Environment Systems and Decisions

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09718-2

REVIEW

Nature-based solutions for sustainable tourism development

in protected natural areas: a review
Ante Mandić1 

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
This research aims to explore the potentials of nature-based solutions (NbS) to mitigate the socio-economic pressures ris-
ing from tourism development within protected natural areas. Paper delivers a tourism studies perspective exclusively, by
reviewing publications published between 2008 and 2018 in leading tourism and hospitality journals. The content analysis
results support conclusions that each of the tourism development dimensions, i.e. governance, management and conservation,
capacity building, visitor management and monitoring, sustainable financing and green infrastructure, can be related to at
least one of the NbS approaches via conceptual or implemented measures. Moreover, tourism development in protected areas
supports the new perspective of NbS, encompassing intangible governmental interventions. Additionally, the term nature-
based solutions has not been established in tourism literature yet. The literature review provides an in-depth understanding
of the role of NbS in sustainable tourism development within protected natural areas and suggests a future research agenda
for scholars and practitioners. The major limitation of this study is a restriction on journal selection.

Keywords  Nature-based solutions · Protected areas · Natural resources · Tourism development · Sustainable development ·
Park tourism · Resilience · Tourism research

1 Introduction societal values and enhance the resilience of ecosystems

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are defined as actions to pro-
tect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified
ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and
adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and
biodiversity benefits (IUCN 2016). They recognise the com-
plexity of socio-ecological systems and the fact that they are
dynamic, leaving room for self-reorganisation and mutability
and associated resistance and resilience capacities (Garm-
estani and Benson 2013). Consequently, they have recently
been put forward by practitioners (IUCN) and policy (EU
Commission (Faivre et al. 2017)), referring to the sustain-
able use of nature in solving societal challenges (Eggermont
et al. 2015). Considering that they are intended to support
the achievement of society’s development goals and safe-
guard human well-being in ways that reflect cultural and
* Ante Mandić
ante.mandic@efst.hr
1
Department of Tourism and Economy, Faculty
of Economics, Business and Tourism, University of Split,
Split, Croatia
including their capacity for renewal and provision of ser-
vices (Panno et al. 2017), NbS are often used in conjunction
with other types of interventions (Saleh and Weinstein 2016;
Kabisch et al. 2016).
The term ‘nature-based solutions’ was introduced by
MacKinnon et al. (2008) and Mittermeier et al. (2008) both
focusing on the solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate
change effects while simultaneously protecting biodiversity,
building capacity and fostering resilience. NbS have largely
evolved from previous concepts and principles (e.g. sustain-
ability, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, coupled
human and environment, green infrastructure (Lafortezza
et  al. 2018), and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1
(Sarukhán and White 2005)) making a subtle yet significant
shift in perspective, pointing out people as not only passive
beneficiaries of nature’s benefits but proactive promoters of
protection, management and restoration of natural ecosys-
tems. Today, they are recognised as an umbrella concept
that covers a range of different approaches, aiming to opera-
tionalise the concept of sustainable development, that can
1
  Retrieved from https​://www.mille​nnium​asses​sment​.org/docum​ents/
docum​ent.356.aspx.pdf. Accessed June 2018.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

be classified into (1) ecosystem restoration approaches (e.g.
ecological restoration, ecological engineering and forest
landscape restoration); (2) issue-specific ecosystem-related
approaches (e.g. ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem-
based mitigation, climate adaptation services, and ecosys-
tem-based disaster risk reduction); (3) infrastructure-related
approaches (e.g. natural infrastructure and green infra-
structure approaches); (4) ecosystem-based management
approaches (e.g. integrated coastal zone management and
integrated water resources management); and (5) ecosys-
tem protection approaches (e.g. areas-based conservation
approaches including protected area management) (IUCN
2016). These approaches focus on developing systemic solu-
tions to address impending pressures and risks (Kabisch
et al. 2016), which considers the optimised generation of
multiple ecosystem services with low required physical
resources (Everard and McInnes 2013), and foster transfor-
mation towards the circular economy and building of a more
equitable future for all.2 Furthermore, they go beyond the
traditional biodiversity conservation and management prin-
ciples by ‘re-focusing’ the debate on humans and specifically
integrating societal factors, e.g. socio-economic develop-
ment and governance principles (Eggermont et al. 2015).
Although NbS are referred to as innovative, they do not have
to include exclusively new solutions. Moreover, they can
be built upon local knowledge and reframed existing ideas.
Within European Union (EU), policymakers have integrated
this concept into a framework programme for research and
innovation (R&I), ‘Horizon 2020’.3 In this way, they pro-
vide a new narrative involving biodiversity and ecosystem
services aligned with goals of innovation for growth and job
creation and with a potential opening for transformational
pathways towards sustainable societal development (Carsten
et al. 2017). EU has allocated approximately €185 million to
the topic between 2014 and 2020 within Horizon 2020 pro-
gramme, and additional €915 million per year within other
EU funds (Bourguignon 2017; Faivre et al. 2017). Build-
ing on knowledge and practice in NbS, the EU is hoping to
become an inspiration and world leader, both in research and
innovation on and in the global market for these solutions
(Bourguignon 2017). According to Maes and Jacobs (2015),
the reasons for EU to invest in R&I of NbS are twofold, i.e.
(1) the achievement of a double goal, i.e. economic growth
and sustainability, and (2) EU citizens expectations regard-
ing sustainable growth model that will avoid irreversible
changes to the global ecosystem.
2
 Retrieved from http://unesd​oc.unesc​o.org/image​s/0026/00261​
4/26142​4e.pdf.
3 including those on sustainable tourism development within
 More information https​://ec.europ​a.eu/progr​ammes​/horiz​on202​
0/en/h2020​-secti​on/clima​te-actio​n-envir​onmen​t-resou​rce-effic​iency​
-and-raw-mater​ials.
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
Within this paper, the focus is on NbS designed to prevail
and mitigate pressures, directly and indirectly, induced by
tourism development in protected natural areas. Addition-
ally, the paper explores challenges in which nature-based
solutions could be used to mitigate induced pressures.
The protection and conservation of natural areas can be
seen as a political game between advocates and opponents,
in which conservation organisations are not expected and
should not endorse triage (Buckley 2016), nor trade-offs.
However, tourism development within protected natural sites
implies complex legal, political, economic, social and envi-
ronmental links between management authority, commercial
tourism enterprises (Buckley 2017), local community and
non-governmental organisations, in which each power group
has its interests. Considering, tourism and recreation have
a diverse range of adverse environmental impacts (Rankin
et al. 2015), measures introduced to mitigate those tourism-
related site-specific challenges appear to be the ‘political
signals’ that the human-modified landscapes are also valu-
able for conservation (Buckley 2017), which gives conser-
vation opponents a licence to modify wilderness. Despite
tourism, visitors and recreation are third most important
threats influencing more than 60% of World Heritage Sites
(IUCN 2017), tourism-related pressures in protected natural
areas have not gained significant attention in NbS-related
research literature. When considering the ecosystem-based
management approaches, i.e. management planning for pro-
tected areas (Soliku and Schraml 2018) whose vital aspect
should be planning for tourism development, there are fewer
than a 150 peer-reviewed publications between 1990 and
2015 (IUCN 2016). Previously published tourism, NbS and
natural protected area-related studies cover a wide range
of solutions within different NbS approaches including
the provision of ecotourism services (Aasetre et al. 2016;
Camps-Calvet et al. 2015; Gundersen et al. 2015; Veisten
et al. 2015; Yip et al. 2006); management effectiveness of
heritage sites (Agapito et al. 2014; Mubaideen and Al Kurdi
2017; Bessa and Gonçalves-de-Freitas 2014); mitigation
of the tourism development impacts (Tomao et al. 2017;
Josephs and Humphries 2018; Parolo et al. 2009; Bessa and
Gonçalves-de-Freitas 2014; Aasetre et al. 2016); and land
use and planning for recreation and tourism (Tomczyk and
Ewertowski 2013; Kytzia et al. 2011; Gundersen et al. 2015).
Currently, the natural resource managers are shifting
their emphasis from single to multi-purpose ecosystem
management by considering the integrity and continuity of
their spatial arrangements within a landscape (Lafortezza
et al. 2013). Consequently, there is a high and escalating
demand towards the sound guiding principles from scien-
tists to resource managers (Lafortezza and Chen 2016),
protected areas. Furthermore, having recognised NbS as
one of the most comprehensive approaches for developing
Environment Systems and Decisions
Fig. 1  Conceptual framework
resilient landscape and cities, governments and scientific
communities are currently faced with the challenge of mov-
ing from general pronouncements to practical applications
(Lafortezza et al. 2018). However, the significant knowledge
gaps in the field are yet to be filled (Faivre et al. 2017).
Moreover, the lack of a comprehensive overview of the
NbS dealing with challenges of sustainable tourism devel-
opment in most valuable natural areas is evident. This paper
contributes to addressing that research gap. It provides a
comprehensive synthesis of previously published research
on different tourism-related issues within protected natural
areas, among others, with the development and introduction
of NbS or providing the basis for their development. The aim
is to analyse the role and the potential of NbS in sustainable
tourism, types of NbS that have been or can be implemented,
lessons learned and future perspective. The analysis synthe-
sises the relevant studies published between 2008 and 2018
in leading tourism and hospitality-related journals. Moreo-
ver, this is a review specifically of the tourism research lit-
erature. Research in the environment, resource management
and global change are also relevant for sustainable tourism
within protected natural areas (Buckley 2012), but for rea-
sons of space and focus are not detailed here. Furthermore,
research in environmental journals address parks, protected
areas and pollution aspects, but few scientists study tour-
ism (Buckley 2011). We do consider that this analysis will
be valuable to all essential public and private stakehold-
ers involved in sustainable management and planning in
protected natural areas. Additionally, the conclusions of
this study will be beneficial to academics by providing the
overview and the perspective of nature-based solutions that
are related to sustainable tourism development within pro-
tected natural areas and consequently guidelines for future
research.
2 Methodology
This study adopted content analysis to examine the nature-
based solutions-related articles that were published in lead-
ing tourism and hospitality journals between 2008 and 2018.
The data collection was conducted from February to June
2018. Several steps have been conducted to deliver the fol-
lowing systematic review and present the latest NbS, tour-
ism and protected natural area related findings and tourism
studies perspective. The first step was to develop the concep-
tual research framework (Fig. 1), encompassing the major
preconditions for sustainable tourism development within
protected natural areas, namely good governance, adaptive
management and monitoring, adequate visitor management
strategies, sustainable financing, capacity building and
green infrastructure. The proposed framework encompass-
ing latter elements reflects the review of relevant literature
and latest IUCN guidelines on tourism development and
management in protected natural areas (Leverington et al.
2010; Whitelaw et al. 2014; Petrić and Mandić 2014; New-
some 2014; IUCN 2015; Mutanga et al. 2015; McCool and
Bosak 2016; Dudley and Stolton 2018). Considering tour-
ism development is a socio-economic challenge, applying
numerous and diverse pressures on protected features, dif-
ferent nature-based solutions, within each approach, can be
introduced to mitigate them.
13
 Environment Systems and Decisions

Table 1  Research journals Name of the journal Database

included in the analysis
Journal of Travel Research Sage Journals
Tourism Management ScienceDirect
Annals of Tourism Research ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management ScienceDirect
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Taylor & Francis Online
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management Taylor & Francis Online
Cities ScienceDirect
Applied Geography ScienceDirect
Current Issues in Tourism Taylor & Francis Online
Tourism Geographies Taylor & Francis Online
Tourism Management Perspectives ScienceDirect
Leisure Sciences Taylor & Francis Online
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Taylor & Francis Online
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management ScienceDirect
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Taylor & Francis Online
International Journal of Heritage Studies Taylor & Francis Online
Tourism Planning and Development Taylor & Francis Online
Journal of Ecotourism Taylor & Francis Online
Journal of China Tourism Research Taylor & Francis Online
Tourism and Hospitality Research Sage Journals
Annals of Leisure Research Taylor & Francis Online
The journals have been ordered based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) ­(Scopus® database from 1996) in
May 2018

Secondly, in order to provide state of the art tourism
literature perspective of NbS, the preliminary analysis of
the scope of the relevant tourism and hospitality journals in
leading databases has been conducted, namely ScienceDi-
rect (http://www.scien​cedir​ect.com, 16 journals), Emerald
Management Journals (http://www.emera​ldins​ight.com, 13
journals), Sage Journals (http://www.journ​als.sagep​ub.com,
6 journals), Taylor & Francis Online (http://www.tandf​
onlin​e.com, 25 journals). Considering the hospitality and
tourism-related journals aim and scope, those covering sus-
tainable tourism development and tourism management and
planning were included on the preliminary journal list. The
selected databases advance search. Following, each retained
journal was analysed with applications of a nature-based
solution, sustainable tourism and protected areas keywords,
appearing within papers title, abstract and keywords. Sub-
sequently, the following journals have been included on the
final journal list (Table 1).
Based on individual search results for each selected
journal, the abstract for each full-length research, review
paper and short communication has been carefully exam-
ined. If the scope of the paper was considered relevant
for at least one of themes (governance, management and
monitoring, visitor management, sustainable financing,
capacity building and green infrastructure), it was retained
for further analysis. The decision to include the paper was
primarily based on two main principles; (1) the paper had
to be relevant to the topic of NbS for tourism development
in protected natural areas and (2) aligned with NbS princi-
ples (Eggermont et al. 2015; IUCN 2016; Nesshöver et al.
2016). Only papers meeting these criteria were retained
as relevant. Furthermore, the review includes some of the
papers that do not address NbS directly, but their conclu-
sions can be used as a basis for NbS development within
protected natural areas. Considering this is a review of
papers dealing with nature-based solutions and sustain-
able tourism in parks, published in hospitality and tour-
ism journals, it is essential to indicate that the substantial
amount of park research is not in tourism journals. Despite
this limitation, the conclusions of this study provide valu-
able insight into the tourism research perspective on NbS.
At the end of the journal search, 112 published articles
were determined to be relevant for the topic. These articles
were then additionally examined using content analysis.
Following the content analysis, 78 articles in 17 journals
were finally retained in the review section of this paper
(Table 2).
In this review paper, the recommendations of Aguinis
et al. (2018) regarding the methodological transparency in
research have been followed.

13
Environment Systems and Decisions

Table 2  Distribution of the retained papers fostered the establishment of the protected areas especially
Name of the journal Num-
in developing countries where budgets for environmental
ber of management are tights or non-existent (de Oliveira 2005).
papers However, considering that there is also evidence to the con-
trary, several researchers are cautious about recognising the
Journal of Travel Research 3
benefits of ecotourism within protected natural areas. The
Tourism Management 6
ecotourism contribution to the local economy and environ-
Annals of Tourism Research 3
mental sustainability should not be taken for granted but
International Journal of Hospitality Management 1
assessed according to the specific destination and tourism
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25
demand (Montaguti and Mingotto 2015). A balance could
Applied Geography 4
be achieved by supporting local communities through devel-
Current Issues in Tourism 6
opment, while also protecting the park features that allow
Tourism Geographies 3
such development and considering the needs of different
Tourism Management Perspectives 2
stakeholders generating revenue for themselves and the local
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 1
communities (Lucrezi et al. 2017; Bello et al. 2016).
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 2
A three-tier setup, i.e. management framework involv-
International Journal of Heritage Studies 5
ing local communities and civil society organisations, sup-
Tourism Planning and Development 3
ported by enabling government policies is most efficacious
Journal of Ecotourism 7
in mainstreaming socio-economic development of local
Journal of China Tourism Research 1
communities and environmental concerns in tourism devel-
Tourism and Hospitality Research 5
opment within protected areas (Badola et al. 2018). Strong
Annals of Leisure Research 1
local institutions ensure maximum benefits to all sections of
78
society and less monetary leakages. However, the protected
area governance discourse is profoundly influenced by the
national authorities, political and administrative reforms,
3 Sustainable tourism development financial challenges and socio-cultural change. The lack of
in protected natural areas government funding and investment potentially leads to pri-
vatisation or outsourcing in protected areas, e.g. protected
Sustainability requires modifications to human society to areas in China. As indicated by Su and Xiao (2009) private
reduce its aggregate impacts, dependent on, among others, investments solve financial problems in underdeveloped
protection of nature as a result of such a social organisation regions that cannot run their tourism enterprises. Arguably,
(Buckley 2012). To achieve sustainability one must reflect protected areas are currently in need of more funding and
upon scientific and empirical evidence, but also integrate more flexible ownership structures to improve monitoring
tradition, political and social factors (Xu et al. 2014). A large mechanisms and to achieve efficiency and equity through
proportion of tourism in leading destinations constitutes nature-based tourism (Su and Xiao 2009). The relationships
nature-based tourism, in particular, tourism in parks and between different stakeholder groups can enable or constrain
protected areas. As a destination experiences higher inten- the sharing of benefits from tourism development. There-
sity of tourism development, the potential conflict between fore, the development of synergetic interactions between
maintaining a healthy natural environment and economic stakeholders involved in governance process based on effec-
development also increases. This has urged planners and tive communication, good collaboration with stakehold-
decision makers to devise and adopt innovative approaches ers and attitude of openness is a prerequisite for effective
that seek to strike a balance between tourism, i.e. economic benefit-sharing in a protected area (Heslinga et al. 2017).
development and nature conservation (Nepal 2000; Frost Over the last three decades, park and protected area gov-
et al. 2014), particularly with the implementation of differ- ernance have moved away from being a central state-based
ent environmentally acceptable, naturally based solutions. responsibility and has become a polycentric regime under
which powers are distributed among a diversity of govern-
3.1 Governance, management and conservation ment, private and community-based stakeholders (Ly and
Xiao 2016). Consequently, various forms of collaboration
Tourism is likely the most significant commercial use of between these three groups of actors have emerged. Fur-
protected areas, and many managers struggle with managing thermore, a paradigm shift is taking place in protected areas
visitation (Spenceley 2016). The fact that ecotourism can with a transition from a traditional top-down to participa-
provide an additional economic justification for biodiver- tory bottom-up approaches to planning, management and
sity conservation and the preservation of natural areas has governance (Islam et al. 2017). This shift reflects changing

13

expectations of governance towards systems that can legiti-
mately empower and benefit local communities (Eagles et al.
2013). Adaptive co-management (ACM) is suggested as a
management approach which may be suitable for improv-
ing the current governance of tourism in protected natural
areas. It bridges the governance and complex systems by
bridging together cooperative and adaptive approaches to
management (Plummer and Fennell 2009). However, this is
not a universal answer, especially if the fundamental ACM
principles4 (Islam et al. 2017) and variables are absent.
The sustainable protected area management paradigm
requires close relations (Wilson et al. 2009) and clear com-
munication (Stanford and Guiver 2016) between ranges of
stakeholders. In some cases, that means recognising the tour
operators as park governance agency long-lasting partners,
e.g. public–private partnership with tour operators in New
South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (Wilson
et al. 2009). Despite the literature that has stressed differ-
ent approaches towards the understanding of the partner-
ship between protected area agencies and tourism industries,
Laing et al. (2009) indicate prominence of the institutional
analysis and development, social capital, environmental
dispute resolution and network theories in explaining part-
nership success. According to Haukeland (2011), different
measures should be taken to foster strong social links and
trustworthy planning partnerships between responsible man-
agers and local tourism stakeholders.
The management of the protected natural areas also
implies mitigation of various impacts, mostly environmental
(Erdogan and Tosun 2009; Stanford 2014; Schmudde 2015;
Van derVeeken et al. 2015; Tomczyk 2011; Newsome and
Davies 2009; DíezGutiérrez et al. 2017), and in smaller scale
economic (Said et al. 2017; Weiler et al. 2017) and social
(Schmudde 2015). Parks are becoming smarter5with applica-
tion of different technological solutions, i.e. the geographic
information system (GIS) is often used for recreational trail
planning (Newsome and Davies 2009; Tomczyk 2011), and
different transport models, e.g. Serengeti National Park
(DíezGutiérrez et al. 2017) and cellular automation model,6
e.g. Shiretoko National Park (Ishikawa et al. 2013) for traf-
fic simulation and traffic congestion. The environmental
4
  The ACM core principles are as follows: communication and col-
laboration, social learning, sharing rights, responsibility and decision-
making, building adaptive capacity and resilience (Islam et al. 2017).
5
 As Smart tourism destinations (Gretzel et  al. 2015; Boes et  al.
2015; Lamsfus et  al. 2015) parks are introducing different techno-
logical solutions to mitigate pressures that are generated by tourism
development and increasing visitation.
6
 Cellular Automaton Model (CAM) is a decision support tool to
ease traffic congestion, based on computational modelling and data
obtained from traffic survey. It is used to predict the potential impacts
of the visiting systems on traffic patterns.
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
performances are profoundly influenced by the individual
environmental sensitivity, knowledge (Erdogan and Tosun
2009), behaviour and market segmentation.7 The resilience
level of the protected area can be improved by improving
education, increasing product and market diversification,
strengthening institutional capacity and mainstreaming
adaptation in national policies (Van der Veeken et al. 2015).
Furthermore, the conservation measures should be applied
so as not to jeopardise the prolonged existence (Said et al.
2017) and the economic development of the local commu-
nities. Moreover, park managers should be able to commu-
nicate with locals about the current and potential benefits
arising from increased visitation (Weiler et al. 2017). The
local community must be ascertained that the public inter-
est is fundamental to the representative democratic govern-
ment. In a case study in Victoria, Australia, Dredge and
Thomas (2009) have found out how the interpretations of
public interest are distant from traditional notions of just,
moral and virtuous public interest and are more likely to
be market-driven, issue-specific and organisational-centric.
Furthermore, the difficulty of identifying public interest is
exacerbated by the fragmentation of agencies involved in
tourism management.
For many protected areas, tourism is integral, consider-
ing that they are relying on visitors and tourism for financial
support. Increasingly, partnerships between conservation
and tourism are contributing to changes in attitudes around
the issues of biodiversity conservation and environmentally
responsible business practices (Bushell and Bricker 2016).
The conservation practices in protected areas have signifi-
cantly evolved. In 2006, Shultis and Way (2006) invoked
a new conception of protected areas and conservation, the
one that would integrate process-based conservation and
parks re-engagement with landscape-level processes. Fol-
lowing, Hails (2007) has elaborated on the evolution of
approaches to conserving world natural heritage, Harmon
(2007) the achievement of the integrated natural and cul-
tural heritage conservation, and Catsadorakis (2007) the
conservation of natural and cultural heritage in Europe and
the Mediterranean. The new policies of nature conservation
and heritage management are calling for an integration of
the two sectors, for increased participation of local citizens
within management, and for the use of nature and heritage
to promote growth, public health and well-being (Svensson
7
 National Parks visitor managers can use marketing segmentation
approach to maintain those segments which have the greatest eco-
nomic contributions coupled with the highest propensity for pro-
environmental behaviour. Clear quick wins could be achieved by
encouraging more of the New Explorers and Frequent Adventurous
Independents segments. Wilderness Couples should be retained due
to their spending while encouraged to use alternative transport due to
its health benefits.
Environment Systems and Decisions
2009). Consequently, the local community empowerment
and integration of natural and cultural values at sites have
become a fundamental element of contemporary conserva-
tion approaches (Oviedo and Puschkarsky 2012). Unfor-
tunately, in many cases, the financial benefits provided by
tourism for government do not reflect the little opportunities
offered to local communities, e.g. Liwonde National Park in
Malawi (Novelli and Scarth 2007). There is an evident need
for more just revenue sharing and more effective integrated
conservation and development.
Balancing conservation and tourism development, i.e.
recreation and visitation throughout proper planning, seems
to be a complicated task for managers in protected natu-
ral areas (Bushell and Bricker 2016),considering they are
dealing with different elements of integral tourism product,
e.g. recreational trails as the most common tourism product
within protected areas and accommodation facilities. The
concentration of visitors on trails tends to have several nega-
tive impacts on flora, fauna, soil and water resources (Olive
and Marion 2009). Park managers are expected to utilise
available knowledge to manage the trail systems more effec-
tively and minimise negative environmental impacts, e.g. the
geographic information system (GIS), and regression tree
analysis can be used to optimise recreational trail location
(Tomczyk and Ewertowski 2013). This approach can also
be used to design new trails or reroute the old ones by pro-
viding a possible solution for recreational and conservation
functions to coexist. Even though accommodation plays a
vital role in a tourist’s experience, there are very few studies
on this subject. The comprehensive analysis on the Kruger
National Park (Kruger et al. 2017) has indicated how, regard-
ing their accommodation preferences, visitors can be divided
into three distinct segments including self-service seekers,
service-escape seekers and self-safari seekers. Although the
conclusions of this study are not universal, they provide a
valuable starting point for future research, e.g. diversity of
accommodation preferences concerning protected area loca-
tions (mountain, coastal, island, etc.), types (forest, reefs,
etc.).
3.2 Capacity building
Capacity building refers to the process whereby people,
organisations and society as a whole unlock, strengthen, cre-
ate, adapt and maintain capacity over time (OECD 2006).
Considering the variety of stakeholders that are involved
in tourism development in protected areas, e.g. local busi-
nesses, commercial tour operators, community, planners,
scientists, individuals and management (Leung et al. 2018),
there is a continuous need for learning and improvement.
Most of the researchers in this section have focused on
capacity building for local communities.
Building local capacities for tourism development
requires an understanding of what a community entails and
the factors that may hinder collaboration among stakehold-
ers (Leung et al. 2018). Moreover, the voices of indigenous
communities need to be recognised in the management of
the park and terms of tourism development efforts (Han-
nam 2005). Protected area managers focus on conserving the
environmental values of natural areas and often overlook the
social and indigenous values of parks as cultural landscapes
(Zeppel 2009; Munanura et al. 2017). Consequently, there is
a close and negative correlation between the locals’ relative
deprivation and their attitudes towards tourism development,
i.e. the more local community suffers, the more negative
their attitudes towards tourism are (Peng et al. 2016). Shultis
and Heffner (2016) invoke a new concept of conservation
which would reflect indigenous worldviews, i.e. ways of
thinking about nature and a human’s place within nature and
foster their participation. As highlighted by Stone and Nyau-
pane (2017, 2018), local community participation in tourism
is required for community capital to be utilised and further
developed; otherwise, it will be ‘locked’ and prevent asset
flow to transform other community capitals. Participation
is an essential component of sustainable tourism planning
especially as communities become increasingly diverse. The
participation can be reinforced with a long-term, communi-
cative approach, openness to new perspectives, designing
new strategies and learning and collaborating with commu-
nity leaders (Khazaei et al. 2017). From the other side, it is
constrained and limited with local community apathy, lack
of financial resources, low education levels, unfair distribu-
tion of benefits, lack of trained human resources, centralised
public administration, lack of communication and human-
wildlife conflict (Bello et al. 2016, 2017; Farrell 2011).
Community attitudes towards tourism development are
correlated with its impacts, among others, economic ones
(Bello et al. 2016; Mearns 2012). However, the level of
income and employment opportunities arising from tourism
in the protected area depends mainly on the form of tourism
development, e.g. enclave or dispersed, and articulation of
particular social structures in the host population (Good-
win 2010). Furthermore, Goodwin (2010) indicates six
principles that can be useful in guiding development for the
benefit of the poor in local communities, namely focus on
non-capital intensive enterprises, maximise tourism based
on local skills and technology, discourage enclave practices,
encourage flexible public–private partnerships, create and
strengthen institutions and develop revenue sharing poli-
cies. Some researchers explore the nature-based tourism as a
poverty alleviation strategy (Spenceley and Goodwin 2008;
Serenari et al. 2017; Akyeampong 2011; Zapata et al. 2011;
Nyaupane and Poudel 2011). Studies have demonstrated that
isolated efforts from individual tourism companies have a
little tangible impact on the majority of people living in
13

highly populated rural communities, but the impact is sub-
stantial for the few people who directly benefit (Spenceley
and Goodwin 2008). According to Zapata et al. (2011),
bottom-up community-based tourism approach should be
developed to foster faster growth and more positive impacts
on the local economy. Furthermore, there is a need for more
efficient redistribution policies that strengthen the skills,
resources and conditions of micro, community-based and
family entrepreneurship, together with a stronger orientation
towards the domestic markets (Zapata et al. 2011; Ahebwa
et al. 2012; Serenari et al. 2017). The degree of linkage
between biodiversity conservation, livelihood improvement
and tourism development varies based on the stage of tour-
ism development, i.e. the linkages are more positive and
stronger in developed tourism sites than in under-developed
sites, e.g. in the sites where tourism is highly developed,
local community will receive more economic benefits, be
more empowered and take more pride in the national park
(Nyaupane and Poudel 2011).
3.3 Visitor management and monitoring
Considering the reality of large-scale and increasing visi-
tation, Weaver and Lawton (2017) argue that current
approaches to visitation in protected areas focused on the
management and monitoring of visitors and their environ-
mental impacts are suboptimal. They highlight the need
for a new visitation model in which the inherent strengths
of management and monitoring are retained and modified
by consideration of visitor motivation and mobilisation to
inspire and realise satisfying mass participation in activities
that preserve protected area biodiversity and foster place loy-
alty. Considering the environmental pressures in protected
areas are the product of the visitation (Rodríguez-Rodríguez
2012), there is a continuous quest for optimal visitor impact
assessment and response framework. Ly and Nguyen (2017)
propose carrying capacity approach with three different
implementation models, namely laissez-faire, relaxed and
strict approach.8 In their research, economic considerations
are recognised to be a significant constraint in the imple-
mentation of carrying capacity in developing countries.
Carrying capacity framework is one of the decision-making
8
 The laissez-faire approach involves zero regulation from local
authorities. The park management lets visitors decide what to do
within the protected area ground. The relaxed approach involves
adopting the most up-to-date model of park management that
involves public and private sector collaboration. The park manage-
ment in this model interferes in rare cases when the overcrowding is
evident. The strict approach to the model of carrying capacity consid-
ers there are regulations on environmental carrying capacity for all
tours and ecotourism sites within the protected areas. The park man-
agement applies the government’s policy on carrying capacity in the
parks tourism activities (Ly and Nguyen 2017).
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
frameworks which has evolved into a number of alterna-
tive decision-making frameworks, e.g. Limits of Acceptable
Change (LAC), Visitor Impact Management (VIM), Visitors
Experience and Resources Protection (VERP) and Visitor
Activities Management Process (VAMP)9 (Farrell and Mar-
ion 2002). Thede et al. (2014) additionally indicate Zoning
framework.10 Most recently Salerno et al. (2013) in Journal
of Environmental Management test the potential of multi-
ple carrying capacities to operationalise sustainable tourism
development in the Sagarmatha (Everest) National Park and
Buffer Zone in Nepal. Research supports the conclusion that
there is a need to develop effective, systematic examples to
help the researchers and the decision makers translate the
concepts into action through unambiguous standard meas-
ures to make carrying capacity a more useful tool.
The ubiquitous and accessible nature of big data facili-
tated a proliferation of non-traditional spatial data products
and innovative data collection methods in research explor-
ing human-environment interactions (Walden-Schreiner
et al. 2018). Technologies, e.g. GIS geographic informa-
tion system, GPS—global positioning system and infrared
sensors and digital cameras, have growing importance in
documenting and managing visitor use patterns. Moreover,
mobile phone and other portable electronic devices provide
individuals with sensors of their environments capable of
generating and sharing vast amounts of geospatial data. GIS
is used for trail planning, and by that for visitor activity
management and spatial distributions (Chhetri 2015; Boers
and Cottrell 2007; Wolf et al. 2015). The application of ICT
provides modelling outputs, e.g. three-dimensional interac-
tive maps, and new geo-targeting strategies, e.g. walking
trails can be designed to incorporate sites that are of par-
ticular interest to hikers, which can be used for managing
tourism in natural areas (Chhetri 2015). Consequently, park
ecosystems can be protected from anthropogenic impacts,
i.e. visitation, and adapted to enhance tourist experience.
GIS provides the extension of the sustainable tourism infra-
structure planning by fostering the mapping of the trails in
sustainable locations (identified spatially) rather than along
existing routes that are not necessarily sustainable (Boers
and Cottrell 2007). In recent research, Wolf et al. (2015)
combine GIS and GPS technologies, which contributes to
the reliability, accuracy and precision of data (Hallo et al.
2012), to trace and monitor visitor activities. They have
used spatially explicit participatory planning, a relatively
9
  LAC was developed by the US Forest Service, VIM was developed
by the UN National Parks and Conservation Association, VERP by
the US National Park Service and VAMP by the Parks Canada.
10
 Zoning framework is intended to provide a consistent basis for
guiding resource management and visitor use activities, including
tourism, in all national parks, while balancing conservation priorities
with human use.
Environment Systems and Decisions
new approach to visitor management. Research results have
demonstrated Public Participatory Geographic Informa-
tion System (PPGIS) provides a cost-effective approach to
facilitate spatial decision-making, allowing park agencies to
prioritise future visitor management actions. Furthermore,
Fairfax et al. (2014) indicate pyroelectric infrared sensors
and digital cameras to be low-cost means for documenting
visitor use patterns within protected areas.
Considering visitors are not a homogeneous group, it is
essential to understand their diversity, i.e. visitor segmenta-
tion (Smith et al. 2014) and their recreational experience
preferences (Raadik et  al. 2010). The understanding of
segmentation provides the opportunity for marketing and
potential redistribution of supply and demand across the
park system. Similarly, understanding the experience prefer-
ences, e.g. self-discovery, the experience of places, seeking
solitude, self-challenge (Raadik et al. 2010), provides valu-
able input to not only onsite management but also the other
aspects of outdoor recreation such as resource allocation
and marketing decisions, e.g. commercial tourism supply
and targeting. Visitors environmental behaviour monitoring
should generate data for research and management, incor-
porating the knowledge and experience gained from social,
natural and physical sciences as well as views of the local
community to achieve sustainable tourism development
(Catibog-Sinha 2008; Ramos and Perna 2009).
3.4 Sustainable financing and Green infrastructure
Sustainable financing is an increasingly important topic for
protected areas across different governance types, especially
considering many of them have witnessed declining sup-
port from traditional financial streams. Due to the inabil-
ity to self-finance, the threat that many protected areas will
become ‘paper parks’ (Dharmaratne et  al. 2000) is still
present. Whitelaw et al. (2014) argue that financial sustain-
ability means nothing if the core aspects of the protected
area are not maintained. On the other hand, the core aspects
cannot be maintained in the absence of sufficient financ-
ing. The authors elaborate on the concept of payment of
ecosystem services (PES), which can be used to estimate
the value attributable to ecosystem services based on ‘ben-
eficiary pays’ approach.11 Considering that the protected
areas success is contingent upon adequate funding (Roberts
et al. 2016), researchers have paid particular attention to the
valuation of visitors’ services and preferences by estimating
11
  As indicated by Whitelaw et al. (2014) the payments may be tied
to an opportunity cost or economic benefits attributed to protected
areas. Moreover, PES fosters the transformation of the business com-
munity perception and provides the opportunity to connect the PES
system with tourism operators involved in the delivery of environ-
mental services, e.g. Eco-lodges and tour operators.
willingness to pay (WTP). With the application of the con-
tingent valuation method, Cheung et al. (2014) explore the
visitors’ preferences and WTP for global geopark manage-
ment and conservation. Research results contribute to broad-
ening the understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic value. Fur-
thermore, Baral et al. (2017) argue that the visitors’ gender,
age, education, use of a guide, length of stay, information
about park substitutes and knowledge about the park influ-
ences their willingness to pay in Sagarmatha National Park
(Mount Everest). Additionally, tourists’ willingness to pay in
the Nyungwe National Park (Rwanda) is predicted by choice
of accommodation, level of income and education, number
of prior visits, accommodation cost and intention to visit
again (Lai et al. 2017). According to Rathnayake (2016),
economic values are useful in recreation planning, i.e. the
significant changes in welfare benefits (Das and Hussain
2016) could be used as a tool for forecasting which recrea-
tional proposal or scheme would be feasible to implement.
4 Discussion, gaps and research limitations
Considering nature-based solutions are a relatively young
concept still being framed, there is evident need to deepen
overall understanding and confirm the principles upon which
they are based to move towards an operational framework
that can guide applications of this concept (IUCN 2016).
This research presents a small step towards the better under-
standing and utilisation of nature-based solutions to achieve
sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas.
Considering there is an evident lack in the understanding
in what manner different sustainable solutions can be uti-
lised to face societal challenges in natural protected areas
(Lafortezza and Chen 2016), this research delivers a compre-
hensive synthesis of 78 relevant studies published between
2008 and 2018 in 17 leading tourism and hospitality journals
to fill that void. Regarding the paper distribution, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism (JST) (Taylor & Francis Online) holds
the single largest share in the sample (Table 2). Not surpris-
ingly, considering that JST is a leading tourism journal that
advances critical understanding of the relationship between
tourism and sustainable development. Furthermore, in this
review, the focus has been made on tourism research lit-
erature considering researchers in environmental journals
address parks, protected areas, and pollution aspects but
very few studies advocate tourism (Buckley 2011). Finally,
research aims to broaden the understanding in which man-
ner different nature-based solutions and concepts were used
and could be used to mitigate pressures of tourism develop-
ment in protected natural areas and support the provisions
13

of ecosystem services.12 With this research, I do not aim to
provide new definitions nor typology of nature-based solu-
tions, but instead, explore the progress on NbS in tourism
studies, and the potential interventions related to tourism
development that could be considered as NbS or form the
conceptual basis for their development. The intention is to
foster the discussion and contribute to the development and
dissemination of sustainable practices in natural protected
areas.
4.1 Current solutions for sustainable tourism
development
Considering the vulnerability of the protected natural areas,
contemporary policy measures and solutions designed to
mitigate socio-economic pressures should be aligned with
NbS principles. Following, a respectable number of con-
ceptual solutions included in this review can be considered
as nature-based and aligned with at least one of the NbS
principles. The review suggests that there are different ways
in which these solutions could be used to address various
environmental, economic and social challenges arising
from tourism development in pristine natural environments.
Despite currently, tourism literature does not report on
implemented NbS, and the term nature-based solutions is not
present in the tourism research literature, but somewhat sus-
tainable solutions, tools and models (Table 3), they have a
bright perspective (Fig. 2), especially in the form of strategic
documents and policies. Tourism development in protected
areas supports a new perspective of nature-based solutions,
aligned with ‘open concept’ advocated by Eggermont et al.
(2015). That means that different practices inaugurated in
protected areas could be considered as Type 1, i.e. better
use of natural/protected ecosystem and Type 2, i.e. sustain-
ability and multifunctionality of the managed ecosystem,
nature-based solutions. While Type 1 entirely reflects the
way IUCN frames NbS, Type 2 would also correspond to
this definition considering it implies contribution to biodi-
versity preservation and management and restoration of eco-
systems with simultaneous delivery of a range of ecosystem
services (Eggermont et al. 2015). Following, the idea that
nature-based solutions have to be related to physical inter-
ventions should be questioned. If we accept them as solu-
tions designed to respond social, economic and ecological
challenges (protect, manage and restore) and provide human
well-being and biodiversity benefits, we open an entirely
new perspective in which NbS framework encompasses dif-
ferent intangible interventions, i.e. governance measures that
12
 In this research, ecosystem services are referred to as the ben-
efits people derive from ecosystems, i.e. more precisely recreational
opportunities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
protected areas can and should introduce to mitigate every-
day pressures. Following, each sustainable tourism dimen-
sion stressed in this review can be related with at least one
of the NbS approaches via current solutions, i.e. conceptual
and implemented measures (Fig. 2), while within each of the
NbS approaches numerous tourism-related questions should
be addressed appropriately.
When considering governance, management and conser-
vation of protected natural areas throughout revised tourism
literature, the importance is attached to the following topics,
namely the ecotourism development, resilience, education
and synergetic interactions, three-tier management frame-
work and adaptive co-management, private investment and
capital in protected areas and contemporary conservation
approaches (Fig.  2). Researchers propose and analyse a
broad spectrum of sustainable solutions and models, which
have been or could be developed to foster benefits mostly
from parks to local communities. Following, (eco)tourism
is stressed out as a driver of both, pressures and solutions
for protected areas (Spenceley 2016; Badola et al. 2018).
It provides economic justification for biodiversity conser-
vation, and foster social and economic benefits potentially
distributed in a fair and equitable way (Montaguti and Min-
gotto 2015; Lucrezi et al. 2017; Bushell and Bricker 2016).
Furthermore, researchers report on and advocate parks
reliance on smart, mostly ICT solutions, especially when
planning tourist routes, providing information, educating
visitors, and developing specific technological solutions to
address external pressures, i.e. climate change and ecologi-
cal disasters. Smart park initiative13 launched in Liwonde
national park Malawi, Serengeti and Mkomazi national parks
in Tanzania, and Akagera national park Rwanda, encourages
the transformation of parks to smart parks. However, in these
cases, technology and innovative techniques are primarily
used for protection of endangered species and conservation
of the environment. If we consider a park to be a tourism
destination, then the smart park would potentially be a sort
of smart tourism destination, and ICT its nervous system
(Lὸpez de Ávila et al. 2015). These destinations, built on
an infrastructure of state-of-the-art technology that guaran-
tees sustainable development, are accessible to everyone,
facilitate visitors’ interaction with and integration into sur-
roundings, increase the quality of experience at the desti-
nation, and improve residents’ quality of life. They would
aim to improve internal processes (e.g. governance, man-
agement, planning) to respond to external challenges, i.e.
develop resilient parks. As a prerequisite, the effective park
governance framework should be determined by site-specific
context and aligned with NbS principles, embracing nature
13
  Retrieved from https​://www.smart​parks​.org/. Accessed December
2018.
Environment Systems and Decisions

Table 3  Synthesis of the nature-based solutions in protected natural areas

Intervention Protected area Research paper

Governance, management and conservation

 Development of a tool that stimulates changes in Serengeti National Park DíezGutiérrez et al. (2017)
traffic volume to facilitate the assessment of man-
agement actions
 Development and introduction of a three-tier Hemis National Park; Nanda Devi National Park; Badola et al. (2018)
tourism development framework involving local Valley of Flowers National Park; Corbett National
communities and civil society organisations, sup- Park
ported by enabling government policies as most
efficacious in mainstreaming socio-economic
development of local communities and environ-
mental concerns
 Application of the traffic Cellular Automaton Model Shiretoko National Park Ishikawa et al. (2013)
as a decision support tool to ease traffic congestion
in protected areas
 Development and introduction of a rapid assessment John Forrest National Park Newsome (2014)
tool, using a global positioning system and geo-
graphic information system to quantify the effects
of mountain biking in the natural area
 Market segmentation approach to reduce transport- Lake District National Park Stanford (2014)
related environmental burdens from visitors, while
maintaining economic benefits
 Application of a geographic information system Gorce National Park Tomczyk and Ewertowski (2013)
and regression tree analysis to optimise recrea-
tional trail location for flexible, user-defined input
parameters
Capacity building
 Implementation of local community participation in Liwonde National Park and Majete Wildlife Reserve Bello et al. (2016)
planning associated with ecotourism
 Examination of local decision-making practices and Boumā National Heritage Park Farrell (2011)
issues from a community perspective
 A co-management agreement between Parks Canada Gwaii Hannas National Park Reserve Thomlinson and Crouh (2012)
and the Haida people
Visitor management and monitoring
 Application of pyroelectric infrared sensors and DˋAguilar National Park Fairfax et al. (2014)
digital cameras for documenting visitor use pat-
terns
 Implementation of carrying capacity management Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park; Ba Vi National Ly and Nguyen (2017)
system Park; Cuc Phuong National Park
 Identification of the patterns of visitation and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Walden-Schreiner et al. (2018)
assessing the relationship between infrastructure,
environmental factors and visitor distribution
patterns
Sustainable financing and green infrastructure
 Delivering conservation benefits to communities Bwindi Impenetrable National Park Ahebwa et al. (2012)
living close to protected areas—tourism rev-
enue sharing policy from a policy arrangements
perspective
 Lessons for geopark managers for planning and Hong Kong global geopark of China Cheung et al. (2014)
marketing—investigation of visitors’ preferences
and willingness to pay
 Assessment of park use equity between and amongst Nyungwe National Park Lal et al. (2017)
international and national tourists and develop-
ment of an approach for determining predictors
and mean willingness to pay values for park
entrance

13

Current Solutions for Tourism Development
1. Eco-tourism as an economic justification of biodiversity
conservation and benefit enhancement.
2. Protected areas as smart destinations – fostering resilience and
planning tourism product.
3. Education, product and market diversification, strong institutional
capacity and mainstreaming adaptation in national policies.
3. Three-tier management framework (community, civil society and
government).
4. Park governance as a polycentric regime with distributes powers
among government, private and community-based stakeholders.
5. Adaptive co-management.
6. Development of synergetic interactions and fostering partnerships.
7. Private investment and capital in protected areas.
8. Contemporary conservation approach – community empowerment
and the use of nature to promote growth and well-being.
1. The local population and indigenous community rights and
attitudes toward tourism development.
2. Contemporary conservation approach – reflects indigenous
worldviews; foster their participation and development of
community capital.
3. A bottom-up community-based approach to tourism development
for the benefit of the local community.
4. Strengthening the skills, resources and business conditions (SME
and market orientation).
5. Tourism as a pro-poor strategy.
1. Management and monitoring of the visitors in protected areas.
2. Carrying capacity and multiple carrying capacity frameworks to
operationalise sustainable tourism development in protected
natural areas.
3. The utilisation of big-data and information and communication
technologies in documenting and managing visitors use patterns
(GIS, PPGIS, GPS, infrared sensor and digital cameras).
4. Understanding the visitors’ segmentation, experience preferences
and environmental behaviour.
1. Sustainable financing – the ability of the protected areas to self-
finance and maintain the core aspect of the protected area.
2. Payment for ecosystem services – ‘beneficiary pays’ approach.
3. Valuation of visitors’ services and preferences by estimating
willingness to pay and its predictors.
Fig. 2  Current solutions and future perspective of NbS for tourism development within protected natural areas
conservation norms, and producing a wide range of benefits
on a landscape scale while maintaining biological and cul-
tural diversity. It will provide benefits for all stakeholders
and discourage deterioration of protected futures. Research-
ers do agree that the effective park governance is perceived
as a polycentric regime where power is distributed among
government, private and community-based stakeholders
(Badola et al. 2018; Heslinga et al. 2017; Ly and Xiao 2016).
Following, an acceptable management framework should
be based on three tiers encompassing all significant stake-
holders, encouraging education, product development and
market diversification, e.g. adaptive co-management (Islam
et al. 2017; Eagles et al. 2013; Plummer and Fennell 2009).
This requires, among other, strong institutional capacity,
continuous adaptation in national policies, the inclusion of
the private sector and development of synergetic interactions
and partnerships between collaborative stakeholder groups.
Within the current solutions related to capacity build-
ing (Fig. 2), researchers focus on empowerment of local
population and indigenous community rights, develop-
ment of contemporary conservation models and bottom-up
community-based development approach, strengthening of
the skills, resources and business conditions and creating
enabling environment for sustainable growth throughout
tourism development. It is a prevailing attitude that contem-
porary and sustainable conservation model should integrate
community empowerment and advocate the use of nature
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
TOURISM DIMENSIONS NbS APPROACHES Future Perspective and Potential Research Gaps
1. Which are the sustainable responses regarding wastewater treatment and
pollution in protected areas facing tourism development?
2. Which are the measures introduced to address the deteriorations of the
protected features induced by tourism development and which are the
consequences for future tourism development?
Governance, 3. How can protected natural areas regain ecological integrity and enhance
management and Ecosystem human well-being?
conservation restoration 4. Do planned restoration measures, focused on the enhancement of the
approaches connectivity between protected areas, induce tourism development in cross-
border areas?
5. Can sustainable visitor routes in protected areas contribute to minimising
negative impacts on the ecosystem?
6. Can eco-tourism induce ecological restoration related to the regaining of
the authenticity of the nature-based tourism destinations?
Capacity building 1. Will ecosystem adaptation to climate change influence the tourism
development within forest, marine and coastal protected areas?
2. What is the role of tourism in sustainable management, conservation and
restoration of ecosystems for benefits (economic and social) of the local
community?
3. Which are the significant constraints for optimal benefit sharing from
Issue-specific tourism development in protected areas?
ecosystem 4. Do protected areas facing massive visitation have the capacity
related approaches (ecological mechanisms, characteristics and know how) to adapt to
upcoming changes and challenges?
5. Do economic benefits of the tourism development within protected areas
foster the trade-offs’ between current well-being and ecosystem services
which may prove critical in the future?
6. Can tourism enhance the local community capacity to better manage and
recover from the effects of the hazards?
Visitor management 1. In what manner green infrastructure and natural infrastructure
and monitoring Infrastructure complement built infrastructure and facilities and foster tourism
related development in protected areas.
approaches 2. Which are the impacts of the tourism development on green and natural
infrastructure within protected areas?
1. Continuous quest for more effective and equitably protected areas and
Ecosystem-based
visitor managed approaches.
management
2. The role of the technology in sustainable tourism development within
approaches
protected natural areas.
1. Balancing conservation and recreation and creating a sustainable vision
Ecosystem for future tourism development within protected natural areas.
Sustainable financing
protection 2. Developing professional human resources for management and planning
and green infrastructure
approaches within protected areas.
to promote growth and well-being (Svensson 2009; Oviedo
and Puschkarsky 2012; Novelli and Scarth 2007). Local and
indigenous community rights and attitudes towards tourism
development should be respected, i.e. measures and poli-
cies have to reflect their worldviews, and foster their par-
ticipation and community capital development. Following,
the acceptable framework for tourism development within
protected natural areas is a bottom-up community-based
approach. This model will stimulate the strengthening of
the skills, resources and business conditions and provide
a favourable environment for fair benefit sharing. In 2010,
Europarc Federation launched European Charter14 for Sus-
tainable Tourism in Protected Areas, and following in 2013
addition Learning15 from Case Studies. With these publica-
tions, the Federation embraced a latter approach to tourism
development and additionally emphasised the importance of
stakeholders’ involvement throughout stakeholders’ forums
and the establishment of a partnership between conservation
and recreation. These partnerships are vital, considering they
14
 Retrieved from https​://www.europ​arc.org/wp-conte​nt/uploa​
ds/2015/05/2010-Europ​ean-Chart​er-for-Susta​inabl​e-Touri​sm-in-Prote​
cted-Areas​.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
15
 Retrieved from https​://www.europ​arc.org/wp-conte​nt/uploa​
ds/2015/05/2013-EUROP​ E AN-CHART​ E R-FOR-SUSTA ​ I NABL​
E-TOURI​SM-IN-PROTE​CTED-AREAS​-Learn​ing-from-Case-Studi​
es1.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
Environment Systems and Decisions
change the attitudes around the issues of biodiversity conser-
vation and environmentally responsible business practices
(Bushell and Bricker 2016) which are prerequisite for parks
to be resilient.
The adaptable and holistic approach to the management
and protection of natural areas will stimulate the sustain-
able solutions that can induce desired development effects.
Considering visitor management and monitoring are a pre-
condition for such sustainable planning researchers advocate
implementation of carrying capacity and multiple carrying
capacities approaches as a solutions for visitor number
assessment, and utilisation of big data and technologies as
tools in tourism planning, e.g. GPS, GIS, Public participa-
tory GIS—PP GIS, infrared sensor and digital cameras. In
many cases, the implementation of monitoring and visitor
management solutions is tightly related to the purpose of
data gathering, the specifics of the park, and available fund-
ing. For example within the Park & Benefits project,16 the
Matsalu National Park in Estonia has implemented Eco-
Counter—a seismically and vibration responsive devices for
visitor monitoring, while in Nature Park Maribosøerne in
Denmark, park authorities are using digital counters hidden
in boxes. Besides knowing their visitors, regarding experi-
ence preferences and environmental behaviour, park man-
agers are also responsible for selecting and prioritising the
features to be monitored.
Regarding sustainable financing, researchers explore
solutions that could yield parks financial sustainability, the
concept of payment for ecosystem services and visitors will-
ingness to pay. The sustainability of the protected natural
area is determined with its ability to self-finance and main-
tain the core features. The increasing expectation that pro-
tected areas will be self-funded is placing pressure on those
with responsibility for managing them, while at the same
time, protected area authorities have been criticised for over-
emphasising restrictions and prohibitions rather than taking
a proactive, sustainable development approach to manage-
ment (Whitelaw et al. 2014). These combined pressures sug-
gest that innovative means are required to fund protected
areas, e.g. payment for ecosystem services—a ‘beneficiary
pays’ approach. More than that, there is a need for better
understanding of visitors’ preferences regarding valuation
of services and willingness to pay and its predictors. Under-
standing the scale of the shortfall, and coming up with inno-
vative and achievable suggestions for reducing the deficit are
urgent priorities, which require new skills and new partners
(Dudley and Stolton 2018).
Despite its importance, the concept of green infrastruc-
ture has not been addressed in examined tourism literature. It
16
 Retrieved from https​://www.europ​arc.org/libra​ry/curre​nt-proje​cts/
parks​-benef​i ts/. Accessed December 2018.
might be said that this is expected, considering that, tourism
researchers prioritise to elaborate on intangible interventions
(e.g. improvement of management model, implementation
and policies) and smaller scale tangible interventions (e.g.
development of routes, implementation of ICT solutions)
rather than big scale projects (e.g. Coastal Protection and
Sea Level Rise—Wadden Sea Ecosystem17). The term Green
infrastructure refers to the strategically planned network
of natural and semi-natural areas designed and managed
to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services.18 The EU
has developed a Green infrastructure Strategy (European
Commission 2013), a document aiming to ensure that the
protection, restoration, creation and enhancement of green
infrastructure become an integral part of spatial planning
and territorial development whenever it offers a better alter-
native. Most recently, the concept of green infrastructure has
become increasingly popular among urban policymakers and
planners facing multiple challenges raised by urban expan-
sion and climate change (Bissonnette et al. 2018). Consid-
ering that the definition of this concept depends on context
and objectives (Lovell and Taylor 2013) and that the pro-
tected areas significantly affected by tourism development
are its natural cornerstone (European Parliament 2013), it
is reasonable to expect that green infrastructure is jet to be
inaugurated in tourism literature.
4.2 Future perspective and potential research gaps
The analysis raised several questions and dilemmas regard-
ing the role and potentials of nature-based solutions in
sustainable tourism development within protected natural
areas, which should be addressed from the tourism studies
perspective (Fig. 2).
Several gaps drew from governance, management and
conservation, visitor management and monitoring and sus-
tainable financing and green infrastructure dimensions of the
proposed framework can be analysed and resolved within
the Ecosystem restoration approach (Fig. 2). For tourism,
researchers are essential to review and explore the inter-
relations between environmental pressures, sustainable
responses and the future of tourism development within pro-
tected natural areas, especially in a context of new regional
and global tourism trends and environmental conditions.
Furthermore, the attention should be paid to broadening of
the understanding regarding the role of tourism in the pro-
cess of restoration of ecological integrity and enhancement
of well-being in local and indigenous communities. It is
17
  Retrieved from http://www.wadde​nsea-secre​taria​t.org/sites​/defau​lt/
files​/downl​oads/cpsl-repor​t.pdf. Accessed December 2018.
18
  Retrieved from http://ec.europ​a.eu/envir​onmen​t/natur​e/ecosy​stems​
/index​_en.htm. Accessed December 2018.
13

crucial to answer, can tourism contribute restoration, and can
it be used as a toll in the processes of ecological restoration
and regaining of authenticity in nature-based destinations.
Currently, researchers focus mostly on the role of the nature-
based tourism in lower-middle and low income19 countries.
However, reliance on tourism, especially in EU throughout
the European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF), as
a tool to develop and restore sets new research agenda. It is
evident tourism will continue to play a prominent role in
planned ERDF investment, as well as related investments
into the conservation, protection, promotion and develop-
ment of natural and cultural heritage, considering that EU
has allocated about € 8 billion for these activities20. Fur-
thermore, these questions should additionally be explored
from over tourism perspective. Currently, tourism research-
ers focus on post-stagnation phase of tourism development21
and factors leading to and potentially influencing over tour-
ism in city heritage destinations, e.g. Venice, Dubrovnik,
Barcelona (Seraphin et al. 2018). To build resilient parks,
emphasis should be placed on parks that often record and
deal with a large number of visitors on geographically small
specific areas (Weaver and Lawton 2017).
Dilemmas within issue-specific ecosystem-related
approaches, raising from governance, management and
conservation, capacity building and visitor management
and monitoring, relate tourism development with climate
change, conservation, restoration of the ecosystem for ben-
efits of local community, their capacity to adapt, trade-offs
and resilience. Although there is a respectable body of lit-
erature in some of the indicated areas, e.g. conservation
(Bushell and Bricker 2016; Shultis and Way 2006; Sven-
sson 2009; Oviedo and Puschkarsky 2012), climate change
(Weaver 2011; Van der Veeken et al. 2015; Becken and Job
2014) due to specific case studies, i.e. each protected area
is a story for itself, there is a lack of a unified position and
commonly accepted practices and policies. Many researchers
indicate the benefits of tourism development for the sus-
tained development of the local community; however, the
factors influencing adequate benefit sharing remain blurred.
Furthermore, Luthe and Wyss (2014) report there is a lack of
work on tourism resilience concerning interrelated impacts
of global environmental change. Considering pristine natu-
ral environments are first to be affected by these changes, it
would be valuable to understand how should this systems
adapt to changes that happen, and who should be responsible
19
 Retrieved from https​://datah​elpde​sk.world​bank.org/knowl​edgeb​
ase/artic ​ l es/90651 ​ 9 -world ​ - bank-count ​ r y-and-lendi ​ n g-group​ s .
Accessed December 2018.
20
 Retrieved from https​://ec.europ​a.eu/regio​nal_polic​y/en/polic​y/
theme​s/touri​sm/. Accessed December 2018.
21
  The last stage of destination development, according to Tourism
Area Life Cycle Theory (TALC), (Butler 2009).
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
for governance, management and planning for the resilience
of protected areas.
As stressed in the previous subheading, tourism research-
ers have in some manner ‘neglected’ infrastructure related
approach. However, there are specific research questions that
might be intriguing and addressed in future research espe-
cially regarding the interrelation between green and built
infrastructure, and potential impacts of nature-based tour-
ism development on green infrastructure. Furthermore, EU
Biodiversity Strategy 2020 trough Target 2, considers Green
Infrastructure (GI) to play a vital role in protecting, conserv-
ing and enhancing the EU’s natural capital. Following with
new EU strategy to promote the use of Green Infrastructure
in Europe, Union has devoted to promote GI in the main EU
policy areas, to support EU-level GI projects, to improve
access to finance for GI projects and improve information
share. Consequently, it will be valuable to explore the results
and benefits of such policies and the role of nature-based
tourism within.
Finally, when considering ecosystem-based management
approaches and ecosystem protection approaches, which are
in some manner well covered in tourism literature, there are
specific topics that should be continuously addressed. Prob-
ably the most important one is the effectiveness of visitor
and protected areas management, which considers the devel-
opment of human resources, improvement in existing and
development of new visitor management tools, and provision
of ecosystem services. Secondly, the integration of informa-
tion technologies has provided new hope for protected area
managers, especially in the context of visitor monitoring
and carrying capacity control. It is important to explore fac-
tors influencing the transformation of parks to smart tourism
destinations, and by that the integration of the DMO (des-
tination management organisation) roles within the current
park management framework.
4.3 Research limitations
Although this research provides valuable conclusions
regarding the potential of nature-based solutions in sustain-
able tourism development in protected natural areas, certain
limitations should be discussed. Firstly, this research aimed
to provide tourism studies perspective on the topic and by
that encompassed exclusively studies published in leading
hospitality and tourism journals. This implies that studies
published in journals of other disciplines, e.g. environmen-
tal management, environmental economics, environmental
policy (ELSEVIER Journal List), professional journals, e.g.
Parks Journal and conference proceedings, have not been
considered. Although it is an important limitation of this
study, it was the only way to provide tourism research pro-
gress and perspective on nature-based solutions for sustain-
able tourism in protected natural areas. Following, review
Environment Systems and Decisions
provides valuable starting point for any future research that
(1) would explore the potentials and progress of the nature-
based solutions for sustainable tourism within protected
areas and (2) aim to explore this subject in depth by extend-
ing the journal list outside tourism management as primary
subject, e.g. Environmental Management, Forest Manage-
ment and Planning, Environment and Development, Cre-
ating and Restoring Wetlands etc. Secondly, this research
applies a general framework to explore sustainable tourism
in protected areas. This was done for two reasons. Firstly,
the dimensions of the framework (Fig. 1) encompass the
tourism themes that are often discussed and prominent by
leading researchers and the International Union for Nature
Conservation, as a most relevant organisation. Secondly,
this allowed me to holistically relate tourism development
dimensions with nature-based approaches, some of which
are still blurred and unexplored in tourism studies.
5 Conclusion
The global protected area network is by far the most exten-
sive natural resources management system that aims to
maintain natural habitats and ecosystem integrity (Lopouk-
hine et al. 2012). Yet, many of them are underfunded, poorly
managed and ecologically damaged (Watson et al. 2014;
Pringle 2017). Due to numerous pressures, innovative solu-
tions are needed to improve the condition and resilience
of fragile natural ecosystems to pave the way towards the
sustainable and resilient use and provision of ecosystem
services.
This paper reviews recent tourism research literature to
outline progress on and potentials of nature-based solutions
in sustainable tourism development in protected natural
areas. NbS are understood as an umbrella concept, cover-
ing a whole range of ecosystem-related approaches address-
ing various societal challenges. Despite its significance, the
review suggests the term nature-based solution has not yet
been established in tourism literature. The reasons for that
are twofold, i.e. from one side large proportion of park-
related research is not published in tourism journals, while
from the other side tourism researchers often use terms
sustainable tools and models, for interventions that can be
considered as nature-based solutions. This lack of opera-
tional clarity presents a major obstacle to wide-scale uptake
of NbS, considering their proponents have transferred the
responsibility of interpreting how to put the idea into prac-
tice to policy makers and managers (IUCN 2016).Conse-
quently, NbS remain a general metaphor without sufficiently
clear guidelines to enable effective operationalisation,
assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability
of particular interventions. However, tourism research litera-
ture provides a new perspective of nature-based solutions
integrating various intangible and small-scale tangible inter-
ventions that significantly affect current state and future per-
spective of natural resources.
Building on a proposed framework this research interre-
late tourism development, protected areas and nature-based
solutions, to elaborate on and systematise relevant studies
published in tourism journals. So far, tourism researchers
have prioritise to study park governance, management and
conservation (models, effectiveness, resilience, mitigation
of various impacts), visitor management and monitoring
(techniques, tools, approaches to carrying capacity assess-
ment), capacity building (challenges related to local and
indigenous community rights, benefit sharing, impacts),
and financing (sustainable financing and visitors willing-
ness to pay). Following, within elaborated tourism literature,
ecosystem-based management and protection approaches,
issue-specific ecosystem related approaches, and ecosystem
restoration approaches are partially covered, while solu-
tions within infrastructure related approaches are jet to be
explored. Considering role and potential benefits of NbS in
protected areas, global tourism development trends and pro-
tected area stakeholders’ (residents, the business community,
policy makers) different and often conflicted expectations,
it is my humble opinion that NbS perspective in tourism
research is tightly linked to the following research priorities:
1. Role of tourism in the process of restoration of ecologi-
cal integrity and enhancement of local and indigenous
community wellbeing in a challenging context of new
trends, environmental conditions and EU policy;
2. Adaptation of these sensitive ecosystems through del-
egation of roles and responsibilities for governance,
management and planning for the resilience of protected
areas; and
3. Integration of DMO roles within the current manage-
ment framework to cope with tourism development suc-
cessfully, and improve current management framework.
Acknowledgements  The author would like to express his gratitude to
both reviewers for comprehensive review and suggestions that have
contributed improve the quality of paper.
References
Aasetre J, Gundersen V, Vistad OI, Holtrop EJ (2016) Recreational
preferences along a naturalness development continuum:
results from surveys in two unequal urban forests in Europe.
J Outdoor Recreat Tour 16:58–68. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jort.2016.09.006
Agapito D, Valle P, Mendes J (2014) The sensory dimension of tour-
ist experiences: capturing meaningful sensory-informed themes
in Southwest Portugal. Tour Manag 42:224–237. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2013.11.011
13

Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N (2018) What you see is what
you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in manage-
ment research. Acad Manag Ann 12(1):83–110. https​://doi.
org/10.5465/annal​s.2016.0011
Ahebwa WM, Van derDuim R, Sandbrook C (2012) Tourism revenue
sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda:
a policy arrangements approach. J Sustain Tour 20(3):377–394.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2011.62276​8
Akyeampong OA (2011) Pro-poor tourism: residents’ expectations,
experiences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park
Area of Ghana. J Sustain Tour 19(2):197–213. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2010.50950​8
Badola R, Hussain SA, Dobriyal P, Manral U, Barthwal S, Rastogi
A, Kaur Gill A (2018) Institutional arrangements for managing
tourism in the Indian Himalayan protected areas. Tour Manag
66:1–12. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2017.10.020
Baral N, Kaul S, Heinen JT, Ale SB (2017) Estimating the value
of the World Heritage Site designation: a case study from
Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park, Nepal. J Sus-
tain Tour 25(12):1776–1781. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2017.13108​66
Becken S, Job H (2014) Protected areas in an era of global–
local change. J Sustain Tour 22(4):507–527. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2013.87791​3
Bello FG, Carr N, Lovelock B (2016) Community participation frame-
work for protected area-based tourism planning. Tour Plan Dev
13(4):469–485. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/215683​ 16.2015.113683​ 8
Bello FG, Lovelock B, Carr N (2017) Constraints of community par-
ticipation in protected area-based tourism planning: the case of
Malawi. J Ecotour 16(2):131–151. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/14724​
049.2016.12514​44
Bessa E, GonÒ«alves-de-Freitas E (2014) How does tourist monitoring
alter fish behaviour in underwater trails? Tour Manag 45:253–
259. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2014.04.008
Bissonnette JF, Dupras J, Messier C, Lechowicz M, Dagenais D et al.
(2018) Moving forward in implementing green infrastructures:
stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and obstacles in a major
North American metropolitan area. Cities 81:61–70. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.citie​s.2018.03.014
Boers B, Cottrell S (2007) Sustainable tourism infrastructure planning:
a GIS-Supported approach. Tour Geogr Int J Tour Space Place
Environ 9(1):1–21. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/146166​ 80601​ 09282​ 4
Boes K, Buhalis D, Inversini A (2015) Conceptualising smart tourism
destination dimensions. In: Tussyadiah I, Inversini A (eds) Infor-
mation and communication technologies in tourism. Springer,
Switzerland. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343​-9_29
Bourguignon D (2017) Nature-based solutions—Concept, opportuni-
ties and challenges. European Parliamentary Research Service,
PE 608.796. http://www.europ​arl.europ​a.eu/think​tank/en/docum​
ent.html?refer​ence=EPRS_BRI
Buckley RC (2011) Tourism and environment. Annu Rev Environ
Resour. https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev-envir​on-04121​0-13263​
7E
Buckley RC (2012) Sustainable tourism: research and reality. Ann Tour
Res 39(2):528–546
Buckley RC (2016) Triage approaches send adverse political sig-
nals for conservation Front Ecol Evol. https​://doi.org/10.3389/
fevo.2016.00039​
Buckley R (2017) Tourism and natural world heritage: a complicated
relationship. J Travel Res. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00472​87517​
71372​3
Bushell R, Bricker K (2016) Tourism in protected areas: devel-
oping meaningful standards. Tour Hosp Res. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1177/14673​58416​63617​3
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
Butler RW (2009) Tourism destination development: cycles and forces,
myths and realities. Tour Recreat Res 34(3):247–254. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1080/02508​281.2009.11081​600
Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, Gomez-Baggethun E
(2015) Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barce-
lona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Environ Sci Policy
62:14–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc​i.2016.01.007
Carsten N, Timo A, Katherine NI, Graciela MR, Kerry AW et al (2017)
The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an
interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Environ 579:1215–1227.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2016.11.106
Catibog-Sinha C (2008) Visitor impact and biodiversity: a monitoring
framework for protected areas in southern highlands, New South
Wales, Australia. Asia Pac J Tour Res 13(3):245–263. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1080/10941​66080​22803​64
Catsadorakis G (2007) The conservation of natural and cultural herit-
age in Europe and the Mediterranean: a Gordian Knot?”. Int J
Heritage Stud 13(4–5):308–320. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13527​
25070​13508​50
Cheung LTO, Fok L, Fang W (2014) Understanding geopark visitors’
preferences and willingness to pay for global geopark man-
agement and conservation. J Ecotour 13(1):35–51. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/14724​049.2014.94184​8
Chhetri P (2015) A GIS methodology for modelling hiking experi-
ences in the Grampians National Park, Australia. Tour Geograph
17(5):795–814. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/146166​ 88.2015.108360​ 9
Das D, Hussain I (2016) Does ecotourism affect economic welfare?
Evidence from Kaziranga National Park, India. J Ecotour
15(3):241–260. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/147240​ 49.2016.119218​ 0
de Oliveira JAP (2005) Tourism as a force for establishing protected
areas: the case of Bahia, Brazil. J Sustain Tour 13(1):24–49. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/17501​22050​86684​71
Dharmaratne GS, Sang FY, Walling LJ (2000) Tourism potentials for
financing protected areas. Ann Tour Res 27(3):590–610
DíezGutiérrez M, Tørset T, Skjetne E, Odeck J (2017) Tourist traf-
fic simulation as a protected area management tool. The case
of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Tour Manag 22:54–63.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.01.005
Dredge D, Thomas P (2009) Mongrel management, public interest and
protected area management in the Victorian Alps, Australia. J
Sustain Tour 17(2):249–267. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
58080​23592​85
Dudley N, Stolton S (2018) Protected areas: challenges and responses
for coming decade. Equilibrium Research, Bristol
Eagles PFJ, Romagosa F, Buteau-Duitschaever WC, Havitz M, Glover
TD, McCutcheon B (2013) Good governance in protected areas:
an evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia
and Ontario Provincial Parks. J Sustain Tour 21(1):60–79. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2012.67133​1
Eggermont H, Balian E, Azevedo JMN, Beumer V, Brodin T et al
(2015) Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental
management and research in Europe. GAIA 24(4):243–248. https​
://doi.org/10.14512​/gaia.24.4.9
Erdogan N, Tosun C (2009) Environmental performance of tourism
accommodations in the protected areas: case of Goreme His-
torical National Park. Int J Hosp Manag 28:406–414. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.01.005
European Commision (2013) Building a green infrastructure for
Europe. Available at http://ec.europ​a.eu/envir​onmen​t/natur​e/
ecosy​stems​/strat​egy/index​_en.htm
European Parliament (2013) Resolution on green infrastructure—
enhancing Europs Natural Capital. http://www.europ​arl.europ​
a.eu/sides​/getDo​c.do?pubRe​f=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-
0600+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&langu​age=EN
Environment Systems and Decisions
Everard M, McInnes R (2013) Systemic solutions for multiben-
efit water and environmental management. Sci Total Environ
461–462:170–179
Fairfax RJ, Dowling RM, Neldner VJ (2014) The use of infrared
sensors and digital cameras for documenting visitor use pat-
terns: a case study from D’Aguilar National Park, south-east
Queensland, Australia. Curr Issue Tour 17(1):72–83. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/13683​500.2012.71474​9
Faivre N, Fritz M, Freitas T, de Boissezon B, Vandewoestijne S (2017)
Nature-based solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to
address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ
Res 159:509–518. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2017.08.032
Farrell TA (2011) Indigenous and democratic decision-making: issues
from community-based ecotourism in the Boumā National
Heritage Park, Fiji. J Sustain Tour 19(7):817–835. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2011.55339​0
Farrell TA, Marion JL (2002) The protected area visitor impact man-
agement (PAVIM) framework: a simplified process for making
management decisions. J Sustain Tour 10(1):31–51. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​58020​86671​51
Frost W, Laing J, Beeton S (2014) The future of nature-based tourism
in the Asia-Pacific region. J Travel Res 53(6):721–732. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/00472​87513​51742​1
Garmestani AS, Benson MH (2013) A framework for resilience-based
governance of socio-ecological systems. Ecol Soc.https​://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05180​-18010​9
Goodwin H (2010) Local community involvement in tourism around
national parks: opportunities and constraints. Curr Issue Tour
5:338–360. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13683​50020​86679​28
Gretzel U, Sigala M, Xiang Z, Koo C (2015) Smart tourism: founda-
tions and developments. Electron Markets 25(3):179–188. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1252​5-015-0196-8
Gundersen V, Mehmetoglu M, Vistad OI, Andersen O (2015) Linking
visitor motivation with attitude towards management restrictions
on use in a national park. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 9:77–86. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.04.004
Hails C (2007) The evolution of approaches to conserving the world’s
natural heritage: the experiences of WWF. Int J Heritage Stud
13(4–5):365–379. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13527​25070​13510​64
Hallo JC, Beeco JA, Goetcheus C, McGee J, McGehee Gard N et al
(2012) GPS as a method for assessing spatial and temporal use
distributions of nature-based tourists. J Travel Res 51(5):591–
606. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00472​87511​43132​5
Hannam K (2005) Tourism management issues in India’s National
Parks: an analysis of the Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarahole)
National Park. Curr Issue Tour 8(2–3):165–180. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13683​50050​86682​12
Harmon D (2007) A bridge over the Chasm: finding ways to achieve
integrated natural and cultural heritage conservation. Int J Herit-
age Stud 13(4–5):380–392. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13527​25070​
13510​98
Haukeland JV (2011) Tourism stakeholders’ perceptions of national
park management in Norway. J Sustain Tour 19(2):133–153.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2010.51738​9
Heslinga J, Groote P, Vanclay F (2017) Strengthening governance
processes to improve benefit-sharing from tourism in protected
areas by using stakeholder analysis. J Sustain Tour. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2017.14086​35
Ishikawa K, Hachiya N, Aikoh T, Shoji Y, Nishinari K, Satake A (2013)
A decision support model for traffic congestion in protected
areas: a case study of Shiretoko National Park. Tour Manag Per-
spec 8:18–27. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.05.001
Islam MW, Ruhanen L, Ritchie BW (2017) Adaptive co-management:
a novel approach to tourism destination governance? J Hosp Tour
Manag. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.009
IUCN—International Union for Nature Conservation (2015) Tour-
ism and visitor management in protected areas—guidelines for
sustainability. Leung YF, Spenceley A, Hvenegaard G, Buckley
R (eds). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. https​://iucn.oscar​.ncsu.edu/
media​wiki/image​s/3/3a/Susta​inabl​e_Touri​sm_BPG_Full_Revie​
w_Copy_for_WPC14​_v2.pdf
IUCN—International Union for Nature Conservation (2016) Nature-
based Solutions to address global societal challenges. Cohen-
Shacham E, Walters G, Jqanzen C, Maginnis S (eds). IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland. https​://porta​ls.iucn.org/libra​ry/node/46191​
IUCN—International Union for Nature Conservation (2017) IUCN
world heritage outlook 2—a conservation assessment of all natu-
ral World Heritage sites. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. https:​ //porta​
ls.iucn.org/librar​ y/sites/​ librar​ y/files/​ docume​ nts/2017-053-En.pdf
Josephs LI, Humphries AT (2018) Identifying social factors that
undermine support for nature-based coastal management. J
Environ Manage 212:32–38. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​
an.2018.01.085
Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M et al
(2016) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and
adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge
gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc 21(2):39.
Khazaei A, Elliot S, Joppe M (2017) Fringe stakeholder engagement
in protected area tourism planning: inviting immigrants to the
sustainability conversation. J Sustain Tour 25(12):1877–1894.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2017.13144​85
Kruger M, Van der Merwe P, Saayman M, Slabbert E (2017) Under-
standing accommodation preferences of visitors to the Kruger
National Park. Tour Hosp Res. https​://doi.org/10.1177/14673​
58417​71567​8
Kytzia S, Walz A, Wegmann M (2011) How can tourism use land
more efficiently? A model-based approach to land-use efficiency
for tourist destinations. Tour Manag 32:629–640. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2010.05.014
Lafortezza R, Chen J (2016) The provision of ecosystem services in
response to global change: evidences and applications. Environ
Res 147:576–579. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2016.02.018
Lafortezza R, Sanesi G, Chen J (2013) Large-scale effects of forest
management in Mediterranean landscapes of Europe. iForest
Biogeosci Forestry 6:342–346. https​://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0​
960-006
Lafortezza R, Chen J, van den Bosch CK, Randrup TB (2018) Nature-
based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities. Environ Res
165:431–441. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2017.11.038
Laing JH, Lee D, Moore SA, Wegner A, Weiler B (2009) Advancing
conceptual understanding of partnerships between protected area
agencies and the tourism industry: a post-disciplinary and multi-
theoretical approach. J Sustain Tour 17(2):207–229. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​58080​24957​66
Lal P, Wolde B, Masozera M, Burli P, Alavalapati J et al (2017) Valu-
ing visitor services and access to protected areas: the case of
Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tour Manag 61:141–151.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2017.01.019
Lamsfus C, Martin D, Alzua-Sorzabal A, Torres-Manzanera E (2015)
Smart tourism destinations: an extended conception of smart cit-
ies focusing on human mobility. In: Tussyadiah I, Inversini A
(eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism.
Springer, Switzerland. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343​
-9_27
Leung YF, Spenceley A, Hvenegaard G, Buckley R (eds) (2018)
Tourism and visitor management in protected areas, guide-
lines for sustainability. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. https​://doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PAG.27.en
Leverington F, Lemos Costa K, Pavese H, Lisle A, Hockings M (2010)
A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness.
13

Environ Manag 46:685–98. https​ : //doi.org/10.1007/s0026​
7-010-9564-5
López de Ávila, A, Lancis E, Garcia S et al (2015) White paper: smart
tourism destinations—building the future. Sociedad Estatal para
la Gestión de la Innovación y las Tecnologías Turísticas (SEGIT-
TUR), Madrid
Lopoukhine N, Crawhall N, Dudley N, Figgis P, Karibuhoye C et al.
(2012) Protected areas: providing natural solutions to 21st Cen-
tury challenges. S.A.P.I.EN.S. http://sapie​ns.revue​s.org/1254
Lovell ST, Taylor JR (2013) Supplying urban ecosystem services
through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States.
Landscape Ecol 28(8):1447–1463. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s1098​
0-013-9912-y
Lucrezi S, Milanese M, Markantonatou V, Cerrano C, Sara A, Palma
M, Saayman M (2017) Scuba diving tourism systems and sus-
tainability: perceptions by the scuba diving industry in two
Marine Protected Areas. Tour Manag 59:385–403. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2016.09.004
Luthe T, Wyss R (2014) Assessing and planning resilience in tour-
ism. Tour Manag 44:161–163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​
an.2014.03.011
Ly TP, Nguyen THH (2017) Application of carrying capac-
ity management in Vietnamese National Parks. Asia Pac J
Tour Res 22(10):1005–1020. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10941​
665.2017.13591​94
Ly TP, Xiao H (2016) The choice of a park management model: a
case study of Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park in Viet-
nam. Tour Manag Perspec 17:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmp.2015.10.004
MacKinnon K, Sobrevila C, Hickey V (2008) Biodiversity, climate
change and adaptation: nature-based solutions from the World
Bank portfolio. C World Bank, Washington
Maes J, Jacobs S (2015) Nature-based solutions for Europes sustain-
able development. Conserv Lett 10(1):121–124. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/conl.12216​
McCool SF, Bosak K (eds) (2016) Reframing sustainable tourism.
Springer, London
Mearns K (2012) Community-based tourism and peace parks: benefits
to local communities through conservation in Southern Africa.
Acta Acad 44(2):70–87
Mittermeier RA, Totten M, Pennypacker LL, Boltz F, Mittermeier
CG et al. (2008) A climate for life: meeting the global chal-
lenge. Arlington, VA: International League of Conservation
Photographers
Montaguti F, Mingotto E (2015) Ecotourism in Natural Parks: an
assured sustainable success? Tourist behavior, attractive-
ness and sustainable development issues in two Italian Parks.
Tour Plan Dev 12(1):99–110. https​://doi.org/10.1080/21568​
316.2014.96059​8
Mubaideen S, Al Kurdi N (2017) Heritage conservation and urban
development: a supporting management model for the effective
incorporation of archaeological sites in the planning process.
J Cult Heritage 28:117–128. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.culhe​
r.2017.05.007
Munanura IE, Tumwesigye B, Sabuhoro E, Mariza D, Rugerinyange
L (2017) The quality and performance nexus of the commu-
nity-based ecotourism enterprises at Nyungwe National Park,
Rwanda: a total quality management perspective. J Ecotour
17(2):160–183. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/147240​ 49.2017.130494​ 5
Mutanga NC, Vengesayi S, Muboko N, Gandiwa E (2015) Towards
harmonious conservation relationships: a framework for under-
standing protected area staff-local community relationships in
developing countries. J Nat Conserv. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jnc.2015.02.006
Nepal SK (2000) Tourism in protected areas: the Nepalese Himalaya.
Ann Tour Res 27(3):661–681
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA
et  al (2016) The science, policy and practice of nature-
based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total
Environ 579:1215–1227. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2016.11.106
Newsome D (2014) Appropriate policy development and research
needs in response to adventure racing in protected areas.
Biol Conserv 171:259–269. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioco​
n.2014.01.008
Newsome D, Davies C (2009) A case study in estimating the area
of informal trail development and associated impacts caused by
mountain bike activity in John Forrest National Park, Western
Australia. J Ecotour 8(3):237–253. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/14724​
04080​25383​08
Novelli M, Scarth A (2007) Tourism in protected areas: integrating
conservation and community development in Liwonde National
Park (Malawi). Tour Hosp Plann Dev 4(1):47–73. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/14790​53070​12896​97
Nyaupane GP, Poudel S (2011) Linkages among biodiversity, liveli-
hood, and tourism. Ann Tour Res 38(4):1344–1366. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annal​s.2011.03.006
OECD—Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2006) The challenge of capacity development: working towards
good practice. OECD, Paris, France. http://www.fao.org/filea​
dmin/templ​ates/capac​itybu​ildin​g/pdf/DAC_paper​_final​.pdf.
Accessed July 2018
Olive ND, Marion JL (2009) The influence of use-related, environmen-
tal, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails.
J Environ Manag 90(3):1483–1493. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvm​an.2008.10.004
Oviedo G, Puschkarsky T (2012) World Heritage and rights-
based approaches to nature conservation. Int J Heritage Stud
18(3):285–296. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13527​258.2012.65214​6
Panno A, Carrus G, Lafortezza R, Mariani L, Sanesiu G, Nature-based
solutions to promote human resilience and wellbeing in cities
during increasingly hot summers. Environ Res 159:249–256.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2017.08.016
Parolo G, Ferrarini A, Rossi G (2009) Optimization of tourism
impacts within protected areas by means of genetic algorithms.
Ecol Model 220:1138–1147. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolm​
odel.2009.01.012
Peng J, Chen X, Wang J (2016) Applying relative deprivation theory
to study the attitudes of host community residents towards tour-
ism: the case study of the Zhangjiang National Park, China.
Curr Issue Tour 19(7):734–754. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13683​
500.2013.87787​6
Petrić L, Mandić A (2014) Visitor management tools for protected
areas focused on sustainable tourism development: the Croatian
experience. Environ Eng Manag J 13(6):1483–1495
Plummer R, Fennell DA (2009) Managing protected areas for sustain-
able tourism: prospects for adaptive co-management. J Sustain
Tour 17(2):149–168. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​58080​23593​
01
Pringle RM (2017) Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodi-
versity. Nature 546:91–99. https​://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e2290​2
Raadik J, Cttrell SP, Fredman P, Ritter P, Newman P (2010) Under-
standing recreational experience preferences: application at
FulufjälletNational Park, Sweden. Scand J Hosp Tour 10(3):231–
247. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15022​250.2010.48626​4
Ramos C, Perna F (2009) Information system for tourism activity mon-
itoring and forecasting indicators as an experience for Portugal.
Tour Hos Res 9(4):277–289
Rankin BL, Ballantyne M, Pickering CM (2015) Tourism and recrea-
tion listed as a threat for a wide diversity of vascular plants: a
continental scale review. J Environ Manage 154:293–298. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2014.10.035
Environment Systems and Decisions
Rathnayake RMW (2016) Economic values for recreational planning at
Horton Plains National Park, Sri Lanka. Tour Geogr 18(2):213–
223. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14616​688.2015.11363​50
Roberts RM, Jones KW, Seidl A, Ek A, Smith H (2016) Conservation
finance and sustainable tourism: the acceptability of conserva-
tion fees to support the Tambopata National Reserve, Peru. J
Sustain Tour 25(10):1353–1366. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2016.12576​30
Rodríguez-Rodríguez D (2012) Littering in protected areas: a conserva-
tion and management challenge—a case study from the Autono-
mous Region of Madrid, Spain. J Sustain Tour 20(7):1011–1024.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2011.65122​1
Said A, MacMillan D, Schembri M, Tzanopoulos J (2017) Fishing in
a congested sea: what do marine protected areas imply for the
future of the Maltese artisanal fleet?. Appl Geogr 87:245–255.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2017.08.013
Saleh F, Weinstein MP (2016) The role of nature-based infrastruc-
ture (NBI) in coastal resiliency planning: a literature review. J
Environ Manage. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvma​ n.2016.09.077
Salerno F, Viviano G, Manfredi EC, Coroli P, Thakuri S, Tartari G
(2013) Multiple carrying capacities from a management-oriented
perspective to operationalize sustainable tourism in protected
areas. J Environ Manage 128:116–125. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvm​an.2013.04.043
Sarukhan J, White A (eds) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being—
synthesis. World Resources Institute, Islands Press, Washington,
DC. https​://www.mille​nnium​asses​sment​.org/docum​ents/docum​
ent.356.aspx.pdf
Schmudde R (2015) Equestrian tourism in national parks and pro-
tected areas in Iceland—an analysis of the environmental and
social impacts. Scand J Hosp Tour 15(1–2):91–104. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15022​250.2014.10007​13
Seraphin H, Sheeran P, Pilato M (2018) Over-tourism and the fall of
Venice as a destination. J Destin Mark Manag 9:374–376. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.01.011
Serenari C, Peterson MN, Wallace T, Stowhas P (2017) Private pro-
tected areas, ecotourism development and impacts on local peo-
ple’s well-being: a review from case studies in Southern Chile. J
Sustain Tour 25(12):1792–1810. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2016.11787​55
Shultis J, Heffner S (2016) Hegemonic and emerging concepts of
conservation: a critical examination of barriers to incorpo-
rating Indigenous perspectives in protected area conserva-
tion policies and practice. J Sustain Tour 24:8–9. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2016.11588​27 pp: 1227–1242.
Shultis JD, Way PA (2006) Changing conceptions of protected areas
and conservation: linking conservation, ecological integrity and
tourism management. J Sustain Tour 14(3):223–237. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​58060​86690​56
Smith AJ, Tuffin M, Taplin RH, Moore SA, Tonge J (2014) Visitor seg-
mentation for a park system using research and managerial judge-
ment. J Ecotour 13(2–3):93–109. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14724​
049.2014.96311​2
Soliku O, Schraml U (2018) Making sense of protected area conflicts
and management approaches: a review of causes, contexts and
conflict management strategies. Biol Cons 222:136–145. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.bioco​n.2018.04.011
Spenceley A (2016) Tourism and protected areas: comparing the 2003
and 2014 IUCN World Parks Congress. Tour Hosp Res. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/14673​58415​61251​5
Spenceley A, Goodwin H (2008) Nature-based tourism and poverty
alleviation: impacts of private sector and parastatal enterprises
in and around Kruger National Park, South Africa. Curr Issue
Tour 10:255–277. https​://doi.org/10.2167/cit30​5.0
Stanford DJ (2014) Reducing visitor car use in a protected area: a
market segmentation approach to achieving behaviour change.
J Sustain Tour 22(4):666–683. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2013.84794​4
Stanford D, Guiver J (2016) Driving pro-environmental change in
tourist destinations: encouraging sustainable travel in National
Parks via partnership project creation and implementation. J
Sustain Tour 24(3):484–505. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2015.11220​18
Stone MT, Nyaupane GP (2017) Ecotourism influence on com-
munity needs and the functions of protected areas: a systems
thinking approach. J Ecotour 16(3):222–246. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1080/14724​049.2016.12219​59
Stone MT, Nyaupane GP (2018) Protected areas, wildlife-based com-
munity tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: spiraling
up and down of community capitals. J Sustain Tour 26(2):307–
324. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2017.13497​74
Su D, Xiao H (2009) The governance of nature-based tourism in china:
issues and research perspectives. J China Tour Res 5(4):318–338.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/19388​16090​33825​17
Svensson E (2009) Consuming nature–producing heritage: aspects on
conservation, economic growth and community participation in
a forested, sparsely populated area in Sweden. Int J Heritage Stud
15(6):540–559. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13527​25090​32108​37
Thede AK, Haider W, Rutherford MB (2014) Zoning in national
parks: are Canadian zoning practices outdated? J Sustain Tour
22(4):626–645. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​582.2013.87554​9
Thomlinson E, Crouh G (2012) aboriginal peoples, Parks Canada,
and protected spaces: a case in co-management at GwaiiHaanas
National Park Reserve. Ann Leis Res 15(1):69–86. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/11745​398.2012.67096​5
Tomao A, Quatrini V, Corona P, Ferrara A, Lafortezza R, Salvatzi L
(2017) Resilient landscapes in Mediterranean urban areas: under-
standing factors influencing forest trends. Environ Res 156:1–9.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envre​s.2017.03.006
Tomczyk AM (2011) A GIS assessment and modelling of environmen-
tal sensitivity of recreational trails: the case of Gorce National
Park, Poland. Appl Geogr 31:339–351. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeo​g.2010.07.006
Tomczyk AM, Ewertowski M (2013) Planning of recreational trails
in protected areas: application of regression tree analysis and
geographic information systems. Appl Geogr 40:129–139. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2013.02.004
Van der Veeken S, Calgaro E, Klint LM, Law A, Jiang M, Lacy T,
Dominey-Howes D (2015) Tourism destinations’ vulner-
ability to climate change: nature-based tourism in Vava’u, the
Kingdom of Tonga. Tour Hosp Res 16(1):50–71. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/14673​58415​61106​8
Veisten K, Haukeland JV, Baardsen S, Degnes-Ødemark H, Grue
B (2015) Tourist segments for new facilities in National Park
areas: profiling tourists in Norway based on psychographics and
demographics. J Hosp Market Manag 24:486–510. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/19368​623.2014.91171​3
Walden-Schreiner C, Leung YF, Tateosian L (2018) Digital foot-
prints: incorporating crowd sourced geographic information for
protected area management. Appl Geogr 90:44–54. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2017.11.004
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The perfor-
mance and potentials of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73. https​
://doi.org/10.1038/natur​e1394​7
Weaver D (2011) Can sustainable tourism survive climate change?
J Sustain Tour 19(1):5–15. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2010.53624​2
Weaver DB, Lawton LJ (2017) A new visitation paradigm for protected
areas. Tour Manag 60:140–146. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​
an.2016.11.018
Weiler B, Moyle BD, Wolf ID, Bie K, Torland M (2017) Assessing
the efficacy of communication interventions for shifting public
13

perceptions of park benefits. J Travel Res 56(4):468–481. https​
://doi.org/10.1177/00472​87516​64647​2
Whitelaw PA, King BEM, Tolkach D (2014) Protected areas, con-
servation and tourism—financing the sustainable dream. J
Sustain Tour 22(4):584–603. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​
582.2013.87344​5
Wilson E, Nielsen N, Buultjens J (2009) From lessees to partners:
exploring tourism public-private partnerships within the New
South Wales national parks and wildlife service. J Sustain Tour
17(2):269–285. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09669​58080​24957​74
Wolf ID, Wohlfart T, Brown G, Lasa AB (2015) The use of public
participation GIS (PPGIS) for park visitor management: a case
study of mountain biking. Tour Manag 51:112–130. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2015.05.003
Xu H, Cui Q, Sofield T, Li FMS (2014) Attaining harmony: under-
standing the relationship between ecotourism and protected
13
Environment Systems and Decisions
areas in China. J Sustain Tour 22(8):1131–1150. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09669​582.2014.90206​4
Yip HW, Mohd A, Noor A, Ghani A, Emby Z (2006) Participatory
of local operators in ecotourism services delivery: the nature-
based tourism development in Pahang National Park, Malay-
sia. Anatolia 17(2):313–318. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13032​
917.2006.96871​92
Zapata MJ, Hall CM, Lindo P, Vanderschaeghe M (2011) Can commu-
nity-based tourism contribute to development and poverty allevi-
ation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Curr Issues Tour 14(8):725–749.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/13683​500.2011.55920​0
Zeppel H (2009) Managing cultural values in sustainable tourism: con-
flicts in protected areas. Tourism Hospitality Research, 10(93).
https​://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2009.28