Adaptive co-management as an approach to tourism destination governance – a case of protected areas in Bangladesh
Summary (3 min read)
2.1 Introduction
- Tourism destinations are recognised as complex governance contexts because of the multiple, and often competing, stakeholder groups involved in producing and delivering the tourism products and services (Baggio et al., 2010; Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Kuenzi & McNeely, 2008; Larson & Poudyal, 2012).
- The complexities of tourism destination governance are further exacerbated when the tourism destination is also a protected area setting.
- As such, in natural resource management contexts more generally, much attention has been given to the transition away from traditional top-down or ‘command and control’ approaches to more inclusive and dynamic approaches to governance.
- These studies have focused on testing various ACM concepts such as linking co-management and adaptive management, the role of ACM in resolving natural resource conflicts, and ACM as a means of enhancing governance systems.
2.2 Adaptive co-management
- The interdisciplinary term ‘adaptive co-management’ has been defined and conceptualised differently by several authors.
- Olsson et al. (2004) add that dynamic learning occurs via collaboration or what they describe as a ‘community-based system’ (p. 75).
- ACM has also been described as a paradigm of governance that while underpinned by iterative learning, also aims to establish linkages, and share rights and responsibilities between stakeholders (Nancy, 2008).
- It may also be appropriate in situations where local communities are disempowered such as in developing countries where poor governance systems and other constraints to stakeholder collaboration are evident (Tosun, 2000).
- This can extend to the defining of issues, developing management plans and monitoring processes (Berkes, 2009; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001).
2.3 Adaptive co-management principles
- An extensive review of more than 80 ACM academic articles was undertaken.
- Several studies were included from fields such as climate change, tourism and wildlife.
- The studies were a mix of conceptual and empirical with the concept explored in a range of contexts including developed and developing countries such as United States, Canada, Australia, Indonesia and India (Baird et al., 2016; Behera, 2009; Butler et al., 2016; Colfer, 2005; Hoggarth et al., 1996; Olsson et al., 2004).
- In analysing the papers it was found that there were four key principles or features that were consistently identified as underpinning the ACM approach: communication and collaboration; social learning; shared rights, responsibility and decision-making; and, building adaptive capacity and resilience (Table 2.1).
- Each of these principles is discussed further below.
2.3.1 Communication and collaboration
- Effective communication and collaboration amongst diverse stakeholder groups was identified as the key principle of an ACM approach.
- The enhanced communication has also been found to increase stakeholders’ understanding of natural resource management, thus building local capacity (Armitage et al., 2008; Armitage et al., 2009; Berkes, 2009; Bown et al., 2013).
- As such, it has been suggested that instead of creating new institutions through the ACM process, existing institutions could be modified to incorporate a broader range of functions and stakeholders (Folke et al., 2005).
- There have been a number of documented examples where influential (often political) stakeholder groups have exerted their power over the decision-making process and outcomes (Lai, Hsu, & Nepal, 2013; Ruhanen, 2013; Tosun, 2006); thus undermining the process.
2.3.2 Social learning
- Social learning is defined as “the collective action and reflection that takes place amongst both individuals and groups when they work to improve the management of the interrelationships between social and ecological systems” (Keen et al., 2005, p. 4).
- Diduck (2010, p. 202) elaborates and describes social learning as ‘action group learning’ and defines it as “the processes by which individual learning outcomes become part of a web of distributed and mutual outcomes in a collection of individuals”.
- Whereas iterative learning, or ‘learning-by-doing’, links to the adaptive management aspects of ACM (Doubleday, 2008) where stakeholders are engaged in designing and monitoring the effects of management interventions and actions, contemplating the impacts of these, and adjusting further action on the basis of lessons learnt.
- In reviewing studies of ACM in natural resource contexts it was found that social learning had been particularly beneficial for addressing conservation issues (Armitage et al., 2011; Berkes, 2009).
- On the other hand, the success of social learning can be constrained by a number of the same barriers noted elsewhere including mistrust, conflict and competition amongst stakeholders, as well as access to information and knowledge (McCool & Guthrie, 2001).
2.3.4 Building adaptive capacity and resilience
- Building adaptive capacity and resilience amongst local stakeholders is an important objective and outcome of an ACM approach and this aspect was consistently identified through the review.
- In natural resource and protected area contexts, adaptive capacity and resilience can include overcoming natural resource crises, addressing sustainability, and facilitating the development of sustainable livelihoods (Plummer & Armitage, 2007).
- Smedstad and Gosnell (2013) conducted a study on natural resource planning and management in seven public riparian areas in the western 47 United States and found that the ACM strategy adopted, particularly the interactive and iterative learning, had led to greater social and ecological resilience amongst the local stakeholders.
- Technical and financial solutions were prescribed as short-term adaptations, while addressing the underlying structural principles of the social and institutional systems of the area were seen as long-term adaption strategies.
2.4 ACM conceptual framework
- The characteristics of protected areas and the complexity of tourism supply in these contexts suggest that ACM may be a valuable practical approach to governance (Flores, 2014; Panyik, 2015).
- ACM is an approach to governance but is also a process (British Columbia, 2013; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001; Doubleday, 2008) and so can be conceived in two stages: a pre-implementation stage (consultation/problem assessment, planning and design) and a post-implementation stage (implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and applying remedies and adjustments).
- If the authors consider the ‘consultation/assess the problem’ stage, both ‘communication and collaboration’ and ‘social learning’ principles would 48 be relevant.
2.5 Conclusions
- A paradigm shift is taking place in protected areas with a transition from traditional top-down to participatory bottom-up approaches to planning, management and governance.
- This shift reflects changing expectations of governance towards systems that can legitimately empower and benefit local communities (Eagles, 2009; Eagles et al., 2013).
- Certainly, the literature suggests that ACM offers advantages over other approaches to governance, in part due to its comprehensiveness and multiple dimensions.
- If the key ACM principles and variables are absent or unable to be successfully established, the ACM approach will clearly be compromised.
- 54 CHAPTER THREE: MANUSCRIPT TWO Tourism governance in protected areas: investigating the application of the adaptive co-management approach.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
688 citations
53 citations
49 citations
11 citations
6 citations
References
70 citations
70 citations
[...]
69 citations
68 citations
"Adaptive co-management as an approa..." refers background in this paper
...…achieved through collective and coordinated actions between state and non-state agencies (private and NGOs) (Bramwell, 2011; Butler et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Elands, Islam, & Van der Duim, 2015; Lai et al., 2016; Romeiroa & Costab, 2010; Sarkki, Rantala, & Karjalainen, 2015; Towner, 2016)....
[...]
...…ecotourism and nature-based tourism), biodiversity conservation and alternative income generation opportunities, 6 destination management, crisis management, stakeholder partnerships, and business networks (Butler et al., 2015; Mbaiwa, 2011; Pennington-Gray et al., 2014; Romeiroa & Costab, 2010)....
[...]
67 citations