Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,

Vol. 6, No. 2, 150–167, 2006

Sustainable Tourism Development

Strategy in WWF Pan Parks: Case of a
Swedish and Romanian National Park

STUART P. COTTRELL* & NICOLETA CUTUMISU**

*Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA, and **University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

ABSTRACT This study examined regional and local tourism stakeholder perceptions of a
sustainable tourism development strategy (STDS) in Protected Area Network (PAN) Park
locations. An STDS overview from a cross-cultural comparative analysis of a verified park
(Sweden) versus a candidate site (Romania) is given. In-depth interviews addressed stakeholder
cooperation in sustainable tourism planning, perception of tourism in the region, development
proposals, and their involvement in sustainable tourism planning. Findings were organized under
three interlinkages of a sustainability framework: institutional referring to contribution to
sustainable development; care involving management and product innovations; and democracy-
justice involving community rejuvenation via opportunities for small-scale businesses having a
voice in decision making. Regional authorities (in both countries) have other obligations than
sustainable tourism development to fulfill while lack of infrastructure and access to parks is a
barrier to overcome. Support from local and regional authorities is limited with no STDS
apparent. Locally, stakeholders are skeptical with little belief in the benefits of a small-scale
tourism business. Unemployment, old mentality, and lack of experienced professionals are
problems in Romania compared to Sweden implying differences in democracy and care. STDS
enhances images of sustainability while its role is to develop strategies for sustainable tourism in
PAN Park regions.

KEY WORDS: Sustainability, sustainable tourism, sustainable tourism development strategy,

tourism impact assessment, protected area planning

Introduction
National Parks and protected areas play an important role in meeting the increasing
demand for nature-oriented tourism and recreation (Gartner & Lime, 2000;
Goodwin, 2000; Pigram & Jenkins, 1999). Park managers need information about

Correspondence Address: Stuart P. Cottrell, Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resource

Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA; Tel.: +1 970 491 7074.
Fax: +1 970 491 2255. Email: Cottrell@cnr.colostate.edu
1502-2250 Print/1502-2269 Online/06/020150–167 # 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15022250600658838
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 151

tourisms’ potential locally, as well as the socio-economic needs and resources of the
surrounding region to preserve the ecological equilibrium and natural values of the
area while fulfilling visitor expectations and promoting sustainable development of
local communities (Moscardo, 1999). Good communication among the various
stakeholders locally and regionally is essential to build consensus and collaborative
partnerships for the development and implementation of sustainable tourism
management (Caalders, 1997). It is argued, however, that the current management
of tourism in many protected areas globally displays a lack of international
communication, stakeholder involvement and public participation (Eagles, 2002;
Eagles & McCool, 2001; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003). Continual research is necessary
to analyze the park-tourism relationship in a more comprehensive way, integrating
visitor demands and expectations with the ecological, economic and socio-cultural
resources/potentials of the interested region (Haas, 2001; Sharpley, 2000). Only in
this way can tourism activities change from a threat to an opportunity for
alternative, more sustainable, development models (Eagles, 2002; Eagles & McCool,
2001; Sharpley, 2000).
Protected areas such as national parks and Natura 2000 sites in Europe can be
negatively affected by mass tourism. Natura 2000 refers to an ecological network of
protected areas in the European Union (EU) and it serves as the center of the EU’s
policy on nature conservation (Berg, Bree, & Cottrell, 2004; Font & Brasser, 2002).
The purpose of this network is to maintain and restore habitats and species at a
favorable conservation status in their natural range. Tourism has been noted as one
of the largest and fastest growing industries and has significant environmental,
cultural, social, and economic impacts, which could significantly affect Natura 2000
locations (Font & Brasser, 2002). Natura 2000 will involve 20–25 European countries
and it is important to know how tourism will affect these sites (Z. Kun, personal
communication, 17 July 2002). The Protected Area Network (PAN Parks) project,
started in 1997 by the World Wide Fund for Nature, was an initiative listed as one of
the two most relevant management practices for Natura 2000 sites (DG
Environment, 2001; Font & Brasser, 2002) in Europe. PAN Parks was started as a
means to encourage synergy between nature conservation and tourism in Europe’s
protected areas. The aim of PAN Parks is to change tourism from a threat to an
opportunity, by building partnerships with nature conservation organizations, travel
agencies, the business community and other groups on a local, national and
international level (Font & Brasser, 2002; PAN Parks, 2005). To receive PAN Park’s
verification (adopted in 2001), a park must meet five principles each with specific
criteria (i.e. (1) nature values, (2) habitat management, (3) visitor management, (4)
sustainable tourism development strategy, and (5) business partnerships) adopted in
2001 (Font & Brasser, 2002; PAN Parks, 2005).
In September 2002, the first three Natura 2000 sites (national parks in Sweden,
Finland, and Poland) were verified as PAN Parks with a fourth park in 2003
(Bulgaria) and 5th in 2004 (Romania). The number of protected areas (Natura 2000)
sites on the list for verification continues to increase, thereby indicating the
importance of meeting principles of quality such as those required by PAN Parks.
Core questions remain as to how to maintain parks as visitor destination areas while
protecting the very resource that attract visitors, which is a similar concern for the
152 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

PAN Parks initiative. Therefore, a sustainable tourism strategy is needed to combine

tourism’s potential and socio-economic development with the overall nature
conservation goals of protected areas. PAN Park’s principles include guidelines
for the development and implementation of a STDS (Principle 4) that a park must
meet before verification as a PAN Park. Principle four focuses on criteria to develop
and implement a STDS, the primary focus of this study.
For clarification, criteria for Principle 4 that a park must meet in the verification
process are (see PAN Parks):
N The protected area and its region have sufficient tourism potential and
carrying capacity for sustainable tourism.
N An Executive PAN Park Organization (local group of stakeholders
representing tourism business owners, NGOs, and local authorities) to
assume responsibility for implementing PAN Parks is established, whereby
stakeholders formally confirm their support and commitment to the
conservation goals of the protected area and the PAN Parks Organization.
N Executive PAN Park Organization formulates, implements and monitors a
STDS for the protected area and its surrounding region.
N Tourism development and existing tourism activities are based on
sustainable use of the ecological resources of the region.
N The STDS’ communications and marketing strategy aims at informing all
target groups.
PAN Parks aims at maintaining the ecological integrity of protected areas,
advancement of community and financial reliability for business partners (Font &
Brasser, 2002). The present study analyzes the possibilities for affirming these goals
at the regional level to link park objectives with local and regional authority vision of
development.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine planning authority and business stakeholder
perception of a sustainable tourism development strategy in PAN Parks comparing a
verified PAN Park (Fulufjället National Park, Sweden) and a candidate park in 2002
(Retezat National Park, Romania)1. Sustainable tourism development in protected
areas may mean ‘‘no development’’ and any tourism in protected areas should be
carefully evaluated and, where permitted, regulated and monitored (Font & Brasser,
2002). It is our assumption that the PAN Parks verification process will stimulate
and enhance sustainable tourism development locally and regionally (Font & Tribe,
2000). A sustainability framework is used as the theoretical basis for this study
providing the first step to examine sustainable tourism development perceptions
among tourism and park related stakeholders. The theoretical aim is to couple a
framework of sustainability with PAN Park’s principles for sustainable tourism in
protected areas to use as a lens for monitoring PAN Park’s role in sustainable
development in future studies. To examine the central purpose of this study, the
following secondary questions are examined:
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 153

(1) What are the premises for sustainable tourism development in the analyzed
PAN Parks locations within the context of institutional, care and democracy-
justice themes?
(2) How do local/regional tourism and park-related stakeholders perceive sustain-
able tourism development as it pertains to establishing an STDS?
Research questions are investigated via operationalization of a sustainability
framework labeled as the prism of sustainability by Spangenberg & Valentin (1999)
(see Figure 1). A framework of sustainability can potentially provide a starting point
to develop a tourism strategy for protected areas within an integrated planning
framework while building on principles of sustainability (Sharpley, 2000; Waldon &
Williams, 2002). The analysis is conducted at two stakeholder levels: (1) regionally
via regional planners, and (2) at the local level focusing on park-related stakeholders.
Expected outcomes are identification of key issues pertinent to STDS development
and underlying themes relevant to the institutional dimension of sustainability as an
aid to develop indicators to monitor local and regional impacts of sustainable
tourism.

Sustainability framework
Spangenberg and Valentin (1999, in Eden, Falkheden & Malbert, 2000) presented a
prism of sustainability (Figure 1), adapted from the Wuppertal Institute (see
Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000), which depicts interlinkages between institutional,
social, economic and environmental imperatives (which we refer to as dimensions) of
sustainable development. Eden et al. (2000) argue the impossibility of disassocia-
tion between the three classic dimensions (i.e. economic, socio-cultural, and

Figure 1. Prism of sustainability (adapted from Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999).

154 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

environmental) of sustainable development as independent domains of action. The

prism of sustainability they argue for includes a fourth dimension: the institutional
which emphasizes participatory decision-making processes, democracy, public
participation and public involvement that calls for strengthening people’s participa-
tion in political governance. The ecological dimension emphasizes the need to reduce
pressure on the physical environment. The economic dimension considers human
needs for material welfare (e.g. employment) in a framework that is competitive and
stable. An economic system is environmentally sustainable only as long as the
amount of resources utilized to generate welfare is restricted to a size and quality that
does not deplete its sources for future use. The social dimension refers to individuals’
skills, dedication, experiences and resulting behavior. The four dimensions are
interlinked representing a more holistic concept of sustainable development. Access
refers to equity in the distribution of access to these limited resources. The equality
in distribution of access is an interlinkage connecting the social and the
environmental dimensions. Democracy, as interlinkage between the institutio-
nal and the social imperative, is the basic condition of a society’s tolerance
and solidarity. Therefore, participatory democracy is a basic condition for social
cohesion as well as for sustainable development in general. The creation of material
welfare often comes with a social price to be paid. If the burdens as well as
the benefits are to be distributed equally, fair burden sharing, linking the social
and economic dimension, is an inevitable need as a basic element of the welfare
state. Care, interlinkage between institutional and environmental, refers to a
combination of dedication and action. Legal regulations, as well as organizations’
and individual action, are requested to care for the environment. It also represents
the more emphatic (as opposed to the technocratic) system of values needed for
sustainable development. Eco-efficiency refers to a physical measure characterizing
resource use for the totality of economic activities in the reference area; a measure
for the physical efficiency of an economy. Justice is the interlinkage between the
institutional and the economic dimension representing a socio-political context. Due
to the depth of information gathered, only results pertinent to care and democracy-
justice inter-linkages, within the context of the institutional dimension are given in
this paper.

Qualitative methodology
This research focuses on a cross-cultural comparative analysis of two national parks
(Fulufjället National Park in Sweden and Retezat National Park in Romania) in
2002. Since PAN Parks was a recent initiative, comparison between a verified and a
candidate PAN Park was to share lessons learned from a verified park experience
with a park seeking verification. Fulufjället (recommended by PAN Parks
Foundation) was selected because of its recent verification as a PAN Park in 2002
and it’s previously established Executive Pan Parks Organization committee
indicating local stakeholder and business commitment to STDS development.
Retezat, although a candidate park in 2002 was selected because of its active
involvement in PAN Park verification (verified October 2004) and park adminis-
tration’s willingness to participate in the study.
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 155

Study settings
Sweden
Inaugurated in September 2002 by King Gustav of Sweden, Fulufjället received
PAN Park’s status along with two other parks (in Finland and Poland). The park is
located in the Municipality of Älvdalen in the North-West of Dalarna County
bordering Norway to the west. The park covers 34,483 hectares with 24,460 hectares
bare mountain and alpine heath, 7210 hectares evergreen forest, 4110 hectares of
broad-leaved forest and 2,050 wetlands. There are approximately 364 locals living in
three communities on the Swedish side of Fulufjället and 480 in communities close to
the park on the Norwegian side. A significant part of the population is 60+ and men
outnumber women (Cutumisu, 2003; PAN Parks, 2005).

Romania
Retezat National Park signed a ‘‘Letter of Intent’’ in September 2002 with PAN
Parks and received PAN Park verification in October 2004. Within the park, there
are more than 20 mountain peaks over 2,000 meters; the highest being the Peleaga
peak at 2,509 meters, which is centrally located and in close proximity to Lake
Bucura. Lake Bucura is the largest of 80 lakes, mostly of glacial origin. The park
offers visitors a chance to view a wide variety of landscapes as well as the flora and
fauna. There are three rural local communities around Retezat National Park (Rau
de Mori, Salas, Campu lui Neag), which have a strong influence on the park because
they own land in the park and they use natural resources of the park. Total
population of the communities is 6,837 with 37% 55 years old or older. Fifty-nine
percent are women and 41% men. A majority have a supplementary income from
agricultural activities with 25% employed in industry. Locals are confronted with
difficult economic conditions: infrastructure, an aged population, and improper
access to information (Cutumisu, 2003; PAN Parks, 2005).

Data collection
Local and regional authorities play an essential role in relation to the parks’
surrounding regions. They have the ability to mediate the dynamics of economic,
spatial and social change through regional and national politics and administration,
adapting general societal policies to local conditions. They help to structure land and
property development with the agendas of pressure groups and social movements
concerned with environmental quality (Wallsten, 2003); therefore they were the key
target group for the research.
Data were gathered during two months of qualitative field research (September
and October 2002) from extended semi-structured in-depth interviews (n512).
Interviewees (preliminary list retrieved from PAN Parks) were contacted in advance
to arrange a convenient time for an onsite interview and to provide each with
interview themes. Other key informants were derived from the first list of
interviewees. For Fulufjället (n57), taped interviews included five key informants
from local and regional authorities in Sweden (Fulufjället National Park Manager,
156 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency officer, member of local business

association, provincial planning officer, and regional planner from Malung) and
two authorities from the Environmental Department and Business Association in
Trysil, Norway. For Romania (n55) key informants included the Park Manager, an
Ecotourism Officer, a representative of the Environmental Protection Agency and
two tourism specialists (professors, Ecological University Deva). A set of open-
ended questions addressing issues of sustainable tourism planning was used to guide
the interviews. Respondents were interviewed about the cooperation between
agencies and governments in sustainable tourism planning, and their opinions about
tourism in the region, development plan proposals, and the degree of their
involvement in decisions related to sustainable tourism planning. Questions sought
insight on respondent understanding of cooperative sustainable tourism develop-
ment and their opinion about the utility of such an approach. Questions also
explored informant views and understanding of STDS, its aims, and the process of
STDS development. Additional data were gathered via email correspondence with
park officials and PAN Park representatives prior to and following fieldwork,
literature review of World Wildlife Fund, European Commission (WTO, 1998;
WTTC, 1996) and PAN Park documents.

Analysis
Data were structured under three main themes (i.e. institutional mechanisms, care,
and democracy-justice) focusing on common recurrent issues raised by respondents
regarding premises for sustainability (see Table 1). Specific criteria for each of the
themes were organized categorically per three points of inquiry (see column 1,
Table 1). In the context of institutional mechanisms, transformation that occurred
due to STDS implementation with regard to innovations in public and private
stakeholder collaboration and their contribution to increasing opportunities for
sustainable development was sought. Care referred to concern for the environment
through conservation, achieving standards for sustainable tourism, and management
innovations for environmental care, while democracy-justice referred to innovations
dealing with community rejuvenation and opportunities for small-scale businesses
and their opportunity to participate in decision-making (Eden et al., 2000;
Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999; Valentin & Spangenberg,
2000). One aspect of this study was to devise theoretical and practical directions for
monitoring impacts of STDS development in protected areas based on the sphere of
sustainability framework from an institutional perspective.

Results and discussion

To address the question, What are the premises for sustainable tourism development in
the analyzed PAN Parks locations within the context of institutional, care and
democracy-justice themes?, three topics are given (Column 1, Table 1) to guide the
interview process. Data are categorized according to institutional mechanisms, care
and democracy-justice depicted as interlinkages in the prism of sustainability. Findings
are based on evaluation of interview transcripts and researcher observation of
 Table 1. Overview of interview statements and theme criteria for analysis.
Institutional mechanisms
STDS and the vision of Political support for STDS
the local and regional
authorities Awareness regarding tourism role
and importance
Local networks and their approach
to the issue of SD
Efforts for SD by the authorities
Actors’ perception of strategic
planning of tourism in relation to
STDS
Benefits of working together
through STDS
Coordination (vertical and
horizontal)
Care
Infrastructure improvement
Interest in creating conditions for
alternative types of tourism
Positioning of Retezat and
Fulufjället establishment as
a PAN Park, as expressed by the
authorities
A higher understanding of the fact
that all the businesses depend on
nature
Research on ST and on measures
for sustainable tourism
Use of Pan Parks Logo
Efforts for environmental standards
Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks
Democracy-Justice
Position towards participation in STDS
by people living in the region
Priorities for development in relation to
STDS, as expressed by people living in
the region
Responsibility of authorities for STDS
implementation
Local community and authorities
involvement in the area development.
Authority’s attention drawn towards
disfavored areas and target groups by
the STDS
157
 158
Table 1. Continued

S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

Institutional mechanisms Care Democracy-Justice

Areas of common interest Strengthening partners Efforts for environmental standards Focus on small scale spatial
between authorities’ vision developments involving people living in
and STDS vision the region
Strengthening favorable forces Chances for nature and culture Presence of interested network partners
emphasized on the local agenda (existing businesses and people living in
the area)
Spatial – reiterated model if positive
experience
STDS is a zone of opportunity
Strengthening the basis for
cooperation of conservation and
tourism with other sectors
Strengthening communication
among the relevant actors
Building on the potential influence
of the STDS in the region
Effects of the STDS Intersectoral cooperation Incorporating nature conservation Relationships of the local authorities
concerns as a priority on the local with external organizations and with
and regional authorities’ agenda people living in the region
Strengthening local and regional STDS as a tool for SD Practices and attitudes of the local
networks authorities
Enhancing communication between Park Management innovations STDS as a tool of offering equal access
authorities and people living in the to resources
region
STDS as a tool to assess the Community regeneration
progress towards sustainability
Perception of innovations brought A chance for small scale businesses
by STDS

SD, Sustainable Development; STDS, Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy; ST, Sustainable Tourism.
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 159

relationships in the region. Identifying factors contributing to the success of STDS

will offer a basis for comparison between the two studied cases, as well as with other
PAN Park locations (Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland).

Summary from Table 1

From the perspective of institutional mechanisms, transformations that occur in
STDS implementation refer to innovations in integration of public and private
business interests and the associated contributions to increasing opportunities for
sustainable development (Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999; Valentin & Spangenberg,
2000). Both cases share common problems and potential solutions regarding effects
of STDS implementation, yet large differences as well. Each has different planning
cultures providing different conditions for STDS development. Both cases share
common attitudes on collaboration aspects such as trust and honesty, as well as the
distribution of power among stakeholders. In both cases, respondents recognize
positive gains from STDS implementation due to incorporation of PAN Park’s
values into local and regional planning processes. In addition, PAN Parks’ central
role in developing networks in the region, which could support sustainable
development, was considered positive. Respondents referred to the importance of
analyzing the effects of collaboration and partnerships by means of monitoring.
They recognize in both cases that partnerships depend on motivation, personalities
and perceived roles of the involved actors and also on institutions and their
expressed goals and aims. They also recognize that development of partnerships and
networks is essential to achieve sustainable tourism and sustainable development.
From the perspective of care, Romanian and Swedish respondents shared a
positive appreciation of park management efforts to understand market trends and
to reinforce local innovation in tourism development. The care interlinkage, between
the institutional and the environmental imperative, describes a combination of
dedication and action (see Eden et al., 2000). Respondents identified that STDS has
an essential role in increasing dedication and action of both local authorities and
residents, thus contributing to increasing tourism potential of the region with respect
to care for the environment. A Swedish respondent implied that ‘‘local people might
become more confident and positive about STDS and consequently have a better
dialogue with authorities and other local people in the process of implementing this
strategy’’. Local authorities interviewed in both cases thought that people would
become more positive leading to an increase in their involvement in tourism
development. A Romanian respondent implied that ‘‘business entrepreneurs would
become more interested as a result and they would create other new opportunities to
attract new target groups’’. General consensus was that ‘‘PAN Park business
partners could contribute to improvement of the region’s tourism offer in terms of
comfort and quality standards of their businesses, yet existing partners remain in a
negotiation phase’’. Respondents overall agree that local businesses, if striving to
respect PAN Park principles and criteria, can make a positive change in terms of
tourist comfort and service by imposing certain standards and requirements for
businesses operating in the region of the park.
160 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

Democracy-justice refers to the degree a society displays more tolerance and

solidarity, ensuring equal rights of actors in the decision-making process, by
involving disfavored actors (those with less education, financial support and local
political power) (Eden et al., 2000). Both cases reveal that learning and sharing best
practice results from sharing agendas of negotiation between PAN Park partners and
non-partners, with an accent on small-scale businesses. STDS can be a source of
action learning for increasing social cohesion in a region. In both cases there is a
need to re-define the meaning of sustainable tourism and sustainable development as
a framework for activities, for configuring a common agenda, for renewal of local
and regional authority agendas with the contribution of interested parties, in order
to ensure participation of all target group categories in decision making and to
increase formal and informal social networks. All respondents recognize the need for
an approach to institutional sustainability and express a desire to participate in the
decision-making process.
For the question, How do local/regional tourism and park-related stakeholders
perceive sustainable tourism development as it pertains to establishing an STDS?
findings are highlighted in the context of three topics from Table 1 with results given
as thematic summaries (e.g. political support, awareness, etc.) (Table 2).

Summary from Table 2

STDS and regional development. Authorities interviewed apparently support
sustainability and sustainable tourism enforcement, yet they need to intensify their
efforts to make these issues transparent in practice. This is necessary for STDS
development to progress effectively, since optimal conditions for STDS
implementation are lacking from a regional perspective. In both cases, respondents
noted diminishing unemployment, policy integration, combating sectoral thinking as
well as conflict alleviation as priorities. Interviewees spoke frequently of increasing
collaboration and cooperation, taking responsibility for nature conservation and
tourism, community involvement, and creating a dialogue between actors in the STDS
implementation process. From our observations, limited attention is given to support
environmental goals on local and regional authority agendas; however, respondents
showed a general interest in learning about sustainability, as well as in the value of
STDS as a development model for the region. A feeling exists among regional
authorities that foreign help would bring benefits to both locations and recognition of
interdependence between stakeholders and STDS’s contribution to improved
communication between stakeholders. In both cases, respondents agree that
increasing opportunities of innovation at the local and regional level would be
enhanced by STDS implementation. Bureaucracy was reported as a barrier and danger
to effective partnership operation in Sweden and Romania.

Areas of common interest and the positive effects of sustainable tourism development
strategy. Common interests create a basis for working together to enhance the positive
effects of STDS. An STDS re-interprets the system of relationships in the region and
creates potential for common visions of development under the principles of sustainable
tourism because the whole region has tourist potential – a common feature in both cases.
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 161
Table 2. Key findings per thematic inquiry.

Findings

Positioning Political support for STDS

Sustainable Tourism Increasing interest in and demand for alternative tourism, however
Development not enough support from authorities. The county councils are still
Strategy (STDS) skeptical towards the benefits of small-scale tourism business. They
within regional recognize changes are taking place, but they are difficult to be
development measured at this stage (both Retezat & Fulufjället). No common
priorities vision of authorities and PAN Parks, but STDS can build the premises
in bringing the actors together. More important social issues on the
political agenda (Retezat Park)
Awareness of tourism’s importance
Expectative attitude: Confidence, but waiting to hear successful stories first.
Interest in creating conditions for ST
Romania: Investments in tourist accommodations not attractive.
Insufficient marketing. Minimal investments in accommodation
because of seasonality
Positions of locals towards participation in STDS
Unemployment, old mentality, and lack of experienced professionals
constitute a problem. People are open to change, but there is a great
deal of uncertainty (land property regimes, lack of financial resources,
fear to start something new). People express their need for training
and information, as well as for learning more about the benefits of ST
for local peoples. There are several priorities prior to developing a
STDS: Infrastructures development/renovation; wider participation &
job creation in tourism
Premises for Sustainable Development (SD): Confidence that STS will
contribute to increase premises for SD. Good premises for partnership
creation in local networks (in both parks), but lack of experience and
knowledge to understand what ST really is and involves.
Areas of common Awareness of the role of PAN Park in strengthening partnerships with
interest private sector and locals
Reticence towards STDS’ role at a larger scale
Focus on small scale spatial developments in underdeveloped areas
Awareness of the need for a better communication between park
authorities and locals and provide them with training, financial
support and experts
Need for a marketing strategy to create new regional development
opportunities
Awareness of the WWF’s role as attractor of international markets
Effects of the STDS Echo-effects of STDS in promoting SD in other parks. Creation of
evaluation and monitoring frames for eco-efficiency
Role of STDS in revitalizing local (abandoned) traditions and cultural
identities
STDS as an opportunity to personalize ST in a suitable way for that
particular region
Co-operation towards a common vision of development between the
local community and authorities, as well as integration of tourism in
other sectoral policies.
New partnerships and a strong grassroots level of organized actors
Environmental standards. Business sector willing to fulfill higher
comfort and quality standards

SD, Sustainable Development; STDS, Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy; ST, Sustainable Tourism.
162 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

Innovations brought by STDS enhance the basis for working together, essential for
the community in the region’s advancement towards sustainable development. The
positive effects of STDS will increase preoccupation for enforcing a bottom up
approach, to complement authority efforts to enforce sustainability. Therefore, they
can attain together the common objectives for sustainable tourism and sustainable
development. Respondents recognize that STDS will improve relationships between
authorities and civil society, making room for partnership development. Therefore,
chances to develop new partnerships are increased, motivating communities to be
involved, in this way advancing an integrative approach to sustainable tourism in the
region.

Effects of the sustainable tourism development strategy in relation to the region’s

development. Both cases emphasize the need for a bottom-up approach to establish
better conditions for enforcing sustainable tourism in which STDS could contribute
to building knowledge and skills at the grassroots level. In both studies respondents
believe that national and international cooperation among local partners would
establish conditions for an integrative approach for tourism and sustainable
development at local and regional levels. Both cases raise the issue of establishing
good conditions for sustainable tourism by developing local tourism networks
around the PAN Parks concept, while linking the region with external networks as
well as contributing to developing a common structure towards STD in the region.
Respondents recognized that STDS contributes to the local identity of the area, to
education of host/tourist awareness, to control of local tourist developments as well
as to developing guidelines for sustainable tourism. In both cases respondents agree
that a gap exists in communication between authorities and local people.
Respondents suggest that a strengthened role of authorities via STDS can help fill
this gap by designing indicators for measuring sustainable tourism and by
developing grassroot agency ability to work towards sustainable development.

Innovations and fine-tuning two visions. Firstly, the two visions (Sweden and
Romania) are not clearly expressed during the interviews, even though the visions
exist as a set of priorities and objectives for development. STDS could help to
configure a consensual direction, among stakeholders which could bring an impulse
to efforts for development of a general strategy of tourism that would need a
common vision and joint efforts towards that goal. Therefore, PAN Parks would be
the catalyst for tuning visions for sustainable development. Changes brought by
STDS innovations on the socio-economic and environmental context would
contribute to increasing positive effects of STDS, thereby increasing chances for
nature and culture emphasis on the local agenda, as well as for disadvantaged people
to change jobs to earn income from tourism.

Conclusions
Two case studies were analyzed with several emerging themes to assess STDS
implementation, regarding institutional, care and democracy-justice components. In
Sweden actors have more experience with PAN Parks. In Romania, Retezat
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 163

administration is just beginning to promote the PAN Parks concept, while creating
premises for sustainable tourism development at Retezat National Park and its
surroundings. Both cases have strengths and weaknesses with respect to institutional
mechanisms, care and democracy-justice indicators.
STDS provides a good support to developmental actions through experience, skill,
and knowledge via the network and PAN Parks could be an example to follow at the
national level in both cases. PAN Parks promotes these areas and this aspect is
essential for PAN Park sites. In Romania for instance, promotion is necessary since
the park does not benefit from a similar marketing approach on its own, as does
Sweden (Blumer, 1999). STDS has a strong social meaning for the region, as the
PAN Parks strategy represents an escape window from the socio-economical difficult
situation at the Romanian site. Pertaining to STDS implementation, it is difficult to
assess progress of STDS since a baseline study is not available. Although Blumer
(1999) performed a feasibility study in Romania for joining the PAN Parks network,
a comparison between Fulufjället National Park and Retezat National Park progress
for STDS is not possible since STDS has not been implemented in Retezat yet.
However, an overview of the commonalities between the two cases can be made. In
both locations a necessary basis for sustainability was achieved at the park level,
although not enough to support STDS overall. Even though local and regional
authorities wish to achieve sustainability, efforts are still limited. In both locations,
the relevant actors stress the necessity to develop a set of indicators to monitor and
assess progress towards sustainability. They recognize improvement in local
networks and conditions for operationalizing sustainable development, although
they admit absence of measurable indicators for that purpose.
Recognition of the need for intensifying efforts for horizontal and vertical
coordination among the parties involved is given. Efforts for strengthening the
institutional basis were pointed out as necessary, as a sine qua non condition for
implementing and enforcing a sustainable tourism strategy. Whereas in Sweden the
focus was placed on developing this strategy, in Romania efforts were directed
mainly towards strengthening premises for sustainability in general, looking at
developing a sustainable tourism strategy in a general perspective in the region.
Whereas in Sweden there is a tradition of sustainability, in Romania there are
intensive efforts for strengthening first, the new democratic institutions and
educating society for sustainability. Development of a sustainable tourism strategy
in Romania cannot be dissociated from the sustainability debate with respect to
European Union enlargement, which is a major difference in the socio-political
context of the two countries.

Perceptions of STDS. In both cases institutional relationships need to be improved,

as suggested by interviewees. Despite efforts of park administration to explain the
PAN Parks concept, relevant authorities seem to have superficial knowledge about
PAN Parks overall; hence the need to intensify information exchange between park
administration, local and regional authorities. In both cases, authorities recognize
the importance of tourism for the region and the need to develop a sustainable
tourism strategy, yet they did not seem to support park administration activity as a
driving force to develop sustainable tourism in the region. Secondly, local and
164 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

regional authorities do not display an understanding of the role of this strategy

development on a regional scale in either case. Priorities for development regard
social and economic issues, with no special emphasis on tourism. Although there are
some supra-national projects and programs active in both locations, local and
regional authorities’ thinking still remain small scale and short-term. Whereas in
Sweden there is a strategy for tourism on the regional authority agenda, it does not
exist in Romania yet. There are many programs for tourism in Romania, yet no
coherent strategy for tourism. In Sweden the Executive PAN Parks Organization
had already begun to fit into the local institutional relationships, since it was
previously established in 2002 and local plus regional efforts had been focusing on
the park becoming a national park (Wallsten, 2003), whereas Executive PAN Parks
Organization was nonexistent since Retezat was still a candidate park.
As it pertains to criteria of PAN Park principle 4 (see aforementioned), the
purpose of Executive PAN Parks Organization and STDS are to strengthen
sustainable tourism development in the PAN Park region. Tourism potential should
be enhanced through stakeholder collaboration as a result of STDS as noted by
several interviewees. Many respondents referred to monitoring and evaluation of
STD in the region which is a key role of the Executive PAN Parks Organization. A
central goal of STDS is to maintain the quality of the natural environment. Results
show an increased sense of care among respondents as it pertains to perceptions of
sustainable tourism development to the PAN Park.
As it pertains to methodology, several limitations should be noted. Firstly, data
saturation cannot be claimed with seven interviews for the Fulufjället case and five
for Retezat. Interviewees were selected based on PAN Park recommendations;
however, a purposive sample was necessary to interview those authorities involved
with STDS and regional tourism planning. In this context, sample selection bias is
not of concern. Exploratory insight of STDS development and PAN Park’s role in
sustainable tourism development linking the national park to regional tourism
planning efforts was our goal and the sample was appropriate for this aspect of the
study. Secondly, data collection occurred just as Fulufjället became a verified PAN
Park while Retezat was in the initial stage of becoming a candidate park. However,
baseline information concerning STDS has been gathered which provides bench-
mark information for further monitoring. Since the study was done in 2002, PAN
Parks has expanded from three to five parks with three new national parks targeted
for PAN Park status in 2006.

Further research
Further research should concentrate on indicators to monitor and evaluate
sustainable tourism development (Sirakaya, Jamal & Choi, 2001). Several
interviewees acknowledged the need to monitor local participation in sustainable
tourism. Indicators to measure progress of STDS in the selected PAN Park sites will
need to be developed, based on empirical results that match up with literature
pertinent to the prism of sustainability reviewed (Cutumisu, 2003). Indicators should
be monitored at a regional level in Sweden and Romania and not only from what
was analyzed in this study (i.e. financial resources, unemployment rate, and
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 165

immigration-emigration). Comparison of these indicators between the two cases

should be examined at the present time for Sweden and in ‘‘2+’’ years for Romania
after it becomes part of the EU so that progress with PAN Parks STDS can be
measured.
Compared with other national parks, Fulufjället differs from parks in other
countries where parks have their own management free from local authority direct
influence. In Sweden, Fulufjället depends on local authorities. STDS might enhance
the opportunity to enforce better practice at the authority level. To ensure conditions
for improved tourism strategy development and to enforce these structures over time
while extending them beyond Dalarna County is one of the potential benefits of
PAN Parks overall, by e.g. attracting new partners for future spatial developments
and increasing the potential for cross border spatial developments for tourism (i.e.
Sweden with Norway in the Fulufjället region). A direction for future work is to
examine how institutional mechanisms, care and democracy-justice inter-linkages can
be optimized by STDS enforcement.
As Gibbs et al. (1996) noted local governance is a major contributor to enforcing
sustainability, even though there has been little assessment of the extent to which
local authorities can undertake such initiatives. As results indicate, relevant actors
perceive STDS as a sustainability barometer for the region (Gibbs et al., 1996).
Wood, Handley, & Kidd (1999) argue that sustainable development challenges
established institutional mechanisms, requiring innovative mechanisms for a regional
and sub-regional perspective to planning. They acknowledge the emergence of
interest in institutional reform and this study alludes to the PAN Park initiative’s
contribution to the sustainability debate and its impact towards institutional change.
Respondents in both case studies reported a fragmentation of tourism planning
expressing a need for integrated tourism in a locally adjusted policy for regional
development (Figueira, 2001). As Boo (1990) notes, a framework of sustainable
tourism will have little consequence in the absence of adequate institutional
arrangements and administrative commitments. Therefore, a framework for
measuring STDS impacts should focus on the extent to which it contributes to
modernizing local government. This study evaluates changes regarding the institu-
tional capital (Khakee 2002), which constitutes a good basis for further studies on
the success of local and regional authorities in building institutional capital during
their program for sustainable development.
In conclusion, although tourism planning has followed trends in regional
planning, tourism (and moreover, sustainable tourism) is not always considered a
core focus in the planning process (Butler, 1998; Milne, 1998; Sharpley, 2000).
Therefore, PAN Parks with its STDS could be considered a driving force for
innovation, capable of combining governance’s concern for environmental protec-
tion with the need to create competitive advantages in the industry by encouraging
active involvement of small-scale local businesses (Font & Brasser, 2002; Font &
Tribe, 2000).

Acknowledgements
This study was funded by PAN Parks Foundation c/o WWF.
166 S. P. Cottrell & N. Cutumisu

Note
1. A verified PAN Park has met the first three principles and criteria (certification standards) and a
candidate park has signed a letter of intent with PAN Parks to work towards principle compliance
within a certain time period.

References
Berg, C. van den., Bree, F. van. & Cottrell, S. P. (2004) PAN Parks principles: Cross-cultural comparison –
Poland/Slovakia, in: T. Sievänen, J. Erkkonen, J. Jokimäki, J. Saarinen, S. Tuulentie & E. Virtanen
(Eds), Policies, Methods and Tools for Visitor Management – Proceedings of the second International
Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, pp.
227–234 (Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute).
Blumer, A. (1999) Romanian protected areas joining the PAN Parks Network. Unpublished master’s
thesis, Wageningen University: The Netherlands.
Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism. The Potentials and the Pitfalls, Vol. 2 (Washington, DC: World Wildlife
Fund).
Butler, R. (1998) Sustainable tourism – looking backwards in order to progress? in: M. Hall & A. Lew
(Eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 25–34 (New York: Longman).
Caalders, J. (1997) Managing the transition from agriculture to tourism: Analysis of tourism networks in
Auvergne, Managing Leisure, 2(3), pp. 127–142.
Cutumisu, N. (2003) The synergy between nature conservation and development: A framework for
analysing the impact of the Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in Natura 2000 sites.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Wageningen University: The Netherlands.
DG Environment (2001) Sustainable Tourism and Natura 2000: Guidelines, initiatives and good practices
in Europe. European Commission document resulting from Lisbon Conference 1999. (Luxembourg:
Office of Official Publications for the European Communities).
Eagles, P. (2002) Trends in park tourism: Economics, finance and management, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10(2), pp. 132–153.
Eagles, P. F. J. & McCool, S. F. (2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and
Management, CABI Publishing: Oxon, UK.
Eden, M., Falkheden, L. & Malbert, B. (2000) Interface. The built environment and sustainable
development: Research meets practice in a Scandinavian context, Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2),
pp. 259–284.
Font, X. & Brasser, A. (2002) PAN Parks: WWF’s sustainable tourism certification programme in
Europe’s national parks, in: R. Harris, T. Griffin, P. Williams & P. (Eds), Sustainable
Tourism: A Global Perspective, pp. 103–120 (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).
Font, X. & Tribe, J. (2000) Recreation, conservation and timber production: A sustainable relationship?,
in: X. Font & J. Tribe (Eds), Forest Tourism and Recreation: Case Studies in Environmental
Management, pp. 1–22 (Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing).
Figueira, A. P. (2001) The role of planning in local and regional tourism development, XXVII Reunion de
Estudios Regionales Madrid/Novembro.
Gartner, W. C. & Lime, D. W. (2000) Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism (Wallingford,
UK: CABI Publishing).
Gibbs, D., Longhurst, J. & Braithwaite, C. (1996) Moving towards sustainable development? Integrating
economic development and the environment in local authorities, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 39(3), pp. 317–332.
Goodwin, H. (2000) Tourism, national parks and partnership, in: R. W. Butler & S. W. Boyd (Eds),
Tourism and National Parks. Issues and Implications (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).
Goeldner, C. & Ritchie, J. B. (2003) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 9th ed. (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc).
Haas, G. E. (2001) Visitor capacity in the national park system, Social Science Research Review, 2(1), pp.
1–26.
Khakee, A. (2002) Assessing institutional capital building in a Local Agenda 21 Process in Goteborg,
Planning Theory & Practice, 3(1), pp. 53–68.
 Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks 167

Milne, S. S. (1998) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the global-local nexus, in: M. Hall &
A. Lew (Eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 35–48 (New York: Longman).
Moscardo, G. (1999) Making Visitors Mindful: Principles for Creating Quality Sustainable Visitor
Experiences through Effective Communication (Champaign, IL: Sagamore).
PAN Parks (2005) Retrieved 15 January 2005, from http://www.panparks.org
Pigram, J. J. & Jenkins, J. M. (1999) Outdoor Recreation Management (London: Routledge).
Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), pp. 1–19.
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T. B. & Choi, H. S. (2001) Developing indicators for destination sustainability, in:
D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, pp. 411–432 (New York: CAB International).
Spangenberg, J. H. & Valentin, A. (1999) Indicators for sustainable communities. Wuppertal Institute for
Climate, Environment and Energy. The Prism of sustainability. Retrieved 4 April 2003, from http://
www.foeeurope.org/sustainability/sustain/t-content-prism.htm
Spangenberg, J. H. (2002) Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frameworks for indicators
measuring sustainable development, Ecological Indicators, 57, pp. 1–15.
Valentin, A. & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000) A guide to community sustainability indicators, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 20, pp. 381–392.
Waldon, D. & Williams, P. W. (2002) Steps towards sustainability monitoring: the case of the Resort
Municipality of Whistler. In Sustainable Tourism: A global perspective, R. T. Harris, Griffin & P.
Williams (Eds) (New York: Butterworth and Hienemann).
Wallsten, P. (2003) The ‘‘Inside-out’’ process: A key approach for establishing Fulufjället National Park in
Sweden, Journal of Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), pp. 227–229.
Wood, R., Handley, J. & Kidd, S. (1999) Sustainable development and institutional design: The example
of the Mersey Basin Campaign, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(3), pp.
341–354.
WTO (1998) Chapter for sustainable tourism, International Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Small
Island Developing States and other islands. Retrieved 12 September 2002 from: http://www.
insula.org/tourism/charter.htm/
WTTC (1996) Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry. Retrieved 12 September 2002 from: http://
www.wtcc.org