TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS - Sustainable Tourism CRC

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS 

Hum Bahadur Gurung

Disclaimer 

ii 


The technical reports present data and its analysis, meta-studies and conceptual studies, and are considered to be 

of value to industry, government or other researchers. Unlike the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research 

Centre’s (STCRC’s) Monograph series, these reports have not been subjected to an external peer review process. 

As such, the scientific accuracy and merit of the research reported here is the responsibility of the authors, who 

should be contacted for clarification of any content. Author contact details are at the back of this report. The 

views and opinions of the authors expressed in the reports or by the authors if you contact them do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the STCRC. 

While all reasonable efforts have been made to gather the most current and appropriate information, the STCRC 

does not give any warranty as to the correctness, completeness or suitability of the information, and disclaims all 

responsibility for and shall in no event be liable for any errors or for any loss or damage that might be suffered as 

a consequence of any person acting or refraining from acting or otherwise relying on this information. 

We’d love to know what you think of our new research titles. If you have five minutes to spare, please visit our 

website or click on the link below to complete our online survey. 

STCRC Tech Report Feedback 

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Entry 

Author: Gurung, Hum Bahadur. 

Title: Trends in protected areas / Hum Bahadur Gurung. 

ISBN: 9781921785023 (pbk.), 9781921785528 (pdf) 

Subjects: Protected areas—Australia—Management. 

Biodiversity conservation—Australia. 

Ecotourism—Australia. 

Other Authors/Contributors: 

CRC for Sustainable Tourism. 

Dewey Number: 333.720994 

Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2010 

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted 

under the Copyright Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission 

from the publisher. Any enquiries should be directed to: 

General Manager, Communications and Industry Extension or Publishing Manager, info@crctourism.com.au 

First published in Australia in 2010 by CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 

Cover images courtesy of Tourism Australia, Tourism WA (Margaret River), Tourism NT and SATC 

Printed in Australia (Gold Coast, Queensland) 

Acknowledgements 

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), established and supported under the Australian 

Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program, funded this research. Thanks are extended to Professor 

David Simmons, Dr Patricia Geale and AJ Bromley from STCRC, and Professor Ralf Buckley, Associate 

Professor Catherine Pickering and Dr Guy Castley from Griffith School of Environment, for their assistance and 

constructive comments on the draft research project.


CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ___________________________________________________________ II 

SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________ V 

OBJECTIVES____________________________________________________________________ V 

METHODOLOGY ________________________________________________________________ V 

KEY FINDINGS__________________________________________________________________ V 

FUTURE ACTION ________________________________________________________________VI 

CHAPTER 1: INTERNATIONAL TRENDS__________________________________________ 1 

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS _______________________________________ 1 

PARADIGM SHIFT IN PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT__________________________________ 3 

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN PROTECTED AREA 

MANAGEMENT _________________________________________________________________ 5 

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREA GOVERNANCE __________________________________________ 5 

PROTECTED AREAS—TOURISM LINKAGES____________________________________________ 6 

TRENDS AFFECTING TOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS ___________________________________ 7 

EMERGING TREND OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN PROTECTED AREAS___________________________ 8 

CHAPTER 2: AUSTRALIAN TRENDS______________________________________________ 9 

TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA’S PROTECTED AREAS _________________________________________ 9 

VISITATION TRENDS IN AUSTRALIA’S PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________ 10 

EMERGING TREND OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN PROTECTED AREAS AND RECREATIONAL VALUES _13 

WORK DONE BY STCRC ON PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________________ 14 

Visitation management models and frameworks ____________________________________ 15 

Visitor impacts and sustainability _______________________________________________ 15 

Best practice benchmarks and sustainable marketing of tourism _______________________ 16 

Interpretation and education ___________________________________________________ 16 

CHAPTER 3: GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ____________________________________________ 17 

KNOWN AND UNKNOWN TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS________________________________ 17 

TRENDS IN VISITOR USE OF PROTECTED AREAS ______________________________________ 18 

VISITOR SATISFACTION AND HUMAN RESOURCES_____________________________________ 18 

TRENDS IN MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE _______________________________________ 19 

Shifting tourism market and immigration policy ____________________________________ 20 

Links of public private partnership in protected area tourism__________________________ 20 

BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES AND CLIMATE CONSEQUENCES _____________________________ 21 

RESEARCH OUTPUTS TO OUTCOMES _______________________________________________ 21 

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS____________________________________________________ 22 

REFERENCES _________________________________________________________________ 23 

AUTHOR ______________________________________________________________________ 28 

iii

iv 


List of Figures 

Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 ___________________________________ 2 

Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas ___________________________________ 3 

Box 3: Governance of protected areas _________________________________________________________ 6 

Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004)____________________________________ 7 

Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas __________________________________________________ 10 

Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends ________________________________________ 10 

Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism________________________________________________________ 12 

Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors ____________________________ 13 

List of Tables 

Table 1: A trend of the paradigm shifts in Protected Area Management adapted from Phillips (2003) _______ 4 

Table 2: Marine parks and protected areas, Australia and external territories __________________________ 9 

Table 3: Visitation to National Parks and Revenue Generated _____________________________________ 11 

Table 4: Numbers of Visitors to National Parks 1998–2002 _______________________________________ 11 

Table 5: Examples of STCRC research focused within protected areas in Australia _____________________ 14 

Table 6: ‘The IUCN protected area matrix’: a classification system for protected areas comprising both 

management category and governance type. ___________________________________________________ 20 

List of Boxes 

Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 ___________________________________ 2 

Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas ___________________________________ 3 

Box 3: Governance of protected areas _________________________________________________________ 6 

Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004)____________________________________ 7 

Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas __________________________________________________ 10 

Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends ________________________________________ 10 

Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism________________________________________________________ 12 

Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors ____________________________ 13 

List of Plates 

Plate 1: The average air temperature in Nepal has risen by one degree Celsius with elevation areas like Namche 

Bazaar (3440 metres) in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest National Park) warming the most since the mid 1970s due to 

climate change. ___________________________________________________________________________ 8


SUMMARY 

Objectives 

Three primary objectives drive this research project: 

• review literature on management and visitor trends in protected areas internationally 

• review the work done by STCRC in Australian protected areas 

• identify what is known about visitor trends in protected areas and what is not known. 

Methodology 

• This study relied mainly on secondary data sourced directly from previous research projects conducted by 

the STCRC in protected areas in Australia to review the management and visitor trends in national parks and 

other protected areas to review management practices, visitors, economic benefits, environmental impacts, 

education and interpretation and destinations marketing. 

• An extensive literature review on the evolution of, and paradigm shifts in, management of protected areas 

and trends in visitation of domestic and international tourists in protected areas internationally. 

• An expert consultation was conducted to identify the trends in protected areas in Australia and 

internationally. 

Key Findings 

Protected area agencies around the world have dual roles of ensuring the conservation of biodiversity and 

protection of natural and cultural heritage while providing opportunities for quality outdoor recreational 

experiences. Protected areas are major destinations for both domestic and international visitors for a wide range 

of tourism and recreational activities and play a crucial role in ensuring sustainability across the three primary 

sectors—environmental, socio-cultural and economic. Meeting this triple bottom line is the basis of sustainable 

human development. This has been demonstrated in many protected areas where biodiversity conservation has 

been ensured through the participation of multiple stakeholders, especially communities, private sector and Non- 

Governmental Organisations. 

Governance of protected areas worldwide influences the conservation objectives and visitation in national 

parks and other protected areas. Currently, four different types of governance influence conservation objectives 

in protected areas. The multiple roles of national parks and other protected areas agencies worldwide and in 

Australia are complicated because they are managed not by single central governments, but are the responsibility 

of individual state and territory governments. However, all have the same objective to conserve biodiversity and 

the primary focus of all agencies has been increasingly on delivering quality services to both domestic and 

international visitors. 

National parks and other protected areas exist within a dynamic social and political setting that is sometimes 

difficult to understand and challenging to predict. In view of the international trends in protected areas, 16 

important trends will influence the planning and management of national parks and other protected areas 

internationally in the 21 st century. Trends in visitation patterns in Australia and internationally is hampered by a 

lack of good quality time series visitor data in all protected areas. Unfortunately, very few national parks in 

Australia have an adequate level of detailed visitor data. At present, the extent to which visitor monitoring occurs 

in most parks is variable and is not a high priority for management agencies despite the availability of 

internationally well-tested visitor impact and monitoring tools, frameworks and processes. 

Park visitation data in Australia’s protected areas highlight variable trends. Over 84 million people visit 

protected areas each year contributing significantly to the $70 billion tourism industry. Approximately 1.4 

million international tourists visited protected areas in 2005–2006, where iconic sites such as Kakadu and Uluru- 

Kata Tjuta National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park stand out as key destinations. However, 

visitation to the Great Barrier Reef has been relatively stable over the past ten years, as has visitation to Kakadu 

which peaked in 1999 at 183 483 visitors and declined to 148 903 visitors in 2002. Contrastingly, visitation to 

Uluru-Kata Tjuta has nearly doubled in the past 14 years, from 175 000 visitors in 1987 to just fewer than 

400 000 visitors in 2002. A similar trend appeared in international visitation to Australian parks which declined 

from 49% in 1998 to 43% in 2002. However, identifying visitation trends in Australia’s protected areas is 

v

vi 


problematical because there is no consistent system for collecting or analysing data or for gathering information 

on the revenue generation of visitation. 

The emerging trend of climate change internationally has threatened mountain tourism in recent years. The 

use of resorts in mountainous national parks for adventure tourism and skiing is changing due to shorter and 

unpredictable winter snow falls and longer summers. Nevertheless, national parks and other protected areas 

present a best option for retaining natural ecosystem resilience, reducing threats, and protecting refuges and other 

critical habitats for wildlife to adapt to climate change. 

Future Action 

This report concludes that there are no systematic and consistent methods and processes to measure the visitation 

trends in protected areas internationally and in Australia. A number of recommendations are therefore proposed. 

• A worldwide database to measure visitation trends in protected areas should be developed to inform policy 

makers and protected area management agencies globally because a lot of these ‘trends’ are not currently 

being monitored at a global level by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) or World 

Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). 

• A review of the current practice of information collection, analysis, publication and dissemination 

mechanisms of protected areas and tourism management agencies across Australia is essential for 

development of megatrends in visitor use of national parks and protected areas in Australia. It is imperative 

to develop a comprehensive, nationally consistent system for measuring the condition and trends with 

particular reference to how many visitors there are, which areas do they visit, and what activities are they 

engaged with in both terrestrial and marine parks. 

• The close relationship between tourism marketing and immigration in Australia is not a particularly wellresearched 

area in the tourism industry. Information on the emergence of new tourism markets and 

increasingly diversified products to cater for emerging markets should be developed. 

• Both domestic and international visitors are concentrated in iconic protected areas in Australia. Additional 

research is needed to determine their carrying capacity and the required financial and human resources to 

cope with the increasing demands on parks services and recreational activities. 

• Understanding visitor demand for parks and protected areas should be the focus of future systematic and 

strategic studies in collaboration with protected area management agencies, the tourism industry and 

STCRC to transfer research outputs into outcomes of economic, environmental and social benefit to 

Australia. 

• There is a need to identify best practices of sustainably managed tourism destinations in Australia and 

worldwide to learn from the best practices in protected area tourism.


Chapter 1 

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS 

International Trends in Protected Areas 

Protected areas are earth’s unique terrestrial and marine places devoted to biodiversity conservation and 

sustainable development. Biodiversity conservation in protected areas is not a new, but evolving concept. The 

idea of protecting natural or semi-natural areas dates back thousands of years where areas were set aside mainly 

as hunting reserves (Wright & Mattson 1996; Mulongoy & Chape 2004). However, McNeely (2005, p. 3) argues 

that ‘the fundamental point is that protected areas are not “set aside”, but rather are designated to provide or 

support a wide range of ecosystem services that benefit various interest groups’. Furthermore, protected areas 

have social, cultural and religious values particularly in indigenous societies. In many indigenous communities, 

many places were protected because they were considered as homes of gods, resting places for the dead or places 

for religious, spiritual and sacred sites (Mulongoy & Chape 2004; Gokhale 2005; McNeely 2005). It was only in 

the latter half of the 19 th century that nature conservation or protection without hunting or for aesthetic values 

was recognised. 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has defined a protected area as ‘an area of land and/or sea 

especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and 

managed through legal or other effective means’ (IUCN, 1994 p.7). The term ‘national park’ was first used in 

1872 when the Yellowstone National Park was established in the United States and is seen as the start of the 

modern concept of protected area management in the world (Wright & Mattson 1996). Inspired by the 

establishment of the Yellowstone National Park, many other countries started protecting sites such as Royal 

National Park in Australia in 1879, Banff National Park in Canada in 1885, Tongariro National Park in New 

Zealand in 1887, Udjun Kulon National Park in Indonesia in 1915, Virunga National Park in Zaire in 1925 and 

Kruger National Park in South Africa in 1926 (Stevens 1997; Mulongoy & Chape 2004). In the decades that 

followed, what had started as a trickle rapidly became a ‘flood’ as new protected areas were established in 

numerous countries around the world; such that today more than 113 000 protected areas covering over 12 per 

cent of the earth’s terrestrial habitats have been established (Steiner 2003; Mulongoy & Chape 2004; Worboys 

2007b) (Figure 1). 

1

2 


Figure 1: International trends in establishment of protected areas 1872–2006 

The IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has proposed six categories of Protected 

Areas (Box 1). Trends in biodiversity conservation and protected area management is changing significantly 

influenced by global political economies, economic development and community empowerment (Buscher & 

Whande 2007). Co-management or collaborative management (McNeely et al. 1990; Reid et al. 2004; Borrini- 

Feyerabend 2006; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2006; Schumann 2007) is widely discussed in recent protected area 

management literature. 

Box 1: The PA categories system advocated by IUCN since 1994 

Areas managed mainly for: 

Category I: Strict protection—i.e. 1a) Strict Nature Reserve, and 1b) Wilderness Area 

Category II: Ecosystem conservation and protection—i.e. National Park 

Category III: Conservation of natural features—i.e. Natural Monument 

Category IV: Conservation through active management—i.e. Habitat/Species Management Area 

Category V: Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation—i.e. Protected Landscape/Seascape 

Category VI: Sustainable use of natural resources—i.e. Managed Resource Protected Area 

Source: Phillips (2004) 

As the number of protected areas increased the conventional views of securing bastions of protection shifted 

profoundly, with important implications for both conservation and development. Much of the rhetoric on the 

fringes of mainstream development theory in the late 1970s and early 1980s, such as appropriate and small-scale 

technologies, local empowerment, popular participation, democratisation, and devolution of power, moved to 

centre stage (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). These theories have influenced the conservation and development 

processes since the 1980s exemplified by the emergence of integrated conservation and development projects 

(ICDPs). The popular use of ICDPs has been applied to a diverse range of initiatives ranging from those with a 

common goal of linking biodiversity conservation and tourism across protected areas to those linking socioeconomic 

development (Barrett & Arcese 1995; Johannesen 2004). In practice, ICDPs usually target both the 

protected areas and local communities to reduce pressure on natural habitats and resources (MacKinnon 2001).


The linkages established between conservation and community development were an innovative approach to find 

new solutions to the persistent problem of park/people conflicts. 

Paradigm Shift in Protected Area Management 

Blaikie and Jeanrenaud (1997) have concluded from an extensive review of the current approaches to 

biodiversity conservation and protected area management that three distinct intellectual paradigms are currently 

practised worldwide. The classic/authoritarian, the neo-populist and the new liberal approaches are said to have 

had a profound influence on both international conservation and development discourses, and on the actual 

policies in different countries (Vihemaki 2003). While the classical ‘top-down’ approach was popular during the 

beginning of the conservation movement, worldwide the ‘bottom-up’ neo-populist strategy is regarded as a 

participatory or community-based approach to conservation and protected areas management which is pro people 

(Geoghegan & Renard 2002; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; Nepal 2005). 

The liberal paradigm has emerged in recent years to address the public-private partnership in protected area 

management which is gaining increasing momentum as an alternative strategy to expand conservation networks 

(Muir-Leresche & Nelson 2000; Roper 2000; Reid et al. 2004; Ipara et al. 2005). The paradigm shift away from 

exclusive or classic biodiversity conservation approaches to the neo-populist and liberal approaches has become 

a popular strategy since the 1980s in the light of contemporary social perspectives (Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997; 

Jeanrenaud 2002). This has resulted in an increasing number of community-based approaches to protected areas 

management in recent years (Murphree 1994; Kellert et al. 2000; Müller-Böker & Kollmair 2000; Mugisha 

2002; Mogelgaard 2003; Pathak et al. 2004; e.g. Bajracharya et al. 2006). 

The paradigm shift (Box 2) is the outcome of more than three decades of interaction between parks and 

people, including indigenous communities around the protected areas, globally and is supported by other studies 

demonstrating that local communities have the capacity to develop ingenious social and cultural mechanisms 

that foster sustainable use and mediate environmental impacts (Stevens 1997). Conservation seems more likely 

to be effective when protected areas are partnerships in which local communities and indigenous peoples share 

responsibility and where resource management reflects appreciation of the importance of local knowledge, 

values, and conservation practices and supports, maintains, and builds on these through dialogue rather than 

coercion (Stevens 1997, Ipara et al. 2005). 

Box 2: The Durban Accord—a new paradigm for protected areas 

In this changing world, we need a fresh and innovative approach to protected areas and their role in broader 

conservation and development agendas. This approach demands maintenance and enhancement of our core 

conservation goals, equitably integrating them with the interests of all affected people. In this way the synergy 

between conservation, the maintenance of life support systems and sustainable development is forged. We see 

protected areas as vital means to achieve this synergy efficiently and cost-effectively. We see protected areas 

as providers of benefits beyond boundaries—beyond their boundaries on a map, beyond the boundaries of 

nation-states, across societies, genders and generations. 

Source: (www.iucn.org/wpc 2003) 

The new conservation thinking and reconceptulisation of conservation are based on ideas of sustainable 

development, poverty reduction, utilisation and ecological dynamics (Brown 2003; Hazlewood et al. 2004; 

Lockwood & Kothari 2006). However, the complementarities and conflicts between environmental sustainability 

and human development continue to be the subject of heated academic and policy debates (Fabricius et al. 2001; 

Brown 2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005). Phillips (2004) has succinctly compared the past and current trends 

(Table 1). 

3

4 


Table 1: A trend of the paradigm shifts in protected area management adapted from Phillips (2003) 

As it was—protected areas were: 

Objective Established mainly for spectacular wildlife 

and/or scenic landscape protection 

Managed mainly for visitors and tourists 

Valued as wilderness 

As it is becoming—protected areas are: 

Often set up for scenic, economic, and 

cultural reasons 

Managed with local people in mind 

Valued for the cultural importance of 

so-called wilderness 

About protection 

Also about restoration and rehabilitation 

Governance Run by central government Run by many partners 

Local People Planned and managed without regard to local Run with, for, and in some cases by local 

opinions 

people 

Wider 

Context 

Managed to meed the needs of people 

Developed separately managed as ‘islands’ Planned as part of national, regional, and 

international systems 

Perceptions Viewed primarily as a national asset 

Management 

Techniques 

Viewed only as a national concern 

Managed reactively within short timescale 

Developed as ‘networks’ (strictly 

protected areas, buffered and linked by 

green corridors) 

Viewed also as a community asset 

Viewed also as an international concern 

Managed adaptatively in long-term 

perspective 

Managed in a technocratic way 

Managed with political considerations 

Finance Paid for by taxpayer Paid for from many sources 

Management Managed by scientists and natural resource Managed by multi-skilled individuals 

Skills experts 

Expert-led 

Drawing on local knowledge 

The challenge to meet both conservation and development goals requires pro-people conservation initiatives 

since they are mutually interdependent (Jeanrenaud 2002) and this has supported the paradigm shift in the 

management of protected areas worldwide. People-oriented conservation projects have greater potential to 

reconcile biodiversity conservation interests with local communities’ livelihood needs if they are implemented 

holistically and in an integrated manner with a high level of transparency (Gurung 2006). Recent conservation 

approaches have focused on local participation and development as a means to establish community support, 

while still addressing the immediate need to curb ongoing species extinction and the shortcomings of the classic 

park model (Newmark & Hough 2000 in Spiteri & Nepal 2006). Participatory governance systems that embrace 

multiple stakeholder engagement in protected area management systems have been one of the most important 

developments in the toolbox of sustainable living as this adopts a balanced approach to strengthening a nation’s 

network of protected areas (McNeely et al. 2005). 

Habitat fragmentation and degradation present significant barriers to wildlife species that need to move to 

new habitats (Taylor & Figgis 2007). The recent trend of protected area networks worldwide is connectivity 

conservation, linking existing national parks into a landscape-scale mosaic of conservation areas and corridors 

(Buckley et al. 2007). For example, the most notable policy formulation in recent years in Nepal has been based 

on building up regional cooperation and promoting ecoregional conservation through the creation of a single 

functioning landscape through the restoration and maintenance of forest corridors that will provide linkages to 

protected areas in Nepal and its neighbouring countries India and China (NPC & MOPE 2003; WWF 2003). No 

system of protected area can achieve its full potential if protected areas become isolated fragments surrounded 

by incompatible land uses (Sandwith & Lockwood 2006).


Sustainability and the Role of Indigenous Communities in Protected Area 

Management 

The role of protected areas in protecting biodiversity and achieving simultaneous sustainable economic and 

social outcomes has been recognised in recent years. Sustainability science has emerged as a growing academic 

discipline since the globally accepted definition of sustainable development was coined as ‘development that 

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ 

(WCED 1987). Protected areas play a crucial role in ensuring sustainability across three primary sectors - 

environmental, socio-cultural and economic. Meeting this triple bottom line is the basis of sustainable human 

development (HMG/NPC & UNDP 2005). This has been demonstrated in many protected areas where 

biodiversity conservation has been ensured through the participation of multiple stakeholders, especially 

communities and NGOs. 

Indigenous people and their communities have vital roles in protected area management as they have 

traditional holistic resource management systems (Collins 2001). Howitt et al. (1996, p. 19) have argued that ‘it 

is increasingly imperative, in terms of social justice, equity, international legal standards, cultural diversity and 

ecological sustainability, that indigenous and tribal peoples have opportunities to at least influence, if not 

control, the resource management systems that affect their lives and traditional territories’. Local communities 

have traditionally embedded conservation principles as part of their indigenous environmental knowledge (Hunn 

2006). Furthermore, cultural and religious values and beliefs are regarded as important elements of the 

conservation process (West & Brockington 2006). Thus, there is a need for greater understanding of cultural and 

religious values as well as their contribution in protected area management (Macdonald 2004). Cultural and 

religious values have also strong link to sustainable community development (Macleod & Gurung 1997). Any 

understanding of the relationship between culture and conservation must begin from an appreciation of the ways 

in which systems of beliefs and values are derived through experience (Macdonald 2004). 

Conservation is concerned about maintenance and sustainability of the natural environment, however, many 

local communities who live in the rural areas of developing countries have suffered from the establishment of 

protected areas (Ghimire & Pimbert 1997). However, it is argued that conservation is able to respond to the 

social needs of people while maintaining ecological harmony, and is entirely compatible with the growing 

demand for ‘people-centred’ development that achieves a wider distribution of benefits to entire populations 

(IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980). This proposition has been supported by researchers (e.g. Sharma & Wells 1996; 

Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997; Jeanrenaud 2002) who recognise that the synergy between biodiversity conservation 

and human welfare is unproblematic. The mission of protected areas, particularly in developing countries, has 

expanded from biodiversity conservation to improving human welfare over the past thirty years (Naughton- 

Treves et al. 2005). The conservation discourse at the local level has proven that human welfare can be 

addressed by adopting decentralised, flexible and locally negotiated programmes (Blaikie & Jeanrenaud 1997). 

The debate surrounding poverty, livelihoods, environment and conservation draws mainly on local case 

studies, particularly on the impacts to protected areas (Lobe 2005; Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006; Weber 2006; 

Upton et al. 2008). Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation are fundamental goals and are part of the 

policy agenda of many international agencies and conservation authorities to make conventional protected areas 

relevant to first and third world countries (Agrawal & Redford 2006). Previous studies (Mishra 1982; McLean 

1999; Müller-Böker 2000; Straede & Helles 2000; McLean & Straede 2003; Castley et al. in press-c) have 

outlined solutions to the potentially contradictory concepts of biodiversity conservation and socio-economic 

development as well as the strategies to resolve parks and people conflict in protected areas. While such studies 

are useful to draw the attention of park authorities, the social processes that make conservation efforts ‘work’ 

have often been overlooked. Innovative strategies to meeting biodiversity conservation and socio-economic 

objectives are therefore crucial to maintain both social and environmental sustainability (Castley et al. in pressb). 

Traditional fortress conservation, or ‘fences and fines’, approaches to protected area management are 

frequently ineffective in achieving both conservation objectives, and sustainable community development goals 

(Barrett & Arcese 1995; Brown et al. 2002). 

Trends in Protected Area Governance 

Governance exerts a major influence on the achievements of management objectives, effectiveness, equity and 

sustainability of protected areas. The IUCN/WCPA (2003) recognises at least four broad governance models 

applicable to all IUCN protected area categories (Box 3). 

5

6 

Box 3: Governance of protected areas 


IUCN recognises four broad types of governance of protected areas, any of which can be associated with any 

management objective: 

• governance by government 

• shared governance 

• private governance 

• governance by indigenous peoples and local communities. 

Participatory governance in developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia, has increasingly been 

promoted as providing varied approaches to protected area management including biodiversity conservation and 

poverty reduction (UNDP 2002). There is an emerging global trend that governments have entrusted the 

management/conservation of protected areas to the private sector and NGOs through a devolution of authority 

(Roper 2000; Secaira et al. 2005). This innovative and flexible approach to management has reduced the burden 

of governments investing limited resources to conservation (Plaut 2003). Over the past 30 years, African 

countries such as Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa have altered their legal frameworks to give full control 

over the use of wildlife to the private owners of the land on which the wildlife are located (Muir-Leresche & 

Nelson 2000). In South Africa, this has seen an increase in the establishment of private wildlife reserves through 

co-management for conservation and social objectives (Fay 2007; Lindsey et al. 2007). However, in many 

African countries (e.g. Kenya) wildlife conservation is still constrained by traditional top-down approaches and 

existing conservation laws and policies impact negatively on the communities’ indigenous rights as well as their 

participation in wildlife conservation (Ipara et al. 2005). 

The protected area management transition from centrally planned government management to active 

community participation started as a ‘fences and fines’ approach and gradually moved toward social 

conservation creating buffer zones which are largely designed to provide direct resource benefits to local 

communities around conservation areas (Heinen & Shrestha 2006). Local communities have been encouraged to 

participate in the management roles since the mid 1980s to bring a synergy between tourism, national parks and 

local communities (Nepal 2000). 

Protected Areas—Tourism Linkages 

Maintaining biodiversity and using protected areas as economic tools through recreation and tourism have 

proven particularly challenging. Two key areas require attention, firstly reconciling the needs and aspirations of 

local people with protected area management and secondly, reconciling the economic opportunities offered by 

nature tourism with their associated ecological threats (Wells & Sharma 1998, p. 226). Protected areas have high 

economic value and provide ecological services. However, identifying a protected area’s goods and services, 

determining who values those goods and services, and measuring these values is not always a straightforward 

process (WCPA/IUCN 1998). Protected areas provide a wide range of goods and services including recreation 

and tourism, biodiversity (forest, wildlife, non-timber forest products), water resources that are not always 

possible to measure in financial terms. However, the ‘user pays’ philosophy for use of protected area services 

has been increasingly applied in recent years (Fuest & Kolmar 2007). This could generate a significant financial 

capital to manage and maintain parks and other protected areas. 

There is a strong linkage between protected area management and tourism. Nature-based tourism has 

become increasingly significant not only protecting biodiversity but also generating financial capital from a 

range of services. Wearing and McDonald (2002) have emphasised that ecotourism appears to have global 

appeal as a means of securing sustainable income for many rural communities. It will also benefit protected areas 

and associated communities when meaningful participation and enterprise development is incorporated to secure 

their livelihoods (Goodwin & Roe 2001; IUCN 2003). Tourism in protected areas therefore offers significant 

opportunities to indigenous and local communities in the developing world acting as a useful tool to reduce 

poverty (Morris & Vathana 2003; Chok et al. 2007) while integrating conservation and development (Godde 

1989; Kollmair et al. 2005). For example, the lower Mekong region—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam 

(Carew-reid 2003), Annapurna region in Nepal (Pobocik & Butalla 1998; Nepal 2007) and Saint Katherine in 

Egypt (Grainger 2003) have some of the largest protected areas linked to sustainable tourism efforts and are 

recognised as regional engines for sustainable rural development.


Trends Affecting Tourism in Protected Areas 

Protected area management agencies are facing a number of issues in managing tourism and visitor use in 

national parks and reserves (Gilligan & Allen 2004). National parks and protected areas exist within a dynamic 

social and political setting that is sometimes difficult to understand and challenging to predict (Eagles 2004). In 

view of the international trends in protected areas, Eagles (2004) identified 16 important trends affecting tourism 

that will influence the planning and management of parks and protected areas internationally (Box 4). 

Trend 1: Park visitation will increase. 

Box 4: Trends affecting tourism in protected areas (Eagles 2004) 

Trend 2: Park tourism leads to increased public participation and collaboration. 

Trend 3: Increasing education levels in society lead to demands for increasing sophistication in park 

management and park services. 

Trend 4: A population shift in the developed world towards increasing numbers of older citizens results in 

significant change in activities, settings and experiences sought by visitors. 

Trend 5: Increased accessibility of information technology means that potential, current and past visitors 

will be better informed and knowledgeable about what leisure opportunities exist, the current state of 

management and the consequences of management actions. 

Trend 6: Increasing availability of information technology profoundly influences park visitation. 

Trend 7: Advances in the technology of travel and reductions in costs result in increased demand for park 

and protected area opportunities distant from one’s residence. 

Trend 8: The increase in park area, number of parks, and park visitation exceeds the capability of many park 

management institutions. 

Trend 9: Park management shifts gradually from government agency structures, with centralised financial 

control, to parastatal forms, with flexible financial management. 

Trend 10: Park management funding increasingly shifts from government grants to park tourism fees and 

charges. This results in higher levels of visitor focus in management. 

Trend 11: Parks and park agencies develop increased sophistication in their understanding and management 

of park visitation and tourism. 

Trend 12: Foreign aid and grants from NGOs increasingly fund biodiversity conservation and sustainable 

tourism development in developing nations in order to promote sustainable development that provides both 

conservation and economic benefit. 

Trend 13: Park tourism may be damaged by war and civil unrest, especially in Africa and parts of Asia. 

Trend 14: The world’s international travel will be strongly affected by decreasing supplies of oil and gas and 

large increases in energy cost in the second decade of the 21century. 

Trend 15: Global climate change will affect many parks and much park tourism. Global climate change will 

be one the most important environmental issues affecting parks and tourism in the 21 st century. 

Trend 16: Parks further develop as cultural icons. 

7

Emerging Trend of Climate Change in Protected Areas 

8 


Climate change will affect many aspects of the world’s biodiversity and ecosystems (see Trend 15 in Box 4). 

The emerging international trends reveal that warming of the climate system is now considered unequivocal, 

with observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and 

ice, and rising global mean sea level. Average global temperatures have increased 0.74°C over the last century 

(1906–2005) and consistent with global trends, average maximum temperature across Australia has increased 

0.6°C (Hyder Consulting 2008). The immediate impacts are seen in tourism and outdoor recreation activities 

particularly in mountainous regions. For example, Mt. Everest is reverting to a rocky mountain landscape as 

opposed to one characterised by snow capped peaks (Shahi 2008). According to a study carried out by the 

International Centre for Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the glacier cover in mountain regions worldwide has 

decreased significantly in recent years as a result of warming (Ibid). 

Snow-based tourism has been the principle activity and economic contributor in most alpine regions in 

Australia and internationally. However, more recently there is an increasing focus on summer tourism in these 

regions and the associated activities being undertaken. The weather is becoming increasingly unpredictable due 

to changes in climate bringing shorter winter periods with variable snowfalls and extended summer periods 

(Becken & Hay 2007). As a result snow-based tourism is in an extremely vulnerable position. Nonetheless, there 

are both risks and opportunities in mountain tourism due to the emerging changes in global climate. 

Recreational activities and visitation trend in protected areas will change significantly due to the unavoidable 

climate change. 

Plate 1: The average air temperature in Nepal has risen by one degree Celsius with elevation areas like 

Namche Bazaar (3440 metres) in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest National Park) warming the most since the mid 

1970s due to climate change.


Chapter 2 

AUSTRALIAN TRENDS 

Trends in Australia’s Protected Areas 

Australia is believed to be the most diverse of the 17 recognised mega diverse countries for vertebrates and the 

fifth most diverse for plants (Sattler & Taylor 2008). Australia is also the driest inhabited continent in the world. 

Recognising the need to protect and conserve the natural and cultural heritage, Australia set up a nationwide 

network of parks and reserves called the National Reserve System (DFAT 2008). At present the National 

Reserve System includes over 9000 parks and other protected areas both marine and terrestrial covering over 

900 000 square kilometres, or more than 11 per cent of the continental land mass (Department of Environment 

and Heritage 2002 cited in Wardell & Moore 2004a; Tonge et al. 2005; Worboys 2007a). 

In 1994, Australia adopted the IUCN definition of a protected area as well as the internationally recognised 

IUCN six tier system of categories to describe the management intent as a basis for documenting Australia's 

various types of protected areas (Table 2). As noted earlier, the general worldwide trend is occurring towards 

greater decentralisation (Inglis et al. 2005). 

Table 2: Marine parks and protected areas, Australia and external territories 

1997 2002 2004 

no. ha. no. ha. no. ha. 

Category IA 16 2 779 192 18 15 207 232 26 14 689 494 

Category IB 0 0 2 202 2 202 

Category II 16 69 080 24 2 151 068 47 15 072 908 

Category III 0 0 0 0 9 345 

Category IV 80 586 334 106 12 045 534 99 17 347 773 

Category V 7 4 716 993 0 0 0 0 

Category VI 23 35 426 842 38 35 236 024 29 24 715 160 

Category not specified 6 46 910 0 0 0 0 

Total 148 38 908 358 188 64 640 060 212 71 825 882 

Note: Includes marine, national oceanic islands and external territory protected areas 

Source: Department of the Environment and Heritage 2007 (www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS 2008) 

Under the Australian constitution, the creation and management of public protected areas are the 

responsibility of state governments. However, six national parks, two botanic gardens and twenty seven marine 

parks are managed by the Australian government (DFAT 2008). Partnerships and co-management in Australia’s 

protected areas are emphasised particularly with aboriginal communities in recent years for effective 

management. A growing number of state government managed parks and reserves are now being managed with 

their indigenous owners. In addition, indigenous people have voluntarily declared 24 Indigenous Protected Areas 

on their lands, covering more than 200 000 square kilometres (DFAT 2008). 

According to Sattler and Taylor (2008) only modest growth in extent occurred over the period 2004 to 2006 

with the protected area system growing by 1.1%, from 10.5% to 11.6% of Australia’s total land area. Almost all 

of this growth (0.97%) was in interim protected areas that have yet to be gazetted. For strictly protected areas 

within this total, there was an increase of 1%, from 7.3% to 8.3% over the same period. Growth was highly 

variable among jurisdictions (Box 5) over the period 2004 to 2006 (Sattler & Taylor 2008). 

9

10 

Box 5: Growth in Australia’s protected areas 


> The Australian Capital Territory increased its protected areas by 869 hectares (0.7%) as a result of new 

nature reserves and small additions to existing reserves. The Collaborative Australian Protected Areas 

Database (CAPAD) 2006 figures show a net decline, but this was entirely due to boundary realignments 

resulting in removal of areas that were mistakenly included in 2004. 

> In New South Wales, the Western Regional Assessment has led to the reservation of a further 350 000 

hectares in the poorly conserved Brigalow Belt South bioregion. Despite this progress, New South Wales still 

has several bioregions that are a high priority for reservation. 

> The Northern Territory showed a small increase in strictly protected areas, and tied with New South 

Wales in having the third highest growth in extent of all protected areas, primarily due to the Australian 

Government Indigenous Protected Areas Programme. 

> South Australia showed significant growth in strictly protected areas. However, the total area protected 

actually decreased due to corrections of boundaries of two large protected areas in the northeast. 

> Tasmania reported an increase largely due to the inclusion of covenanted private protected areas in 

CAPAD 2006 for the first time. 

> Western Australia was the top performer in terms of growth of total extent of protected areas, with strictly 

protected areas increasing by 2% from 6.8% to 8.8% of the state’s area, and all protected areas increasing by 

2.4%. However, this growth was mostly due to the fact that many new protected areas created before 2004 

were withheld from CAPAD 2004 awaiting resolution of legal uncertainties. 

> Queensland showed small decline in categories V-VI which was due to transfer of Category VI Forest 

Reserves to Category II National Parks under the State Forests process. 

Visitation Trends in Australia’s Protected Areas 

Australia now receives over 84 million visitors to its protected areas each year making up a significant 

proportion of its $70 billion tourism industry (DITR 2003 cited in Wardell & Moore 2004a). The multiple roles 

of national parks and other protected area agencies in Australia is complicated because they are managed not by 

a single federal agency, but are the responsibility of individual state and territory governments (Wearing et al. 

2007). However, the primary focus of all agencies has been increasingly on delivering quality services to the 

public and visitors. 

Being definitive about trends is problematical because there is no consistent system for collecting or 

analysing data on visitation to national parks or other protected areas in Australia, or for gathering information 

on the revenue generation of visitation. Visitor data are currently collected by various agencies through entry 

permits, camping fees and other sources. A mixed bag of trends (Box 6) in park visitation have been noted in 

recent years (Steffen 2004). 

Box 6: Park visitation in Australia—a mixed bag of trends 

Park visitation data display highly variable trends. Visitation to the Great Barrier Reef has been relatively flat 

over the past ten years, as has visitation to Kakadu which peaked in 1999 at 183 483 and declined to 148 903 

in 2002. But visitation to Uluru-Kata Tjuta has nearly doubled in the past fourteen years, from 175 000 in 

1987 to just under 400 000 in 2002. National Visitor Surveys by the Bureau of Tourism Research show that 

the percentage of domestic overnight trips to parks has declined from 14 % in 1998 to 11.5% in 2002. 

A similar trend is evident from International Visitor Surveys, which show a decline in international 

visitors going to parks and bushwalking from 49% in 1998 to 43% in 2002. In contrast, anecdotal 

information from park managers indicate that most parks are seeing increased numbers of visitors and that 

these visitors expect higher levels of service, including interpretation and education.


According to Steffen (2004) in 2001/02 there were an estimated 84 million visits to national parks, including 

the Great Barrier Reef, generating an estimated $54 million in direct revenue for protected area management 

agencies (Table 3). 

Table 3: Visitation to National Parks and Revenue Generated 

State Visitation to National Parks Revenue from visitation 

(Millions) 

($ million) 

Commonwealth, Parks Australia 1.5 9.76 

Commonwealth, Great Barrier Reef (GBR)* 1.6 6.46 

New South Wales 22.0 12.50 

Northern Territory 5.2 0.00+ 

Queensland 13.0 7.96 

South Australia 2.2 6.55 

Tasmania 1.3 2.10 

Victoria 27.0 5.00 

Western Australia 9.8 3.21 

TOTAL 83.6 53.54 

(Source: Parks agencies December 2002) 

* GBR- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 

+ No entrance fee 

A similar study by Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) provided some indicative visitation statistics for national 

parks and other protected areas over the period 1998 to 2002 (Table 4) but it is difficult to discern any general 

trends within these data. Consistent data over this period was only available for national parks in Western 

Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory and those under the control of the Australian 

Department of the Environment and Heritage and the Great Barrier Reef and in these areas there has been a 

general increase in visitor numbers over this period. 

Table 4: Numbers of Visitors to National Parks 1998–2002 

Jurisdiction 1998 2000 2002 

ACT 95 052 146 928 175 760 

Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta 526 943 560 583 532 376 

New South Wales 20 000 000 (1997) 22 000 000 n/a 

Northern Territory 2 956 648 3 098 426 3 048 421 

Queensland n/a n/a 13 000 000 

South Australia n/a 3 747 400 (2001/2) 3 799 350 (2002/3) 

Tasmania n/a 1 240 000 (2001) 1 350 000 

Victoria n/a 26 800 000 (2001/2) 24 900 000 (2002/3) 

Western Australia 8 100 185 8 293 875 8 354 050 

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 1 628 647 1 667 407 1 833 777 

According to Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) the following trends in visitation to national parks and protected 

areas across Australia have been noted: 

• the bulk of visitors are domestic tourists (i.e. Australians residents) 

• a high proportion of international visitors do include national parks on their travel itinerary in Australia— 

but there is evidence that this proportion has dropped 

• different parks have different visitor profiles 

• parks that offer an iconic experience have a greater ability to draw international and interstate visitors. 

11

12 


Over the period from 1997 to 2007, international visitor arrivals in Australia grew at a compound annual 

growth rate of 5.2% a year to reach 5.6 million (TFC 2008). However, a trend that could be of some concern is 

that the proportion of international visitors visiting protected areas has been declining since 1998, when 49% of 

international visitors visited national parks. The numbers of international visitors to national parks peaked at 

1.97 million in 2000, which represented 45% of all international visitors. Griffin and Vacaflores (2004) revealed 

that the major factors influencing international visitors’ decision to visit Australia are to experience Australia’s 

1) nature, landscape and wildlife (46%), and 2) coastline and beaches (39.5%). It has also been revealed that the 

propensity to visit protected areas varies greatly between different international visitors. Generally, European, 

North American and North-East Asian visitors have a greater tendency to visit national parks than visitors from 

other countries, particularly South-East Asian. Wildlife tourism plays an important role in the Australian 

domestic market where the majority of encounters with wildlife were in national parks (44.3%) or in other 

natural settings (12.9%) (Fredline 2007). Today, a key challenge of a successful tourism industry is the ability to 

recognise and deal with a change across a wide range of behavioural, environmental and technological factors 

and the way they interact (Dwyer et al. 2008). Global trends (Box 7) affecting tourism are globalisation and 

long-term economic, social, political, environmental and technological change which bring both opportunities 

and challenges (Dwyer et al. 2008). 

Box 7: Global trends affecting tourism 

Globalisation and long-term economic trends 

• A growing world economy 

• Globalisation 

• Possible breaks to growth (what does this mean?) 

• What about global marketing? 

Social trends 

• Ageing populations 

• Urbanisation 

• Changing social structures in developed economies 

• Health 

• Aspirations and expectations 

• Values and lifestyles 

• Changing work patterns 

• Gender 

• Education 

Political trends 

• Existing and emerging global players 

• Terrorism 

• Health risks and security 

• Haves vs have nots 

• Governance 

• Political Islam 

• Impact of climate change 

Environmental trends 

• Climate change 

• Depletion of natural resources 

• Loss of biodiversity 

Technological trends 

• Competitive strategy and information and communication 

technology


Emerging Trend of Climate Change in Protected Areas and Recreational 

Values 

National parks and other protected areas present a best option for retaining natural ecosystem resilience, 

reducing threats, and protecting refuges and other critical habitats that will be needed by Australia’s native 

animals and plants to adapt to climate change (Sattler & Taylor 2008). They are major tourist destinations for 

recreation and tourism with around 1.4 million international tourists visiting in 2005–2006, including 

approximately 193 000 at Kakadu and more than 350 000 at Uluru-Kata Tjuta (Director of National Parks 2006 

cited in Hyder Consulting 2008). The development of protected areas as major destinations for different 

recreational activities will have significant impacts due to the emerging trend of climate change. A number of 

passive and active recreational activities are popular while visiting national parks and protected areas including: 

• Sightseeing 

• Camping 

• Socialising with friends and family/picnic 

• See wildlife/experience nature 

• Canoeing 

• Horse riding 

• Bush walking (both short walk and long walk) 

• Mountain biking 

• Swimming 

• Skiing 

• Fishing 

The understanding of visitation patterns is important when assessing social and environmental impacts of 

visitor use of protected areas (Pickering 2008). Systematic recording of visitor trends including determining how 

many visitors, when they come, where they go, and what they do in parks and protected areas is found to be 

problematic in both developed and developing countries. However, a growing numbers of policy documents and 

reports suggest that climate change represents a major threat for the maintenance of biodiversity and natural eco 

systems. Hyder Consulting (2008) have forecast the potential impacts of climate change on recreational and 

socio-cultural values (Box 8). 

Box 8: Emerging trends of climate change in protected areas and visitors 

Impacts of climate change on recreational values 

As an example, climate change may impact on the recreational values of protected areas in the following ways: 

• an increase in temperatures and the incidence of hot days (over 35° C), negatively affecting visitor 

comfort, including increased incidence of heat stress in visitors and staff 

• an increase in the frequency and intensity of fire, resulting in closure of park areas (for visitor safety) 

and damage to infrastructure 

• increases in rainfall events leading to flooding will restrict access to some park areas, and may 

therefore reduce visitor satisfaction. 

Impacts of climate change on socio-cultural values 

As an example, climate change may impact on the socio-cultural values of protected areas in the following 

ways: 

• an increase in extreme rainfall, temperatures and extreme events may exacerbate natural erosive 

processes on cultural values such as rock art 

• increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns may increase the transmission of mosquito borne 

diseases 

• climate change may indirectly disadvantage traditional practices, including fishing and hunting through 

changes to flora and fauna. 

13

Work Done by STCRC on Protected Areas 

14 


A wide range of studies on tourism and protected areas has been carried out by STCRC. Over 50 studies on 

protected areas alone have been carried out since 2004. This report briefly summarises (Table 5) the major 

research areas under different themes that reflect the management frameworks, issues, park visitation, impacts, 

interpretation and education, best practice and marketing in Australia’s protected areas. 

Table 5: Examples of STCRC research focused within protected areas in Australia 

Issues/Themes Research in Protected Areas 

Governance/Management 

- Partnership and collaboration 

- Licensing nature tourism operators 

Parks Visitation 

- Predicting visitation intensity 

- Tourism Pressure Index (TPI) 

- Visitor management models, frameworks 

and processes 

- Visitor use data in protected areas, guiding principles 

of visitor monitoring systems 

- Visitor characteristics and activities in alpine area 

- Sustainable management of visitor use of protected 

areas 

- Visitor monitoring in mountain parks/impact of 

climate change on mountain tourism 

- Visitor use and satisfaction 

- Megatrends understanding tourism to 2020 

Impacts/ Benefits/Sustainability 

- Development of a ‘toolkit’ to assess economic value 

- Economic values/benefits of tourism in protected 

areas 

- Socio-economic impacts 

- Environmental/Vegetation impacts 

- Sustainable management of visitor use 

Interpretation and Education 

- Interpretation evaluation kit 

- Applying persuasive communication theory 

Best Practice Benchmarks 

- Integrated park management models 

- Sustainable design in remote areas—‘low-impact 

nature-based tourism’ 

- Technology use 

Sustainable Marketing 

- Ecological marketing 

- Social marketing 

- Demarketing 

(Griffin & Vacaflores 2004; Laing et al. 2008) 

(Genter et al. 2007) 

(Hadwen & Arthington 2008) 

(Brown et al. 2006) 

(Wardell & Moore 2004b) 

(Johnston & Growcock 2005) 

(Tonge et al. 2005) 

(Thomas et al. 2005) 

(Archer & Griffin 2004) 

(Dwyer et al. 2008) 

(Wood et al. 2006) 

(Cairns 2003; Carlsen & Wood 2004; Mules et al. 

2005; Tremblay & Carson 2007) 

(Northcote & Macbeth 2008) 

(Pickering & Hill 2007) 

(Tonge et al. 2005) 

(Ham & Weiler 2005) 

(Beeton et al. 2005) 

(Inglis et al. 2005) 

(Beyer et al. 2005) 

(Inglis et al. 2005; Wearing et al. 2007)


Visitation management models and frameworks 

Brown et al. (2006) and (Castley et al. in press-a) reviewed a wide range of management models, frameworks 

and processes to assist with the management of visitors and their impacts in protected areas available both in 

Australia and worldwide. These frameworks, models and processes differ in the extent to which they: 

• use behaviour regulation—carrying capacity 

• use site modifications—Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

• determine standards, then monitor sites and adjust management accordingly—Limits of Acceptable 

Change (LAC) 

• understand the relationships between ecological impacts and visitors—and Visitor Experience and 

Resource Protection (VERP) and Visitor Impact Management (VIM) 

• understand visitors—Visitor Activities Management Process (VAMP) 

• understand visitor experience in planning and use of stakeholder involvement—Tourism Optimisation 

Management Model (TOMM) 

Furthermore, tourism specific models such as the Tourism Futures Simulator (TFS) have been developed as 

a framework for visitor management. Brown et al. (2006) revealed that Australian protected areas agencies 

appear to be less familiar with, and use protected area management tools less than their North American 

counterparts. One of the challenges to the adoption of various models within Australia is the diversity of 

protected area designations, jurisdiction, and management authorities. 

Hadwen and Arthington (2008) have stated the broad applicability of the Tourist Pressure Index (TPI), a 

predictive model of visitor numbers at key sites within a protected area. The attraction of protected areas has 

increased dramatically over the last few decades. Wardell and Moore (2004b) developed guiding principles for 

visitor monitoring systems, data collection, data storage and data application with a recent review of visitor 

monitoring by protected area agencies in Australia and New Zealand. This review acknowledged that there are 

always a number of constraints, such as human resources, finances and politics, in developing appropriate 

monitoring systems. 

Previous studies (e.g. Griffin & Vacaflores 2004) have also acknowledged that a thorough examination of 

trends in visitation levels and patterns in Australia is hampered by the lack of good quality time series visitor 

data in all states and territories. Unfortunately, very few parks in Australia or overseas have an adequate level of 

detailed visitor data (Newsome et al. 2002a; Cole and Wright 2004; Leung and Monz 2006 cited in Pickering 

and Hill 2007). At present, the extent to which visitor data collection occurs in most parks is variable and 

depends on the staff and financial resources of the park, its popularity and the degree to which visitation is seen 

as either a threat or an opportunity to meeting the management objectives for the park (Buckley 2003). Indeed, 

parks are generally short on financial resources and are often under-staffed. In addition, staff can often lack the 

skills to design and implement visitor monitoring programmes. 

Visitor impacts and sustainability 

Evaluation of economic, social and environmental benefits of tourism in protected areas is vital for sustainable 

development. Wood et al. (2006) developed a ‘toolkit approach’ to assess the economic value of tourism to 

protected areas. Case studies (e.g. Cairns 2003; Tremblay & Carson 2007) reveal that tourism generates 

significant revenue in both the Top End and Northern Territory regions, where about $58.1 million is generated 

annually from the Watarrka and Kakadu National Parks which are regarded as the major destinations for 

international visitors. Furthermore, the economic value of tourism in the Australian alps (e.g. Mules et al. 2005) 

and in Western Australia’s national parks, marine parks and forests (e.g. Carlsen & Wood 2004) suggest that 

tourism and recreation could be regarded as a benefit to the protected areas. 

Protected areas are a key mechanism to conserve biodiversity (Pickering & Hill 2007). However, tourism 

and recreation in protected areas have both direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment that may 

ultimately compromise biodiversity conservation objectives. The environmental impacts are generally focused 

on the impacts of tourism infrastructure and activities, principally trampling, camping, introduction of exotic 

species and off-road vehicles. The impacts are influenced by the type of infrastructure, amount of use, type of 

activity and behaviours of tourists, timing/seasonality of recreational activities and the characteristics of the 

vegetation communities and local environment (Pickering & Hill 2007). For example, horse riding has 

biophysical impacts that can affect the amenity and environmental quality of protected areas (Pickering 2008). 

15

16 


Visitor monitoring in the high mountains and alpine areas are crucial to assess the negative impacts created 

by human use. A study in the Kosciuszko alpine area has revealed that most visitation to the region was 

unevenly distributed throughout the non-winter period, with public and school holidays being the peak periods 

(Johnston & Growcock 2005). However, the emerging trend of climate change internationally could threaten 

future mountain tourism, particularly during peak winter periods (Pickering 2007). The use of national parks in 

the mountains and resorts has traditionally been closely tied to the ski industry with many businesses relying 

heavily on visitation by skiers (Thomas et al. 2005). 

Best practice benchmarks and sustainable marketing of tourism 

Environmentally sustainable development principles and practices generally guide remote area sustainable 

tourism facilities (Beyer et al. 2005). A sustainable marketing strategy is required to attract both domestic and 

international visitors to reverse the declining trend particularly prevalent in international visitors. The guiding 

principles for the sustainable marketing of visitation in protected areas are developed based on the ‘Five Rs’ 

model (Wearing et al. 2007, p. 14) are: 

Responsible Sustainable marketing of protected areas should be designed and undertaken in a responsible 

and ethical manner. 

Realistic To be sustainable, marketing of protected areas should be done in a manner that disseminates 

realistic images and information to existing and potential visitors. 

Regional Sustainable marketing of protected areas should be designed and used in a regional context. 

Research Research is a fundamental building block of sustainable marketing and should be carried out 

and integrated into marketing planning and strategies. 

Relationships Cooperative relationships between relevant land management, industry and community 

stakeholders can benefit all. 

Interpretation and education 

Effective interpretation, education and communications tools and strategies are essential for visitor management 

in protected areas. Ham and Weiler (2005) designed a toolkit to evaluate site interpretation which could also be 

used to evaluate specific interpretative programmes. In Australian protected areas, messages delivered via on-site 

signage, brochures, websites and other non-personal interpretive media have developed to managing visitors’ 

behaviours and activities that may damage the natural environment (Beeton et al. 2005).


Chapter 3 

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE 

Known and Unknown Trends in Protected Areas 

Chapter three draws together the key trends from chapters one and two discussing what is known and what is not 

known about trends in protected areas. This does not represent a comprehensive review but reflects trends which 

are indicative of the recent trends in protected areas in Australia and internationally. Protected area managers 

worldwide face the challenge of conserving natural and cultural heritage for future generations, ensuring that 

conservation values are not degraded by the present generation’s use and appreciation of these areas (Gilligan & 

Allen 2004) and to ensure a sustainable environmental and socio-economic future. The review of related 

literature in the previous two chapters revealed that protected area agencies are generally focused on delivering 

parks services to visitors and implementing the day-to-day management activities and there is a huge information 

gap among these agencies because there is no formal mechanism to share information. The current trends in 

protected areas show that visitation is concentrated in a few iconic sites. Information is needed to sustainably 

manage these iconic destinations to monitor visitation trends, their satisfaction and impacts on the natural 

environment. 

Trends of visitor use, satisfaction, management and governance, and biodiversity conservation in protected 

areas in Australia are vital in the decision-making processes. Environmental education and professional parks 

interpretation is a key agent for sensitisation and education of park visitors. Education and interpretation are 

known to be a crosscutting management tool for the long-term integration of these issues for the development of 

sustainable tourism destinations in Australia’s protected areas (Figure 2). 

Visitor 

Satisfaction 

Resource/ 

Biodiversity 

EE 

Visitor Use 

Tourism 

Governance 

Figure 2: Relationship among visitation use, satisfaction, governance and resource conservation and the role 

of environmental education (EE) 

17

Trends 

in Visitor Use of Protected Areas 

18 


As indicated in Box 4 current visitation trends in national parks 

and other protected areas are expected to 

increase worldwide. However, the limited data (Table 3 and 4) from Australia shows that despite some areas 

showing increased visitation others are relatively stable or decreasing. More importantly though is the lack of a 

nationally consistent mechanism for measuring trends in tourist visitation. Meaningful trends can be identified 

and the significance of protected areas to national leisure and tourism activities can be more accurately 

determined if nationally agreed standardised monitoring tools are used. Sharing of information between 

protected area management agencies is problematic due to the lack of coordination mechanisms. However, the 

Tourism in Australia’s Protected Areas Forum (TAPAF) which is an informal information-sharing collaboration 

between representatives of protected area management agencies and tourism agencies across Australia (Hillman 

2004) has been an encouraging step forward for improving information sharing. 

A comprehensive, nationally consistent system for measuring the condition and trends of visitation in 

national parks and protected areas, its coasts and ocean ecosystems is not in place. As with many other 

environmental 

issues, Australia seems to have adopted a strange and ambiguous blend of developed and 

developing country politics, policies and practices (Buckley 2004). To date visitors from New Zealand, USA, 

JAPAN, UK and its close political and cultural allies dominate international visitors to Australia. However, the 

strong economy in developing countries such as China, India, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and other 

developing countries are emerging as a new market for the Australian tourism industry. This trend is likely to 

grow rapidly as the largest inbound growth market is expected to be China with an annual average growth of 

15.7% which is followed by other Asian countries (7.2%) and the USA (5.4%) (Tourism Australia 2006a cited in 

Dwyer et al. 2008). 

The expected growth of tourism in Australia’s protected areas also could bring a change in existing trends in 

the characteristics of its growth. 

The emerging trend is that an increasing and aging Australian population 

(Australian 

Bureau of Statistics 1998 cited in Gilligan & Allen 2004) will have an impact on patterns of visitor 

use and demands on protected areas. 

McDougall et al. (2004) stated that understanding demand affects the ability to deliver high quality products 

to meet market demand and the issue of the inconsistent approaches to collecting data within and between states 

hinders 

comparative analysis. An integrated national plan with a more accurate and consistent approach to 

measuring visitor numbers is not in place and should be developed and implemented in all states and territories. 

Visitor Satisfaction and Human Resources 

Protected areas in Australia, from the outback to mountains and along the coasts are major attractions for 

international, interstate and local visitors. The visitor trends in protected 

area indicate that the highest numbers of 

international and domestic tourists visit certain iconic protected areas. For example, Kakadu and Watarrka 

National parks and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park attract many more international visitors compared to 

other national parks and protected areas. Similarly, New South Wales (NSW) protected areas attract more than 

20 million visitors each year which are dominated by NSW residents exploring their own state. 

Quality tourism experiences with a wide range of recreational services can only be delivered with significant 

investment of both financial and human resources. Most national parks and other protected 

areas lack the 

logistics 

and trained human resources. Surprisingly, few parks have up to date, accurate records on visitor 

numbers. In many cases this deficiency relates to institutionalised and/or logistical constraints on data collection, 

collation and analysis (Eagles et al. 2000; Watson et al. 2000; Marion and Farrell 2002 cited in Pickering and 

Hill 2007). 

It is unknown if the management capacities of national parks and other protected areas will be able to 

respond to the growing and complex park management issues. However, advancement in information, 

communication 

and technology provide park visitors with a great deal of information and flexibility in deciding 

among various destinations.


Growing visitor numbers in national parks and other protected areas can influence the ecological integrity 

across a wide range of natural ecosystems. Predictive visitor models such as the Tourist Pressure Index (Hadwen 

& Arthington 2008) might be able to identify affected destinations/sites before deleterious impacts occur. 

Currently, the existing park level assessments do not provide adequate details of the importance (and 

consequences) of high and/or variable visitation (and associated impacts) to specific sites. By generalising 

visitation across the entire park, managers are left with insufficient information as to where impacts might be 

occurring and when, how often and why. Roads, trails, waterways and campsites (in addition to different 

management zones) focus visitor activities within key sites (Watson et al. 2000; Eagles et al. 2002 cited in 

Pickering and Hill 2007). It is at these sites that visitor impacts are most likely to occur and, therefore, where 

they are most effectively monitored. 

However, for the most part visitor monitoring programmes are not in place, which make it difficult to 

measure the magnitude of visitation impacts. Whilst visitor numbers, timing and distributions can give an idea of 

the magnitude of visitation as an environmental pressure, information on the activities undertaken by visitors 

provides us with the greatest opportunity to design targeted monitoring programmes. Although a wide range of 

studies would have their own significance, an integrated study from the perspective of recreation ecology is 

required to monitor the visitor impacts on the natural environment and ecosystems. 

Trends in Management and Governance 

Governance and resource use policies in protected areas significantly influence the visitation use pattern and the 

delivery of different recreational activities in Australian and global protected areas. Governance and 

management regimes across Australia are diverse which influences the management plans of the 9000 parks and 

protected areas. However, the institutional mechanism with regard to both vertical and horizontal policy linkages 

and coordination among different states and territories in terms of monitoring domestic and international visitors 

in protected areas are not known. 

Indigenous protected areas are growing worldwide and in Australia in recent years. Indigenous community 

cultures are regarded as important tourism products in protected areas especially in global world heritage sites. 

The participation of indigenous communities to promote culturally sustainable tourism is seen as a key driver to 

sustain the tourism industry while collaborative indigenous management strategies are vital to cope with the 

global climate change consequences. The economic benefits from protected area tourism to the indigenous 

communities as stakeholders in management of protected areas are unknown. 

The IUCN protected area definition and management categories are ‘neutral’ about type of ownership or 

management authority. In other words, the land, water and natural resources in any management category can be 

owned and/or directly managed by governmental agencies, NGOs, communities, indigenous peoples and private 

parties—alone or in combination. To date no specific study has been carried out in Australia to identify the four 

governance types outlined earlier in this report. There is an urgent need for a review of the governance of 

protected areas, which will influence the policies and recreational activities in national parks, and other protected 

areas in consideration with the management categories in the following matrix (Table 6). Protected area agencies 

need to categorise the governance models, which might benefit future tourism and conservation efforts within 

these areas. 

19

20 


Table 6: ‘The IUCN protected area matrix’: a classification system for protected areas comprising both 

management category and governance type. 

Governance 

types 

Protected area 

categories 

I a. Strict 

Nature Reserve 

Ib. Wilderness 

Area 

II. National 

Park 

III. Natural 

Monument 

IV. Habitat/ 

Species 

Management 

V. Protected 

Landscape/ 

Seascape 

VI. Managed 

Resource 

Protected Area 

Federal or national ministry or 

agency in charge 

A. Governance by 

government 

Sub-national ministry or agency 

in change 

Government-delegated 

management (e.g. to an NGO) 

Source: adapted from Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004 

Transboundary management 

B. Shared governance C. Private governance D. Governance by 

indigenous peoples & local 

communities 

Collaborative management 

(various forms of pluralist 

influence) 

Joint management (pluralist 

management board) 

Declared and run by individual 

land-owner 

…by non-profit organisations 

(e.g. NGOs, universities, cooperatives) 

…by for profit organizations 

(e.g. individual or corporate 

land-owners) 

Indigenous peoples’ conserved 

areas and territories— 

established and run by 

indigenous peoples 

Community conserved areas— 

declared and run by local 

communities 

Shifting tourism market and immigration policy 

International tourism grew at around 5% during the first four months of 2008—one percent above the long-term 

trend (www.unwto.org 2008). All subregions had positive results with fastest growth in the Middle East, 

Northeast and South Asia, and Central and South America. Australia has a forecast for a high potential market 

from newly industrialised countries but international tourism was relatively insignificant compared to Australia’s 

12.5 billion education export industry. The arrival of international students in Australia has significantly boosted 

Australia’s economy due to the changes in immigration policy. 

Furthermore, compared to the rest of the world, Australia is highly dependent on immigration for population 

growth. The estimated resident population of Australia is currently at 20.9 million and in 2006, almost 24% of 

the Australian population was born overseas (Seetaram 2008). This reflects a multi-cultural Australian 

population and will certainly demand diverse tourism products. The close relationship between tourism 

marketing and immigration in Australia is not a particularly well researched area in the tourism industry and 

future research in this area is urgently needed to provide valuable information on the emergence of new tourism 

markets to promote increasingly diversified products to cater for those markets. 

Links of public private partnership in protected area tourism 

There is a growing interest in stakeholder collaboration in tourism planning and protected area management. 

Information is unavailable on the growing trend of public private partnerships (PPP) to explore partnerships and 

links with state governments, private sector, conservation agencies and communities for the establishment of 

nationally recognised protected areas and acceptable visitation monitoring frameworks. Visitor oriented 

approaches to tourism and visitor management, with a focus on monitoring and researching visitor motivations 

and satisfaction, can impact upon the way communities value and regard protected areas.


Biodiversity Resources and Climate Consequences 

Chapter one outlined the potential trends likely to affect tourism in protected areas as a result of global climate 

change. The world’s international travel will be strongly affected by decreasing supplies of oil and gas and large 

increases in energy cost in the second decade of the 21 st century. The emerging trend of climate change will 

further affect travel costs internationally and could result in decreased visitation by international visitors. This 

suggests that visitation by domestic visitors may increase significantly. 

As discussed previously, global climate change will affect biodiversity and parks resources but also the 

potential of these protected areas to provide for recreational opportunities. Global climate change will be one of 

the most important environmental issues affecting parks and tourism particularly in alpine and mountains in the 

21 st century. The climate change consequences pose a serious threat to human wellbeing and protected areas but 

it is unknown how well the parks and protected area agencies are prepared to respond to the changing social 

needs and environmental conditions. 

Becken and Hay (2007) stated that climate change is anticipated to lead to a new pattern of favoured and 

disadvantaged ski tourism regions in the alpine Europe. Similar trends are expected in the Australian Alps. This 

has the potential to significantly change the visitation patterns and recreational activities but more information is 

needed to predict the future trends. The emerging trend of impacts of climate change in protected areas and 

buffering nature against climate change should also be focus of future research efforts. 

Research Outputs to Outcomes 

A wide range of case studies commissioned by the STCRC (Table 5), provide area specific findings that are 

useful for protected area managers. However, they appear to be poorly disseminated academic works and it is 

unknown to what extent the various protected area management agencies have integrated and incorporated the 

research outputs for the improvement of park management effectiveness. Previous studies have identified 

internationally practised and well tested visitor impact and monitoring tools, frameworks and processes such as 

ROS, LAC, VIM, VAMP, VERP and TOMM but there is a need to assess how well they are practised by the 

parks authorities in Australia. 

21

Chapter 4 

CONCLUSIONS 

22 


This report concludes that there are currently no systematic and consistent methods and processes to measure the 

visitation trends in protected areas internationally and in Australia. Protected area management agencies are 

often poorly funded and commonly concentrate their activities towards park management and give less priority 

to research and integrated park monitoring. The tourism industry and tour operators are largely driven by 

commercial market forces, and there appears to be little coordination or linkages among protected area 

management agencies and other stakeholders engaged in tourism and park management. Furthermore, several 

constraints have influenced the collation of regular and systematic visitation monitoring in protected areas. 

Protected areas and tourism trends influence the selection of target markets, decisions on product development, 

and the overall market positioning of the destinations. Human pressures on protected areas are continuing to 

intensify, because of global population growth and associated economic and political changes. Reviewing 

tourism and protected area linkages and trends are therefore a crucial step for the maintenance of biodiversity 

conservation and economic prosperity. The emerging climate change trends and the associated impacts in 

national parks and other protected areas bring many unanswered questions and tend to be the greatest challenge 

for management agencies in the 21 st century. The current knowledge and information gaps are influenced by 

many factors including the management strategies and governance models of parks and protected areas. This 

review of recent trends in protected areas and tourism provides useful information for research institutions, 

government agencies and industry partners engaged in tourism and protected area management and encourage 

greater study in the assessment of the sustainable use of national parks and protected areas by tourists. 

This study is a snapshot of general trends of protected area in Australia and internationally. There is a need 

for further studies on the trends of visitors across the national parks and other protected areas worldwide and 

Australia to find the current information gaps, challenges and megatrends.


REFERENCES 

Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, Development and Biodiversity Conservation: Shooting in the Dark. 

Bronx, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society. 

Archer, D., & Griffin, T. (2004). Visitor Use and Satisfaction in Barrington Tops National Park. Gold Coast: 

STCRC. 

Bajracharya, S. B., Fulley, P. A., & Newton, A. C. (2006). Effectiveness of community involvement in 

delivering conservation benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental 

Conservation, 32(3), 239–247. 

Barrett, C. B., & Arcese, P. (1995). Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? 

On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 23(7), 1073– 

1084. 

Becken, S., & Hay, J. E. (2007). Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities. Clevedon: Channel 

Views Publications. 

Beeton, S., Weiler, B., & Ham, S. (2005). Contextual Analysis for Applying Persuasive Communication Theory 

to Managing Visitor Behaviour: A Scoping Study at Port Campbell National Park. Gold Coast: 


Beyer, D., Anda, M., Elber, B., Revell, G., & Spring, F. (2005). Best Practice Model for Low-Impact Nature 

Based Sustainable Tourism Facilities in Remote Areas Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Blaikie, P., & Jeanrenaud, S. (1997). Biodiversity Conservation and Human Welfare. In K. B. Ghimire & M. P. 

Pimbert (Eds.), Social Change & Conservation (pp. 46–70). London: Earthscan Publications Limited. 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2006). Collaborative Management of Protected areas: Tailoring the Approach to the 

Context Retrieved 3rd April, 2006, from www.snvworld.org 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Johnston, J., & Pansky, D. (2006). Governance of Protected Areas. In M. Lockwood, G. 

Worboys & A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing Protected Area: A Global Guide. Gland, Switzerland: 

Earthscan. 

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., & Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected 

Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland: IUCN and Cardiff University. 

Brown, D., Malla, Y., Schreckenberg, K., & Springate-Baginski, O. (2002). From Supervising ‘Subjects’ To 

Supporting ‘Citizens’: Recent Developments in Community Forestry in Asia and Africa. London: The 

Overseas Development Institute. 

Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., & Seber, D. (2006). Managing Australia's Protected Areas: A Review of Visitor 

Management Models, frameworks and Processes. Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. 

Brown, K. (2003). Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiers in Ecology 

Environment, 1(9), 479–487. 

Buckley, R. (Ed.). (2004). Tourism in Parks: Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: Griffith University. 

Buckley, R.C. 2003. Pay to play in parks: an Australian policy perspective on visitor fees in public protected 

areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 56–73. 

Buckley, R., Arthington, A., Connolly, R., Gleeson, B., Kitching, R., Low, T., et al. (2007). Climate Response: 

Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia. Gold Coast and Brisbane: 

Griffith University. 

Buscher, B., & Whande, W. (2007). Whims of the Winds of Time? Emerging Trends in Biodiversity 

Conservation and Protected Area Management Conservation and Society, 5(1), 22–43. 

Cairns, J., John. (2003). The Unmanaged Commons: A major challenge for sustainability ethics. The Social 

Contract, 136–145. 

Carew-reid, J. (2003). Protected areas as engines for good governance and economic reform in the Lower 

Mekong region Parks, 13(3), 5–14. 

Carlsen, J., & Wood, D. (2004). Assessment of the Economic Value of Recreation and Tourism in Western 

Australia's National Parks, Marine Parks and Forests. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Castley, J. G., Hill, W., Pickering, C., Hadwen, W., & Worboys, G. L. (in press-a). An Integrated Framework for 

Developing Ecological Indicators of Visitor use of Protected Areas. 

Castley, J. G., Knight, M. H., & Gordon, J. B. (in press-b). Making conservation work: innovative approaches to 

meeting biodiversity conservation and socio-economic objectives, an example from the Addo Elephant 

National Park, South Africa. In Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation in Southern Africa 

Castley, J. G., Patton, C., & Magome, H. (in press-c). The changing face of South African National Parks: 

Making 'conventional' parks relevant to first and third world society. In Evolution and innovation in 

wildlife conservation in Southern Africa. 

Cernea, M. M., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation 

and Resettlement. World Development, 34(10), 1808–1830. 

23

24 


Chok, S., Macbeth, J., & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a Tool for Poverty Alleviation: A Critical Analysis of 

'Pro-Poor' and Implications for Sustainability. In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits?: 

Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty reduction. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications. 

Collins, J. (2001). Indigenous People and Protected Areas. In G. Worboys, M. Lockwood & T. De Lacy (Eds.), 

Protected Area Management. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 

DFAT. (2008). About Australia: Australia's protected areas. Canberra: Australian Government. 

Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2008). Megatrends Understanding 

Tourism to 2020: Analysis of key drivers for change Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Eagles, P. F. J. (2004). Trends Affecting Tourism in Protected Areas: Working Papers of the Finish Forest 

Research Institute 2. 

Fabricius, C., Koch, E., & Magome, H. (2001). Towards Strengthening Collaborative Ecosystem Management: 

Lessons from Environmental Conflict and Political Change in Southern Africa. Journal of The Royal 

Society of New Zealand, 31(4), 831–844. 

Fay, D. A. (2007). Mutual Gains and Distributive Ideologies in South Africa: Theorizing Negotiations between 

Communities and Protected Areas Human Ecology, 35, 81–95. 

Fredline, L. (2007). An Analysis of the Domestic Wildlife Tourism Market in Australia. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Fuest, C., & Kolmar, M. (2007). A theory of user-fee competition. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 497–509. 

Genter, S., Beckwith, J. A., & Annandale, D. (2007). Licensing Nature Tourism Operators in Western Australia: 

Business Impediments and Recommendations. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Geoghegan, T., & Renard, Y. (2002). Beyond community involvement: Lessons from the insular Caribbean 

Parks, 12(2), 16–27. 

Ghimire, K. B., & Pimbert, M. P. (1997). Social Change and Conservation: An Overview of Issues and 

Concepts. In K. B. Ghimire & M. P. Pimbert (Eds.), Social Change & Conservation (pp. 1–45). 

London: Earthscan Publications Limited. 

Gilligan, B., & Allen, C. (2004). Resource and Visitor Management in NSW National Parks. In R. Buckley 

(Ed.), Tourism in Parks. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University. 

Godde, P. (1989). Community Based Mountain Tourism: Practices for Linking Conservation with Enterprise. In 

P. Godde (Ed.), Synthesis of an Electronic Conference of the Mountain Forum: The Mountain Institute. 

Gokhale, Y. (2005). Sacred Groves as Biocultural Heritage in Karnataka, India. In U. R. Sharma & P. B. Yonzon 

(Eds.), People & Protected Areas in South Asia. Kathmandu: Resources Himalaya Foundation and 

IUCN 

Goodwin, H., & Roe, D. (2001). Tourism, Livelihoods and Protected Areas: Opportunities for Fair-trade 

Tourism in and Around National Parks. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 377–391. 

Grainger, J. (2003). 'People are living in the park'. Linking biodiversity conservation to community development 

in the Middle East region: a case study from the Saint Katherine Protectorate, Southern Sinai. Journal 

of Arid Environment, 54, 29–38. 

Griffin, T., & Vacaflores, M. (2004). A Natural Partnership: Making National Parks a Tourism Priority. Gold 

Coast: CRC Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. 

Gurung, G. S. (2006). Reconciling Biodiversity Conservation Priorities with Livelihood Needs in 

Kangchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal (Vol. 23). Zurich: University of Zurich and WWF Nepal 

Programme. 

Hadwen, W., & Arthington, A. (2008). Where Do They Go?: Predicting visitation intensity at local tourist sites 

within protected areas. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2005). Interpretation Evaluation Tool Kit: Methods and Tools for Assessing the 

Effectiveness of Face-to-face Interpretive Programs. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Hazlewood, P., Kulshrestha, G., & McNeill, C. (2004). Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty 

Reduction to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In D. Roe (Ed.), The Millennium 

Development Goals and Conservation (pp. 143–166). London: IIED. 

Heinen, J. C., & Shrestha, S. K. (2006). Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical Profile of the 

Protected Area System of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(1), 41–58. 

Hillman, R. (2004). Principles for Managing Commercial Tour Operators in Australia's Protected Areas. In R. 

Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks: Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: Griffith University. 

HMG/NPC, & UNDP. (2005). Nepal Millennium Development Goals Progress Report 2005. Kathmandu: HMG 

and UN. 

Howitt, R., Connell, J., & Hirsch, P. (1996). Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples. In R. Howitt, J. 

Connell & P. Hirsch (Eds.), Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Hunn, E. (2006). Meeting of minds: how do we share our appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge? 

Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 12, 143–160. 

Hyder Consulting (2008). The impacts and management implications of climate change for the Australian 

government's protected areas [electronic resource]. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.


Inglis, J., Whitelaw, P., & Pearlman, M. (2005). Best Practice in Strategic Park Management: Towards an 

Integrated Park Management Model. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Ipara, H. I., Akonga, J. J., & Akama, J. S. (2005). The tenure factor in wildlife conservation International 

Journal of Environmental Studies, 62(6), 643–653. 

IUCN. (2003). Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Durban, South Africa: IUCN. 

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1980). World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland. 

Jeanrenaud, S. (2002). People-Oriented Approaches in Global Conservation: Is the Leopard Changing its 

Spots? London: IIED and IDS. 

Johannesen, A. B. (2004). Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs): Illegal 

hunting, wildlife conservation and the welfare of the local people. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian 

University of Science and Technology. 

Johnston, S. W., & Growcock, A. J. (2005). Visiting the Kosciuszko Alpine Area: Visitor Numbers, 

Characteristics and Activities. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community Natural Resource 

Management: Promised, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705–715. 

Kollmair, M., Gurung, G. S., Hurni, K., & Maselli, D. (2005). Mountains: Special places to be protected? An 

Analysis of worldwide nature conservation efforts in mountains. International Journal of Biodiversity 

Science and Management, 1, 1–9. 

Laing, J., Wegner, A., Moore, S., Weiler, B., Pfueller, S., Lee, D., et al. (2008). Understanding Partnerships for 

Protected Area Tourism: Learning from the Literature. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Lindsey, P., Alexander, R., Mills, M. G. L., Romanach, S., & Woodroffe, R. (2007). Wildlife Viewing 

Preferences of Visitors to Protected Areas in South Africa: Implications for the Role of Ecotourism in 

Conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(1), 19–26. 

Lobe, J. (2005). Connecting Nature, Power and Poverty. Inter Press Service Retrieved 5 May, 2008, from 

ipsnews.net/news 

Lockwood, M., & Kothari, A. (2006). Social Context In M. Lockwood, A. Kothari & G. L. Worboys (Eds.), 

Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London: Earthscan. 

Macdonald, K. I. (2004). Conservation as Cultural and Political Practice Policy Matters, 13, 6–17. 

MacKinnon, K. (2001). Integrated conservation and development projects- can they work? Parks, 11(2), 1–5. 

Macleod, H., & Gurung, H. B. (1997). Culture and Religion: Important Lessons for Sustainable Living. In J. 

Fien (Ed.), Teaching for a sustainable world: international edition. Brisbane: Griffith University. 

McDougall, R., Testoni, L., Hall, N., Murray, F., & Switzer, M. (2004). Opportunities for Developing Natural 

and Cultural Heritage Tourism in Australia. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in Parks: Australian 

Initatives. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University. 

McLean, J. (1999). Conservation and the Impact of Relocation on the Tharus of Chitwan, Nepal. Himalayan 

Research Bulletin, XIX (2), 38–44. 

McLean, J., & Straede, S. (2003). Conservation, Relocation and the Paradigms of Park and People Management- 

A Case Study of Padampur Villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Society and Natural 

Resources, 16, 509–526. 

McNeely, J. A. (2005). Building Broader Support for Protected Areas. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Friends for Life: 

New partners in support of protected areas (pp. 1–10). Gland and Cambridge: IUCN. 

McNeely, J. A., Miller, K. R., Reid, W. V., Mittermeier, R. A., & Werner, T. B. (1990). Conserving the World's 

Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, WRI, Conservation International, WWF, World Bank. 

McNeely, J. A., Redford, K. H., & Carter, A. S. (2005). A Taxonomy of Support: How and Why New 

Constituencies are Supporting Protected Areas. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Friends for Life: New Partners 

in Support of Protected Areas (pp. 11–20). Cambridge: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Mishra, H. R. (1982). A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management Vs. The Needs of 

the Local People in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In J. McNeely & K. R. Miller (Eds.), 

National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society 

(pp. 197–205). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Mogelgaard, K. (2003). Helping People, Saving Biodiversity: An Overview of Integrated Approaches to 

Conservation and Development. Population Action International. 

Morris, J., & Vathana, K. (2003). Poverty reduction and protected areas in the Lower Mekong region. Parks, 

13(3), 15–22. 

Mugisha, A. R. (2002). Evaluation of community-based conservation approaches: The management of protected 

areas in Uganda Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Florida, Florida. 

Muir-Leresche, K., & Nelson, R. H. (2000). Private Property Rights to Wildlife: The Southern African 

Experiment. Harare: University of Zimbabwe, University of Maryland and ICER. 

Mules, T., Faulks, P., Stoeckl, N., & Cegielski, M. (2005). The Economic Value of Tourism in the Australian 

Alps. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Müller-Böker, U. (2000). State Interventions in Chitwan: On the Historical Development of a Region in 

Southern Nepal. Studies in Nepali History and Society, 5(2), 173–200. 

25

26 


Müller-Böker, U., & Kollmair, M. (2000). Livelihood Strategies and Local Perceptions of a New Nature 

Conservation Project in Nepal: The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Project. Mountain Research and 

Development, 20(4), 324–331. 

Mulongoy, K., & Chape, S. (2004). Protected areas and biodiversity: An overview of key issues. Cambridge: 

UNEP/WCMC/CBD. 

Murphree, M. W. (1994). The Role and Institutions in Community-Based Conservation. In D. Western & M. 

Wright (Eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in the Community-Based Conservation (pp. 403– 

427). Washington: Island Press. 

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The Roles of Protected Areas in Conserving 

Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 219– 

252. 

Nepal, R. C. (2005). Integrated Conservation and Development Projects - A Case Study of Annapurna 

Conservation Area Project, Nepal: Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. 

Nepal, S. K. (2000). Tourism, National Parks and Local Communities. In R. W. Butler & S. W. Boyd (Eds.), 

Tourism and National Parks. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Nepal, S. K. (2007). Tourism and Rural Settlements: Nepal's Annapurna Region. Annals of Tourism Research, 

34(4), 855–875. 

Northcote, J., & Macbeth, J. (2008). Socio-economic Impacts of Sanctuary Zone Changes in Ningaloo Marine 

Park: A Preliminary investigation of effects on visitation patterns and human usage. Gold Coast: 


NPC, & MOPE. (2003). Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. Kathmandu: HMG. 

Pathak, N., Bhatt, S., Tasneem, B., Kothari, A., & Borrini-Feyerabent, G. (2004). Community Conserved Areas: 

A Bold Frontier for Conservation Briefing Note 5 (pp. 1–8): IUCN-CEESP. 

Phillips, A. (2004). The history of the international system of protected area management categories. Parks, 

14(3), 4–14. 

Pickering, C. (2007). Climate change and other threats in the Australian Alps. Paper presented at the Protected 

Areas: buffering nature against climate change, Sydney. 

Pickering, C. (2008). Literature review of horse riding impacts on protected areas and a guide to the 

development of an assessment program. Gold Coast: ICER, Griffith University. 

Pickering, C., & Hill, W. (2007). Impacts of Recreation and Tourism on Plants in Protected Areas in Australia. 

Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Plaut, M. (2003). Africa's Wildlife to be Privatised. Retrieved 15 November, 2005, from www.bbc.co.uk 

Pobocik, M., & Butalla, C. (1998). Development in Nepal: The Annapurna Conservation Area Project. In C. M. 

Hall & A. A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Harlow: Longman. 

Reid, H., Fig, D., Magome, H., & Leader-Williams, N. (2004). Co-management of Contractual National Parks in 

South Africa: Lessons from Australia. Conservation and Society, 2(2), 377–409. 

Roper, M. (2000). On the way to a better state? The role of NGOs in the planning and implementation of 

protected areas in Brazil. GeoJournal, 52, 61–69. 

Sandwith, T., & Lockwood, M. (2006). Linking the Landscape. In M. Lockwood, G. Worboys & A. Kothari 

(Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London: Earthscan. 

Sattler, P., & Taylor, M. (2008). Building Nature's Safety Net 2008: Progress on the Directions for the National 

Reserve System. Sydney: WWF-Australia. 

Schumann, S. (2007). Co-management and 'consciousness': Fisheries' assimilation of management principles in 

Chile. Marine Policy, 31, 101–111. 

Secaira, E., Lehnhoff, A., Dix, A., & Rojas, O. (2005). Delegating Protected Area Management to an NGO: The 

Case of Guatemala's Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve. Washington: USAID. 

Seetaram, N. (2008). Immigration and Tourism Demand: Evidence from Australia. Paper presented at the 

CAUTHE 2008: Where the Bloody Hell Are We?, Gold Coast, Australia. 

Shahi, P. (2008). Snow capped Everest turning into rocky mountain. The Kathmandu Post. 

Sharma, U. R., & Wells, M. P. (1996). Nepal. In E. Lutz & J. Caldecott (Eds.), Decentralisation and Biodiversity 

Conservation (pp. 65–75). Washington DC: The World Bank. 

Spiteri, A., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Incentive-Based Conservation Programs in Developing Countries: A Review 

of Some Key Issues and Suggestions for Improvements. Environmental Management, 37(1), 1–14. 

Steffen, C. (2004). Parks and Tourism Partnerships: An Industry Perspective. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Tourism in 

Parks: An Australian Initiatives. Gold Coast: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith 

University. 

Steiner, A. (2003). Trouble in paradise. New Scientist, 180 (2417), 21. 

Stevens, S. (1997). Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. 

Washington D.C.: Island Press. 

Straede, S., & Helles, F. (2000). Park-people conflict resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Buying 

time at high cost? Environmental Conservation, 27(4), 368–381.


Taylor, M., & Figgis, P. (2007). Protected Areas: buffering nature against climate change- overview and 

recommendations. Paper presented at the Protected Areas: buffering nature against climate change, 

Proceedings of a WWF and IUCN World Conservation on Protected Areas Symposium, 18–19 June 

2007, Canberra. 

TFC. (2008). Tourism Forecasting Committee Forecast 2008 Issue 1 Canberra: Tourism Research Australia. 

Thomas, P., Russell, R., & Triandos, P. (2005). Visitor Monitoring in Mountain Parks and Resorts: Summer 

Mountain Tourism, Victoria. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Tonge, J., Moore, S., Hockings, M., Worboys, G., & Bridle, K. (2005). Developing Indicators for the 

Sustainable Management of Visitor Use of Protected Areas in Australia. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Tremblay, P., & Carson, D. (2007). Tourism and the Economic Valuation of Parks and Protected Areas: 

Watarrka National Park, Northern Territory. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

UNDP. (2002). Democratic governance for human development. In Human Development Report. New York: 

UNDP. 

Upton, C., Ladle, R., Hulme, D., Jiang, T., Brockinngton, D., & Adams, W. M. (2008). Are poverty and 

protected area establishment linked at a national scale? Oryx, 42, 19–25. 

Vihemaki, H. (2003). Forest Conservation in the East Usambaras - the web of political, social and ecological 

factors in shaping the conservation policies and its outcomes. Paper presented at the Conference Name|. 

Retrieved Access Date|. from URL|. 

Wardell, M. J., & Moore, S. A. (2004a). Collection, Storage & Application of Visitor Use Data in Protected 

Areas: Guiding Principles and Case Studies Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2004. 

Wardell, M. J., & Moore, S. A. (2004b). Collection, Storage and Application of Visitor Use Data in Protected 

Areas. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. 

WCPA/IUCN. (1998). Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Gland, 

Switzerland: IUCN. 

Wearing, S., Archer, D., & Beeton, S. (2007). The Sustainable Marketing of Tourism in Protected Areas: 

Moving Forward: Sustainable Tourism CRC. 

Wearing, S., & McDonald, M. (2002). The Development of Community-based Tourism: Re-thinking the 

Relationship Between Tour Operators and Development Agents as Intermediaries in Rural and Isolated 

Area Communities Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 191–206. 

Weber, J. (2006). The 'guilty' are not the poor! Policy Matters, 14, 27–36. 

Wells, M. P., & Sharma, U. R. (1998). Socio- Economic and Political Aspects of Biodiversity Conservation in 

Nepal. International Journal of Social Economics, 25(2/3/4), 226–239. 

West, P. C., & Brockington, D. (2006). An Anthropological Perspective on Some Unexpected Consequences of 

Protected Area Conservation Biology, 20(3), 609–616. 

Wood, D., Glasson, J., Carlsen, J., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Economic Evaluation of Tourism for Natural Areas: 

Development of a Toolkit Approach. Gold Coast: STCRC. 

Worboys, G. (2007a). Managing Australia's protected areas for a climate shifted spectrum of threats. Paper 

presented at the Protected Areas: Buffering nature against climate change, Proceedings of a WWF and 

IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas symposium, 18–19 June, Canberra. 

Worboys, G. L. (2007b). Evaluation Subjects and Methods Required for Managing Protected Areas. 

Unpublished PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast. 

Wright, R. G., & Mattson, D. J. (1996). The Origin and Purpose of National Parks and Protected Areas. In R. G. 

Wright (Ed.), National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection (pp. 3–14). 

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science, Inc. 

WWF. (2003). WWF Nepal Programme Annual Report 2002-2003. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal Programme. 

www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ABS. (2008). Summary of Protected Areas. Retrieved 18/8/2008 

www.iucn.org/wpc. (2003). The Durban Accord. Retrieved 18/08/2008 

www.unwto.org. (2008). World Tourism Barometer. Retrieved 5/9/08 

27

AUTHOR 

28 


Hum Bahadur Gurung 

Hum B. Gurung has recently completed his PhD investigating participatory governance in protected area 

management in Nepal in the School of Environment, Griffith University, Australia. He has been associated with 

the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) of the National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal from 

1986 to 1996 as Conservation Officer, Officer-in-Charge, Conservation Education and Extension Officer. He 

worked for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as National Programme Manager of the 

Sustainable Community Development Programme, known as Nepal Capacity 21 between 1997 and 2004. His 

research interests include participatory action research and community-based approaches for environmental 

education, sustainable development and tourism management in protected areas and published journal articles, 

conference papers and book chapters. Hum has also provided consultancy services to UNDP, The World 

Conservation Union (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Nepal Programme.

• Travel and tourism industry 

• Academic researchers 

• Government policy makers 

C O M M U N I C A T I O N 

COMMERCIALISE 

RESEARCH 

AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

COLLABORATION 

EDUCATION 

AND 

TRAINING 

UTILISE 

• New products, services and technologies 

• Uptake of research finding by business, 

government and academe 

• Improved business productivity 

• Industry-ready post-graduate students 

• Public good benefits for tourism destinations 

I NDUSTRY P ARTNERS UNIVERSITY P ARTNERS COMMERCIALISATION 

TOURISM NT 

NORTHERN TERRITORY 

AUSTRALIA 

I N N O V A T I O N 

EC3, a wholly-owned subsidiary company, takes the 

outcomes from the relevant STCRC research; develops 

them for market; and delivers them to industry as products 

and services. EC3 delivers significant benefits to the 

STCRC through the provision of a wide range of business 

services both nationally and internationally. 

KEY EC3 PRODUCTS 

Chairman: Stephen Gregg 

Chief Executive: Ian Kean 

Director of Research: Prof. David Simmons 

CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 

Gold Coast Campus Griffith University 

Queensland 4222 Australia ABN 53 077 407 286 

Telephone: +61 7 5552 8172 Facsimile: +61 7 5552 8171 

Website: www.crctourism.com.au 

Bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop 

Email: info@crctourism.com.au

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research 

Centre (STCRC) is established under the 

Australian Government’s Cooperative 

Research Centres Program. 

STCRC is the world’s leading scientific 

institution delivering research to support the 

sustainability of travel and tourism—one of the 

world’s largest and fastest growing industries. 

Introduction 

STCRC has grown to be the largest dedicated 

tourism research organisation in the world, 

with $187 million invested in tourism research 

programs, commercialisation and education 

since 1997. 

STCRC was established in July 2003 under the 

Commonwealth Government’s CRC program 

and is an extension of the previous Tourism 

CRC, which operated from 1997 to 2003. 

Role and responsibilities 

The Commonwealth CRC program aims to 

turn research outcomes into successful new 

products, services and technologies. This 

enables Australian industries to be more 

efficient, productive and competitive. 

The program emphasises collaboration 

between businesses and researchers to 

maximise the benefits of research through 

utilisation, commercialisation and technology 

transfer. 

An education component focuses on producing 

graduates with skills relevant to industry 

needs. 

STCRC’s objectives are to enhance: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the contribution of long-term scientific and 

technological research and innovation 

to Australia’s sustainable economic and 

social development; 

the transfer of research outputs into 

outcomes of economic, environmental or 

social benefit to Australia; 

the value of graduate researchers to 

Australia; 

collaboration among researchers, 

between searchers and industry or other 

users; and 

efficiency in the use of intellectual and 

other research outcomes.

TRENDS IN PROTECTED AREAS - Sustainable Tourism CRC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?