The need for wildlife research and improved management of protected areas in the face of increased nature-based tourism
Pubblicato online: 30 set 2023
Pagine: 20 - 28
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/oszn-2023-0009
Parole chiave
© 2023 Adam Wójcicki, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
In recent decades, the global tourism market has grown steadily and is one of the fastest-growing economic sectors in the world. Despite numerous man-made crises and natural disasters from which the world is still recovering, tourism, although still fragile, is bouncing back. The number of international tourist arrivals has steadily increased from about 25 million in 1950 to a total of 1.47 billion in 2019 [UNWTO 2016; UNWTO 2023]. This growth is expected to continue, and further forecasts indicate that international tourist arrivals will reach 1.8 billion by 2030. The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) projects that the ecotourism market will also increase [UNWTO 2011].
Nature-based tourism is defined as travel that allows enjoyment of undeveloped natural areas where flora and fauna are the main attractions [Luzar et al. 1995; Goodwin 1996]. Most nature-based tourism destinations are in protected areas [Eagles et al. 2002, ICEM 2003, Spenceley et al. 2015]. Worldwide, terrestrial protected areas receive approximately 8 billion visitors per year [Balmford et al. 2015]. For many years, increasing numbers of tourists have visited national parks in many parts of the world [e.g. Fredman et al. 2007; GUS 2013; Pęksa, Ciach 2015; GUS 2016; Prędki, Demko 2018; GUS 2019; NSW 2019; Parks Victoria 2020; NPS 2021; SDD 2021; GUS 2022]. In Europe, national parks receive more than 2 billion visitors each year [Schägner et al. 2016].
Nature-based tourism developed rapidly until the exceptional situation following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, when international tourist arrivals declined rapidly worldwide [e.g. Wendt et al. 2022]. However, demand for nature visits has increased dramatically and taken several new directions [Derks et al. 2020; Venter et al. 2020; Ferguson et al. 2022], so in 2020 and 2021, wherever and whenever the restrictions loosened, national parks were booming [
This paper aims to present the role of the COVID-19 global disturbance in the nature-based tourism industry, to indicate the possible impacts of the rapidly increasing numbers of tourists on wildlife and to propose directions of research and management that may be crucial in the post-COVID-19 future within protected areas.
Nature-based tourism and ecotourism are not the same thing. Although these terms were sometimes used synonymously [e.g., McNeely, Thorsell 1989; Hvenegaard 1994], more recent literature highlights some fundamental differences between them [e.g., Goodwin 1996; Michalič 2006]. The meaning of ecotourism is more restrictive than that of nature-based tourism. Nature-based tourism, when designed and practised as ecotourism, can benefit wildlife and biodiversity, incentivise landscape conservation, and support local communities [Krüger 2005]. Ecotourism can be a particularly effective tool for the conservation and management of protected areas. This may include reducing hunting through increased appreciation of biodiversity and protected areas and socioeconomic benefits [Broadbent et al. 2012]. It can also bring funds for conservation and alternative livelihoods for local people [Bookbinder et al. 1998; Eagles et al. 2002; Balmford et al. 2009; Ballantyne et al. 2009]. Many countries promote ecotourism to achieve their conservation and socioeconomic development goals. The attraction of ecotourism as a conservation and development tool lies in its potential to provide local economic benefits while maintaining the integrity of ecological resources through low-impact, non-consumptive resource use [Stem et al. 2003]. However, it can only be an effective conservation tool under certain conditions [Krüger 2005].
Such conditions are hard to meet, so the contribution of ecotourism to conservation and development is questioned by some who cite negative impacts such as waste generation, damage to natural resources, and destruction of various habitats, thus affecting the species that live in them and related sociocultural life [Stem et al. 2003; Steven et al. 2011]. Any use of an area results in a change in existing biophysical or social conditions, even if these changes are minimal and currently unmeasurable [McCool, Lime 2001]. Therefore, tourism must cause some negative impacts. Furthermore, ecotourism usually involves visiting sensitive, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas [Doran, Larsen 2016], which are especially sensitive to human impact. Then, ecotourism becomes nature-based tourism, which is travelling to enjoy undeveloped natural areas or wildlife [Goodwin 1996]. This is not a benign activity with negligible disturbance but often causes significant impacts on the reproductive success, survival, and long-term viability of a range of species populations, particularly those that are rare, geographically isolated and/or sensitive to various forms of disturbance [Shannon et al. 2017]. Most reviewed articles documenting at least one impact of recreational activities on animals report negative effects [summarised by Larson et al. 2016], but Bateman and Fleming [2017] indicated that such conclusions are often not supported by empirical data. Increased stress can affect animal health, fitness, population maintenance, and infectious disease incidence [Angelier, Wingfield 2013; Hing et al. 2016; McCormick, Romero 2017]. Even observing animals during rearing can jeopardise their survival [Müllner et al. 2004]. Invasive species are also a serious problem – mass tourism and uncontrolled traffic are beneficial to all kinds of potentially invasive species and diseases [Nash 2009]. The negative impacts of visitors on wildlife and local communities have been widely documented [Griffiths, van Schaik 1993; Wight 1993; Wearing, Neil 1999; Blom 2000; Reed, Merenlender 2008; Karp, Root 2009]. Tourist wildlife attractions have significant negative impacts that are not recognised by most tourists, suggesting that there is an urgent need for tourism education and regulation of these attractions worldwide [Moorhouse et al. 2015]. Impacts depend not only on the ecosystem and type of activity, but also on factors such as time of year, equipment, tourist group size and dynamics, individual skills and behaviour and any management actions [Buckley 2004, Buckley 2009].
Overtourism has become a major challenge for many destinations, including nature-based destinations. Not only does overtourism have negative impacts on the physical environment and quality of experience for tourists but also reduces the quality of life for residents [Milano et al. 2019]. This problem also applies to protected areas. As the number of visitors increases, so do their impacts on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, and the environment of the areas, and the potential to undermine the conservation objectives increases [Newsome et al. 2012; Marion et al. 2016]. Some national parks report that the concentration of people and cars in certain locations is one of the biggest conservation problems [e.g. Prędki, Demko 2018]. Animals living near trails are often scared away by excessive noise, which is observed in all national parks [Iglesias Merchan et al. 2014].
The second aspect is the behaviour of tourists, where awareness and knowledge play an important role. Lack of understanding of national park management objectives and spatial-functional zoning, as well as the interactions and roles of different stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, especially the active contribution of local communities in implementing national park functions, may hinder the functioning of the national park and conservation in its area [Wang et al. 2022]. Lucas [1984] asserts that much of the negative impacts that occur in natural areas are specifically due to the behaviour and actions of visitors, rather than the sheer number of users. The author also argues that most damage is caused by the minority of “a few unskilled, uninformed, careless groups rather than the many typical parties”. Moreover, the impact of disruptions can vary depending on their predictability. Unexpected events such as hikers that occasionally stray from the trail are known to have greater effects on behaviour than hikers that regularly appear on established trails [Shultz, Bailey 1978; MacArthur et al. 1982; Cassirer et al. 1992]. In addition, animals accustomed to regular disturbance in their territories may alter their behaviour in some way, and even quite small impairments in food quality or intake may have long-term effects on productivity and survival through a multiplier effect [White 1983].
Improperly managed wildlife tourist attractions can also have negative impacts on the conservation and welfare of the taxa and individuals involved [Higginbottom 2004]. These impacts include removal of individuals from wild populations, injury, disease and death [Higginbottom 2004; Green, Hinningbottom 2001], short- and long-term changes in animal behaviour [Constantine 2001; Green, Hinningbottom 2001; Constantine, Bejder 2008; Lundquist et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2013], stress and aberrant physiological responses [Knight, Cole 1995; Bejder et al. 1999; Higginbottom 2004; Fernandez et al. 2009], altered feeding and reproductive behaviour [Constantine, Bejder 2008; Peters et al. 2013] and habitat alteration/loss [Green, Hinningbottom 2001]. In addition, mismanagement of tourism activities could increase nature degradation in protected areas [Stephenson 1993; IUCN 2005]. Mismanagement of national parks includes lack of conservation plans, inadequate decision-making, and incorrect development of tourism infrastructure [e.g., Stancheva et al. 2016; Oleśniewicz et al. 2020; Kołodziejczyk 2021]. One might wonder whether national parks are prepared to accommodate these ever-increasing numbers of visitors. According to Dupke et al. [2019], national parks in Germany seem ill-prepared for the continued increase in nature tourists, as there is no general strategy for managing high recreational use. Similar conclusions that the growing number of tourists is becoming an increasing challenge for national parks and that their infrastructure and management need to be improved have been found in many parts of the world [e.g., Stursa 2002; Buultjens et al. 2005; Ferreira, Harmse 2014; Dos Anjos, Da Rosa 2021].
According to reports on the newest tourism trends, the pandemic has shifted travellers’ focus to domestic trips or nature and outdoor destinations. Cave discovery, highland hiking, isolated island stays, water sports, and food festivals have become the main reasons for travellers to visit a destination in the first place, and the use of simple pleasure-related endorsements has increased since the start of the pandemic: hiking (has reached 94% on Booking. com), clean air (50%), nature (44%) and relaxation (33%). Over two-thirds of travellers (69%) wanted to appreciate more simple experiences such as spending time outdoors or with the family while on vacation, and over half (56%) sought out more rural, off-the-beaten-track experiences to immerse themselves in the outdoors [CREST 2022]. Given the rapid increase in the number of nature-based tourists,, urgent actions are needed to improve the functioning and management of protected areas worldwide. The massive growth of the nature-based tourism industry can be particularly damaging to wildlife through stress, disruption of daily routines, and increased transmission of disease [Weaver 2002; Burns, Howard 2003], especially if destinations are not well prepared for their visitors. As discussed above, many nature-based destinations are in great need of improvement to accommodate the ever-increasing number of tourists. This means that nature-based tourism may soon become even more “not-so-nature-friendly” unless appropriate action is taken sooner than the pre-pandemic data suggest. It is unlikely that too much tourism penetration can reverse changes in the natural environment of protected areas [Adach et al. 2022]. An intuitive solution seems to be the introduction of access restrictions to protected areas based on the calculation of carrying capacity for each national park. Although attempts to determine carrying capacity for tourism and recreation and use it as a tool have been viewed by many as an illusion of control, a seductive fiction, a social trap or a political myth [summarised by McCool 2001], the implementation of local carrying capacity has proven effective in some national parks [e.g., Salerno et al. 2013; Cupul-Magaña, Rodríguez-Troncoso 2017]. So perhaps it is worth trying to return to this concept, not as a “magic number” but as part of a more complex approach that also includes scientific research, monitoring, effective management and the collective responsibility of the tourists who visit these sites and the people who live near them. This is fundamental to the smooth functioning of the system in national parks and nearby tourist destinations. We must understand what the goals of tourism development are, what the scientific evidence says, and how best to proceed in light of these considerations [McCool, Lime 2001].
From an environmental research perspective, most research on the mechanisms, measurement and management of the environmental impacts of tourism was still very crude in the 2010s. There were some very well-designed experimental studies, but they were in the minority [Buckley 2011]. Most reviewed articles documenting at least one effect of recreational activities on animals reported negative effects primarily related to stress. Nearly a decade ago, most articles focused on mammals (42% of articles) and birds (37%), sites in North America (37.7%) and Europe (26.6%), and individual-level responses (49%). In contrast, studies of amphibians, reptiles, and fish; sites in South America, Asia, and Africa; and population- and community-level responses were absent. Although wildlife responses are likely species-specific in many cases, there was more evidence of a recovery impact for some taxonomic groups (e.g., large carnivores, shorebirds, ungulates, corals) [summarised by Larson et al. 2016]. Given the many gaps in research on the effects of tourism on wildlife, the unique COVID-19 pandemic disturbance and the impending prospect of an influx of tourists to protected areas in unprecedented numbers with the risk of “nature-based overtourism”, current knowledge should be reviewed and what is missing should be filled in. Research should be adapted to local conditions and focus primarily on the groups most vulnerable to tourists (predators, shorebirds, ungulates and corals) and unexplored in this area (reptiles, amphibians, fish). It is recommended to urgently focus on four aspects of wildlife research in protected areas: (1) population densities of wildlife, (2) behavioural responses of wildlife and their impacts, (3) infectious diseases in wildlife populations, and (4) distribution ranges of invasive alien species. This will help responsible institutions make more appropriate decisions and develop better solutions for effective protected area management and conservation. Concerning these wildlife research issues, if possible, it is worth replacing invasive methods with non-invasive alternatives to prevent animals from additional stress, based, for example, on the 3R principles (replace, reduce, refine) [summarised by Zemanova 2020].
The COVID-19 case, among others, can be seen as an opportunity for science. It provided the tourism industry, policymakers, and tourism researchers with important insights into the impacts of global change. The challenge now is to learn together from this global phenomenon and accelerate the necessary transformation of sustainable tourism [Goessling et al. 2021]. Tourism without sustainability adapted to the current situation has no future. As Buckley [2021] notes, it is expected that a huge amount of data on the impact of the pandemic on nature-based tourism will become available, especially in the form of internal compilations from governments, NGOs and private companies. This will provide an unprecedented opportunity for further research on nature-based tourism and require collaboration between the tourism and conservation sectors in many countries. If successful, there will be an experimental test far more extensive than any research effort.
Effective and sustainable national park management requires a national organisational framework with deference to local park-level institutions, stakeholder involvement in park management decision-making, public involvement fostered through information sharing and education, boundary clarity to improve relations with adjacent landowners, and priority for improving relations with indigenous peoples [Ferreti-Gallon et al. 2021]. Managing protected areas to achieve long-term resilience and sustainability requires consideration of ecological, economic, cultural and community issues in a broader regional context [Zavaleta, Chapin 2010]. As mentioned above, there is an urgent need for nature education for tourists visiting nature destinations, especially protected areas, as their behaviour can exert strong pressure on nature, making it difficult to achieve conservation goals. Promoting education and awareness activities for stakeholders and developing integrated management strategies are promising solutions for successful sustainable nature-based tourism (ecotourism) development and biodiversity conservation [De Zoysa 2022]. On the other hand, increasing management efficiency should not be the main purpose of national parks. Rather, these areas should serve to protect and preserve unique wildlife and plants for future generations to experience and enjoy [Stemberk et al. 2018].
This does not mean that closing to tourism is the best solution. Protected areas associated with a more “human-friendly” management style are potentially as important as strictly protected areas for the preservation of many genera, like mammals, amphibians and birds [Vimal et al. 2021]. Some reasonable and complex solutions have recently been proposed by Kołodziejczyk [2021]. These include (1) establishing educational centres where tourists can receive comprehensive information about conservation regulations, the most important conservation objectives in a given park and the most important tourist values of the geographic environment; (2) providing additional attractions in less valuable places to accommodate more tourists there and relieve pressure on the most sensitive places; (3) redirecting visitors’ attention to other attractive and easily accessible sites; (4) facilitating access to particularly attractive sites; (5) temporarily excluding certain parts of the national parks due to conservation needs; (6) limiting tourism infrastructure in the core zones; and (7) establishing additional seasonal connections to encourage some tourists not to use cars during their visit. These management solutions seem to apply to most national parks in Europe and elsewhere. Moreover, some solutions already exist in a few national parks, for example in Tatra NP (Poland), where they work successfully (personal communication). With the rapidly increasing number of visitors, it is of great importance for all national parks to introduce similar solutions or develop new ones adapted to their local conditions to protect their most valuable natural resources as soon as possible.
Also, reasonable evaluation tools should be used to verify if the management strategies in protected areas are effective. Complex tools like the Integrated Management Effectiveness Tool (IMET) [Bialowolski et al. 2023] may provide the necessary objectivity to identify challenges during the assessment and suggest possible paths for improvements.
Finding the golden mean or even a reasonable consensus in the steady development and rapid upsurge of an important sector of human activities and drawing reasonable conclusions remains one of the greatest challenges for global nature-based tourism and conservation. Otherwise, given the pace of this development and its associated impacts, there is a risk that improperly managed nature-based tourism will soon destroy that on which it bases its existence. The task of the organisations and institutions responsible for nature conservation is therefore to develop new methods for measuring the impact of tourism on specific species.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a major disturbance that eventually led to a rapid increase in the number of nature-based tourists worldwide. Many of these destinations are national parks that are poorly prepared for such unprecedented numbers of visitors.
Nature-based tourism, if it does not meet the standards of ecotourism, poses more threats to the natural environment than benefits. Additionally, because the negative effects of nature-based tourism on wildlife outweigh the positive ones, there is a serious concern that in the near future nature-based tourism may lead to a significant deterioration of nature within protected areas around the world. The most serious problems are tourists’ insufficient knowledge of nature conservation objectives, their behaviour in protected areas and poor management of protected areas. There is an urgent need to improve the knowledge of tourists, improve the management of protected areas and update our understanding of the impact of tourism on certain groups of organisms.