Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.

499–519, 2010
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.001

USING RESILIENCE CONCEPTS TO

INVESTIGATE THE IMPACTS OF
PROTECTED AREA TOURISM
ON COMMUNITIES
Jennifer K. Strickland-Munro
Helen E. Allison
Susan A. Moore
Murdoch University, Australia

Abstract: Protected area tourism is a growing trend worldwide. It has an enormous potential
to impact on local communities. Traditional assessment methods tend to focus on current
conditions using sustainability indicators that are often poorly chosen resulting in the misi-
dentification and misinterpretation of impacts. Research in systems thinking and resilience
suggest that future conditions may be different, more extreme and rapidly changing than pre-
viously experienced, requiring very different approaches to assessment. New methods
acknowledging uncertainty and change are required. Here we present a novel approach to
investigating the impacts of protected area tourism on communities by framing them as a
social-ecological system and adopting resilience assessment principles. Keywords: community,
impacts, protected area tourism, resilience, thresholds, uncertainty. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The power of nature and natural settings in attracting tourists is
widely recognized, with protected areas offering a significant attraction
to tourists (Pedersen, 2002; Reinius & Fredman, 2007). Increasingly,
tourism is one of the most common uses of protected areas (Walpole
& Goodwin, 2001). Protected areas are defined as areas of ‘‘land
and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance
of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources,
and managed through legal or other effective means’’ (IUCN, 1994, p.
7). Very often, protected areas and tourism are intertwined and their
respective impacts on local communities are difficult to separate.
The sustainability of protected areas is accepted as dependent on

Jennifer Strickland-Munro is a PhD candidate researching tourism impacts on communities

associated with national parks. The authors work within the School of Environmental Science,
Murdoch University (South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. Email <s.moore@mur-
doch.edu.au>). Helen Allison is a post-doctoral research fellow researching complex systems,
using systemic and resilience thinking to investigate social and ecological system dynamics at
regional scales. Susan Moore is an Associate Professor in environmental policy working on
interdisciplinarity in nature based tourism research.

499
500 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

due attendance to their social, economic and cultural context (Fortin

& Gagnon, 1999; McCleave, Booth, & Espiner, 2004).
However, conflicts between protected areas and communities can ad-
versely affect this sustainability. Plummer and Fennell (2009) propose
that multi-stakeholder conflict, complexity and uncertainty are issues
that remain unresolved and persistent. When problems persist and
are not resolved by current interventions they may be classed as
‘‘messy’’ or ‘‘wicked’’ (Allen & Gould, 1986; Rittel & Webber, 1973)
and require a new paradigm to understand them. Before exploring a
new paradigm or way of thinking about and investigating the relation-
ships (and associated impacts) between protected areas, tourism and
local communities, it is useful if not essential to review current meth-
ods using a ‘‘whole system’’ perspective.
This whole system perspective is being actively pursued in current re-
search on tourism as a complex adaptive system (Farrell & Twining-
Ward, 2005; Lacitignola, Petrosillo, Cataldi, & Zurlini, 2007). Such sys-
tems, where the social components are explicitly acknowledged (as is
the case with tourism), are known as social-ecological systems (SES)
(Allison & Hobbs, 2006; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Schianetz &
Kavanagh, 2008; Walker & Salt, 2006). Many interacting variables are
characteristic of SES, with the systems behaving according to three
principles: order is emergent as opposed to predetermined; the
system’s history is irreversible; and the system’s future is unpredictable
(Waldrop, 1992).
Systems thinking is required to bridge the social and biophysical
sciences (Allison & Hobbs, 2004) to help understand, for example,
how to link social and ecological systems for sustainability (Berkes &
Folke, 1998). Fennell (2004) and Dredge (2006) highlight that issues
associated with tourism and protected areas are inherently complex,
multi-scaled (local, regional, national and global) and involve horizon-
tal as well as vertical linkages. For example, communities, whether local
or further afield, are an integral part of the protected area tourism
system. Management of sustainable tourism relating to protected areas
should anticipate system dynamism and transformative changes
(Plummer & Fennell, 2009).

Components of a Protected Area Tourism System

Protected area tourism systems are generally comprised of three key
components: a given protected area, tourism operations and associated
communities. Protected areas themselves take several forms. According
to official IUCN designation, there are six types of protected areas:
strict nature reserves or wilderness areas; national parks; natural mon-
uments; habitat or species management areas; protected land or sea-
scapes; and managed resource protection areas (IUCN, 1994). The
primary management objectives of these protected areas differ consid-
erably (Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002).
The management authority for a given protected area varies
according to the differing management objectives (Eagles, 2009).
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 501

Traditionally, the state or government is the management authority.

This role is diversifying, however, and partnerships are gaining promi-
nence (Moore & Weiler, 2009). Increasingly, the management author-
ity is vested in alternative arrangements involving a range of actors.
Prominent arrangements include parastatal models, non-profit corpo-
rations such as non-governmental organisations, public or private for-
profit corporations and communities themselves. Co-management
arrangements, where decision-making power is shared between two
or more bodies, one of whom is government, is another emerging ap-
proach (Eagles, 2009).
Protected area tourism systems also comprise a tourism component.
Protected area tourism differs from other kinds of tourism in that it oc-
curs in natural settings. It fits within the broader undertaking of ‘nat-
ural area tourism’, which provides an alternative to traditional mass
tourism. Natural area tourism includes adventure, nature-based, wild-
life and ecotourism (Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002). This paper
adopts an inclusive definition of ‘protected area tourism’ to incorpo-
rate all tourism activities that occur within protected areas.
Local communities form the final key component of protected area
tourism systems. Local communities include residents living within or
in close proximity to a protected area. Geographical location is an
important defining context in determining ‘local community’ (Burns
& Sofield, 2001). The protected area and associated tourism impacts
on local communities both directly and indirectly through its existence
and capacity to attract tourists.
Geographical location does not imply uniformity in local attitudes or
functional relationship to protected area tourism. Attitudes, involve-
ment and dependencies of locals on protected areas (Eagles &
McCool, 2002) and tourism are diverse and context-dependent (Burns
& Sofield, 2001; Mvula, 2001). Relevant factors affecting local attitudes
and relations to tourism include length of residence; employment;
degree of economic dependence; socio-cultural and economic dis-
tance between tourists and the community; and distance of community
from the tourism area (Deery, Jago, & Fredline, 2005). Direct eco-
nomic dependence on tourism has been shown to be the single most
important factor affecting perceptions (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf,
& Vogt, 2005).
The choice of a geographically defined ‘local community’ is sup-
ported by the spatially restricted nature of protected area tourism
and the assumption that geographically adjacent communities will
experience the greatest impacts arising from that area. The tourism lit-
erature also reveals a predilection for a geographical perspective of
community (Beeton, 2006b) although this should be treated with cau-
tion as the boundary is necessarily porous to allow for a range of social,
economic and political factors that may impact from scales above and
below (Novelli & Scarth, 2007). The involvement of local people in
analyzing and understanding protected area tourism has been noted
as crucial as these people are most likely to be affected by policy devel-
opment (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). While acknowledging the highly
contested nature of ‘community’ (Blackstock, 2005; Fabricius, 2004),
502 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

for simplicity this paper adopts the perspective of geographical or local

communities.
Importantly, local community comprises just one element of those
interested or affected by protected area tourism. A wide-range of po-
tential stakeholders associated with protected areas exist and are also
essential parts of the protected area tourism system. Local community
represents one key group of stakeholders. Others include those di-
rectly affected such as visitors themselves, Park management and tour-
ism authorities, plus those further afield (Newsome et al., 2002). These
other stakeholders represent ‘communities of interest’, which are typ-
ified by shared interests rather than a defined spatial location (Beeton,
2006a).
This paper provides a novel approach to investigating the impacts of
protected area tourism on local communities. The approach draws on
the resilience assessment guidelines as outlined by The Resilience
Alliance (2007a, 2007b), a multidisciplinary, global network of scholars
and practitioners interested in understanding the dynamics of
complex SES. The Resilience Alliance guidelines (www.resalliance.org)
provide a general protocol for applying resilience perspectives
(Francis, 2008) to SES. These guidelines, supplemented by develop-
ments arising from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, were modified
for application to protected area tourism.
Resilience thinking provides a way of understanding human and
natural systems as complex systems that are continually adapting
(Allison & Hobbs, 2004; Walker & Salt, 2006). The resilience guide-
lines are underpinned by an acknowledgement of the complexity,
uncertainty and dynamism that characterize SES (Allison & Hobbs,
2006; Resilience Alliance, 2007b). The description of this approach is
necessarily preceded by a review of existing methods and explanatory
detail on systems and resilience thinking. The paper concludes with
comments on the benefits of this novel approach through its explicit
recognition of system change, complexity and uncertainty. The
difficulties in determining the system boundaries are also addressed.

EXISTING METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE IMPACTS

OF PROTECTED AREA TOURISM
In many areas tourism is seen as an answer to economic develop-
ment, particularly areas of natural beauty such as the Great Barrier
Reef, Australia and spectacular wildlife such as Imfolozi Wilderness
Area, South Africa. However, increasing numbers of people bring with
them a range of socio-cultural and environmental problems. Currently,
the selection of indicators in the context of tourism assessment is
directly related to the identification of the most important issues or
impacts from the perspective of stakeholders (Miller & Twining-Ward,
2005) or on the assessment of experts (Bossel, 2001). This can lead to a
thematic approach directed by each sector making an assessment
specific to their area of interest, for example, socio-cultural or
environmental.
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 503

There is a substantial literature regarding methods for measuring

socio-cultural impacts (Archer, Cooper, & Ruhanen, 2005). In the
tourism field, impacts are commonly measured quantitatively using a
Likert scale to investigate residents’ perception of impacts and atti-
tudes to tourism (Deery et al., 2005). Qualitative perceptional research,
involving community attitudes and self-evaluation of impacts along
with the setting of benchmarks and indicators, is another common
impact assessment method.
A number of indicator-based frameworks have been proposed to
conceptualize, predict and manage visitor impact on the environment.
Those applied to visitor use of protected areas include the Limits of
Acceptable Change, Visitor Impact Management, Visitor Activity Man-
agement Process, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum and the Visitor
Impact Management Model (Newsome et al., 2002). These frameworks
focus on the current state of a system without considering complex
interactions and interdependencies between resources and stakehold-
ers (Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2002). The nature of the indicators
associated with these frameworks makes management of protected area
tourism, when viewed as a complex adaptive system, particularly prob-
lematic as both social and ecological systems continue to change over
time.
Assumptions of reductionism and sector bias inherent in many exist-
ing indicator-based frameworks do not fit with new ideas embracing
complexity and uncertainty (Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Plummer
& Armitage, 2007). Therefore, indicators developed for current system
conditions will likely not be applicable when system conditions change
(Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001). Recognition of changing
conditions and uncertainty has given further impetus to the need for
new assessment methodologies. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004)
argue the need for greater integration of systems thinking in tourism
planning frameworks.
Commonly, tourism researchers imply that the surroundings within
which tourism is positioned exist as a separate entity (Farrell &
Twining-Ward, 2005; Russell & Faulkner, 1999). This is largely con-
fined to mathematical and economic outlooks where interactions with
other systems are not considered or made explicit (Lacitignola et al.,
2007) and social and cultural concerns are marginalized (Hampton,
2005). Consequently, emerging thinking conceptualizes tourism as a
complex adaptive system, consisting of multiple interacting compo-
nents (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005; Lacitignola et al., 2007; Russell
& Faulkner, 1999) in line with the emerging resilience approach.
Residents’ attitudes in relation to tourism are often unpredictable or
contrary to researcher expectations (Lepp, 2008). Explanation of this
may lie in complex systems theory, which suggests unpredictability is
to be expected owing to multiple, complex factors interacting in ways
that are often historically pre-determined. Such is the case with
residents’ attitudes to tourism. Therefore, any tourism study conducted
without explicit recognition of interacting variables e.g., political,
social, cultural, historic, ecological and legal, will reveal an incomplete
and possibly confusing picture, as the complex interactions between
504 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

system components will not be apparent (Farrell & Twining-Ward,

2005).

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ASSESSING PROTECTED AREA TOURISM

These identified shortcomings in existing indicator-based frameworks
and the potential benefits of recognizing tourism as a complex adaptive
system are further echoed by Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) who
highlighted the potential applicability of systems thinking to tourism
research, while noting such applications are largely untested. More
recently, the value of systems thinking, specifically for research in
protected area tourism, has been emphasized because of its value in
aligning the aims of sustainability and fostering system resilience to with-
stand disturbance and cope with uncertainty (Plummer & Fennell,
2009). This approach is differs to optimizing selected system compo-
nents under current linear processes (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008).
System thinking also provides the opportunity to consider and
include uncertainty in managing protected area tourism. Uncertainty
is a ‘situation in which there is not a unique and complete understand-
ing of the system to be managed’ (Brugnach, Dewulf, Pahl-Wostl, &
Taillieu, 2008, p. 4). Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) note that
current approaches to tourism research are incomplete as they cannot
adequately deal with unexpected processes and events. There is ample
evidence from case studies on the interactions of people and nature
where current theories are capable of explaining system behaviour in
times of stability (Allison & Hobbs, 2004, 2006; Gunderson & Holling,
2002). However, in times of crisis and ensuing uncertainty these theo-
ries are unable to deal with periods of sudden change (Allison &
Hobbs, 2004, 2006). At best they replace inherent uncertainty with
the veiled certainty of disciplinary knowledge and precise numbers.
At worst the theories ignore the possibility that slowly changing
variables (ecological or social) can suddenly cause a rapid change
and flip a system into a functionally different state that may be effec-
tively irreversible (Allison & Hobbs, 2006).
Uncertainty is now a given, as evidenced by current global conditions
including widespread economic recession and concerns over climate
change, both of which impact directly on tourism (Bramwell & Lane,
2009). Quick (2008) concurs, mentioning a number of major uncer-
tainties currently prevalent in the popular media, such as oil supply/
prices and increases in extreme weather conditions. As an unpredict-
able and interconnected system, tourism is vulnerable to outside
disturbances (Mill & Morrison, 2006; Russell & Faulkner, 1999) such
as the current global economic recession (UN World Tourism Organi-
zation, 2009), acts of terrorism (such as the 2002 Bali bombings, 2005
London bombing or September 11) and climate change (UN World
Tourism Organization, 2003). Novelli and Scarth (2007) elaborate, cit-
ing instability in visitor numbers, exchange rates, political volatility,
natural disasters and weather as further disturbances to which a pro-
tected area tourism system may be susceptible.
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 505

Rather than view the system as in equilibrium we now conceptualize

many systems, including tourism, as being far from equilibrium where
small changes in one factor may cause the system to cross a threshold
or tipping point (Gladwell, 2002). These changes may be abrupt, unex-
pected and cause surprise. Resilience thinking provides a way to under-
stand such changes. As well as embracing complex changing systems
that include both human and natural parts (Walker & Salt, 2006), this
thinking also acknowledges the importance of multiple, cross-scale
interactions (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003). The characteristics of
these complex systems include: multiple, interacting components;
cause and effect relationships are often non-linear and unclear; system
dynamism; ‘butterfly effects’ (being disproportionally affected by exter-
nal events); and vulnerability to multiple shocks (Allison & Hobbs,
2006; Lacitignola et al., 2007; Walker & Salt, 2006).
Resilience itself confers a measure of the capacity of a system to
absorb disturbance and reorganize, while undergoing change, with
the same or similar system retained (Folke, 2006). Given the focus
on local community, examples from social resilience are used through-
out this paper. Social resilience relates to the ability of communities to
cope with external stress or disturbances resulting from social, political
and environmental change (Adger, 2000). The capacity for renewal,
reorganization and development are important (Folke, 2006). Carpen-
ter et al. (2001) ascribe three properties to help define resilience: the
amount of change a system can experience and remain in the same
state; the degree to which a system is capable of self-organization;
and the degree to which a system can build capacity to learn/adapt.
The following features of the broader resilience perspective are of
direct relevance to assessing the impacts of protected area tourism
on local communities: change is normal and to be expected; cause
and effect are often non-linear and unclear; systems move adaptively
through different developmental stages; thresholds accompany most
variables and demarcate between different system states; and multiple,
interacting scales are the norm (Folke, 2006; Gunderson, 2000).
Adaptability is needed to cope with disturbances. Resilience affords a
system the capability to adapt (Folke, 2006), enabling a buffer effect by
which the system can better absorb or withstand disturbances (Adger,
2000), as exemplified by current global uncertainties. Adaptability is
determined by the absolute and relative amounts of capital: social,
financial, human, natural, physical and technological, as well as by
systems of governance and institutions (Walker et al., 2006). SES with
lower levels of institutional and social capacity to adapt and shape
change will be less resilient as they lack alternative options to pursue
when facing disturbance (Lacitignola et al., 2007).
Adaptability of a protected area tourism system is related to drivers.
Elucidating drivers, those factors causing change either directly or
indirectly in a system, is crucial to assessments of resilience (Walker
et al., 2006). Drivers can move a system closer to a threshold (Allison
& Hobbs, 2006; Walker & Meyers, 2004). Thresholds are the critical
levels separating different patterns of operation and functioning for
the protected area tourism system. Both conceptual thinking and
506 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

empirical evidence intimate the likelihood of severe negative conse-

quences consequent to a threshold being crossed (Lyytimäki & Hilden,
2007). Examples of SES crossing thresholds are evidenced by loss of
biodiversity, degradation of ecosystem services, loss of socio-cultural
identity/heritage or change in economic basis (Petrosillo, Zurlini,
Grato, & Zaccarelli, 2006). An example of a threshold being irrevers-
ibly crossed is that of species extinction (Lyytimäki & Hilden, 2007).
Resilience thinking is particularly useful in understanding protected
area tourism. Such tourism embodies a number of challenges that set it
apart from tourism elsewhere. Most importantly, protected area tour-
ism occurs within an environment characterized by complexity, change
and uncertainty. Inherently ‘‘messy’’ situations result (McCool, 2009;
Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Several factors contribute to this ‘‘messi-
ness’’ and complexity. The first of these concerns the dual mandate
of many protected areas, charged with delivering both biodiversity
conservation and tourism (Eagles et al., 2002). Sustainable tourism
in protected areas involves similar trade-offs. Second, protected areas
have many different forms of governance (Eagles, 2009; Lockwood,
in press) and a high level of state influence, resulting in diverse and
often unpredictable institutional arrangements. Third, the existence
of resource or economically-dependent communities associated with
protected areas (Eagles et al., 2002) adds another layer of complexity.

APPLYING RESILIENCE THINKING TO INVESTIGATE

PROTECTED AREA TOURISM SYSTEMS
Given the preceding rationale, protected area tourism as a SES
clearly requires new assessment methods to account for its inherent
dynamism and uncertainty. Non-linear approaches are called for, draw-
ing on new ways of thinking such as resilience, adaptive management,
systems modeling and scenario planning, integrated with social science
and ecology (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005). The conceptual frame-
work in Figure 1 provides an alternative to existing linear impact assess-
ment methods by explicitly considering complex interactions and
interdependencies between system components as well as investigating
the causes and rates of system change. The framework draws on pro-
cess-orientated approaches from resilience and systems thinking, build-
ing progressively on stakeholder perceptions in order to develop an
overall picture of conditions, impacts, system interactions and rates
of change, potential thresholds and possible future scenarios.
This framework, based on the resilience assessment guidelines of
The Resilience Alliance (2007a, 2007b) explicitly considers interac-
tions between system components across multiple scales using multiple
worldviews. The Resilience Alliance framework is consistent with the
principles of the general system dynamics process and resilience assess-
ment process adopted by Allison and Hobbs (2006). Although the
framework components themselves are not new, using it to develop
an assessment tool for protected area tourism systems represents a no-
vel transdisciplinary approach. Increasingly advocated in the literature,
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 507

Define the protected area tourism system

- System components (e.g. a given protected area, tourism
and appropriate stakeholders, including both local
communities and communities of interest)
- Scale (e.g. research focus at local or sub-national scale)
- Key issues (e.g. biodiversity conservation, economic
benefits, natural resource use)

Factors affecting the system

- Develop a historical profile to explore the role of past events
- Drivers (e.g. population growth, religion and taboo systems)
- Disturbances ( e.g. extreme weather events, terrorism,
fluctuations in tourist visitation)

Key people in the system and understanding their

institutions
- Key players (e.g. management authorities, community
leaders, government and tourism officials)
- Governance and power concerns (e.g. power inequities
and conflict over resources such as cultural sites,
charismatic species, natural resources)
- Relevant policies, regulations, laws etc (e.g. benefit
sharing policies, enclave operations, land rights)

System development and thresholds

- Adaptive cycles
- Future scenarios (e.g. fall in tourist numbers, ecosystem
degradation)
- Potential thresholds (e.g. Indigenous involvement in land
management, shifts from ecotourism to mass tourism)

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: Using the Resilience Assessment Process to

Investigate the Impacts of Protected Area Tourism on Community (After The
Resilience Alliance, 2007a,b)

such an approach is appropriate for times of increasing uncertainty

and change. This framework also draws on work by Walker, Abel,
Anderies, and Ryan (2009), Carpenter et al. (2001) and Walker et al.
(2002). Parallels also exist in research regarding adaptive co-manage-
ment and governance (e.g., Berkes, 2007; Carlsson & Berkes, 2005;
508 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

Kofinas, 2009; Plummer & Fennell, 2009). The novelty of this approach
lies in the use of Resilience Alliance methodology, which can only be
tested via application. To date, only five case studies based upon
Resilience Alliance guidelines have been published (see http://
wiki.resalliance.org/index.php/Case_studies and Walker et al., 2009),
none of which relate to protected area tourism.
The framework presented here is designed to be progressed
through iterative participatory processes with local communities,
who provide a focus and point of contact (i.e., unit of analysis) for
investigating the wider protected area tourism system. Several other
provisos also apply, first, only the initial assessment stages of The
Resilience Alliance guidelines (2007a,b) are used in the paper, for
the sake of brevity and focus. A full application of the principles con-
tained in the guidelines would be recommended in practice. This
would progress research beyond definition and understanding of
protected area tourism systems to include more detailed assessments
of resilience. Second, case studies are an important next step to ver-
ify the practical utility of the framework outlined here. Third,
although the focus here is on local communities, other stakeholders
are also critical to understanding the system, including protected
area managers, scientists and the tourism industry plus others. Deter-
mining stakeholder saliency is aided by attention to property/use
rights, the institutional frameworks in which system use is regulated,
and decision-making hierarchies (Walker et al., 2002).
Four phases are explored in Figure 1 and encompass: (1) system def-
inition; (2) factors affecting the system; (3) Key people in the system
and understanding their institutions; and (4) system development
and thresholds.

Phase 1. Define the Protected Area Tourism System

The protected area tourism system must be defined. This involves
investigating the key issues and system boundaries (Cumming et al.,
2005) as perceived by the community. Owing to the fragmented and
complex nature of communities, the distorting effect of inherent
power inequities is perhaps best dealt with by the approach taken by
Kayat (2002), who advocates engaging both ‘power’ (those with access
to resources by which greater tourism benefits can be gained) and ‘no
power’ respondents in order to gain balanced views. Such an approach
will aid in overcoming issues associated with the overt or implicit mar-
ginalization or elevation of certain groups and individuals within the
framework. Berkes (2007) and Plummer and Fennell (2009)(who build
upon Berkes, 2007) similarly propose clarification of system partici-
pants and power relations in their adaptive co-management assessment
frameworks.
Current system conditions are ascertained initially, with impacts then
defined in relation to these conditions. The identification of key issues
(what is it about protected area tourism that the community want to
maintain or are concerned about) point to the main impacts being
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 509

experienced. Key issues with respect to the impacts of protected area

tourism, from a community perspective, may include but are not
limited to economic benefits, crowding, aesthetics, litter, access and
resource usage restrictions, employment, decision-making powers,
communication with protected area staff, tourist presence and
biodiversity conservation. It is important to note, however, that issues
important to a community may not be those that are crucial to how
the protected area tourism system functions. For example, issues
related to less obvious components which provide social benefits, such
as species conservation or carbon absorption, are commonly unrecog-
nized, at least initially (Resilience Alliance, 2007b) when viewed
through a local community lens.
Identification and demarcation of system scale—how far the bound-
aries of the protected area tourism system extend for research pur-
poses—is in large part likely to be pre-determined owing to values
and research objectives and which conceptualization of ‘community’
is adopted. It is crucial to explicitly note assumptions and reasons for
the choice of study scale. For example, a focus on geographical com-
munity over a community of interest in relation to protected area tour-
ism must be justified. The authors contend that geographical
conceptualizations will, with regards to this framework, provide a sense
of centrality or ‘boundedness’ that will aid in defining system bound-
aries and further, that the negative impacts of protected area tourism
are likely to be highly localized to nearby communities.
System definition is further explored through the determination of
community perceptions of interactions between themselves, the
protected area and tourism in terms of power relations, interrelation-
ships, social values and benefits, impacts and influence. Perspectives
relating to conflicts, issues and challenges currently facing the commu-
nity as a result of protected area tourism and those predicted to occur
in the future are investigated. Constructing conceptual maps, be they
oral or physical drawings, can provide clues as to cross-scale inter-
actions and system boundaries perceived by the community in
question.

Phase 2. What Affects the System?

The second phase of the framework focuses on historical and
contemporary factors affecting the protected area tourism system. This
second phase provides greater understanding of the drivers causing
change in components and interactions of the protected area tourism
system as well as influences on these drivers. An historical profile,
through which significant causal factors and events underlying the
current conditions and impacts can be identified, allows exploration
of historical contingency (Allison & Hobbs, 2006; Berkes, 2007; Walker
et al., 2002). Major external events affecting protected area tourism
can be categorized as political (e.g., land rights, government policies
or blacklisting such as the apartheid-era South Africa), economic
(e.g., economic downturns, significant currency fluctuations, access
510 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

to new markets, welfare structures), infrastructure (e.g., construction

of access roads, tourist accommodation and recreation facilities),
technology (e.g., increased access to Internet resources and online
booking systems, sophisticated marketing techniques), demographic
(e.g., flux in visitor numbers, population density in protected area
surrounds) and environmental/ecological (e.g., floods, droughts,
species extinction).
Through this historical profile, the affect of major external events in
terms of opportunities, constraints and development (Resilience
Alliance, 2007b; Walker et al., 2002) on the protected area tourism sys-
tem (of which local community is an integral part) becomes evident.
Characteristically slowly changing variables that may play an important
role in controlling (Allison & Hobbs, 2006; Walker et al., 2002) the
protected area tourism system, for example population growth or cul-
tural variables like religion or taboo systems, can be identified in part
from this profile. These slow variables are a crucial aspect of the overall
assessment as they may critically impact on protected area tourism. Of-
ten these slow variables are crucial in determining how a system will re-
act following major external disturbances (Carpenter et al., 2001).
In their assessment of sustainability of the Goulburn-Broken catch-
ment in Australia, Walker et al. (2009) found the major slow variables
influencing the system to include values, economy, infrastructure, bio-
physical function and biodiversity. The Catchment Management
Authority had only a small influence on these key slow variables, sug-
gesting that control lies outside the influence of the local area. Control
of land/water use and infrastructure instead rested with State and/or
Federal Governments, with attendant (and significant) implications
for system resilience and adaptive capacity. These findings are signifi-
cant for the resilience of communities within protected area tourism
systems, who are hypothesized as being similarly poorly disposed in
terms of influence over such key slow variables, with control dictated
at higher scales. Research by Balint (2006) draws attention to the
unique nature of commons issues in protected areas, noting that in
most cases, governments own and/or run the area with attendant rules
and regulations. Local people are disempowered to effect change, as
found by Walker et al. (2009).
Initial ideas regarding drivers can be obtained through exploring
community perceptions of the factors influencing key issues or impacts
of protected area tourism. Again, however, community perceptions of
drivers may differ from core underlying drivers facilitating change
(Resilience Alliance, 2007b). The utility of historical analysis in aiding
determination of slow variables is great, as their discovery is generally
difficult owing to inadequate data and/or understanding. As such,
significant uncertainty regarding such variables exists (Walker et al.,
2009). Historical analysis is similarly useful for ascertaining distur-
bances influencing the protected area tourism system. The spatio-
temporal frequency and nature of characteristic disturbances taking
place in the protected area tourism system can be explored through
a combination of community engagement and historical analysis, again
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 511

utilizing a cross-checking measure to account for subjective prefer-

ences in community perceptions.
Commonly grouped into physical, biological, economic, social or
policy domains, disturbances affect how the protected area tourism
system functions. Physical shocks, frequently related to weather events,
may be regular occurrences such as monsoonal flooding, irregular
events such as flooding and drought (Allison & Hobbs, 2006) or they
can be one-off unexpected occurrences, such as earthquakes. Biologi-
cal shocks commonly refer to diseases, economic shocks to events such
as slumps in the global tourism market or exchange rates, social shocks
to changes in visitor preferences and population issues (e.g., instability
in visitor numbers) and events such as employee strikes and policy
shocks to disturbances associated with governments (such as political
turmoil) (Novelli & Scarth, 2007; Resilience Alliance, 2007b; Walker
et al., 2002). Other shocks, such as those associated with terrorism,
span several of these groupings.

Phase 3. Key People in the System and Understanding their Institutions

Owing to human primacy in SES, leadership is a crucial aspect
underpinning system interactions, providing opportunities for build-
ing trust, managing conflict, linking key individuals and initiating
group partnerships (Olsson et al., 2006). The third phase of the frame-
work is therefore concerned with determining systems of governance
and key individuals influencing the protected area system either for-
mally or unofficially, particularly in relation to resources and access,
their interactions and the implications of such interactions on impacts
experienced by a community. The identification of key authority fig-
ures or organisations in directive roles is concerned with identifying
power relations (Resilience Alliance, 2007b; Ribot & Peluso, 2003)
within the protected area tourism system, in terms of influence on
the system, either indirectly or directly.
According to Plummer and Fennell (2009, p. 150), the ‘root cause of
conflict between local people and government is. . .power’. Directly
linked to governance, power inequities can manifest in perceptions
of protected areas as representative of government power, casting them
as crux points of local dissatisfaction. For most situations except those
where a highly participatory governance structure is employed, it is
hypothesized that protected area/tourism authorities and government
will be key power holders in both a direct and indirect sense. This
occurs through the setting and enforcement of policy and practice as
dictated by government control operating at higher scales, in contrast
to the community (although in practice this may not be the case, as in
many ‘paper parks’).
Governance of a protected area tourism system concerns issues such
as property rights, tenure conflicts, access matters and their transpar-
ency and acceptance by communities. Verification of authority regard-
ing resource use and regulations and relationships between these
individuals/organisations is critical (Resilience Alliance, 2007b).
512 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

Protected area tourism resources include, for example, key attractor

species such as lion, medicinal plants, fuel wood, cultural sites, tourism
spaces and infrastructure, the use and regulation of which affects local
communities. As outlined by Ribot and Peluso (2003), the ability to
benefit is dependent on access to resources, which is in turn affected
by spatially and temporally dynamic individual and institutional
relationships to those resources.
Emerging land and property rights are likely to be confounding
issues in determining authority. Such claims are liable to impact on
intra-community power relations as well as those within the protected
area tourism system. Property and tenure are highlighted as only one
group of factors affecting benefit derivation; others include access to
technology, capital, markets, labour and labour opportunities, author-
ity and knowledge, as well as access derived through social identity or
negotiation of other social alliances (such as friendship or reciprocity)
(Ribot & Peluso, 2003). Analysis of these interacting factors and their
effect on impacts can be assisted by the historical profile developed
previously.
Key policies, regulations and legislation facilitating or constraining
resource use within the protected area tourism system need to be ascer-
tained. For communities, these may include facilitative aspects such as
protected area community liaison and benefit sharing policies, land
rights legislation and sustainable and/or responsible tourism guide-
lines that are likely to enhance collaborative resource management.
Conversely, the commonly enclave nature of protected area tourism
(Mill & Morrison, 2006; Novelli & Scarth, 2007), protected area regu-
lations concerning human habitation and resource extraction and
existing communication channels act in a constraining manner, mini-
mizing or prohibiting interaction between communities and the wider
protected area tourism system.
Finally, an awareness of the scales above (e.g., State, national) and
below (e.g., households/businesses) the focal protected area tourism
system is required. Cross-scale linkages, be they horizontal (geograph-
ical links, i.e., across communities) or vertical (across levels of organi-
zation i.e., local to international) (Berkes, 2007) can have crucial
ramifications for the focal system. As Peterson (2007) notes, state
organisations (such as protected area authorities) are positioned with-
in a network of other state organisations, similar organisations in other
states, media and scientific/international organisations. The complex-
ity inherent in such cross-scale linkages is immediately discernable.
The existence of cross-scale influences demands attention, for example
issues associated with reconciling European land tenure systems with
traditional ownership systems, and traditional authorities with western
style management boards (Resilience Alliance, 2007b).

Phase 4. System Development and Thresholds

The final phase of the framework rests on exploring the current as
well as projected future state of the protected area tourism system.
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 513

Thresholds may be investigated. Resilience assessment proposes ap-

praisal of the position of the protected area tourism system within
the adaptive cycle. For example, does the protected area tourism sys-
tem appear to be expanding in the forward loop (in a growth to con-
servation phases) or undergoing significant changes, the back loop
(the release and reorganization phases) (Walker & Salt, 2006)? Largely
based on the historical profile developed previously, patterns of behav-
iour (Allison & Hobbs, 2006) in the protected area tourism system can
be observed (e.g., exploration, consolidation, decline, rejuvenation).
Evolutionary cycles are ubiquitous in nature and have been identified
in systems created by human society including the economy (De
Greene, 1993). These stages and the cyclical nature inherent in their
discovery are analogous to that presented in Butler’s long-standing
tourism destination life cycle model (Petrosillo et al., 2006). These
two approaches differentiate around the more explicit detail given in
the resilience material about adaptation.
Where the tourism system is positioned within the adaptive cycle is of
interest as it relates to its likely stability (and hence the persistence of
the impacts currently occurring) or conversely, propensity to change
(Walker & Salt, 2006). Conceptualizations of the adaptive cycle were
used by Walker et al. (2009) in their resilience assessment to argue that
the Goulburn-Broken system is on the cusp of a release phase and re-
gime shift or transformation. Allison and Hobbs (2006) similarly used
the adaptive cycle metaphor to understand the history of the Western
Australian wheat belt highlighting that some regions may not follow an
adaptive path but enter maladaptive states such as the ‘lock-in trap’.
Similarly, Bramwell and Lane (2009) discuss the current economic
recession in terms of an adaptive cycle for tourism, as exemplified by
historical patterns of boom/bust.
Possible developmental pathways, or future scenarios, for the pro-
tected area tourism system can then be theorized in order to assist
managers with future decision making. By necessity, this is conducted
within a context of high uncertainty and difficulty of system control
(Allison & Hobbs, 2006; Cumming et al., 2005). Based on key issues
of concern for the protected area tourism system as defined by local
communities, such as sustainable resource harvesting by locals or an in-
crease in visitor numbers, conceivable alternative development path-
ways based on interactions between existing system dynamics and
possible future events can be developed. Alternative pathways are con-
structed by selecting a few uncertain or uncontrollable driving forces
around which scenarios can be developed, for example a fall in tourist
numbers or ecosystem degradation. Each scenario is essentially a brief
account that connects past and present events with hypothetical future
actions, tracking key indicator variables (Peterson, Cumming, & Car-
penter, 2003).
Through constructing future protected area tourism scenarios, it is
possible to investigate various ‘non return’ points or system thresholds.
Thresholds refer to some critical level which, once reached, results in a
change in behaviour (Resilience Alliance, 2007a) of the protected
area tourism system, preventing further progress along a particular
514 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

developmental pathway, for example, changes from a primary to ter-

tiary economy or from productive soils to non-productive soils (Allison
& Hobbs, 2006). Such thresholds can be tangible (physically observa-
ble) or behavioral, although owing to human primacy within protected
area tourism systems, thresholds are likely to be behavioral in nature.
In their resilience assessment, Walker et al. (2009) identify ten possi-
ble, likely and suspected thresholds for the Goulburn-Broken system.
For example, consider Indigenous Australian connection to land.
After decades of institutionalized non-recognition, a threshold was
reached in regards to Indigenous non-involvement in land manage-
ment. Official positions changed to reflect new more inclusive atti-
tudes, which have had marked flow-on effects for protected area and
tourism management in Australia. Joint management arrangements
between park authorities and traditional Aboriginal custodians initi-
ated in a number of Australia protected areas (Langton, Rhea, & Pal-
mer, 2005), for example Kakadu National Park, provide evidence of
system behavioral change following the reaching of a tolerance thresh-
old. A further example is provided by shifts in tourism product, for
example from ecotourism to mass tourism (Newsome et al., 2002).
To date however, the discovery of system thresholds in the wider
resilience arena has proven challenging, with no instances of thresh-
olds being discovered prior to actually being experienced or derived
from historical analysis (Walker & Meyers, 2004). While this may seem
disheartening, it is important to note that it may be more crucial to dis-
cover factors moving a protected area tourism system towards thresh-
olds, than it is to precisely define the thresholds themselves
(Resilience Alliance, 2007a). These weak signals, or ‘thresholds of po-
tential concern’, are probably of greater concern as, once a threshold
has been reached, a system is already at crisis point and management to
return the system to a previous state is made much more problematic,
if at all possible (Rogers, 2003).

CONCLUSION
This paper proposes a novel, transdisciplinary conceptual framework
for investigating the impacts of protected area tourism on communi-
ties. ‘Community’ (using a geographical conceptualization) is em-
ployed as the focus for determining impacts of the wider protected
area tourism system, via application of the ecologically derived princi-
ples of resilience assessment. The novel contribution of the framework
lies in its transdisciplinary and distinctly stakeholder-driven approach
to assessing protected area tourism, with community (and broad stake-
holder) assessment of system interactions, functioning and issues of
concern (impacts) deemed appropriate for assessing resilience in a
future assured of increasing uncertainty and change.
The benefit of this framework lies in the ability to explicitly recognise
and work with system change, complexity and uncertainty, in contrast
to traditional indicator-based tourism impact methods that are based
on linear assessment approaches. Highly exploratory in nature, the
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 515

framework is intended to act as a starting point for further explorations

into the utility of resilience and complex systems thinking to protected
area tourism. In this paper we have attempted to progress the applica-
tion of resilience assessment to new sectors, as the application of resil-
ience thinking to protected area tourism is in an embryonic stage.
Evaluation of tourism impacts has explicitly recognized the difficulty
of attributing cause and effect in regards to the impacts of tourism
(Deery et al., 2005), as well as the complex and often slowly emerging
recognition of impacts. A key insight available from this conceptual
framework concerns the potentially slowly changing nature of socio-
cultural factors that may act as key drivers. Resilience and complex
systems thinking can assist in conceptualizing these attributions as well
as providing a systems context for better understanding how and where
impacts emerge.
Issues associated with the framework include difficulties in defining
and bounding the system of inquiry. Part of the complexity lies in the
close participation of stakeholders inherent in this approach, as system
boundaries developed are largely based on stakeholder worldviews.
While not unique to protected area tourism, the issue of system defini-
tion requires careful consideration. The short term timeframes within
which humans operate pose another quandary for the framework, in
that many of the issues and interactions raised will be of an immediate
nature. Care must be exercised to ensure longer term impacts and
interactions are also considered.
Protected area tourism, and tourism itself, are immensely complex, dy-
namic systems. A resilience and complex systems-based approach allows
for explicit recognition of this complexity, uncertainty and change and
as such, the conceptual framework presented here is positioned to act
and take advantage of emergent systems thinking. The practical value
of the framework seems high. However, while conceptually illuminating,
the practical application of this conceptual model requires validation to
truly assess its methodological value and applicability to investigating the
impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Research guided by,
or to test components of the framework developed through this paper,
will greatly assist progress in the field with regards to advancing resilience
and complex systems thinking in the tourism sphere.

Acknowledgements—This research was jointly funded by scholarships from the Sustainable

Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, established and supported under the Australian Gov-
ernment’s Cooperative Research Centre’s Program, and the Western Australian Department
of Environment and Conservation. The authors would like to acknowledge Marc Miller, the
Coordinating Editor of this journal and 3 anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments
on an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in
Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
516 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

Allen, G. M., & Gould, E. M. (1986). Complexity, wickedness, and public forests.
Journal of Forestry, 84(4), 20–23.
Allison, H. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2004). Resilience and adaptive capacity of the
Western Australian agricultural region: A social-ecological system. Ecology and
Society, 9(1), Article 3.
Allison, H. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2006). Science and policy in natural resources
management—Understanding system complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’
perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4),
1056–1076.
Archer, B., Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2005). The positive and negative impacts of
tourism. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.) (pp. 79–102). United States of America:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Balint, P. J. (2006). Improving community-based conservation near protected
areas: The importance of development variables. Environmental Management,
38(1), 137–148.
Beeton, S. (2006a). Community development through tourism. Collingwood, Victoria:
Landlinks Press.
Beeton, S. (2006b). From theory to practice: Participant interpretation of research
results. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 3–9.
Berkes, F. (2007). Adaptive co-management and complexity: Exploring the many
faces of co-management. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. Doubleday (Eds.)
(pp. 19–37). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, &
C. Folke (Eds.) (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community
Development Journal, 40(1), 39–49.
Bossel, H. (2001). Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach
for deriving comprehensive indicator sets. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), Article 12.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2009). Economic cycles, times of change and sustainable
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 1–4.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a relational
concept of uncertainty: About knowing too little, knowing too differently, and
accepting not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2), Article 30.
Burns, G. L., & Sofield, T. (2001). The host community: Social and cultural issues
concerning wildlife tourism. Gold Coast, Queensland: CRC for Sustainable
Tourism.
Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological
implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to
measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781.
Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J.,
et al. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measure of
resilience. Ecosystems, 8(8), 975–987.
De Greene, K. B. (1993). A systems-based approach to policy making. Boston: Kluwer
Academic.
Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2005). A framework for the development of
social and socioeconomic indicators for sustainable tourism in communities.
Tourism Review International, 9(1), 69–77.
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562–581.
Eagles, P. F. J. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks
and protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 231–248.
Eagles, P. F. J., & McCool, S. F. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas.
New York: CAB International.
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 517

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected
areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Fabricius, C. (2004). The fundamentals of community-based natural resource
management. In C. Fabricius, E. Koch, H. Magome, & S. Turner (Eds.)
(pp. 3–43). London: Earthscan.
Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295.
Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability:
Tourism in the context of new knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2),
109–122.
Fennell, D. A. (2004). Towards interdisciplinarity in tourism: Making a case
through complexity and shared knowledge. Recent Advances and Research
Updates, 5(1), 99–110.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
Fortin, M.-J., & Gagnon, C. (1999). An assessment of social impacts of national
parks on communities in Quebec, Canada. Environmental Conservation, 26(3),
200–211.
Francis, G. (2008). Evolution of contexts for protected areas governance. In K. S.
Hanna, D. A. Clark, & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.) (pp. 15–38). New York:
Routledge.
Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference.
Boston, USA: Back Bay Books.
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). Ecological resilience—In theory and application. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 425–439.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy. Understanding transformations
in human and natural systems. Washington, USA: Island Press.
Hampton, M. P. (2005). Heritage, local communities and economic development.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 735–759.
IUCN. (1994). Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Kayat, K. (2002). Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi: Rethinking
resident perceptions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(3),
171–191.
Kofinas, G. P. (2009). Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In
F. S. Chapin, III, G. P. Kofinas, & C. Folke (Eds.) (pp. 77–102). New York:
Springer.
Lacitignola, D., Petrosillo, I., Cataldi, M., & Zurlini, G. (2007). Modelling socio-
ecological tourism-based systems for sustainability. Ecological Modelling, 206(1–
2), 191–204.
Langton, M., Rhea, Z. M., & Palmer, L. (2005). Community-oriented protected
areas for indigenous peoples and local communities. Journal of Political Ecology,
12, 23–50.
Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community
with no prior tourism experience. The case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 5–22.
Lockwood, M. (in press). Good governance for protected areas: Principles and an
evaluation framework. Journal of Environmental Management.
Lyytimäki, J., & Hilden, M. (2007). Thresholds of sustainability: Policy challenges
of regime shifts in coastal areas. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 3(2),
61–69.
McCleave, J., Booth, K., & Espiner, S. (2004). Love thy neighbour? The
relationship between Kahurangi National Park and the border communities
of Karamea and Golden Bay, New Zealand. Annals of Leisure Research, 7(3–4),
202–221.
McCool, S. F. (2009). Constructing partnerships for protected area tourism
planning in an era of change and messiness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
17(2), 133–148.
518 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519

Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2006). The tourism system. United States of America:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition:
The challenge of developing and using indicators. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing.
Moore, S. A., & Weiler, B. (2009). Tourism-protected area partnerships: Stoking
the fires of innovation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 129–132.
Mvula, C. D. (2001). Fair trade in tourism to protected areas—A micro case study
of wildlife tourism in South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 393–405.
Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural area tourism: Ecology,
impacts and management. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Novelli, M., & Scarth, A. (2007). Tourism in protected areas: Integrating
conservation and community development in Liwonde National Park
(Malawi). Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 4(1), 47–73.
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S.
(2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 18.
Pedersen, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage sites: A practical manual for
world heritage site managers. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Peterson, G. (2007). Using scenario planning to enable an adaptive co-manage-
ment process in the Northern Highlands Lake District of Wisconsin. In D.
Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. Doubleday (Eds.) (pp. 286–307). Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario planning: A
tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17(2),
358–366.
Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Grato, E., & Zaccarelli, N. (2006). Indicating fragility of
socio-ecological tourism-based systems. Ecological Indicators, 6(1), 104–113.
Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating
adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a
complex world. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 62–74.
Plummer, R., & Fennell, D. A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable
tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
17(2), 149–168.
Quick, L. (2008). A perfect storm—Resilience or ignorance within eight cost shocks.
Sourced <www.resilientfutures.org>.
Reinius, S. W., & Fredman, P. (2007). Protected areas as attractions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(4), 839–854.
Resilience Alliance (2007a). Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological
systems: A practitioners workbook. Vol. 1, version 1.0. Sourced <www.resal-
liance.org/3871.php>.
Resilience Alliance (2007b). Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: A scientist’s
workbook. Sourced <www.resalliance.org/3871.php>.
Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2),
153–181.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, 155–159.
Rogers, K. H. (2003). Adopting a heterogeneity paradigm: Implications for
management of protected savannas. In J. T. du Toit, K. H. Rogers, & H. C.
Biggs (Eds.) (pp. 41–58). United States of America: Island Press.
Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (1999). Movers and shakers: Chaos makers in tourism
development. Tourism Management, 20(4), 411–423.
Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism
destinations: A complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator
systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 601–628.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding residents’ support for
tourism development in the central region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research,
41(1), 57–67.
 J.K. Strickland-Munro et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 499–519 519

UN World Tourism Organization. (2003). Climate change and tourism. In

Proceedings of the 1st international conference on climate change and tourism. Djerba,
Tunisia: UN World Tourism Organization.
UN World Tourism Organization. (2009). UN World Tourism Organization Barometer.
Madrid, Spain: UN World Tourism Organization.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al.
(2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working
hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), Article 14.
Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Schultz, L. (2006).
A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in
social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 13.
Walker, B., & Meyers, J. A. (2004). Thresholds in ecological and social-ecological
systems: A developing database. Ecology and Society, 9(2), Article 3.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a
changing world. Washington: Island Press.
Walker, B. H., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, adaptability,
and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology
and Society, 14(1), Article 12.
Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and
tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation,
28(2), 160–166.

Submitted 31 March 2008. Resubmitted 7 May 2009. Resubmitted 19 August 2009. Final
version 26 October 2009. Accepted 10 November 2009. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating
Editor: Marc L. Miller

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com