreshold of sustainabilitywill consist o a variety o dierent types o interventions.

Information, education, and interpretation

Visitor experiences and their behaviors are highly dependent on the type, quality and delivery oappropriate inormation needed to appreciate and understand the protected area values andopportunities. Providing appropriate materials and delivering eective educational programs

can aect how tourists behave and can reduce many tourism-related threats. Tour guides, hotelmanagers, park sta and community members can also be important audiences or educationand outreach eorts. A variety o techniques can be used to modiy visitor behavior and improvetheir experience. Examples include interpretive signs, brochures, visitor learning centers, t-shirts,tour guide trainings, tour operator guidelines, and community meetings.

Regulations and enforcement

Most protected areas have a suite o regulations that limit behaviors and uses. However, in manycases the policies, procedures and regulations are outdated, or do not refect increases in thevolume o tourism. I inappropriate policies are a leading contributor to tourism-related threats,then managers will need to revise and update the regulations. For example, new rules mightbe needed regarding the size o allowable tour groups based on an assessment o biophysical orsocial impacts, or the penalties or violations may need to be increased. Similarly, improvementsmay be needed in enorcement, including increased sta to patrol areas. Financial health can alsobe improved by controlling access more eectively and ensuring that sta are present and havethe administrative tools necessary at access points when visitors arrive in order to collect ees.

Impact Monitoring and Management Action

The regular, systematic gathering o data on tourism impact indicators is essential or eectivemanagement. When identiying threats, managers are creating a set o baseline data againstwhich uture changes can be systematically monitored and measured; it is particularly importantto monitor progress against the most critical threats identied by the threshold of sustainabilityapproach, as these threats can rapidly get out o control. By evaluating the inormation

generated by impact monitoring, it is possible to make eective interventions to reduce threatsand improve conditions. Although planning processes o ten emphasize monitoring as the laststep o a planning process, we propose that managers circle back to strategy development tobe sure to include actions to implement monitoring.

step 2:

identiy efcient actions to addresscritical tourism-related threats


17/44

Th

eThresholdofSustainab

ilityforTourismw

ithinProtectedAreas

17

A simple version o the Limits of Acceptable Changemethodology (Stankey et al., 1985; seealso Ecuador case study) is recommended or most circumstances. This methodology involvesdetermining desired conditions, establishing a small number o indicators and standards or those

indicators, and then monitoring actual conditions regularly over time. I an initial managementintervention (e.g., erecting signs to limit approaches to bird nesting areas) ails to bring the impactwithin the standard, then an additional or alternative intervention will be necessary (e.g., requiringvisitors be accompanied by a licensed guide). Monitoring indicators need not be complex; otenthe simplest indicators are the most eective. Systematic monitoring provides a technical basisor decision making and thereby strengthens a protected areas management authority. This canbe very important in the ace o oten strong resistance rom private businesses and individuals,who may see their individual or collective benets aected by the application and enorcement

o tourism management strategies.

Infrastructure

Inrastructure roads, trails, bridges, visitor learning centers, elevated pathways, drinking water,toilets, waste disposal sites, picnic areas, campgrounds and bird-watching platorms can bean important tool or both improving visitor experiences and or reducing the impacts o tourism.In identiying strategies or improving inrastructure, managers should ocus on the minimum

inrastructure required to prevent a threat or minimize impacts. In developing inrastructure,managers will typically need to conduct an environmental impact assessment to ensure that theinrastructure itsel does not exacerbate ecological impacts. Where possible, it is best to locateas much inrastructure as possible away rom the attraction and outside the protected area.

Capacity building

Adequate numbers o trained, competent and condent personnel are required or a wide range otourism management activities, including abating key tourism-related threats. Sometimes this means

simply hiring more sta, and sometimes it means improving the capacity o existing sta. Speciccapacities related to tourism management could include, or example, the enorcement o regula-tions, patrolling, community outreach and education, visitor-use planning, inrastructure planning,visitor education, and impact monitoring, among many others. There are a variety o strategiesthat managers can use to improve capacity, including study tours, short courses, independentstudy, short workshops, online e-learning tutorials, mentorships, and ormal academic courses.

Safety, Security and SanitationA signicant actor in reducing visitation to a site or area is lack o security and potential threatsto a visitors health. Managers need to be prepared or emergencies that may occur when touristsvisit a site. In addition, managers may need a disaster plan, particularly or areas prone to fooding,high winds, and other similar natural phenomena. Finally, there is oten a need or security toprotect visitors rom thet and other crimes.Through this process, managers might develop a ranking o actions (perhaps by cost and

eectiveness on threat) similar to that shown in the table. This type o analysis enables plannersto quickly identiy the actions that will reduce the threat most quickly, and those that are essential todevelop over time. Because rapid action is necessary to limit critical threats quickly, it is importantnot to delay action until a ull scale tourism management plan is prepared or revised. Planners


18/44

A


18

should prioritize those actions that can be taken at local level by reallocating existing resourceswithout the need or lengthy consultation processes with system-level colleagues and stakeholders.More complex actions will need to be programmed in the ollowing years annual operating plan

and budget as part o the annual planning process.

At the conclusion o this step, the manager will have developed a series o actions to addressthe key threats and management issues, and will have prioritized them based on their expectedshort-term impact and according to availability o resources. Good cost estimation and budgetingis essential in this phase.

Poorly-trained park guards

Insufficient patrols Inadequate visitor

education

No trained local guides

No interpretation program

Inappropriate local zoning laws

Lack of education

in the community Inadequate dialogue

with hotel owners

Inadequate distributionof visitor guidelines

Lack of zoning of public use

Poor enforcement ofregulations

No dialogue with localjet ski rental business

Insufficient numberof park guards

Inadequate education program

for local community Limited flow of tourist

spending to local community

Train guards (5)

Increase patrols to beachareas during nesting (3)

Train local guides (4)

Place signs between car parkand turtle nesting area (5)

Provide visitors with writtenguidelines and interpretation (5)

Inadequate educationprogram for local community

Lobby Board of Supervisorsto regulate lighting (1)

Ask hotel owners borderingthe area to change the locationor frequency of lighting (5)

Provide visitors with writtenguidelines and interpretation (5)

Hire and train more park guards,especially from local community (3)

Implement monthly presentations

in local community (4) Create tourism business

opportunities for local community (4)

Install marker buoys to delimit

no jet ski area (4) Provide info at rental office (5)

Withdraw permits from persistentrental business offenders (5)

Initiate community outreacheducation program to shareappropriate technology (3)

Visitors approachnests and/or turtlestoo closely,disrupting nesting

Inappropriate fixedlighting on nearby

hotels outsideprotected area,disrupting nesting

Inappropriate portablelighting carried bytourists and guidesdisrupts nesting

Jet skis harass turtles

Non-tourism threat affecting tourism

Communitiespoach turtle eggs

Turtles die infishing nets

Key (high-ranked)tourism-relatedthreat

High-rankedmanagement issues

Prioritized actions (ranked1 [high-cost, inefficient] to5 [low-cost, efficient])

Tourism-relatedfeature/conservationobjective

Sea turtles


19/44

Th


ilityforTourismw

ithinProtectedAreas

19

There is growing evidence that protected areas are engines o job creation, providing public andprivate revenue and export income, and helping diversiy local economies in oten remote andunderdeveloped areas (Drumm, 2010; Leon et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2008). Tourism is otenthe single most important source o sel-generated revenues or protected areas, creating

employment and opportunities or large numbers o local people. However, policy makers otenperceive protected areas as a burden on national economies. This perception has led to a severegovernmental under-investment in protected areas. During annual budgeting cycles, it is jobcreation initiatives, industrial and agricultural development, health and education that receivethe majority o limited public nancial resources.Credible nancial and economic data that show how much protected area tourism is contributingto the nancial sustainability o the park system, to local communities and to the economy as a

whole is compelling inormation when seeking to change policy makers attitudes toward protectedareas. This inormation is even more powerul when contrasted with the low costs o maintainingprotected area tourism.

This section outlines a series o steps involved in assessing the nances o tourism in protectedareas. On completing this assessment, protected area managers and other policy makers will havethe inormation needed to make a powerul case or increased investment in protected area tourismmanagement and in protected area conservation generally.

Tourisms economic impacts can be assessed within three spheres: 1) the nancial sustainabilityo the protected area or areas; 2) impacts on local communities and destinations; and 3) impactson the national economy.

step 3:

assess tourism fnancesin the protected area


20/44

A


20

Making the financial case

The rst part o making the nancial case or increased investment in a protected area is to

identiy the current costs o tourism management. Although public use is oten viewed as a basicprotected area unction, the range o costs it generates is requently not understood thoroughlyby protected area managers. Even basic tourism management strategies oten do not appearas a line item on protected area budgets and are not included in annual operating plans. Otenmanagers neglect to include these costs because they do not have technical expertise in tourismmanagement, or because they believe that an increased investment in tourism managementcapacity is a lower priority than other basic protection activities.

Quantiying the cost o tourism management to the protected area site or system is oten morechallenging than might at rst be imagined, simply because this inormation may not exist in oneplace. For example, there may be no tourism management budget per se, yet there are visitors, andtourism activities are taking place. The protected area is incurring expenses, such as collectingentrance ees, maintaining trails, collecting litter. These activities may oten appear under dierentline items in park accounts, or be split between site budgets and system budgets.

The second part o making the nancial case is to identiy costs associated with potential actions

and strategies, and to assess the nancial gap between existing unds and the minimum requiredto achieve the threshold o sustainability. Once park managers have identied critical threats,management issues and the actions to address them, they will then need to determine the cost othese strategies. A nancial specialist can work with park managers and system administratorsto determine the costs o sta, equipment transport, ood, and materials required to achieve thethreshold o sustainability. This analysis will distinguish between operating costs (e.g., those coststhat recur every year, such as sta time, uel, ood and materials) and capital costs (e.g., thosecosts that occur usually only once, such as vehicles, boats, computers and construction as wellas restoration to acceptable levels o impact). Capital costs can be considered as an initialinvestment needed to achieve the threshold o sustainability. This can produce a result similarto this example rom Peru:

$100.000,00

$80.000,00

$60.000,00

$40.000,00

$20.000,00

0

$51.500,00

$88.000,00$83.000,00

$0

$21.700,00

$9.862,32$6.085,40

$5,439,84

ACTUAL THRESHOLD

Reserva NacionalTiticaca

Reserva NacionalTambopata

Reserva NacionalParacas

Parque NacionalHuascarn

From Len et al., 2009

Costs o Tourism Management

21


21/44

Th


ilityforTourismw

ithinProtectedAreas

21

The two columns or each o our Peruvian protected areas illustrate the dierence betweencurrent spending on tourism management, and the minimum level o spending required toachieve the threshold of sustainabilityin 2007.

Once a clear picture emerges o the nancial gap between current expenditure and the minimumexpenditure required to achieve the threshold of sustainability, there is a clear nancial target toaim or. Funding will likely be required to cover initial capital investment costs, and also to cover thehigher operating costs that are likely in the start-up period. Further unding will be required to coveroperating costs on an ongoing basis, and newly-optimized tourism revenue generation mechanismsshould be expected to at least cover these costs in most scenarios ater the initial start-up period.It is quite possible that presenting a proposal or increased unding or tourism management with

only the data gathered in the steps described so ar will not be sucient. For that reason, it is highlyrecommended that protected area managers and administrators go a step urther and gather datathat will illustrate the very positive economic impacts o protected area tourism.

The third part o making the nancial case is to quantiy the present benets o tourism demand.Collecting data on current protected area revenues should not be dicult. This entails simplyadding up revenues rom all tourism-based revenue generation mechanisms including entranceees, operator permits, and any concessions, etc.

A comparison o the protected area revenues with protected area costs will oten show that thereis seemingly a large nancial return or very low investment. However, this may be deceiving,since many protected areas grossly underund tourism management. The apparent low cost otourism hides a range o basic costs that are typically not covered, and masks the reality o erodingnatural capital and declining standards o visitor satisaction.Opportunities or generating tourism revenue are oten under-exploited, such that both the

revenue and cost columns are considerably lower than what they could be i tourism were undedat a sustainable level and tourism were managed properly within the threshold of sustainability.But because there is an apparent high return on investment, the vicious cycle situation tends tobe perpetuated. By actoring in investments in tourism management that are sucient to retainhigh value tourism and maintain a high quality tourism experience, managers and administratorscan prepare a realistic analysis o the overall revenue rom protected areas within a threshold osustainability scenario. The managers job is to create the idealized but practical scenario thatmakes the nancial case or adequate investment that will make tourism an advantage rather

than a threat, and that will help to start a virtuous cycle.

In a rapid-response situation, managers should complete the rst and second parts o this step(identiy current costs and assess new actions). This will put them in the position to understandthe implications o moving existing nancial resources or park management outo some existing,low priority issues, and into implementation o actions that will resolve a potential emergency.As soon as the opportunity presents itsel, managers can proceed to the next components tocreate a compelling case to decision makers or more nancial support.


22/44

A

QuickG

uideforProtectedAreaP

ractitioners

22

Assessing the economic impacts of tourism

I resources are available, the next component o assessing the economic value o tourism is

to analyze the impacts o tourism on local communities, destinations and national economies.Building this economic inormation about protected area tourism can give managers the toolsthey need to improve the nancial situation or protected area management in the uture.

Tourism is oten a rare economic opportunity in remote destinations. It can provide incomethrough employment, and through the provision o services such as transport, guiding, oodand accommodation, and handicrat sales. Oten there are undeveloped opportunities to increasethese benets and thereby increase local support or conservation objectives.

A careul analysis o the impacts o tourismon local communities will likely require someeld research. Some questions to considerinclude: Which communities in the studyareas are impacted by tourism? What arethe economic, social and cultural impacts?How many amilies in each community areaected? How many derive income romprotected area tourism? How much income,either directly or indirectly, do they derive?What new employment opportunities exist?Sometimes tourism can also cause negativeimpacts in local communities. For example,tourists visit and take pictures o localpeople but leave no economic benet. Localprices or ood and property may be infatedbecause o tourism demand, causing localhardship. Both positive and negative impactsshould be recorded, including indicators othe limits o acceptable change.The other aspect that researchers should consider is the impacts on the tourism industry. Iresources permit, it can be useul to evaluate protected area tourism impacts on the broadereconomy and on dierent sectors, such as the multiplier eect o protected area tourismspending on goods and services like souvenirs, taxi drivers, restaurants, hotels airport ees,and other types o indirect benets. Government tourism departments usually maintain dataon visitor numbers, spending patterns and duration o stay, among other data. In Peru, orexample, the tourism department ound that 71 percent o oreign tourists visited a protectedarea during their stay (Leon et al., 2008) . Additional inormation on tourist spending patternscan be obtained rom tourism sector associations and through consultation with tour operators.This data will be important to transmit to key stakeholders through the communications strategydiscussed later.

23


23/44

Th


ilityforTourismw

ithinPr

otectedAreas

3

Identifying and securing funding sources

The third component in assessing the nancial sustainability and value o tourism in protected

areas is to identiy unding sources, which should be done by managers in a rapid response modeor in longer-term planning. Funding or capital investments and the projected increased operatingcosts will oten need to be sourced in two ways. The costs o implementing the threshold ofsustainabilitycannot typically be covered rom the outset by revenues such as tourism ees.Instead, nding a source o investment or the initial start-up costs may be necessary. Sometimesprotected area systems can supplement their unds by accessing multilateral loans, grantsor donations (e.g., through GEF implementing agencies such as the World Bank or UNDP) .In other cases, bilateral sources may be available such as through USAID or GTZ, or even throughinternational NGOs such as TNC or WWF. Where protected area agencies can make the case orincreased investments, these unds may also be secured through national loans.

Investors and donors are unlikely to und a proposal unless the protected area system candemonstrate a commitment and capacity to at least cover its own operating costs. For that reason,a protected area system can increase its chances o successully undraising or externally sourcedstart-up capital by presenting a proposal that includes a careully developed plan to accruesel-generating income rom a variety o tourism-based revenues mechanisms. This is a criticalconcept or protected area system managers to understand, as the ability to segregate costs in thismanner increases chances o successully undraising or any externally sourced start-up capital.

There are many nance mechanisms available to protected area managers that are widelyused around the world (Drumm et al., 2004). Two o the most useul are entrance ees and touroperator annual operating permits. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs,these mechanisms provide an important means o maintaining control o visitor numbers andexercising control over tour operators.

Concession-based revenues rom hotels, restaurants and other services can also be signicantsources o revenue, but protected area managers and administrators should avoid creatinga dependency on revenue rom these complementary opportunities by making them part o thecore unding o operating cost budgets. As described in the section on concessions below,it is recommended that tourism concessions be treated separately rom revenue mechanisms(such as user ees and entrance ees) aimed at covering operating costs.I entrance ees are an important strategy, the park managers and administrators will need todetermine the appropriate level o entrance ees. In many developing countries, internationallysignicant protected areas with major tourist attractions charge very low entrance ees. This is otenthe case even when there are comparatively wealthy oreign visitors, the parks are ailing to coverbasic costs, and the visitors themselves are prepared to pay more. As a consequence, taxpayersrom developing countries are inadvertently subsidizing wealthy oreign visitors who visit their parks.

This situation occurs because protected area managers oten do not clearly understand thereal costs o tourism management, and because tour operators oten resist ee increases. Touroperator reticence is oten due to skepticism as to whether the increased prices will result inimproved conditions or their clients and because they ear higher prices will negatively impactdemand. These ears can be addressed by ensuring that there is reinvestment in the protectedareas that generate these ees and transparency in the management o these revenues, as well


24/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

24

as by pointing to the growing evidence that increased park ees do not negatively aect demand,but rather increase it (Drumm, 2003; Thome, 2010).

In other cases, park agencies choose to charge the same ees to oreign visitors as national citizens Peru and Ecuador, or example, lose millions o dollars o potential revenue every year becauseo this choice. Many developing country parks are more heavily visited by tourists rom developedcountries than by nationals. Yet nationals contribute through their income and other taxes tomaintain the park system, whereas oreigners do not. For reasons o equity it may be moreappropriate to charge dierential ees, with oreigners paying more than nationals. At the same timeoreign visitors are typically willing to pay more than nationals; indeed their motivation or makingthe expensive international journey to the host country is oten to visit a particular protected area.

A good reerence point or identiying appropriate entrance ees is to examine what otherprotected areas are charging in other countries. Another is to learn what visitors are actuallyprepared to pay. This can be ascertained by including questions in visitor surveys conductedas part o the initial economic evaluation. The same survey can be used to gather data thatwould predict how visitors would respond to a range o pricing scenarios (see Drumm et al.,2007 or three examples). In this way it is possible to generate inormation that can provide astrong technical basis or making a management decision to increase ee levels, which can be

extremely valuable when conronting the political challenges o increasing park entrance ees.

The gure shows the results o such a survey in a classic curve that shows that the vast majority ovisitors are willing to pay small and moderate increases, and that declining numbers are preparedto pay signicant increases.

With these data it is possible to project the nancial impact o small, moderate and largeincreases in entrance ees, in order to provide a range o options or decision makers.

Managing tour operators also results in work and costs or protected area managers. A licenseee system will enable managers to generate revenue, while also exercising more control overthese business users by making their access to the protected area subject to an annual review

100

80

60

40

20

0

9694 86 88

80

67

56

27

2 5 7 10 15 20 30 50

proposed increment in tariff in $US

%o

fmarketretention

From Len et al., 2009

25


25/44

TheThresholdofSustainab

ilityforTourismw

ithinPr

otectedAreas

and approval process. I demand rom tour operators exceeds the parks capacity to managetourism sustainably, then tour operators may bid or compete or a license.

As part o identiying revenue sources, park managers and administrators may also seecomplementary opportunities to create new mechanisms or generating unding rom tourism.There are two major types o tourism-based complementary opportunity or generating additionalrevenue or PA management: tourism concessions and visitor donations.

TourISm conceSSIonS

In many protected areas around the world, there are opportunities to develop tourism that canbenet protected areas, local communities and businesses that have not been developed, oten

because o a lack o management capacity. Establishing the threshold o sustainability creates theenabling environment or these opportunities to be properly evaluated and developed. These maybe opportunities or activities such as biking, hiking, boating, etc. which can be managed throughpermits or through concessions.Tourism acilities such as hotels, restaurants, ski areas, shops and businesses have developed withinpark boundaries as concessions. In many cases, these acilities have become problems or protectedarea management by exerting pressure on conservation objectives, by limiting the types o actions

protected area managers can take, and by creating a nancial dependency on the tourism acilities.In some cases, short-term interests o tourism businesses are allowed to prevail over the long-terminterests o conservation. While tourism concessions within protected areas can be excellentopportunities or visitors, local communities, tourism businesses and protected areas, it isimportant that they are guided by a long-term vision o conservation management interests, andare subject to planning and administrative procedures that result in concessions complementingprotected area budgets rather than replacing them or becoming integral to them. Thereore, while

concession opportunities may be identied during the process o developing sustainable nancemechanisms, exploration o their potential and subsequent business planning should take placeater the threshold of sustainabilityhas been established.

VISITor DonATIonS

Another complementary opportunity or generating revenues rom tourism or protected areas is thecreation o mechanisms and unds to capture donations rom visitors who wish to contribute morethan the entrance ee. In Mexico, or example, tour operators collect donations rom their clients

or investment in the conservation o the areas they have visited (Drumm, 2003). This money ischanneled through a und managed by a local NGO and a board made up o park managers andtour operators. Similarly, a small number o cruise ship companies in the Galapagos have generatedmillions o dollars in the space o a ew years by actively soliciting donations rom their clients orprotected area conservation (Honey, 2008).

At the conclusion o this step, protected area managers addressing rapid response situations willunderstand the nancial gap between current spending and the basic level o unding required.

In addition, they may have taken steps to understand what users are willing to pay, and the rangeo potential unding mechanisms available, and be prepared to propose increases in the tourismmanagement budget to decision makers.


26/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

26

The broader enabling environment, including legal, regulatory, administrative and institutionalrameworks, has a bearing on the eectiveness o tourism management in protected areas.This section explores how protected area managers and administrators can assess the broaderenabling environment in order to take advantages o opportunities, minimize threats, andachieve the threshold of sustainabilitywithin protected areas. Even managers working in therapid-response mode should be aware o the current enabling environment as context ornancing targeted actions. Those implementing a long-term strategy to increase revenuesrom tourism and unding or protected area management should engage in a more thoroughreview o the enabling environment.

Legal review

From an early stage it is necessary to work closely with protected area legal advisors and external

legal specialists in order to review and amend proposals. It is possible that legal and regulatorychanges will be needed when proposing changes in how revenues are raised, managed andreinvested. New laws may be required to allow such arrangements.

Administrative review

A widespread administrative barrier to achieving nancial sustainability, and thereore achievingthe threshold o sustainability, is a situation where tourism ees fow directly to a centrally

managed account that is unrelated to the protected area that generated it, or is even whollyindependent o the protected area system. Unless there is a clear relationship between therevenues that are generated by an area and the reinvestment in bolstering managementbudgets and capacity, the incentive or park sta to generate the revenue is lost.

step 4:

assessing the broaderenabling environment

27


27/44


ilityforTourismw

ithinPr

otectedAreas

New administrative mechanisms may be needed in order to have better transparency andaccountability in how unds are raised and distributed. Thereore, part o the data-gatheringand administrative review process will require mapping the fow o tourism revenue through

the nancial and administrative system, in order to enable an analysis o how adjustments inthat fow can be made particularly to acilitate reinvestment o adequate unds to reach thethreshold of sustainabilityin a particular protected area.

Policy and sectoral review

In many cases, existing policies both within the protected areas and across various sectors mayneed to be revised in order to achieve the threshold of sustainability.For example, policies related to tourism concessions and tour operators are likely to have directimpacts on the ability o protected area managers to charge ees. Policies related to protectedarea stang can aect whether the protected area has the capacity to reduce tourism impactsbelow the threshold of sustainability. Policies related to other sectors, such as orestry practiceson adjacent lands, can also have an impact on visitor experiences.

At the end o this step, mangers acing critical tourism related threats will have an idea o howthe existing policy environment will support immediate, new actions. In the long-term context,they will have claried the legal context or action what policies, laws and regulations supportaction and which need to be modied or created. They will have a clear understanding o whatadministrative changes are needed in the collection and management o tourism revenues.


28/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

28

Too oten, excellent technical proposals ail to be implemented because o inadequatecommunications and marketing o important strategies to key internal and external audiences.In this case, a communications strategy is an integral component in achieving the threshold ofsustainability. Ideally, a communications specialist rom within the protected area system can beassigned to this task. Alternatively, an outside specialist can provide necessary proessional supportin this area to advise or oversee this complex and ongoing process with key but diverse audiences.

Note that at the outset o implementing the ramework, it is important to gain support or theprocess rom the tourism sector, rom protected area sta, and rom key decision makers andother stakeholders. This typically requires meeting with or convening groups o these importantstakeholders to present the initial research proposal in an interactive environment, discussingit, and soliciting input to test assumptions and improve methods. An additional reason to engagewith the tourism sector early on in the process is that their support can oten be instrumentalin conducting visitor surveys and in providing inormation about visitor preerences. Asimplementation o the ramework proceeds, it is important to create a specic communicationsstrategy or approaching and recruiting pivotal decision makers and other stakeholders.

Establishing clear lines o communication early in the process helps to create a shared sense oresponsibility and accomplishment, and provides a solid basis or continuing collaboration romoverstretched administrators. It is also important to maintain communication with representativeso the tourism sector, as they will need to be convinced o the advantages o increasing protectedarea entrance and permit ees.

step 5:

develop and implement acommunications strategy

29


29/44


ilityforTourismw

ithinPr

otectedAreas

Using a communications strategy to gain support rom the tourism sector can also producepolitical dividends. They can use their infuence with nance and related ministries to garner more

widespread support or achieving the threshold of sustainability. Communicating with the FinanceMinistry is also an important strategy or ostering their support o policy proposals to strengthenprotected areas in order to maintain and boost tourist spending in the country.

Throughout the process, use o high-quality graphics and compelling visuals to display economicdata, photos to illustrate visitor impacts and inrastructure, and maps to help audiences understandthe geographical context o issues and proposals are all very important elements in preparing asuccessul proposal. It is remarkable how oten tourism planning in protected areas takes place

without good maps showing public use zones, visitor sites, trails, inrastructure, attractions andlocal communities. The investment made in producing these will be doubly benecial as they willalso be important tools in the tourism management planning process that will ollow.

At each stage o the process, the protected area manager will have identied one or more criticalaudiences, and will have developed a communications plan ormally or inormally to reachthose audiences with a specic message. The communications plan will have been tested withimportant audiences, and will enjoy a level o support necessary or success in lobbying key

audiences or change. By the time Step 5 is completed, a ormal, writ ten communications planidentiying and addressing key audiences should have been developed.


30/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

30

Ideally, the threshold o sustainability ramework would inorm tourism management planningprocesses beforetourism threats become critical. However, it has been designed as a responseto a crisis o tourism impact, as revealed by monitoring or casual observation. It may be thatanecdotally, the protected area manager nds the number o complaints rom visitors or touroperators has reached disturbingly high levels, or that revenues rom tourism have begun to showa marked decline. It may be when sightings o charismatic wildlie species have notably declined, orwhen sh die o in a lake because o high levels o untreated sewage. Or it could be when a parkranger is injured rom ghting res caused by careless tourists. All o these circumstances wouldindicate that the situation has already deteriorated signicantly and an intervention is merited.

Another opportunity to implement the threshold o sustainability is when a new tourism threat isanticipated, as when a new hotel is proposed near the park boundary, or an access road is beingpaved or the rst time, or when the exchange rate o the local currency has declined signicantlyagainst that o neighboring countries or countries that are major sources o tourists. By anticipatingan increased tourism demand, and applying the threshold of sustainability, it may be possible toact beforethreats become critical.

Whether implementing the threshold of sustainabilityapproach as a rapid response or as part oa longer-term strategy or nancing tourism management, once the decision is made to achievethe threshold of sustainability, the next step is deciding when and how to allocate initial unds.Having identied critical threats and key management weaknesses, and having evaluated arange o strategies to address them, a protected area manager has the opportunity to reallocateresources rom within existing budgets, to the extent possible, to reach the threshold ofsustainability. However, it is quite possible, and even likely, that reallocation within existing budgets

step 6:

implement actions and monitor results

s

31


31/44

T

heThresholdofSustainabilityforTourismw

ithinProtectedAreas

will be insucient. In this case, it will be necessary to seek increased unding rom across theentire protected area system. I more than one area is experiencing a similar situation, it maybe worth preparing a multi-area proposal. In that scenario, the threshold of sustainabilitycan be

achieved with several or all o the protected areas working together collaboratively in a sharedprocess. There will likely be economies o scale rom taking a system-level or multi-area approachto implementation.

The budgets or protected area systems are typically underunded because o the generalunder-estimation o the cost o protected area management and the under-valuation o thecontribution o protected areas to the economy. This is where the economic valuation componentplays such an important role. Credible nancial data on current and projected costs and revenues

can be tremendously persuasive to donors and decision makers. Early unding or this componentand other start-up costs is critical.

Funding will be needed or those start-up costs that target the installation o urgent inrastructure,additional protected area sta, training programs and equipment to implement the selectedstrategies. There may be an additional need or an economics and nance specialist, acommunications specialist, and a legal specialist to prepare the broader proposal or achievingthe threshold of sustainability.

Sometimes unding may come sooner or the economic valuation than or urgent actions to addresscritical threats. It may be that unding or the protected area investments will not be orthcominguntil ater decision makers have been convinced by the nancial proposal. However, this may bean opportunity to engage local and international NGOs and bilateral and multilateral institutionssuch as USAID, UNDP and others or assistance or early unding.


32/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

32

Establishing the capacity to monitor the impacts o tourism will be crucial to measuring andsustaining success. The monitoring program will begin by establishing a clear baseline againstwhich progress can be measured. Indicators should be directly related to the elements o the

threshold o sustainability. For example, i there is a particular threat that has been identiedas one o the leading causes or decreased visitor satisaction, it would make sense to includeindicators that target the status o that threat.

The overall timeline rom start to nish o implementing the threshold of sustainabilityrameworkwill vary rom country to country and protected area to protected area. However, the advantage othis approach is that it is not as burdensome as the process o developing a tourism managementplan, and thereore should take much less time. The threshold of sustainabilityapproach may

take as long as two years to complete, depending on the enabling conditions present. As a rapidresponse, managers can proceed rom threats analysis to implementation o rst actions in lessthan 3 months; rapid response steps are indicated with an asterisk, below.

PhASe 1

Identifythreatenednaturalcapital,andevaluatecriticalthreatsandkeymanagement weaknesses (1-2 weeks)*

Identifypotentialstrategies,understandthegapbetweenexistingandrequiredfunds,

identiy possible unding sources, and developing budgets (2 weeks)* Inemergencysituations,implementstrategiesandmonitorresults(variablelengthdepending on threats)*

Assesstheeconomicvalueofprotectedareas(4-6months) Assessthebroaderenablingenvironment(3-4weeks)*

Holdconsultativeworkshopsandpreparingcommunicationmaterials(4-6weeks) Prepareaproposal(3-4weeks)

PhASe 2: Developinfrastructure,hiringandtrainingofstaff,andimplementingactions

and new strategies (6-9 months)

PhASe 3:

Introducenewtourismrevenuegenerationmechanisms(forexample,userandentrance ees) and administrative structures (1 year rom initiating Phase 2)

PhASe 4: WhenPhase3isupandrunninginyear2,turnfocustothedevelopmentof

complementary opportunities (such as concessions) and continue with long-termtourism management planning.

as

33


33/44

T


ithinProtectedArea

Applying the threshold of sustainabilityapproach to managing tourism is a concerted, ocused,short-term approach to addressing tourism-related impacts within protected areas. It is typicallymuch simpler and cheaper than a ull tourism management plan to develop and implement. For

many protected area managers and administrators who are eeling overwhelmed by the impactso tourism, this guide may oer one o the easiest and astest approaches to controlling thesituation, and to establishing a platorm or tourism to ulll its economic potential. The ollowingsection provides a brie overview o the some o the main lessons learned to date in implementingthe threshold of sustainabilityapproach.

1. TourISm IS A growIng ThreAT AnD A growIng economIc oPPorTunITy

Tourism is a clear and growing threat to the very biodiversity and other natural attractions

that bring people to protected areas in ever larger numbers. In many parts o the world, currenttourism management approaches are ailing to protect natural capital and deliver a consistent,durable experience to tourists. Protected areas and local people are losing economic opportunitiesrom tourism spending. The more we ail to address this situation proactively and creatively,the more limited the potential becomes or a countys natural capital to contribute to economicdevelopment. In study ater study, the economic value o protected area tourism is overwhelminglyclear it can be a signicant source o income or businesses, local communities and governments,as well as or protected areas. Conducting accurate nancial and economic analyses will help

convince decision makers that the initial investments required to secure the threshold osustainability are well worth the investment.

2. cAreully AnD cleArly IDenTIy crITIcAl ThreATS AnD mAnAgemenT

ISSueS AnD rooT cAuSeS when PoSSIbleManagers are oten conronted with symptoms o more undamental ailments, just as humansoten experience a headache that is caused by something more systemic. We can choose tosimply respond to the symptom, or we can address the cause o the symptom. In some situations,

dealing with the symptom may be an acceptable short term solution. Eventually, however, theundamental cause will need to be addressed. This Quick Guide is ocused primarily on theminimal necessary actions to deal with threats and risks. In most cases, the processes detailedhere ocus on symptoms. Long-term planning helps deal with root causes.3. chooSe The moST eIcIenT AnD eecTIVe STrATegIeS or chAnge

Any number o actions or strategies can be developed or a particular threat or managementweakness choosing the most eective and ecient strategy, however, can be challenging.

Planners should ocus on those ew strategies that will have the greatest infuence in convertinga vicious cycle into a virtuous cycle.

key lessons learned


34/44

A

QuickG


ractitioners

34

4. AcknowleDge ThAT There wIll AlwAyS be unAnTIcIPATeD conSequenceS

We never know or sure what will happen when a new management action is implemented. A newparking lot may shit use patterns in unexpected ways. A new pedestrian bridge may increase

use levels. Restrictions on tourism activities may lead to increasing use elsewhere. Consider thatsome interventions may not actually be successul or may shit the burden and costs to others.Managers should be prepared or these unexpected consequences, and monitor or them asmuch as possible. Also be aware that incrementaldecisions can result in gradual loss o naturalcapital and opportunities or quality visitor experiences. Weigh the consequences o incrementaldecisions prior to their implementation. Monitoring will help identiy them; an adaptivemanagement strategy will help respond to them.

5. InITIAl STArT-uP InVeSTmenTS Are AlmoST AlwAyS requIreDBecause the grip o a vicious cycle can be so strong, initial start-up investments are almost alwaysrequired in order to change the course o tourism management, and to ensure a solid basis orthe threshold of sustainability. Planners should treat start-up investments and ongoing operationalcosts as dierent elements o management.

6. communIcATe cleArly AnD eecTIVely wITh key STAkeholDerS

eArly In The ProceSS

Engaging protected area managers and administrative sta, as well as the tourism sector and keydecision makers early and eectively throughout the process can help in ensuring the strongsupport that will be required i nancial, legal and policy changes are to be made.

7. keeP ASSeSSmenTS SImPle AnD concISe

Economic studies do not need to be overly complex to be eective. Visitor surveys should be shortand ocused. Protected area managers should seek proessional assistance in the design andanalysis o data, and engage a local university to assist with the application o surveys in the eld.

8. buIlD rom exISTIng work

In many cases, there is already existing work that has been done on assessing threats andmanagement eectiveness, developing potential strategies, conducting willingness to paysurveys, and surveying visitor experiences. This work may have been through NGOs, citizengroups, universities, tourism operators, or the protected areas themselves.

eas

35


35/44

T


ithinProtectedAre

This study was led in 2007 by The Nature Conservancy, working with Conservation International,other local NGOs, the Ministry o Environment, and with nancial support rom the USAID/TNCParks in Peril program and the Alex C. Walker Foundation. Impetus or the study came rom adesire among local actors to increase revenues rom tourism or the management o a group oprotected areas constituting the Condor Bio-Reserve. An initial rapid threats analysis showedthat conservation objectives were already under pressure rom current levels o tourism due toinsucient capacity and unding or tourism management. They agreed to identiy actions toachieve the threshold of sustainabilityprior to investing in tourism promotion. In order to createa persuasive argument to decision makers or making adjustments in the revenue managementsystem, they conducted a study to demonstrate the economic value o protected area tourismscurrent and potential contribution to the economy.

To better understand the source o the threat and the potential economic opportunity, a demand

analysis was carried out at the seven protected areas that received 80% o the total visitors tomainland parks. The current level o investment in tourism management was also quantied.A demand analysis was also carried out at Galapagos National Park, which attracts most oreignvisitors, to identiy the potential market or mainland parks.

The study identied several recurring management weaknesses and key management strategiesacross all seven protected areas: impact monitoring and management; interpretation andinormation; security and basic inrastructure. They calculated the cost o implementing these

minimum, basic strategies to enable a comparison between current costs and the costs o attainingthe Threshold o Sustainability, suggesting that the annual budget increase rom $250k to $585k a daunting prospect or any protected area ministry.

case study:

ecuador


36/44

A

QuickG

uideforProtectedAreaPractitioners

36

The initial analyses also indicated that there was considerable opportunity to increase entry eesand also to develop complementary opportunities to increase protected area nancing.The economic valuation study showed that 95% o the protected area systems sel-generatedincome came rom tourism. However, revenue generation mechanisms were not priced in relation

to the actual costs o managing tourism, which were poorly understood. Re-investment o thisrevenue in protected area management bore no relation to revenue generated, nor to the actualunding required to cover tourism management costs. As a result, protected area managerswere unable to manage tourisms increasingly negative impacts adequately, and problems wereincreasing to such an extent that important habitat was being lost, and some protected areasta devoted most o their time to cleaning up ater tourists rather than to more importantconservation management priorities.

A contingent valuation (willingness to pay)study that was conducted as part o thedemand analysis (visitor survey) showedthat visitors were generally prepared to payhigher entrance ees, but that they also hadexpectations o resultant improvementsin services and acilities. The proposedinterventions to address threats and

management weaknesses would have theresult o improving the quality o the visitorexperience as well as creating conditionswhere higher ees could be charged.

Subsequent to the determination o corenancial needs to achieve the threshold osustainability, an evaluation o complementary

opportunities showed that conservatively anadditional $1.8million in tourism spendingcould be generated in ve years by acilitatingthe development o one basic tourism service

$700,000

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

0

$585,120.22$334,920.59

$250,199.63

2005

Gap

Threshold of Sustainability

Total current expenses (2005) andproposed expenditures (to meetthe threshold o sustainability)per year or all o the protectedarea sites in the study.

Seven protected areas within the study site.

eas

37


37/44

T

heThresholdofSustaina

bilityforTourismw

ithinP

rotectedAreper protected area, e.g., ood provision or accommodation. These would create new revenues or

local communities and tourism businesses as well as or the protected area.

The value o the initial capital investment required or the seven areas was $510,000. Fundingwas mobilized through the Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance (GSTA) and TNC to make therequired investments in improving basic inrastructure such as a ranger station in Chimborazoand a dock at Manglares Churute and in training sta. With support rom the USFS MigratoryBird Program, 36 managers o areas with important habitat or migratory birds were trained andguided in the implementation o the Limits o Acceptable Change methodology (Stankey et al.,1985). The training ocused on implementation while learning, generating considerable enthusiasmamong sta, and resulting in a rapid increase in condence and reduced impacts.

The process provided 15 recommendations to the Ministry o Environment, including or adjustment

o specic regulations in order to acilitate the changes required. As noted above, much o theinitial startup costs were covered and minimum investments in inrastructure, training, monitoringand interpretation were made, allowing the seven areas to mitigate existing tourism impacts.Unortunately, at the time o writing, the recommended changes to the revenue generationmechanisms have not yet been made, suggesting a role or a stronger communication strategy.However, there is much greater understanding o the value o the contribution o protectedareas to economic development. The investments made to improve tourism management capacityand reduce threats have been a notable contribution by the Ecuadorian protected area system

toward their CBD PoWPA objectives.

2. Defining the

required

management actions

1. Identifying key

issues within the

protected area

3. Developmentof indicators

4. Establishment

of standards

for each indicator

5. Monitoring of

conditions and

implementation

of actions

LIMITS OF

ACCEPTABLE

CHANGE

(LAC)

Simpliied Limits o Acceptable Change Methodology

d


38/44

A

QuickG

uideforProtectedAreaPractitioners

38

This study was led by TNC working closely with the Ministry o Environment and NaturalResources, with nancial support rom GSTA/USAID. Its objectives were to understand the revenuepotential o the protected area system (which the Ministry planned to expand) in order to improve

community benets and to better understand tourism management needs in support the DominicanGovernments commitment to implement the CBDs PoWPA. The initial report to identiy thethreshold of sustainabilityand the other pre-implementation phases took 6 months to researchand prepare and cost approximately US$50,000.

Each year, approximately 10% o Dominican Republics 4 million international tourists visit aprotected area. Demand rom Dominican tourists is very low in comparison. A large percentageo international tourists visit the protected areas as part o a program purchased through tour

operators. For example, day trips rom resort areas to Del Este NP account or the biggest visitornumbers to a protected area by ar.

Tourism Revenues

Virtually all sel-generated revenue or the protected area system comes rom tourism,principally park entrance ees. However, once collected, these revenues are transerred to

a central government account. The current level o investment in the protected areas isinsucient to maintain eective management. Consequently, the capacity o the protectedareas to continue generating the current level o revenues is compromised.

case study:

dominican republic

Total visitation in 4 areas

2000 - 2008

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Foreign visitors

National visitors

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2813 8731 5158 7308 3524 7949 7928 7951 7878

216,454

309,443

258,891

371,234

307,089

429,237448,440 453,202

386,863

reas

39

In 2007 the SINAP Budget was US$9 3 million O this about 90% was assigned to cover sta


39/44

T

heThresholdofSustaina

bilityforTourismw

ithinP

rotectedAIn 2007, the SINAP Budget was US$9.3 million. O this, about 90% was assigned to cover sta

salaries, whereas the amounts assigned to cover resource management, tourism management,monitoring and community relations was very low or zero (International Resources Group Ltd,2006). 80% o tourist demand is ocused on just our protected areas: Del Este NP, Los HaitisesNP, Valle Nuevo NP, and Estero Hondo Marine Sanctuary.

An economic valuation study (Izurieta et al., 2009) ound notable inconsistency in the collectionand presentation o inormation on visitor registration or some areas. This is a managementweakness that makes planning dicult. The lack o entrance ee dierentiation between oreignand national visitors also made understanding demand more dicult because it was unclearrom collected statistics i a vis

Threshold of Sustainability Tourism Eng Final

Documents

Transcript of Threshold of Sustainability Tourism Eng Final