Adaptive co-management as an approach to tourism destination governance – a case of protected areas in Bangladesh

TL;DR: In this paper, Chen et al. investigated the impacts of the adaptive co-management approach on tourism destination governance in the context of two protected areas of Bangladesh; Lawachara National Park and Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary.

Abstract: Tourism in protected areas can accelerate development opportunities by providing various direct and indirect ecological, socio-economic and cultural benefits, particularly in developing countries (Dudley, 2008; Newsome & Hassell, 2014; Tosun, 2000; WWF [World Wide Fund For Nature], 2014). However, developing countries, and their protected areas, are often characterised by poor governance systems that impede the development of these locations as tourism destinations and therefore affect those (poor) people living in and around these areas (Eklund, Arponen, Visconti, & Cabeza, 2011; Parnini, 2006). Therefore, policy or institutional arrangements are required which promote better governance systems and enable local people to obtain socio-economic and ecological benefits from tourism activities (Figgis & Bushell, 2007). Consequently, a paradigm shift is occurring within protected area planning and management with a transition from traditional top-down to participatory bottom-up approaches to ensure the participation of local stakeholders in decision-making, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and ultimately benefit-sharing (Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002; Niedzialkowski, Paavola, & Jedrzejewska, 2012). As such, these institutional arrangements can promote better governance systems for local communities to improve their living standards as well as facilitating effective protected area management planning systems (Dearden, Bennett, & Johnston, 2005). ‘Adaptive co-management’ (ACM) is a dynamic process whereby institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are continually tested and revised through a process of ‘learning-by-doing’ (Armitage, Berkes, & Doubleday, 2007b). ACM has been suggested as a more inclusive alternate approach to governance which can better facilitate the management and protection of natural resources (Armitage, Berkes, Dale, Kocho-Schellenberg, & Patton, 2011; Plummer & Fitzgibbon, 2004a). ACM has also been advocated due to the fact that it can provide a means to empower local stakeholders and enhance collaboration with other stakeholder groups. This is achieved through more flexible systems that encompass complex cross-scale linkages (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004; Wood, Butler, Sheaves, & Wani, 2013). ACM has several attributes or principles. Social learning is one of the key principles and is based on the creation of cooperative and collaborative frameworks that can facilitate iterative learning amongst diverse groups of stakeholders (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001; Schusler, Decker, & Pfeffer, 2003). Social learning is particularly relevant for tourism development in protected areas as tourism is multiple stakeholder activity requiring collaboration (Haddock-Fraser & Hampton, 2010; McCool, 2009). Both ACM and social learning have only recently been explored in tourism although the concepts have yet to be linked to tourism destination governance generally (Chen, Ku, & Chen, 2016; Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008; Lai, Hsu, & Wearing, 2016; Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, & Gale, 2014) or protected area governance specifically (Lai et al., 2016; Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Addressing the identified research gaps, the overarching aim of this qualitative study is to investigate the impacts of the ACM approach on tourism destination governance in the context of two protected areas of Bangladesh; Lawachara National Park and Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary. This research follows the style of three interconnected manuscripts. Manuscript one presents a review and synthesis of the ACM literature and in doing so identifies four inter-connected principles of the ACM approach: communication and collaboration; social learning; shared rights, responsibility and decision-making; and building adaptive capacity and resilience. A conceptual framework of tourism destination governance that incorporates ACM principles, process, variables and outcomes is developed. Manuscript two aims to empirically investigate the extent to which an ACM approach was able to enhance the achievement of key governance principles such as participation, social learning, accountability, transparency, power, and rule of law. Stakeholder interviews showed that the ACM approach provided a congenial environment that facilitates iterative learning amongst stakeholders, and for some, resulted in attitude and behaviour change towards protected area conservation. Manuscript three is an exploratory study that sought to analyse how social learning is embedded in the governance of a protected area tourism destination. The empirical findings show that social learning allows for diverse stakeholder groups to interact together to create new knowledge, develop awareness and empower local communities. The findings reinforce the importance of social learning for tourism destination governance. The overall theoretical and practical implications of this research are the application of ACM as an approach that can enhance tourism destination governance. Enhanced governance systems are crucial for contributing to sustainable tourism development objectives, as well as protected area conservation and management.

Summary

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).

2.3.3 Shared rights, responsibility and decision-making

• Shared rights, responsibility and decision-making are a further feature of the ACM process; within the literature, these principles generally refer to the legal and participatory empowerment of local communities (Armitage et al., 2007a; Berkes, 2007; Butler et al., 2011; Cundill & Fabricius, 2009; Solstrand, 2015).
• In particular, the co-management dimension of ACM emphasises the importance of shared or joint rights, responsibilities and decision-making power (Doubleday, 2008).
• This has been particularly effective in settings where there are shared land and/or resources and so further resonates with tourism in protected area contexts.
• They note that ambiguous rights and responsibilities of different stakeholder groups will be likely to lead to conflict over resource use.
• Yet, often decentralization is not the expected panacea as it can create new conflicts and nepotism among stakeholders, lead to further corruption, and the emergence of new political actors who have a platform to enforce their power and control in local resource management (Batterbury & Fernando, 2006; Fabricius & Currie, 2015).

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.

Figures

Figure 1.4: Structure of the thesis

Figure 1.3: Steps of data analysis procedure Source: Marshall and Rossman (2011).

Figure 5.2: The relationships occurring among the ACM approach, governance, and social learning in a tourism destination governance context

Table 2.1: ACM principles and features

Table 2.2: Future research questions

Figure 5.1: Major findings and relationships among the three manuscripts

Table 5.3: Reasons for preferring ACM as an alternative protected area management approach

Table 1.2: Impacts of tourism on the protected areas of Bangladesh

Figure 3.1: Location of (a) Lawachara National Park and (b) Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary

Table 5.2: Protected area governance principles: before and after the ACM approach

Figure 2.1: A conceptual framework of tourism destination governance with particular reference to protected areas through ACM approach

Figure 4.1: Social learning outcomes in the Lawachara National Park

Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework of the study with three manuscripts

Figure 1.1: Overall conceptual framework of the study with the key concepts

Table 5.1: Stakeholder conflicts under the traditional management approach

Table 1.1: Overall method of the empirical studies

Table 1.3: Overview of the three manuscripts

Full text

Adaptive co-management as an approach to tourism destination governance – a
case of protected areas in Bangladesh
Md. Wasiul Islam
B.Sc. (Hon’s), M.S., M.Sc.
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2017
School of Business

ii
Abstract
Tourism in protected areas can accelerate development opportunities by providing various direct and
indirect ecological, socio-economic and cultural benefits, particularly in developing countries
(Dudley, 2008; Newsome & Hassell, 2014; Tosun, 2000; WWF [World Wide Fund For Nature],
2014). However, developing countries, and their protected areas, are often characterised by poor
governance systems that impede the development of these locations as tourism destinations and
therefore affect those (poor) people living in and around these areas (Eklund, Arponen, Visconti, &
Cabeza, 2011; Parnini, 2006). Therefore, policy or institutional arrangements are required which
promote better governance systems and enable local people to obtain socio-economic and ecological
benefits from tourism activities (Figgis & Bushell, 2007). Consequently, a paradigm shift is occurring
within protected area planning and management with a transition from traditional top-down to
participatory bottom-up approaches to ensure the participation of local stakeholders in decision-
making, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and ultimately benefit-sharing
(Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002; Niedziałkowski, Paavola, & Jędrzejewska, 2012). As such, these
institutional arrangements can promote better governance systems for local communities to improve
their living standards as well as facilitating effective protected area management planning systems
(Dearden, Bennett, & Johnston, 2005).
‘Adaptive co-management’ (ACM) is a dynamic process whereby institutional arrangements and
ecological knowledge are continually tested and revised through a process of ‘learning-by-doing’
(Armitage, Berkes, & Doubleday, 2007b). ACM has been suggested as a more inclusive alternate
approach to governance which can better facilitate the management and protection of natural
resources (Armitage, Berkes, Dale, Kocho-Schellenberg, & Patton, 2011; Plummer & Fitzgibbon,
2004a). ACM has also been advocated due to the fact that it can provide a means to empower local
stakeholders and enhance collaboration with other stakeholder groups. This is achieved through more
flexible systems that encompass complex cross-scale linkages (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004;
Wood, Butler, Sheaves, & Wani, 2013).
ACM has several attributes or principles. Social learning is one of the key principles and is based on
the creation of cooperative and collaborative frameworks that can facilitate iterative learning amongst
diverse groups of stakeholders (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001; Schusler, Decker, & Pfeffer, 2003).
Social learning is particularly relevant for tourism development in protected areas as tourism is
multiple stakeholder activity requiring collaboration (Haddock-Fraser & Hampton, 2010; McCool,
2009). Both ACM and social learning have only recently been explored in tourism although the

iii
concepts have yet to be linked to tourism destination governance generally (Chen, Ku, & Chen, 2016;
Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008; Lai, Hsu, & Wearing, 2016; Pennington-Gray, Schroeder, &
Gale, 2014) or protected area governance specifically (Lai et al., 2016; Plummer & Fennell, 2009).
Addressing the identified research gaps, the overarching aim of this qualitative study is to investigate
the impacts of the ACM approach on tourism destination governance in the context of two protected
areas of Bangladesh; Lawachara National Park and Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary.
This research follows the style of three interconnected manuscripts. Manuscript one presents a review
and synthesis of the ACM literature and in doing so identifies four inter-connected principles of the
ACM approach: communication and collaboration; social learning; shared rights, responsibility and
decision-making; and building adaptive capacity and resilience. A conceptual framework of tourism
destination governance that incorporates ACM principles, process, variables and outcomes is
developed. Manuscript two aims to empirically investigate the extent to which an ACM approach
was able to enhance the achievement of key governance principles such as participation, social
learning, accountability, transparency, power, and rule of law. Stakeholder interviews showed that
the ACM approach provided a congenial environment that facilitates iterative learning amongst
stakeholders, and for some, resulted in attitude and behaviour change towards protected area
conservation. Manuscript three is an exploratory study that sought to analyse how social learning is
embedded in the governance of a protected area tourism destination. The empirical findings show
that social learning allows for diverse stakeholder groups to interact together to create new
knowledge, develop awareness and empower local communities. The findings reinforce the
importance of social learning for tourism destination governance.
The overall theoretical and practical implications of this research are the application of ACM as an
approach that can enhance tourism destination governance. Enhanced governance systems are crucial
for contributing to sustainable tourism development objectives, as well as protected area conservation
and management.

iv
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written
by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the
contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance,
survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial
support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis
is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research
candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the
award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly
stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and,
subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available
for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has
been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright
holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright
holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly
authored works included in the thesis.

v
Publications during candidature
Peer-reviewed journal paper:
Islam, M. W., Ruhanen, L., & Ritchie, B. W. (2017). Adaptive co-management: A novel approach to
tourism destination governance? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, DOI:
10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.009
Islam, M. W., Ruhanen, L., & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). Exploring social learning as a contributor to
tourism destination governance. Tourism Recreation Research,
DOI:10.1080/02508281.2017.1421294
Peer-reviewed conference working papers:
Islam, M. W., Ruhanen, L., & Ritchie, B. W. (2016). Exploring social learning in the protected areas
of Bangladesh. Proceedings of the 26
th
Annual Council for Australasian Tourism and
Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference, 9-11 Feb 2016, Blue Mountains International
Hotel Management School, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 1204-1210.
Islam, M. W. & Ruhanen, L. (2015). Governance for tourism: Investigating the application of
adaptive co-management – a conceptual paper. Proceedings of the 25
th
Annual Council for
Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference, 2-5 Feb 2015,
Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, pp. 547-550.
Peer-reviewed conference abstracts/pitches:
Islam, M. W. (2015). Wildlife conservation through nature-based tourism in Lawachara National
Park: A realism or idealism? Presented at the Updating Species Red List of Bangladesh
Conference held on 14 June 2015 at CSS AVA Centre, Khulna, Bangladesh. Jointly organised
by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Khulna University, pp. 71-75.
Islam, M. W., Ruhanen, L., & Ritchie, B. W. (2016). From local community harassment to
motivation: Adaptive co-management as an innovative tourism destination governance
approach. Presented at the 1
st
University of Queensland Bangladesh Association (UQBDA)
Conference on Taking Bangladesh Forward held on 27 Sept 2016 at University of Queensland,
Australia, pp. 20.