Conservation Contributions of Ecotourism Enterprises
Author Wardle, Cassandra J
Published 2019-11-25
Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
School School of Environment and Sc
DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/2848
Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/389697
Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
Conservation Contributions of Ecotourism Enterprises
Cassandra Wardle BSc, MEnv
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Environment and Science Griffith Sciences Griffith University, Australia
July 2019
Abstract
Context: Non-traditional means of environmental protection are being used with increasing frequency to address the global conservation crisis and make up the shortfall in government conservation spending. Ecotourism is one such mechanism that has been adopted widely for community development and conservation purposes in both practice and policy, particularly in developing nations due to the potential to combine social and commercial benefits with conservation goals. However, evaluations of how ecotourism enterprises fit into the ecotourism-conservation relationship are a relatively recent trend. Findings from the literature review of this thesis reveal that our current understanding of this relationship is limited to (1) hand-picked sites located primarily in developing nations; (2) a narrow group of predominantly visitor and community focused conservation activities; and (3) inconsistent evaluation approaches that often lack repeatability and transferability. As such, the evidence base for this relationship is currently insufficient.
Aim: This thesis addressed this gap through a multidisciplinary mixed methods approach to identify and explore the conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises at both a broad global scale and a detailed national scale within Australia.
Approach: An evaluation framework incorporating a matrix of 27 feasible actions and 26 potential conservation outcomes was constructed through data mining, qualitative content analysis and iterative inductive coding of sources from a range of disciplines and sectors.
This framework was used to guide an assessment of the conservation activities of 86 fixed- site eco-certified enterprises in Australia and evaluate their contributions to national conservation priorities. Certification by the national industry association, Ecotourism Australia, is pervasive in Australia, so these 86 sites are likely to represent the highest performing enterprises and their aggregate achievements provide a good approximation to continental scale contributions.
Finally, the conservation practices of these 86 sites and the content of the national certification program were compared with the national conservation policy landscape to
i identify key overlaps and gaps for progressing the ecotourism-conservation relationship in Australia.
Findings: Findings demonstrate that this group of Australian ecotourism enterprises generate a myriad of conservation gains through social and ecological actions. However, the significance of the conservation practices of these sites varied greatly, with some sites making important contributions to threatened species or ecosystems, and others simply listing actions with little focus on their extent or outcomes.
All sites took some action to revegetate cleared land and remove non-native flora, and 75% of sites targeted non-native fauna. However, only 54% of sites reported improved habitat; only 7% successfully eradicated at least one weed species; and just 6% eradicated at least one introduced fauna species (including feral cats, foxes and rabbits). Legally binding conservation agreements were established by 63% of sites covering 2,400km2 in total; however, these are in-perpetuity agreements for just 25 sites covering 1,550km2. Nevertheless, 41% of sites share a border with a public protected area, effectively extending the public protected area network by an additional 650km2.
Specific conservation actions such as threat management and nest provision were reported for 61 threatened plant and animal species. These include 27 bird species, 15 mammals, 8 plants, 4 reptiles, 2 rays, and a single monotreme, amphibian, crustacean, freshwater fish, and insect. Fifteen of these species are covered by National Recovery Plans or Priority Plans including 4 mammals: the woylie bettong, 2 species of quoll, and 1 subspecies of bandicoot. How many individuals of each of these species occur on each of these ecotourism sites, however, is generally not specified, so these contributions cannot currently be quantified.
Conclusions: Many of these certified ecotourism enterprises claim a range of contributions to conservation. The emphasis in the reporting practices of enterprises, however, is on: actions taken rather than ecologically quantified outcomes; achievements reported qualitatively rather than quantitatively; and unspecified contributions to larger-scale efforts, such as National Recovery Plans for threatened species. One reason for this is that the eco- certification program relies only on a tick-box list of actions rather than a set of quantified, monitored, and ecologically significant conservation outcomes. It appears that some of
ii these ecotourism enterprises do indeed make ecologically significant contributions, commensurate with their relatively small scale; but in its current form, the certification program neither encourages nor rewards these. For this program to progress beyond “a commitment to nature conservation” and contribute meaningfully to conservation goals, it will need substantial reworking.
Additionally, findings demonstrate several areas where the conservation activities of ecotourism sites overlap with national conservation priorities, highlighting the collaboration potential between these sectors. However, this study also reveals that tourism is predominantly acknowledged by national conservation policy in Australia as a driver for environmental protection as well as an impact that must be managed, and is not yet widely acknowledged as an industry that can contribute to conservation goals.
By (1) developing a framework for systematically evaluating the conservation impacts of ecotourism enterprises; (2) providing a contribution to the evidence base necessary for the substantiated use of ecotourism as a conservation mechanism; (3) identifying key opportunities for conservation-ecotourism collaborations and strategic investments; and (4) highlighting priority improvement areas for ecotourism sites and Ecotourism Australia to increase their eligibility and attractiveness as investment options for government grants and programs, this thesis has important implications for operators, researchers, policymakers, and eco-certification bodies.
iii
Statement of originality
This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.
______Cassandra Wardle 9 July 2019
iv
Dedication
Dedicated to Dennis Hermann Grandad, sage, and best-cup-of-tea-maker-in-the-whole-world
1933-2018
The humblest trailblazer who demonstrated that it’s possible to defy every stereotype of a generation without ever being defiant; to work 100-hour weeks for decades while being the greatest family man; and to have next-to-nothing but always find something to give to those in need.
The world is a little darker without the twinkle in his eyes, but his kindness and generosity will continue to ripple around the world through the thousands of lives that he touched.
v
Table of contents
Abstract ...... i
Statement of originality ...... iv
Dedication ...... v
Table of contents...... vi
List of tables ...... xii
List of figures ...... xiv
Acronyms, abbreviations and glossary ...... xvi
Acknowledgement of papers included in this thesis ...... xviii
Acknowledgements ...... xxii
Chapter 1 : Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Ecotourism and conservation ...... 1
1.2 Academic research extent and gaps ...... 3
1.2.1 Ecotourism and the environment ...... 3
1.2.2 Ecotourism and conservation ...... 4
1.2.3 Summary ...... 5
1.3 Thesis objectives ...... 6
1.4 Thesis boundaries and scope ...... 6
1.4.1 Ecotourism ...... 6
1.4.2 Conservation ...... 8
1.4.3 Biodiversity ...... 9
1.4.4 Academic and grey literature ...... 9
1.5 Content and structure of thesis ...... 9
1.6 Project significance ...... 12
Statement of contribution to co-authored published paper for Chapter 2 ...... 15
Chapter 2 : Context and literature review ...... 16
2.1 Ecotourism concepts...... 16
2.2 Ecotourism trends ...... 18
2.2.1 Global trends ...... 18 vi
2.2.2 Australian trends ...... 20
2.3 Eco-certification ...... 22
2.3.1 Global trends ...... 22
2.3.2 Australian trends ...... 22
2.4 The state of the environment...... 24
2.4.1 The global environment ...... 24
2.4.2 The Australian environment ...... 25
2.5 Ecosystem services and the value of biodiversity ...... 26
2.6 Context of biodiversity conservation ...... 27
2.6.1 International context ...... 27
2.6.2 Australian context ...... 29
2.6.3 State context ...... 33
2.6.4 Programs, initiatives and incentives ...... 33
2.7 Ecotourism and conservation: systematic quantitative literature review ...... 34
2.8 Ecotourism-conservation pathways ...... 68
Chapter 3 : Methodology...... 71
3.1 Introduction ...... 71
3.2 Overview of research ...... 71
3.2.1 Research design ...... 71
3.2.2 Research components ...... 72
3.2.3 Research tools and data sources ...... 74
3.3 Conservation Evaluation Framework for ecotourism enterprises ...... 79
3.3.1 Data collection...... 79
3.3.2 Data analysis ...... 82
3.3.3 Framework demonstration ...... 84
3.4 Conservation evaluation of private Australian ecotourism enterprises ...... 85
3.4.1 Site selection (Step 1) ...... 86
3.4.2 Data collection (Step 2) ...... 87
3.4.3 Site evaluations (Step 3) ...... 88
vii
3.4.4 Frequencies and trends (Step 4) ...... 89
3.4.5 Conservation significance screening process (Step 5) ...... 90
3.5 Conservation gaps and overlaps ...... 93
3.5.1 Eco-certification: conservation coverage and gaps ...... 93
3.5.2 National Conservation Agenda: conservation and ecotourism gaps ...... 95
3.5.3 Policy, practice, and eco-certification: overlaps and gaps ...... 102
Chapter 4 : Conservation Evaluation Framework for ecotourism enterprises ...... 108
4.1 Introduction ...... 108
4.2 Conservation Activities Matrix ...... 109
4.2.1 Biophysical landscape...... 114
4.2.2 Fauna ...... 118
4.2.3 Visitors ...... 121
4.2.4 Local communities ...... 123
4.2.5 Organisational and political ...... 127
4.3 Conservation Evaluation Framework ...... 130
4.3.1 Site selection process ...... 131
4.3.2 Conservation Activities Matrix application process ...... 131
4.3.3 Amalgamation ...... 133
4.3.4 Comparisons and pattern analysis ...... 133
4.3.5 Conservation significance screening process ...... 133
4.4 Demonstration application of the CE Framework application ...... 134
4.4.1 Site selection ...... 134
4.4.2 Application of Conservation Activities Matrix ...... 134
4.4.3 Amalgamation ...... 136
4.4.4 Comparison and pattern analysis ...... 136
4.4.5 Conservation significance screening ...... 136
Chapter 5 : Conservation evaluation of private Australian ecotourism enterprises ...... 138
5.1 Introduction ...... 138
5.2 Sites ...... 140
viii
5.3 Conservation trends ...... 141
5.3.1 Frequencies ...... 141
5.3.2 Patterns among sites ...... 144
5.3.3 Patterns among Conservation Items ...... 147
5.4 Conservation Contributions ...... 148
5.4.1 Ecological contributions ...... 149
5.4.2 Socio-political contributions ...... 162
5.5 Conservation challenges and innovations ...... 169
5.5.1 Resources, staff and costs ...... 169
5.5.2 Landscape and climatic conditions ...... 170
5.5.3 Neighbouring properties and community...... 170
5.5.4 Conversion to tourism ...... 171
5.5.5 Monitoring ...... 171
Chapter 6 : Ecotourism-conservation gaps and overlaps in Australia ...... 174
6.1 Introduction ...... 174
6.2 Eco-certification: conservation coverage and gaps ...... 175
6.2.1 Coverage levels ...... 175
6.2.2 Conservation Items and site practices ...... 175
6.2.3 Coverage of Conservation Categories ...... 179
6.3 National Conservation Agenda (NCA): ecotourism and conservation management ...... 180
6.3.1 NCA and tourism ...... 180
6.3.2 NCA and conservation themes ...... 182
6.3.3 NCA and the broader conservation context ...... 185
6.4 Policy, practice, and eco-certification: overlaps and gaps ...... 187
Chapter 7 : Discussion ...... 191
7.1 Introduction ...... 191
7.2 Thesis significance and contributions...... 191
7.2.1 Research Objective 1 ...... 191
7.2.2 Research Objective 2 ...... 192
ix
7.2.3 Research Objectives 3 and 4 ...... 192
7.2.4 Research Objective 5 ...... 193
7.3 Ecotourism and ecological conservation practices ...... 193
7.3.1 Frequencies and patterns ...... 194
7.3.2 Private land and protected areas ...... 195
7.3.3 Landscape management ...... 196
7.4 Ecotourism as a social driver for conservation ...... 198
7.4.1 Frequencies and patterns ...... 198
7.4.2 Public engagement and social capital ...... 199
7.4.3 Economic priorities and political pressure ...... 200
7.5 Implications of this research ...... 201
7.5.1 Ecotourism-conservation evaluations ...... 201
7.5.2 Eco-certification and conservation in Australia ...... 202
7.5.3 Policy and practice...... 205
7.6 Limitations and future research directions ...... 208
7.6.1 Framework development ...... 208
7.6.2 Site evaluations ...... 208
7.6.3 Conservation significance ...... 209
7.6.4 Research scope ...... 210
7.7 Conclusion ...... 210
References ...... 212
Appendix A: Example of CA Matrix data template used for Research Component 2...... 242
Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix...... 244
Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items ...... 262
C1 Biophysical landscape actions ...... 262
C2 Wildlife actions ...... 272
C3 Physical natural environment outcomes ...... 278
C4 Fauna outcomes ...... 281
Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items ...... 284
x
D1 Visitor actions ...... 284
D2 Community Actions...... 285
D3 Organisational/political actions ...... 290
D4 Visitor outcomes ...... 294
D5 Community outcomes ...... 295
D6 Organisational/political outcomes ...... 296
xi
List of tables
Table 2.1 Reported estimates of nature-based tourism and ecotourism in Australia ...... 21 Table 2.2 Numbers of at-risk flora and fauna at a national level and for each state and territory ...... 25 Table 3.1 Abbreviated name, TOPs, and length of the eight policies in the NCA ...... 76 Table 3.2 Details on the three items referred to as NCTs in this thesis ...... 77 Table 3.3 Categories of each enterprise characteristic ...... 87 Table 3.4 Policies, directives and regulations utilised in the conservation significance screening process for site evaluations...... 91 Table 3.5 Covenanting programs in Australian jurisdictions and primary legislation (modified from Fitzsimons (2015))...... 92 Table 3.6 Explanation of coverage levels used to inform the coding of Conservation Items within the EA Questionnaire ...... 95 Table 3.7 Search terms used to check for tourism related content in the NCA policies ...... 96 Table 3.8 Coding guide for the coverage levels of tourism related themes in the NCA using the theme of ‘tourism as a driver of conservation goals’ as an example ...... 97 Table 3.9 Explanation of the level of importance assigned to themes within the NCA and NCTs ...... 99 Table 3.10 Conservation Items and search terms for ecological themes in the NCA ...... 100 Table 3.11 Conservation Items and search terms for socio-political themes in the NCA ...... 101 Table 3.12 The three groups and data sources utilised in this research sub-component ...... 102 Table 3.13 Substitutions and cut-offs for converting group categories to star ratings ...... 102 Table 3.14 Details of calculations for site prevalence, potential site prevalence, and EA Questionnaire coverage to facilitate comparisons across themes ...... 104 Table 3.15 Details of calculations for site prevalence, potential site prevalence, and EA Questionnaire coverage to facilitate comparisons across themes ...... 105 Table 3.16 Symbol and level of importance assigned to gap and overlap scores ...... 106 Table 4.1 The direct and indirect relationships of the 53 Conservation Items, five categories and two meta-categories of the Conservation Activities Matrix ...... 112 Table 4.2 Potential biophysical landscape conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises and their outcomes ...... 114 Table 4.3 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to fauna and their outcomes ...... 119 Table 4.4 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to visitors and their outcomes ...... 122 Table 4.5 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to local communities and their outcomes ...... 124
xii
Table 4.6 Potential organisational/political conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises and their outcomes ...... 128 Table 4.7 Text excerpts relating to the revegetation practices of the three enterprises, extracted from company websites in November 2017 ...... 135 Table 5.1 Proportion of ecological actions and outcomes undertaken by each site (n = 86) .... 142 Table 5.2 Proportion of socio-political actions and outcomes undertaken by each site (n = 86) ...... 143 Table 5.3 Average biophysical and fauna indices across the 86 sites ...... 144 Table 5.4 Significant associations between site characteristics and ecological Conservation Items...... 145 Table 5.5 Average community and political indices across the 86 sites ...... 146 Table 5.6 Significant associations between site characteristics and socio-political Conservation Items...... 146 Table 5.7 Explanation of national conservation directives referred to in this section ...... 149 Table 5.8 Number and size of sites within each protection level category ...... 150 Table 5.9 Threatened species and associated conservation actions of the 86 Australian ecotourism sites ...... 152 Table 5.10 Number of ecotourism sites targeting, reducing or eradicating non-native fauna .. 158 Table 5.11 Non-native flora species reduced or eradicated by Australian ecotourism sites ..... 160 Table 5.12 Proportion of sites covering the interpretation themes and methods ...... 163 Table 5.13 Proportion of sites reporting community environmental engagement activities .... 164 Table 5.14 Proportion of sites addressing each of the political advocacy actions and topics ... 166 Table 5.15 Proportion of sites addressing the various research topics and engaging in collaborations ...... 167 Table 6.1 Number of Conservation Items from CA Matrix (Chapter 4) within each level of coverage in the EA Questionnaire ...... 175 Table 6.2 EA Questionnaire coverage of ecological actions and outcomes with site frequencies (from Chapter 5) for comparison ...... 176 Table 6.3 EA Questionnaire coverage of socio-political actions and outcomes with site frequencies (from Chapter 5) for comparison ...... 177 Table 6.4 NCA coverage of the three tourism themes ...... 181 Table 6.5 Ecological conservation themes covered by the NCA and NCTs ...... 183 Table 6.6 Socio-political conservation themes covered by the NCA and NCTs ...... 184 Table 6.7 Comparisons and implications of NCA focus, site practices and the EA Questionnaire (‘EAQ’) across key conservation themes ...... 189
xiii
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Conceptual path linking ecotourism to conservation outcomes...... 2 Figure 1.2 Examples of key ecotourism research focus areas...... 3 Figure 1.3 Linkages between the thesis chapters (excluding Chapter 3 which provides the methods for Chapters 4, 5 and 6)...... 10 Figure 1.4 Detailed conceptual model of the linkages between the research components, methods and objectives...... 11 Figure 2.1 Conceptual overview of Chapter 2...... 16 Figure 2.2 An example of the multiple types of tourism that may overlap with ecotourism...... 17 Figure 2.3 Comparison of key themes used in ecotourism definitions as identified by Chandel and Mishra (2016) and Fennell (2001). Crosses in place of a bar indicate socio-economic aspects that were not included in one of the studies: the style of data presentation and nuanced differences in meanings prevented the merging of these aspects...... 18 Figure 2.4 Timeline of Ecotourism Australia’s growth and expansion...... 23 Figure 2.5 Timeline of key biodiversity conservation developments. Blue text highlights Australian actions and green text highlights internationally agreed goals and targets...... 28 Figure 2.6 Conceptual model of the socio-political ecotourism-conservation pathways demonstrated in the academic literature to occur in-practice...... 68 Figure 2.7 Conceptual model of the ecological ecotourism-conservation pathways demonstrated in the academic literature to occur in-practice...... 69 Figure 3.1 Conceptual depiction of the methods and results of the three interlinked research components within the thesis...... 71 Figure 3.2 Conceptual model of the research approach for the three research components detailed in this chapter (modified from Figure 1.4)...... 73 Figure 3.3 Conceptual flow chart depicting shared data sources and linkages across the three research components detailed in this chapter (data sources in grey boxes, chapters in blue boxes)...... 74 Figure 3.4 Conceptual flow chart of the data collection and analysis steps followed in Research Component 1...... 82 Figure 3.5 Conceptual flow chart of the data collection and data analysis steps followed in Research Component 2...... 86 Figure 4.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the setting of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3)...... 108 Figure 4.2 A depiction of the direct and indirect conservation outcomes that can be achieved through revegetation activities (as an example action)...... 110
xiv
Figure 4.3 A depiction of the actions that can directly and indirectly reduce competition with, and predation on, native fauna by non-native species (as an example outcome). Grey boxes indicate outcomes that can also contribute to reductions in competition and predation rates. .. 110 Figure 4.4 Conservation Evaluation Framework. Diamonds represent processes (numbered 1- 5); rectangles represent products; ‘As and Os’ refers to ‘actions and outcomes’...... 131 Figure 5.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the location and function of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3)...... 138 Figure 5.2 Components of the CE Framework covered by this research component...... 139 Figure 5.3 Location of the 86 sites used in this study (numbers in circles indicate multiple sites within close proximity)...... 140 Figure 5.4 Proportion of sites within each category of site characteristics (n=86) ...... 141 Figure 5.5 Standard error plot of fauna indices for sites within the six property categories. ... 144 Figure 5.6 MDS of similarities between ecological actions grouped by level of effort, using three levels of clustering: 25%, 50% and 75%...... 147 Figure 5.7 MDS of similarities between all socio-political actions reported by at least one site, using three levels of clustering: 25%, 50% and 75% (with 13 actions clumped in the middle)...... 148 Figure 5.8 Proportion of sites (that reported on the extent of revegetation) within each revegetation category (n = 26)...... 161 Figure 6.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the location and function of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3)...... 174 Figure 6.2 Comparison of coverage levels in the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire and the number of sites reporting each Conservation Item...... 178 Figure 6.3 Comparison of coverage levels in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire and the number of sites reporting each Conservation Item...... 179 Figure 6.4 Proportion of Conservation Item meta-categories within each of the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire coverage levels...... 179 Figure 6.5 Proportion of Conservation Item meta-categories within each of the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire coverage levels...... 180 Figure 7.6 The almost identical logos for the three tiers of EA’s ECO Certification Program 204
xv
Acronyms, abbreviations and glossary
ABC Strategy Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: 2010 – 2030, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
Bonn Convention Alternate name for the CMS, after the city in which the Convention was signed.
CA Matrix Conservation Activities Matrix – a construction of the potential conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises and the direct and indirect relationships between actions and conservation outcomes, as described in Section 4.2.
CAMBA China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CE Framework Conservation Evaluation Framework – depicts critical components of conservation evaluations as a series of steps to guide evaluations of the conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises, as described in Section 4.3.
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Conservation This is an umbrella term created for this thesis to cover the 53 Items conservation actions and outcomes that make up the CA Matrix, as described in Section 4.2
EA Ecotourism Australia, the organisation responsible for the design and management of Australia’s national eco-certification programs.
EA Questionnaire Refers to the application questionnaire used by EA in their certification process, as described in Section 3.2.3.4.
EPBC Act 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
GSTC Global Sustainable Tourism Council
Heritage Strategy Australian Heritage Strategy 2015, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
Migratory Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act 1999 as well as the Bonn Species Lists Convention/CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA.
National This is an umbrella term created for this thesis to cover the eight key Conservation national conservation policies, as described in Section 2.6.2.2 and Agenda (NCA) Section 3.2.3.3.
xvi
National This is an umbrella term created for this thesis to cover three national Conservation conservation directives and regulations: Key Threatening Processes, Threats (NCTs) Threat Abatement Plans, and Weeds of National Significance, as described in Section 3.2.3.3.
Nature Strategy Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2018-2030 (draft), one of the eight policies in the NCA.
NCA National Conservation Agenda
NCTs National Conservation Threats
Pest Strategy Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
PPA Private protected area
Ramsar International treaty – the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of Convention International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (1971)
Reserve Strategy Strategy for Australia's National Reserve System 2009-2030, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
ROKAMBA Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
Species Strategy Threatened Species Strategy 2015, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
TOPs TOPs refers to the ‘Targets, Objectives and Priorities’ of the NCA policies, as described in Section 3.2.3.3.
Vegetation Australia's Native Vegetation Framework 2012, one of the eight policies Framework in the NCA.
Weeds Strategy Australian Weeds Strategy 2017-2027, one of the eight policies in the NCA.
xvii
Acknowledgement of papers included in this thesis
Context Section 9.1 of the Griffith University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (“Criteria for Authorship”), in accordance with Section 5 of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, states: To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the creative or scholarly work that constitutes the research output, and be able to take public responsibility for at least that part of the work they contributed. Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline and publisher policies, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial contributions in a combination of one or more of: • Conception and design of the research project. • Analysis and interpretation of research data. • Drafting or making significant parts of the creative or scholarly work or critically revising it so as to contribute significantly to the final output.
Section 9.3 of the Griffith University Code (“Responsibilities of Researchers”), in accordance with Section 5 of the Australian Code, states: Researchers are expected to: • Offer authorship to all people, including research trainees, who meet the criteria for authorship listed above, but only those people. • Accept or decline offers of authorship promptly in writing. • Include in the list of authors only those who have accepted authorship. • Appoint one author to be the executive author to record authorship and manage correspondence about the work with the publisher and other interested parties. • Acknowledge all those who have contributed to the research, facilities or materials but who do not qualify as authors, such as research assistants, technical staff, and advisors on cultural or community knowledge. Obtain written consent to name individuals.
Acknowledgement of paper Included in this thesis is a paper in Chapter 2 which is co-authored with other researchers. My contribution to this co-authored paper is outlined at the front of the relevant chapter. The bibliographic details for this paper including all authors, are: Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism. doi:10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173
This paper is subject to the copyright conditions of the journal with which it was published; as such it may not be reproduced or distributed without prior consent of the publisher.
xviii
Additional relevant publications and outputs The following list incorporates all outputs produced during candidature including outputs in the thesis, outputs based on the thesis, and outputs linked to the thesis topic.
Journal articles in prep Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (in prep). Conservation contributions of ecotourism: mechanisms and framework for evaluation.
Wardle, C., Castley, J. G., Buckley, R., & Shakeela, A. (in prep). An evaluation of the use of ecotourism on private land for conservation in Australia.
Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (in prep). Ecotourism as a social driver for conservation in Australia.
Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Castley, J. G., & Shakeela, A. (in prep). Conservation and ecotourism: the conservation gap in eco-certification and the ecotourism gap in national conservation policy.
Peer-reviewed publications Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173
Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Castley, J. G., & Shakeela, A. (2017). Evaluating the conservation contributions of ecotourism. Proceedings of the 5th Interdisciplinary Tourism Research Conference, Cartagena, Spain, pp. 533-537. Available from: https://anatoliajournal.com/interdisciplinary/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/5inter2017- book.pdf
Morrison, C. F., Wardle, C. and Castley, J. G. (2016). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Population Viability Analysis (PVA) and the Implications for Threatened Species Management. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4(98):1-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00098
Zhong, L., Buckley, R. C., Wardle, C., & Wang, L. (2015). Environmental and visitor management in a thousand protected areas in China. Biological Conservation, 181(2015), 219-225. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.007
Wardle, C., & Buckley, R. (2014). Tourism citations in other disciplines. Annals of Tourism Research, 46(0), 166-168. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.01.002
Reports Wardle, C. (2018). Conservation contributions of Ecotourism Australia’s Advanced certified operators: preliminary findings. Report for Ecotourism Australia. xix
Wardle, C. (2018). Review of conservation criteria in the ECO Certification Program. Report for Ecotourism Australia.
Becken, S. & Wardle, C. (2016). Tourism Planning in Natural World Heritage Sites. Griffith Institute for Tourism, Research Report No 13; commissioned by UNESCO. Available from: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0034/18889/UNESCO-WHA- Report13Finalfinal-1.pdf
McLennan, C.L., Bec, A., Wardle, C. & Becken, S. (2015). Gold Coast Tourism Industry Report Year Ending June 2015. Griffith Institute for Tourism, Research Report No 9; commissioned by the Gold Coast Tourism Corporation and the City of Gold Coast. Available from: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/18878/_June- 2015-Report-9-Tourism-Industry-Report-merged.pdf
Becken, S., McLennan, C.L., & Wardle, C. (2014). Gold Coast Tourism Industry Report Year Ending December 2014. Griffith Institute for Tourism, Research Report No 6; commissioned by the Gold Coast Tourism Corporation and the City of Gold Coast. Available from: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/18877/_Final- merged-report-for-printing-20150730.pdf
Becken, S., McLennan, C.L., Gardiner, S. & Wardle, C. (2014). Gold Coast 2013/14 Financial-Year Tourism Industry Report. Griffith Institute for Tourism, Research Report No 5; commissioned by the Gold Coast Tourism Corporation and the City of Gold Coast. Available from: https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/18887/Report-5-Gold-Coast- 2013-14-Financial-Year-Tourism-Industry-Report-1.pdf
Conference presentations Wardle, C. (2018). The conservation contributions of ecotourism in Australia: How far have we come, and where to from here? Global Eco Conference, 26-28 November 2018, Townsville, Australia.
Wardle, C. (2017). Evaluating the conservation contributions of ecotourism. Interdisciplinary Tourism Research Conference, 6-11 June 2017, Cartagena, Spain.
Wardle, C. (2015). A review of the conservation actions and outcomes of wildlife tourism enterprises. Wildlife Tourism Australia Conference, 29 September – 2 October 2015, Melbourne, Australia.
Additional outputs Contributing author (in press). Healthy People in a Healthy Environment: Key Directions Statement. Australian Committee for IUCN - Science Informing Policy Series.
Wardle, C. (in press). Science Policy Handbook: A Guide for Scientists to Engage with Public Policy. EMCR Forum, Australian Academy of Science.
xx
Wardle, C. (2018). Loving the PhD Life. The Thesis Whisperer, May 2018, available from: https://thesiswhisperer.com/2018/05/30/loving-the-phd-life/
Becken, S. & Wardle, C. (2017). Protected Areas and Tourism Planning Indicator. Developed for the 2016 Global Sustainable Tourism Dashboard; available from: https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/protected-areas/
(Signed) ______(Date)______Cassandra Wardle
(Countersigned) ______(Date)______Principal supervisor: Professor Ralf Buckley
xxi
Acknowledgements
Before starting my PhD, I read many studies that emphasised it would be a challenging and isolating experience. Although at times I have indeed found myself living under a rock, I have always been surrounded by amazing people who have made this an incredibly enjoyable journey. I would therefore like to take advantage of this rare opportunity to officially document my gratitude.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my super-supervisory team. I have been so fortunate to have three wonderful supervisors whose individual strengths and research interests complemented each other perfectly for this project. Professor Ralf Thank you for your endless supply of answers to my never-ending stream of Buckley questions, and for teaching me to see past the details to the big picture and to (sort of) let go of perfectionism.
Dr Aishath Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge on research methodologies and Shakeela teaching me the importance of understanding them fully before using them; demonstrating how to find the balance between speed and quality; and convincing me to listen before leaping.
Dr J. Guy Thank you for your incredibly detailed comments on drafts and your ecological Castley and statistical insights; for reminding me of the importance of quality over speed when I tried to rush; and for teaching me that working on my weaknesses is just as important as working to my strengths.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank all those who have assisted with my PhD and my professional development more broadly throughout my candidature, especially past colleagues at the International Centre for Ecotourism Research (special mention to Ms Wendy Smith and Dr Clare Morrison), the Australian Academy of Science (special mention to Dr Stuart Barrow), Griffith Graduate Research School (special mention to Dr Eliza Howard), Griffith School of Environment and Science, Griffith Institute for Tourism (special mention to Professor Susanne Becken), and the Queensland Universities Consortium.
Additionally, I gratefully acknowledge the in-kind support provided by Ecotourism Australia, for granting me access to the EA certification data, and for providing such a friendly office space for my year of data collecting.
I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my family, friends, and fellow HDR students along the way, in particular:
My mum, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled” – Plutarch Denise Wardle Thank you for instilling in me a joy and appreciation of lifelong learning; for reading a thousand drafts from school assignments to PhD chapters; for supporting me every step of the way; and for your firm and unwavering belief in me. Words don’t exist to express the extent of my gratitude. You praise my burning need to right the wrongs I see in the world, but you gave me the kindling and the match.
xxii
My brother, Thank you for teaching me that honest reflection and self-validation are more Dr Ben Wardle important than praise; for always raising the bar; and for unintentionally but effectively preparing me for reviewer comments.
My grandparents, Thank you for showing me the value of long hours, hard work, and pride in a Dennis and Una job well-done; and for your concrete belief that I will succeed at anything I put my mind to, from finding lost tv channels to submitting this thesis.
“People either inspire you or they drain you – pick wisely…” My cheer squad: To my awesome friends who still want to hang out with me whether I’m Em, Courtney, channelling my inner Hermione Granger or my inner Steve Irwin – thank you. Claire, Dharsha & Your endless support and understanding have been just as vital for my sanity as all Brodie the laughs, distractions and beers along the way.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge all those who came before me – firstly, the researchers past and present who built the knowledge base and academic literature that allowed me to write this thesis; and secondly, the environmental heroes of my childhood who inspired a generation of Planeteers.
And finally, to the trailblazing women whose determination and persistence tore down the barriers of inequality in educational institutions – thank you for creating a world in which it is completely unexceptional to be a woman undertaking an environmentally focused doctorate in the sciences.
We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants.
xxiii
xxiv
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Ecotourism and conservation
The planet is currently facing a global extinction crisis (Pimm et al., 2014; Ceballos et al., 2015). Despite spending more than US$21.5 billion per year on conservation activities globally (Waldron et al., 2013), efforts to achieve conservation goals continue to fall short (Tittensor et al., 2014; Butchart et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2015). The social benefits of healthy, functioning ecosystems and our reliance on ecosystem services have long been recognised (Costanza et al., 1997; Costanza et al., 2017), and recent studies continue to highlight this importance (e.g. Buckley and Brough, 2017; Kubiszewski et al., 2017; McDonough et al., 2017). However, public conservation efforts are coming under increasing pressure due to reductions in funding, competing priorities of governments, and insufficient protected area networks (Rodrigues et al., 2004; Kingsford et al., 2009; Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Whitelaw, King and Tolkach, 2014; Mallari et al., 2016).
Conservation practices on private and communal land are therefore of growing importance (Adams and Moon, 2013; Butchart et al., 2015). There is increasing evidence that engaging with local communities and social institutes is critical for achieving positive biodiversity outcomes (Liu et al., 2007; Collins et al., 2011; Perrings et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2015). This is reflected in global conservation agendas, with nearly half of the 2020 Aichi Targets focused on the underlying social drivers of biodiversity loss (Perrings et al., 2011) and strong links between biodiversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2016). Conservation practices require human actions, which in turn require incentives, motivations, and/or deterrents (Liu et al., 2007; Collins et al., 2011; Perrings et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2015). Socio-ecological systems and alternative conservation methods are therefore gaining traction among both researchers and practitioners (Adams and Moon, 2013; Butchart et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2015).
Ecotourism is one such socio-ecological system, often promoted for its potential to function as a conservation mechanism while providing social benefits and allowing for economic development (Krüger, 2005; Pegas and Castley, 2014; Snyman, 2016). In theory, and indeed as demonstrated under certain conditions, ecotourism can increase pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours of visitors, local communities and other stakeholder groups by providing incentives, deterrents and pressures (Figure 1.1) (Hunt et al., 2015; Wheaton et al., 2016; Wardle et al., 2018). It has therefore been adopted widely in community development and conservation strategies, especially in areas where employment options are limited and livelihoods are land- intensive (Butcher, 2006; Lamers et al., 2014; Romero-Brito, Buckley and Byrne, 2016).
1 Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.1 Conceptual path linking ecotourism to conservation outcomes.
Ecotourism1 may also circumvent many of the constraints faced by governments and conservation organisations when implementing environmental strategies. For example, economic development and societal needs often compete with conservation practices, especially in many developing countries where areas with high concentrations of biodiversity and threatened species coincide with areas of high value for human use (Salafsky et al., 2001; Becker et al., 2005; Mbaiwa, 2011; Di Minin et al., 2013). However, ecotourism operations can help offset conservation costs and compensate local communities, and can be utilised as a strategy for environmental protection in areas where public protected areas are difficult to establish (Blangy and Mehta, 2006; Ahebwa, van der Duim and Sandbrook, 2012; McCauley et al., 2013). Furthermore, ecotourism can mobilise and increase political, financial, and broader stakeholder and public support for conservation activities (Krüger, 2005; Buckley, 2009; Liburd and Becken, 2017).
Ecotourism is widely referred to as one of the fastest growing segments of the global tourism industry, itself one of the world’s largest industries (Balmford et al., 2009; Das and Syiemlieh, 2009; Erdem and Tetik, 2013). Estimates suggest that the annual spending of international tourists in non-OECD countries far exceeds that spent on conservation projects in the developing world by both official aid agencies and the United Nations Global Environment
1 Inclusive of ecotourism operations owned, operated or supported by all organisation types i.e. government, community, private, NGO, and so on.
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
Facility (Kirkby et al., 2011). As such, there is enormous potential for this sector to contribute to protecting the natural environment on which it depends (Kirkby et al., 2011; Brandt and Buckley, 2018). However, it is essential that sufficient evidence exists to support the application and progression of this concept.
1.2 Academic research extent and gaps
Substantial academic attention has been devoted to various thematic elements captured under the ‘ecotourism’ umbrella (Figure 1.2). For example, many economic studies have assessed the financial viability of ecotourism operations, visitor expenditure, and economic valuations (e.g. Barnes, Schier and Van Rooy, 1999; Tisdell, 2007; De and Devi, 2011; Tisdell and Wilson, 2012). A myriad of visitor studies have examined the ecotourists themselves including ecotourist demographics, behaviours, experiences, and philanthropy (e.g. Lindberg, 1991; Weaver, 2002; Galley and Clifton, 2004; Honey, 2011). Others have focused on the implications of ecotourism for local communities including social impacts, employment, and community development (e.g. Zeppel, 2006; Stronza and Gordillo, 2008; Ahebwa et al., 2012).
Figure 1.2 Examples of key ecotourism research focus areas.
1.2.1 Ecotourism and the environment The negative environmental impacts of tourists and tourism operators, such as weed dispersal, have been well studied (e.g. Pickering, Harrington and Worboys, 2003; Steven, Pickering and Castley, 2011; Ansong and Pickering, 2013). Although it should be noted that some researchers suggest that many negative impacts of ecotourism are speculative, lack conclusive evidence, and merit more careful analysis (Fitzgerald and Stronza, 2016). Additional well-studied aspects of the ecotourism-environment relationship include (1) minimal impact operations and sustainability (Buckley, 2012; Ruhanen et al., 2015); and (2) the importance of the environment
3 Chapter 1: Introduction as a key ecotourism attraction, including visitor preferences for clean environments (e.g. Kelly et al., 2007; Kirillova et al., 2014). A niche but growing research area within the ecotourism and environment theme is the delivery of conservation benefits through ecotourism.
1.2.2 Ecotourism and conservation Large compendiums and broad evaluations of conservation and ecotourism in practice do exist and provide important foundations for this area of research. However, the site selection process, methods, focus, and level of detail of these studies limit the applicability of their findings beyond their specified context. For example, Buckley (2009) focuses on net environmental impacts and includes only a limited number of conservation mechanisms, while Buckley (2010) was subjective in the inclusion of only well-known and well documented cases and context- dependent actions. Krüger (2005) and Doan (2000) do not list or justify the cases examined and focus predominantly on sustainability and local community issues, respectively, with only limited referrals to conservation. Ardoin et al. (2015) focus solely on the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of visitors; Brandt and Buckley (2018) focus solely on the link between ecotourism and forest protection or reforestation; Romero-Brito et al. (2016) include only NGO cases; and Mossaz, Buckley and Castley (2015) is both continent and species specific.
Small-scale practical case studies examining the ecotourism-conservation relationship also exist, such as Blangy and Mehta (2006); Brightsmith, Stronza and Holle (2008); and Samways et al. (2010). However, just 70 academic journal articles had examined the conservation activities of ecotourism operations in practice as of February 2016, and their transferability is similarly limited (Wardle et al., 2018, see also Chapter 2). These studies focus on individual or a select handful of sites with little explanation for site selection; concentrate primarily on visitor interpretation and community actions; and are located predominantly in southern Africa and South America (Wardle et al., 2018).
1.2.2.1 Visitors Environmental interpretation and the environmental attitudes and values of visitors have been examined extensively within ecotourism and the broader areas of wildlife tourism and nature tourism (e.g. Armstrong and Weiler, 2002; Hughes and Morrison-Saunders, 2005). However, links to how this manifests as behavioural changes, either on or off-site, are rare (Hughes, 2013; Wardle et al., 2018). Visitor expenditure and willingness-to-pay for natural attractions and environmental protection measures have also been widely studied (e.g. Navrud and Mungatana, 1994; O'Malley, Lee-Brooks and Medd, 2013; Daly, Fraser and Snowball, 2015). However,
4 Chapter 1: Introduction these are predominantly theoretical, and few tangible conservation contributions have been identified. This theme is explored in greater detail in Section 4.2.3.
1.2.2.2 Local communities The contributions of tourism to community development have been well documented (Krüger, 2005; Zeppel, 2006) and disputed (Fletcher, 2009); however, evaluations of the linkages between these social impacts and ecological conservation outcomes are scarce (Wardle et al., 2018). Those that do exist (e.g. Sakata and Prideaux, 2013; Lamers et al., 2014) tend to focus on small numbers of conservation actions, few outcomes, and individual sites in specific contexts, limiting the transferability of their findings (Wardle et al., 2018). Furthermore, these studies often focus on ecotourism within a region rather than assessing the conservation activities of individual operations. This theme is explored in greater detail in Section 4.2.4
1.2.2.3 Other stakeholders The linkages of ecotourism with environmental research, political measures, and broader organisational scale activities have been touched on by Krüger (2005) and Buckley (2009); however, evaluations of this in practice are limited to a select handful of case studies under specific conditions (e.g. Buckley, 2010; Liburd and Becken, 2017). This theme is explored in greater detail in Section 4.2.5
1.2.3 Summary Our current understanding of the relationship between ecotourism operations and conservation is limited to (1) hand-picked sites located primarily in developing nations; (2) a narrow group of conservation aspects, predominantly indirect conservation impacts through visitor interpretation and community benefits; and (3) self-reported perceptions of individual attitudes and behaviours of visitors and community members (Wardle et al., 2018). This lack of systematic evaluation utilising comparable methods, baseline data, and predetermined parameters severely hampers the assessments of ecotourism programs, projects and conservation interventions (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). As such, the evidence base for determining the legitimacy and transferability of this relationship is currently insufficient to justify the continued placement of ecotourism operations near threatened species and ecologically sensitive areas on the basis of assumed conservation benefits (Wardle et al., 2018).
5 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.3 Thesis objectives
The overarching aim of this thesis is to identify and explore the conservation contributions of ecotourism enterprises, both at a global scale more broadly and a detailed national scale within Australia. This aim is supported by the following research objectives:
Research Identify and synthesise existing evaluations of the conservation activities of Objective 1 ecotourism enterprises in the academic literature to quantify the gaps and biases that exist within this research (Chapter 2).
Research Identify the conservation activities that ecotourism enterprises may Objective 2 potentially undertake and construct an evaluation framework based on an exploration of the actions, outcomes and relationships of these conservation activities (Chapter 4).
Research Evaluate the conservation activities of a set of Australian ecotourism Objective 3 enterprises certified with Ecotourism Australia (‘EA’) (Chapter 5).
Research Identify if patterns exist between the conservation practices of a set of Objective 4 Australian ecotourism enterprises and their enterprise characteristics such as the size of the property and age of the business (Chapter 5).
Research Document and explore the overlaps and gaps between the EA certification Objective 5 criteria, conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises, and the national conservation policy landscape (Chapter 6).
1.4 Thesis boundaries and scope
1.4.1 Ecotourism The definition used for ecotourism in this thesis is one that encompasses the key elements of most ecotourism definitions: nature-based tourism that is sustainable, has an educational or learning component, and attempts to enhance the natural and socio-cultural environment (Fennell, 2001; Weaver and Lawton, 2007; Cobbinah, 2015). The multitude of ecotourism definitions and the various concepts they incorporate are discussed in detail in Section 2.1.
To ensure the sites examined in this study met the requirements of ecotourism, only Australian ecotourism operators certified at the highest level through Ecotourism Australia were included.
1.4.1.1 Ecotourists The terms ‘tourist’, ‘visitor’, and ‘guest’ are used interchangeably in this thesis.
6 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.4.1.2 Consumptive and captivity tourism Whether consumptive tourism (such as hunting and fishing) or captivity tourism (such as zoos and aquariums) should be included as ‘ecotourism’ is another facet of the ecotourism definition debate, with arguments often involving substantial ethical quandaries (Mason, 2000; Novelli, Barnes and Humavindu, 2006; Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Hunting tourism may contribute to conservation goals through, for example, raising conservation funds, eliminating target individuals from a population (due to disease or aggression), removing invasive species, and reducing human-wildlife conflict through the provision of community funding (Thakadu et al., 2005; de Boer, Stigter and Ntumi, 2007; Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach, 2007b; Gressier, 2014). Captivity tourism may contribute to conservation goals by supporting breeding programs, generating funds, and raising awareness of environmental problems (Catibog-Sinha, 2008; Smith, Broad and Weiler, 2008; Fennell, 2013; Martin et al., 2014). However, both practices raise ethical concerns and can produce undesired conservation outcomes such as skewed population genetics due to hunting preferences (Harris, Wall and Allendorf, 2002) and issues regarding animal welfare, hygiene and nutrition in captive environments (Fennell, 2013). The details of these issues are outside the scope of this thesis, and therefore consumptive and captivity tourism are not included as components of ecotourism in this thesis.
1.4.1.3 Ecotourism enterprises The terms ‘ecotourism enterprise’ and ‘ecotourism site’ in this thesis are umbrella terms that refer to the ecotourism operations or activities of a business at a specific site such as an individual reserve or lodge. The terms ‘site’, ‘enterprise’, ‘business’, ‘operator’, and ‘operations’ are therefore used interchangeably.
This thesis includes enterprises that operate under a range of ownership models including private, NGO, and community owned, as well as combinations of these. However, government operations are not included in this thesis. This is because the focus of this thesis is on ecotourism as an alternate conservation mechanism to supplement more traditional models. Furthermore, most government operated2 ecotourism exists in the form of national parks and other public protected areas which (1) are generally not identifiable as individual enterprises, (2) have already been studied extensively, and (3) often operate under very different conditions i.e. both revenue and resource constraints are usually part of the larger machinery of government and not connected solely to visitation (Buckley, 2004; 2012; Leung et al., 2014).
2 Note that this does not refer to privately operated concessions in public protected areas.
7 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.4.2 Conservation The term ‘conservation’ is generally used in the sense of conserving and protecting a resource (Stevenson, 2010; Sandbrook, 2015), often including activities that aim to restore the ‘original state’, the ‘natural state’ or to at least improve ecological conditions (Geist and Hawkins, 2016). However, controversy exists over the precise meaning and purpose of the term. For example, these restoration and remediation activities are also part of restoration ecology, which may be classified as distinct from ‘conservation’ (Geist and Hawkins, 2016).
In this thesis, the term conservation is used in a pragmatic sense and refers to activities that aim to generate positive impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity (Salafsky et al., 2008; Wardle et al., 2018), “without bothering too much about semantic issues” (Geist and Hawkins, 2016, p. 944).
1.4.2.1 Conservation vs sustainability A distinction is, however, drawn between ‘conservation’ and ‘environmental sustainability’, which includes concepts such as minimal impact, carbon neutrality, and energy efficiency. The line between the two is often blurred; however, for the purpose of this thesis the distinction lies in the nature of the impact: environmentally sustainable actions aim to reduce the negative impacts that are caused by the existence of the enterprise; conservation actions aim to generate positive environmental impacts (CBD, 1992; Salafsky et al., 2008; Wardle et al., 2018). For example, planting native trees to replace vegetation that was cleared during the construction of an ecotourism site is an attempt to minimise negative environmental impacts and is therefore classified here as a sustainability activity. Alternatively, proactively planting native trees to improve the extent of vegetation cover beyond that which existed prior to ecotourism development constitutes a conservation activity.
However, activities that increase the sustainability or pro-environmental behaviour of others are also classified here as conservation activities. This is because the negative or neutral environmental behaviours of visitors, community members and so on exist independently of an ecotourism enterprise. Therefore, if a person modifies their behaviour and reduces their own environmental footprint based on their visit to an ecotourism enterprise, then this enterprise has made a positive environmental difference.
1.4.2.2 Conservation actions and outcomes The term ‘conservation action’ is used in the literal sense of ‘the act of doing something’ (e.g. planting trees) and is defined in this thesis as an activity undertaken with the intent of achieving a conservation objective (Pullin and Stewart, 2006; Salafsky et al., 2008). Conservation
8 Chapter 1: Introduction outcomes are those that result from these actions, such as an improvement in the quality of habitat and vegetation density following tree planting activities.
For conservation activities to be classified as undertaken by an ecotourism enterprise, they must be carried out by individuals who are operating on behalf of the enterprise (e.g. staff), paid for or commissioned by the enterprise (e.g. contractors), or volunteering their time for activities led by the enterprise (e.g. community involvement in on-site tree planting ‘working bees’). If multiple operations are run by the same company, the actions of the company itself are generally not incorporated unless it is made clear that the enterprise under examination contributes directly to these actions.
1.4.3 Biodiversity Consistent with definitions provided by the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 and the United Nations CBD, biodiversity is defined here as all living organisms and associated variability including within species (genetic diversity), between species (species diversity), and of ecosystems (ecosystem diversity) (CBD, 1992; NRMMC, 2010).
1.4.4 Academic and grey literature The term ‘academic literature’ is used in this thesis to refer to research published in traditional academic journals (Haddaway and Bayliss, 2015). Conversely, the term ‘grey literature’ refers to publications outside of traditional academic journals such as books and government reports. Both forms of literature are utilised in this thesis; however, common research limitations such as time, thesis length, and lack of appropriate systematic methodologies for sampling grey literature necessitated limiting some thesis components to only the academic literature (Adams, Smart and Huff, 2017).
1.5 Content and structure of thesis
This thesis follows the standard thesis structure of a general introduction followed by a context and literature review chapter, methodology chapter, data chapters, and a general discussion and conclusion, with substantial links between chapters (Figure 1.3). Chapters 4, 5 and 6 form the data chapters, although Chapter 2 also includes data in the form of a published literature review.
9 Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.3 Linkages between the thesis chapters (excluding Chapter 3 which provides the methods for Chapters 4, 5 and 6).
Multiple synergistic approaches are used to meet the research objectives outlined in Section 1.3. Each approach is presented as a somewhat discrete research component in the three data chapters; however, as shown in the more detailed conceptual model in Figure 1.4 and explained below, these are inextricably linked.
10 Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.4 Detailed conceptual model of the linkages between the research components, methods and objectives.
11 Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2 provides (1) a detailed context on the key themes incorporated within the thesis aims including eco-certification, the state of the environment, and the Australian conservation policy- practice landscape; (2) a systematic quantitative literature review3 which systematically identifies, selects, quantifies and synthesises the current academic literature that analyses ecotourism enterprises and their in-practice contributions to conservation (to fulfil Research Objective 1); and (3) preliminary conservation pathways models that expand on Figure 1.1 and lay the foundation for the research presented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 3 details the methods for Chapters 4, 5, and 6 including conceptualisation, data sources, data collection, and analyses.
Chapter 4 explores the potential conservation pathways of ecotourism enterprises and consolidates these into a Conservation Activities Matrix (‘CA Matrix’) to fulfil Research Objective 2. This provides the foundation of an evidence-based framework to evaluate the conservation contributions of ecotourism enterprises at an individual site level or accumulative scale.
Guided by this framework, Chapter 5 evaluates the conservation activities of 86 EA-certified Australian ecotourism operators to address Research Objectives 3 and 4. As part of the framework, this chapter utilises a ‘conservation significance screening process’ (described in Chapter 4) to assess the importance of these activities within the Australian conservation context. The full summary of the results of this analysis are provided in Appendix C and Appendix D.
Chapter 6 compares EA’s ECO Certification program, the conservation practices of the 86 sites from Chapter 5, and the national conservation policy landscape to identify key overlaps and gaps for progressing the ecotourism-conservation relationship in Australia.
Chapter 7 discusses the key findings of the thesis including their significance, practical implications, and contributions to knowledge.
1.6 Project significance
Ecotourism is often promoted as a conservation mechanism; however, the legitimacy and extent of this relationship is unclear (Geffroy et al., 2015; Fitzgerald and Stronza, 2016; Brandt and Buckley, 2018). This thesis demonstrates that evaluations of on-the-ground conservation
3 This has been published in the Journal of Ecotourism.
12 Chapter 1: Introduction outcomes of ecotourism enterprises are still a relatively recent trend in the academic literature, and those that do exist lack a sufficient number of sites, transparent site selection processes, adequate sampling strategies, baseline data, and consistency in the conservation activities examined (Wardle et al., 2018, see also Chapter 2). In short, they are not repeatable, reproducible, or transferable and, as such, the evidence base for using ecotourism as a conservation mechanism is inadequate (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006; Walsh et al., 2012; Brandt and Buckley, 2018). Furthermore, given the paucity of detailed knowledge of the conservation contributions of ecotourism, it is difficult to provide guidelines to industry operators on best practice activities for conservation purposes.
This thesis addresses these issues by (1) developing a framework for systematically evaluating the conservation impacts of ecotourism enterprises; (2) reviewing the conservation practices of a set of certified ecotourism enterprises in Australia and identifying their contributions to national conservation goals; (3) assessing the conservation coverage of the national eco-certification program; (4) reviewing the tourism coverage of national conservation policies and identifying key themes for effective conservation management; and (5) comparing findings across these research components to demonstrate key implications for operators, researchers, policymakers, and eco-certification bodies.
As such, results from this research contribute to improving the evidence base necessary for the substantiated use of ecotourism as a conservation mechanism and justifying, or preventing, the continued placement of ecotourism operations near threatened species and ecosystems (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2012). This is particularly important given the current state of the global environment and the urgency of stalling or reversing declines in biodiversity (Butchart et al., 2015; Newbold et al., 2015).
Findings from this thesis were used in a review of the national eco-certification program in 2018 and in the ongoing development of a conservation guide for eco-certified operators in Australia. Additionally, this research provides a core component of a Key Directions Statement currently in production under the Australian National Committee for IUCN in collaboration with experts and practitioners from government, NGOs and academia, to inform environmental policy development in Australia.
13
14 Statement of contribution to co-authored published paper for Chapter 2
The following chapter (Chapter 2: Context and literature review) includes a co-authored paper in Section 2.7. The bibliographic details of the co-authored paper, including all authors, are:
Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism. doi:10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173
My contribution to the paper involved: development of research aims and study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and manuscript development.
Other authors contributed to conceptual development, writing and reviewing the paper, and providing editorial input.
(Signed) ______(Date)______Cassandra Wardle
(Countersigned) ______(Date)______Principal supervisor and co-author of paper: Professor Ralf Buckley
(Countersigned) ______(Date)______Associate supervisor and co-author of paper: Dr Aishath Shakeela
(Countersigned) ______(Date)______Associate supervisor and co-author of paper: Dr J. Guy Castley
15 Chapter 2: Context and literature review
This chapter provides the necessary ecotourism-conservation context underpinning the research of this thesis, both globally and within Australia.
As depicted in Figure 2.1, the chapter is split into three parts. Part 1 considers the concept of ecotourism, ecotourism trends, and eco-certification. Following this, Part 2 provides an overview of the current state of the environment; the value of the natural environment and biodiversity; and global and Australian conservation efforts. Finally, Part 3 presents a published systematic quantitative literature review on the conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises, which is used to develop an evidence-based conceptual model of ecotourism-conservation pathways.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual overview of Chapter 2.
Part 1: Ecotourism
2.1 Ecotourism concepts
The concept of ecotourism crystallised throughout the 1970s and 80s within the context of global environmental degradation and the negative social and environmental impacts of mass tourism (Cobbinah, 2015). Although ecotourism activities have likely existed for centuries, the
16 Chapter 2: Context and literature review term ‘ecotourism’ was first described in the academic literature in the 1980s by Ceballos- Lascurain (1987, p. 14) as:
“Travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas.”
A multitude of definitions have appeared and morphed as the concept has evolved over the interceding decades, with varying levels of agreement (Fennell, 2001; Chandel and Mishra, 2016). However, there is widespread consensus that an ecotourism activity must satisfy three core criteria: it must be (1) culturally and environmentally sustainable (2) nature-based tourism with (3) an educational or learning component (Blamey, 1997; Weaver and Lawton, 2007). As such, there is substantial overlap with other types of tourism, and ecotourism may be viewed as a blending of several tourism focus areas (Fennell, 2001; Weaver and Lawton, 2007). For example, although ecotourism must be nature-based and sustainable, it can also incorporate aspects of community and adventure tourism (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 An example of the multiple types of tourism that may overlap with ecotourism.
Common themes within ecotourism definitions include environmentally friendly travel that is ethical, responsible, and provides conservation and socio-economic contributions (Sirakaya, Sasidharan and Sönmez, 1999; Fennell, 2001; Chandel and Mishra, 2016). Interestingly, many of these themes have their own branch of tourism with specific definitions (e.g. ‘responsible tourism’). The ‘provision of conservation contributions’ theme includes phrasing such as the conservation, preservation, protection, or enhancement of the natural environment, and was the
17 Chapter 2: Context and literature review second most frequently cited theme across the 85 ecotourism definitions examined by Fennell (2001), covering the period 1970-1999. A comparison of this comprehensive analysis with key themes identified by Chandel and Mishra (2016)4 in their recent evaluation of definitions from 1990-2015 shows that this trend remains unchanged (Figure 2.3). Similar patterns in both the types and frequencies of key themes have been found in additional studies of ecotourism definitions (e.g. Sirakaya et al., 1999; Donohoe and Needham, 2006; Cobbinah, 2015).
Nature-based tourism
Supports conservation
Learning, interpretation and appreciation
Socio-Economic Development of Local Area
Reference to culture Socio-economic Benefits to locals aspects
Support and Respect for Local Culture
Local Area (People) Participation
Sustainability
Minimal impact
Chandel & Mishra 2016 0 20 40 60 80 Fennell 2001 %
Figure 2.3 Comparison of key themes used in ecotourism definitions as identified by Chandel and Mishra (2016) and Fennell (2001). Crosses in place of a bar indicate socio-economic aspects that were not included in one of the studies: the style of data presentation and nuanced differences in meanings prevented the merging of these aspects.
2.2 Ecotourism trends
2.2.1 Global trends Ecotourism is purported to be one of the fastest growing segments of the global tourism industry (Balmford et al., 2009; Das and Syiemlieh, 2009; Erdem and Tetik, 2013). However, statistics on ecotourism trends are difficult to ascertain and estimates vary widely. This is largely due to the lack of consensus regarding the scope of ecotourism activities described above, and a subsequent lack of appropriate data collection by state or national agencies (Weaver, 1999; Balmford et al., 2009; Perkins and Grace, 2009).
4 Although both studies cover the period 1990-1999, only 13 sources are duplicated across them.
18 Chapter 2: Context and literature review
Reported values include: 157 to 236 million ecotourists globally with expenditures of up to US$1.2 trillion (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996 in West and Carrier, 2004); 43 million tourists in the United States identifying as ecotourists (Katić et al., 2011); US$30 billion in earnings for developing nations (Honey, 1999); US$28.8 billion spent by international tourists in non-OECD countries in 2007 (3% of the total US$968 billion) (Kirkby et al., 2011); 40-60% of international tourism in biodiversity-rich regions (Vaughan, 2000); and 2-20% of all international tourism (Fletcher and Neves, 2012; Hall, 2013), with annual growth rates of 7- 30% and up to three times the industry average (Honey, 1999; Wight, 2001; Perkins and Grace, 2009; Fletcher and Neves, 2012).
An additional complication is the difficulty in verifying some of the figures that do exist. For example, a 1997 World Tourism Organisation (WTO) article is cited as reporting that ecotourism accounted for 10-15% of the tourism industry in October 1997, and that this figure was increased to 20% in December 1998 (WTO News, 1997, 1998 in Wight, 2001). Despite these statistics being repeated in multiple publications (e.g. Perkins and Grace, 2009; Fletcher, 2011; Hall, 2013), with an access date as recent as 2015 (e.g. Mukhambetov, Janguttina and Еsaidar, 2016), the links provided in reference lists for these citations no longer work and the original sources do not appear to be available online.
Figures for wildlife tourism and nature-based tourism are often used as substitutes due to their overlap with ecotourism; however, these contain a similarly large amount of variance, with an estimated market share between 10 and 40% (Rodger, Moore and Newsome, 2007; Ceballos- Lascurain, 2008). In 2012, the WTO and UNEP (2012, p. viii) reported that “more than a third of travellers are found to favour environmentally-friendly tourism and be willing to pay between 2 and 40% more for this experience”. Balmford et al. (2009) estimate that global visitation to national parks results in an annual direct in-country expenditure of US$600 billion with a consumer surplus of US$250 billion; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2018) reports that approximately 40% of the US population spent US$156.9 billion in 2016 on wildlife-associated recreation (including hunting and fishing), with wildlife watching alone accounting for US$75.9 billion; and Macaulay (2016) reports annual expenditure of US$814 million on day-use fees for wildlife-associated recreation on private land in the US (2011 dollars).
Despite this uncertainty, the data clearly indicates that eco-, wildlife, and nature-based tourism account for a substantial portion of the tourism industry (Balmford et al., 2009; Perkins and Grace, 2009; Kirkby et al., 2011). With an estimated 1,323 million visitors making overnight international trips worldwide in 2017 and spending approximately US$1.4 trillion (WTO, 2018), tourism is one of the world’s largest industries: even a small proportion of this is noteworthy. Furthermore, the continued importance of the concept of ecotourism can also be
19 Chapter 2: Context and literature review seen through the United Nation’s designation of 2002 as the International Year of Ecotourism and, fifteen years later, 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development.
2.2.2 Australian trends Statistics for ecotourism in Australia are equally as nebulous as those available globally. Nevertheless, the data indicates that ecotourism activities form an important part of the tourism experience for both domestic and international tourists (Table 2.1). This is further highlighted in a 2016 survey of over 90,000 international tourists as part of the Tourism Australia Consumer Demand Project (Tourism Research Australia [TRA], 2017). For example, survey respondents rated natural beauty, wildlife, and aquatic and coastal experiences as (1) the most appealing tourism experiences, and (2) the types of tourist activities most commonly associated with Australia, followed by ‘food and wine’ for both rankings. Furthermore, the survey found that Australia’s natural environment was rated first in a list of global destinations for three separate criteria: (1) world class nature (followed by New Zealand and Switzerland); (2) unique and interesting wildlife (followed by South Africa and Kenya); and (3) aquatic and coastal features (followed by Hawaii and New Zealand) (TRA, 2017). Additionally, the Australian Productivity Commission noted in 2015 that increases in environmental awareness and an associated increased demand for ecotourism products are a key trend in international tourism for Australia (Productivity Commission, 2015).
20 Chapter 2: Context and literature review
Table 2.1 Reported estimates of nature-based tourism and ecotourism in Australia International Domestic visits2 Australian Year Source visitors1 Day Overnight adults3 Nature-based tourists (visitation) 5.2 m (63%) 23.6 m (12%) 20.1 m (22%) 2016 (TTF, 2017) 5.6 m (68%) 2015-16 (EA, 2017) 5.1 m (69%) 24.5 m (28%) 2015 (TRA, 2015 cited in EA, 2017) 4.2 m (61%) 2014 (Griffith University, 2014 cited in EA 2017) 4.8 m (75%) 2013-14 (Productivity Commission, 2015) 3.8 m (62%) 12.8 m (73%) 2011-12 (TTF, 2012 cited in Queensland Government, 2013; ABS, 2013 cited in Jackson et al., 2017) 3.3 m (64%) 2009 (TRA, 2009; Director of National Parks, 2011) Nature-based tourists (expenditure) $20.0 b (54%) $2.1 b $18.9 b 2016 (TTF, 2017) $14.2 b (46%) $1.6 b $14.6 b 2012-13 (Department of Environment, 2014) $25.13 b (international & overnight domestic) 2011 (Tourism Australia, 2012 cited in Queensland Government, 2013) $19.5 b 2009 (TRA, 2009; Director of National Parks, 2011) Nature-based tourism sector contributes $23 b to the economy N/A (Director of National Parks, 2011; Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service [QPWS], 2016) Engaged in bushwalking activities 12.2 m (12.5%) 2017-18 (TRA, 2018) 7.4 m (42%) 2011-12 (ABS, 2013 cited in Department of Environment, 2014) Visited national parks (NPs) 11.5 m (11.8%) 2017-18 (TRA, 2018) 9.1 m (52%) 2011-12 (ABS, 2013 cited in Department of Environment, 2014) Direct expenditure attributable to NPs > $749m/year 2008 (Ballantyne et al., 2008 cited in QPWS, 2016) Wildlife tourists 2.2 m 2004 (Rodger et al., 2007) Wildlife as key motivation for travel to Australia 20% 2002 (Higginbottom and Buckley, 2003) Key: m = million, b = billion. Footnotes: 1Visitor numbers/expenditure with proportions in brackets; 2Number of visits not visitors; and 3Australian adults (>18 years of age) engaging in each activity.
21 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
2.3 Eco-certification
2.3.1 Global trends Eco-certification and -labelling schemes assure consumers that an organisation or product complies with a given standard (Fogle and Duffy, 2018). Such programs originated in the chemical industry following a major chemical spill in 1984 (Graci and Dodds, 2015); although the first eco-certification program for tourism, the European Blue Flag Campaign for beaches, was released soon after in 1987 (Blackman et al., 2014). The Rio Earth Summit5 in 1992 prompted significant environmental action across many industries and countries including eco- certification schemes (Graci and Dodds, 2015). A corresponding increase in (1) consumer willingness-to-pay for items with (perceived) lower environmental impacts; and (2) operator participation in such schemes to gain visibility and a competitive advantage in an increasingly crowded market maintained this momentum (Jamal, Borges and Stronza, 2006; Fuerst and McAllister, 2011). Estimates suggest that the number of eco-certification schemes for tourism activities has since grown to somewhere between 120 and 300 (Lebe and Vrečko, 2015; Gössling and Buckley, 2016).
2.3.2 Australian trends Eco-certification in the Australian tourism industry began with the drafting of a national accreditation scheme under the leadership of the Keating Government, following the release of the National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development in 1992 and the world-first National Ecotourism Strategy in 1994 (Haaland and Aas, 2010). The development of this scheme was taken over by a not-for-profit industry association, Ecotourism Australia (EA), who had formed three years earlier as the Ecotourism Association of the Indo Pacific Region6, one of the first professional ecotourism associations (Dowling, 2013). The resulting National Ecotourism Accreditation Program7 (NEAP) was launched in 1996 as a world first (Haaland and Aas, 2010) (Figure 2.4). It has grown from just 18 certified members in the first year of operation to over 1,500 tourism products in the 2017/18 financial year (EA, 2018a). Furthermore, the combined annual turnover of EA’s certified members exceeded AU$1 billion in 2013/14 (Ecotourism Australia, 2018b) and reached AU$1.4 billion in 2017/18 (EA, 2018a). After launching their ECO Destination Certification program in 2016, EA now manages five certification programs (Figure 2.4).
5 The first UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio in 1992. 6 Renamed in 1992 as Ecotourism Association of Australia, and again in 2002 as Ecotourism Australia. 7 Renamed the ECO Certification Program in 2003.
22 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
Figure 2.4 Timeline of Ecotourism Australia’s growth and expansion.
The program of interest in this thesis is the ECO Certification Program. This is a process-based program utilising applicant self-assessment combined with an initial site audit conducted by an independent group, followed by three-yearly audits thereafter. It includes three levels of certification:
Nature Tourism certification for tourism in natural areas that leaves minimal impact on the environment (base level);
Ecotourism certification for tourism in natural areas that focuses on optimal resource use, conservation practices and helping local communities (intermediate level); and
Advanced Ecotourism certification for tourism in natural areas with strong interpretation values and a commitment to nature conservation and helping local communities (advanced level).
23 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
Part 2: Conservation
2.4 The state of the environment
2.4.1 The global environment Global biodiversity and environmental health are at risk from the continually increasing human population growth rates and associated impacts of land use change, resource consumption and waste production (Kingsford et al., 2009; Pimm et al., 2014; Butchart et al., 2015; Newbold et al., 2015). Human activities have cleared nearly 50% of the world’s forested areas (Crowther et al., 2015), and existing formal protected areas do not provide adequate coverage for approximately 77% of important sites for biodiversity, 60% of ecoregions, and 57% of species (Butchart et al., 2015). Current extinction rates exceed background rates by two to three orders of magnitude, and it is widely acknowledged that the planet is facing a global extinction crisis (Kingsford et al., 2009; Pimm et al., 2014; Ceballos et al., 2015). Furthermore, the elimination of many top predators across all continents has drastically altered ecosystems and ecological function (Pimm et al., 2014).
National and international bodies have collaborated to develop guidelines and strategies to address biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, despite global spending of at least US$21.5 billion on biodiversity conservation efforts per year, progress towards conservation goals continue to fall short (Waldron et al., 2013; Tittensor et al., 2014; Butchart et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2015). In fact, studies have shown worsening trends on some indicator targets and increasing extinction risk for some species (Tittensor et al., 2014; Newbold et al., 2015).
24 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
2.4.2 The Australian environment Australia is one of 17 mega-diverse countries which together support over 70% of global biodiversity on less than 10% of the global surface (Lindenmayer et al., 2010). Furthermore, after 60 million years of evolving in isolation, over 80% of Australia’s plant and animal species are endemic (Jackson et al., 2017). However, in the two centuries since European settlement, over 130 species have been declared extinct and nearly three-quarters of native vegetation has been cleared or degraded (Evans, 2016; Department of the Environment and Energy [DEE] 2019b). At a national level, over 450 faunal species and 1,300 floral species are at risk as at May 2019, with many more species at-risk across the states and territories (Table 2.2). Increases in these figures have been reported in all national State of the Environment Reports since the inaugural report in 1996 (Jackson et al., 2017). Furthermore, with at least 30 mammal extinctions since European settlement in 1788, Australia has the highest rate of modern terrestrial mammal extinctions (Woinarski, Burbidge and Harrison, 2015). For comparison, European settlement in North America (over 200 years earlier) has seen only one mammal extinction (Woinarski et al., 2015). In addition to irreparable ecological implications, environmental degradation also threatens some of Australia’s primary tourism assets including the Great Barrier Reef and the koala (Reside et al., 2017; Tisdell et al., 2017).
Table 2.2 Numbers of at-risk flora and fauna at a national level and for each state and territory
Number of species listed2 Conservation status1 AUS QLD NSW SA WA TAS NT ACT VIC3 Fauna
Extinct in the wild 1 11 / / / / 1 0 / Critically endangered 78 / 28 / 57 / 12 0 Endangered 163 76 116 98 58 69 18 9 269 Vulnerable 202 137 169 66 134 45 70 16 Near threatened4 8 31 / 160 / 70 65 / Total at-risk fauna 452 255 313 324 249 184 166 25 269
Flora
Extinct in the wild 0 22 / / / / 0 0 / Critically endangered 181 / 72 / 160 / 3 0 Endangered 548 225 402 187 140 144 24 9 376 Vulnerable 590 484 230 196 129 75 54 0 Near threatened4 0 235 / 431 / 249 417 / Total at-risk flora 1319 966 704 814 429 468 498 9 376 1Excludes ‘extinct’ and ‘not threatened’ categories; 2Data sourced from threatened species lists in relevant legislation for each jurisdiction (details in Section 3.4.5); 3Victoria only has two classifications: ‘threatened’ and ‘not-threatened’; and 4This category is named ‘conservation dependent’ at the national level and ‘rare’ for both SA and TAS.
25 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
2.5 Ecosystem services and the value of biodiversity
The link between environmental degradation and societal costs is acknowledged in the written record as early as 400BC (Plato, in Daily, 1998) and 100AD (Pliny the Elder, in Andréassian, 2004). However, the term ‘ecosystem services’ wasn’t introduced in the academic literature until 1981 (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010), referring to the goods and services derived from ecosystem functions that benefit humanity (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Braat and de Groot, 2012). Examples of these services include: carbon sequestration and storage, watershed protection and freshwater yield, building materials, food production, medicines, energy production, nutrient cycling and soil conservation, shade and shelter, recreation and tourism resources, and spiritual and cultural heritage (Costanza et al., 1997; Hall, 2011; Braat and de Groot, 2012; Maes et al., 2012).
In the late 1990s a ground-breaking assessment of global ecosystem services estimated their value at US$16-54 trillion per year (Costanza et al., 1997). Although it received some criticism (Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010), subsequent valuations continue to demonstrate this significance, both in the academic literature (Cardinale et al., 2012; Costanza et al., 2017; McDonough et al., 2017) and more broadly (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; TEEB, 2012; 2015; UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, 2018). For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)8 identified that insect pollinator contributions to global food production are worth up to $577 billion per year (IPBES, 2019); and the most common commercial pharmaceuticals derived from plants have been valued at more than US$25 billion annually (De Luca et al., 2012). Additionally, almost half of the global population depends directly on the natural environment for their daily subsistence needs and livelihoods, the majority of which are situated in developing nations (CBD, 2016). Furthermore, reductions in environmental quality increase the time needed for collecting fuel, food, and water, which disproportionately impacts women and children. As such, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation also perpetuate social stratification and inequality.
There is a substantial body of research demonstrating the health benefits of engaging with nature including decreased stress levels, blood pressure, and body size; and improved immunity, mental health, cognition, creativity; and overall wellbeing (Townsend et al., 2015; Buckley and Brough, 2017). Many indigenous populations also have a deep spiritual connection with the
8 The IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body established by the UN in 2012 to provide objective scientific assessments on biodiversity for policymakers. This assessment incorporated 3,000 scientific papers, 145 expert authors from over 50 countries, and indigenous and local knowledge from more than 60 locations.
26 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review land and biodiversity that has underpinned their history, culture, social structure, health, and spirituality for millennia (Kingsley et al., 2009; Biddle and Swee, 2012).
Finally, biodiversity also holds significant intrinsic value and innate worth, and it has long been acknowledged that we have a moral obligation to both the planet and to future generations (intergenerational equity) to conserve our natural environment (Gaba, 1999; Weston, 2012; Vucetich, Bruskotter and Nelson, 2015; Piccolo, 2017).
2.6 Context of biodiversity conservation
2.6.1 International context Biodiversity conservation is not a recent phenomenon. International agreements on environmental protection were established as early as the 1940s, with major conventions and treaties developed in every decade since the 1960s (Figure 2.5). The ground-breaking World Conservation Strategy, published by IUCN in 1980, advocated that environmental conservation could be achieved through the concept of ‘sustainable development’, arguing that “if the object of development is to provide for social and economic welfare, the object of conservation is to ensure Earth's capacity to sustain development and to support all life” (IUCN, 1980, p. 1). This notion was solidified in the World Commission on Environment and Development (later known as the Brundtland Commission) in 1983, and again through the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The same year saw the creation of Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the legally binding9 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which has grown from over 150 foundation signatory member nations to 196 nations.
In 2002 the Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity 2002-2010 was established, with all CBD Parties committing “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth” (CBD, 2002, paragraph 11). This aspiration was also reflected in the 2002 Millennium Development Goals10 (MDGs) in acknowledgement of the connections between human well-being and biodiversity loss, with one of the eight MDGs to ensure environmental sustainability. However, the 2010 CBD targets were not met, and biodiversity pressures actually increased (Butchart et al., 2010; Waldron et al., 2013).
9 Albeit with a range of soft, general and concrete obligations (Koester, 2002). 10 Derived from the Millennium Declaration, these eight goals were agreed to by the 189 member states of the UN in 2002 to “create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty” by 2015 (UN General Assembly, 2000, p. 4).
27 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
Figure 2.5 Timeline of key biodiversity conservation developments. Blue text highlights Australian actions and green text highlights internationally agreed goals and targets.
28 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
In 2010 the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 replaced the Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity 2002-2010. Through this strategy, all CBD Parties agreed to a set of 20 biodiversity targets to be achieved by 2020: the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (‘Aichi Targets’). More so than previous agreements, this strategy highlights the importance of effective and urgent action (Tittensor et al., 2014), which was reinforced by the declaration of 2010 as the UN International Year of Biodiversity and 2011-2020 as the UN Decade on Biodiversity. However, a social–ecological systems analysis in 2015 suggested that at least 15 of the targets would not be achieved (Hill et al., 2015). Other intermediate assessments have shown that progress is indeed falling short (Tittensor et al., 2014; Butchart et al., 2015) and this trend is reflected in recent IPBES assessments (IPBES, 2019).
In 2015 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (‘2030 Agenda’) and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the MDGs. The 17 SDGs incorporate 169 targets to stimulate action “for people, planet and prosperity” (United Nations, 2015, p. 5), and the 2030 Agenda acknowledges the inextricable links between biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing and the inability to pursue one goal without incorporating the other:
“We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.” (United Nations, 2015, p. 5)
In 2016 several major international organisations including the UN Development Programme and the World Bank released a joint publication that maps in detail the links between each of the SDGs and the Aichi Targets (CBD et al., 2016). However, a review of progress in the third year of implementation demonstrates that although there have been some improvements for some targets, progress across most aspects is currently insufficient to meet the SDG targets by 2030 (United Nations, 2018).
2.6.2 Australian context It is against this backdrop of international agreements, conventions and treaties that Australia’s own environmental agenda has developed. As the topic of the natural environment was not included in the Australian constitution11, there is no provision for the Federal Government (‘the Commonwealth’) to exercise any power over the environment on a national basis. However, the Commonwealth is responsible for ensuring that Australia meets the obligations of its international agreements, which includes those relating to environmental protection and
11 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.
29 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review conservation (as covered in Section 2.6.1). As such, it has been able to claim broad powers over environmental issues through its responsibility for other areas12. For example, as a signatory of the CBD it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure Australia submits national reports every five years outlining measures taken to meet Convention objectives and the effectiveness of these. Additionally, the environmental responsibilities of the Commonwealth were further developed through the Council of Australian Governments 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, the 1997 Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, and several key High Court decisions (e.g. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982)13 and the Tasmanian Dams Case14). Furthermore, the state and territory governments receive about half their funding from the federal government, and the national agenda can therefore be a major driver of state-level activities.
2.6.2.1 National legislation The centrepiece of environmental legislation in Australia is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999) which provides a legal framework to “promote the conservation of biodiversity” and protect and manage “matters of national environmental significance” (EPBC Act 1999, s. 3). There are currently nine such matters: World Heritage sites; National Heritage places; nationally protected wetlands (e.g. Ramsar wetlands); nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species (e.g. species listed under the Bonn Convention, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA); nuclear actions (including uranium mines); Commonwealth marine areas; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and coal seam gas or large coal mining developments likely to have a significant impact on a water resource. Additional legally-binding conservation mechanisms under the EPBC Act 1999 of specific relevance to this thesis include:
Key Processes that have been assessed and determined to provide a threat to the Threatening survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or Processes ecological community. There are 21 Key Threatening Processes as of March 2019.
Threat Provide a framework, identify actions, and coordinate a response to ensure Abatement the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities Plans affected by Key Threatening Processes. There are 13 Threat Abatement Plans as of March 2019.
12 Section 51 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. 13 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. 14 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1.
30 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
National Identify and coordinate research and management actions to maximise the Recovery long-term survival of targeted species. These plans remain in place until a Plans species is no longer on the EPBC Act 1999 threatened species list. There are 449 National Recovery Plans as of March 2019.
Additional environmental legislation focuses on resource management (e.g. the Fisheries Management Act 1991) or individual areas (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 1975 and the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Conservation Act 1994) rather than proactive conservation practices.
2.6.2.2 National Conservation Agenda (NCA) Public policy plays a critical role in biodiversity conservation: although not legally binding, it directs funding and resources, guides the interpretation of legislation, and drives action and government programs. As highlighted by the former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, (1995, paragraph 4): “Policy is the means by which the lives of individuals, families and communities are shaped. It is the means by which we shape the character and future of the nation. It is the purpose of political life, the only worthwhile measure of political success, and by far the most significant measure of the worth of politicians and parties.”
The Australian Government developed its first national biodiversity strategy, the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996, to meet the requirements of the CBD after ratifying the international agreement in 1993. A review of this strategy in 2001 (as required under the CBD) led to the development of the National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001–2005; however, the government failed to implement these (Department of Environment, 2016). A second review in 2006 led to the development of a replacement biodiversity strategy, which currently provides guidance for all levels of government within Australia to conserve national biodiversity: Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: 2010 – 2030 (‘ABC Strategy’).
In addition to the ABC Strategy, there are seven other key policies within the national conservation-policy landscape in Australia. For the purpose of this thesis, this grouping of eight national conservation policies are here termed the National Conservation Agenda (the ‘NCA’).
31 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
As the principal instrument for Australia to implement the required actions of the CBD, the ABC Strategy functions as an overarching policy to bring together six of the other policies within the NCA:
Strategy for Guides the management of the National Reserve System and Australia's National the preparation of a five-year implementation plan by each Reserve System state and territory. 2009-2030 Referred to in this thesis as the ‘Reserve Strategy’.
Australia's Native Developed in cooperation with state and federal governments, Vegetation this framework updates the 2001 National Framework for the Framework 2012 Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation and adapts its guidance for vegetation management to emerging pressures and priorities. Referred to in this thesis as the ‘Vegetation Strategy’15.
Australian Weeds Originally created in 1997 and 2007, respectively, these Strategy 2017-2027 recently updated strategies guide Australia’s management of and Australian Pest invasive species. Animal Strategy Referred to in this thesis as the ‘Weeds Strategy’ and ‘Pest 2017-2027 Strategy’, respectively.
Australian Heritage Guides the identification, conservation and protection of Strategy 2015 Australia’s heritage including the 12 World Heritage sites listed for their natural values and the 3 sites listed for their mixed cultural and natural values (of the total 19 sites).
Referred to in this thesis as the ‘Heritage Strategy’.
Threatened Species Guides the national approach to protect and recover threatened Strategy 2015 species.
Referred to in this thesis as the ‘Species Strategy’.
All CBD Parties were recently required to review, update and revise their national biodiversity strategies and action plans (Department of Environment, 2016). As such, the ABC Strategy is in the process of being replaced by Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2018-2030 (‘Nature Strategy’). Currently in its draft form, the Nature Strategy makes up the eighth policy in the NCA.
15 The term ‘strategy’ rather than ‘framework’ is used for consistency (see Section 3.2.3.2).
32 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
2.6.3 State context Each of the eight Australian states and territories have primary responsibility for the management of land, water and biodiversity within their jurisdiction, and therefore have their own legislation and programs that identify and protect threatened species, populations and ecological communities. This has resulted in a complex set of environmental policies, legislation and regulations across the country with many inconsistencies, duplications and gaps, greatly reducing the effectiveness of environmental management (Jackson et al., 2017). Furthermore, each state and territory have their own threatened species lists16, threat categories and species recovery plans in addition to those listed nationally under the EPBC Act 1999, meaning that the status of a species may change from state to state. For example, the koala is vulnerable at a national level and in both Queensland and New South Wales, but of Least Concern in Victoria.
2.6.4 Programs, initiatives and incentives In addition to the above ‘command and control’ approaches, the role of private landholders has received increasing attention in both global agreements and national policy instruments (England, 2016; Bingham et al., 2017) and a corresponding increase in programs at the national, state and local levels to incentivise and support conservation activities. These include market based instruments such as carbon markets, revolving funds, and environmental taxation concessions (Evans, 2018); community-based programs such as the National Landcare Program (Robins, 2018); and conservation research and collaboration programs such as the National Environmental Science Program (DEE, 2019a).
The primary mechanisms for long-term environmental protection on private land in Australia are conservation covenants and land acquisitions (Fitzsimons, 2015). Conservation covenants are voluntary, legally-binding agreements between a landholder and a government or other authorised body that restrict landholder activities on a property or section of a property for conservation purposes. There are a range of covenanting programs in Australia across the national, state and local level with varying restrictions. However, all conservation covenanting programs in Australia are statutory mechanisms created through legislation, and properties with conservation covenants are therefore classified as protected areas (Fitzsimons, 2015; Hardy et al., 2017). They often incorporate financial incentives such as tax concessions and rate rebates that function in a similar manner to payments for ecosystem services (England, 2016), as well as access to funding schemes that support conservation activities (Evans, 2016). For example, the New South Wales Government is investing $240 million over five years to support and
16 These lists are provided in Section 3.4.5 and utilised in Chapter 5.
33 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review encourage private landholders to establish conservation covenants (State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage, 2018). Additionally, programs such as Land for Wildlife offer alternative or complementary17 non-legally-binding property registration options which provide landholders with access to conservation networks, support, and resources (Prado et al., 2018).
Part 3: Ecotourism and conservation
2.7 Ecotourism and conservation: systematic quantitative literature review (published paper)
This section uses a systematic quantitative literature review to address Research Objective 1: Identify and synthesise existing evaluations of the conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises in the academic literature to quantify the gaps and biases that exist within this research.
This published review covers the academic literature up to January 2016. Relevant papers published after this point have been considered throughout the thesis where their content is relevant to the interpretation and discussion of thesis content.
The details of this publication are: Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism. doi:10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173
17 It is not uncommon for properties to be registered with multiple conservation programs (Halliday et al., 2012).
34 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: analysing patterns in published studies
Ecotourism is often promoted for its potential to act as a conservation mechanism by: mobilising political, financial and social support for conservation; increasing environmental awareness; protecting sensitive ecosystems and threatened species; and providing an alternate income to land intensive or consumptive practices. Although instances to date indicate that this can indeed prove highly successful in some circumstances, the conservation impact of the ecotourism sector on a larger scale is unclear. This study identified 70 papers published prior to January 2016 in English language academic journals that examine the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises. There were three key findings within this study. Firstly, conservation actions have been examined more frequently than conservation outcomes. Secondly, there has been a strong focus on indirect approaches to conservation such as visitor education and community based actions, and a shortage of studies measuring direct impacts on wildlife populations or other components of the natural bio-physical environment. Thirdly, the majority of sites studied are located in developing countries, but the majority of authors are located in developed countries. By identifying these gaps and patterns that currently exist in the academic literature, this review helps to direct and support future research agendas.
1. Introduction In recent decades wildlife conservation efforts have come under increasing pressure worldwide. Such pressures include: reductions in real funding for public protected area (PA) agencies; continued clearance and degradation of land outside PAs; climate change; growth of human populations; and an increase in both subsistence and industrial primary production across public, private and communal land tenures (Adams & Moon, 2013; Andelman & Willig, 2003; Kingsford et al., 2009; Pimm et al., 2014; Sanderson et al., 2002). In many countries, both developed and developing, there are major barriers to establishing effective PAs and achieving conservation goals. These barriers include: a lack of access to land of high conservation value; funding shortages; ineffective management; and a lack of political will, often due to competition from other industry sectors (Adams & Moon, 2013; Hoffmann et al., 2010; Le Saout et al., 2013; Regan, Davis, Andelman, Widyanata, & Freese, 2007; Waldron et al., 2013).
Ecotourism has been advocated and adopted widely as a means to overcome many conservation Post-printbarriers, and has become central to conservation andpublication community development policies in many developing nations (Brandon, 1996; Buckley, 2010; Zeppel, 2006). It is used widely, with varying success, by local communities and NGOs (Buckley, 2010; Ceballos-Lascurain, 2008; Pegas & Castley, 2014; Romero-Brito, Buckley, & Byrne, 2016) as well as private conservation tourism operations. Mechanisms leveraged through ecotourism include funding for private reserves, and the mobilisation of both political and financial support for conservation. To date,
35 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
however, there has been no global review and evaluation of the overall net on-the-ground conservation contributions of the ecotourism industry. Previous reviews of ecotourism and conservation are either outdated, narrow in scope, or the greater focus of these studies on tourism impacts overlook the myriad of conservation actions and outcomes that can be facilitated through ecotourism (e.g. Buckley, 2009; Doan, 2000; Krüger, 2005; Mossaz, Buckley, & Castley, 2015; Romero-Brito et al., 2016).
The definition used for ecotourism in this paper is one that encompasses the key criteria of most ecotourism definitions: nature-based tourism that is sustainable, has an educational or learning component, and attempts to enhance both the natural and socio-cultural environment (Fennell, 2001; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). In the past a narrow but direct link between ‘ecotourism’ and ‘nature conservation’ has been made, although there are various terms that are commonly used when referring to these nature-based tourism activities (see Valentine, 1993). A central element of these generally accepted definitions is that there is some ‘contribution to conservation’ arising from the ecotourism activities. This contribution to conservation may be phrased in multiple ways including ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, ‘protection, and ‘enhancement of the natural environment’, and was used in 61% of the 85 ecotourism definitions examined in Fennell (2001). To put this in perspective, cultural, education and sustainability components, considered as core ecotourism criteria, were only mentioned by 51%, 41% and 26% of definitions, respectively (Fennell, 2001). It is acknowledged that both captivity and consumptive forms of tourism can make strong contributions to conservation (Catibog-Sinha, 2008; de Boer, Stigter, & Ntumi, 2007; Fennell, 2013; Gressier, 2014; Lindsey, Roulet, & Romañach, 2007; Martin, Lurbiecki, Joy, & Mooers, 2014). However, whether these should be included under the category of ecotourism is a contentious issue and falls outside the scope of this review.
This study aims to systematically identify, select and synthesise the current academic literature analysing ecotourism enterprises carrying out conservation actions and achieving conservation outcomes. The term ecotourism enterprise is used in this paper to refer to the ecotourism operations/activities of a business at a specific site, for example an individual reserve or lodge. These actions may be undertaken by operators affiliated with the enterprise (e.g. managers, tour guides, ecologists, researchers etc.) as part of the site activities. This study included enterprises Post-printthat were operated under many ownership models (e.g.publication public, private, NGOs, community- based, non-profits etc.). Specifically, this study determines: 1) the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises examined in the academic literature; 2) the types of enterprises examined; 3) the evaluation methods used to examine them; 4) the geographic locations of this research; and 5) the gaps and biases present.
36 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
2. Methods A systematic quantitative review of the literature was undertaken in accordance with the review protocol outlined by Pickering and Byrne (2014). Research papers on the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises published in peer-reviewed English language journals were obtained by searching electronic databases of scientific and tourism journals in January 2016. Key databases used were the Web of Science®, Scopus® and Leisure Tourism®.
The criteria to include papers identified in databases required a focus on ecotourism as defined previously. Therefore, the search terms used covered a broad spectrum of ‘nature-based tourism’ activities (e.g. wildlife tourism, bird watching) as well as those that captured the social elements (e.g. community-based tourism). This approach was used to reduce the chance of papers being missed. Searches were a combination of ‘conservation’ and: ‘ecotourism’, ‘eco- tourism’, ‘eco tourism’, ‘wildlife tourism’, ‘wildlife watching’, ‘birding’, ‘bird watching’, ‘nature tourism’, ‘nature based tourism’, ‘nature-based tourism’, ‘conservation tourism’, ‘community based tourism’, ‘community-based tourism’, ‘whale watching’, ‘whale-watching’, ‘ento-tourism’, ‘entotourism’, ‘ento tourism’, and ‘safari’. A second set of searches were run using the same search terms but also adding: ‘outcome’, ‘action’, ‘measurement’, ‘mechanism’, ‘achievement’, ‘behaviour’, ‘education’, ‘interpretation’, and ‘learning’. Personal communications with other researchers were used to cross-check this method, as well as searching reference lists of recent relevant papers. Once searches had been completed, papers were reviewed as a means of filtering out those that were not directly relevant to the study.
Information was recorded in a database for each article identified for the study. Information on the paper itself included: the authors, journal, and the year of publication. Information about the study included: the methods and data sources used, the actions examined, and the outcomes determined. Information about the enterprise being studied included: the type of enterprise, the type of attraction of the enterprise, and location characteristics. The database was then analysed using simple descriptive methods to detect patterns in the papers reviewed and the variables examined.
In a biodiversity conservation context ‘conservation actions’ have been defined by Salafsky et Post-printal. (2008) as interventions undertaken by staff or partnerspublication designed to reach core project (e.g. ecotourism enterprise) objectives and ultimately conservation goals. These authors go on to state that actions are generally synonymous with strategies, interventions, activities, responses and measures. However, the phrase ‘conservation action’ is also used in a tourism context and often explores how visitors change their behaviours following ecotourism experiences by adopting conservation-related practices (e.g. reducing waste, recycling, picking up litter etc.)
37 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
(Hughes, Packer, & Ballantyne, 2011). Conservation actions as defined in this paper align more with achieving a conservation objective (Pullin & Stewart, 2006; Salafsky et al., 2008) and are consequently those which go beyond minimal impact and instead generate positive environmental effects. The term is also meant in the literal sense of ‘the act of doing something’, for example, actively removing non-native wildlife from a particular area. Conservation outcomes are those that result from these actions, for example decreased competition with, and predation of, native species by non-native species, and the potential flow on effects such as an increase in the population numbers of specific native species. The list of conservation actions and outcomes were compiled through reviewing the included papers and was therefore an inductive process. Actions and outcomes that were the focus of the papers (i.e. listed by authors a priori) as well as those that arose from their analyses (i.e. a posteri) were included. If the action or outcome was not examined in practice, then it was not included.
Only peer-reviewed studies describing the results of original research, published in academic journals were included; review papers and conceptual or theoretical papers were not used. Grey literature, meaning published material outside of refereed academic or scholarly journals such as government and NGO reports, theses, books and book chapters were also excluded. Multiple papers based on the same study (i.e. utilising the same data) were only included once. As this review focuses on tangible conservation actions and outcomes, hypothetical studies such as willingness to pay valuations were not included, nor were those solely looking at minimal impacts. However, papers that covered on-the-ground conservation actions and outcomes in addition to other unrelated aspects (e.g. economic evaluations and minimal impact studies) were included. Ecotourism can indirectly aid conservation, for example through altering behaviours as a result of conservation interpretation or reducing consumptive land uses as a result of alternative employment (Almeyda Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham, 2010; Lapeyre, 2011; Mbaiwa, 2011). However, papers that examined these social actions were only included if the authors also examined the relationship of these to direct on-ground conservation outcomes.
3. Results
3.1 Publications and patterns Post-printSeventy journal articles were identified that examined publication the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises. The first article on this topic was published in 1996 with subsequent articles not being published until 2001, and 70% of publications have appeared since 2008 (Figure 2.7.1).
38 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Figure 2.7.1 The number of papers examining the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises published per year
Papers have been published in 37 different journals, with the highest numbers in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (17%) and Journal of Ecotourism (11%) (Table 2.7.1). The journals cover a range of disciplines including: travel, tourism and leisure (46%), environment (41%), conservation (26%), biology (21%), science (10%), sociology (4%), business and economics (4%), law (3%), education (1%) and energy (1%). Overarching journal fields were taken from Ulrichsweb Global Series Directory, with most journals assigned to multiple fields. Analysis of author affiliation and contact information reported for each paper revealed that the research has been conducted by 203 authors from 26 countries, with 73% of authors based in developed nations, 26% in developing nations and only 1% in a least developed nation. Unsurprisingly, the majority of sites (68%) were located in nations where English is an official language.
Post-print publication
39 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Table 2.7.1 Details of the 70 studies examining ecotourism sites carrying out conservation actions and achieving conservation outcomes
Sites (and Author (year) Country Journal enterprises)1,2,3
Ahebwa, van der Duim, and Uganda 1 Conservation and Society Sandbrook (2012) Almeyda Zambrano et al. Costa Rica 1 Journal of Ecotourism (2010) Almeyda, Broadbent, Costa Rica 1 International Journal of Tourism Wyman, and Durham (2010) Research Anup, Rijal, and Sapkota Nepal 1 International Journal of (2015) Sustainable Development and World Ecology Armstrong and Weiler (2002) Australia 1 (20) Journal of Ecotourism Ballantyne et al. (2011) Australia 2 Tourism Management Banerjee (2012) India 5 Current Issues in Tourism Batta (2006) India 1 International Review for Environmental Strategies Beaumont (2001) Australia 2 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Biggs, Ban, and Hall (2012) Australia 1 (48) Environmental Conservation Biggs, Turpie, Fabricius, and South Africa 11 Conservation and Society Spenceley (2011) Bride, Griffiths, Meléndez- Mexico 1 International Zoo Yearbook Herrada, and McKay (2008) Brightsmith, Stronza, and Peru 1 Biological Conservation Holle (2008) Coghlan, Fox, Prideaux, and Australia 1 (5) Tourism in Marine Lück (2011) Environments Cousins, Sadler, and Evans South Africa 1 (multiple) Ecology and Society (2008) de los Monteros (2002) Mexico 1 (multiple) Biodiversity and Conservation Dearden, Bennett, and Rollins Thailand 1 (15) Coastal Management (2007) Higham and Carr (2002) New Zealand 12 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Hill, Woodland, and Gough Australia 1 Journal of Ecotourism (2007) Post-printHolladay and Ormsby (2011) Belize 1publication Journal of Ecotourism Hovardas and Poirazidis Greece 1 Environmental Management (2006) K. Hughes et al. (2011) Australia 1 Environmental Education Research
40 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
M. Hughes and Morrison- Australia 2 Journal of Ecotourism Saunders (2005) Hunt, Durham, Driscoll, and Costa Rica 10 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Honey (2015) Jacobs and Harms (2014) Spain 1 (multiple) Tourism Management Lamers, Nthiga, van der Kenya 1 Tourism Geographies Duim, and van Wijk (2014) Lapeyre (2011) Namibia 1 Current Issues in Tourism T. H. Lee and Jan (2015) Taiwan 4 Environmental Management W. H. Lee and Moscardo Australia 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism (2005) Li, Zhang, Liu, and Xue China 1 Environmental Management (2006) Lindberg, Enriquez, and Belize 3 Annals of Tourism Research Sproule (1996) Lück (2003) New Zealand 1 (3) Ocean and Coastal Management Madin and Fenton (2004) Australia 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Mbaiwa (2011) Botswana 3 Current Issues in Tourism Mintzer et al. (2015) Brazil 1 Biodiversity and Conservation Morais, Birendra, Mao, and Namibia 2 Tourism Review International Mosimane (2015) Mossaz et al. (2015) Southern 48 Journal for Nature Conservation Africa Nabte et al. (2013) Argentina 1 (multiple) PLOS One Nagendra et al. (2004) Nepal 1 Environmental Management Nthiga, Van der Duim, Kenya 1 Development Southern Africa Visseren-Hamakers, and Lamers (2015) Ogada and Kibuthu (2008) Kenya 1 (multiple) Environmental Conservation Ogutu (2002) Kenya 1 Land Degradation & Development Osano et al. (2013) Kenya 1 Natural Resources Forum Peake, Innes, and Dyer Australia 1 (multiple) Journal of Sustainable Tourism (2009) Powell and Ham (2008) Ecuador 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Powell, Kellert, and Ham Antarctica 1 (5) Polar Record Post-print(2008) publication Powell, Kellert, and Ham USA 15 Society & Natural Resources (2009) Rattan, Eagles, and Mair Thailand 1 Journal of Ecotourism (2012)
41 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Recharte, Bride, and Bowler Peru 1 Wildlife Research (2014) Revathy et al. (2014) India 1 International Journal of Tropical Insect Science Roberts, Mearns, and South Africa 1 Koedoe Edwards (2014) Sakata and Prideaux (2013) PNG 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Salum (2009) Tanzania 1 African Journal of Ecology Samways, Hitchins, Seychelles 1 Biodiversity and Conservation Bourquin, and Henwood (2010) Sander (2012) Costa Rica 1 International Journal of Sustainable Society Seales and Stein (2011) Costa Rica 1 (multiple) Environmental Conservation Sinha, Qureshi, Uniyal, and India 1 (multiple) Journal of Ecotourism Sen (2012) Skibins, Powell, and Hallo Tanzania and 1 Biodiversity and Conservation (2013) US Smith, Ham, and Weiler Global 1 (multiple) Anthrozoös (2011) Snyman (2012) Namibia 6 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Stamation, Croft, Australia 7 Tourism in Marine Shaughnessy, Waples, and Environments Briggs (2007) Stem, Lassoie, Lee, and Costa Rica 3 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Deshler (2003) Stronza (2007) Peru 1 Journal of Ecotourism Stronza and Pegas (2008) Brazil 1 Human Dimensions of Wildlife Tisdell and Wilson (2002) Australia 1 Biodiversity and Conservation Tubb (2003) United 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Kingdom Vaudo et al. (2012) South Africa 4 Journal of Insect Conservation Vuohelainen, Coad, Peru 3 Environmental Management Marthews, Malhi, and Killeen (2012) Walker and Moscardo (2014) US 1 Journal of Sustainable Tourism Waylen, McGowan, Pawi Trinidad and 1 ORYX Post-printStudy Group, and Milner- Tobago publication Gulland (2009) 1Numbers in brackets refer to the number of enterprises; 2Multiple sites examined in the same study that were not distinguished from each other were grouped as a single site; and 3The number of sites listed only refers to the number of ecotourism sites examined in each study.
42 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
3.2 Study sites
A total of 285 sites were examined across the 70 studies. However, several studies presented combined site information rather than listing each site. For example, Hunt, Durham, Driscoll, and Honey (2015) examined 10 lodges on the Osa Peninsula in Costa Rica but did not name or distinguish each lodge. In this case the multiple sites were grouped together as a single site as it was not possible to identify which sites were involved with which actions or outcomes. Furthermore, while some papers did discuss individual sites, the methods used and results obtained were not differentiated between sites and these were again grouped together for this review. As a result, 103 individual ‘sites’ were examined within this review for the purpose of locations, biomes, and so on; however only 86 ‘sites’ were used for the purpose of approaches adopted and actions/outcomes examined.
Multiple sites or groups of sites were examined in 70% of studies. For example, Ballantyne, Packer, and Falk (2011) examined 2 wildlife watching sites within south east Queensland, Australia. Control sites or groups were used by 14% of studies. For example, Vaudo, Ellis, Cambray, and Hill (2012) compared the health of bee populations on four private reserves used for ecotourism against four properties used for livestock farming in Grahamstown, South Africa. Only one site was examined by more than one paper in this review, but these studies used different methods during different time periods, and were therefore treated independently.
Studies were carried out in 28 different countries, with the highest concentration in South Africa (17%), Australia (17%), Costa Rica (8%), and India (8%). There was also a strong geographical emphasis on the global south, with 33% of studies located in southern Africa, 24% in Latin America, 19% in Oceania and 17% in Asia, compared with 3% in Europe, 2% in North America and 1% in Antarctica. Just under one-third of studies were located in developed nations and two-thirds in developing nations, with just 4% of studies located in a least developed nation (Figure 2.7.2).
Post-print publication
Figure 2.7.2 Comparison between the number of authors and number of sites from each country development level
43 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Seven biomes were represented across all study sites, with forest and woodland being the dominant biome (Figure 2.7.3). Based on the information contained in the included studies and the World Database on Protected Areas, 17% of sites were public PAs, 22% were located within public PAs, 20% were private PAs or located within private PAs, 12% were adjacent to some form of PA, and 29% were located entirely outside of the PA network. Eighteen percent of sites were located within a World Heritage Site.
Figure 2.7.3 Percentage of sites located within each biome
3.3 Approaches adopted
A range of methodologies were used by the 70 papers to examine the conservation actions and outcomes. A mixed methods approach was used by 51% of studies, and solely qualitative or quantitative methods were used in 39% and 10% of studies, respectively. Interviews were the most common assessment technique employed (59%), followed by questionnaire surveys with closed-ended questions (53%) and open-ended questions (36%) (Table 2.7.2).
Post-print publication
44 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Table 2.7.2 Number and percentage of papers using each methodology
Approach % Methods (n = 86) %
Qualitative 39% Interviews 59% Document analysis 14% Focus groups 9% Open ended surveys 36% Observations 10% Quantitative 10% Questionnaire surveys/ closed ended questions 53% Field surveys 5% Field samples 1% GIS analysis 9% Mixed methods 51%
Data were derived from a wide range of sources, with the majority using visitors followed by local community members (Figure 2.7.4). Visitor outcomes were predominantly determined using pre- and post-visit surveys.
Post-print publication
Figure 2.7.4 Percentage of studies utilising each data source
45 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
3.4 Conservation actions examined
Twenty-nine different conservation actions were examined across the 70 studies. The most commonly examined action was the use of economic development and alternative employment for local communities followed by environmental education and interpretation for visitors (Figure 2.7.5).
Figure 2.7.5 Percentage of studies examining each conservation action
These various actions can be grouped into five categories based on the focus of the action: visitor actions, local community actions, organisational and political actions, natural bio- physical environment actions and wildlife actions (Figure 2.7.6). Details of actions examined by each source are provided in Appendix 1. Post-print publication
46 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Figure 2.7.6 Percentage of studies examining conservation actions in each of the action categories
3.5 Conservation outcomes examined
Twenty-one conservation outcomes were examined across the 70 papers, with 48% of studies demonstrating their outcomes, 38% of studies discussing their outcomes and 14% of studies with no reported outcomes. The majority of studies (53%) examined only one or two outcomes. Of those that did examine outcomes, 78% of studies found positive outcomes, 19% of studies found mixed outcomes, and 3% of studies found unsuccessful outcomes. This last category does not mean a negative outcome had taken place but instead refers to the absence of a positive outcome i.e. an enterprise was not successful in bringing about a specific conservation outcome.
The most common outcome discussed was the increased environmental awareness of visitors, followed very closely by the altered behaviours and lifestyles of local communities (Figure 2.7.7). As with the conservation actions, these outcomes can be grouped into the same five categories based on the focus of the outcome: local community outcomes, visitor outcomes, natural bio-physical environment outcomes, wildlife outcomes and organisational and political outcomes (Figure 2.7.8). Details of outcomes examined by each source are provided in Appendix 2. It is worth noting that these actions and outcomes are evaluated only within the specific context of each individual study and may not always be ecologically desirable under all Post-printcircumstances. For example, it is not advantageous publicationor necessary to increase the population size of a non-threatened species already at carrying capacity in the area.
47 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Figure 2.7.7 Percentage of studies examining each conservation outcome
Figure 2.7.8 Percentage of studies examining conservation outcomes in each of the outcome categories
Post-print4. Discussion publication 4.1 Significance
This study assessed and analysed the current state of academic knowledge of the contributions of ecotourism enterprises to conservation goals. The study identified 29 conservation actions and 21 conservation outcomes examined by 70 papers across 285 sites. This is the most
48 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
comprehensive review currently available that examines actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises. For comparison, Ardoin, Wheaton, Bowers, Hunt, and Durham (2015) reviewed 30 empirical studies addressing just one conservation action and two conservation outcomes, namely tourists' environmentally related attitudes and behaviours after exposure to environmental interpretation.
This review demonstrates that although ecotourism has been adopted widely as a tool for conservation (Buckley, 2009; Krüger, 2005; Stronza & Durham, 2008; Svoronou & Holden, 2005), and continues to be strongly advocated (Boley & Green, 2016; Buckley, Morrison, & Castley, 2016), it is only recently, in the last 5-10 years, that this has been subject to evaluation. This trend is continuing, with additional studies on the topic being published since the data collection stage ended in early 2016 (e.g. Sabuhoro, Wright, Munanura, Nyakabwa, & Nibigira, 2017; Snyman, 2016). Published studies to date reveal three principal limitations within the academic literature, which will be discussed in the following section, relating to: (1) geographic scope; (2) methods and data sources used; and (3) conservation actions and outcomes considered.
4.2 Patterns, gaps and biases
Clear geographic biases are apparent in this review. Most studies to date were in forest and woodland ecosystems, with very few in the montane, arctic and alpine regions and agricultural land. This is likely due to a combination of factors including location of ecotourism sites due to tourist demand and accessibility, global biome distributions, and regions with threats that can be addressed by ecotourism. Sixty-one percent of sites were located entirely outside of the public PA network. This reflects the increasing use of ecotourism by private, community and NGO entities for conservation purposes, an important strategy in the field of conservation due to some of the failings of the public PA network (Bingham et al., 2017; Fitzsimons, 2015; Rodrigues et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2013). Furthermore, many ecotourism reviews from formal PAs have a focus on negative impacts (Ansong & Pickering, 2013; Pickering, Hill, Newsome, & Leung, 2010; Steven, Pickering, & Castley, 2011), as these possibly limit the ability of management agencies to achieve conservation objectives. Contrastingly, the attention given to enterprises outside these formal networks may have a stronger focus on positive conservation outcomes as Post-printmany of these ventures may have undergone som e publicationform of land use transition. For example, many private ecotourism models shift from a former consumptive land use (e.g. livestock, agriculture) to one that now focuses on biodiversity conservation and tourism as a more sustainable land use (Kerley, Knight, & Kock, 1995; Sims-Castley, Kerley, Geach, & Langholz, 2005).
49 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Interestingly, most of the 203 authors were located in developed countries while most sites were in developing countries. This reflects, firstly, the high proportion of studies focusing on social actions and community development, and secondly, the differential distribution of biodiversity hotspots within developing nations (Lindsey et al., 2017; Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca, & Kent, 2000). An aspect gaining increasing attention in the literature is the role of women in the delivery of ecotourism and how this can have conservation benefits (see Lenao & Basupi, 2016; Mwesigwa & Mubangizi, 2016). However, these geographical limitations restrict the generalisability of existing research across differing economic and social contexts.
Patterns in the methodologies and data sources of papers in this review clearly highlight important gaps. Most studies used social science approaches such as interviews and questionnaires to obtain information predominantly from visitors, community members or tourism operators. Very few studies used ecological field research to determine the actual impacts on the wildlife and the environment. There are a number of probable reasons for this. Firstly, while ecotourism has at its core the enhancement of the natural bio-physical environment, the delivery of social benefit in a sustainable manner is paramount (Fennell, 2001; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Therefore, this may drive the research focus towards assessing how ecotourism enterprises are able to meet these social objectives, as failure to do so may compromise the persistence of these ventures.
Secondly, ecological field studies are often more time consuming and expensive than the social science methods, can involve specialised equipment, generally extend over multiple field seasons, and require baseline data or control sites to determine trends and outcomes. Finally, many of the papers had a strong social focus; and indeed, for several conservation actions such as visitor interpretation, outcomes can only be determined through social science methods. Interestingly, 11 papers claimed to have determined an increase in wildlife numbers, but only three of these studied wildlife populations directly (Nabte et al., 2013; Revathy, Mathew, & Narayanankutty, 2014; Vaudo et al., 2012); the other seven relied on reported observations of local communities or tourism enterprise operators. While these can be important sources, they only use perceptions and tend to be based on increased human-wildlife interactions. Therefore, they may not accurately reflect wildlife population trends and can instead be driven by increased pressures elsewhere. Furthermore, perceptions are difficult to quantify. Post-print publication The vast majority of studies focus on indirect conservation actions through the visitor and local community categories, with fewer studies examining actions with direct impacts on wildlife populations or the natural bio-physical environment. There is, therefore, also a strong focus on local community and visitor outcomes. Again, this reflects the high proportion of studies using
50 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
social science methodologies as well the overlap of papers examining both social and conservation issues. It also reflects the concentration of study sites in developing nations where areas of high value for conservation are often also of high value for human use (Andelman & Willig, 2003; Rodrigues et al., 2004). Furthermore, a large number of studies examined zero, one or two outcomes, demonstrating an important gap and highlighting the need for future studies to examine outcomes, specifically ecological outcomes.
4.3 Limitations and future directions
This review was limited to papers published in English language journals. Seventy percent of the sites were located in nations where English is an official language, and therefore it is possible that ecotourism and conservation literature from non-English-speaking locations could contain insights that have not been addressed by this review. While it is estimated that more than 90% of papers in natural science and more than 75% of papers in social science journals are printed in English (Hamel, 2007), future research incorporating a multi-language review could investigate this topic further.
As with any review of the academic literature, patterns identified here may not fully reflect those occurring in practice as it is limited to the selection of sites, methods, data sources and conservation actions and outcomes by previous authors. While we have examined the conservation actions and outcomes that were the focus of these studies, this may preclude the inclusion of other actions and outcomes that were inadvertently overlooked as a result of the potentially narrow focus of these studies. Future assessments may therefore need to adopt a more holistic approach to evaluating conservation actions and outcomes delivered through ecotourism. Studies taking into account the negative impacts of ecotourism sites or activities would be beneficial in determining the net conservation benefit of ecotourism. In addition, few papers in this review provided justification for the selection of their case studies, and this may bias evaluation of actions and outcomes to those situations where there is already some preconceived expectation of the result. Furthermore, the lack of conservation outcomes, especially the lack of ecological outcomes, provides an important area for future research.
Post-print5. Conclusion publication This review indicates strongly that ecotourism does indeed have a significant role to play in the conservation of biodiversity. It identifies numerous potential actions and outcomes in using ecotourism for conservation; but shows that evaluations of each specific outcome are sparse. Within the 70 papers identified there is a strong focus on developing nations, especially in Africa and Latin America. Therefore, the approaches used and outcomes determined may not be
51 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
transferable across differing governance, economic and social contexts. This review also showed that few previous studies applied natural science methods to determine the ecological conservation outcomes of ecotourism on the natural bio-physical environment and wildlife populations. Instead, most previous studies relied heavily on interviews and questionnaires to examine the indirect social aspects of conservation. Biological conservation is inherently focused on wildlife and ecosystem processes, and therefore it is important to examine the outcomes achieved by ecotourism enterprises that focus on these. Actions creating indirect outcomes via social mechanisms are an important component of conservation. However, some key conservation outcomes, such as increased size or health of threatened species populations, can only be evaluated through ecological research on wildlife populations themselves.
Acknowledgements This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
References Adams, V., & Moon, K. (2013). Security and equity of conservation covenants: Contradictions of private protected area policies in Australia. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 114-119. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.009 Ahebwa, W., van der Duim, V., & Sandbrook, C. (2012). Private-community partnerships: Investigating a new approach to conservation and development in Uganda. Conservation and Society, 10(4), 305-317. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.105501 Almeyda, A., Broadbent, E., Wyman, M., & Durham, W. (2010). Ecotourism impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(6), 803- 819. doi:10.1002/jtr.797 Almeyda Zambrano, A., Broadbent, E., & Durham, W. (2010). Social and environmental effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. Journal of Ecotourism, 9(1), 62-83. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724040902953076 Andelman, S., & Willig, M. (2003). Present patterns and future prospects for biodiversity in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology Letters, 6(9), 818-824. doi:10.1046/j.1461- 0248.2003.00503.x Ansong, M., & Pickering, C. (2013). Long-distance dispersal of Black Spear Grass (Heteropogon contortus) seed on socks and trouser legs by walkers in Kakadu National Park. Ecological Management & Restoration, 14(1), 71-74. doi:10.1111/emr.12021 Anup, K., Rijal, K., & Sapkota, R. (2015). Role of ecotourism in environmental conservation and socioeconomic development in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 22(3), 251-258. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1005721 Post-printArdoin, N., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A., Hunt, C., & publicationDurham, W. (2015). Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 838- 858. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1024258 Armstrong, E., & Weiler, B. (2002). Getting the message across: an analysis of messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(2/3), 104-121. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724040208668118
52 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1243-1252. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003 Banerjee, A. (2012). Is wildlife tourism benefiting Indian protected areas? A survey. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(3), 211-227. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.599367 Batta, R. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism in mountain areas: a study of three Himalayan destinations. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), 41-61. Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(4), 317-341. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580108667405 Biggs, D., Ban, N., & Hall, C. (2012). Lifestyle values, resilience, and nature-based tourism's contribution to conservation on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation, 39(04), 370-379. doi:10.1017/S0376892912000239 Biggs, D., Turpie, J., Fabricius, C., & Spenceley, A. (2011). The value of avitourism for conservation and job creation - An analysis from South Africa. Conservation and Society, 9(1), 80-90. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.79198 Bingham, H., Fitzsimons, J., Redford, K., Mitchell, B., Bezaury-Creel, J., & Cumming, T. (2017). Privately protected areas: advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. PARKS, 23.1, 13-28. doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-1HB.en Boley, B., & Green, G. (2016). Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the ‘potential’ for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(1), 36-50. doi:10.1080/14724049.2015.1094080 Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues (0821335057). The World Bank Bride, I., Griffiths, R., Meléndez-Herrada, A., & McKay, J. (2008). Flying an amphibian flagship: Conservation of the Axolotl Ambystoma mexicanum through nature tourism at Lake Xochimilco, Mexico. International Zoo Yearbook, 42(1), 116-124. doi:10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00044.x Brightsmith, D., Stronza, A., & Holle, K. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: A mutually beneficial triumvirate. Biological Conservation, 141(11), 2832-2842. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.020 Buckley, R. (2009). Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: a framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 643-672. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580902999188 Buckley, R. (2010). Conservation Tourism. Wallingford: CAB International. Buckley, R., Morrison, C., & Castley, J. G. (2016). Net Effects of Ecotourism on Threatened Species Survival. PLoS ONE, 11(2), 1-12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147988 Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008). Zoo tourism: Biodiversity conservation through tourism. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(2-3), 160-178. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724040802140527 Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (2008). Ecotourism and ecolodge development in the 21st century (pp. 193-203). Wallingford: CABI. Coghlan, A., Fox, K., Prideaux, B., & Lück, M. (2011). Successful interpretation in Great Barrier Reef tourism: dive in or keep out of it? Tourism in Marine Environments, 7(3- 4), 167-178. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427311X13195453162813 Cousins, J., Sadler, J., & Evans, J. (2008). Exploring the role of private wildlife ranching as a conservation tool in South Africa: stakeholder perspectives. Ecology and Society, 13(2), Post-print43-60. publication de Boer, W., Stigter, J., & Ntumi, C. (2007). Optimising investments from elephant tourist revenues in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Journal for Nature Conservation, 15(4), 225-236. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2006.11.002 de los Monteros, R. L. E. (2002). Evaluating ecotourism in natural protected areas of La Paz Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico: ecotourism or nature-based tourism? Biodiversity and Conservation, 11(9), 1539-1550.
53 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Rollins, R. (2007). Perceptions of Diving Impacts and Implications for Reef Conservation. Coastal Management, 35(2-3), 305-317. doi:10.1080/08920750601169584 Doan, T. M. (2000). The effects of ecotourism in developing nations: An analysis of case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 288-304. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667365 Fennell, D. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5), 403-421. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500108667896 Fennell, D. (2013). Contesting the zoo as a setting for ecotourism, and the design of a first principle. Journal of Ecotourism, 12(1), 1-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2012.737796 Fitzsimons, J. (2015). Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future directions. Nature Conservation, 10, 1-23. doi:10.3897/natureconservation.10.8739 Gressier, C. (2014). An Elephant in the Room: Okavango Safari Hunting as Ecotourism? Ethnos, 79(2), 193-214. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2012.723016 Hamel, E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review, 20(1), 53-71. Higham, J., & Carr, A. (2002). Ecotourism Visitor Experiences in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Challenging the Environmental Values of Visitors in Pursuit of Pro-environmental Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4), 277-294. doi:10.1080/09669580208667168 Hill, J., Woodland, W., & Gough, G. (2007). Can visitor satisfaction and knowledge about tropical rainforests be enhanced through biodiversity interpretation, and does this promote a positive attitude towards ecosystem conservation? Journal of Ecotourism, 6(1), 75-85. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/joe166.0 Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T., Butchart, S., . . . Stuart, S. (2010). The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates. Science, 330(6010), 1503-1509. doi:10.1126/science.1194442 Holladay, P., & Ormsby, A. (2011). A comparative study of local perceptions of ecotourism and conservation at Five Blues Lake National Park, Belize. Journal of Ecotourism, 10(2), 118-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2010.529910 Hovardas, T., & Poirazidis, K. (2006). Evaluation of the environmentalist dimension of ecotourism at the Dadia Forest Reserve (Greece). Environmental Management, 38(5), 810-822. doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0009-0 Hughes, K., Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 307-328. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.540644 Hughes, M., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005). Influence of on-site interpretation intensity on visitors to natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 4(3), 161-177. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/jJET.v4.i3.pg161 Hunt, C., Durham, W., Driscoll, L., & Honey, M. (2015). Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3), 339-357. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.965176 Jacobs, M., & Harms, M. (2014). Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tourism Management, 42, 123-131. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.009 Kerley, G., Knight, M., & Kock, M. (1995). Desertification of subtropical thicket in the Eastern Post-printCape, South Africa: Are there alternatives? publication Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 37(1), 211-230. doi:10.1007/bf00546890 Kingsford, R., Watson, J., Lundquist, C., Venter, O., Hughes, L., Johnston, E., . . . Wilson, K. (2009). Major Conservation Policy Issues for Biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 834-840. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01287.x
54 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(3), 579-600. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531- 004-3917-4 Lamers, M., Nthiga, R., van der Duim, V. R., & van Wijk, J. (2014). Tourism-conservation enterprises as a land-use strategy in Kenya. Tourism Geographies, 16(3), 474-489. doi:10.1080/14616688.2013.806583 Lapeyre, R. (2011). The Grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: towards poverty alleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability? Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 221- 234. doi:10.1080/13683500.2011.555521 Le Saout, S., Hoffmann, M., Shi, Y., Hughes, A., Bernard, C., Brooks, T., . . . Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2013). Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation. Science, 342(6160), 803-805. doi:10.1126/science.1239268 Lee, T., & Jan, F.-H. (2015). The Effects of Recreation Experience, Environmental Attitude, and Biospheric Value on the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Nature-Based Tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193-208. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y Lee, W., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists' environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 546-565. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668581 Lenao, M., & Basupi, B. (2016). Ecotourism development and female empowerment in Botswana: A review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18, 51-58. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.12.021 Li, W., Zhang, Q., Liu, C., & Xue, Q. (2006). Tourism's impacts on natural resources: A positive case from China. Environmental Management, 38(4), 572-579. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0299-z Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism Questioned: Case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 543-562. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00074- 7 Lindsey, P., Chapron, G., Petracca, L., Burnham, D., Hayward, M., Henschel, P., . . . Dickman, A. (2017). Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s megafauna. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, 243-252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.03.003 Lindsey, P., Roulet, P., & Romañach, S. (2007). Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134(4), 455- 469. doi:doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.005 Lück, M. (2003). Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation - But do tourists want to be educated? Ocean and Coastal Management, 46(9-10), 943-956. doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00071-1 Madin, E., & Fenton, D. (2004). Environmental Interpretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: An Assessment of Programme Effectiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(2), 121-137. doi:10.1080/09669580408667228 Martin, T., Lurbiecki, H., Joy, J., & Mooers, A. (2014). Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Animal Conservation, 17(2), 89-96. doi:10.1111/acv.12069 Mbaiwa, J. (2011). The effects of tourism development on the sustainable utilisation of natural resources in the Okavango delta, Botswana. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 251-273. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.555525 Mintzer, V., Schmink, M., Lorenzen, K., Frazer, T., Martin, A., & da Silva, V. M. F. (2015). Attitudes and behaviors toward Amazon River dolphins (Inia geoffrensis) in a sustainable use protected area. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(2), 247-269. Post-printdoi:10.1007/s10531-014-0805-4 publication Morais, D., Birendra, K., Mao, Y., & Mosimane, A. (2015). Wildlife Conservation Through Tourism Microentrepreneurship Among Namibian Communities. Tourism Review International, 19(1-2), 43-61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427215X14338796190477
55 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Mossaz, A., Buckley, R., & Castley, J. G. (2015). Ecotourism contributions to conservation of African big cats. Journal for Nature Conservation, 28, 112-118. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.09.009 Mwesigwa, D., & Mubangizi, B. (2016). Exploring the best practices of women-centred ecotourism enterprises in Bunyoro, Uganda. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R., Mittermeier, C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858. doi:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/suppinfo/403853a0_S1.html Nabte, M., Marino, A., Rodríguez, M., Monjeau, A., & Saba, S. (2013). Range Management Affects Native Ungulate Populations in Península Valdés, a World Natural Heritage. PLoS ONE, 8(2), 1-7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055655 Nagendra, H., Tucker, C., Carlson, L., Southworth, J., Karmacharya, M., & Karna, B. (2004). Monitoring Parks Through Remote Sensing: Studies in Nepal and Honduras. Environmental Management, 34(5), 748-760. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0028-7 Nthiga, R., Van der Duim, R., Visseren-Hamakers, I., & Lamers, M. (2015). Tourism- conservation enterprises for community livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Development Southern Africa, 32(3), 407-423. doi:10.1080/0376835x.2015.1016217 Ogada, D., & Kibuthu, P. (2008). Conserving Mackinder's eagle owls in farmlands of Kenya: Assessing the influence of pesticide use, tourism and local knowledge of owl habits in protecting a culturally loathed species. Environmental Conservation, 35(3), 252-260. doi:10.1017/S0376892908005006 Ogutu, Z. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation & Development, 13(3), 251- 256. doi:10.1002/ldr.502 Osano, P., Said, M., de Leeuw, J., Ndiwa, N., Kaelo, D., Schomers, S., . . . Ogutu, J. (2013). Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism-based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Natural Resources Forum, 37(4), 242-256. doi:10.1111/1477-8947.12027 Peake, S., Innes, P., & Dyer, P. (2009). Ecotourism and conservation: factors influencing effective conservation messages. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 107-127. doi:10.1080/09669580802276000 Pegas, F., & Castley, J. G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4), 604-625. doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.875550 Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 534-548. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.841651 Pickering, C., Hill, W., Newsome, D., & Leung, Y.-F. (2010). Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 551-562. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.025 Pimm, S., Jenkins, C., Abell, R., Brooks, T., Gittleman, J., Joppa, L., . . . Sexton, J. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752 Powell, R., & Ham, S. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467-489. doi:10.2167/jost797.0 Post-printPowell, R., Kellert, S., & Ham, S. (2008). Antarctic publication tourists: ambassadors or consumers? Polar Record, 44(03), 233-241. doi:10.1017/S0032247408007456 Powell, R., Kellert, S., & Ham, S. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8), 761-776. doi:10.1080/08941920802017560
56 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Pullin, A., & Stewart, G. (2006). Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management. Conservation Biology, 20(6), 1647-1656. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x Rattan, J., Eagles, P., & Mair, H. (2012). Volunteer tourism: Its role in creating conservation awareness. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(1), 1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2011.604129 Recharte, M., Bride, I., & Bowler, M. (2014). A recovering flagship: giant otters, communities and tourism in northern Peru. Wildlife Research, 41(6), 490-498. doi:10.1071/wr14032 Regan, H., Davis, F., Andelman, S., Widyanata, A., & Freese, M. (2007). Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(9), 2715-2728. doi:10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3 Revathy, V., Mathew, G., & Narayanankutty, T. (2014). Role of recreated habitats in butterfly conservation: A case study at Thenmala, Kerala, India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 34(4), 287-295. doi:10.1017/S1742758414000472 Roberts, M., Mearns, K., & Edwards, V. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of guided versus non-guided interpretation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Koedoe, 56(2), 1- 8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v56i2.1160 Rodrigues, A., Andelman, S., Bakarr, M., Boitani, L., Brooks, T., Cowling, R., . . . Yan, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640-643. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02422 Romero-Brito, T., Buckley, R., & Byrne, J. (2016). NGO Partnerships in Using Ecotourism for Conservation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(11), 1-19. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166919 Sabuhoro, E., Wright, B., Munanura, I., Nyakabwa, I., & Nibigira, C. (2017). The potential of ecotourism opportunities to generate support for mountain gorilla conservation among local communities neighboring Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda. Journal of Ecotourism, 1-17. doi:10.1080/14724049.2017.1280043 Sakata, H., & Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: a bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 880-899. doi:10.1080/09669582.2012.756493 Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S., . . . Wilkie, D. (2008). A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 897-911. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x Salum, L. (2009). Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar. African Journal of Ecology, 47, 166-170. Samways, M., Hitchins, P., Bourquin, O., & Henwood, J. (2010). Restoration of a tropical island: Cousine Island, Seychelles. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(2), 425-434. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9524-z Sander, B. (2012). The importance of education in ecotourism ventures: Lessons from Rara Avis ecolodge, Costa Rica. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 4(4), 389-404. Sanderson, E., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M., Redford, K., Wannebo, A., & Woolmer, G. (2002). The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild. BioScience, 52(10), 891-904. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2 Seales, L., & Stein, T. (2011). Linking commercial success of tour operators and agencies to conservation and community benefits in Costa Rica. Environmental Conservation, 39(1), 20-29. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000415 Sims-Castley, R., Kerley, G., Geach, B., & Langholz, J. (2005). Socio-economic significance of Post-printecotourism-based private game reserves in publicationSouth Africa’s Eastern Cape Province. Parks, 15(2), 6-18. Sinha, B., Qureshi, Q., Uniyal, V. K., & Sen, S. (2012). Economics of wildlife tourism- contribution to livelihoods of communities around Kanha tiger reserve, India. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(3), 207-218. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2012.721785
57 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Skibins, J., Powell, R., & Hallo, J. (2013). Charisma and conservation: charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(4), 959-982. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0462-z Smith, L., Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2011). The Impacts of Profound Wildlife Experiences. Anthrozoös, 24(1), 51-64. doi:10.2752/175303711X12923300467366 Snyman, S. (2012). The role of tourism employment in poverty reduction and community perceptions of conservation and tourism in southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 395-416. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.657202 Snyman, S. (2016). The role of private sector ecotourism in local socio-economic development in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 1-22. doi:10.1080/14724049.2016.1226318 Stamation, K., Croft, D., Shaughnessy, P., Waples, K., & Briggs, S. (2007). Educational and conservation value of whale watching. Tourism in Marine Environments, 4(1), 41-55. Stem, C., Lassoie, J., Lee, D., & Deshler, D. (2003). How 'eco' is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(4), 322- 347. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667210 Steven, R., Pickering, C., & Castley, J. G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2287-2294. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.005 Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(3), 210-230. Stronza, A., & Durham, W. (Eds.). (2008). Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas. Wallingford: CAB International. Stronza, A., & Pegas, F. (2008). Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Cases from Brazil and Peru. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(4), 263-279. doi:10.1080/10871200802187097 Svoronou, E., & Holden, A. (2005). Ecotourism as a Tool for Nature Conservation: The Role of WWF Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest Reserve in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(5), 456-467. doi:10.1080/09669580508668573 Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2002). Ecotourism for the survival of sea turtles and other wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11(9), 1521-1538. Tubb, K. (2003). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interpretation within Dartmoor National Park in Reaching the Goals of Sustainable Tourism Development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 476-498. doi:10.1080/09669580308667217 Valentine, P. (1993). Ecotourism and nature conservation. Tourism Management, 14(2), 107- 115. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90043-K Vaudo, A., Ellis, J., Cambray, G., & Hill, M. (2012). The effects of land use on honey bee (Apis mellifera) population density and colony strength parameters in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Journal of Insect Conservation, 16, 601-611. doi:10.1007/s10841-011-9445-0 Vuohelainen, A., Coad, L., Marthews, T., Malhi, Y., & Killeen, T. (2012). The effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environmental Management, 50(4), 645-663. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9901-y Waldron, A., Mooers, A., Miller, D., Nibbelink, N., Redding, D., Kuhn, T., . . . Gittleman, J. (2013). Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(29), 12144-12148. doi:10.1073/pnas.1221370110 Walker, K., & Moscardo, G. (2014). Encouraging sustainability beyond the tourist experience: ecotourism, interpretation and values. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(8), 1175- 1196. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.918134 Waylen, K., McGowan, P., Pawi Study Group, & Milner-Gulland, E. (2009). Ecotourism Post-printpositively affects awareness and attitudes butpublication not conservation behaviours: A case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx, 43(3), 343-351. doi:10.1017/S0030605309000064 Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1168-1179. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.004 Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. Wallingford: CAB International.
58 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Appendix 1: Studies examining each of the 29 actions
V Local community Wildlife Natural bio-physical Organisational
4
22 1 3 2 8 13 2
2
21
19
2 7
11
10 15
16
5
9 20 12 6
17 18 2 14
arch Leases wildlife conflict wildlife Weeds Rese Training Breeding - Pollution Activism Donations Nest Nest sites Monitoring Purchases Translocation Propagation Revegetation Invasive fauna Invasive Illegal activities Illegal Revenue sharing Revenue Fauna resources Fauna Conservation orgs Conservation Local conservation Local Ecosystem payments Ecosystem Economic development Economic Human Compensation payments Compensation Environmental education Environmental education Environmental Protected areas/corridors Protected Community Contributions Community Conservation org member org Conservation
Ahebwa, van der Duim, and Y Y Sandbrook (2012) Almeyda Zambrano et al. (2010) Y Y Y Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman, and Y Y Durham (2010) Anup, Rijal, and Sapkota (2015) Y Armstrong and Weiler (2002) Y Ballantyne et al. (2011) Y Banerjee (2012) Y Y Y Y Y Batta (2006) Y Y Beaumont (2001) Y Biggs, Ban, and Hall (2012) Y Y Y Y Y Biggs, Turpie, Fabricius, and Y Y Y Y Spenceley (2011) Bride, Griffiths, Meléndez-Herrada, Y Y Y Y Y Y and McKay (2008)
Post-print publication 59 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Brightsmith, Stronza, and Holle Y Y Y Y Y Y (2008) Coghlan, Fox, Prideaux, and Lück Y (2011) Cousins, Sadler, and Evans (2008) Y Y Y Y de los Monteros (2002) Y Y Y Dearden, Bennett, and Rollins (2007) Y Higham and Carr (2002) Y Hill, Woodland, and Gough (2007) Y Holladay and Ormsby (2011) Hovardas and Poirazidis (2006) Y K. Hughes et al. (2011) Y M. Hughes and Morrison-Saunders Y (2005) Hunt, Durham, Driscoll, and Honey Y Y Y Y (2015) Jacobs and Harms (2014) Y Lamers, Nthiga, van der Duim, and Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y van Wijk (2014) Lapeyre (2011) Y Y Y Y T. H. Lee and Jan (2015) Y W. H. Lee and Moscardo (2005) Y Li, Zhang, Liu, and Xue (2006) Y Y Lindberg, Enriquez, and Sproule Y Y (1996) Lück (2003) Y Madin and Fenton (2004) Y
Post-print publication 60 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Mbaiwa (2011) Y Mintzer et al. (2015) Y Y Morais, Birendra, Mao, and Y Mosimane (2015) Mossaz et al. (2015) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nabte et al. (2013) Y Y Nagendra et al. (2004) Y Y Nthiga, Van der Duim, Visseren- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hamakers, and Lamers (2015) Ogada and Kibuthu (2008) Y Y Ogutu (2002) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Osano et al. (2013) Y Y Y Peake, Innes, and Dyer (2009) Y Powell and Ham (2008) Y Powell, Kellert, and Ham (2008) Y Powell, Kellert, and Ham (2009) Y Rattan, Eagles, and Mair (2012) Y Recharte, Bride, and Bowler (2014) Y Revathy et al. (2014) Y Y Roberts, Mearns, and Edwards (2014) Y Sakata and Prideaux (2013) Y Y Y Salum (2009) Y Y Y Y Samways, Hitchins, Bourquin, and Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Henwood (2010) Sander (2012) Y Seales and Stein (2011) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Post-print publication 61 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Sinha, Qureshi, Uniyal, and Sen Y Y (2012) Skibins, Powell, and Hallo (2013) Y Smith, Ham, and Weiler (2011) Snyman (2012) Y Stamation, Croft, Shaughnessy, Y Waples, and Briggs (2007) Stem, Lassoie, Lee, and Deshler Y Y (2003) Stronza (2007) Y Y Stronza and Pegas (2008) Tisdell and Wilson (2002) Y Y Tubb (2003) Y Vaudo et al. (2012) Y Y Vuohelainen, Coad, Marthews, Malhi, Y and Killeen (2012) Walker and Moscardo (2014) Y Waylen, McGowan, Pawi Study Y Y Y Group, and Milner-Gulland (2009) 1Environmental education and interpretation for visitors; 2Economic development and alternate forms of income, including lease payments, compensation payments, revenue sharing schemes and payments for ecosystem services; 3Environmental education for local communities; 4Contributions to local communities e.g. improving infrastructure; 5Donations to community development/support purposes; 6Training, education and capacity building for locals; 7Actions to reduce illegal activities, e.g. poaching, logging, hunting; 8Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict; 9Breeding/head starting programs; 10Actions to control non-native fauna species; 11Increased resources for fauna, e.g. food, water; 12Provision and/or management of nest sites; 13Establishment of a protected area, corridors or increased habitat; 14Actions to remove non-native flora species; 15Revegetation and habitat restoration; 16Propagation of a native threatened species; 17Rubbish clean-up programs; 18Lobbying and political activism; 19Support/donations to conservation organisations, projects and NGOs; 20Environmentally friendly purchasing; 21Formation of local conservation groups; and 22Member of conservation organisation.
Post-print publication 62 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Appendix 2: Studies examining each of the 21 outcomes
Visitors Local community Wildlife Bio-physical Org.
1 4
9 6
12
3
5
17 15 2 14 7 8
13
19 18
11
16 10
donations behaviours
volunteering –
(ABV) picking up litter up picking Health Weeds – Numbers – Protection Knowledge umptive land land uses umptive Deforestation Improved NRM Improved activities Illegal ABV ABV Genetic diversity Genetic Altered Altered Wildlife resources Wildlife Vegetation density Vegetation AVB AVB AVB AVB Cons Competition/predation Human wildlife conflict wildlife Human Environmental awareness Environmental awareness Environmental Altered behaviours of visitors visitors of behaviours Altered Ahebwa, van der Duim, and Sandbrook (2012) Y Almeyda Zambrano et al. (2010) Y Y Y Y Y Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman, and Durham (2010) Y Y Anup, Rijal, and Sapkota (2015) Y Y Armstrong and Weiler (2002) Y Ballantyne et al. (2011) Y Y Banerjee (2012) Batta (2006) Y Beaumont (2001) Y Y Biggs, Ban, and Hall (2012) Biggs, Turpie, Fabricius, and Spenceley (2011) Y Y Y Y Bride, Griffiths, Meléndez-Herrada, and McKay (2008) Y Y Y Y Brightsmith, Stronza, and Holle (2008) Y Y Y Coghlan, Fox, Prideaux, and Lück (2011) Y Cousins, Sadler, and Evans (2008)
Post-print publication 63 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
de los Monteros (2002) Dearden, Bennett, and Rollins (2007) Y Higham and Carr (2002) Y Hill, Woodland, and Gough (2007) Y Holladay and Ormsby (2011) Y Hovardas and Poirazidis (2006) Y K. Hughes et al. (2011) Y Y Y Y Y M. Hughes and Morrison-Saunders (2005) Y Hunt, Durham, Driscoll, and Honey (2015) Y Y Y Jacobs and Harms (2014) Y Lamers, Nthiga, van der Duim, and van Wijk (2014) Y Y Y Y Lapeyre (2011) Y Y Y T. H. Lee and Jan (2015) Y W. H. Lee and Moscardo (2005) Y Li, Zhang, Liu, and Xue (2006) Y Y Y Y Y Y Lindberg, Enriquez, and Sproule (1996) Y Lück (2003) Y Madin and Fenton (2004) Y Mbaiwa (2011) Y Y Y Y Y Y Mintzer et al. (2015) Y Y Y Morais, Birendra, Mao, and Mosimane (2015) Y Y Y Mossaz et al. (2015) Nabte et al. (2013) Y Y Y Y Nagendra et al. (2004) Y Y Y Nthiga, Van der Duim, Visseren-Hamakers, and Lamers (2015) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Post-print publication 64 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Ogada and Kibuthu (2008) Y Y Ogutu (2002) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Osano et al. (2013) Peake, Innes, and Dyer (2009) Y Powell and Ham (2008) Y Y Powell, Kellert, and Ham (2008) Y Y Powell, Kellert, and Ham (2009) Y Y Y Y Y Rattan, Eagles, and Mair (2012) Y Recharte, Bride, and Bowler (2014) Y Revathy et al. (2014) Y Roberts, Mearns, and Edwards (2014) Y Sakata and Prideaux (2013) Y Y Salum (2009) Samways, Hitchins, Bourquin, and Henwood (2010) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Sander (2012) Y Y Seales and Stein (2011) Sinha, Qureshi, Uniyal, and Sen (2012) Skibins, Powell, and Hallo (2013) Y Smith, Ham, and Weiler (2011) Y Y Snyman (2012) Y Stamation, Croft, Shaughnessy, Waples, and Briggs (2007) Y Y Y Y Y Stem, Lassoie, Lee, and Deshler (2003) Y Y Y Stronza (2007) Y Y Stronza and Pegas (2008) Y Y Y Y Tisdell and Wilson (2002) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Post-print publication 65 Chapter 2: Published literature review (post-print version)
Tubb (2003) Y Vaudo et al. (2012) Y Y Vuohelainen, Coad, Marthews, Malhi, and Killeen (2012) Y Walker and Moscardo (2014) Y Waylen, McGowan, Pawi Study Group, and Milner-Gulland (2009) Y 1Increased environmental awareness of visitors; 2Altered behaviours of visitors – donations for conservation purposes; 3Altered behaviours of visitors – volunteering for conservation purposes; 4Increased environmental awareness of local communities; 5Altered behaviours of local communities and increase of sustainable practices; 6Decreased consumptive and land-intensive practices; 7Improved community natural resource management; 8Reduced illegal activities; 9Reduced human-wildlife conflict; 10Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health of wildlife populations; 11Increased numbers of wildlife; 12Reduced unnatural competition or predation from non-native wildlife; 13Reduced deforestation, fragmentation and habitat loss; 14Increased floral genetic diversity; 15Increased habitat and resources for wildlife; 16Reduced non-native floral species; 17Increased vegetation density; 18Regonition, support and protection for land rights; and 19Increased knowledge base.
Post-print publication 66 67 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
2.8 Ecotourism-conservation pathways
The review of the academic literature in Section 2.7 highlights that ecotourism can contribute to conservation through many pathways. These findings were used to develop conceptual models of the socio-political (Figure 2.6) and ecological (Figure 2.7) ecotourism-conservation pathways that have been demonstrated in the academic literature to occur in-practice, expanding on Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1. Figure 2.6 shows the groups and the social outcomes that ecotourism enterprises can influence, and the drivers that link the two. For example, ecotourism enterprises may inspire (driver) visitors (group) to donate money for conservation purposes (proactive conservation behaviour) (Sander, 2012), so that conservation projects can then generate ecological conservation outcomes.
Figure 2.6 Conceptual model of the socio-political ecotourism-conservation pathways demonstrated in the academic literature to occur in-practice.
Figure 2.7 shows the ecological conservation activities that ecotourism enterprises may undertake and the ecological conservation outcomes that may result from these.
68 Chapter 2: Context and Literature Review
Figure 2.7 Conceptual model of the ecological ecotourism-conservation pathways demonstrated in the academic literature to occur in-practice.
Section 2.7 also highlights that most studies focus on links to the intermediary outcome of pro- environmental attitudes and values. While over a third of the studies assessed behavioural changes, this was generally in a very broad sense such as increased numbers of community members employed in the tourism industry rather than through consumptive practices such as logging or hunting (Stem et al., 2003). Additionally, very few studies examine the final link from the intermediary outcomes to ecological conservation outcomes. However, if decreasing the number of local loggers or grazers through increased tourism employment, for example, does not decrease rates of land clearing or improve vegetation density and habitat quality, then this has not achieved a conservation outcome. Furthermore, Section 2.7 also highlights that these pathways are generally examined in isolation or in narrow groupings and therefore only demonstrate a small number of these links in a single context.
These conceptual pathway models are explored further in Chapter 4 and provide the foundation for the development of a ‘Conservation Activities Matrix’ which incorporates a comprehensive list of conservation actions and outcomes and explores the direct and indirect relationships between these. Before this, however, Chapter 3 details the methods used for the subsequent three data chapters, including the approach used to develop this Conservation Activities Matrix.
69
70 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
Multiple synergistic approaches were utilised in this thesis to address the research objectives18 outlined in the thesis structure (Section 1.5). Although inextricably linked, the three data chapters are presented in this thesis as three somewhat discrete research components (Figure 3.1). As such, this chapter begins by discussing the overall research design in Section 3.2, before individually detailing the methods of each research component in Sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.
Figure 3.1 Conceptual depiction of the methods and results of the three interlinked research components within the thesis.
3.2 Overview of research
3.2.1 Research design This research used an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach within a pragmatic paradigm, beginning first with an exploratory qualitative phase that provided the foundation for the subsequent combined qualitative/quantitative research phase (Creswell, 2014). Pragmatic
18 Research objectives are listed in Section 1.3.
71 Chapter 3: Methodology research is not constrained by methodological allegiances but instead uses any (or all) available approaches to derive knowledge about, and understand, a problem (Creswell, 2014), focusing on “the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet [the] needs and purposes” (p. 11). This thesis used a range of data sources, tools and methods (as described throughout this chapter), drawing on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research in the pragmatic pursuit of “socially useful knowledge” (Feilzer, 2009, p. 6). This range of data and methods supplemented gaps in individual sources and aided with data triangulation and validity (Crowe et al., 2011; Hancock and Algozzine, 2011).
3.2.2 Research components The review of the academic literature in Chapter 2 (Research Objective 1) revealed that there are few established tools for evaluating the conservation outcomes of ecotourism enterprises, and highlighted a narrow focus and lack of consistency in the tools that do exist and the in published real-world evaluations. Three research components were therefore developed to fulfil the remaining four thesis objectives:
1) The development of a framework to evaluate the conservation contributions of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 1, Research Objective 2);
2) The application of this framework to ecotourism enterprises in Australia (Research Component 2, Research Objectives 3 and 4); and
3) The identification and analysis of the relevant ecotourism-conservation gaps and overlaps within the national eco-certification program and key national conservation policies (Research Component 3, Research Objective 5).
Figure 3.2 provides a conceptual overview of these three components as individual research approaches, while Figure 3.3 provides a conceptual flow chart highlighting the links between the components and their shared data sources.
72 Chapter 3: Methodology
Figure 3.2 Conceptual model of the research approach for the three research components detailed in this chapter (modified from Figure 1.4).
73 Chapter 3: Methodology
Figure 3.3 Conceptual flow chart depicting shared data sources and linkages across the three research components detailed in this chapter (data sources in grey boxes, chapters in blue boxes).
3.2.3 Research tools and data sources As highlighted in the previous section, some of the methods and data sources in this thesis are used in multiple research components. Additionally, some of these methods and terms lack precise definitions and at times have been used somewhat interchangeably in the academic literature (Bazeley, 2009; Vaismoradi, Turunen and Bondas, 2013). Therefore, brief explanations of these terms and sources are provided here to ensure clarity while avoiding duplication of content throughout this chapter. Relevant details regarding the use of each method and data source are included in the descriptions of the three research components where appropriate.
3.2.3.1 Document analysis, content analysis and thematic analysis Document, content and thematic analysis share many similarities, and the three terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Bowen, 2009; Vaismoradi et al., 2013). All three approaches systematically explore, code, and categorise data, allowing researchers to make replicable inferences, cross-validate research findings, and build conceptual models “with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights, a representation of facts and a practical guide to action” (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008, p. 108).
74 Chapter 3: Methodology
The primary difference between content and thematic analysis lies in the potential for content analysis to also include simultaneous quantitative analysis to “determine trends and patterns of words used, their frequency, their relationships, and the structures and discourses of communication” (Vaismoradi et al., 2013, p. 400). However, effective content analysis goes beyond simply counting codes and requires the researcher “to ponder, to scrutinize, to interrogate, to experiment, to feel, to empathize, to sympathize, to speculate, to assess, to organize, to pattern, to categorize, to connect, to integrate, to synthesize, to reflect, to hypothesize, to assert, to conceptualize, to abstract, and… to theorize” (Saldana, 2013, p. 39). Thematic analysis may also identify and report patterns within data; however, this is purely a qualitative and nuanced exploration (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Furthermore, thematic analysis allows the researcher to explore themes within the text based on their importance to the research question rather than the frequency with which they are used (Vaismoradi et al., 2013).
Saldana (2013, p. 269) describes content analysis as using “the contents of a data corpus (documents, texts, videos, etc.)”. Similarly, in the context of document analysis, the term ‘document’ can refer to text, images, symbolic representations, or audio-visual remains, and can include organisational or institutional reports, books, brochures, press releases, public records, and so on (Bowen, 2009; Karppinen and Moe, 2012).
This thesis incorporates aspects of all three methods and, guided by the pragmatic paradigm (Morgan, 2014), applies the most appropriate approach for each stage according to the research needs19 (Feilzer, 2009). Both inductive (emergent and data-driven) coding and deductive (knowledge-driven) coding were used with these methods (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Saldana, 2013). Reliability was enhanced through the use of coding manuals and templates, multiple coding iterations, team discussions, and multiple coders with inter-coder agreement rates above 90% (Saldana, 2013).
3.2.3.2 National Conservation Agenda The NCA is a term created in this thesis to refer to the eight key national policies that guide conservation practices within Australia, as detailed in Section 2.6.2.2. Each policy contains a range of goals, targets, objectives, outcomes, and so on, with little consistency in the terminology used for these across the eight policies (Table 3.1). To easily distinguish the most important aspects of each policy from the general content of their combined 420 full pages of text, these terms are here given an all-encompassing acronym of ‘TOPs’ (i.e. ‘Targets, Objectives and Priorities’). These policies are also referred to individually throughout the thesis and were therefore assigned shortened titles consisting of a keyword followed by the word
19 Details regarding the approach used by each of the research components are provided throughout this chapter.
75 Chapter 3: Methodology
‘Strategy’ for clarity and to minimise space in tables. The term ‘strategy’ rather than ‘policy’ was chosen as this is the most common term used for the titles of the eight policies.
Table 3.1 Abbreviated name, TOPs, and length of the eight policies in the NCA Policies and Pages Targets, Objectives and Priorities shortened titles of text1 (TOPs)
Australia’s Biodiversity 77 • 1 vision Conservation Strategy: 2010 – • 3 priorities
2030 (‘ABC Strategy’) • 9 sub-priorities, 28 outcomes, 10 targets and 26 actions under the 3 priorities
Australia’s Strategy for Nature 15 • 1 vision 2018-2030 (draft) (‘Nature • 3 goals Strategy’) • 12 objectives under the 3 goals
Strategy for Australia's National 45 • 6 themes Reserve System 2009-2030 • 6 key directions, 24 strategic approaches (‘Reserve Strategy’) and 37 priority actions under the 6 themes
Australia's Native Vegetation 103 • 1 vision Framework 2012 (‘Vegetation • 5 goals Strategy’)2 • 14 targets and 19 outcomes under the 5 goals
Australian Heritage Strategy 45 • 1 vision 2015 (‘Heritage Strategy’) • 3 outcomes • 11 objectives under the 3 outcomes
Threatened Species Strategy 48 • 4 key action areas 2015 (‘Species Strategy’) • 5 targets
Australian Weeds Strategy 42 • 1 vision 2017-2027 (‘Weed Strategy’) • 3 goals • 11 priorities under the 3 goals
Australian Pest Animal Strategy 49 • 1 vision 2017-2027 (‘Pest Strategy’) • 3 goals • 10 priorities under the 3 goals
Total pages: 424
1The number of pages includes TOPs but excludes title pages, contents, full page images, blank pages, back covers, and so on; and 2This abbreviated title uses the term ‘Strategy’ rather than ‘Framework’ for consistency.
3.2.3.3 National Conservation Threats The term National Conservation Threats (‘NCT’) has been created in this thesis to succinctly refer to the three directives and regulations in Table 3.2.
76 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.2 Details on the three items referred to as NCTs in this thesis
Item Details
Key Threatening Under the EPBC Act 1999, Key Threatening Processes have been Processes assessed and determined to provide a threat to the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. There are 21 Key Threatening Processes as of March 2019.
Threat Abatement Under the EPBC Act 1999, Threat Abatement Plans provide a Plans framework, identify actions, and coordinate a response to ensure the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities affected by Key Threatening Processes. There are 13 Threat Abatement Plans as of March 2019.
Weeds of National Under the Australian Weeds Strategy 2017-2027, Weeds of National Significance Significance (‘WoNS’) have been assessed and prioritised by Australian governments based on their invasiveness, impacts, potential to spread, and socioeconomic and environmental values. There are 32 Weeds of National Significance in Australia as at March 2019.
3.2.3.4 EA Questionnaire and certification material The application questionnaire used by EA in their certification process (‘EA Questionnaire’) was one of the primary data sources for this thesis. This questionnaire included 805 checklist- style questions (‘EA Questions’) and 80 ‘open-ended questions’ (in the form of space for additional details) across ten sections:
• Business management and operational planning,
• Business ethics,
• Responsible marketing,
• Customer satisfaction,
• Natural area focus,
• Environmental management,
• Interpretation and education,
• Contribution to conservation,
• Working with local communities, and
• Cultural respect and sensitivity.
77 Chapter 3: Methodology
There is extensive repetition in these 805 questions, particularly in the Environmental Management section which includes 350 questions grouped into 17 provisional components that only require completion if applicants incorporate specific activities in their tourism products such as bushwalking, camping, snorkelling, and vehicle use.
In addition to the template questionnaire, this thesis also used the certification material of 86 certified members20 (‘sites’), as supplied by EA. This included (1) a filled-in copy of the EA Questionnaire for each member; (2) supporting materials required for the certification applications such as environmental management plans and visitor interpretation plans; (3) the results of initial independent site audits as part of the certification process; (4) the three-yearly independent audits conducted for each site as part of ongoing certification requirements; and (5) certification upgrades undertaken by sites and supporting material for these, such as climate action plans.
Using a survey instrument designed and implemented by EA meant there was a 100% ‘response rate’ despite the length of the questionnaire, with considerable cross validation inherent in the questions that minimised positive response biases. Additionally, these responses were independently verified at the time of application. This approach therefore reduced key limitations of document analysis, surveys, and other self-reporting measures (Bowen, 2009; Rossi, Wright and Anderson, 2013).
However, there were two additional limitations to this approach. Firstly, the survey tool was restricted to the content and style of questioning in the EA questionnaire as it was created independently from the research agenda. Secondly, although the data for this thesis were extracted in 2016, the ‘responses’ for this questionnaire are tied to the year of application for each site and therefore occurred over an eight-year period between 2004 and 2012. The impact of these limitations was reduced by (1) using the additional certification material described above, which included upgrade applications for 49 of the 86 sites dated between 2010 and 2012; and (2) publicly available information such as company websites. Additionally, the focus of this research was to provide a baseline indication of conservation contributions and was therefore not concerned with temporal trends.
20 The number of sites is included in this section because of the relevance it has for the use of this questionnaire as a data source. Information regarding these 86 sites is provided in Section 3.4.1.
78 Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Component 1
3.3 Conservation Evaluation Framework for ecotourism enterprises
This section describes the methods used to address the second research objective, the results of which are presented in Chapter 4:
Research Identify the potential conservation activities that ecotourism Objective 2 enterprises may undertake and construct an evaluation framework based on an exploration of the actions, outcomes and relationships of these conservation activities.
To fulfil this objective, a comprehensive list of conservation activities (‘Conservation Items’) that could potentially be undertaken by ecotourism enterprises were first compiled from a range of data sources and constructed into a relationship matrix. This matrix provides the foundation of a framework to evaluate the conservation contributions of ecotourism enterprises.
3.3.1 Data collection Conservation practices and relevant descriptive information were identified through a range of sources including the academic literature, eco-certification criteria from multiple certification programs, and the activities of Australian ecotourism sites, as discussed below. This involved a recursive process of data collection in which there was ongoing examination and interpretation of the data which helped to refine the data collection process (Stake, 2006; Hancock and Algozzine, 2011).
79 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.3.1.1 Academic Literature Database literature searches were conducted in Web of Science®, Scopus® and Leisure Tourism® to compile a preliminary list of Conservation Items, in conjunction with the systematic quantitative literature review presented in Section 2.7 (see Wardle et al., 2018). The findings from this literature review were also used in the development of this research component. The primary search term ‘conservation’ was used in combination with each of the following tourism activity terms: ‘ecotourism’, ‘eco-tourism’, ‘eco tourism’, ‘wildlife tourism’, ‘wildlife watching’, ‘birding’, ‘bird watching’, ‘nature tourism’, ‘nature based tourism’, ‘nature- based tourism’, ‘conservation tourism’, ‘community based tourism’, ‘community-based tourism’, ‘whale watching’, ‘whale-watching’, ‘ento-tourism’, ‘entotourism’, ‘ento tourism’, and ‘safari’. The searches were repeated with the inclusion of additional tertiary outcome/management terms: ‘outcome’, ‘action’, ‘measurement’, ‘mechanism’, and ‘achievement’.
Over 3,000 academic articles were reviewed, extracting examples of measurable Conservation Items to ensure that saturation point had been reached (i.e. no new items were identified). Grey literature was not intentionally excluded, but was not actively searched for or examined as thoroughly as journal publications.
3.3.1.2 Eco-certification programs The publicly available criteria of ecotourism certification programs were examined for inclusion from The Green Key, Global Sustainable Tourism Council, Rainforest Alliance, Biosphere Responsible Tourism, and Green Globe. Additionally, EA provided access to their full set of 805 questions in the EA Questionnaire of their ECO Certification Program.
3.3.1.3 Personal communications Personal communications and informal discussions with relevant stakeholders were a useful source of information for this research component. As highlighted by Saldana (2013, p. 36), these types of discussions allow researchers to articulate their internal thinking processes and “present windows of opportunity for clarifying… emergent ideas and possibly making new insights about the data”. Furthermore, Saldana (2013, p. 146) goes on to suggest that this can be a useful component of the coding process as “other research team members [or] a colleague not involved with the study… can provide the coder with a ‘reality check’ of [codes] as they are initiated and modified”.
80 Chapter 3: Methodology
Conservation-ecotourism researchers Four researchers working across conservation, wildlife ecology and ecotourism disciplines reviewed the list of Conservation Items and participated in informal discussions regarding coding of these items and their relationships.
Ecotourism Australia staff Data collection for part of this thesis occurred on-site in the EA offices for approximately three days per week for one year. Similar to the experience of an intern in the EA offices described by Fogle and Duffy (2018), this process allowed for many informal discussions with EA staff and stakeholders regarding this research as well as the activities, goals and challenges of the organisation, the environmental management practices of their certified members, the application process, and the independent audits.
3.3.1.4 The NCA The NCA (described in Section 3.2.3.2) was used for multiple components of this thesis including document and content analysis (detailed in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3). As such, the eight policies were read in full in addition to many iterations of searching for key terms and checking of quotes and themes. The NCA was therefore an influential source in the identification of Conservation Items and the formation of the relationship matrix.
3.3.1.5 Ecotourism sites As outlined in Section 3.2, Research Component 2 involved applying the framework developed in this research component to a set of 86 Australian ecotourism sites (detailed in Section 3.4). However, the pragmatic paradigm encourages researchers to view research stages as “parts of an holistic, interactive and unifying process” that “requires prolonged engagement, persistent observation and triangulation” (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005, pp. 382-383). As such, the reflexive and recursive nature of this mixed methods research allowed for this application component to provide another information source for building and revising the framework.
3.3.1.6 Analytic memos and research journal entries Analytic memos and research journal entries are “sites of conversation with ourselves about our data” (Clarke, 2005, p. 202). As Saldana (2013, p. 42) explains, these “are concurrent qualitative data analytic activities for there is ‘a reciprocal relationship between the development of a coding system and the evolution of understanding a phenomenon’ (Weston et
81 Chapter 3: Methodology al., 2001, p. 397)”. Analytic memos and research journal entries were recorded throughout all research components of this thesis and were themselves coded according to overarching research concepts.
3.3.2 Data analysis This research primarily used document analysis in which elements of content analysis and thematic analysis were used to locate, select, appraise and synthesise data from a range of documentary sources (Bowen, 2009). As mentioned previously, the data collection and data analysis stages of this research component were conducted simultaneously. Therefore, although the analysis is described here as somewhat of a linear approach with sequential steps, in practice this was a reflexive and emergent process with many iterations and loops. Figure 3.4 presents a simplified version of this iterative process as a conceptual flow chart, with each step described below.
Figure 3.4 Conceptual flow chart of the data collection and analysis steps followed in Research Component 1.
82 Chapter 3: Methodology
First, data sources were imported into NVivo and text excerpts relating to conservation practices were extracted (Step 1). These excerpts allowed for the creation of a comprehensive list of conservation practices using a combination of inductive coding and an iterative classification process (Step 2). There are obvious risks that come with “lining up a series of excerpts from printed material to convey whatever idea comes to the researcher’s mind” (Bowen, 2009, p. 34). Using a program such as NVivo helped mitigate this risk due to the ability to (1) easily code a substantial volume of text to multiple nodes; (2) conveniently refer back to the full document text whenever needed; and (3) create duplicate nodes for individual codes to store additional explanatory text separately from key extracts for future reference if needed. Furthermore, this research aimed to identify and categorise conservation activities in order to construct an evaluation tool and was therefore largely unconcerned with latent meanings, symbolism, or the authors or organisations from which the documents originated.
Step 3 used broad comparisons to group these codes into 53 Conservation Items made up of 27 conservation actions and 26 conservation outcomes. Actions were distinguished from outcomes in the literal sense of ‘the act of doing something’, such as planting native trees, while outcomes were defined as those that result from an action, such as increased vegetation density21.
Step 4 took this comparative process further by using thematic similarities to condense the coded data into categories that emerged through focused coding, as described in Saldana (2013, pp. 213-217). In this step, all Conservation Items were grouped into one of five categories according to their focus, as this made “the most analytic sense” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 57): the biophysical landscape, the fauna, the visitors, the staff and local community, and aspects of a larger organisational or political scale.
Step 5 further explored the relationships between each of the 53 Conservation Items and the five categories. All potential interactions between conservation actions and outcomes were examined through additional ‘action + outcome’ database searches of the academic literature, additional coding rounds, and discussions with conservation-ecotourism researchers to determine which outcomes could be feasibly produced (either directly or indirectly) by each of the actions. These relationships can be complex: many conservation goals can be achieved using different pathways; each action may contribute to a myriad of outcomes; and some outcomes can produce outcomes of their own. The size and complexity of the resulting dataset meant a visual model was not a feasible option for depicting these relationships. They were therefore constructed into a Conservation Activities Matrix (‘CA Matrix’) which clearly depicts the direct and indirect relationships between the Conservation Items and across the five categories. Additionally, this
21 Discussed further in the thesis scope and boundaries (Section 1.4).
83 Chapter 3: Methodology stage involved the development of ‘meta’ categories or “categories of categories” (Saldana, 2013, p. 250): the biophysical landscape and the fauna categories were grouped into an ecological aspects meta-category, and the visitor, community, and organisational/political categories were grouped into a socio-political aspects meta-category.
Step 6 combined the findings of the systematic quantitative literature review (Section 2.7) and the CA Matrix to build on the analytic framework of Buckley (2009) and develop a Conservation Evaluation Framework (‘CE Framework’) in which essential items for evaluating the conservation contributions of ecotourism enterprises were reframed as suggested steps. The analytic memos and research journal entries recorded throughout the research process of this thesis were a critical component of this stage for, as Stern (2007 p. 119) states, “if data are the building blocks of the developing theory, memos are the mortar”. This step draws on a grounded theory approach as described by Charmaz (2006). However, by focusing on the “content, practicality and instrumentality” (Greene and Hall, 2010, p. 138) in developing a framework that is “useful… in guiding action in real-world settings” (Glasgow, 2013, p. 260), this step is firmly rooted in the philosophical ideals of pragmatism. Furthermore, Feilzer (2009, p. 14) emphasises that a pragmatic approach can be used for grounded inductive or abductive research and highlights the value of “knowledge produced by such research in furthering our understanding of society”.
Step 7 applied the CE Framework to a set of Australian ecotourism sites (described in Section 3.4). As stated in Section 3.3.1.5, the reflexive and recursive nature of this research allowed for this application component to provide another step towards building and revising the framework.
3.3.3 Framework demonstration A brief demonstration of the CE Framework is provided in Section 4.4 using three Australian ecotourism sites. The purpose of this was to explore and demonstrate the application process rather than complete a detailed evaluation of these sites. Therefore, only the websites of these enterprises were used as data sources and only one conservation activity was examined.
84 Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Component 2
3.4 Conservation evaluation of private Australian ecotourism enterprises
Research Component 2 addresses the third and fourth research objectives, the results of which are presented in Chapter 5:
Research Evaluate the conservation activities of a set of Australian ecotourism Objective 3 enterprises certified with EA.
Research Identify if patterns exist between the conservation practices of a set of Objective 4 Australian ecotourism enterprises and their enterprise characteristics such as the size of the property and age of the business.
In this research component, the CE Framework from Research Component 1 (presented in Section 4.3) was used to guide an evaluation of the conservation activities of a set of ecotourism sites in Australia through convergent parallel mixed methods in which quantitative and qualitative data were simultaneously collected and integrated “to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem” (Creswell, 2014, p. 15). Additionally, as explained in Section 3.3.1.5, aspects of this research component were also included in the development of the CE Framework. Therefore, as with Research Component 1, it is described here as a linear process following sequential steps; but in practice was an iterative process with multiple data collection and analysis stages. Figure 3.5 provides a conceptual flow chart of this approach, and each step is described below.
85 Chapter 3: Methodology
Figure 3.5 Conceptual flow chart of the data collection and data analysis steps followed in Research Component 2.
3.4.1 Site selection (Step 1) A subset of ecotourism sites certified with EA were utilised for this study. Site selection criteria included (1) fixed-site ecotourism enterprises or enterprises that are responsible for the management of the area in which they operate; (2) non-government enterprises without captivity or consumptive components as these fall outside the scope22 of this thesis; and (3) operators with advanced level certification as recommended by EA as those most likely to have filled in the conservation section of the application document. Of the 482 enterprises certified with EA at the time of site selection in March 2016, 86 sites met these criteria and are included in this thesis. These sites are numbered for confidentiality purposes as part of the data sharing agreement with EA.
As described in Section 2.3.2, EA is responsible for the design and management of the Australian ECO Certification Program. Their publicly available list of certified ecotourism operators was chosen for this study as it is a precompiled database from a respected association
22 The scope of the thesis is detailed in Section 1.4.
86 Chapter 3: Methodology that has been in existence since 1991, over which time it has gained important credentials and industry connections, run annual conferences, and demonstrated to companies that it is a worthwhile organisation to belong to. Furthermore, the requirements and criteria to achieve the lowest level of certification are very low. It is therefore likely to provide a fairly comprehensive list of the ecotourism enterprises in Australia. Additionally, using sites that have been confirmed as ecotourism enterprises through eco-certification avoided potential concerns regarding ecotourism definitions and inclusion criteria, as discussed in Section 1.4.1 and Section 2.1.
3.4.2 Data collection (Step 2) The EA Questionnaire and certification information including supporting material and independent audits (as described in Section 3.2.3.4) formed the primary data source for this research component. Of the 805 check-list questions in the EA Questionnaire, 157 were directly relevant to this stage. All qualitative ‘additional information’ questions were also checked for relevant material as there was little consistency in the structure of the information provided by sites in these documents. Company websites for each of the 86 sites were also used as well as independent third-party publications where available.
Quantitative and categorical data were also compiled on five enterprise characteristics: turnover, size, age, guest capacity, and ecosystem or biome (Table 3.3). Turnover categories were set by EA in the certification applications, however all other categories were determined a posteriori to distinguish between the very small, small, moderate, large and very large where possible. Data were collected in 2016, and therefore the age characteristic refers to enterprise age at that time.
Table 3.3 Categories of each enterprise characteristic
Characteristic Categories
Turnover (AU$) <$250,000; $250,001 - $1,000,000; $1,000,000- $5,000,000; $5,000,000 - $10,000,000; >$10,000,000
Size (ha) <5; 5-19; 20-99; 100-999; 1,000-9,999; >10,000
Age (years) <10; 10-24; >25
Guest capacity <10; 10-29; 30-59; 60-99; >100
Biome Rainforest, Bushland1, Coastal, Arid/grassland/desert, Island, Mountain/alpine, Temperate, and Wetland.
1Bushland refers to all forested areas that are not rainforest, including woodland and sclerophyll forest types.
87 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.4.2.1 CA Matrix data template Data were initially extracted as text excerpts which, through deductive coding (Hanly, 2014), were assigned to Conservation Items using the CA Matrix as a data template. This step produced over 750 pages of text excerpts, excluding the text of the questions in the EA Questionnaire. The data template also included a record of the data source and access date for each text excerpt, as well as annotations made throughout the data collection process. An example of a filled-in data template with annotations is provided in Appendix A.
As explained previously, the CA Matrix evolved over the course of the project. As such, an earlier version of the matrix was used for this research component which differs slightly from the version presented in Chapter 4. Additionally, due to the phrasing of relevant questions in the EA Questionnaire, two of the conservation actions in the CA Matrix (‘increasing resources for wildlife’ and ‘nest site provision/management’) were merged as it was not possible to distinguish data relating to these items individually. As such, the version of the CA Matrix used for this component has 57 Conservation Items including 30 actions and 27 outcomes.
3.4.2.2 Data preparation Approximately one-third of the 755 pages of text excerpts were manually transcribed from scanned documents. This included several EA Questionnaires that had been completed by hand and scanned into the EA database.
3.4.3 Site evaluations (Step 3) This approach used a combination of data-driven and theory-driven coding: deductive coding was used to code text to each of the Conservation Items in the CA Matrix (as stated in the previous section), and inductive coding was used to explore emergent themes within each Conservation Item such as the extent of these activities, the mechanisms and innovations utilised, and the challenges faced. Similar to the example of pragmatic research provided by Feilzer (2009), this dataset was then reduced to binary presence/absence data for each Conservation Item for each site, based on whether there was enough evidence to determine if a site had undertaken an action or achieved an outcome. These data were then used for quantitative pattern analyses, as described in the next step.
Due to the size of the dataset, multiple coders assessed random sections of the data to validate the coding process and identify inconsistencies, producing an overall inter-coder agreement rate of 92%.
88 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.4.4 Frequencies and trends (Step 4)
3.4.4.1 Patterns among sites Indices Data across individual conservation actions and outcomes were amalgamated to construct numerical indices for the biophysical landscape, fauna, community, and organisational/political categories. Indices were not required for the visitor category as it had only one action and two outcomes. Indices were calculated in two levels of aggregation. Firstly, individual biophysical, fauna, community, and political indices were calculated for each site by determining the proportion of actions and outcomes each site achieved in each category, so that each site index ranged from 0 to 1. Although different actions and outcomes may be of higher priority in different areas based on area-specific conservation goals, this analysis covered an entire continent and therefore did not apply any weighting to individual Conservation Items. ANOVAs were used to examine patterns between these indices and the five site characteristics. Secondly, a higher-level biophysical index, fauna index, community index and political index were calculated across all sites using the same approach as the individual site indices.
Ecological Conservation Items The ecological Conservation Items were individually tested for relationships across the five site characteristics. Chi-squares were run on each of the 13 ecological actions and outcomes that were undertaken by at least 10% of sites, but by no more than 90% of sites, to reduce the number of cells with zeros. Fisher’s Exact Test was used whenever cells had less than 5 cases.
A Bonferroni correction was applied to reduce the probability of a type 1 error across the 65 tests (13 Conservation Items x 5 characteristics) (Armstrong, 2014). However, the categories and Conservation Items may also be deemed independent, and therefore the use of such a large Bonferroni correction may increase the probability of a type 2 error (Armstrong, 2014). To account for both arguments, three levels of Bonferroni adjustments were applied: (1) α = 0.0007 (i.e. 0.05/65) (2) α = 0.003 (i.e. 0.05/13) (3) α = 0.01 (i.e. 0.05/5)
Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of Bonferroni corrections may be controversial (Moran, 2003), and p-values are therefore also shown for relationships significant at α = 0.05 i.e. without any adjustment.
89 Chapter 3: Methodology
Socio-political Conservation Items Following the same process, the socio-political Conservation Items were also independently tested for patterns in relation to the five enterprise characteristics. Chi-squares were run on each of the six socio-political actions and outcomes that were undertaken by at least 10% of sites, but by no more than 90% of sites. Again, three levels of Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for the six Conservation Items, five site characteristics, and 30 individual chi-squares: (1) α = 0.001 (i.e. 0.05/30) (2) α = 0.008 (i.e. 0.05/6) (3) α = 0.01 (i.e. 0.05/5)
As with the ecological items, p-values are also shown for relationships significant at α = 0.05 i.e. without any adjustment.
3.4.4.2 Patterns among Conservation Items Jaccard indices were used to examine patterns between the Conservation Items by making pairwise comparisons (Gardener, 2014p. 367). This approach used positive-positive (a), positive-negative (b) and negative-positive (c) matches while excluding negative-negative matches, [Js = a/(a+b+c)], to determine the likelihood of sites reporting each Conservation Item based on their reporting of another item. Ecological and socio-political Conservation Items were tested separately, as were actions and outcomes. MDS were run in Primer to visually examine the similarity matrices using both factors and clusters. Three levels of clustering were used: 25%, 50% and 75%. In addition to using categories and meta-categories, factors were also allocated for three levels of ‘effort’ based on a combination of the cost, required expertise and necessary equipment for each ecological action: low, moderate and high. This refers to the minimal effort required for sites to report that they undertake the action.
In addition to pair-wise similarities, the biophysical, fauna, community and organisational actions were also tested as four groups for significant associations with site characteristics using chi-squares.
3.4.5 Conservation significance screening process (Step 5) As part of the CE Framework, a conservation significance screening process (described in Section 4.3.5) was used to determine the relative importance of the conservation activities of the 86 sites within the Australian conservation context. This involved checking the site activities and all native and non-native species (including colloquial names) mentioned by any site against the directives and regulations in Table 3.4.
90 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.4 Policies, directives and regulations utilised in the conservation significance screening process for site evaluations
Item Details
National Conservation Eight key national conservation policies described in Section Agenda (NCA) 2.6.2.2 and Section 3.2.3.2.
National Conservation Key Threatening Processes, Threat Abatement Plans, and Weeds of Threats (NCTs) National Significance described in Section 3.2.3.3 (checked in March 2019).
State of the National reports commissioned by the Australian Government Environment Reports every five years under the EPBC Act 1999 and compiled by a panel of experts to produce several hundred pages of comprehensive material. The most recent report, the 2016 State of the Environment Report, was released in 2017.
Additional EPBC Act Threatened species lists (including fauna, flora and ecological 1999 directives communities), National Recovery Plans, Register of Critical Habitat, and Migratory Species Lists under the EPBC Act 1999 (checked in October 2018).
IUCN Red List Global database of threatened species (checked in October 2018).
Threatened species Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992; lists under state and Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006; territory legislation New South Wales Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016; Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988; South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972; Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950; Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act; and Australian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Act 2014 (checked in October 2018).
Additionally, all conservation agreements mentioned by sites were checked against relevant local, state and national programs to verify the information provided by sites and to identify the relevant program when incorrect or outdated terms were provided (Table 3.5).
91 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.5 Covenanting programs in Australian jurisdictions and primary legislation (modified from Fitzsimons (2015)).
Jurisdiction Program Legislation
Australian Conservation Agreements Environment Protection and Biodiversity Government Conservation Act 1999
Western National Trust of Australia (WA) National Trust of Australia (WA) Act Australia Covenanting Program 1964 and Transfer of Land Act 1893
Nature Conservation Covenant Conservation and Land Management Program Act 1984 and Transfer of Land Act 1893
Soil and Land Conservation Covenants Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945
South South Australian Heritage Agreement Native Vegetation Act 1991 Australia Program
Victoria Trust for Nature (Victoria) Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 Conservation Covenants
Land Management Co-operative Conservation, Forests and Lands Act Agreements 1987
Tasmania Private Property Conservation Nature Conservation Act 2002 and Land Program Titles Act 1980
New South Voluntary Conservation Agreements National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Wales Program
Wildlife Refuges National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
Nature Conservation Trust covenants Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001
NSW Registered Property Agreements Native Vegetation Act 2003 Program
Queensland Queensland Nature Refuge Program Nature Conservation Act 1992 and Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulations 1994
Voluntary Conservation Agreement Queensland Land Title Act 1994 Programs operated by south-east Queensland councils including Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Brisbane and Logan Local Governments
Northern Voluntary Conservation Covenant Parks and Wildlife Commission Act Territory Program 2004 and Land Title Act 2007
92 Chapter 3: Methodology
Research Component 3
3.5 Conservation gaps and overlaps of eco-certification, operator practices and national conservation priorities in Australia
Research Component 3 addresses the fifth and final research objective, the results of which are presented in Chapter 6:
Research Document and explore the overlaps and gaps between the EA Objective 5 certification criteria, conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises, and the national conservation policy landscape in Australia.
This research component includes three sub-components: (a) an evaluation of the conservation coverage of the EA Questionnaire in Section 3.5.1; (b) a review of the key conservation themes and tourism gaps in the NCA in Section 3.5.2; and (c) a gap analysis in Section 3.5.3 utilising sub-component a, sub-component b, and the site conservation practices presented in Chapter 5.
3.5.1 Eco-certification: conservation coverage and gaps Results from this research sub-component are provided in Section 6.2.
3.5.1.1 Data collection The Conservation Items from the CA Matrix (presented in Chapter 4) were used to guide an evaluation of the conservation coverage of the EA Questionnaire (described in Section 3.2.3.4). However, the same version of the CA Matrix with 57 Conservation Items described in Section 3.4.2.1 for Research Component 2 was used in this research component.
93 Chapter 3: Methodology
The same 157 check-list questions from the EA Questionnaire described in Section 3.4.2 for Research Component 2 were also utilised in this research component. However, EA updated and streamlined the EA Questionnaire in 2015: their Nature Tourism Certification, Ecotourism Certification, Advanced Ecotourism Certification, ROC Certification, and Climate Action Business Certification applications were consolidated into a single application, reducing the EA Questionnaire from 805 questions and 260 pages to 325 questions and 60 pages. This reduction stems primarily from two changes: (1) many instances in which multiple questions were merged into single check-box items asking if a specified number of the activities in the list were carried out; and (2) removing the 17 provisional Environmental Management sections (described in Section 3.2.3.4) and instead providing the relevant sections to applicants at a later stage of the application process if needed.
Although data were obtained from multiple sources, the original certification application of each site was a key source of information. As all but one of the 86 sites were certified prior to this change, the site evaluations presented in Chapter 5 are predominantly based on the pre-2015 version of the EA Questionnaire. Both versions are therefore examined in this analysis.
3.5.1.2 Data analysis The 157 questions in the EA Questionnaire were allocated to the 57 Conservation Items of the CA Matrix through deductive coding, with some questions allocated to multiple items. For example, an EA Question about the reestablishment of native vegetation following weed removal is relevant for the Conservation Item ‘revegetation activities’ as well as the item ‘activities to remove non-native flora’. Following this, each of the Conservation Items were assigned a categorical coverage level based on the extent to which the item was addressed in the EA Questionnaire: extensive, moderate, minimal or no coverage. A subjective measure of ‘coverage’ was used rather than the number of EA Questions allocated to each Conservation Item as the number of questions was found to be a poor indication of coverage. For example, the Conservation Item ‘revegetation’ was addressed by 12 repetitive EA Questions and the item ‘effort to reduce illegal activities’ was addressed by just 2 EA Questions, but both were assigned a moderate coverage level. Therefore, a coding guide (Table 3.6) and a second coder were used to enhance reliability, with an overall inter-coder agreement rate of 97%. Correlations were then used to examine the relationships between (1) the level of coverage; and (2) the proportion of eco-certified sites undertaking these Conservation Items in practice, as presented in Chapter 5.
94 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.6 Explanation of coverage levels used to inform the coding of Conservation Items within the EA Questionnaire
Category Explanation
None No EA Questions address the Conservation Item.
Minimal At least one EA Question addresses the Conservation Item; however, it is difficult to determine if the Conservation Item was actually carried out because the EA Question is vague. For example, several EA Questions include a list of activities with only a single check-box asking if the applicant engages in “any of the following”.
Moderate It is clear from the EA Questions that the Conservation Item has been carried out; however, no further details can be determined.
Extensive It is clear from the EA Questions that the Conservation Item has been carried out, and it is also possible to determine some additional details about the activities.
3.5.2 National Conservation Agenda: conservation and ecotourism gaps The eight policies of the NCA were examined to identify (1) tourism coverage and gaps within the NCA, and (2) key themes that highlight gaps in conservation management across Australia. Results from these research sub-components are provided in Section 6.3.
As stated earlier in this chapter, the NCA (described in Section 3.2.3.2) was used simultaneously for multiple research components in this thesis which involved many iterations of reading, coding, skimming, searching for key terms, and re-checking quotes and themes. As such, this research sub-component followed the document analysis approach described by Bowen (2009) as iterations of superficial examination, thorough examination, and interpretation that incorporate aspects of thematic analysis.
3.5.2.1 National Conservation Agenda: tourism coverage and gaps Data collection Each policy was read in full and text excerpts that mentioned tourism or related terms were extracted, noting if the excerpts came from the TOPs23 or the general policy content. To ensure no relevant text was missed, keyword searches were also performed using tourism related terms and activities (Table 3.7).
23 TOPs refers to the Targets, Objectives and Priorities of the policies. See Section 3.2.3.2 for details.
95 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.7 Search terms used to check for tourism related content in the NCA policies Base of Examples of plurals, stemming terms, search term1 and variations captured
Tour Tourism, tourists, tours, etc.
Visit Visitation, visitors, visits, etc.
Travel Travellers, travelling, travels, etc.
Recreation Recreational, recreationist, etc.
Walk Bushwalk/walker, bush-walk/walker, etc.
Hik Hiking, hiker, etc.
Rid Horse riding, riders, etc.
Cycl Cycling, cyclist, bicycle, etc.
Watch Wildlife watching, bird watcher, etc.
Camp Camping, camper, campers, etc. 1Where appropriate, only the beginnings of some words were used to account for stemming variations i.e. ‘hike’ would not capture variations of stemming terms that don’t include the letter ‘e’ such as hiking.
Data analysis Text excerpts were coded using thematic analysis to identify key themes relating to the use of tourism in the NCA. Coverage levels ranging from ‘none’ to ‘extensive’ were then assigned to each of the eight policies of the NCA for each of the three themes identified.
Due to the subjective nature of this process, a coding guide using one of the three themes as an example (‘tourism as a driver of conservation goals’) was created to enhance reliability (Table 3.8). This theme refers to policy content that highlights the importance of a healthy natural environment for tourism, noting that these excerpts originate from a conservation context. Additionally, a second coder was used with an overall inter-coder agreement rate of 95%. Results from this research sub-component are provided in Section 6.3.1.
96 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.8 Coding guide for the coverage levels of tourism related themes in the NCA using the theme of ‘tourism as a driver of conservation goals’ as an example Coverage Example NCA policy and relevant excerpts Level Explanation
None Tourism is not - mentioned
Minimal Tourism is All relevant Vegetation Strategy excerpts coverage mentioned once or • “Agriculture, forestry and fisheries and tourism rely on twice in a way productive and healthy native vegetation ecosystems and that can be loosely continue to provide great value to Australia’s economy and connected to the national development.” theme, but with • “Economically, native vegetation and its direct soil and water no context or functions support the productive capacity of many important emphasis sectors of the Australian economy — agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture and tourism.” • “… as well as the already established economic benefits of native vegetation already achieved in agriculture, forestry and tourism.”
Moderate Tourism is All relevant ABC Strategy excerpts coverage explicitly • “We get artistic and spiritual inspiration from biodiversity, the mentioned with sheer enjoyment of camping in the bush, snorkelling on the regards to the Great Barrier Reef and walking in our magnificent national theme parks.” • “Natural environments also enrich our culture, sport and recreation, as well as our artistic and spiritual lives.” • “Cultural services: spiritual and religious values; knowledge system; education and inspiration; recreation and aesthetic values; and sense of place” • “…we may lose the biodiversity that underpins much of our economic wealth—including from agriculture, forestry and tourism—and our national identity.”
Extensive Several mentions Some relevant Nature Strategy excerpts coverage of tourism with a • “Industries like agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism and clear emphasis on manufacturing all depend on healthy nature and natural the theme landscapes. These are relatively simple to value, for example, in accompanied by 2015–16, agriculture contributed $56 billion to the national data economy and tourism contributed $52.9 billion.” • “For tourism, in the year ending June 2017, 69 per cent (or 5.4 million) of international visitors engaged in some form of nature-based activity. The grandeur of Australia’s land and sea, our wildlife and clean, green cities, food, water and air attract visitors from around the world and are a major contributor to the economy.”
97 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.5.2.2 National Conservation Agenda: key themes and conservation gaps Key themes and focus areas were identified across the NCA to indicate conservation management gaps within Australia under the premise that high priority areas in need of attention (i.e. ‘gaps’) will be a key focus of these policies and, conversely, areas that do not need to be addressed (and therefore are not gaps) will not be covered in much detail or at all. As such, this step uses the NCA to identify gaps in conservation management, rather than identifying conservation gaps within the NCA. Additionally, the NCTs described in Section 3.2.3.3 were incorporated as key management priorities under national legislation.
An earlier version of the CA Matrix was used to guide this analysis; however, due to the reflexive and recursive nature of the thesis project, the analysis from this research component was also used to build and revise the CA Matrix. Therefore, this step involved using the Conservation Items in the CA Matrix as themes for deductive coding, while at the same time remaining objective and allowing new themes to emerge from the NCA through an inductive process (Bowen, 2009). Furthermore, as new Conservation Items were added to the CA Matrix, previously analysed policies were necessarily examined again for these additional items. As such, this approach used an inductive-deductive “hybrid coding method [that was] customized to suit the unique needs and disciplinary concerns of [the] study” (Saldana, 2013, p. 65).
Each theme was assigned a categorical ‘importance’ level of low, moderate or high. As the focus of this stage was on the importance of the identified themes across the NCA more broadly rather than within the individual NCA policies, only one level of importance was assigned to each theme across the NCA/NCT combination, rather than assigning levels to individual policies. However, the number of policies covering each theme was also a contributing factor in determining its overall importance, and this information was therefore recorded along with the location of the relevant text (i.e. the TOPs or the general policy content24).
Broad guidelines were used to reduce the subjectivity of this process (Table 3.9); however, the context of the themes within the NCA was paramount. As such, the results of this approach include a two-page synthesis of three overarching concepts of the NCA to provide the underlying context for the ‘importance levels’ of the themes (presented in Section 6.3.3).
24 TOPs refers to the Targets, Objectives and Priorities of the NCA policies (details in Section 3.2.3.2).
98 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.9 Explanation of the level of importance assigned to themes within the NCA and NCTs
Level Explanation
Low (L) Covered by only a few policies in their general content.
Moderate (M) Covered by (1) most of the policies, or (2) in the TOPs of a smaller number of policies.
High (H) (1) Covered in the TOPs of more than half of the policies (four or more); (2) covered in the TOPs of three policies and in the general content of the remaining five policies; or (3) targeted by an individual NCA or NCT1.
1Such as the Vegetation Strategy for revegetation activities.
Some of the themes used in this sub-component are a combination of similar Conservation Items from the CA Matrix, including actions and outcomes that focus on the same theme. This is because the CA Matrix was used in this stage as a guide rather than the prescriptive approach taken in Research Component 225 and the first stage of this research component26. For example, the action ‘activities to remove non-native flora’ and the outcome ‘reduction in extent of non- native flora’ both focus on the same theme and it is not necessary to separate these for the purpose of this research sub-component.
In preparation for the final sub-component, the Conservation Items that are incorporated within each of the themes are provided in Table 3.10 for ecological items and Table 3.11 for socio- political items. These Conservation Items are from the earlier version of the CA Matrix utilised in the aforementioned prescriptive approaches25,26.
To ensure no relevant text was overlooked, keyword searches were performed using terms related to each of the Conservation Items, which are also included in the following tables. Where appropriate, only the beginnings of some words were used to account for plurals, stemming terms, and variations.
25 Site evaluation described in Section 3.4 and presented in Chapter 5. 26 Conservation coverage and gaps of the EA Questionnaire described in Section 3.5.1 and presented in Section 6.2.
99 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.10 Conservation Items and search terms for ecological themes in the NCA
Theme Conservation Items1 Search terms Revegetation and • Revegetation Reveg (e.g. revegetation, revegetate), habitat quality & • Propagation of threatened species reforestation, restore, restoration, regenerat extent • Increased extent and quality of (e.g. regenerated, regenerating), habitat, habitat condition, density, refuge, quality, propagat (e.g. propagation, propagates), seed, nursery Ecological • Increased ecological connectivity Corridor, link, connect, network, joining, connectivity & and corridors fragment (e.g. fragmentation, fragmented), corridors continuous Control of non-native • Actions to remove non-native flora Invasive, pest, non-native, introduced, exotic, flora • Reduced extent of non-native flora feral, weed • Eradication of non-native flora Control of non-native • Actions to control non-native fauna Invasive, pest, non-native, introduced, exotic, fauna • Reduced non-native fauna feral, cat, fox, rabbit, toad, goat, boar • Eradicated non-native fauna • Reduced unnatural competition or predation Land-use change, • Converted degraded land to PPA, agreement, land use, property, protected clearing & PPAs2 ecotourism area, conver (e.g. conversion, convert) • Established a protected area Pollution & rubbish • Pollution/rubbish clean-up Rubbish, debris, plastic, pollut (e.g. pollution, clean-up3 polluter), trash, garbage, litter, clean, fishing line Erosion control • Actions to control erosion Eros (e.g. erosion, erosive); erod (e.g. • Reduced erosion eroding, eroded) Fire management • Ecological fire management Fire, burn Ecological integrity • Ecological integrity, resilience & Health, resil (e.g. resilience, resilient), & health4 health structure, integrity, condition • Fauna health and population resilience Genetic & species • Floral genetic & species diversity Gene (e.g. genes, genetic), divers (e.g. diversity • Faunal genetic diversity diversity, diverse), gene flow Carbon capture • Increased rates of carbon capture Carbon, emissions, climate Monitoring • Monitoring Monitor, surve (e.g. survey, surveillance), observ (e.g. observe, observation), record Wildlife resources/ • Increased wildlife resources/nest Food, shelter, competition, resource, breed nest management sites (e.g. breeding box), hollow, nest, habitat Veterinary services, • Veterinary services, disease Disease, injur (injured, injury), orphan, carer, disease control & control, and wildlife care rescue, vaccinate, illness, virus, infection, wildlife care release, tangle Translocation & • Translocation Reintroduc (e.g. reintroduce, reintroduction), breeding programs • Breeding programs relocat (e.g. relocation, relocate), translocat (e.g. translocate, translocation), release Wildlife numbers5 • Improved wildlife numbers Threat status, numbers, size 1Conservation Items sourced from the version of the CA Matrix used and presented in Chapter 5 and Section 6.2; 2Includes establishing private protected areas (PPAs) or other protective arrangements; 3Includes plastics and marine debris but does not include greenhouse gas emissions; 4Includes both fauna and flora; and 5Includes threat status.
100 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.11 Conservation Items and search terms for socio-political themes in the NCA
Conservation theme Conservation Items1 Search terms
Conservation • Environmental interpretation and inspiration Awareness, understanding, ethic, awareness, capacity for (1) visitors, (2) staff, and (3) local knowledge, value, appreciation, and agency2 community members inspir (e.g. inspiration, inspire), • Increased environmental awareness and capacity, agency, capabilit (e.g. knowledge for (1) visitors, (2) staff, and (3) capabilities, capability), access local community members
Incentives/deterrents3 • Economic development & stimulation Market, business, economic, • Employment financial, job, employ, career, occupation, incentiv (e.g. incentive, • Community contributions incentivise), deter, tax, concession, • Professional training & capacity building restrict, prohibit, enforce, compl • Actions to reduce illegal activities (e.g. comply, compliance), illicit, legal • Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict
Conservation • Increased pro-environmental behaviours of Engage, participate, involve, behaviours4 (1) visitors and (2) locals responsibility, partner • Improved natural resource management • Reduced (1) consumptive practices, (2) illegal activities, and (3) human-wildlife conflict
Conservation support5 • Support for conservation projects Donat (e.g. donation, donate), volunteer
Environmentally • Environmentally friendly purchasing Purchase, garden, consume, shop, friendly purchasing customer, buy, biodegrad (e.g. biodegrade, biodegradable)
Research and • Research Research, knowledge, data, report, knowledge • Increased knowledge base assess, evaluate, measure, data • Monitoring
Conservation • Investment in conservation related Tech (e.g. technology), innovat technologies technologies (e.g. innovation, innovate)
Governance and • Lobbying and advocacy Advoca (e.g. advocacy, advocate), environment • Improved environmental legislation, activism, lobby, political, politician, 6 regulations regulations and policies legislation, governance, policy, regulation, native title, Indigenous • Recognition of environment, land and land, ownership community rights
Support to protected • Support to protected area agencies Agenc (e.g. agency, agencies), area agencies7 manage (e.g. manager, management), facilities, support, collaborate 1Conservation Items sourced from the version of the CA Matrix used and presented in Chapter 5 and Section 6.2. 2Includes environmental values, conservation ethic, and the knowledge and support necessary to act; 3Conservation incentives include carbon markets, tax concessions, etc. (covered briefly in Section 2.6.4); 4Includes pro-environmental behaviours and engagement with conservation activities; 5Support/donations to conservation organisations and projects; 6Includes decision-making and priorities, environmental legislation and policy, and the recognition of environmental rights and community rights; and 7Support to protected area agencies and governments, and includes private-public partnerships and information-sharing.
101 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.5.3 Policy, practice, and eco-certification: overlaps and gaps The final stage of this research component synthesised and compared findings from the previous two sub-components and Research Component 2 to identify key gaps, overlaps and implications for the ecotourism-conservation relationship in Australia. Results from this research sub- component are provided in Section 6.4.
3.5.3.1 Data collection This research sub-component used three groups of data sourced from previous thesis findings as detailed in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12 The three groups and data sources utilised in this research sub-component Details of Presentation of Group Data source approach findings Site prevalence Frequencies of ecotourism sites Section 3.4 Tables 5.1 and 5.2 in undertaking Conservation Items Chapter 5
EA Questionnaire Coverage levels of Conservation Section 3.5.1 Last column of coverage Items in the post-2015 EA Tables 6.2 and 6.3 in Questionnaire Chapter 6
NCA importance Importance levels of Section 3.5.2.2 ‘NCA & NCTs’ conservation themes in the NCA column in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 in Chapter 6
3.5.3.2 Data transformation Data obtained from the above sources were first converted to star ratings (Table 3.13) to allow comparisons between the groups (detailed further in Section 3.5.3.3).
Table 3.13 Substitutions and cut-offs for converting group categories to star ratings EA Questionnaire Rating Site prevalence NCA importance coverage × No sites No coverage No coverage
* Low Minimal Low (<33% of sites i.e. lower third) ** Moderate Moderate Moderate (33-66% of sites i.e. middle third) *** High Extensive High (>66% of sites i.e. top third)
102 Chapter 3: Methodology
As detailed in Section 3.5.2.2, some of the conservation themes of the NCA incorporate multiple Conservation Items. For these themes, it was therefore necessary to first obtain individual site prevalence and EA Questionnaire coverage ‘scores’ across the multiple Conservation Items before converting these to a single star rating for the theme. This was achieved by merging, averaging or otherwise modifying the values for the Conservation Items in these themes.
Using the site prevalence star rating for the theme ‘control of non-native flora’ as an example: this theme incorporates the action ‘removal of non-native flora’ (100% site frequency) and the outcomes ‘reduced extent of non-native flora’ (13% site frequency) and ‘eradicated non-native flora’ (7% site frequency). These two outcomes are not dependent on each other, nor are they mutually exclusive. Therefore, site responses for the two outcomes were merged to create a new outcome of ‘reduced and/or eradicated non-native flora’ with a site frequency of 14%. The ‘two’ items now in this theme (i.e. the one action and the one merged outcome) were then averaged to provide a single site prevalence score of 57%. This theme was therefore given a two-star rating for site prevalence in line with the cut-off in row two of Table 3.13 (above).
The calculations for themes with multiple Conservation Items are provided in Table 3.14 for the ecological items and in Table 3.15 for the socio-political items.
In addition to the site prevalence ratings, a potential site prevalence rating was also calculated for some themes that included multiple Conservation Items with large disparities in their site frequencies due to the certification reporting requirements, which skewed the overall rating assigned to the theme. Using the same ‘control of non-native flora’ theme as an example: 100% of sites reported removing non-native flora, but only a small number reported reducing or eradicating weeds as this information is not asked for in the EA Questionnaire. As such, the moderate overall prevalence rating for this theme (i.e. 57%) does not accurately reflect the large number of sites engaging with this conservation activity (i.e. 100%). Therefore, a three-star potential site prevalence rating (using only the 100% frequency value for this action) was also assigned to this theme.
Calculation details for these potential site prevalence ratings are also included in Table 3.14 and Table 3.15.
103 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.14 Details of calculations for site prevalence, potential site prevalence, and EA Questionnaire coverage to facilitate comparisons across themes Conservation Calculating scores for site and Conservation Items1 theme EA Questionnaire ratings
Revegetation a) Revegetation Score was averaged across revegetation (a) and and habitat b) Propagation of threatened species extent and quality of habitat (b), but excludes quality & extent c) Increased extent and quality of propagation (c). habitat The potential site prevalence score used the value for revegetation (a) only.
Control of non- a) Actions to remove non-native flora A single outcomes value (‘d’) was created by native flora b) Reduced extent of non-native flora merging site responses for (b) and (c). The c) Eradication of non-native flora score for the theme was then averaged across the values of the ‘two’ items (a) and (d). The potential site prevalence score used the value for actions to remove non-native flora (a) only.
Control of non- a) Actions to control non-native fauna A single outcomes value (‘e’) was created by native fauna b) Reduced non-native fauna merging site responses for (b), (c) and (d). The c) Eradicated non-native fauna score for the theme was then averaged across the values of the ‘two’ items (a) and (e). d) Reduced unnatural competition or predation The potential site prevalence score used the value for actions to remove non-native fauna (a) only.
Land-use a) Converted degraded land to Score was averaged across (a) and (b). change, clearing ecotourism & PPAs b) Established a protected area
Erosion a) Actions to control erosion Score was averaged across (a) and (b). b) Reduced erosion The potential site prevalence score used the value for actions to control erosion (a) only.
Ecological a) Ecological integrity, resilience & Score was averaged across (a) and (b). integrity & health health b) Fauna health and population resilience
Genetic & a) Floral genetic & species diversity Score was averaged across (a) and (b). species diversity b) Faunal genetic diversity
Translocation & a) Translocation Score was averaged across (a) and (b). breeding b) Breeding programs programs
1Conservation Items sourced from the CA Matrix version used and presented in Chapter 5 and Section 6.2.
104 Chapter 3: Methodology
Table 3.15 Details of calculations for site prevalence, potential site prevalence, and EA Questionnaire coverage to facilitate comparisons across themes Conservation Calculating scores for site and Conservation Items1 theme EA Questionnaire ratings
Conservation • Environmental interpretation and A single outcomes value (‘g’) awareness, capacity inspiration for (a) visitors, (b) staff, and was created by merging site and agency (c) local community members responses for the three outcomes (d), (e) and (f). The score was • Increased environmental awareness and then averaged across the ‘four’ knowledge for (d) visitors, (e) staff, and items (a), (b), (c) and (g). (f) local community members The potential site prevalence score was averaged across the three environmental interpretation items (a), (b) and (c) only.
Incentives/deterrents a) Economic development & stimulation Score was calculated by merging b) Employment site responses across all items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). c) Community contributions d) Professional training & capacity building e) Actions to reduce illegal activities f) Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict
Conservation • Increased pro-environmental behaviours Score was calculated by merging behaviours of (a) visitors and (b) locals site responses across all items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). • Improved natural resource management (c) • Reduced (d) consumptive practices, (e) illegal activities, and (f) human-wildlife conflict
Research and a) Research Score was averaged across the knowledge b) Increased knowledge base three items (a), (b) and (c). c) Monitoring The potential site prevalence score was averaged across research (a) and monitoring (c).
Governance and a) Lobbying and advocacy Score was averaged across the environment three items (a), (b) and (c). b) Improved environmental legislation, regulations regulations and policies c) Recognition of environment, land and community rights 1Conservation Items sourced from the CA Matrix version used and presented in Chapter 5 and Section 6.2.
105 Chapter 3: Methodology
3.5.3.3 Data analysis Themes with lower star ratings for site prevalence or EA Questionnaire coverage indicate a conservation gap. Conversely, themes with higher ratings indicate conservation areas that are commonly addressed by sites or are adequately covered in the EA Questionnaire. This information was therefore combined with the NCA importance ratings to identify:
(1) Priority conservation gaps for sites and/or EA to improve upon within the Australian context NCA rating × size of gap (where the size of the gap is equal to [3 – site prevalence rating] and [3 – EA Questionnaire rating])
(2) Key conservation ‘overlaps’ i.e. areas in which the practices of sites and/or EA can contribute to national conservation goals and therefore present opportunities for strategic investments and partnerships NCA rating × site rating NCA rating × EA Questionnaire rating
The above calculations result in a site and EA Questionnaire ‘gap score’ and ‘overlap score’ of 1 to 9 for each theme which were then converted into four rankings of importance (Table 3.16). A score of 6 falls into the high category for a gap score and the moderate category for an overlap score. This is a precautionary measure to minimise the risk of over-emphasising the policy implications of this research due to the number of times the data have been condensed.
Table 3.16 Symbol and level of importance assigned to gap and overlap scores
Ranking Symbol Gap score Overlap score
High importance 6, 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9
Moderate importance 3, 4, 5 4, 5, 6
Low importance 1, 2 1, 2, 3
No importance ⁄ 0 0
106
107 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework for ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 1)
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Context Chapter 1 highlighted the potential for ecotourism enterprises to contribute to conservation goals, and Chapter 2 used a systematic quantitative literature review to (1) demonstrate the gaps in conservation evaluations of ecotourism enterprises; and (2) develop conceptual models of the ecotourism-conservation pathways that have been demonstrated in the academic literature. This chapter builds on these conceptual models by identifying and exploring conservation activities that could potentially be undertaken by ecotourism enterprises. Combined with the findings from Chapter 2, this information is used to construct a framework to guide conservation evaluations of ecotourism enterprises. This framework provides a platform for the subsequent assessment of conservation activates of Australian ecotourism operators in Chapter 5.
4.1.2 Chapter setting within the thesis As discussed in the previous methodology chapter, this thesis includes multiple synergistic approaches that are presented as three discrete research components (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the setting of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3).
108 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
This chapter provides the results of Research Component 1, which used a mixed methods approach (outlined in Section 3.3) to develop a Conservation Activities Matrix (‘CA Matrix’) and Conservation Evaluation Framework (‘CE Framework’) to address Research Objective 2:
Identify the potential conservation activities that ecotourism enterprises may undertake and construct an evaluation framework based on an exploration of the actions, outcomes and relationships of these conservation activities.
4.1.3 Chapter structure As the foundation of the CE Framework, this chapter first explains the structure and composition of the CA Matrix in Section 4.2, followed by a detailed exploration of the individual matrix items and their relationships within the five categories (Sections 4.2.1-4.2.5). Next, Section 4.3 describes the CE Framework, and a brief demonstration of the framework application is provided in Section 4.4.
The CE Framework is also used in Research Component 2 and the findings of this are presented in Chapter 5. As such, Section 4.3 also includes references to relevant sections of Chapter 5 to illustrate steps within the framework.
4.2 Conservation Activities Matrix
A comprehensive list of 53 Conservation Items were identified that could potentially be addressed by ecotourism enterprises. These items were grouped into two distinct groups: 27 conservation actions and 26 conservation outcomes. Of the 702 potential relationships between each of these actions and outcomes, 58 direct and 139 indirect relationships were found to be feasible, although some will only exist in certain contexts or if specific conditions are met.
The interactions between these conservation actions and outcomes can be complex: each action may contribute to a myriad of outcomes (Figure 4.2), and many conservation goals can be achieved using different pathways (Figure 4.3). For example, increased habitat and reductions in non-native fauna are themselves outcomes of the three actions in Figure 4.3, but can also contribute to reductions in competition and predation rates.
Furthermore, as highlighted in Figure 4.2, much overlap exists, and some conservation outcomes can have outcomes of their own. Additionally, although these Conservation Items may be referred to as direct or indirect, this can change depending on the context and the goal of the conservation activities. For example, revegetation activities may be a direct conservation
109 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) action if the goal is to decrease erosion; however, if the goal is to reduce rates of unnatural competition between native and non-native fauna, then revegetation may be an indirect action that contributes to this goal by increasing the availability of resources for wildlife. As such, it is more fitting to view these terms as describing the relationships between the actions and outcomes.
Figure 4.2 A depiction of the direct and indirect conservation outcomes that can be achieved through revegetation activities (as an example action).
Figure 4.3 A depiction of the actions that can directly and indirectly reduce competition with, and predation on, native fauna by non-native species (as an example outcome). Grey boxes indicate outcomes that can also contribute to reductions in competition and predation rates.
The number and complexity of the relationships between the 53 Conservation Items make it impractical to include all items in a single conceptual diagram such as the above figures. The Conservation Items were therefore arranged into a matrix (Table 4.1) to clearly show the relationships between the various actions and outcomes, with direct relationships shown by the
110 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) symbol ⚫ and indirect relationships shown by the symbol . A blank cell indicates that no relationship was identified. However, this does not necessarily mean that no relationship exists: although the CA Matrix is comprehensive, it is not claimed to be exhaustive.
To further aid with clarity, the 53 Conservation Items were also grouped into five categories according to their focus: the biophysical landscape, the fauna, the visitors, the local community, and those that operate at a larger organisational or political level. These five categories were also grouped into two meta-categories: an ecological aspects meta-category incorporating the biophysical landscape and the fauna categories; and a socio-political aspects meta-category incorporating the visitor, community, and organisational/political categories.
Conservation actions in the socio-political meta-categories can only directly achieve conservation outcomes within this same meta-category. Although they can achieve ecological outcomes, they can only do so indirectly through the socio-political outcomes. As suggested in the ecotourism-conservation pathways conceptual model in Figure 2.6 of Chapter 2, it may therefore be more appropriate to view these socio-political outcomes as intermediary conservation outcomes.
The Conservation Items presented in the CA Matrix are explored in detail within their five categories in the sections that follow. However, the categorisation of the Conservation Items is dependent on their individual focus regardless of their relationships with other actions or outcomes. It is therefore common for actions to produce outcomes in multiple categories and, conversely, for outcomes to be produced by actions in multiple categories. As such, these sections include references to items in other categories where relevant.
111 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Table 4.1 The direct and indirect relationships of the 53 Conservation Items, five categories and two meta-categories of the Conservation Activities Matrix
Ecological meta-category Socio-political meta-category Biophysical landscape Fauna Visitor Local community Organisational/political
12 14 18
7
11 13
9
6
3 8
1
4
19 20
16 15 17 5 21 10
2 es tion resources Actions Weeds dvocacy Research Pollution Nest Nest sites Monitoring Purchases A Incentiv Deterrents Propaga Revegetation Technology Translocation PA agencies PA Protected area Protected Degraded land Degraded fauna Invasive Erosion control Erosion Fauna Fauna Fire management Fire Breeding programs Breeding Env interpretation Env interpretation Env Veterinary services Veterinary
Outcomes support Conservation support Conservation support Conservation Decreased fragmentation22 ⚫
Ecological integrity23 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Established corridors24 ⚫ ⚫ Improved diversity25 ⚫ ⚫
Increased habitat26 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Carbon capture ⚫ ⚫ category - Reduced weeds27 ⚫ ⚫ 27 Biophysical environment Biophysical Eradicated weeds ⚫ Reduced erosion ⚫ ⚫
Improved fauna health28
Ecological meta Ecological Genetic diversity29 ⚫ ⚫
Wildlife numbers30 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Competition/predationFauna 31 ⚫ ⚫
Fauna Reduced pests32 ⚫ Eradicated pests32 ⚫
Increased env awareness33 ⚫ ⚫
Conservation capacity34 ⚫ ⚫
Visitors Improved env behaviour35 ⚫ ⚫
112 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Ecological meta-category Socio-political meta-category Biophysical landscape Fauna Visitor Local community Organisational/political
12 14 18
7
11 13
9
6
3 8
1
4
19 20
16 15 17 5 21 10
2 es tion resources Actions Weeds dvocacy Research Pollution Nest Nest sites Monitoring Purchases A Incentiv Deterrents Propaga Revegetation Technology Translocation PA agencies PA Protected area Protected Degraded land Degraded fauna Invasive Erosion control Erosion Fauna Fauna Fire management Fire Breeding programs Breeding Env interpretation Env interpretation Env Veterinary services Veterinary
Outcomes support Conservation support Conservation support Conservation
Increased env awareness36 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Human-wildlife conflict37 ⚫ ⚫ 38
category
- Conservation capacity ⚫ ⚫ Community pressures39 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ 40
Local community Local Pro-env behaviours ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Improved env legislation41 ⚫ political meta political
- Land rights42 ⚫
Political Knowledge base43 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Socio
Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Established a protected area; 2Actions to remove non-native floral species; 3Changed land use/conversion of degraded land to ecotourism site; 4Propagation of at-risk native species; 5Pollution/rubbish clean-up programs i.e. roadside/trail clean-up programs; 6Includes soil health & conservation; 7Including disease control & wildlife care/rehabilitation; 8Actions to control non-native fauna species; 9Increased resources for fauna e.g. water; 10Provision and/or management of nest sites; 11Environmental interpretation/inspiration; 12Actions to increase conservation capacity of visitors; 13Environmental education/interpretation; 14Conservation support & resources to improve conservation capacity; 15Incentives such as payments for ecosystem services; 16Deterrents e.g. increased patrolling of protected areas; 17Lobbying & advocacy; 18Support/donations to conservation organisations, projects & NGOs; 19Support to protected area agencies, governments & councils; 20Investment in conservation related technologies; 21Environmentally friendly purchasing; 22Decreased habitat loss & fragmentation; 23Increased ecological integrity, resilience & health; 24Increased ecological connectivity & corridors; 25Improved floral genetic & species diversity; 26Increased extent & quality of habitat, including increased reforestation & improved vegetation density; 27Reduced/eradicated non-native flora species; 28Increased fauna health & population resilience; 29Increased faunal genetic diversity; 30Improved wildlife numbers (includes increased distribution & range of populations, as well as stabilising a decline); 31Reduced unnatural competition or predation; 32Reduced/eradicated non-native faunal species; 33Increased environmental awareness & responsibility; 34Increased environmental knowledge & conservation capacity; 35Improved pro- environmental behaviours & lifestyles; 36Increased environmental awareness & responsibility; 37Reduced human-wildlife conflict; 38Increased environmental knowledge & conservation capacity; 39Community pressures on conservation attitudes & behaviours e.g. due to the collective interest; 40Increased pro-environmental behaviours & lifestyles; 41Improved environmental legislation, policies, & regulations; 42Recognition of environment, land and community rights; and 43Increased knowledge base. Sources: See Appendix B
113 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Portions of the CA Matrix are included with the exploration of the Conservation Items in each of the following sections. These matrix portions include all of the conservation actions and outcomes for the relevant category, as well as conservation outcomes from other categories that may be produced by actions within the category, as distinguished by grey italicised font. For simplicity, these matrix portions do not include actions from other categories. The complete collection of sources used to create each matrix portion can be found in Appendix B.
4.2.1 Biophysical landscape The biophysical landscape includes the vegetative communities, soil, and geology of the land. Eight potential conservation actions and nine outcomes were identified in this category (Table 4.2), with an additional four outcomes from other categories (in italicised grey font) that can be produced by the biophysical landscape actions.
Table 4.2 Potential biophysical landscape conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises and their outcomes
5
3 1
4
6
7 2 Weeds Erosion Actions: Pollution Propagation Revegetation Protected area Protected Degraded land Degraded
Outcomes: management Fire Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation ⚫ Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Increased ecological connectivity and corridors ⚫ ⚫ Improved floral genetic and species diversity ⚫ ⚫ Increased extent and quality of habitat8 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Increased rates of carbon capture ⚫ ⚫ Reduction in extent of non-native flora species ⚫ ⚫ Eradication of non-native flora species ⚫ Reduced erosion ⚫ ⚫ Increased fauna health and population resilience Improved wildlife numbers9 Reduced unnatural competition or predation Increased pro-environmental community behaviours10 ⚫ Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Established a protected area; 2Actions to remove non-native floral species; 3Changed land use/ conversion of degraded land into an ecotourism site; 4Propagation of an at-risk native species; 5Ecological fire management; 6In addition to own rubbish i.e. roadside/trail clean-up programs; 7Actions to reduce/control erosion; 8Includes increased reforestation and improved vegetation density; 9Includes increased distribution and range of populations, as well as stabilising a decline; and 10Includes a decrease in environmentally destructive activities e.g. reduced logging. Sources: See Appendix B Table B1
114 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.2.1.1 Establishment of a protected area Ecotourism operators can actively establish private protected areas (PPAs) with legal implications (Blangy and Mehta, 2006; Lin, 2012; Pegas and Castley, 2014). For example, in countries such as Australia and the US, it is possible for landowners to voluntarily place protective formal covenants on their properties to prevent specified types of land-use that may cause environmental degradation (Adams and Moon, 2013; Bingham et al., 2017; Hardy et al., 2017). As protected areas limit the types of permissible land uses, they may not only decrease habitat destruction but can also allow for reforestation and improved habitat quality and connectivity, with the potential for benefits to extend beyond property boundaries (Gaston et al., 2008; Oldekop et al., 2016).
Additionally, converting the land use of a property to ecotourism may provide a level of general protection even without legal mechanisms through, for example, increased property surveillance and improved reforestation rates (Almeyda et al., 2010; Almeyda Zambrano, Broadbent and Durham, 2010; Mossaz et al., 2015). By providing suitable habitat in a changing landscape or artificial exclosures27, both formal PPAs and informally protected properties can function as important ecological refuges that provide (1) opportunities for genetic and ecological adaptation, and (2) a valuable resource for studies on longer term means of recovery (Keppel et al., 2015; Morelli et al., 2016).
4.2.1.2 Removal of non-native flora The reduction and eventual eradication of non-native flora is essential for restoring ecological integrity; supporting native wildlife; and reducing competition with, and displacement of, native vegetation (Brooks et al., 2004; Kohli et al., 2006; Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Young et al., 2014). However, for weed removal activities to achieve these outcomes, there must be a net reduction in the extent or density of a non-native species, or in the number of weed species present.
4.2.1.3 Revegetation and habitat quality, diversity and connectivity Revegetation is a core component of conservation activities and vital for returning the biophysical landscape to its natural state and restoring ecological functions; improving habitat quality for wildlife populations; and enhancing ecosystem resilience, especially in a changing climate (Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Kettenring et al., 2014; Santos Junior et al., 2016). The success of such activities can be improved by using watering mechanisms, fertilisation, physical protection, and propagation (Jalonen et al., 2018; Good and Johnston, 2019). Revegetation of fragmented landscapes and wildlife corridors are critical for reducing edge effects, improving
27 Designed to exclude threats rather than enclose wildlife (Aerts, Nyssen and Haile, 2009).
115 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) habitat connectivity, and establishing linkages between wildlife populations that are essential for increased dispersal, gene flow, and population resilience (Baguette et al., 2013; Goossens et al., 2016; Newmark et al., 2017). However, misguided revegetation activities can have negative impacts on ecological structure and ecosystem functions, and the relationship between these actions and outcomes is not always straightforward (Lindenmayer et al., 2012). For example, revegetation activities must ensure appropriate levels of genetic and species diversity in vegetation communities for supporting ecosystem resilience, habitat quality, and many ecosystem functions (Reed and Frankham, 2003; Kramer and Havens, 2009; Hoban et al., 2013; Kettenring et al., 2014).
Furthermore, revegetation activities should not be automatically assumed to increase the extent of habitat. For example, although Lantana camara is an invasive species in Australia and many other countries, it can still provide important ecological functions in cleared landscapes (Gosper and Vivian-Smith, 2006). Therefore, if established lantana thickets or other moderate to large sized vegetation clumps are removed and replaced by native seedlings, this will initially result in a reduction in available resources until the seedlings grow to an appropriate size.
4.2.1.4 Degraded land, pollution, and erosion Converting degraded land to an ecotourism site can include a variety of restoration activities to increase the aesthetic value of the site including revegetation, rubbish removal and erosion control (Derhé et al., 2016; Good and Johnston, 2019). For example, &Beyond28 restored over 13,000ha of previously degraded farmland to establish Phinda Private Game Reserve in South Africa in 1991, followed by the reintroduction of all large mammal species native to the area, and the consolidation and restoration of an additional 15,000ha of land (Blangy and Mehta, 2006; &Beyond, 2019a; b).
Pollution and rubbish products can have extensive impacts on ecological integrity and health (Shahidul Islam and Tanaka, 2004; Beyene et al., 2008; Theobald, 2013), and can pose significant problems for wildlife including, for example, entanglement or ingestion of debris (Moncrieff, 2000; Canesi and Corsi, 2016; Avery-Gomm, Borrelle and Provencher, 2018). Rubbish removal and clean-up programs are therefore important components of both habitat restoration and long-term environmental maintenance.
Erosion can lead to polluted waterways from chemical runoff; decreased water quality; and increased sedimentation, turbidity and eutrophication (Adimassu et al., 2014; García-Ruiz et al., 2017). Erosion control activities are therefore important for improving and maintaining soil
28 Previously Conservation Corporation Africa (CCA).
116 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) ecosystem services such as water filtration and soil fertility, as well as ecological integrity and ecosystem health more broadly (Kagabo et al., 2013; Borrelli et al., 2017; Xiong, Sun and Chen, 2018). Additionally, this can be an important component of carbon sequestration efforts (Ran et al., 2018). However, erosion control can be complicated and the mechanisms involved, such as tree planting, can take a long time to adequately stabilise soil movements (Genet et al., 2008; Ran et al., 2018). As such, the extent of erosion should be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of erosion-control activities. Additionally, decreased erosion rates may actually reflect that a large proportion of the soil has been lost previously rather than being an indication of successful erosion management activities (García-Ruiz et al., 2017).
4.2.1.5 Ecological fire management Fire is an important ecosystem process for vegetation composition, sprouting, and seed germination through burning, soil temperatures, and chemical stimulation from smoke and/or charred wood (Andersen et al., 2005; Bond and Keeley, 2005; Burrows, 2008). Changes to natural fire regimes can therefore disrupt ecological processes, reduce ecosystem integrity, and increase pressures on native fauna and flora (Brockway, Gatewood and Paris, 2002; Mackey et al., 2008; Hess, 2016). As such, fire management activities that restore or mimic natural fire processes can be an important conservation tool.
4.2.1.6 Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health Ecological integrity, health and resilience refer to how close an ecosystem is to its natural state, how well the ecological processes function, and how well the system can ‘bounce back’ when altered by external pressures such as extreme weather events or human impacts (Parrish, Braun and Unnasch, 2003; Hermoso and Clavero, 2013). As previously stated, restoration activities such as weed removal and revegetation are important for improving ecological integrity, health and resilience (Parrish et al., 2003; Kettenring et al., 2014). However, the success of this outcome can only be determined through appropriate evaluations using established measures, scales, and parameters, which may not be readily accessible by most ecotourism operators (Hermoso and Clavero, 2013).
4.2.1.7 Increased rates of carbon capture Carbon sequestration activities involve replacing or enhancing the capacity of natural carbon stores such as forests and soils (Romanin et al., 2015; Ran et al., 2018). As a conservation outcome this is grounded in the premise of generating a positive impact and therefore differs from carbon offsetting activities undertaken to minimise an operation’s impact (Wardle et al., 2018), although they may utilise some of the same approaches. Furthermore, although carbon absorption is a natural outcome of revegetation, this is dependent on the specific carbon carrying capacity of the vegetation being planted which varies substantially across vegetation
117 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) type, age and tree density (Vesk et al., 2008; Romanin et al., 2015). As such, revegetation activities that follow weed removal may not result in net increases in carbon capture rates for many years (Vesk et al., 2008).
Ocean sequestration, geo-sequestration and mineral carbonation are also potential options for increasing rates of carbon capture; however, substantial development is required for these to become viable or widely accessible options (Sanchez et al., 2018; Stavrakas, Spyridaki and Flamos, 2018; Nekuda Malik, 2019). As such, research activities and investments in new technologies by ecotourism operators have the potential to indirectly improve rates of carbon capture.
4.2.2 Fauna Enterprises may undertake actions that intervene directly with native fauna to protect or improve the health of wildlife populations. However, these activities only generate conservation benefits when targeted towards restoring the natural state, and are not always ecologically desirable. For example, it is not beneficial to increase the population size of a non-threatened native species that is already at carrying capacity in an area.
Seven potential conservation actions and nine outcomes were identified in this category (Table 4.3), with an additional four outcomes from other categories (in italicised grey font) that can be produced by the fauna actions.
118 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Table 4.3 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to fauna and their outcomes
2
4 3
5
1 rces Actions: Breeding Nest Nest sites Monitoring Translocation Invasive fauna Invasive Fauna resou Fauna
Outcomes: services Veterinary Increased fauna health and population resilience Increased faunal genetic diversity ⚫ ⚫ Improved fauna numbers6 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Reduced unnatural competition or predation ⚫ ⚫ Reduced non-native faunal species ⚫ Eradicated non-native faunal species ⚫ Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health Reduced erosion Reduced human-wildlife conflict Increased knowledge base ⚫ Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Breeding/head starting programs; 2Includes disease control and wildlife care/rehabilitation; 3Actions to control non-native fauna species; 4Increased resources for fauna, e.g. water; 5Provision and/or management of nest sites e.g. nesting boxes; and 6Includes increased distribution and range of populations, as well as stabilising a decline – all can be indicated by increased faunal sightings and it is preferable to group these outcomes rather than misattribute a score. Sources: See Appendix B Table B2
4.2.2.1 Monitoring Monitoring activities are critical to gain an understanding of the wildlife dynamics of an area; determine the state of wildlife populations; identify non-native fauna presence; and evaluate the effectiveness of any previous conservation efforts (Block et al., 2001; Witmer, 2005). These activities can vary from general observations to extensive systematic programs spanning decades and/or targeting specific features such as wildlife behaviour or scat analysis. Monitoring can be a valuable activity for ecotourism operators to provide information about local wildlife to staff members, guests, and the local community, and can advance ecological and conservation research (Davies et al., 2012; Balme et al., 2013).
4.2.2.2 Breeding and translocation Translocation, reintroduction, and breeding programs have a dual benefit of (1) increasing numbers of charismatic species; and (2) supplementing threatened wildlife populations and increasing their genetic diversity, thereby increasing the population’s resilience and, by extension, ecosystem resilience and ecological integrity (Hedrick and Fredrickson, 2008;
119 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Witzenberger and Hochkirch, 2011). It is not uncommon for ecotourism enterprises to engage with activities of this nature. For example, the 28,000ha Samara Private Game Reserve, South Africa, reintroduced cheetah to the site to restore ecological integrity while maximising tourism opportunities (Hayward et al., 2007). As mentioned previously, however, it is critical that these activities remain within the natural ecological state and that ecotourism operators do not introduce species beyond their natural range (Castley, Boshoff and Kerley, 2001).
4.2.2.3 Provision of veterinary services, disease control and wildlife rehabilitation Veterinary services, disease control, and animal rehabilitation activities target health problems and injuries within existing wildlife populations to reduce the loss of individuals, and can also enhance conservation knowledge (Pyke and Szabo, 2018). At the lower end of the spectrum, this includes rescuing injured wildlife and caring for orphaned animals. At the higher end, this may include disease control activities such as antimicrobials, anti-inflammatories and surgical intervention for treating chlamydial disease outbreaks in koalas (Polkinghorne, Hanger and Timms, 2013; Robbins et al., 2018) or vaccinations for Tasmanian devils against the devil facial tumour disease (McCallum, 2008; Tovar et al., 2017).
4.2.2.4 Reducing non-native fauna Non-native fauna threaten native wildlife through unnatural predation, competition, displacement, and hybridisation (Blackburn et al., 2004; Nogales et al., 2004; Algar et al., 2010; Radford et al., 2018). Actions to reduce or eradicate non-native species are often crucial for reducing threats to native populations and stabilising population declines (Allek et al., 2018). Additionally, controlling introduced fauna can help restore ecosystem functions and improve vegetation health. For example, hoofed animals are not native to Australia, and their presence damages native vegetation. As such, removing these animals can allow the condition of native vegetation to improve, and may also reduce erosion (Good and Johnston, 2019).
4.2.2.5 Increased resources for wildlife including nest management Providing or managing wildlife resources, such as water and nesting sites, can decrease competition for available resources and help prevent wildlife losses or stabilise population declines, especially during extreme weather events or other hardships (Epaphras et al., 2008; Libois et al., 2012). This action includes artificial water sources, nesting boxes, and planting targeted vegetation species for at-risk wildlife such as eucalypts for koalas.
4.2.2.6 Wildlife numbers, distribution and range Ecotourism enterprises can increase numbers of at-risk native wildlife through breeding and translocation programs, improving environmental conditions, and reducing threats, as depicted
120 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) in Table 4.1. This outcome also includes stabilising a decline in wildlife numbers or reducing the rate of decline. However, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, this outcome refers to ecologically desirable increases in native wildlife numbers with respect to both pre-disturbed levels and current environmental carrying capacity (Smallwood, 2001).
Restoring natural distribution patterns and individual ranges are also important conservation goals for wildlife health and ecosystem function (Baguette et al., 2013). However, without adequate data of wildlife trends and threats at a regional scale, ecotourism enterprises are unlikely to be able to distinguish this outcome from an increase in wildlife numbers. For example, increased distributions or ranges may initially result in decreased wildlife sightings which could be interpreted as a decrease in wildlife numbers, and conversely, an increase in wildlife sightings may be caused by increased pressures nearby that are driving wildlife closer together (Baguette et al., 2013). Additionally, increases in the distribution of a population may be detrimental if this pushes individuals outside protected areas (Smith et al., 2016).
4.2.2.7 Wildlife resilience, health and genetic diversity Wildlife resilience refers to the ability of wildlife populations to persist through and survive challenging conditions such as disease, drought, and human impacts (Marino, Sillero‐Zubiri and Macdonald, 2006; Oliver, Brereton and Roy, 2013). Low genetic diversity in wildlife populations can reduce population health, decrease population resilience, increase mortality rates, and impact the population’s ability to adapt to ecosystem changes (Trinkel et al., 2008; Sommer, McDevitt and Balkenhol, 2013; Goossens et al., 2016).
Resilience and health apply to wildlife populations rather than to individual animals, and as such, this outcome is unlikely to be achieved through basic wildlife care and rehabilitation. However, it could result from population-level disease control activities (Pyke and Szabo, 2018).
4.2.3 Visitors Visitor education and interpretation is a major component of ecotourism (Weaver, 2001; Weaver and Lawton, 2007) and can lead to conservation impacts through the actions of visitors following their ecotourism experience (Powell and Ham, 2008; Hughes, 2013). Two potential conservation actions and three outcomes were identified in this category (Table 4.4).
121 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Table 4.4 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to visitors and their outcomes
2
1
Actions: Env interpretation Env
Outcomes: support Conservation Increased environmental awareness and responsibility ⚫ ⚫ Increased environmental knowledge and conservation capacity ⚫ ⚫ Increased conservation behaviours/lifestyles ⚫ ⚫ Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Environmental interpretation/inspiration for visitors; and 2 Support and resources to increase the capacity of visitors to increase conservation behaviours. Sources: See Appendix B Table B3
4.2.3.1 Environmental interpretation, support, and capacity Visitor interpretation occurs predominantly in the form of interpretative trails, brochures and signs, guided tours, and information centres, but can also include post-visit interactions via email and social media. Various messages can be conveyed depending on the location of the site, the presence of key attractants and the target audience, with tailored information having the greatest impact (Ballantyne, Packer and Hughes, 2008). When designed appropriately, environmental interpretation combined with the ecotourism experience can provide the three necessary components to generate visitor behaviour changes, as modified from Wheaton et al. (2016): the desire to act, the ability to act, and the opportunity to act.
4.2.3.2 Increased environmental or conservation awareness of visitors Ecotourism experiences and environmental interpretation can increase visitor knowledge and awareness of environmental issues and, therefore, their self-efficacy and capacity to act (Hughes, 2011; Skibins, Powell and Hallo, 2013; Navrátil et al., 2016; Wheaton et al., 2016). For example, Powell and Ham (2008) found that touring the Galapagos Islands resulted in an increase in natural environment knowledge in 87% of respondents. Additionally, environmental interpretation can enhance visitor environmental values, conservation ethic, and behavioural intentions (Hughes, Packer and Ballantyne, 2011; Ardoin et al., 2016; Sgalitzer et al., 2016). For example, Sander (2012) identified that the intentions of visitors to donate money for conservation purposes increased from 53% to 81% following their stay at an ecotourism lodge in Costa Rica.
122 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.2.3.3 Increased conservation behaviours of visitors Increased pro-environmental and conservation behaviours of visitors are a potential outcome of the educational tools and resources used in ecotourism experiences (Armstrong and Weiler, 2002; Hovardas and Poirazidis, 2006; Zeppel, 2008; Ballantyne, Packer and Sutherland, 2011; Hughes, 2011; Hughes et al., 2011; Skibins et al., 2013). Such behaviour changes may include volunteering or donating money for conservation purposes, taking a stand on environmental issues such as through voting preferences, advocating for an area or species, reporting injured wildlife to authorities, picking up litter, and so on (Howard, 2000; Weaver and Lawton, 2002; Tisdell and Wilson, 2005; Powell and Ham, 2008; Zeppel, 2008; Ballantyne et al., 2011; Hughes, 2011; Weaver, 2012). Additionally, ecotourism enterprises can provide opportunities to act through, for example, petitions or pledges, either on-site or sent in post-visit communications (Wheaton et al., 2016). However, despite the demonstrated increase in pro- environmental behaviour intentions as highlighted in the previous paragraph, the extent to which this translates into actual behavioural changes is less clear (Hofman and Hughes, 2018).
On-site visitor behaviours and visitor management are aspects of minimal impact operations and are therefore not included in this outcome. Additionally, this outcome does not include visitors who ‘plant a tree’ during their stay as this is considered part of the visitor experience rather than a behavioural change. However, an increase in the post-visit minimal impact behaviours of visitors (such as improved recycling practices) can be included in this outcome as this is not part of the visitor management of the site29.
4.2.4 Local communities Communities can have a large impact on their surrounding environment, especially outside of cities and in developing nations where employment options may be limited and livelihoods are often land-intensive (Butcher, 2006; Lamers et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). Local community inclusion and benefits are viewed as an important component of ecotourism operations (Fennell, 2001; Chandel and Mishra, 2016), and ecotourism enterprises may therefore be able to influence local communities to achieve conservation outcomes directly and indirectly (Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Krüger, 2005; Nelson et al., 2010; Sakata & Prideaux, 2013). However, the relationships between local communities, ecotourism enterprises and conservation projects are extremely complex, and strategies are not always successful.
29 This is detailed further in Section 1.4.2.1.
123 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
A simplified summary of the four community-based conservation actions and five outcomes are shown in Table 4.5, with an additional nine outcomes from other categories (in italicised grey font) that may be produced by the community actions. There is much overlap in some of these activities: for example, incentives such as employment or financial contributions may also be framed as deterrents if there is a risk that these may cease. As such, this section is intended to provide a general description of these Conservation Items rather than a precise classification system.
Table 4.5 Potential conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises related to local communities and their outcomes
2
1
4 3
Actions: Incentives Deterrents Env interpretation Env
Outcomes: support Conservation Increased environmental awareness and responsibility ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Reduced human-wildlife conflict ⚫ ⚫ Increased conservation capacity ⚫ ⚫ Community pressures ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Pro-environmental behaviours and lifestyles ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation Increased ecological connectivity and corridors Increased extent and quality of habitat Reduction in extent of non-native flora species Eradicated non-native flora species Improved wildlife numbers5 Reduced non-native faunal species Eradicated non-native faunal species Recognition of environment, land and community rights Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Environmental education/interpretation for staff and/or the local community; 2Provision of conservation resources and support; 3Incentives such as payments for ecosystem services; 4Deterrents such as increased patrolling of protected areas; and 5Includes increased distribution and range of populations, as well as stabilising a decline. Sources: See Appendix B Table B4
124 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.2.4.1 Environmental knowledge, awareness and values Staff
Conservation education and training for staff can be an important avenue for ecotourism enterprises to increase environmental awareness and change attitudes towards conservation practices of (1) the staff involved with the operation, and (2) visitors and the wider community as this information and values culture filter out (Krüger, 2005; Brightsmith et al., 2008; Almeyda et al., 2010; Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010). Increased environmental awareness of staff can occur directly through education and training practices, or indirectly through experiences on the job including interactions with wildlife, guides or visitors (Almeyda et al., 2010; Ballantyne et al., 2011).
Local communities
Through public engagement and environmental interpretation with members of the local community, ecotourism enterprises may improve the environmental values held by local residents, increase their awareness of environmental issues, and change their attitudes towards conservation practices (Lapeyre, 2010; Mbaiwa and Kolawole, 2013; Sakata and Prideaux, 2013). This may arise through communications with local community members such as discussions, talks, presentations, workshops, and consultative meetings (Ogutu, 2002; Svoronou and Holden, 2005; New, 2010; Lin, 2012); through conservation activities undertaken within the community (Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010); and through locals participating in activities run by ecotourism enterprises such as guided tours and exploring visitor centres (Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Samways et al., 2010). Additionally, some studies have shown that local communities may pick up environmentally friendly practices from watching and interacting with visitors, such as eliminating the use of poison in fishing practices (Sakata and Prideaux, 2013). However, as in Section 4.2.3.3, the link between increasing environmental knowledge and subsequent behavioural changes is tenuous, and assumptions should not be made about the existence or success of this outcome without direct evidence.
4.2.4.2 Incentives, deterrents and pressures Ecotourism can provide sustainable use-values of the natural environment while delivering social and economic benefits (Campbell and Smith, 2006; Justus et al., 2009; Oldekop et al., 2015). For example, ecotourism enterprises can (1) create employment opportunities (Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Lapeyre, 2010; Mbaiwa and Kolawole, 2013); (2) provide direct payments through leases and revenue sharing schemes (Ogutu, 2002; Osano et al., 2013; Snyman, 2016); and (3) stimulate the local economy by increasing business for local stores and trades, creating economic linkages, and bringing outside money to a region (Li et al., 2006;
125 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Anand, Chandan and Singh, 2012; Hunt et al., 2015). Ecotourism enterprises can also provide additional contributions that improve the lives of community members and increase social capital such as the improvement and maintenance of road and water infrastructure; the provision of healthcare facilities and community centres; and support for community projects (Mbaiwa, 2011; Sakata and Prideaux, 2013; Snyman, 2016). These benefits can increase the value of tourism and, by extension, the value of wildlife and the natural environment as tourist attractions. They therefore provide incentives for protecting the natural environment, as well as a deterrent if these benefits were to disappear, and therefore increase the likelihood of successful outcomes for conservation strategies (Campbell and Smith, 2006; Justus et al., 2009; Oldekop et al., 2015). Additionally, these community benefits may increase pro-environmental behaviours through social pressures, community trust, shared norms, and the desire to act for the collective interest rather than from self-interest (Pretty, 2003; Thoyre, 2011). As such, community benefits provided by ecotourism enterprises such as employment may directly reduce the number of people available to participate in environmentally destructive practices such as logging; and (2) indirectly reduce environmentally destructive practices through, for example, increased pro-environmental values and community pressures.
Ecotourism enterprises may also undertake more direct community intervention activities to reduce human-wildlife conflict and illegal activities such as poaching, illegal fishing or polluting without a permit. For example, financial interventions may include payments for ecosystem services, in which communities are paid an incentive or reward for the maintenance of ecosystems and protection of wildlife (Li et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2010; Osano et al., 2013); and compensation payments to communities for loss of access to resources or damage caused by wildlife (Ross and Wall, 1999; Adams and Infield, 2003; Salum, 2009). Physical interventions may include patrolling and monitoring protected areas or conservation zones (Nelson et al., 2010; Samways et al., 2010; Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Mbaiwa, 2011); conducting anti-poaching campaigns (Ogutu, 2002); supporting community scouts or park rangers such as providing salaries or equipment (Ogutu, 2002; Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2010; Osano et al., 2013); or constructing protective infrastructure such as electric fences to keep destructive wildlife out of crops (de Boer et al., 2007). Additionally, ecotourism enterprises can provide significant deterrents to illegal activities through, for example, the presence of ecotourism staff on-site; the monitoring of sites through guided tours; and community pressures stemming from the value of natural resources to tourism-employed community members and the social benefits provided by tourism funds (Waylen et al., 2009; Nelson et al., 2010; Samways et al., 2010; Mbaiwa, 2011). These direct intervention activities can be particularly important in regional and sparsely populated areas (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996; Dong et al., 2011).
126 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.2.4.3 Support and conservation capacity Ecotourism enterprises can provide conservation support to local communities and increase their capacity to engage in conservation behaviours. This may include providing (1) information on sustainable practices; (2) resources such as native seedlings or access to equipment; and (3) increased opportunities to act, such as initiating or assisting with community conservation projects. Furthermore, the employment, economic and social benefits discussed in the previous section may provide alternative financial sources that enable communities to be less reliant on land-intensive or consumptive practices such as farming, hunting, mining, logging, and wildlife trades (including poaching) (Marcovaldi and Dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Mbaiwa, 2011; Schoneveld-de Lange, Meijaard and Löhr, 2016). Additionally, ecotourism enterprises can provide training, education and upskilling opportunities for local community members and staff that improve their professional capacity, further expanding their employment options (Mbaiwa, 2011; Sakata and Prideaux, 2013; Snyman, 2016).
4.2.5 Organisational and political Ecotourism enterprises can enact change at a larger organisational and political level. A summary of the six potential conservation actions and three outcomes in this category are shown in Table 4.6, with an additional 11 outcomes from other categories (in italicised grey font). Support for conservation projects, conservation organisations and protected area agencies can have far reaching conservation impacts. Therefore, all conservation outcomes in the complete CA Matrix (Table 4.1) are potential outcomes of these actions but are not shown in Table 4.6 due to space limitations and their presence in previous tables in this chapter.
127 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Table 4.6 Potential organisational/political conservation actions of ecotourism enterprises and their outcomes
2
3 4
1 5
dvocacy Actions: Research Purchases A Technology PA agencies PA
Outcomes: support Conservation Improved environmental legislation, policies, regulations ⚫ Recognition of environment, land and community rights ⚫ Increased knowledge base ⚫ ⚫ Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation Increased ecological connectivity and corridors Increased extent and quality of habitat Increased rates of carbon capture Reduced erosion Improved wildlife numbers6 Increased visitor environmental awareness and responsibility Increased conservation behaviours/lifestyles of visitors Increased community environmental awareness ⚫ Reduced human-wildlife conflict Pro-environmental community behaviours and lifestyles7 Key: ⚫ = Direct; = Indirect Footnotes: 1Lobbying and advocacy; 2Support/donations to conservation organisations and projects; 3Support to protected area agencies and governments; 4Investment in conservation related technologies; 5Environmentally friendly purchasing; 6Includes increased distribution of populations, as well as stabilising a decline; 7Includes improvements in natural resource management and decreases in environmentally destructive activities. Sources: See Appendix B Table B5
4.2.5.1 Research and knowledge Ecotourism enterprises can contribute to the academic literature and to conservation knowledge more broadly by undertaking conservation and ecological research or through providing data, funding, or in-kind support for research or government organisations (Brightsmith et al., 2008; Zeppel, 2008; Samways et al., 2010). For example, researchers used over 3,500 tourist photos and long-term monitoring records from the privately operated Sabi Sands Game Reserve in South Africa to construct life histories of leopards (Balme et al., 2013). This can aid conservation goals through an increased understanding of ecological impacts and the provision of data on optimal conservation processes for practitioners and decision-makers (Sutherland et al., 2004; Cardinale et al., 2012; Balme et al., 2013). Furthermore, ecotourism operators focus on long-term viability and can provide extensive monitoring data and much needed funds and support for long-term research projects, while also allowing time for population recovery
128 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
(Brightsmith et al., 2008; Balme et al., 2013; Marnewick et al., 2014; Young et al., 2014; Vinding et al., 2015).
4.2.5.2 Advocacy, environmental regulations and environment/land rights Through active campaigning and lobbying, ecotourism enterprises can contribute to changes in legislation and public policy; improved regulations; and the establishment of land rights that provide protection against mining, logging and other destructive processes (Svoronou and Holden, 2005; Buckley, 2010; 2011). Conservation activities exist within social, political and economic spheres, and social pressures can therefore influence conservation practices and decision-making (Buckley, 2016). This can be seen, for example, in the implementation of corporate emissions reduction programs in response to public environmental concerns and consumer demands (Kolk and Levy, 2001; Okereke, 2007). Furthermore, ecotourism may generate substantial revenue at both national and regional scales, and can subsequently lead to “shifting priorities in various levels of administration” (Krüger, 2005, p. 593). Ecotourism operators can also influence individual guests, such as visiting politicians, to become champions of their cause and increase funding for conservation activities (Xiang et al., 2011).
4.2.5.3 Support for conservation organisations, conservation projects, protected area agencies, councils and governments Ecotourism enterprises can support conservation organisations, projects and protected area agencies, and thereby contribute to a wide range of conservation outcomes. This may be in the form of, for example, financial support; memberships and endorsement; in-kind support or access to facilities; or developing linkages and partnerships (Buckley, 2004; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). There are three primary mechanisms of financial support: (1) monetary donations and membership fees; (2) visitor fees and operating permits; and (3) as revenue if an organisation provides both ecotourism and conservation services (Buckley et al., 2012; Steven, Castley and Buckley, 2013). Furthermore, protected areas can be expensive to manage and monitor, and decades of conservation can be ruined by even small numbers of intensive poachers (McCauley et al., 2013); however, as discussed in Section 4.2.4, ecotourism enterprises can provide significant incentives and deterrents to reduce environmentally destructive activities and promote pro-conservation behaviours.
These can have a vast range of outcomes depending on the focus of the conservation activities or the organisations being supported, and therefore all conservation outcomes are listed as possible indirect outcomes of these actions.
129 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.2.5.4 Environmentally friendly purchasing and support for conservation related technologies Ecotourism enterprises have the potential to influence consumers through the products they endorse and the information they provide to their guests. Furthermore, they are themselves consumers of goods and services such as energy, food products, and cleaning items. Purchasing, supporting, and investing in environmentally friendly products and conservation technologies allow ecotourism enterprises to ‘vote with their dollar’, support environmentally friendly businesses, and aid conservation goals more broadly (Hansen and Schrader, 1997; Shaw, Newholm and Dickinson, 2006).
4.3 Conservation Evaluation Framework
Four key themes emerged as critical components of conservation evaluations that are needed to develop an adequate evidence base for the use of ecotourism as a conservation mechanism: (1) a systematic approach with (2) a clearly defined site selection rationale that utilises (3) comparable conservation activities and (4) evidence-based evaluation criteria (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). These are here reframed as a series of steps within the CE Framework to guide evaluations of the conservation contributions of ecotourism sites, using the CA Matrix as a core foundational component (Figure 4.4). This framework is not intended to be prescriptive or restrictive: it is a suggested guide that should be modified or expanded as needed.
130 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Figure 4.4 Conservation Evaluation Framework. Diamonds represent processes (numbered 1- 5); rectangles represent products; ‘As and Os’ refers to ‘actions and outcomes’.
4.3.1 Site selection process The site selection process involves developing selection criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of sites to be used in an evaluation. This could include, for example, sites within a specific location, run under a specific operation model, or marketing specific wildlife as a key attractant. Developing a predetermined site selection process is important in systematic evaluations to avoid ‘cherry-picking’ sites that are already known to confirm or contradict the use of ecotourism as a conservation mechanism. However, the use of techniques such as purposeful sampling and random sampling are valid approaches, and selection criteria could be framed to incorporate these. For example, selection criteria could require that the research team has access to company documentation or has previously built a rapport with the operator or other key stakeholders to ensure information-rich analyses.
4.3.2 Conservation Activities Matrix application process As described in Section 4.2, the CA Matrix covers the various conservation actions that may be carried out by ecotourism enterprises, the conservation outcomes they may achieve, and the
131 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) direct and indirect relationship between these. As such, the CA Matrix provides a guide for identifying and collating information on the conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises, a check-list of conservation actions and outcomes to look for, and a template for recording data. Additionally, the matrix is bidirectional: it can be used to determine the potential outcomes of a known action or, conversely, to determine the various actions that can potentially achieve a specified outcome.
Where possible, quantitative data should be included such as the extent of an outcome (e.g. proportion of threatened species being protected, km2 cleared of weeds) or the effort exerted on an action (e.g. person-hours or proportion of budget allocated). In the absence of adequate quantitative data, dichotomous ‘presence/absence’ data may be used instead to indicate the existence of each action-outcome, which could be converted to Likert scales when greater detail is available. Supportive qualitative data may also be used to add depth to the analysis, such as the individual species targeted by the site.
An evaluation could use all Conservation Items within the CA Matrix or might instead focus only on a single item or group of items or, conversely, exclude a group of items. For example, the community section of the CA Matrix may be of little value if a site is located in a remote area with no resident local community. Although the absence of a local community may be linked to historical displacement processes, there can be no community-based conservation activities without a physically present resident community.
Conservation Items within the two meta-categories will usually require the use of vastly different evaluation approaches and expertise. For example, adequate and reliable measures of ecological Conservation Items generally require ecological fieldwork such as fauna surveys; however, these approaches are often costly and time consuming, and are not viable options for evaluating most socio-political items. Conversely, social science methods are valuable for many social aspects of the ecotourism-conservation relationship such as visitor environmental awareness (Fowler, 2014; Bryman, 2016), but are impractical for many of the ecological items. This is because social science approaches such as questionnaires and interviews rely on the perceptions of people which are subjective, difficult to quantify, and open to errors, bias, and exaggeration (Sandy and John, 2011; Bernard, 2013; Tracy, 2013; Karlsson and Dolnicar, 2016). Wherever possible, a range of sources and methods should be used to cross-validate evaluation results. Using human-wildlife conflict as an example, the combination of community interviews with quantitative records of retaliation killings over several years would allow for more accurate evaluations of the extent of human-wildlife conflict than relying on either approach individually (Leech, 2007; Onwuegbuzie, Johnson and Collins, 2009).
132 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
The CA Matrix focuses predominantly on the terrestrial environment; however, many of the Conservation Items can equally be applied to aquatic environments. For example, the Conservation Item ‘increased resources for wildlife’ could also include in‐stream substrate restoration, and the item ‘improved ecosystem health and ecological integrity’ could also include improvements in stream health regarding turbidity and dissolved oxygen content (Parrish et al., 2003; Hermoso and Clavero, 2013).
4.3.3 Amalgamation When evaluating multiple sites, and if sufficient data is available, findings for each Conservation Item may be amalgamated across the sites to identify group contributions, such as the total area of private land protected under conservation arrangements (as illustrated in Section 5.4.1.1).
This step will generally be unnecessary if evaluating a single site, unless conducting a temporal analysis with multiple evaluations over a period of time.
4.3.4 Comparisons and pattern analysis As stated in Section 4.3.2, findings may be quantified if sufficient data is available, or may be reduced to binary or Likert-scale categories to allow for comparisons and pattern analysis across sites or across Conservation Items. Additionally, data may also be amalgamated within groups of sites for both explanatory and exploratory research. For example, Section 5.3.2 uses this approach to reveal that of the ecotourism enterprises evaluated, those with larger properties were more likely to reduce the extent of introduced fauna.
4.3.5 Conservation significance screening process All conservation activities are not of equal importance, and the same activities performed the same way in two different contexts may carry unequal value. For example, the use of nesting boxes on a degraded site may be more beneficial than on a well-preserved site with extensive old growth forest and associated nesting hollows (Vesk et al., 2008; Lindenmayer et al., 2009). It is therefore essential that the relevance of the conservation achievements identified through the CA Matrix are evaluated within the specific environmental context using relevant conservation priorities. This is here termed a ‘conservation significance screening process’. These conservation priorities can come from a variety of sources such as key targets set by governments, funding bodies, conservation practitioners, conservation organisations, ecotourism operators, and so on. For example, Research Component 2 utilises a range of national conservation priorities, directives and regulations to determine the relative importance of the
133 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) conservation activities of sites being evaluated (detailed in Section 3.4.5 and presented in Section 5.4).
4.4 Demonstration application of the CE Framework application
An example of an evaluation guided by the CE Framework is presented here for three Australian ecotourism enterprises, using a single Conservation Item for brevity.
4.4.1 Site selection The selection criteria for this application included sites that were: (1) Previously identified as one of the 86 sites examined in this thesis (and therefore certified with Ecotourism Australia); (2) Located in Queensland; (3) Known to be undertaking revegetation activities; and (4) Known to provide varying levels of detail about their revegetation practices on their websites (minimal, moderate and extensive).
Additionally, only one site was needed for each information level. Therefore, sites were chosen at random from the list of 86 sites and checked against criteria 2, 3 and 4 until three appropriate sites were selected: Capricorn Caves, Lillydale Farmstay and Mt Cotton Retreat.
4.4.2 Application of Conservation Activities Matrix Data were collected for a one-off static assessment using document analysis. For simplicity, only a single information source was used for this demonstration: the websites of the three sites, accessed in November 2017. Each website was explored in full and all relevant text excerpts relating to the single Conservation Item (revegetation) were extracted (Table 4.7).
If this were an application of the entire CA Matrix, all direct and indirect outcomes of revegetation (as presented in Table 4.1) would also be examined in relation to this action.
134 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
Table 4.7 Text excerpts relating to the revegetation practices of the three enterprises, extracted from company websites in November 2017 Site Revegetation excerpts from websites Capricorn Revegetation of degraded areas with native plants. Caves1 The rare fern Tectaria devexa var. devexa [sic], seen in cave entrances, was threatened with extinction in 2006 after decades of drought. A threatened species recovery program has helped stabilise the fragile species, but we continue to closely monitor all known fern sites.
Although widely distributed in Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia and Vanuatu, the Caves district is the only known site in Australia. This relic population at Capricorn Caves declined to near extinction in 2006 with only 21 plants remaining.
Our revegetation projects are drought tolerant and need no long term irrigation, as we use seeds collected on the property and germinated in the on site nursery.
Threatened Species Recovery Program to save fern Tectaria devexa var. devexa [sic] from extinction.
Greening Australia secured a grant under the Threatened Species Recovery Program in partnership with Queensland Herbarium, Griffith University and the Society for Growing Australian Plants. WWF also provided funding to support recovery efforts.
• Stage one was to reproduce more ferns in a controlled environment at Heaton’s Nursery, Nambour. This was successfully achieved with the production of 700 ferns.
• Stage two: maintenance of stock and reintroduction back into its natural habitat. The drought presented challenges together with the impact of hungry rock wallabies and scrub turkeys. Covering the fern with chicken wire prevented animal foraging. Higher rainfall in 2010 and 2011 resulted in [sic] increase in natural germination on the rock face.
• Stage three is maintenance of stock, ongoing monitoring and documentation for future records and guidelines. Photographic monitoring is carried out on a six monthly interval.
Lillydale We have set aside part of our property to encourage native flora to re-establish our traditional Farmstay2 Softwood Vine Scrub vegetation.
Staff and guests have planted over 3000 trees in the last 10 years. We also regularly plant trees throughout the property to reduce carbon, soil erosion and to regenerate the native species.
We also encourage you to sponsor a tree on the property to assist in the construction of our Koala Corridor and to help offset emissions created when you drive or fly to visit us.
[Caption under a picture of a koala] This little koala is typical of what we regularly spot in the trees lining our driveway outside the cabin. We are very encouraged to see that trees planted only 16 years ago are already having such a positive impact.
Mt Cotton Our busy weed management and revegetation programs are ongoing and help to enhance the Retreat3 ecological value of our site. 1http://capricorncaves.com.au/; 2http://www.lillydale.com.au/ (however, this website is no longer owned by Lillydale Farmstay); and 3https://www.mtcottonretreat.com/
135 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1)
4.4.3 Amalgamation The lack of detail obtained by using company websites as the only information source prevents the revegetation activities from being quantified. However, it is possible to reduce the text excerpts to a binary category of presence/absence: revegetation is classified as ‘present’ on all three sites.
4.4.4 Comparison and pattern analysis Statistical analyses could be incorporated into this evaluation if a larger number of sites or Conservation Items were examined. For example, the data could be analysed to determine if larger sites are more likely to undertake revegetation activities, or if engaging with revegetation activities increases the likelihood of a site also undertaking another Conservation Item.
4.4.5 Conservation significance screening The conservation significance screening process employed in this example used relevant threatened species lists, priority interventions and targets, and Regional Ecosystem data under relevant state and national legislation, policy and programs for each of the species and ecosystems named by the sites in connection with their revegetation work.
The revegetation work undertaken by Capricorn Caves is deemed to be of high conservation significance. In 2006 only 21 individual ferns of the subspecies Tectaria devexa var. devexa existed in Australia, spread across six locations in a cave system located on the property of Capricorn Caves (DEHP, 2017b). As a direct result of the efforts of Capricorn Caves in conjunction with conservation organisations, the Queensland Government and a university, this population has increased by nearly 3,800%.
The detail provided on the Lillydale Farmstay website allows for some level of evaluation regarding the conservation significance. The extent of revegetation at 3,000 trees is low to moderate for the property size of 200ha, particularly when compared with the vegetation density of the surrounding uncleared land. Furthermore, Regional Ecosystem mapping from 2015 presents the site as cleared (Queensland Herbarium, 2015), and photographs on the company website in November 2017 confirm that it is predominantly farmland, which will limit the area of land available for revegetation activities. No floral species are listed by the site, and their description of the vegetation type as “Softwood Vine Scrub” does not match an official vegetation category (Neldner et al., 2017). However, it is clear that the revegetation activities are targeted at establishing a corridor for koalas, which are listed as vulnerable at both a national and state level (DEHP, 2017a). Furthermore, habitat destruction is the dominant threat for
136 Chapter 4: Conservation Evaluation Framework (Research Component 1) koalas in this state, highlighting the importance of revegetating cleared farmland (DEHP, 2017a). Encouraging guests to assist in planting the koala corridor also increases the value of this action. Therefore, revegetation activities at this site are estimated to be of moderate conservation significance. However, additional information would be required to verify this.
The information provided by Mt Cotton Retreat is enough to confirm that they do undertake revegetation activities. However, without details of the species planted, fauna targeted, the number of trees or extent of planting, no evaluation of the impact can be made. That is not to say that the revegetation actions of this site are not of conservation significance; this simply means that there is insufficient evidence using this method of data collection to evaluate the conservation significance of their revegetation activities.
137 Chapter 5: Conservation evaluation of private Australian ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Context Chapter 4 expanded the conservation pathways models developed in Chapter 2 from the 12 actions and 8 outcomes that had been demonstrated in the academic literature to 27 actions and 26 outcomes that could potentially be undertaken by ecotourism enterprises. This chapter identifies which of these are undertaken by Australian ecotourism enterprises and evaluates their contributions to national conservation priorities.
Due to the evolution of the CA Matrix throughout the project, an earlier version of the matrix was used for this research component which differs slightly from the version presented in Chapter 4. As such, this chapter utilises 57 Conservation Items consisting of 30 actions and 27 outcomes.
5.1.2 Thesis structure As explained in Section 3.2, the multiple interlinked research approaches of this thesis are presented as three discrete components (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the location and function of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3).
138 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
This chapter provides the results of Research Component 2 which utilises the Conservation Activities Matrix (‘CA Matrix’) and the Conservation Evaluation Framework (‘CE Framework’) developed in the previous chapter to address the following research objectives:
Research Evaluate the conservation activities of a set of Australian ecotourism Objective 3 enterprises certified with Ecotourism Australia (‘EA’).
Research Identify if patterns exist between the conservation practices of a set of Objective 4 Australian ecotourism enterprises and their enterprise characteristics such as the size of the property and age of the business.
5.1.3 Chapter structure This chapter uses a pragmatic approach to present the data in the most appropriate way while broadly adhering to the structure of the CE Framework (Figure 5.2). Section 5.2 provides an overview of the sites selected for this study; Section 5.3 examines patterns among sites and their conservation practices; and Section 5.4 explores the conservation significance of these practices. Additionally, Section 5.5 identifies and discusses some of the conservation challenges and innovations reported by sites. The amalgamation of conservation activities for all Conservation Items (process 3 of the CE Framework, Section 4.3) is presented in Appendix C and Appendix D due to the volume of information. To ensure confidentiality, details of site activities prior to the amalgamation process are not included in the thesis.
Figure 5.2 Components of the CE Framework covered by this research component.
139 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
As highlighted in Section 4.2, the Conservation Items in the CA Matrix can be grouped into ecological and socio-political meta-categories, and this is the approach taken here. The ecological group incorporates the items within the biophysical landscape (‘biophysical’) and fauna categories. The socio-political group incorporates the items within the visitor, community, and organisational/political categories.
5.2 Sites
At the time of site selection in early 2016, there were 86 ecotourism enterprises meeting the site selection criteria outlined in Section 3.4.1. These sites are located predominantly along the coastline of Australia (Figure 5.3), where most of the Australian population resides. The state of Queensland had the largest number of sites (37), followed by South Australia (15) and New South Wales (10).
Figure 5.3 Location of the 86 sites used in this study (numbers in circles indicate multiple sites within close proximity).
Sites ranged from 6 to 90 years of age with properties between 1ha and 70,000ha; however, the majority were 10-24 years old and situated on properties smaller than 100ha, with turnovers less than AU$1,000,000 (Figure 5.4). Sites were distributed fairly evenly across guest capacity
140 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) categories and biomes. Older sites were more likely to have larger turnovers (F = 7.66; df = 2,79; p<0.001) and larger guest capacities (F = 3.98; df = 2,83; p <0.05); and sites with larger guest capacities were more likely to have larger turnovers (F = 9.94; df = 4,77; p <0.001).
Age <10 10-24 ≥25 (years)
Turnover <$250,000 $250,000 - $1M $1M - $5M >$5M ($AU)
Guest Capacity <10 10-29 30-59 60-99 ≥100 (people)
Area 100- 1,000- ≥ <5 5-19 20-99 (ha) 999 9,999 10,000
Biome* R C M A B I T W
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
*R=Rainforest, C=Coastal, M=Mountain/alpine, A=Arid/grassland/desert, B=Bushland, I=Island, T=Temperate, and W=Wetland
Figure 5.4 Proportion of sites within each category of site characteristics (n=86)
5.3 Conservation trends
5.3.1 Frequencies Across the 86 sites the most commonly undertaken ecological actions were weed removal (100%), revegetation (100%) and rubbish clean-up (94%) (Table 5.1). On average, biophysical actions (M = 51, SD = 31) were undertaken by more sites than fauna actions (M = 31, SD = 26). Only 63% of biophysical actions and 33% of fauna actions were undertaken by more than half of the sites. The most commonly reported ecological outcome was increased ecological connectivity and corridors (70%), followed by improved habitat quality and/or extent (45%). The remaining 13 outcomes were reported by fewer than 20% of sites. Overall, ecological actions (M = 42, SD = 31) were reported on more frequently than outcomes (M = 13, SD = 18).
141 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Table 5.1 Proportion of ecological actions and outcomes undertaken by each site (n = 86)
Category Conservation Items # % Actions Biophysical Actions to remove non-native floral species 86 100 Revegetation 86 100 Pollution/rubbish clean-up 84 98 Established a protected area 54 63 Converted degraded land to ecotourism site 45 52 Actions to control erosion 42 49 Ecological fire management 7 8 Propagation of a threatened species 3 3 Mean: 51 (SD = 31) Fauna Actions to control non-native fauna species 66 77 Monitoring 59 69 Increased wildlife resources/nest sites 40 47 Veterinary services, disease control & wildlife care 13 15 Translocation 4 5 Breeding/head starting programs 3 3 Mean: 31 (SD = 26) Outcomes Biophysical Increased ecological connectivity and corridors 60 70 Increased extent and quality of habitat 55 64 Increased rates of carbon capture 15 17 Reduction in extent of non-native flora species 11 13 Eradication of non-native flora species 6 7 Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health 4 5 Reduced erosion 4 5 Improved floral genetic and species diversity 3 3 Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation 0 0 Mean: 18 (SD = 22) Fauna Reduced non-native faunal species 13 15 Improved wildlife numbers 10 12 Reduced unnatural competition or predation 6 7 Eradicated non-native faunal species 5 6 Increased faunal genetic diversity 4 5 Increased fauna health and population resilience 0 0 Mean: 6 (SD = 4.2)
The most common socio-political actions were undertaken by 100% of the 86 sites: environmental interpretation for visitors, employee environmental education and training, support for conservation organisations or projects, and environmentally-friendly purchasing (Table 5.2). On average, organisational/political actions (M = 62, SD = 33) were undertaken by more sites than community actions (M = 56, SD = 34). The most commonly reported socio-
142 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) political outcome was increased environmental awareness of staff (70%), followed by increased conservation behaviours of local community members (17%). Similar to the ecological outcomes, the remaining 10 socio-political outcomes were reported by fewer than 10% of sites. Overall, socio-political actions (M = 60, SD = 33) were reported on far more frequently than outcomes (M = 9, SD = 16).
Table 5.2 Proportion of socio-political actions and outcomes undertaken by each site (n = 86)
Category Conservation Items # % Actions Visitors Environmental interpretation/inspiration 86 100 Community Staff environmental education/interpretation 86 100 Economic development, stimulation and linkages 86 100 Employment 85 99 Community contributions 83 97 Professional training and capacity building for locals 72 84 Actions to reduce illegal activities 59 69 Environmental education/interpretation for locals 34 40 Donations to community development/support purposes 1 1 Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict 0 0 Mean: 56 (SD = 34) Organisational/ Support/donations to conservation organisations, projects and NGOs 86 100 Political Environmentally friendly purchasing 86 100 Research 82 95 Support to protected area agencies, governments and councils 81 94 Lobbying and advocacy 35 41 Investment in conservation related technologies 1 1 Mean: 62 (SD = 33) Outcomes Visitors Improved environmental behaviours of visitors 8 9 Increased environmental awareness and knowledge 3 3 Mean: 6 (SD = 3) Community Increased environmental awareness and knowledge of staff 60 70 Increased pro-environmental behaviours of locals 15 17 Increased environmental awareness and knowledge of locals 5 6 Decreased consumptive and land-intensive practices 0 0 Improved community natural resource management 0 0 Reduced illegal activities 0 0 Reduced human-wildlife conflict 0 0 Mean: 11 (SD = 21) Organisational/ Improved environmental legislation, policies, and regulations 6 7 Political Increased knowledge base 6 7 Recognition of environment, land and community rights 5 6 Mean: 6 (SD = 0.5)
143 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
5.3.2 Patterns among sites
5.3.2.1 Ecological Indices The indices for both the biophysical and fauna aggregate Conservation Items were on average quite low: 0.39 (SD = 0.12) and 0.22 (SD = 0.15) respectively, across all 86 sites. A breakdown of these indices by actions and outcomes shows that the low outcome frequencies are impacting the low overall indices for both categories (Table 5.3). The fauna index had the greater range, and there was only a moderate correlation between these two categories among sites (R = 0.495, p<0.001).
Table 5.3 Average biophysical and fauna indices across the 86 sites
Mean SD Range Actions Outcomes
Biophysical 0.39 0.12 0.18 – 0.71 0.59 (± 0.16) 0.20 (± 0.15)
Fauna 0.22 0.15 0.00 – 0.75 0.36 (± 0.21) 0.07 (± 0.15)
Indices and site characteristics
Comparisons of individual site fauna indices with site characteristics revealed that only property size generated significant associations: there were generally significantly higher indices for larger properties than smaller properties as revealed by an LSD post-hoc test after the initial ANOVA revealed there were differences (F = 2.46; d.f. = 5,80; p < 0.05) (Figure 5.5). There were no significant associations between site characteristics and the individual site biophysical indices.
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000 0 <5ha1 5-220ha 20-3100ha 1004 - 1,0005 - >106,000ha 7 1,000ha 10,000ha
Figure 5.5 Standard error plot of fauna indices for sites within the six property categories.
144 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Conservation Items and site characteristics
Of the 65 relationships between the 1330 ecological Conservation Items and site characteristics that were examined with chi-squares, only two showed a significant association after the first Bonferroni correction was applied (α = 0.0007): sites with properties larger than 20ha were more likely to establish a protected area31 than smaller sites; and sites in mountainous/alpine biomes and on islands were less likely to improve habitat connectivity (Table 5.4). Property size was the most influential characteristic across all adjustment levels, with larger properties significantly associated with an increased likelihood of sites undertaking a range of conservation activities.
Table 5.4 Significant associations between site characteristics and ecological Conservation Items Site Direction (more Bonferroni Conservation Item p value characteristic /less likely) correction1 Property size >1,000ha More likely to… Reduce invasive fauna 0.00001 α = 0.0007 (1) >10,000ha More likely to… Increase wildlife numbers 0.0024 α = 0.003 (2) >20ha More likely to… Veterinary actions 0.0012 α = 0.003 (2) >20ha More likely to… Established PA 0.004 α = 0.01 (3) 100-10,000ha Less likely to… Convert degraded land 0.04 None Age <25 years More likely to… Resources/nest sites 0.028 None Turnover <$1,000,000 More likely to… Improved habitat 0.041 None <$250,000 More likely to… Veterinary services 0.012 None Biome Island & Alpine Less likely to… Habitat connectivity 0.0001 α = 0.0007 (1) Bush & temperate Less likely to… Reduced invasive fauna 0.002 α = 0.003 (2) 1Four levels of Bonferroni corrections were used (see Section 3.4.4.1 for details).
5.3.2.2 Socio-political Indices
The average indices for both the community and political aggregate Conservation Items were higher than the ecological indices but still moderately low across the 86 sites: 0.43 (SD = 0.08) and 0.50 (SD = 0.11), respectively. As with the ecological indices, the low socio-political
30 13 ecological Conservation Items undertaken by 10-90% of sites (Section 3.4.4.1). 31 Referring to protection level categories 1 and 2 as explained in Section 5.4.1.1.
145 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) outcome frequencies also lower the mean (Table 5.5). The political index had a slightly larger range than the community index, and the correlation between these two categories among sites was slightly weaker than the ecological categories (R = 0.399, p<0.001).
Table 5.5 Average community and political indices across the 86 sites
Mean SD Range Actions Outcomes
Community 0.43 0.08 0.13 – 0.63 0.65 (± 0.011) 0.13 (± 0.010)
Political 0.50 0.11 0.33 – 0.89 0.72 (± 0.011) 0.07 (± 0.020)
Indices and site characteristics There were no significant associations between site characteristics and the individual site community or political indices.
Conservation Items and site characteristics
Of the 30 relationships between the six32 socio-political Conservation Items and site characteristics that were examined with chi-squares, only three were found to have significant associations (Table 5.6). These results show that sites in rainforest, bushland and temperate biomes were less likely to have reported increased environmental awareness of staff (p<0.001); sites with guest capacities lower than 10 guests were more likely to undertake actions to reduce illegal activities (p<0.01); and sites that had been established for more than 5 years were more likely to undertake actions to increase the environmental awareness of the local community (p<0.05).
Table 5.6 Significant associations between site characteristics and socio-political Conservation Items Direction (more Bonferroni Site characteristic Conservation Item p value /less likely) correction1 Bushland, rainforest Increased staff Less likely to… 0.00001 α = 0.001 (1) & temperate biomes environmental awareness
Act to reduce illegal <10 guests More likely to… 0.006 α = 0.008 (2) activities
Community environmental >5 years More likely to… 0.027 None interpretation 1Four levels of Bonferroni corrections were used (see Section 3.4.4.1 for details).
32 Six socio-political Conservation Items undertaken by 10-90% of sites (Section 3.4.4.1).
146 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
5.3.3 Patterns among Conservation Items
5.3.3.1 Ecological Jaccard indices calculated for the 91 relationships between each of the 14 individual ecological actions revealed just 22 relationships with an association above 50%. The same 7 actions were involved in all 22 relationships and were predominantly minimal and moderate effort actions which do not necessarily require extensive resources or expertise such as revegetation, weed removal and rubbish clean-up (Figure 5.6). Three of the extensive effort actions also had associations above 25%, suggesting a similar level of expertise or conservation ethic for each of these. Jaccard indices were also calculated for the 78 relationships between each of the 13 individual ecological outcomes reported by at least one site33, with just a single relationship showing an association above 50%: ‘increased corridors/habitat connectivity’ and ‘improved vegetation density/reforestation’ (Js = 0.74). No significant associations were identified between the groups of biophysical and fauna actions and the five site characteristics.
PA = established PA; W = weed removal; V = revegetation; DL = turned degraded land into ecotourism; Pr = propagation of at-risk species; FM = fire management; C = rubbish clean-up; E = effort to reduce erosion; B = breeding programs; T = translocation; VS = veterinary services; P = pest removal; M = monitoring; and R/N = resources/nest management.
Figure 5.6 MDS of similarities between ecological actions grouped by level of effort, using three levels of clustering: 25%, 50% and 75%.
33 Two outcomes were excluded (from the list of 15) as they were not reported by any sites: ‘increased fauna health and population resilience’ and ‘decreased habitat loss and fragmentation’ (Table 5.1).
147 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
5.3.3.2 Socio-political Jaccard indices calculated for the 105 relationships between each of the 15 socio-political actions reported by at least one site34 revealed 55 relationships with an association above 50%. Due to the large disparity in frequencies across the socio-political actions, the MDS highlights that the two actions with very low (<2%) frequencies (‘financial donations for community development’ and ‘investments in conservation technologies’) are very dissimilar to the other thirteen actions (Figure 5.7). Jaccard indices were also calculated for the 28 relationships between each of the eight socio-political outcomes reported by at least one site35; however, due to the very low frequencies across all but one outcome, no relationship had an association above 0.33.
Figure 5.7 MDS of similarities between all socio-political actions reported by at least one site, using three levels of clustering: 25%, 50% and 75% (with 13 actions clumped in the middle).
5.4 Conservation Contributions
The conservation significance screening process is the fifth step in the CE Framework (Figure 5.2). As detailed in Section 3.4.5, this step explores the importance of the conservation activities
34 One action was excluded (from the list of 8) as it was not reported by any site: ‘actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict’ (Table 5.2). 35 Four outcomes were excluded (from the list of 12) as they were not reported by any site (Table 5.2).
148 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) of the 86 sites within the context of national conservation priority areas. Table 5.7 provides a list of the key national conservation directives that are referred to in this section.
Table 5.7 Explanation of national conservation directives referred to in this section Thesis section with Item Explanation relevant details
National Conservation Eight key national Section 2.6.2.2 and Agenda (NCA) conservation policies Section 3.2.3.2
National Conservation Key Threatening Processes, Section 3.2.3.3 Threats (NCTs) Threat Abatement Plans, and Weeds of National Significance
2016 State of the The most recent release of the Section 3.4.5 and listed Environment Report five-yearly national as Jackson et al. (2017) environment reports in the reference list
National Recovery Plans and Directives under EPBC Act Section 2.6.2.1 migratory species lists 1999
Threatened species lists Lists of at-risk species under Section 3.4.5 national, state and territory legislation
All but two of the Conservation Items from the CA Matrix are covered in the NCA (discussed further in Section 6.3.2). As such, this section provides a synthesis of the key site contributions to the national conservation goals and priorities of the NCA, both as a group and as individual operations where appropriate.
5.4.1 Ecological contributions The full summary of site activities for each ecological Conservation Item can be found in Appendix C.
5.4.1.1 Protected areas The 2016 State of the Environment Report highlights that half of all critically endangered communities have less than 5% of their extent represented in the National Reserve System (Jackson et al., 2017), and increasing the extent of protected areas on both public and private land is a key focus of the Reserve Strategy and the broader NCA. It is therefore of conservation
149 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) significance that 54 sites (63%) operate on properties with a formal nature conservation approach as evidenced by a “nature refuges declaration” or “conservation agreement with the relevant State or Commonwealth nature conservation agency”36 (Table 5.8). These covenanted properties varied in size from 1ha to 70,000ha and when combined covered over 240,000ha37. Although most covenants provide in-perpetuity protection, only 25 of these sites (covering over 150,000ha) gave enough detail to verify this. As shown in Table 5.8, these were therefore categorised as Protection Level 1 (PR-1). Without this verification, the remaining 29 sites with formal protection arrangements were categorised as PR-2. Table 5.8 also differentiates between the 12 sites that provided additional commentary regarding the protective arrangements and the 17 sites that simply ticked the relevant box in the EA Questionnaire. Sites without formal protection arrangements (PR-3) covered an additional 21,000ha, with 12 of these sites registering their combined 4,600ha with non-legally binding conservation programs such as Land for Wildlife.
These PR levels are also used in the following section covering site activities for at-risk species.
Table 5.8 Number and size of sites within each protection level category Type PR1 # Total Details Level sites area (ha)
Legally 1 In-perpetuity conservation covenant 25 151,894 binding 2 (a) Exact nature of covenant could not be determined; 12 88,128 however, sites gave additional details such as “the whole property is managed for nature conservation”.
(b) Exact nature of protection arrangement could not 17 1,728 be determined, and sites did not provide any other information on protection measures.
Not 3 (a) Conservation commitment e.g. property registered 12 4,597 legally with a non-legally binding mechanism such as Land binding for Wildlife.
(b) No information was provided about any protection 20 16,618 measures.
1PR Level = Protection level assigned to each site based on the details provided. Where properties had multiple conservation agreements, the more legally binding agreement was used to assign the protection level.
36 Text extract from EA Questionnaire. 37 However, just three sites contribute 185,000ha of this total.
150 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
These properties contain a variety of habitats and areas of significance under the EPBC Act 1999 and international agreements listed in Section 2.6.1 including a Biosphere Reserve (Site 23), part of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (Site 24), and Ramsar listed wetlands (Site 33). Additionally, Site 23 makes up over 13% of a 383,900ha block of intact mallee, one of the largest contiguous areas of this habitat in Australia and one of just five areas on the national Register of Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act 1999.
5.4.1.2 At-risk species Since European settlement in Australia 130 species have been declared extinct, and an additional 449 faunal species, 1,318 floral species, and 81 ecological communities are at risk as at October 2018 (DEE, 2015; 2019b). Furthermore, increases in these figures have been reported in all State of the Environment Reports since the inaugural report in 1996. It is therefore of conservation significance that many sites undertook activities targeted to achieving conservation outcomes for threatened species. Sites reported 53 species by name that could be confirmed as at-risk species. These are summarised in Table 5.9 along with the sites that target these species and the conservation activities undertaken. Some of the activities included in this table are discussed in additional sections of this chapter where relevant, such as the control of non-native fauna in Section 5.4.1.4.
Additionally, many sites referred broadly to at-risk species without providing names. For example, Site 23 reported protecting breeding populations of 18 ‘threatened’ bird species, although only six of these are listed by name and could therefore be verified and included in Table 5.9.
Increases in native wildlife populations were reported by just 10 sites (12%). Four sites (10, 12, 17, 43) had also seen the return of native fauna species that had not been present on the properties prior to their conversion to ecotourism (Table 5.9), including the southern cassowary (Site 17), several species of antechinus (Site 10), and the northern quoll (Site 43). Site 12 did not name a specific species; however, they reported “continuously seeing new fauna species on the property, which can only be a result of the increase in native food plants that have been planted over the past 15 years”.
151 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Table 5.9 Threatened species and associated conservation actions of the 86 Australian ecotourism sites
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Mammals Antechinus minimus Swamp antechinus V VIC: T PR-1, PR-2, IN, 10, 45 75 Reported as not present on Site 10 until owners purchased maritimus M, NE, CD and rehabilitated the land Bettongia penicillata Woylie EN WA: CR PR-1, IN, TR, 25 41 Species has a National Recovery Plan; on the 20 Mammals ogilbyi (CR) CD, BT by 2020 national priority list; 20 individuals successfully released into the 41ha predator-proof enclosure on Site 25 from a local breeding program Cercartetus concinnus Western pygmy LC SA: LC PR-1, M, NE 23 54,000 possum Reg: R Dasyurus hallucatus Northern quoll EN NT: CR PR-1, CD, NE 43 70,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan VIC: T PR-2, IN, M, TR, 10 69 Both populations are of the same subspecies and both have Dasyurus maculatus EN RE, BT, CD, CC National Recovery Plans; Site 10 has 3 resident quolls maculatus (south-eastern Spotted-tailed quoll, NSW: V PR-3, CD 16 7 which are (1) part of a captive breeding network mainland population and tiger quoll V TAS: R PR-1 18 41 maintaining genetic health as an insurance population, and Tasmanian population) (2) used to train detection dogs for monitoring Isoodon obesulus Southern brown EN VIC: T PR-1, IN, M, RE, 36 10 obesulus bandicoot CO Mastacomys fuscus Broad-toothed rat V VIC: T PR-2, M, RE, NE, 10 69 Reported as not present on site until owners purchased and mordicus CD rehabilitated the land Perameles gunnii Eastern barred EN VIC: T PR-1, IN, BT 21 57 Species has a National Recovery Plan; is on the 20 Victorian subspecies bandicoot Mammals by 2020 national priority list; Site 21 reported 10 years of eradication efforts to ensure a predator-free island – 16 bandicoots (bred as part of gene pool widening project) were released in 2015; Site 21 continues to manage the 57ha site and bandicoot numbers have increased to over 100 individuals, representing 8.5% of total Australian mainland population.
152 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Petaurus australis Yellow-bellied glider N/A VIC: LC PR-2, M, NE, CD 10 69 Reported as not present on Site 10 until owners purchased (NT) and rehabilitated the land Petrogale xanthopus Yellow-footed rock V SA: V PR-1, IN, M, TR, 2 61,000 Reported as one of the most secure populations in the xanthopus wallaby Reg: R RE, N+ region due to habitat protection and the reduction of foxes (predator) and goats (competitor) QLD: V PR-1, PR-3, M, 5, 26, 4,940 TR, CC, GU 28 NSW: V PR-3, TR, CD, 27, 29 665 Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V CC VIC: LC PR-1, PR-2, M, 10, 21 1,874 Site 10 is part of a habitat connectivity project across TR, RE, VR, CD, multiple properties CC, CO Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed potoroo V VIC: T PR-2, M, RE, CD 10 69 tridactylus Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil EN TAS: EN PR-1, PR-2, PR-3, 18, 34, 263 M, VR, RE 62, 83 Sminthopsis Fat-tailed dunnart LC SA: LC PR-1 23 54,000 crassicaudata Reg: NT Tachyglossus aculeatus Kangaroo Island EN SA: LC PR-1, M, RE 30 360 multiaculeatus echidna Reg: NT Lasiorhinus latifrons Southern hairy-nosed LC SA: LC PR-3 64 3,000 wombat Reg: NT Birds Acanthiza iredalei Slender-billed LC SA: R PR-1 2 61,000 iredalei (western form) thornbill Reg: CR Amytornis striatus Striated grasswren LC SA: R PR-1 23 54,000 Reg: EN Amytornis merrotsyi Short-tailed V SA: LC PR-1, RE 2 61,000 grasswren Reg: R
153 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Ardenna tenuirostris Short-tailed LC* VIC: LC PR-1, IN, M, RE, 21 1,805 Listed under CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA, and EPBC shearwater VR Migratory Species List Callocephalon Gang-gang cockatoo LC NSW: V PR-3, N+ 6 6.5 fimbriatum Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy black- EN SA: EN PR-1, M, TR, RE, 30, 37, 683 halmaturinus (South cockatoo CO, GU 41 Australian subspecies) Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy black- LC QLD: V PR-1, PR-3, TR, 1, 12, 68 cockatoo M, RE, CO 26 Casuarius casuarius Southern cassowary EN QLD: EN PR-1, PR-2, PR-3, 4, 8, 207 On the 20 Birds by 2020 national priority list; species has johnsonii (wet tropics) M, TR, RE, CC 17, 40, a National Recovery Plan; Site 4 collects scats and data for 54 State Government research project Cyclopsitta diophthalma Coxen's fig-parrot EN QLD: EN PR-3, M 74 3 Has QLD and NSW recovery plans (species is restricted to coxeni south-east QLD and north-east NSW) Cyclopsitta diophthalma Macleay's fig-parrot LC QLD: V PR-1 17 93 macleayana Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian finch EN QLD: EN PR-1, IN, IV, TR, 24 2,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan; Site 24 breeds, tags M, RE, BT, CO and releases up to 100 finches annually Erythrura trichroa Blue-faced parrot- N/A QLD: NT PR-1 17 93 finch SA: LC TR 37 N/A Not on site Reg: EN Eudyptula minor Little penguin LC VIC: LC PR-1, IN, M, VR, 21 1,805 TR, RE Hylacola pyrrhopygia Chestnut-rumped EN VIC: T PR-1, IN, M, RE, 36 10 Species has a Regional Recovery Plan parkeri heathwren CO Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl V SA: V PR-1, M, RE 23 54,000 On the 20 Birds by 2020 national priority list; species has Reg: EN a National Recovery Plan
154 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Lophochroa leadbeateri Major Mitchell N/A SA: R PR-1 23 54,000 cockatoo Reg: EN Macronectes giganteus Southern giant petrel EN* VIC: T PR-1, VR 21 1,805 Listed under the Bonn Convention (A2S) and EPBC Migratory Species List; species has a National Recovery Plan Manorina melanotis Black-eared miner EN SA: EN PR-1, IN, M, TR, 23 54,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan Reg: EN RE, N+, BT Site 23: translocated 8 colonies to supplement genetically isolated populations elsewhere in the state; is part of a network that protects two-thirds of remaining population (including habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat) Neophema elegans Elegant parrot LC SA: R PR-2, M, RE 15 15,000 Reg: R QLD: V PR-1, M 26 20 Ninox strenua Powerful owl LC NSW: V PR-3, N+ 6 6.5 Numenius Eastern curlew CR* VIC: T PR-1, M, RE 21 1,805 Listed under the Bonn Convention (A1), CAMBA, madagascariensis JAMBA, ROKAMBA and EPBC Migratory Species List Pachycephala Red-lored whistler V SA: R PR-1, RE 23 54,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan rufogularis Reg: CR Pachyptila turtur Fairy prion V VIC: LC PR-1, VR 21 1,805 subantarctica Poephila cincta cincta Black-throated finch EN QLD: EN PR-1 24 2,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan Polytelis anthopeplus Regent parrot V SA: V PR-1, PR-2, TR 33, 23 55,700 Species has a National Recovery Plan monarchoides Reg: EN Thalasseus bergii Crested tern LC* VIC: LC PR-1, VR 21 1,805 Listed under JAMBA & EPBC Migratory Species List VIC: T PR-1, IN, M, RE, 21, 45 1,811 On the 20 Birds by 2020 national priority list; Site 21 has Thinornis rubricollis Hooded plover V Reg: V GU, CO been monitoring the population since the 1980s through rubricollis TAS: V PR-2, M, N+ 62 140 nest records and tagging chicks
155 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Turnix olivii Buff-breasted button- EN QLD: EN PR-1, RE 24 2,000 Species has a National Recovery Plan quail Reptiles, arthropods, amphibians and fishes Vermicella annulata Common bandy LC SA: R PR-1 23 54,000 bandy Reg: LC WA: V PR-3, M 9 N/A Listed under the Bonn Convention (A2H) and EPBC Natator depressus Flatback turtle V* NT: LC PR-3 50 N/A Migratory Species List Chelonia mydas Green turtle V* NT: LC PR-3 50 N/A Listed under the Bonn Convention (A1 and A2S) and EPBC Migratory Species List Eretmochelys imbricate Hawksbill turtle V* NT: V PR-3 50 N/A Listed under the Bonn Convention (A1 and A2S) and EPBC Migratory Species List Litoria serrata Tapping green-eyed LC QLD: V PR-1 17 N/A frog Ornithoptera richmondia Richmond birdwing LC QLD: V PR-2, TR, CC 31, 32 19 Both sites are part of a landowner network that plants butterfly corridors of the near threatened Richmond birdwing vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa), the only vine on which the butterfly can lay its eggs Astacopsis gouldi Giant freshwater V TAS: V PR-2, M 83 N/A crayfish Mogurnda clivicola Flinders Ranges V SA: LC PR-1 2 N/A purple-spotted Reg: CR gudgeon Mobula alfredi Reef manta ray LC QLD: LC M, GU 38 N/A Listed under the Bonn Convention (A1, A2S) and EPBC (V)* Migratory Species List Mobula birostris Giant manta ray LC QLD: LC M, GU 38 N/A Listed under the Bonn Convention (A1, A2S) and EPBC (V)* Migratory Species List Flora Acacia araneosa Spidery wattle VU SA: EN PR-1, AC 2 61,000
156 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Threat status Land Scientific name Common name Actions3 Sites Additional details Aus1 State2 (ha)4 Allocasuarina emuina Emu Mountain EN QLD: EN PR-3, PL 12 13 Species has a National Recovery Plan Sheoak Codonocarpus Slender bell-fruit VU SA: EN PR-1 2 61,000 pyramidalis Eucalyptus River red gum LC SA: LC PR-2, AC 33 1,700 camaldulensis Reg: NT Eucalyptus leucoxylon South Australian blue LC SA: LC PR-3, PL 70 101 ssp. leucoxylon gum Reg: NT Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. Manna gum LC SA: Rare PR-3, PL 70 101 viminalis VIC: LC PR-2, PL 10 69 Pararistolochia Richmond Birdwing LC QLD: NT PR-2, PL 31, 32 19 Both sites are part of a landowner network that plants praevenosa Vine corridors of the vine Tectaria devexa - EN QLD: EN PR-1, PL, AC 22 33 Propagated and planted ~800 individuals, represents 100% of total population 1Threat status is sourced from listings under the EPBC Act 1999, with IUCN Red List 2018 status included in brackets if this is a higher threat level than the national level. Additionally, a star (*) next to the threat status indicates the species is listed under an international agreement such as the Bonn Convention; 2State threat status under relevant state legislation (detailed in Section 3.4.5), includes regional status (‘reg’) if state status differs or doesn’t exist; 3Action codes are as follows: PR = protection level, as detailed in Table 5.8; IN = invasive fauna species are targeted; IV = invasive vegetation species are targeted; M = monitoring; TR = provision of targeted resources e.g. nest management, nest boxes, planting food trees; RE = research; VR = veterinary services/rehabilitation; BT = breeding/translocation; CC = corridors and connectivity; CD = conversion of degraded land; CO = community involvement with site efforts (includes schools); GU = guest involvement with site efforts; N+ = numbers have increased; NE = numbers or range have expanded (population could have increased but not enough detail to confirm); PL = actively planted; AC = actively care for (flora) e.g. watering or protection from herbivores; and 4Total amount of land covered by the sites (listed as N/A for marine and aquatic species).
157 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
5.4.1.3 Veterinary services and rehabilitation Wildlife intervention actions including veterinary aid, rehabilitation services, wildlife rescue, and disease control were carried out by 13 sites (15%). Species treated by sites included (1) at- risk species such as koalas (V), little penguins (regionally EN), Tasmanian devils (EN), southern giant petrels (EN), and fairy prions (V); (2) birds not at risk but listed under international conventions and the EPBC Act 1999 Migratory Species Lists such as the crested tern and short-tailed shearwater (as mentioned in Table 5.9); and (3) iconic non-threatened fauna such as echidnas, wallabies, kangaroos, possums, and wombats.
The number of animals treated and released varied greatly across sites from a couple of individuals every few months to several hundred per year. For example, Site 21 reported treating 150 little penguins and “300 to 400 other native animals every year”, and had previously treated over 400 little penguins in a single oil spill incident. Site 10 had also admitted and treated 96 injured and/or orphaned animals over a two-year period.
5.4.1.4 Non-native fauna Non-native fauna are a key issue in the NCA and the most frequently cited threat under the EPBC Act 1999, impacting approximately 80% of all threatened species in Australia (Jackson et al., 2017). It is therefore of conservation significance that over three-quarters of sites (77%) had taken action to reduce the number of non-native animals. The importance of this is further highlighted by the species targeted by these sites (Table 5.10) which include seven of the nine invasive species listed as Key Threatening Processes38 and all invasive species with individual Threat Abatement Plans34 under the EPBC Act 1999.
Table 5.10 Number of ecotourism sites targeting, reducing or eradicating non-native fauna # sites Key Threatening Threat Species Targeted Reduced Eradicated Process Abatement Plan Feral cats 17 2 2 ✓ ✓ Foxes 13 2 3 ✓ ✓ Rabbits 8 2 2 ✓ ✓ Goats 6 3 0 ✓ ✓ Rodents 4 0 0 ✓ ✓ Wild boars 3 2 0 ✓ ✓ Cane toads 2 0 0 ✓ ✓ European Wasp 2 1 0
38 Details in Section 3.2.3.3.
158 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Successful reductions in levels of unnatural competition or predation were reported by just six sites (7%); actual reductions of non-native fauna by just 13 sites (15%); and complete eradication by only five sites (6%). This does not necessarily mean that these outcomes were not achieved by additional sites, but that the phrasing and tense used by the sites and the EA Questionnaire preclude verification. For example, phrases such as, “we use baiting activities to reduce the number of feral cats on the property” establishes that an action is taken but does not demonstrate that the success of this action has been evaluated.
The extent of reduction was generally not quantifiable, but reported outcomes ranged from a few individuals each year to 99% of a rabbit population (Site 15) and 80% of a European wasp population (Site 34). Native species that were targeted for protection by the feral animal removal activities varied greatly across sites and included the yellow-footed rock wallaby (V), southern brown bandicoot (EN), woylie (EN), swamp antechinus (V), spotted-tailed quoll (EN), black-eared miner (EN), chestnut-rumped heathwren (EN), little penguin (regionally EN), hooded plover (V), and short-tailed shearwater (migratory species), as well as non-threatened native species such as dunnarts, pygmy possums, bandicoots, and oyster catchers. However, details regarding outcomes for these species were not reported.
5.4.1.5 Non-native flora The 2016 State of the Environment Report highlights that two-thirds of the approximately 60,000 plant species in Australia are introduced, and over 3,000 of these have become naturalised (IPAC, 2016b; Jackson et al., 2017). It is therefore of conservation significance that all sites reported undertaking weed removal actions. Although only 11 sites (13%) gave enough information to demonstrate a reduction in the extent of weed cover, and just six sites (7%) reported successfully eradicating a weed species, this includes nine Weeds of National Significance39 (WoNS) (Table 5.11). An additional thirty targeted weed species were named by sites without information on the extent of their removal activities including four WoNS: asparagus fern Asparagus aethiopicus (Sites 51 and 75); boneseed Chrysanthemoides monilifera spp. rotundata (Site 21); serrated tussock Nassella trichotoma (Site 21); and jumping cholla Cylindropuntia prolifera (Site 2). Furthermore, many sites also used colloquial names or generic terms for broad groupings of weeds which could not be verified for inclusion in this evaluation. Five sites reported a reduction in the extent of unspecified species and two sites reported eradicating unspecified species. For example, Site 2 reported the eradication of “non- native cacti” and other “exotic species”.
39 Details in Section 3.2.3.3.
159 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Table 5.11 Non-native flora species reduced or eradicated by Australian ecotourism sites
Number of sites Non-native species WoNS Targeted Reduced Eradicated Lantana (Lantana camara) 5 1 1 ✓
Blackberry (Rubus laudatus) 3 1 0 ✓ Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera 1 0 1 ✓ ssp. monilifera) Buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) 1 0 1
Gorse (Ulex europaeus) 1 0 1 ✓ African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) 1 1 0 ✓ Cane cholla (Cylindropuntia spinosior) 1 1 0 ✓
Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 1 1 0 English broom (Cytisus scoparius) 0 1 0 ✓ Madeira vine (Anredera cordifolia) 0 1 0 ✓ Oleander (Nerium oleander) 0 1 0
Rosy dock (Acetosa vesicaria) 0 1 0 Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) 0 1 0 ✓ Snakeweed (Stachytarpheta spp.) 0 1 0
Tobacco bush (Solanum mauritianum) 0 0 1 Glycine (Neonotonia wightii) 0 0 1
The effort exerted by sites on these weed removal activities was generally not provided; however, reports ranged from ongoing gardening through to 7,000 individual plants sprayed annually (Site 2) or >4,000 person-hours devoted to weed removal each year (Site 21). Only four sites reported data on the extent of weed reduction as an outcome: Site 35 had removed weeds along 4km of riparian zone; Site 17 had removed weeds from over a third of their 90ha property; Site 36 had cleared weeds from over 3ha; and Site 18 had reduced weed cover in one of their assessment areas to just 1% (although the size of this area was not provided).
5.4.1.6 Revegetation and habitat connectivity With approximately 13% of Australia’s total native vegetation lost and over 60% degraded since European settlement, revegetation quality and habitat connectivity are key issues in the
160 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
NCA, and land clearing is listed as a Key Threatening Process40 under the EPBC Act 1999. It is therefore of conservation significance that all sites carried out activities to address these issues. For example, native revegetation activities were undertaken by all 86 sites. The extent of these activities was provided by 26 sites, either as the total area covered or number of trees planted (Figure 5.8). Although 38% of these were small scale, and in some cases as low as 60 seedlings, these were often a species of specific use to a locally threatened specialist and were therefore still of conservation significance. For example, she-oaks were planted by three sites to provide forage resources for the threatened glossy black-cockatoo, which feeds only on a limited number of these species. Reasons provided for species selection in revegetation programs included plants utilised by threatened wildlife species (10 sites), threatened or rare floral species (8 sites), and threatened or important ecosystems (4 sites). Two sites also reported extending or re-establishing threatened ecosystems: manna gum woodlands (Site 10) and the candlebark ecosystem (Site 36).
40% 38% 35%
30%
19% 20% % of sites of % 10% 8%
0% Minimal (<1ha; Moderate (1-10ha; Large (10-50ha; Very large (>50ha; <1,000 trees) 1,000-9,999 trees) 10,000-99,999 trees) >100,000 trees)
Figure 5.8 Proportion of sites (that reported on the extent of revegetation) within each revegetation category (n = 26).
Sixty sites (70%) reported creating wildlife corridors or increasing habitat connectivity. At-risk species targeted by the corridors included koalas (Sites 10, 26, 28, and 29), spotted-tailed quolls (Site 10), southern cassowaries (Site 54), and the Richmond birdwing butterfly (Site 31). Additionally, Site 27 reported corridor use by “most terrestrial fauna groups” without providing the name of any species. However, only two sites (Sites 27 and 31) reported that their corridors had resulted in an increase in animals traversing their properties.
Thirty-five sites shared a border with a public protected area, thereby extending the public protected area network by an additional 65,300ha, 98% of which is under legally binding, in- perpetuity conservation agreements. However, a single property accounts for 83% of this total.
40 Details in Section 3.2.3.3.
161 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Additionally, one-third of sites shared borders with areas of significance including World Heritage Areas (16 sites) and regional landscape-level corridors (7 sites).
Improvements in vegetation density and habitat quality were reported by 55 sites (64%). However, only three sites gave detailed information on this outcome. Site 40 used pegs and other markings to measure forest expansion through seed dispersal by wildlife over a 16-year period, claimed to be “equivalent to planting 2 million trees”. Site 10 reported “the germination of around 100,000 new trees” following planting activities which had “dramatically improved the habitat quality”, and Site 17 reported 21ha of reforestation and 34ha of acacia regrowth, although it is not clear how these outcomes were determined.
5.4.2 Socio-political contributions The full summary of site activities for each socio-political Conservation Item can be found in Appendix D.
5.4.2.1 Environmental interpretation, awareness and behaviours Both the ABC Strategy41 and its draft successor, the Nature Strategy, highlight the importance of involving Australian residents and the public more broadly in conservation practices. “Connecting all Australians with nature” is the first of the three national priorities in the Nature Strategy (DEE, 2017, p. 9), with national objectives across both strategies highlighting the need for actions to mainstream biodiversity, empower Australians to be active stewards of nature, and increase public participation in conservation activities42. The activities of ecotourism sites that aim to increase the conservation awareness and behaviours of visitors, staff, and local communities are therefore pertinent for the NCA and are discussed in the subsequent sections.
Visitors All 86 sites incorporated environmental interpretation into the visitor experience, using a variety of self-driven and guided learning mechanisms (Table 5.12). Interpretation materials were linked to improving environmental practices while traveling and in everyday life by 82 sites. Furthermore, some sites had a very wide reach for their environmental education programs, with Site 14 reportedly introducing over 3,000 visitors to “sustainable technologies, practices and concepts” in a single year; and Site 6 reporting over 12,000 guests had “experienced sustainable actions” since they began operating in 2002.
41 Australia’s overarching national conservation policy. 42 Discussed further in Section 6.3.3.
162 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Table 5.12 Proportion of sites covering the interpretation themes and methods Themes % Methods %
Local natural and cultural heritage 83 Self-driven learning e.g. reference 100 Conservation significance of the area 79 materials, displays, brochures, and interpretative signage Principles of ecotourism certification 73 Climate change 71 Guided learning e.g. talks by 91 Identification of certified products 62 specialists and guided tours
Several sites also included visitors in their conservation activities. For example, 10 sites encouraged visitors to plant a tree as part of their stay. Although this practice is considered to be part of the visitor experience (as explained in Section 4.2.3.3), findings showed that it could also be a useful planting strategy. For example, Site 28 used this approach to plant more than 3,000 trees over 10 years and another 800 trees over the following eight years. Six sites encouraged their guests to assist with monitoring efforts, record wildlife sightings in a log book, or participate in wildlife surveys. Three sites also involved guests in their non-native fauna control activities: Site 45 encouraged guests to “participate in the community fox watch by reporting fox sightings during their visit”; Site 31 allowed guests to participate in cane toad catching activities; and Site 85 educated guests on the management of non-native insects. Additionally, two sites involved guests in a range of conservation activities: Site 30 offered a Working Holiday Program in which guests visit the retreat to be “involved in landscape management procedures”; and Site 46 ran an annual program in which guests and community members could participate in habitat restoration and management activities including “the identification and removal of noxious weeds”.
No specific questions in the EA Questionnaire cover outcomes of visitor interpretation43. However, increased environmental and conservation awareness of visitors could be determined for three sites (3%) and increased pro-environmental visitor behaviours, such as donating money to conservation purposes, for eight sites (9%). For example, Site 4 reported that a visitor was “so touched by his experience” that he purchased and revegetated “the adjoining farm/rainforest block”; and Site 6 reported that 5% of all guests make conservation donations online when booking and “a further 5% make donations while on site”.
43 Details in Section 6.2.2.
163 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Staff All 86 sites provided environmental interpretation and conservation information for their staff through both staff inductions and ongoing training programs. Self-guided learning materials such as research journals and updates from scientific research programs were utilised by all sites, with 64% also providing specialised talks for their staff. Outcomes were reported by 60 sites (70%) who confirmed that their staff are “aware of monitoring, research, and conservation programs carried out within or involving the operation”44.
Local community Thirty-four sites (40%) undertook additional environmental education and engagement activities with local schools (22%) and tertiary institutes (15%), and within their local communities more broadly (38%), as detailed in Table 5.13.
Table 5.13 Proportion of sites reporting community environmental engagement activities % of sites
Site activities Community Schools Tertiary
Assist groups with conservation activities 13 0 0 Talks and presentations 9 0 0 Workshops 8 3 1 Provision of materials e.g. information packs, fact sheets 7 7 0 Groups visit site for education and conservation activities 0 19 8 Provision of conservation training and work experience 0 0 5 Provision of research scholarship for Honours or Masters students 0 0 1
Increased environmental awareness of local communities was reported by just five sites (6%); however, behavioural and lifestyle changes were reported by 15 sites (17%) as identified through information provided on community engagement with site-run conservation activities. This was predominantly through on-site conservation work carried out by community volunteers, which was at times of considerable scale. For example, Site 37 reported more than 2000 volunteers planting 400,000 seedlings over 150ha through five separate planting “festivals”; and Site 10 reported more than 100 volunteers planting 25,000 trees over two days.
44 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
164 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Five sites (6%) also supported and participated in local environmental events such as a Conservation Week run by a local council; five sites (6%) ran community days or weekends for locals to participate in conservation activities; and three sites supplied seedlings free of charge for local landowners to plant (Site 10, Site 11, and Site 17). Additionally, Site 4 reported that their encouragement of neighbouring properties to undertake revegetation projects has resulted in “all neighbours, without exception… replanting to extend habitat”.
5.4.2.2 Advocacy and lobbying Political activism and advocacy activities were undertaken by 41% of sites (Table 5.14), with successful changes in legislation and regulations reported by 7% of sites, and recognition or protection of environment and land rights by 6% of sites. For example, Site 2 spent years fighting for the legal protection of their property and surrounding area by lobbying, debating, and developing “posters and press releases, T-shirts and bumper stickers, and street theatre” to gain public support and media coverage. This eventually resulted in the legislation of a new State Act in 2012 for “secure long-term protection from mining”. In another example, Site 12 organised protests of up to 1,000 people and a 10-day blockade against a Coal Seam Gas (CSG) “exploration drill rig that had no social licence or council approvals”. They reported that their political activism resulted in “the cessation of any further CSG exploration and elicited a promise from [the State Premier] to protect the area”. Additionally, Site 7 claims to have been instrumental in the implementation of speed limits on a local river to reduce erosion of the river bank and minimise the impact of motored vessels on wildlife; and Site 13 donated their land to the state government in return for exclusive operating rights, extending the boundary of an adjacent national park.
165 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Table 5.14 Proportion of sites addressing each of the political advocacy actions and topics % Actions Topics 20-30 • Involvement in climate change initiatives • Climate change 5-10 • Writing letters and emails to politicians • Establishment of protected areas • Participation in climate change forums • General conservation issues • Submissions to the government
<5 • General lobbying • Local recycling program • Attending protests • Sustainable tourism • Arranging site visits for politicians
Single • Attending political meetings • Water quality sites • Presentations to government ministers • Erosion • “Voting for and supporting political • Sand mining candidates” with good environmental • Dredging/dumping in GBRMP policies • Rainforest logging • Coal mining & CSG • Wetland infringements
5.4.2.3 Support for conservation organisations and protected area agencies The need for businesses, landowners and the general public to support or partner with conservation organisations and parks agencies is a strong theme throughout the NCA. This includes strategic partnerships across sectors; landscape management approaches across borders; and information sharing through collaborations45. It is therefore of conservation significance that all sites in this study reported providing support for conservation organisations and projects including physical, financial, and/or in-kind assistance. The amount of financial support was generally not disclosed, but varied from one-off donations or monthly membership fees to a “base amount of at least $60,000 per annum” (Site 74). Additionally, over 50% of sites participated in a conservation project or program; 63% were members of a conservation organisation; 9% established or reported to have been instrumental in the establishment of conservation organisations; and the owners or operators of 5% of sites held positions within conservation organisations such as the Treasurer.
Support was provided to protected area agencies by 81 sites (94%) including the provision of information on wildlife sightings (64%) and collaboration or partnerships with parks agencies e.g. cross-boundary weed control (42%). Nearly a quarter of sites (23%) participated in government environment programs such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Eye
45 Discussed further in Section 6.3.3.
166 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) on the Reef Program. Furthermore, 10% of sites assisted with facilities management. As stated by Site 3, “this gives the rangers more time to apply their specialist knowledge and conduct research within the National Park”.
Additionally, 59 sites (69%) reported “suspected infringements, incidents and pollution”46 to protected area managers. For example, the owners of Site 2 were actively vigilant following mining exploration in their region and discovered 38 tonnes of drill samples, plastics, mineral waste and discarded operational material illegally buried in a sanctuary.
5.4.2.4 Research and knowledge According to the 2016 State of the Environment Report, knowledge of ecosystem processes that support biodiversity in Australia is currently insufficient for 99% of species, and the NCA and reports across all jurisdictions raise the lack of long-term monitoring and adequate reporting as a major barrier to effective environmental management (Jackson et al., 2017). It is therefore of conservation significance that 82 sites (95%) undertook or participated in environmental research projects (Table 5.15). Furthermore, 62 sites (72%) aided research projects through the provision of in-kind support, data, access to land and staff assistance; and 7 sites (8%) gave financial support to external research projects. The types of research activities undertaken by sites varied from static data points to broad, longitudinal studies spanning decades. For example, Site 21 had been monitoring the vulnerable hooded plover since the 1980s through nest records and tagging chicks. Furthermore, several sites conducted monitoring and research activities for a number of species with National Recovery Plans that highlight a critical need for research, data collection and data sharing, including the spotted-tailed quoll (Site 10); buff- breasted button-quail and Gouldian finch (Site 24); black-eared miner, malleefowl and red-lored whistler (Site 23); chestnut-rumped heathwren (Site 36); Coxen’s fig parrot (Site 74); and southern cassowary (Sites 4, 8, 40 and 54).
Table 5.15 Proportion of sites addressing the various research topics and engaging in collaborations Research topics % Collaborators %
Regional tourism impact studies 64 Universities 24
Local flora & fauna e.g. breeding, health, DNA analysis 33 NGOs 15
Property e.g. land, soil, water, resource mapping, 26 Government bodies 13 geology, burning techniques Post grad students 12
46 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
167 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2)
Contributions to knowledge were reported by 6 sites (7%) through publication outputs and the dissemination of information beyond staff and visitors. The number of outputs per site varied from a few publications to over 150 academic papers, books, book chapters and reports for Site 21.
5.4.2.5 Purchasing power As discussed in Section 4.2.5.4, purchasing environmentally friendly products is predominantly a sustainability issue but can also produce conservation benefits. Although not a key focus of the NCA, the responsible purchasing of goods and services is touched on by both the ABC Strategy and the Weeds Strategy. It may therefore be of conservation significance that all 86 sites used their purchasing power to support sustainable products and services, with 55 sites (64%) having purchasing guidelines or policies that outlined a preference for both goods and services that have “lower energy, waste and emissions associated with the product purchase and use”47. This included, for example, using companies with environmental policies and/or “green” certification (88%); energy providers that offered “green” accredited products or renewable energy (65%); and environmentally friendly products such as biodegradable or Fairtrade products (37%).
5.4.2.6 Economic development, employment, and community contributions The NCA highlights the need to provide incentives and increase the capacity of Australian residents and the broader public to engage with conservation activities. Section 4.2.4 highlights that in addition to direct links, this can also occur through aspects such as employment and social benefits that increase the shared value of the natural environment and facilitate the transition of workers into more sustainable employment options. It may therefore be of conservation significance that all sites were involved with actions that contributed to the economic development and growth of the area. This included local sourcing of products (99%), services (98%), and construction materials (91%); highlighting regional food or wine as part of the tourist experience (67%); and incorporating regional and destination marketing into their promotional materials (24%).
All but one site48 employed members of their local community, varying from a single employee through to 100% of staff. Furthermore, to “respect and maintain traditional ecological knowledge and stewardship of nature” is one of the 12 key objectives of the Nature Strategy (DEE, 2017, p. 9). It is therefore of conservation significance that 21 sites employed Indigenous
47 Text extract from EA Questionnaire. 48 There was not enough information available to confirm this for the remaining site.
168 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) people with “an understanding and knowledge of local Indigenous heritage”49 as interpreters, trainers, or guides.
Additional community contributions and support were provided by 83 sites (97%). This included, for example, submissions to local governments or media outlets on local community issues (70%); financial or in-kind support for local events and associations (24%); and donation of prizes for community fundraising efforts (26%). Furthermore, four sites reported their involvement with local emergency services including acting as a drop off point for goods after natural disasters (Site 19), volunteering in the rural fire brigade (Site 20), and assisting with search and rescue operations (Site 2 and Site 14).
Finally, 72 sites provided training and upskilling opportunities for local community members such as work experience (65%), access to free jobs and skills training (59%), career development mentoring (57%), tourism and business management training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (27%); and mentorship and operating assistance to local businesses (13%).
5.5 Conservation challenges and innovations
Some sites commented on the challenges they faced when engaging with these conservation activities. Although not specifically included in the CE Framework, the value of this information is demonstrated by the lack of relevant questions to include these details in the EA Questionnaire.
5.5.1 Resources, staff and costs The most common challenges reported by sites were time, funding and resources. Costings were generally not provided; however, they were reported to be as high as $30,000 per year for a single pest removal project (Site 25) and $6,000 per year for a single weed removal project (Site 22). The cost and effort of the necessary ongoing monitoring following conservation activities such as weed removal also proved problematic for some sites. Low staff numbers were a common issue exacerbating this, with 15 sites (17%) employing less than five staff.
Tactics to overcome these issues included obtaining external funding such as government grants and conservation donations (12 sites). A comment from Site 4 highlights the importance of this, stating that “government funding cutbacks in environmental and rainforest studies have
49 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
169 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) prohibited much fieldwork”. Additionally, some sites used volunteers in the form of guests or locals to assist with conservation activities. However, the proximity to local community volunteers posed a challenge for some sites situated in regional towns, remote areas, on islands, or on very large properties.
Additionally, many sites mentioned that some components of the EA Questionnaire that focused on environmental education for staff “lacked relevance” because of (1) low staff numbers, and (2) the environmental qualifications staff were required to obtain prior to being hired. Furthermore, Site 15 commented that “all staff have grown up in the area so little induction regarding the region's environment and values is required”. Although not identified by sites as a challenge, this highlights a potential barrier for sites to undertake and expand their staff environmental education activities.
5.5.2 Landscape and climatic conditions Arid climatic conditions, rocky landscapes and large property sizes in Australia provide challenges to many aspects of ecological restoration projects. As such, many sites used fast growing or drought tolerant plants to address watering issues and allow native vegetation to outcompete with weeds after a site had been cleared. Dripper irrigation, wastewater, water saving crystals and mulch were also used to maximise water retention, with some sites undertaking extra watering activities during prolonged drought periods. Several sites also reported continued weed management for the first few years in cleared and revegetated areas until the newly planted natives had established themselves. Chemical rather than mechanical weed removal was used by some large properties to reduce costs and improve efficiency in rocky and difficult to access areas.
5.5.3 Neighbouring properties and community A major issue highlighted by several sites across many conservation actions was the need for collaboration on a wider landscape-scale. Due to their generalist nature, invasive fauna and flora species were difficult to keep at bay even after eradication or reduction programs had been completed if they persisted on surrounding properties. To address this difficulty, six sites were part of larger, external pest removal programs with government departments or NGOs, and twelve sites worked with partners including government departments, NGOs, and neighbouring landowners. For example, Site 15 was a founder of the local Landcare group and had established a seven-year regional program to eradicate rabbits, and Site 10 ran community workshops on humane fox and cat trapping to reduce numbers across the region. Many sites also utilised fences to protect specific sections of their properties, prevent non-native access
170 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) from some sides of the property, or entirely close off the property. For example, Site 23 used electric fences with a ‘spear’ gate that “permits goats to leave the Reserve but prevents their return”.
Landscape level projects were also used to address conservation goals more broadly. For example, Site 36 was a founding member of a local ‘Friends Of’ conservation group and were integral in coordinating conservation projects across 13 adjoining properties spanning over 230ha. Their five-year implementation plan addressed (1) invasive weeds, invasive fauna and habitat restoration; (2) monitoring and protection of “two nationally listed endangered species and 38 species of regional or state significance”; and (3) targets to “greatly improve the condition of three vegetation associations of state or national significance”. Furthermore, Site 36 commented on the benefit of “managing these properties as a single entity” to overcome “the sometimes disparate and short-term management of threats”.
Two sites raised additional community challenges of a different nature. Site 18 reported difficulties with the handful of nearby properties in their sparsely populated area, stating that these neighbours had carried out acts of vandalism and theft on their property and had “illegally fallen some of our mature trees on our property boundary”. Site 1 reported that insurance complications prevented them from sharing tourism revenue with their close neighbours whose properties are utilised as part of their wildlife tours. Therefore, they use the properties with permission but highlighted that they are unable to provide a financial incentive to the landowners to keep areas of habitat intact.
5.5.4 Conversion to tourism The process of converting a property to ecotourism after it had been previously used for other commercial operations came with additional challenges. Some sites mentioned the need for extensive research and consultation to determine appropriate flora for the site and existing wildlife populations, as they had been cleared of all or most native vegetation by previous owners. Site 38 faced challenges of addressing the impacts of goats on their island location that had been intentionally introduced by workers in the past when it was a mining operation. Site 15 found that transitioning from sheep grazing to tourism had opened the property to feral goats by removing the sheep as competitors, causing unexpected challenges.
5.5.5 Monitoring Challenges regarding the cost and time required for monitoring activities were compounded for many sites by the large size of properties and the cryptic nature of target species. Many sites
171 Chapter 5: Evaluation of ecotourism enterprises (Research Component 2) therefore worked in conjunction with partners, hired consultancies to carry out the work, or utilised volunteers from universities or community groups. For example, Site 10 established a community reporting hotline for local residents to report sightings of threatened species. Several sites also encouraged guests to report specific wildlife seen while on site. For example, Site 38 utilised photos taken by guests while scuba diving for photographic monitoring of manta ray populations, and supported guests to help with the identification process.
Technology also played an important role in reducing the effort required by sites for their monitoring activities. For example, Site 23 used camera traps and drones to conduct wider searches of their large property over longer monitoring periods. This strategy also enabled them to identify localised areas of high activity where manual monitoring efforts should be intensified. Additionally, Site 10 had trained tracking dogs to locate tiger quoll scats to address the challenge of locating this small, nocturnal and solitary marsupial.
172
173 Chapter 6: Ecotourism-conservation gaps and overlaps in Australia (Research Component 3)
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Context The previous chapter utilised the Conservation Activities Matrix (‘CA Matrix’) and the broader Conservation Evaluation Framework (‘CE Framework’) developed in Chapter 4 to evaluate the contributions of a set of Australian ecotourism enterprises to national conservation goals in Australia. As the final research component (Figure 6.1), this chapter incorporates these findings from both previous chapters to address Research Objective 5:
Document and explore the overlaps and gaps between the EA certification criteria, conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises, and the national conservation policy landscape in Australia.
Figure 6.1 Conceptual depiction of the three interlinked research components highlighting the location and function of this chapter within the thesis (modified from Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3).
6.1.2 Chapter structure The chapter begins by evaluating the conservation coverage of the EA Questionnaire, as guided by the CA Matrix (Section 6.2). This is followed by a thematic exploration of the National Conservation Agenda (NCA) in Section 6.3 which includes an evaluation of the tourism
174 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3) coverage of the NCA (Section 6.3.1) and a review of key aspects underlying effective conservation practices in Australia that need improving (Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3). Finally, these findings are amalgamated in Section 6.4 to reveal key conservation ‘gaps and overlaps’ across national policy, ecotourism site practices, and eco-certification in Australia (i.e. areas identified for improvement or for collaboration).
6.2 Eco-certification: conservation coverage and gaps
The EA Questionnaire was updated and streamlined in 201550; however, most sites evaluated in Chapter 5 were certified under the previous version. As such, both the Pre-2015 and Post-2015 versions of the EA Questionnaire are examined here.
6.2.1 Coverage levels Nine of the 57 Conservation Items from the CA Matrix51 had an extensive level of coverage in the Pre-2015 version of the EA Questionnaire, which reduced to only five Conservation Items in the Post-2015 version (Table 6.1). The number of Conservation Items with a moderate level of coverage also decreased in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire, while the number of Conservation Items with minimal or no coverage increased marginally.
Table 6.1 Number of Conservation Items from CA Matrix (Chapter 4) within each level of coverage in the EA Questionnaire EA Extensive Moderate Minimum None Questionnaire # Proportion # Proportion # Proportion # Proportion
Pre-2015 9 16% 13 23% 3 5% 32 56%
Post-2015 5 9% 10 18% 9 16% 33 58%
6.2.2 Conservation Items and site practices The proportion of sites undertaking the 32 Conservation Items that had no coverage in the Pre- 2015 version of the EA Questionnaire ranged from 0% to 17% (Table 6.2 and Table 6.3). The five Conservation Items covered extensively by both versions of the EA Questionnaire were all socio-political conservation actions and were undertaken by 95-100% of sites: environmental interpretation for visitors, environmental education for staff, economic stimulation and linkages, research, and environmentally-friendly purchasing (Table 6.2). The four Conservation Items covered extensively by the Pre-2015 version of the EA Questionnaire but not the Post-2015
50 Details are included in Section 3.5.1. 51 Using an earlier CA Matrix version with 57 Conservation Items (as detailed in Section 3.5.1.1).
175 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3) version were also socio-political actions and were undertaken by 84-100% of sites: support for conservation projects, employment of locals, support to protected area agencies, and capacity building for locals.
Table 6.2 EA Questionnaire coverage of ecological actions and outcomes with site frequencies (from Chapter 5) for comparison EA cov2 EA cov2 Category Conservation Items %1 (≤2015) (>2015) Actions
Biophysical Actions to remove non-native flora species 100 Mod Min Revegetation 100 Mod Mod Pollution/rubbish clean-up 98 Mod N Established a protected area 63 Mod Mod Converted degraded land to ecotourism site 52 Mod Min Actions to control erosion 49 Min Min Ecological fire management 8 N N Propagation of a threatened species 3 N N Fauna Actions to control non-native fauna species 77 Mod Min Monitoring 69 Mod Mod Increased wildlife resources/nest sites 47 Mod Mod Veterinary services and wildlife care3 15 N N Translocation 5 N N Breeding programs 3 N N Outcomes
Biophysical Increased ecological connectivity and corridors 70 Mod Mod Increased extent and quality of habitat 64 Mod Mod Increased rates of carbon capture 17 N N Reduction in extent of non-native flora species 13 N N Eradication of non-native flora species 7 N N Increased ecological integrity and resilience4 5 N N Reduced erosion 5 N N Improved floral genetic and species diversity 3 N N Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation 0 N N Fauna Reduced non-native faunal species 15 N N Improved wildlife numbers 12 N N Reduced unnatural competition or predation 7 N N Eradicated non-native fauna species 6 N N Increased faunal genetic diversity 5 N N
Increased faunal health and population resilience 0 N N 1Proportion of sites undertaking Conservation Items (from Chapter 5); 2Level of coverage in Pre- and Post-2015 EA Questionnaires (no, minimal and moderate); 3Includes disease control activities; and 4Includes ecosystem health.
176 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Table 6.3 EA Questionnaire coverage of socio-political actions and outcomes with site frequencies (from Chapter 5) for comparison EA cov2 EA cov2 Category Conservation Items %1 (≤2015) (>2015) Actions
Visitors Environmental interpretation/inspiration 100 E E
Community Staff environmental education/interpretation 100 E E Economic development and stimulation 100 E E
Employment 99 E Mod Community contributions 97 Mod Mod Professional training and capacity building3 84 E Min
Actions to reduce illegal activities 69 Mod Min Environmental education/interpretation for locals 40 Min Min Community development/support donations 1 N N
Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict 0 N N Organisational/ Support for conservation projects and organisations 100 E Mod Political Environmentally friendly purchasing 100 E E
Research 95 E E Support to protected area agencies and governments 94 E Mod Lobbying and advocacy 41 Min Mod
Investment in conservation related technologies 1 N N Outcomes
Visitors Improved environmental behaviours of visitors 9 N N
Increased environmental awareness and knowledge 3 N N
Community Increased staff environmental awareness and knowledge 70 Min Min Increased pro-environmental behaviours of locals 17 N N
Increased local environmental awareness and knowledge 6 N N Decreased consumptive or land-intensive practices 0 N N Improved local natural resource management 0 N N
Reduced illegal activities 0 N N Reduced human-wildlife conflict 0 N N Organisational/ Improved environmental legislation, policies & regulations 7 N N Political Increased knowledge base 7 N N
Recognition of environment, land and community rights 6 N N 1Proportion of sites undertaking the Conservation Items sourced from Chapter 5; 2Level of coverage in Pre- and Post-2015 versions of the EA Questionnaire (no, minimal, moderate and extensive coverage); and 3Includes activities targeted towards the local community broadly as well as individual community members.
177 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
The coverage level of Conservation Items in the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire is a very strong predictor of the number of sites reporting efforts to address these items (R2 = 0.92) (Figure 6.2), despite the range of data sources used to evaluate site frequencies52. All Conservation Items with an extensive coverage level were addressed by more than 80% of sites; and all items with no coverage were addressed by less than 20% of sites. Patterns for minimal and moderate levels of coverage are less absolute; however over 90% of the Conservation Items with a moderate level of coverage were addressed by more than 50% of sites, and 75% of the Conservation Items with a minimal level of coverage were addressed by less than 50% of sites.
80
60 y = 27.328x + 6.2658 R² = 0.9235 40 # sites #
20
0 None0 M1in Mod2 Max3
Coverage level (Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire)
Figure 6.2 Comparison of coverage levels in the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire and the number of sites reporting each Conservation Item.
The relationship weakens (R2 = 0.75) when using the coverage levels of the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire (Figure 6.3). Over 70% of this change in model performance between Pre-2015 and Post-2015 is influenced by only two Conservation Items: the coverage of rubbish clean-up activities (addressed by 98% of sites) reduced from moderate to none; and the coverage of actions to remove non-native flora (addressed by 100% of sites) reduced from moderate to minimal. Furthermore, all Conservation Items with an extensive coverage level in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire were addressed by more than 90% of sites; and all except one of the 33 Conservation Items with no coverage were addressed by less than 20% of sites.
52 Detailed in Section 3.2.3.4 and 3.4.2.
178 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
80
y = 28.018x + 10.495 60 R² = 0.7487
40 # sites #
20
0 None0 Min1 Mod2 Max 3 Coverage level (Post-2015 EA Questionnaire)
Figure 6.3 Comparison of coverage levels in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire and the number of sites reporting each Conservation Item.
6.2.3 Coverage of Conservation Categories Separating ecological items from socio-political items, as well as actions from outcomes, provides further insights into the conservation coverage of the EA Questionnaire. Although conservation actions were spread across all four coverage levels in the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire, almost two-thirds received a moderate or extensive level of coverage (Figure 6.4). However, only 7% of outcomes received enough coverage to determine if the outcome occurred, and nearly 90% of outcomes received no coverage at all. Socio-political items received more coverage than those in the ecological categories; however, over 60% of Conservation Items in both categories received no or minimal coverage, meaning that it would not be possible to determine through the EA Questionnaire alone if these items are addressed by sites.
Socio-political 50% 11% 7% 32%
Ecological 62% 3% 34%
Outcomes 89% 4% 7%
Actions 27% 10% 33% 30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
None Minimal Moderate Extensive
Figure 6.4 Proportion of Conservation Item meta-categories within each of the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire coverage levels.
179 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Conservation coverage declines in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire as shown by the increased proportion of Conservation Items in the lower coverage levels (Figure 6.5). This shift is caused by the coverage of conservation actions rather than outcomes, with seven actions moving down one level of coverage and two actions moving down two levels of coverage, resulting in the total proportion of actions receiving a moderate or extensive level of coverage falling to less than 50%. Five of these were socio-political actions and four were ecological actions. However, one socio-political action also moved up one coverage level in the Pre- to Post-2015 EA Questionnaires53. As such, the proportion of Conservation Items within the socio-political and ecological categories receiving minimal or no coverage increased from 61% to 64% and 65% to 80%, respectively.
Socio-political 50% 14% 18% 18%
Ecological 66% 14% 21%
Outcomes 89% 4% 7%
Actions 30% 23% 30% 17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
None Minimal Moderate Extensive
Figure 6.5 Proportion of Conservation Item meta-categories within each of the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire coverage levels.
6.3 National Conservation Agenda (NCA): ecotourism and conservation management
6.3.1 NCA and tourism Tourism is not a common topic in the NCA; however, three themes for the tourism-related content were identified: (1) tourism as a reason for promoting conservation activities because of the high value tourists place on the natural environment and the high value of tourism to the Australian economy;
53 Coverage of the organisational/political action ‘lobbying and advocacy’ increased from minimal in the Pre-2015 EA Questionnaire to moderate in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire.
180 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
(2) tourism as an activity that may result in negative environmental impacts and therefore requires management; and (3) tourism as an activity or sector that can contribute to conservation goals.
The first two themes are the most prominent, and only three of the eight NCA policies incorporate the third theme (Table 6.4), as discussed below.
Table 6.4 NCA coverage of the three tourism themes Conservation Potential impact Broad incentive 2 2 2 NCA policies1 mechanism to manage for action TOPs3 Content TOPs3 Content TOPs3 Content ABC Strategy N N Min Min N Mod Nature Strategy Min N N N N E Pests Strategy N N N N N N Weeds Strategy N Min N Min N N Reserve Strategy N N N Mod N Mod Vegetation Strategy N N N Min N Min Heritage Strategy Min Min N Mod N E Species Strategy N N N N N Min 1Full details of these eight policies are provided in Section 3.2.3.2; 2Coverage levels (no, minimal, moderate and extensive coverage); and 3TOPs refers to the Targets, Objectives and Priorities of the NCA policies while ‘content’ refers to their general content (details in Section 3.2.3.2).
The Heritage Strategy has the strongest and most positive coverage of tourism, with one of the 11 strategy objectives to “foster greater collaboration between the heritage and tourism sectors” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 4). This strategy also mentions the important role that tourism businesses play in managing and preserving heritage, “demonstrating commitment to heritage values”, “contributing significant expenditure”, and making positive contributions to local areas (p. 9). Additionally, when acknowledging the negative impacts tourism can have on heritage values, this strategy highlights that these can be managed through cooperative partnerships and the “provision of infrastructure and professional services to support visitation [and] provide tourists with both an enjoyable and sustainable heritage experience” (p. 39). However, as the Heritage Strategy also incorporates built and cultural heritage, these quotes do not refer only to natural heritage.
Both the ABC Strategy54 and its draft replacement, the Nature Strategy, strongly emphasise the need to engage all Australians in biodiversity conservation. However, some subtle changes in
54 Australia’s overarching national conservation policy.
181 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3) the Nature Strategy, drafted nearly a decade later, shift this focus to first fostering a public appreciation of nature. For example, the first of the three priorities in the ABC Strategy is to “engage all Australians in biodiversity conservation” (NRMMC, 2010, p. 71), which has been changed in the Nature Strategy to “connect all Australians with nature” (DEE, 2017, p. 9). Additionally, goals such as “mainstreaming biodiversity” and “increasing public awareness of biodiversity” in the ABC Strategy (NRMMC, 2010, p. 71) have been replaced with objectives to “encourage Australians to get out into nature” and “increase Australians’ understanding of the value of nature” in the Nature Strategy (DEE, 2017, p. 9). Although tourism is not specifically mentioned by these objectives, their explanatory content makes it clear that they include recreational interactions with nature and refers to the potential for nature-based tourism to contribute to achieving these objectives.
The Weed Strategy mentions tourism in relation to conservation activities through a case study on mouse-ear hawkweed. A small infestation of the invasive plant was found by a bushwalker in Kosciusko National Park who immediately reported it to the parks agency. The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service were able to quarantine the site, remove the extremely problematic weed, and begin high priority surveillance of the surrounding area within six days, preventing “severe conservation and agricultural consequences” due to the early detection by the bushwalker (IPAC, 2016b, p. 22). However, the case study also states that the incursion was believed to be the result of seeds accidentally taken into the national park on camping or hiking equipment. This strategy therefore highlights tourism as an activity that both needs managing and can contribute to conservation goals.
6.3.2 NCA and conservation themes Document and thematic analyses revealed that there are eleven ecological themes (Table 6.5) and six socio-political themes (Table 6.6) of high importance across the NCA and NCTs, indicating key conservation management gaps in Australia that need to be addressed55. Many of these themes are the focus of individual NCA policies, indicated in the tables by the symbol ~. As this analysis was guided by the CA Matrix, these tables also include Conservation Items that were only of moderate or low importance in the NCA to provide a comprehensive exploration of these themes in preparation for the analysis that follows in Section 6.4. Additionally, some themes incorporate multiple Conservation Items where relevant56.
55 As explained in Section 3.5.2.2, this approach used the NCA to identify gaps in conservation management, rather than identifying conservation gaps within the NCA. 56 For example, the actions and outcomes of ‘weed removal’, ‘reducing weeds’ and ‘eradicating weeds’ were grouped as a single theme. Tables 3.10 and 3.11 in Section 3.5.2.2 detail the Conservation Items included within each theme.
182 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Table 6.5 Ecological conservation themes covered by the NCA and NCTs Individual NCA Policies2
1
Conservation themes Pest Pest ABC Weed Weed Nature Species Species Reserve Reserve Heritage Heritage NCA & NCTs NCA Vegetation Habitat extent and quality H~ ✓* ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓* Ecological connectivity and corridors H~ ✓* ✓ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Control of non-native flora H~ ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Control of non-native fauna H~ ✓* ✓ ✓* ✓ ⁄ ✓ ✓* ✓ Land-use change, clearing and PPAs3 H~ ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓* ✓* Pollution and rubbish clean-up H~ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ Erosion M ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓ Ecological fire management M ✓* ✓ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ ✓* ✓ ✓* Ecological integrity, resilience & health H ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Genetic and species diversity H ✓* ✓* ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Carbon capture H~ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓* Monitoring H ✓* ✓ ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Wildlife resources and nest management L ⁄ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓ Veterinary services and wildlife care L ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ Translocation and breeding programs L ✓ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ✓ Wildlife numbers and threat status H~ ✓* ✓* ✓ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ ✓* ✓ Key: H = high importance, M = moderate importance, L = lesser importance, N = not covered (details in Section 3.5.2.2); H~ = high importance as the theme is addressed individually by an NCA policy or NCT item (details in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3) ✓ covered in content; ✓* covered in TOPs57; ⁄ = not covered Footnotes: 1Details regarding the conservation themes and the groupings of Conservation Items within these themes are in Section 3.5.2, Tables 3.10 and 3.11; 2Full details of these eight policies are provided in Section 3.2.3.2; and 3PPAs = private protected areas.
Visitor and local community items have been combined in Table 6.6 to align with the broader concept of ‘the public’ as covered in the NCA including landholders, farmers, private citizens, Indigenous peoples, community groups, businesses, and the industry sector.
57 TOPs refers to the Targets, Objectives and Priorities of the NCA policies while ‘content’ refers to their general content (details in Section 3.2.3.2).
183 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Table 6.6 Socio-political conservation themes covered by the NCA and NCTs 2
Individual NCA Policies
1
Themes and Conservation Items erve erve itage itage etation ature Pest ABC Weed N Species Species Res Her NCA & NCTs NCA Veg
Conservation awareness and capacity H ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* Conservation incentives and deterrents H ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Conservation behaviours H ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓* Human-wildlife conflict L ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ Conservation support M ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmentally friendly purchasing L ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ✓ Research and knowledge H ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* Conservation technologies M ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⁄ ✓ ✓ ✓ Governance and environment regulations H ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* Support to protected area agencies H ✓* ✓ ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ ✓* Key: H = high importance, M = moderate importance, L = lesser importance, N = not covered (details in Section 3.5.2.2) ✓ covered in content; ✓* covered in TOPs58; ⁄ = not covered Footnotes: 1Details regarding the conservation themes and the groupings of Conservation Items within these themes are in Section 3.5.2, Tables 3.10 and 3.11; and 2Full details of these eight policies are provided in Section 3.2.3.2.
The NCA was also utilised in the development of the CA Matrix59 and, as such, there is much overlap between them: the NCA themes cover all but two of the 53 Conservation Items in the CA Matrix60. The two items not included are ‘converting degraded land to ecotourism’ and ‘lobbying and advocacy’. However, both items are captured when considering the themes in the NCA more broadly. For example, ‘converting degraded land to ecotourism’ is just a specific type of land-use change (row 5, Table 6.5). Additionally, the NCA discusses the need for improved conservation management and governance arrangements (as described in Section 6.3.3 below), which may be considered a form of advocacy and political activism of an internal nature with a similar goal of improving conservation efforts (row 9, Table 6.6).
58 TOPs refers to the Targets, Objectives and Priorities of the NCA policies while ‘content’ refers to their general content (details in Section 3.2.3.2). 59 This iterative two-way process is described in Section 3.5.2 and 3.5.2.2. 60 57 Conservation Items if using an earlier version of the CA Matrix as in Chapter 5 and Section 6.2.
184 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
6.3.3 NCA and the broader conservation context Thematic analysis of the NCA revealed three overarching concepts that underlie effective conservation practices across the themes: (1) governance, (2) knowledge, and (3) engagement and strategic partnerships. This section provides a synthesis of these concepts as the underlying context for the themes explored in the previous section.
6.3.3.1 Governance The importance of effective governance and leadership for successful biodiversity conservation (and the need to improve this) is a prominent concept in the NCA. Specifically, the NCA highlights a need for structured systems and nationally accepted standards to ensure alignment and consistency in conservation policies and management practices across all jurisdictions and relevant sectors. For example, the Heritage Strategy suggests the implementation of a “One- Stop Shop policy through bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and states and territories in order to make it easier to navigate heritage regulations” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 31).
Effective governance is highlighted throughout the NCA as essential for providing policies and institutional arrangements that: • Enhance strategic investments and partnerships;
• Facilitate, coordinate and incentivise stakeholder engagement in conservation activities, effective management practices, capacity building, and two-way knowledge transfer;
• Improve access to “information about Australia’s environment and biodiversity” and ensure relevant “information assets” (e.g. databases) are “properly maintained, supported and appropriately and effectively shared” (DEE, 2017, p. 15); and
• “Maintain and enhance long-term research, development and extension capacity and capability” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 6).
6.3.3.2 Knowledge All NCA policies emphasise the need to build and expand on existing knowledge across nearly all aspects of biodiversity management. This includes conservation research and assessments of ecological conditions as well as the need for “increased use of monitoring and reporting in the evaluation and improvement of biodiversity conservation projects, programs and strategies” (NRMMC, 2010, p. 50). Knowledge building and knowledge sharing are discussed throughout the NCA as being essential for: • Evidence-informed decision-making and priority setting;
• Providing information on the costs, benefits, and likely investment of potential management strategies;
185 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
• Improving management strategies and enhancing the conservation capacity of stakeholders; and
• Increasing understanding of “community awareness of the need for biodiversity conservation [and] associated behavioural change” (NRMMC, 2010, p. 61), and of “landholder behaviour (barriers, attitudes, ways to better work with stakeholders to encourage improved [conservation management]) and their related economic drivers” (IPAC, 2016b, p. 26).
Furthermore, the NCA highlights that best practice management is continually evolving and that “ongoing investments in research and development are required to ensure that the available management techniques and tools continue to meet operational needs and community expectations” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 27).
6.3.3.3 Engagement and strategic partnerships Engaging and working with stakeholders is a recurring theme throughout the NCA, with frequent mentions of the need to improve collaboration and partnerships across property borders, sectors and jurisdictions. This includes a spectrum of engagement activities from “increase[ing] Australians’ understanding of the value of nature” (DEE, 2017, p. 9); to “develop[ing] the knowledge, capacity and commitment of key stakeholders” (IPAC, 2016b, p. 5) and “increas[ing] participation in coordinated management approaches across a range of scales and land tenures” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 6); and to “empower[ing] Australians to be active stewards of nature” (DEE, 2017, p. 9). Additionally, there is a clear emphasis on the need for strategic investments, incentives, partnerships and stakeholder engagement for increasing conservation funds and resources from non-government sources including private landholders and primary industries.
Key advantages of coordinated efforts highlighted within the NCA include “the effective use of local expertise and resources, decreased [management] costs, and encouraging ownership of [conservation issues] through group cohesiveness” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 29). Furthermore, there are numerous references across the NCA to the need for improved two-way knowledge-sharing among all stakeholders to disseminate and build upon best-practice management. For example, the ABC Strategy highlights the importance of improved consultation with community and industry stakeholders “to develop national guidelines for adaptive management” (NRMMC, 2010, p. 61). The importance of local-level data is also strongly emphasised across the NCA including the surveillance and reporting of environmental conditions (such as pest sightings), as well as detailed knowledge of the local area and context. For example, the Pest Strategy recognises that “farmers develop important knowledge about their property over time, and understand how their land adapts to changing conditions” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 29). However,
186 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3) inadequacies in current engagement practices are clear, with all NCA policies emphasising (1) the importance of increasing both the number and the effectiveness of such practices; and (2) the need for additional arrangements and resources to facilitate this.
6.4 Policy, practice, and eco-certification: overlaps and gaps
Table 6.7 highlights key gaps and overlaps in the ecotourism-conservation relationship in Australia by using star ratings to compare the following three groups:
(1) NCA rating – the importance of key conservation themes in the NCA/NCTs (from Section 6.3.2); (2) Site prevalence rating (‘site rating’) – the prevalence of ecotourism sites undertaking activities that address these themes i.e. how widespread these practices are across certified ecotourism sites (modified from Section 5.3.1)61; and (3) EAQ coverage rating (‘EAQ rating’) – coverage level of these themes in the Post- 2015 EA Questionnaire (modified from Section 6.2)61.
Themes with lower site or EAQ ratings indicate a conservation gap and, conversely, themes with higher site or EAQ ratings indicate conservation areas that are addressed by a high proportion of ecotourism sites or receive a high level of coverage in the Post-2015 EA Questionnaire.
Additionally, a potential site prevalence rating was also calculated for themes in which the overall rating for the theme was skewed by large disparities in site prevalence across the combined conservation actions and outcomes and therefore did not accurately reflect the large number of sites engaging with the conservation activity. This potential site prevalence is indicated in Table 6.7 by the addition of a star in brackets next to the site prevalence rating (*). For example, the site rating of **(*) for the theme ‘control of non-native flora’ indicates a 2-star site rating and a 3-star potential site rating62.
Comparisons of the NCA ratings with the site and EAQ ratings were used to calculate the following two rankings for each theme.
61 Details regarding the merging of Conservation Items into themes and the calculations to obtain a single site prevalence rating and EA Coverage rating per theme can be found in Section 3.5.3.2. 62 Details regarding the calculations of potential site prevalence ratings can be found in Section 3.5.3.2.
187 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Gap rankings A ranking of the conservation gaps for sites or EA to improve upon based on a combination of (1) the size of the gap; and (2) the importance of the theme within the NCA. These rankings are indicated in Table 6.7 by ‘traffic light’ colouring of the symbol .
Themes of high NCA importance with low site prevalence have important practical implications as key areas for sites to target to increase their eligibility and attractiveness as an investment option for government grants and programs.
Similarly, themes of high NCA importance and low EAQ ratings have strong eco-certification implications as key areas for EA to include in their certification criteria.
Overlap rankings
A ranking of the potential opportunities for conservation-ecotourism collaborations based on a combination of (1) the importance of the theme within the NCA; and (2) the prevalence of sites addressing the theme or the EAQ coverage of the theme. These rankings are indicated in Table 6.7 by the number of exclamation marks (from zero to three).
Themes of high NCA importance that overlap with high site or EAQ ratings have strong policy implications as key areas for strategic investments and partnerships with ecotourism sites and/or Ecotourism Australia, as indicated by the symbol [!!!] in the overlap ranking columns.
188 Chapter 6: Conservation gaps and overlaps (Research Component 3)
Table 6.7 Comparisons and implications of NCA focus, site practices and the EA Questionnaire (‘EAQ’) across key conservation themes NCA-Site NCA-EAQ Conservation themes1 Rating ranking ranking NCA Sites EAQ Gap Overlap Gap Overlap Ecological Habitat extent and quality *** *** ** !!! !! Ecological connectivity and corridors *** *** ** !!! !! Control of non-native flora *** **(*) * !!! !! Control of non-native fauna *** **(*) * !!! !! Land-use change, clearing and PPAs *** ** ** !! !! Pollution and rubbish clean-up *** *** × !!! ⁄ Erosion ** *(*) * !! ! Ecological fire management ** * × ! ⁄ Ecological integrity, resilience & health *** * × !! ⁄ Genetic and species diversity *** * × !! ⁄ Carbon capture *** * × !! ⁄ Monitoring *** *** ** !!! !! Wildlife resources and nest management * ** ** ! ! Veterinary services and wildlife care * * × ! ⁄ Translocation and breeding programs * * × ! ⁄ Wildlife numbers and threat status *** * × !! ⁄ Social Conservation awareness and capacity *** **(*) ** !!! !! Conservation incentives and deterrents *** *** *** !!! !!! Conservation behaviours *** *(**) × !! ⁄ Organisational/political Conservation support * *** ** !! ! Conservation technologies ** * × ! ⁄ Environmentally friendly purchasing * *** *** !! !! Research and knowledge *** **(*) ** !!! !! Support to protected area agencies *** *** *** !!! !!! Governance and environment regulations *** ** * !! !! Rating: *** = high; ** = moderate; * = low; × = none (for NCA importance, site prevalence and EAQ coverage) Gap ranking: = very important; = important; = somewhat important; = low importance; / = not important Overlap ranking: !!! = very important; !! = moderately important; ! = low importance; / = not important Footnotes: 1Details regarding the conservation themes and the grouping and calculations of Conservation Items within these themes are in Section 3.5.3.
189
190 Chapter 7: Discussion
7.1 Introduction
Ecotourism is often promoted for its potential to combine social and commercial benefits with conservation goals, and has been adopted widely in community development and conservation policies in developing nations, and in practical conservation approaches globally (Butcher, 2006; Lamers et al., 2014; Romero-Brito et al., 2016). However, evaluations of this relationship in practice are a relatively recent trend and the conservation impact of ecotourism enterprises on a larger scale remains unclear (Wardle et al., 2018). This thesis therefore used a multidisciplinary mixed methods approach to explore the demonstrated and potential conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises at a broad global scale, and to evaluate the conservation contributions of private ecotourism enterprises at the national scale in Australia. Core themes from this research demonstrate a raft of ecological and social relationships between ecotourism and conservation practice, and this chapter presents a discussion of each of these components.
The chapter begins by discussing the significance and contribution of this thesis to knowledge through the Research Objectives in Section 7.2. Next, an evidence-based interpretation and contextualisation of the thesis findings in relation to the academic literature is presented in Sections 7.3 and 7.4. This is followed by the practical implications of this research in Section 7.5, the key limitations of this study and suggestions for future research directions in Section 7.6, and concluding remarks in Section 7.7.
7.2 Thesis significance and contributions
7.2.1 Research Objective 1 Identify and synthesise existing evaluations of the conservation activities of ecotourism enterprises in the academic literature to quantify the gaps and biases that exist within this research.
Chapter 2 used a published systematic quantitative literature review to (1) demonstrate the gaps in conservation evaluations of ecotourism enterprises; and (2) develop conceptual models of the ecotourism-conservation pathways that have been demonstrated in the academic literature. This is the most comprehensive review currently available of the conservation actions and outcomes of ecotourism enterprises (Wardle et al., 2018). It highlights that although existing evaluations in the academic literature do indicate that ecotourism enterprises can achieve positive conservation outcomes, the indiscriminate and variable nature of this research undermines its
191 Chapter 7: Discussion reliability as an evidence base (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). This necessitates more robust standardised measures to quantify ecotourism contributions and facilitate more detailed comparative analyses.
7.2.2 Research Objective 2 Identify the potential conservation activities that ecotourism enterprises may undertake and construct an evaluation framework based on an exploration of the actions, outcomes and relationships of these conservation activities.
Chapter 4 built on the conservation pathways identified in Chapter 2 and established the first comprehensive list of conservation actions, outcomes and the interconnected relationships between them. Constructed into a Conservation Activities Matrix, this provides the foundation of a novel Conservation Evaluation Framework to guide systematic evaluations of the conservation contributions of the ecotourism industry at an individual enterprise level or accumulative scale. It addresses vital aspects of threatened species management by allowing for both spatial and temporal comparisons, and facilitating repeatability and reproducibility of evaluations (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Morrison, Wardle and Castley, 2016). Furthermore, by incorporating the ecological, social and political dimensions of conservation practices, the Conservation Activities Matrix addresses key gaps in the academic literature identified in Chapter 2 (Wardle et al., 2018). This framework provided a platform for the subsequent assessment of conservation actions and outcomes by Australian ecotourism operators in Chapter 5.
7.2.3 Research Objectives 3 and 4 (3) Evaluate the conservation activities of a set of Australian ecotourism enterprises certified with Ecotourism Australia (‘EA’).
(4) Explore the patterns that may exist between the conservation practices of Australian ecotourism enterprises and their enterprise characteristics such as the size of the property and age of the business.
Under the guidance of the Conservation Evaluation Framework, Chapter 5 provides the first national scale systematic evaluation of the conservation contributions of multiple privately owned and operated ecotourism enterprises in Australia. This research reveals that although ecotourism operations generate a myriad of conservation gains through social and ecological actions, not all eco-certified sites contribute to conservation goals. Many of the findings presented in Chapter 5 reflect previously reported patterns for individual private land
192 Chapter 7: Discussion conservation63 (e.g. Brightsmith et al., 2008; Halliday et al., 2012; Mossaz et al., 2015). However, this thesis is the first to use a predetermined comprehensive list of ecological and socio-political items, providing an important step for the systematic use and evaluation of ecotourism for conservation purposes. It helps to satisfy the need for evidence-based conservation measures, and therefore has practical implications for operators, researchers, and eco-certification bodies for introducing or enhancing the use of ecotourism in conservation strategies (Kleiman et al., 2000; Tear et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2012). Furthermore, this static assessment provides a baseline for future evaluations of Australian ecotourism enterprises.
7.2.4 Research Objective 5 Document and explore the overlaps and gaps between the EA certification criteria, conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises, and the national conservation policy landscape in Australia.
Chapter 6 provides a novel comparison of the criteria from an eco-certification program, the conservation practices of their certified members, and the key themes and priorities of national conservation policy. By exploring overlaps and gaps across these three groups, this chapter identified (1) priority areas for Australian ecotourism sites and EA to improve their contributions to national conservation goals, such as assessments of both social and ecological outcomes of conservation activities; and (2) key opportunities for conservation-ecotourism collaborations and strategic investments for conservation activities.
7.3 Ecotourism and ecological conservation practices
The significance of the conservation achievements identified in this study varied greatly, with some sites making important contributions to threatened species or ecosystems, and others simply listing actions with little focus on their extent or outcomes. As the available information for these results was strongly influenced by the certification program and reporting process, it is possible that these patterns may differ slightly in practice. However, both the types of actions reported and the large difference in frequencies between actions and outcomes reflect trends in the academic literature (Wardle et al., 2018).
63 Discussed further in Sections 7.3 and 7.4.
193 Chapter 7: Discussion
7.3.1 Frequencies and patterns Findings from Chapter 5 demonstrate that there are some Conservation Items addressed by many sites, many Conservation Items that are addressed by no or few sites, and a handful of sites that undertake many Conservation Items. Over 85% of ecological outcomes were reported by less than 20% of sites, which may reflect critical limitations in how such outcomes are reported or evaluated on private properties more broadly. The challenge of evaluating conservation outcomes has been highlighted previously (Adams, Game and Bode, 2014), and this may be particularly pertinent in the private land context where conservation objectives, evaluation methods and reporting are highly variable (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014), and the poor exchange of information (e.g. Sunderland et al., 2009) may further limit evaluations.
The most commonly reported conservation actions from ecotourism operations were similar to, but more prevalent than, those of the broader population of private landholders in Australia with conservation agreements (both legally binding and non-legally binding) (Halliday et al., 2012). For example, the two most frequent activities identified in Halliday et al. (2012) were weed control (89%) and revegetation (54%), which were both carried out by 100% of the ecotourism sites examined in this study. This may be because these and other commonly reported activities in this study such as rubbish clean-up are (1) relatively cheap and easy to undertake at a basic level (which is all that is required to meet the criteria of the certification program), and (2) likely to enhance site aesthetics. Similarly, the most frequently reported conservation outcomes were those that are the most visible and easily detected such as increased habitat, in contrast to the infrequently reported actions and outcomes which tend to require specialised equipment or technical measurements (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014). However, the cost and convenience of an activity does not necessarily correlate with its importance. For example, rubbish clean-up requires minimal effort or expertise yet can be extremely important in coastal areas due to the risk that discarded material presents to marine wildlife (Jackson et al., 2017), as demonstrated by the creation of a Threat Abatement Plan in 2018 for this issue (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018). Furthermore, despite the low frequencies of reported outcomes, the high frequencies of conservation actions indicate a high level of enthusiasm for conservation practices among private Australian ecotourism enterprises, reflecting previous findings that tourism operators in natural areas have a high conservation ethic and often see themselves in a ‘steward’ role to both use and protect the natural environment (Besio, Johnston and Longhurst, 2008; Liburd and Becken, 2017).
The highly associated relationships between Conservation Items reflect similarly high frequencies: there were no pairs of Conservation Items with low frequencies but high association. This means that Conservation Items which are uncommon overall are scattered across sites in various patterns rather than clumped together at particular sites. Again, this could
194 Chapter 7: Discussion be related to the cost and effort required for most of these low-frequency items: many of the sites in this study are small businesses, and it is of greater value to use their limited resources efficiently on a small number of targeted actions to maximise their outcomes (Naidoo et al., 2006; Frankham, 2008).
There were also few significant patterns across the sites relating to site characteristics, meaning there are similar opportunities for most sites to undertake most Conservation Items. Within the Australian context this may be because (1) both threats and threatened species are widely distributed across Australia (Allek et al., 2018), and (2) there is relatively equal access to nationwide programs such as federal grants, Landcare, and Land for Wildlife (Prado et al., 2018; Robins, 2018). However, the results highlight some patterns relating to property size and enterprise age.
Sites with larger properties were more likely to obtain some level of formal protection, reduce invasive fauna, and undertake wildlife rehabilitation and veterinary activities. This is likely related to factors that increase the feasibility and value of these actions in this context. For example, larger properties tend to contain higher numbers of wildlife, larger and less fragmented forested areas, and a higher area-to-perimeter ratio that reduces edge effects of neighbouring properties (Hobbs, 2001; Ries et al., 2004; Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007).
Younger enterprises were more likely to manage resources and nest sites for wildlife, indicating a lack of old growth forest (and associated undergrowth and nesting hollows) that would otherwise be present on properties that had been under protective arrangements for a longer period of time (Lindenmayer et al., 2000; Vesk and Mac Nally, 2006; Boyle et al., 2008; Lindenmayer et al., 2009). It is also likely that this is linked to the non-significant association that enterprises less than five years old were more likely to have converted degraded land to ecotourism.
However, care must be taken in the interpretation of this data: these patterns are a reflection of the number of Conservation Items reported and do not incorporate their extent, scale, or impact on threatened species. Furthermore, the importance of these conservation activities is dependent on the individual context.
7.3.2 Private land and protected areas This study demonstrates that ecotourism enterprises are already contributing to a key conservation strategy in Australia to increase private protected areas (PPAs) (Fitzsimons, 2015; England, 2016; Mitchell et al., 2018). Nearly two-thirds of the 86 sites had established legally-
195 Chapter 7: Discussion binding PPAs, with an additional 12 sites (14%) demonstrating their conservation commitment through non-legally binding mechanisms such as the Land for Wildlife program64. This proportion is far higher than that of other segments of commercial or private landholders in Australia (Fitzsimons, 2015). Furthermore, the 54 sites with formal PPAs together make up 3% of the 8,702,600ha of land under PPAs in Australia (DEE, 2016), with the remainder made up of approximately 5,000 properties (Fitzsimons, 2015). However, as noted in Chapter 5, just three sites made up 75% of the total area protected in this study. Furthermore, private protected areas also face funding challenges, and landowner concerns about the loss of potential future land-use options and productivity (Greiner and Gregg, 2011; Moon and Cocklin, 2011; Adams and Moon, 2013; Addison and Pavey, 2017) will remain important discussion points.
Nevertheless, over half of the 86 sites in this study were situated on previously degraded land that they had restored and converted to ecotourism use. The majority65 of these properties had previously been used for agriculture, and half66 had shifted to ecotourism due to the financial difficulties and uncertainty of the previous agricultural operations. A further three sites were in the process of transitioning by combining both ecotourism and agricultural activities. This reflects similar findings from previous studies that revenue from nature-based or wildlife recreational operations such as ecotourism may provide financial stability for landholders during times of droughts or market fluctuations (Kerley, Knight and Kock, 1995; Macaulay, 2016) while also stimulating economic growth and employment (Sims-Castley et al., 2005). Furthermore, the use of ecotourism as a commercial operation that contributes to environmental protection helps refute the “land sparing or land sharing” debate regarding conservation versus consumptive land uses (Addison and Pavey, 2017). Additionally, the range of threatened species protected across the sites, including several small, nocturnal and cryptic species (Chapter 5) suggests that the conservation efforts of ecotourism enterprises may not be driven solely by visitor viewing preferences for charismatic species (Kerley, Geach and Vial, 2003; Lindsey et al., 2007a; Castley, Bennett and Pickering, 2013).
7.3.3 Landscape management Findings demonstrate that many of the ecotourism enterprises were engaging in practices relating to vegetation and habitat quality including revegetation activities (100%); establishing wildlife corridors and enhancing ecological connectivity (70%); and increasing habitat quality and/or extent (64%). This likely reflects widespread concern over the extensive land clearing in Australia (Bradshaw, 2012; Ritchie et al., 2013), with habitat loss and fragmentation affecting
64 Details on PPA arrangements in Australia and the Land for Wildlife program are in Section 2.6.4. 65 18 of the 23 sites that gave information on previous land uses. 66 Three of the six sites that gave information on motivation for transitioning to ecotourism.
196 Chapter 7: Discussion half of all threatened species in Australia including 34 threatened mammal species (Woinarski, Burbidge and Harrison, 2014; Jackson et al., 2017). However, the revegetation efforts were classified as minimal for over a third of the 26 sites that provided relevant information on these activities (Chapter 5). Even so, many sites also shared borders with important natural areas such as national parks and landscape-level corridors, and therefore extend the reach of the protected area network and assist in reducing edge effects (Fitzsimons, 2015). More broadly, private lands provide important areas for retaining native vegetation communities (Pressey et al., 2000; Ritchie et al., 2013), and there are opportunities here to incentivise landowners to protect rather than clear this habitat.
Restoring or mimicking ecological fire regimes is another important aspect of landscape management, as discussed in Chapter 4. However, just seven sites (8%) reported engaging in ecological fire management for targeted conservation purposes. This number was not large enough to investigate statistically; nor was it possible to identify the need for ecological fire management, or lack thereof, for most properties. However, it is slightly less than that of the broader population of private landholders in Australia with conservation agreements (Halliday et al., 2012). This may reflect the widespread lack of understanding among the general public of the importance of ecological fire regimes (Dombeck, Williams and Wood, 2004), which has been found even among private landholders with conservation agreements (Halliday et al., 2012), and may be exacerbated by enterprise concerns of backlash from visitors and local communities. Additionally, the low participation rate of ecological fire management across both studies may be due to the perception that they are difficult, “time consuming and bureaucratic” (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014, p. 611). This is particularly problematic for biodiversity conservation in Australia as changed fire regimes are recognised as a threat to 60% of Australia’s at-risk species (Jackson et al., 2017).
Finally, this study revealed a strong interest in invasive species management among ecotourism enterprises, with 100% and 75% of sites addressing introduced flora and fauna, respectively. Feral cats and foxes were the primary invasive fauna species targeted by sites, likely reflecting their severe environmental impact: these two species have been the primary cause of mammal extinction in Australia, with cats currently threatening over 140 native species including over a third of Australia’s threatened mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds (Woinarski et al., 2014; IPAC, 2016a; Jackson et al., 2017). Although outcomes on these activities were not well reported, even a few individuals of a predatory invasive species such as cats can wreak devastating impacts on native wildlife in a short time (Burbidge and Manly, 2002; Kinnear, Sumner and Onus, 2002; Algar et al., 2010). However, as highlighted by the Pest Strategy, a key principle of effective pest management is that it must be “based on actual rather than perceived impacts and should be supported by monitoring to measure whether impact reduction targets are being achieved”
197 Chapter 7: Discussion
(IPAC, 2016a, p. 5). Ecotourism sites will therefore need to enhance their monitoring and/or reporting practices in order to assess and demonstrate the impact of their efforts to control invasive fauna.
7.4 Ecotourism as a social driver for conservation
7.4.1 Frequencies and patterns This study demonstrates a high level of engagement with socio-political activities among ecotourism sites, with nearly two-thirds of these actions undertaken by more than 85% of enterprises. This is likely a reflection of the benefits these actions may bring to businesses such as reducing costs through purchasing locally (John et al., 2006; Kang and Rajagopal, 2014); enhancing the visitor experience through environmental training for staff (Christie and Mason, 2003); enhancing their public image through supporting conservation organisations (Cetindamar, 2007; Heikkurinen, 2010); gaining local support through community contributions (Andereck et al., 2005; Lapeyre, 2011); and mutually beneficial actions with protected area agencies such as track maintenance on shared land. However, many enterprises do demonstrate a genuine conservation ethic and desire to aid local communities at the expense of business resources (Kabii and Horwitz, 2006). For example, some sites gave career development support for local residents who weren’t employed by the site and who were actively seeking work elsewhere. It is also likely that frequency patterns are related to the context-specific nature of socio-political conservation activities. For example, it is expected that most enterprises will only engage in advocacy and lobbying activities if there are political issues threatening their local area or operations, and will only persevere in these activities until a resolution is achieved (Miller and Krosnick, 2004). Additionally, the three actions undertaken by 1% of enterprises or less have little relevance in the Australian context. For example, human-wildlife conflict is only mentioned by a single policy in the NCA and this is only in reference to managing native pests “in accordance with state and territory legislation” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 4).
Most outcomes (83%) were reported by less than 10% of enterprises, which is likely related to a lack of prompts in the EA Questionnaire (Rooney, Steinberg and Schervish, 2004). Furthermore, many of these outcomes would be difficult for enterprises to gauge and impossible to quantify without establishing specific mechanisms with which to measure changes (e.g. Hughes, 2013). To do so would be time consuming and unlikely to provide much commercial benefit for operators. As with the ecological outcomes, this may also be reflective of the challenges in measuring conservation outcomes more broadly (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2007; Sunderland et al., 2009; Adams et al., 2014). It is therefore possible that the outcomes examined in this study may be more prevalent in practice among Australian ecotourism enterprises than
198 Chapter 7: Discussion the results suggest. For example, given the extensive visitor environmental interpretation activities reported by sites, it is likely that the outcome of increased visitor environmental awareness is higher than the three enterprises that mentioned this, even after accounting for the ceiling effect (Beaumont, 2001; Sander, 2012).
As with the ecological items, the associations between the socio-political items reflect similarly high frequencies, and no pair of Conservation Items had low frequencies but a high association. Again, this indicates that uncommon items are scattered across the group rather than a small number of sites undertaking multiple low-frequency items. As with the ecological indices, few significant patterns were found between the Conservation Items and enterprise characteristics, indicating that there are similar opportunities and social needs for most enterprises to undertake most items. Furthermore, all enterprises in this study operate within similar community structures and cultural contexts with equal access to government grants and tourism associations.
7.4.2 Public engagement and social capital Chapter 4 highlights that the ability of ecotourism enterprises to increase the environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behavioural intentions of both visitors and local community members has been well documented (Hughes, 2011; Wheaton et al., 2016). However, there is limited data available on if, and how, this translates into actual behavioural changes (Nye and Hargreaves, 2010; Hofman and Hughes, 2018). This study demonstrates that the ecotourism and eco-certification sectors in Australia are subject to the same data inadequacies that prevent the demonstration of this conservation pathway. Nevertheless, findings in Chapter 5 indicate that in some instances ecotourism enterprises in Australia can empower and motivate people to make positive behavioural changes such as reducing waste, contributing to revegetation programs, and donating money to conservation projects. Furthermore, many of the ecotourism enterprises were also providing the necessary access and opportunities for ensuring enthusiasm was turned into action (Hughes, 2013). For example, three sites supplied native seedlings free of charge to local landowners. Furthermore, the example of a visitor purchasing and restoring the adjoining block of land to Site 4 (Chapter 5) demonstrates the scale of conservation outcomes that ecotourism experiences could potentially generate. Of course, large-scale environmental improvements won’t result from every interaction with visitors or the local community; however, even small changes such as substituting introduced plants with local natives in residential gardens can have significant ecological impacts when replicated on a number of properties (Goddard, Dougill and Benton, 2010).
199 Chapter 7: Discussion
Furthermore, the findings of this study also indicate that ecotourism enterprises can contribute to social capital in a developed country, which is a critical component of effective social movements (Sobels, Curtis and Lockie, 2001; Mbaiwa, 2011; Thoyre, 2011). For example, supporting community and environmental associations may increase bonding social capital; participating in local events and engaging with a range of community groups may increase linking social capital; and facilitating engagement between the local community and visitors (i.e. external groups) may increase bridging social capital (Pretty, 2003; Woodhouse, 2006).
Studies have shown that individuals are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours when social capital is improved due to the increased value of the collective interest and associated community expectations (Mbaiwa, 2011; Thoyre, 2011). This also helps ensure that individuals don’t revert back to environmentally damaging behaviours if incentives end or regulations aren’t enforced as strictly (Pretty, 2003; Nye and Hargreaves, 2010). Additionally, as highlighted in Chapter 4, the increased vigilance and reporting of illegal activities may provide deterrents for harmful behaviours, which can be particularly important in regional and sparsely populated areas (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996; Dong et al., 2011). The example in this study of the illegally buried 38 tonnes of rubbish found by Site 2 (Chapter 5) highlights that this type of issue isn’t confined only to countries with weaker governance structures or supporting legal systems. Finally, social capital is linked with higher quality of life and economic development, placing communities in better positions to face new economic and social challenges (Woodhouse, 2006).
7.4.3 Economic priorities and political pressure There has long been competing priorities in Australia between environmental protection and the demand for jobs and economic development (Hollander, 2006; Buckeridge, 2014), often resulting in substantial wildlife losses and environmental degradation (Kingsford et al., 2009; Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2011). However, tourism, and to a smaller extent ecotourism, has the potential to help bridge this gap (Sims-Castley et al., 2005; Liburd and Becken, 2017). Chapter 5 revealed that all sites undertook actions that contributed to the economic development and growth of their local area, and all except one site employed members of the local community. This is particularly important given the decline in resource sector jobs and the growth of the tourism industry in Australia in recent years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016; 2017; Liburd and Becken, 2017). The provision of jobs and the sustainable use-value of the natural environment through tourism can also help level the playing field against other powerful bodies (Buckley, 2009). For example, in 2012 the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland was nearly placed on the endangered list of World Heritage Sites after severe environmental degradation from increased resource extraction and shipping
200 Chapter 7: Discussion activities. The contribution of the AU$6.4 billion/year tourism industry voices to those of environmental groups in opposition to the resource sector was instrumental in bringing about extensive government and public action to better protect the area67, including bank refusal to finance developments in the adjacent Galilee Basin (Hamman, 2016; Liburd and Becken, 2017).
However, despite the significance of the Great Barrier Reef situation and the handful of notable examples highlighted in Chapter 5, this study illustrates that many of the political activities at an individual site level were largely those that involve little effort or commitment, such as writing letters to politicians. Furthermore, given the style of the certification application, few sites reported information on the extent of these activities such as, for example, the number of letters written to politicians, the frequency with which they attended meetings or forums, or indeed whether any of these actions resulted in any change in practice or policy.
7.5 Implications of this research
7.5.1 Ecotourism-conservation evaluations The CA Matrix and CE Framework established in Chapter 4 provide a guide for evaluations of the conservation contributions of ecotourism sites, businesses and programs. Furthermore, the systematic and comprehensive nature of this framework has the potential to enable comparisons across locations, sectors and time scales (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006; Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014). This work therefore has practical implications for conservation and ecotourism research, practitioners in conservation management, ecotourism certification bodies, and the wider ecotourism industry.
As highlighted by this study, conservation activities do not exist in isolation and much overlap exists between actions and outcomes and across the ecological and socio-political categories. By (1) incorporating the ecological, social and political dimensions of conservation practices into a single framework, and (2) highlighting the links between conservation actions and outcomes, this research addresses key gaps in the academic literature as identified in Chapter 2 (Wardle et al., 2018), and elsewhere (Rissman and Sayre, 2012; Adams et al., 2014; Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014). Ecotourism is often proclaimed as a commercial land use that can generate real-world conservation outcomes through the pro-environmental values and behaviours of visitors and local community members (e.g. Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Sander, 2012; Skibins et al.,
67 However, the controversial Adani coal and rail project received government approval to begin construction in June 2019, suggesting resource extraction still trumps tourism in the eyes of the government. Even so, the extensive efforts of concerned stakeholders delayed construction by four years and halved the size of the mine by forcing Adani to self-fund the project (reducing the project cost from an original $16.5 billion over its lifetime to $2 billion (ABC News, 13 June, 2019)).
201 Chapter 7: Discussion
2013). The CE Framework gets to the crux of this relationship: environmental understanding and conservation values are indeed important aspects of the ecotourism-conservation relationship; however, if they do not manifest as pro-environmental behavioural changes, then there are no real-world conservation outcomes.
The usefulness of framework applications will depend on the data available for the CA Matrix. Wherever possible, evaluations should incorporate qualitative and quantitative data to ensure both depth and breadth (Thomas and Magilvy, 2011; Yilmaz, 2013). Although a variety of tools and techniques exist for each Conservation Item, both access to, and quality of, relevant data will be highly variable across items, sites and contexts. However, at its most basic this framework can be used with presence/absence data for each Conservation Item and supplemented with qualitative data where available (as illustrated through Chapter 5), with the potential to convert this to Likert scales when greater detail allows.
The CA Matrix is the most comprehensive model of conservation pathways to date; however, it is not exhaustive. For example, it does not specifically include aquatic environments or hydrological flows. Furthermore, the arrangement of the CA Matrix is not static or absolute. For example, it could be argued that ‘establishing a protected area’ should be divided into two conservation actions to distinguish between legal protection (such as properties protected by conservation covenants) and physical protection regardless of the presence of legal mechanisms (such as predator-proof properties), as one does not necessarily follow the other (Watson et al., 2014). It is likely that incorporating the knowledge and perspectives of additional stakeholders such as conservation practitioners and researchers of behavioural economics could identify further additions or modifications.
7.5.2 Eco-certification and conservation in Australia
7.5.2.1 Program content and style The gaps and overlaps analysis in Chapter 6 demonstrates that the EA Questionnaire includes items across environmental, social and economic areas, something few certification programs cover (Esparon, Stoeckl and Gyuris, 2013). However, although the EA Questionnaire content addresses key conservation issues such as deforestation and invasive species which provide some of the greatest threats to biodiversity in Australia (Jackson et al., 2017), this study also demonstrates that 88% of the Conservation Items are not covered adequately or at all, highlighting key conservation gaps within the ECO Certification Program. Furthermore, the EA Questionnaire consists predominantly of check-list items requiring only yes/no answers with some spaces for applicants to provide additional information if they wish. Without prompts or
202 Chapter 7: Discussion specific questions to obtain relevant information from applicants (Rooney et al., 2004), there is often a glaring absence of appropriate detail and no consistency in the information provided across applications (Boreux, Born and Lawes, 2009; Sunderland et al., 2009).
Although process-based systems are common for eco-certification programs and are noted for their apparent recognition of the efforts of certified members, these approaches have been widely criticised in the academic literature in comparison to performance-based programs (Jamal et al., 2006; Tscharntke et al., 2015). By focusing solely on whether certain activities are undertaken, the EA Questionnaire provides no indication of the effort exerted by sites. For example, in its current form the ECO Certification Program does not distinguish between (1) sites that devote over 4,000 person-hours annually on weed removal activities; and (2) sites that sporadically remove a small number of weeds: under the current system both sites ‘remove weeds’. Additionally, the EA Questionnaire disregards the extent of conservation outcomes, meaning sites that remove weeds from an area of 5m2 are treated as equal to sites that have cleared 10,000ha of weeds. Furthermore, it doesn’t consider the scale and frequency of activities undertaken or the need for these activities within the specific context of individual sites, exacerbating the content issues outlined above.
This research shows that many certified ecotourism enterprises are enthusiastic about conservation, but the depth of analysis is severely limited by a lack of quantitative data. Improving information exchange among all stakeholders in conservation practice is an important intervention to strengthen on-ground implementation, and collaboration with independent researchers with experience in conservation mechanisms and indicators could enhance the conservation coverage and quality of the ECO Certification Program (Boreux et al., 2009; Sunderland et al., 2009; Haaland and Aas, 2010; Laurance et al., 2012). Key areas highlighted for improvement in Chapter 6 include conservation outcomes regarding invasive species, wildlife numbers and threat status, and conservation behaviours. Substantially more detailed evidence will be required if eco-certification is to gain recognition and support for its contributions to conservation.
7.5.2.2 Program tiers As covered in Section 2.3.2, the ECO Certification Program includes basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of certification. It is theoretically possible for this tiered system to encourage members in lower certification levels to improve their practices to advance to higher levels. Indeed, discussions with EA staff indicate that this is their primary justification for having such a low entry-level tier, and they offer discounts for existing members to upgrade to a higher level
203 Chapter 7: Discussion of certification or to obtain additional certifications through their Respecting Our Culture (ROC) and Climate Action (CA) programs.
However, this approach is contingent on the benefits of upgrading outweighing the costs. Other than the possibility of extended operating permits with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and eligibility to use the GSTC logo in promotional materials, there appear to be few incentives for operators to move beyond the basic level of certification. Furthermore, consumers already struggle to differentiate between many of the eco-labels that have flooded the tourism market (Haaland and Aas, 2010; Lebe and Vrečko, 2015), and the similarity of the logos for the ECO Certification Program’s three tiers of certification (Figure 7.6) mean a marketing advantage is a questionable incentive (Mihalič, 2000; Esparon et al., 2013).
Figure 7.6 The almost identical logos for the three tiers of EA’s ECO Certification Program
Given that financial constraints have been identified as a primary barrier for ecotourism enterprises to become certified (Blackman et al., 2014; Fogle and Duffy, 2018), it is also possible that the upgrade fee may actively deter enterprises from upgrading, especially if gaining extended operating permits is not relevant to their operating context. As such, it remains unclear whether EA can successfully foster improved environmental practices of their members or whether they are effectively “providing a logo for those who would have ‘done the right thing’ anyway” (Esparon et al., 2013, p. 847). Furthermore, upgrading from the intermediate certification level to the advanced level only requires more boxes to be ‘ticked’ rather than generating or demonstrating an improved environmental impact.
The addition of a fourth tier ‘conservation’ level within the ECO Certification Program could distinguish sites that are making genuine contributions to conservation goals in Australia. However, for such a certification to be successful, the current checklist-based system will need supplementation with quantitative and ecologically meaningful measurements.
204 Chapter 7: Discussion
7.5.3 Policy and practice It has long been acknowledged that the financial resources required to conserve global biodiversity far exceed the resources available for conservation practices (James, Gaston and Balmford, 1999; Waldron et al., 2013), and a lack of financial resources was consistently reported by CBD parties as one of the main reasons for failing to meet the CBD goal of reducing rates of biodiversity loss by 2010 (Waldron et al., 2013). However, this divide between required and available funds continues to widen and is likely to be a key factor in the predicted failure to meet the Aichi Targets by 2020 (Waldron et al., 2017). Alternative conservation strategies incorporating socio-ecological systems alongside more traditional approaches are therefore critical for meeting the goals of international agreements and substantially reducing the rate of biodiversity loss (Waldron et al., 2013; Butchart et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2015).
This is particularly pertinent in Australia where conservation funding has actually decreased, even after being ranked as one of a handful of developed nations in the top 40 underfunded countries for biodiversity conservation for the period 2001-2008 (Waldron et al., 2013; Woinarski et al., 2017; Scheele et al., 2018). This decline in government resources is highlighted in the Pest Strategy as triggering “increased interest in ways to maximise return on investment of public funds” (IPAC, 2016a, p. 41), and all policies across the NCA have a strong focus on strategic partnerships and investment options to increase cross-sectoral contributions of conservation funding and resources (Chapter 6).
Findings from this study demonstrate the potential for ecotourism enterprises to address national conservation goals, including eight of the 13 Threat Abatement Plans and 12 of the 21 Key Threatening Processes under the EPBC Act 1999 (Chapter 5). Additionally, findings from Chapter 6 demonstrate a number of areas where the conservation activities of a large proportion of ecotourism sites overlap with conservation themes of high importance for national policy. However, this study shows that tourism is predominantly acknowledged by national conservation policy in Australia as a driver for environmental protection as well as an impact that must be managed, and is not yet widely acknowledged as an industry that can contribute to conservation goals (Chapter 6). Combining the findings from Chapters 5 and 6 highlights key opportunities for strategic investments and collaborations with ecotourism sites across the following three themes.
7.5.3.1 Protected areas and land-use change Increasing the amount of private land under protective arrangements is well recognised as an important step in meeting the protected area targets of international agreements, such as the
205 Chapter 7: Discussion
Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11 (Bingham et al., 2017). Given that over three-quarters of Australian land is freehold, leasehold, or under community management (Jackson et al., 2017), increasing PPAs is a particularly important strategy for Australia that has been actively pursued for over 25 years (Fitzsimons, 2015; England, 2016; Mitchell et al., 2018). Furthermore, this high level of private control of Australia’s land meant that much of the existing national reserve system (NRS) was originally pieced together from ‘left over’ public land that was unsuitable for agricultural purposes (Fitzsimons, 2015). Consequently, much of it is nutrient poor and elevated, and it does not provide an adequate representation of Australia’s biomes and wildlife (Kingsford et al., 2009). For example, Watson et al. (2011) identified that more than 12% of threatened species and 20% of critically endangered species occur entirely outside of the NRS, and Fuller et al. (2010) suggest that replacing some existing protected areas could achieve better conservation outcomes. Similarly, the 2016 State of the Environment Report highlights that nearly a third of all endangered communities and half of all critically endangered communities have less than 5% of their extent represented in the NRS (Jackson et al., 2017).
As such, the importance of protecting private properties of high conservation value cannot be understated. This study showed that in addition to the 63% of sites with formal PPAs, over half of the sites without formal PPA arrangements had demonstrated their conservation commitment through non-legally binding mechanisms such as Land for Wildlife, highlighting the important role that ecotourism enterprises can play in protecting at-risk species outside of the protected area network. This also highlights that some ecotourism enterprises may provide a tangible opportunity through targeted initiatives to increase the protection on their land through binding conservation covenants. Furthermore, providing other private landholders with support to diversify their revenue streams through additional ventures such as ecotourism may reduce some of the current barriers to private landholders undertaking conservation activities, including: a lack of practical conservation programs to participate in, mistrust of government, the required commitment, lack of time, and a fear of losing productivity and profitability (Greiner and Gregg, 2011; Moon and Cocklin, 2011; Adams and Moon, 2013; Addison and Pavey, 2017)
7.5.3.2 Invasive fauna Invasive species are the most pervasive threat for at-risk native species in Australia (Allek et al., 2018), and this study demonstrates a very high proportion of sites that address this issue. Furthermore, an Australian survey of 32 land conservation professionals and researchers identified the control of invasive flora and fauna as the first and third, respectively, most important conservation actions for private landholders to undertake (Halliday et al., 2012).
206 Chapter 7: Discussion
Feral cats and foxes have been the primary cause of mammal extinction in Australia (Allek et al., 2018), and these were the two main invasive fauna species targeted by sites in this study. Rabbits were the third most frequently targeted species, which threaten over 300 nationally threatened plant and animal species and are described as the “single worst, most widespread, destructive and costly environmental and agricultural vertebrate pest animal” in the Pest Strategy (IPAC, 2016a, p. 36). Other invasive species targeted by sites in this study included large introduced herbivores such as goats and pigs, which contribute to habitat degradation and compete with at-risk native herbivores; rats, which have contributed to the extinction of a number of mammal species and currently threaten several others; and cane toads, which pose a significant threat for four at-risk mammal species (DEE, 2015; Jackson et al., 2017). Furthermore, by emphasising the importance of shared responsibility for pest management through visitor interpretation and increasing the capacity for the wider public to engage with pest management such as through community workshops and pest ‘hotlines’, these sites address key barriers identified in the Pest Strategy (IPAC, 2016a).
7.5.3.3 Knowledge and research Knowledge of ecosystem processes that support biodiversity in Australia is currently insufficient for 99% of species, and reports across all jurisdictions have raised the lack of long- term monitoring and adequate reporting as a major barrier to effective environmental management (Jackson et al., 2017). Over two-thirds of ecotourism sites reported monitoring their properties and wildlife populations, and 95% undertook or participated in environmental research projects (Chapter 5). This is a key theme in the NCA and has the potential to provide much needed data for governments and conservation organisations (Chapter 6). Research can contribute to both a reduction in negative environmental impacts and the creation or magnification of positive impacts through, for example, an increased understanding of ecological processes and impacts, and by providing data on optimal conservation processes for practitioners and decision-makers (Sutherland et al., 2004; Cardinale et al., 2012; Balme et al., 2013). Furthermore, ecotourism operators focus on long-term viability and can provide extensive monitoring data and much needed funds and support for long-term research projects, while also allowing for population recovery times (Brightsmith et al., 2008; Balme et al., 2013; Marnewick et al., 2014; Young et al., 2014; Vinding et al., 2015), as illustrated by the 40 years of data collected by Site 21 on the vulnerable hooded plover (Chapter 5). In addition to building knowledge, some sites have also developed new and innovative monitoring techniques to address the challenges of large properties, rough terrain, and limited resources (Chapter 5).
However, site development of these monitoring and research activities has been ad hoc and are dependent on the ability of individual sites to connect with researchers. Greater guidance and
207 Chapter 7: Discussion facilitation are needed to increase the number of these connections and enhance their contribution to conservation knowledge.
7.6 Limitations and future research directions
7.6.1 Framework development The development of the CA Matrix and CE Framework were limited to papers published in English language journals and publicly available eco-certification criteria from English- speaking countries. Although previous research has estimated that over 90% and 75% of articles published in natural science and social science journals, respectively, are printed in English (Hamel, 2007), future research incorporating a multi-language review could investigate this topic further. Additionally, as highlighted previously in this chapter, the framework is not exhaustive in its coverage of conservation issues or pathways. The strength of the framework as an evaluation tool and the breadth of its applicability could be enhanced by (1) incorporating the knowledge and perspectives of additional stakeholders such as conservation practitioners, and (2) testing its applicability across a range of enterprise types, scales, and data sources. It is also recommended that future applications of this framework be conducted in partnership with the ecotourism enterprises in question to ensure greater access to rich, high quality data.
7.6.2 Site evaluations The decision to omit field evaluations in this study and use the EA Questionnaire as the primary data source allowed for the application of all Conservation Items in the CA Matrix across a much larger number of sites than would otherwise be possible. Furthermore, use of these pre- existing information sources meant there was a 100% response rate with considerable cross validation inherent in the questions that minimised positive response biases. However, this resulted in two key limitations.
Firstly, this limited much of the data to self-reported information provided by the enterprises, which may be influenced by their priorities, knowledge, and marketing objectives. However, all certification documentation supplied by the sites had previously been independently audited and verified by EA, and was checked against independent third-party sources where available. Nevertheless, the information provided by sites was at times too obscure to be used for detailed analyses. For example, many sites used incorrect species names or incorrect spellings; colloquial, genus or family names (e.g. ‘thistles’); or broad categories such as “the worst grassy weeds”.
208 Chapter 7: Discussion
Secondly, the data were heavily influenced by the limited content and restrictive questions of the EA Questionnaire which relies predominantly on check-lists requiring only yes/no answers without further detail. As a result, it is impossible to determine if enterprises have not discussed some types of conservation activities because they do not undertake these, or because they were not prompted to report on them (Rooney et al., 2004). Furthermore, without adequate data and consistent reporting practices by all sites regarding the extent of the Conservation Items, it is not possible to distinguish sites with high versus low efforts or minor versus important outcomes across the group.
Additionally, sites may have begun further conservation activities after becoming certified, meaning that information regarding these would not have been captured in the application process. This was accounted for by using publicly available sources such as company websites and brochures to collect information regarding recent conservation practices on the premise that ecotourism sites would incorporate important conservation practices in their promotional material and websites. However, it is possible that some conservation contributions have not been captured. As such, the results of this research should be assumed to highlight only the minimum achievements of the study group.
Greater coverage of these Conservation Items by the certification program and greater detail and consistency of information provided by the sites would allow the quantification of each item, or at least the creation of Likert scales, increasing the depth of this research. Furthermore, collaborations between EA and researchers could provide additional support to enable enterprises to better measure and evaluate their conservation contributions.
7.6.3 Conservation significance Only national policies and directives (supplemented with state-level threatened species lists) were used to evaluate the conservation significance of site activities due to time constraints. However, conservation requirements can be very context specific, and this level of detail was difficult to capture from such a top-down approach. It is therefore possible that some of the conservation activities of the sites are of greater significance for conservation at a local level than identified in this project. Future research using conservation policies and priorities at a state and/or local level could investigate this further. Additionally, this information could allow the Conservation Items from the CA Matrix to be weighted based on their importance in each given context.
209 Chapter 7: Discussion
7.6.4 Research scope The sites sampled in this study had the highest level of eco-certification available in Australia and may represent the highest performing sites. Therefore, it would not be prudent to assume that the same frequencies and extent of conservation activities will extend to ecotourism operators across all certification levels. Furthermore, this research provided a static assessment of sites that ranged in age from 6 to 90 years with an average age of 22, meaning that most sites had a lengthy period in which to carry out their conservation activities. Expanding this research to (1) cover multiple time periods to explore temporal trends, and (2) include all EA certified ecotourism enterprises rather than only fixed-site enterprises with advanced certification would provide a more accurate reflection of the conservation achievements of the ecotourism sector. Furthermore, evaluations incorporating ecotourism enterprises without eco-certification as well as nature-based tourism operations more broadly would allow for comparisons of the conservation achievements of the ecotourism subset with the larger nature tourism sector. Additionally, future research could explore the potential influence of high-profile early-adopters on the sustainability and conservation practices of other ecotourism operations.
7.7 Conclusion
Ecotourism is often promoted as a conservation mechanism; however, the lack of an adequate evidence base means the legitimacy and extent of this relationship is unclear. This thesis contributes to the growing body of research in this area by (1) exploring the demonstrated and potential conservation practices of ecotourism enterprises at a global scale and consolidating these into a conservation framework to guide future evaluations; (2) evaluating the conservation practices of a set of certified ecotourism enterprises in Australia and identifying their contributions to national conservation goals; and (3) revealing key gaps and areas of overlap between the practices of these sites, the national eco-certification program, and national conservation priorities in Australia.
This research reveals that some individual enterprises are indeed making substantial conservation contributions, commensurate with their relatively small scale. However, findings illustrate a substantial lack of attention given to conservation outcomes from both the ECO Certification Program and site reporting practices. One reason for this is that the EA Questionnaire relies only on a check-list of actions rather than a set of quantified, monitored, and ecologically significant conservation outcomes. Consequently, the conservation contributions of individual sites or groups of sites may demonstrate the potential conservation impact of ecotourism enterprises, but the aggregate performance of this sector is limited to presence/absence data for a narrow set of conservation practices. In order to provide meaningful
210 Chapter 7: Discussion assessments of ecotourism contributions to conservation, the ECO Certification Program will need substantial modifications to shift its focus beyond minimal impact operations.
This research also identified a number of areas where the conservation activities of ecotourism sites overlap with national conservation priorities. Furthermore, the high frequencies of conservation actions contrasted with the low frequencies of reported outcomes (1) demonstrate a high level of enthusiasm for conservation practices among private Australian ecotourism enterprises; and (2) indicate a tangible opportunity for governments in Australia to improve conservation gains and meet international obligations through targeted initiatives for private ecotourism enterprises, particularly with regards to private protected areas and public engagement with conservation activities. However, findings reveal that tourism is predominantly acknowledged by national conservation policy in Australia as a driver for environmental protection as well as an impact that must be managed, and is not yet widely acknowledged as an industry that can contribute to conservation goals.
This thesis does not suggest that ecotourism can provide a conservation solution in all contexts or that it should be pursued at the expense of other conservation programs. The use of ecotourism as a conservation strategy is neither a panacea or Pandora’s box. Like any other strategy, its success is dependent on the particular context, individual players involved, and underlying systems. However, one thing is certain: current levels of conservation funding are insufficient to reduce existing rates of biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, both within Australia and around the world. Alternative conservation strategies incorporating socio- ecological systems alongside more traditional approaches are therefore critical for meeting the goals of international agreements and substantially reducing the rate of biodiversity loss.
211 References
&Beyond. (2019a). The Phinda story. &Beyond; retrieved March 2019 from: https://www.andbeyond.com/small-group-journeys/phinda-impact/the-phinda-story/. &Beyond. (2019b). Why visit &Beyond Phinda private game reserve? &Beyond; retrieved March 2019 from: https://www.andbeyond.com/advice/africa/south-africa/kwazulu- natal/phinda-private-game-reserve/why-visit-andbeyond-phinda-private-game-reserve/. ABC News (13 June, 2019). What we know about adani's carmichael coal mine project, from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-26/what-we-know-about-adanis-carmichael-coal- mine-project/11049938. Adams, R.J., Smart, P. and Huff, A.S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews 19(4): 432-454. Adams, V.M., Game, E.T. and Bode, M. (2014). Synthesis and review: Delivering on conservation promises: The challenges of managing and measuring conservation outcomes. Environmental Research Letters 9(8): 085002, doi:10.1088/1748- 9326/9/8/085002. Adams, V.M. and Moon, K. (2013). Security and equity of conservation covenants: Contradictions of private protected area policies in Australia. Land Use Policy 30(1): 114-119. Adams, W.M. and Infield, M. (2003). Who is on the gorilla’s payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan national park. World Development 31(1): 177-190. Addison, J. and Pavey, C.R. (2017). Alignment between values of dryland pastoralists and conservation needs for small mammals. Conservation Biology 31(2): 331-342. Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C. and Kessler, A. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 25(6): 554-564. Aerts, R., Nyssen, J. and Haile, M. (2009). On the difference between “exclosures” and “enclosures” in ecology and the environment. Journal of Arid Environments 73(8): 762- 763. Ahebwa, W.M., van der Duim, V.R. and Sandbrook, C.G. (2012). Tourism revenue sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: A policy arrangements approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3): 377-394. Algar, D., Angus, G.J., Brazell, R.I., Gilbert, C. and Withnell, G.B. (2010). Eradication of feral cats on Faure Island, Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 93(3): 133-140. Allek, A., Assis, A.S., Eiras, N., Amaral, T.P., Williams, B., Butt, N., Renwick, A.R., Bennett, J.R. and Beyer, H.L. (2018). The threats endangering Australia's at-risk fauna. Biological Conservation 222: 172-179. Almeyda, A.M., Broadbent, E.N., Wyman, M.S. and Durham, W.H. (2010). Ecotourism impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(6): 803-819.
212 Almeyda Zambrano, A.M., Broadbent, E.N. and Durham, W.H. (2010). Social and environmental effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. Journal of Ecotourism 9(1): 62-83. Anand, A., Chandan, P. and Singh, R.B. (2012). Homestays at Korzok: Supplementing rural livelihoods and supporting green tourism in the Indian Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development 32(2): 126-136. Andereck, K.L., Valentine, K.M., Knopf, R.C. and Vogt, C.A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4): 1056-1076. Andersen, A.N., Cook, G.D., Corbett, L.K., Douglas, M.M., Eager, R.W., Russell-Smith, J., Setterfield, S.A., Williams, R.J. and Woinarski, J.C.Z. (2005). Fire frequency and biodiversity conservation in Australian tropical savannas: Implications from the Kapalga fire experiment. Austral Ecology 30(2): 155-167. Andréassian, V. (2004). Waters and forests: From historical controversy to scientific debate. Journal of Hydrology 291(1): 1-27. Ansong, M. and Pickering, C. (2013). Are weeds hitchhiking a ride on your car? A systematic review of seed dispersal on cars. PLoS ONE 8(11): 1-11. Appiah-Opoku, S. (2011). Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society and Natural Resources 24(5): 500-510. Ardoin, N.M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A.W., Hunt, C.A. and Durham, W.H. (2015). Nature- based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: A review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(6): 838-858. Ardoin, N.M., Wheaton, M., Hunt, C.A., Schuh, J.S. and Durham, W.H. (2016). Post-trip philanthropic intentions of nature-based tourists in Galapagos. Journal of Ecotourism 15(1): 21-35. Armstrong, E.K. and Weiler, B.V. (2002). Getting the message across: An analysis of messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism 1(2/3): 104-121. Armstrong, R.A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34(5): 502-508. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Australian national accounts: Tourism satellite account, 2015-16. Australian Bureau of Statistics; Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017). Australian industry, 2015-16: Australian industry by division. Australian Bureau of Statistics; Canberra. Avery-Gomm, S., Borrelle, S.B. and Provencher, J.F. (2018). Linking plastic ingestion research with marine wildlife conservation. Science of the Total Environment 637-638: 1492- 1495. Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V.M. and Turlure, C. (2013). Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biological Reviews 88(2): 310-326.
213 Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Hughes, K. (2008). Environmental awareness, interests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management 29(3): 439-444. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Sutherland, L.A. (2011). Visitors' memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management 32(4): 770-779. Balme, G.A., Batchelor, A., De Woronin Britz, N., Seymour, G., Grover, M., Hes, L., Macdonald, D.W. and Hunter, L.T.B. (2013). Reproductive success of female leopards Panthera pardus: The importance of top-down processes. Mammal Review 43(3): 221- 237. Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M. and Manica, A. (2009). A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. PLoS Biology 7(6): e1000144, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144. Barnes, J., Schier, G. and Van Rooy, G. (1999). Tourists' willingness to pay for wildlife viewing and wildlife conservation in Namibia. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 29(4): 101-111. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research 2(2): 6-22. Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(4): 317-341. Becker, C.D., Agreda, A., Astudillo, E., Costantino, M. and Torres, P. (2005). Community- based monitoring of fog capture and biodiversity at Loma Alta, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2695-2707. Bernard, H.R. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.; London, UK. Besio, K., Johnston, L. and Longhurst, R. (2008). Sexy beasts and devoted mums: Narrating nature through dolphin tourism. Environment and Planning A 40(5): 1219-1234. Beyene, A., Legesse, W., Triest, L. and Kloos, H. (2008). Urban impact on ecological integrity of nearby rivers in developing countries: The Borkena River in highland Ethiopia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 153(1): 461. Biddle, N. and Swee, H. (2012). The relationship between wellbeing and indigenous land, language and culture in Australia. Australian Geographer 43(3): 215-232. Bingham, H., Fitzsimons, J.A., Redford, K.H., Mitchell, B.A., Bezaury-Creel, J. and Cumming, T.L. (2017). Privately protected areas: Advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. PARKS 23.1: 13-28. Blackburn, T.M., Cassey, P., Duncan, R.P., Evans, K.L. and Gaston, K.J. (2004). Avian extinction and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands. Science 305(5692): 1955- 1958. Blackman, A., Naranjo, M.A., Robalino, J., Alpízar, F. and Rivera, J. (2014). Does tourism eco- certification pay? Costa Rica’s Blue Flag Program. World Development 58: 41-52. Blamey, R.K. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(2): 109-130.
214 Blangy, S. and Mehta, H. (2006). Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation 14(3-4): 233-236. Block, W.M., Franklin, A.B., Ward, J.P., Ganey, J.L. and White, G.C. (2001). Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 293-303. Bond, W.J. and Keeley, J.E. (2005). Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: The ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(7): 387-394. Boreux, V., Born, J. and Lawes, M.J. (2009). Sharing ecological knowledge: Opportunities and barriers to uptake. Biotropica 41(5): 532-534. Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., Meusburger, K., Modugno, S., Schütt, B., Ferro, V., Bagarello, V., Oost, K.V., Montanarella, L. and Panagos, P. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications 8(1): 2013. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal 9(2): 27-40. Boyle, W.A., Ganong, C.N., Clark, D.B. and Hast, M.A. (2008). Density, distribution, and attributes of tree cavities in an old-growth tropical rain forest. Biotropica 40(2): 241- 245. Braat, L.C. and de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 4-15. Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2012). Little left to lose: Deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. Journal of Plant Ecology 5(1): 109-120. Brandt, J.S. and Buckley, R.C. (2018). A global systematic review of empirical evidence of ecotourism impacts on forests in biodiversity hotspots. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32: 112-118. Brightsmith, D.J., Stronza, A.L. and Holle, K. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: A mutually beneficial triumvirate. Biological Conservation 141(11): 2832-2842. Brockway, D.G., Gatewood, R.G. and Paris, R.B. (2002). Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: Initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management 65(2): 135-152. Brooks, M.L., D'Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E., DiTomaso, J.M., Hobbs, R.J., Pellant, M. and Pyke, D. (2004). Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54(7): 677-688. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK. Buckeridge, J. (2014). Environmental ethics: An overview, assessing the place of bioscientists in society, supplemented with selected Australian perspectives. Integrative Zoology 9(1): 14-23. Buckley, R. (2004). Partnerships in ecotourism: Australian political frameworks. International Journal of Tourism Research 6(2): 75-83.
215 Buckley, R. (2009). Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(6): 643-672. Buckley, R. (2010). Conservation tourism. CAB International; Wallingford, UK. Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36(2011): 397-416. Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2): 528-546. Buckley, R. (2016). Triage approaches send adverse political signals for conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4: 39. Buckley, R. and Brough, P. (2017). Economic value of parks via human mental health: An analytical framework. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5(16), DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2017.00016. Buckley, R., Castley, J.G., Pegas, F.d.V., Mossaz, A.C. and Steven, R. (2012). A population accounting approach to assess tourism contributions to conservation of IUCN-redlisted mammal species. PLoS ONE 7(9): e44134, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044134. Burbidge, A.A. and Manly, B.F.J. (2002). Mammal extinctions on Australian islands: Causes and conservation implications. Journal of Biogeography 29(4): 465-473. Burrows, N. (2008). Linking fire ecology and fire management in south-west Australian forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 2394-2406. Butchart, S.H.M., Clarke, M., Smith, R.J., Sykes, R.E., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Harfoot, M., Buchanan, G.M., Angulo, A., Balmford, A., Bertzky, B., Brooks, T.M., Carpenter, K.E., Comeros-Raynal, M.T., Cornell, J., Ficetola, G.F., Fishpool, L.D.C., Fuller, R.A., Geldmann, J., Harwell, H., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Joolia, A., Joppa, L., Kingston, N., May, I., Milam, A., Polidoro, B., Ralph, G., Richman, N., Rondinini, C., Segan, D.B., Skolnik, B., Spalding, M.D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Taylor, J., Visconti, P., Watson, J.E.M., Wood, L. and Burgess, N.D. (2015). Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters 8(5): 329- 337. Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vié, J.-C. and Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328(5982): 1164-1168. Butcher, J. (2006). Natural capital and the advocacy of ecotourism as sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(6): 629-644. Campbell, L.M. and Smith, C. (2006). What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environmental Management 38(1): 84-98.
216 Canesi, L. and Corsi, I. (2016). Effects of nanomaterials on marine invertebrates. Science of the Total Environment 565: 933-940. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D. and Wardle, D.A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401): 59. Castley, J.G., Bennett, A. and Pickering, C.M. (2013). Wildlife visual imagery: Do pictures used to promote destinations online match on-site species visibility at two geographic destinations? Geographical Research 51(1): 59-70. Castley, J.G., Boshoff, A.F. and Kerley, G.I.H. (2001). Compromising South Africa's natural biodiversity-inappropriate herbivore introductions. South African Journal of Science 97(9): 344-348. Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008). Zoo tourism: Biodiversity conservation through tourism. Journal of Ecotourism 7(2-3): 160-178. CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; retrieved September 2018 from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. CBD (2002). Decision vi/26: Strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity 2002- 2010. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Montreal. CBD (2016). Biodiversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development technical note. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; retrieved September 2018 from: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment- energy/ecosystems_and_biodiversity/biodiversity-and-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable- development---p.html. CBD, SCBD, UNDP, UNEP, FAO and World Bank (2016). Biodiversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Quebec, Canada. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987). The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal 1(987): 1. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (2008). Ecotourism and ecolodge development in the 21st century. Ecotourism and conservation in the Americas. A. Stronza and W. Durham. CABI; Wallingford. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., García, A., Pringle, R.M. and Palmer, T.M. (2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science advances 1(5): 1-5. Cetindamar, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of the United Nations global compact. Journal of Business Ethics 76(2): 163-176. Chandel, A. and Mishra, S. (2016). Ecotourism revisited: Last twenty-five years. Czech Journal of Tourism 5(2): 135-143. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA. Christie, M.F. and Mason, P.A. (2003). Transformative tour guiding: Training tour guides to be critically reflective practitioners. Journal of Ecotourism 2(1): 1-16.
217 Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. SAGE Publications; Thousand Oaks, California. Cobbinah, P.B. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism Management Perspectives 16: 179-189. Collins, S.L., Carpenter, S.R., Swinton, S.M., Orenstein, D.E., Childers, D.L., Gragson, T.L., Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., Harlan, S.L., Kaye, J.P., Knapp, A.K., Kofinas, G.P., Magnuson, J.J., McDowell, W.H., Melack, J.M., Ogden, L.A., Robertson, G.P., Smith, M.D. and Whitmer, A.C. (2011). An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(6): 351-357. Commonwealth of Australia (2015). Australian Heritage Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (2018). Threat Abatement Plan for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and Van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S. and Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 28: 1-16. Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA. Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A. and Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 11(1): 100. Crowther, T.W., Glick, H., Covey, K., Bettigole, C., Maynard, D., Thomas, S., Smith, J., Hintler, G., Duguid, M. and Amatulli, G. (2015). Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525(7568): 201. Daily, G.R. (1998). Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Environmental Values 7(3): 365-367. Daly, C.A.K., Fraser, G. and Snowball, J.D. (2015). Willingness to pay for marine-based tourism in the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, Mozambique. African Journal of Marine Science 37(1): 33-40. Das, N. and Syiemlieh, H. (2009). Ecotourism in wetland ecology. Anatolia 20(2): 445-450. Davies, T.K., Stevens, G., Meekan, M.G., Struve, J. and Rowcliffe, J.M. (2012). Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark-recapture modelling using identification photographs sourced from the public. Wildlife Research 39(8): 696-704. de Boer, W.F., Stigter, J.D. and Ntumi, C.P. (2007). Optimising investments from elephant tourist revenues in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Journal for Nature Conservation 15(4): 225-236. De Luca, V., Salim, V., Atsumi, S.M. and Yu, F. (2012). Mining the biodiversity of plants: A revolution in the making. Science 336(6089): 1658-1661.
218 De, U.K. and Devi, A. (2011). Valuing recreational and conservational benefits of a natural tourist site: Case of Cherrapunjee. Journal of Quantitative Economics 9(2): 154-172. DEE (2015). Threatened Species Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. DEE (2016). Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database. Commonwealth of Australia; retrieved March 2019 from: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad/2016. DEE (2017). Australia’s Strategy for Nature (draft) 2018-2030. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. DEE. (2019a). National Environmental Science Program. Commonwealth of Australia; retrieved May 2019 from: https://www.environment.gov.au/science/nesp. DEE. (2019b). Species Profile and Threats Database. Commonwealth of Australia; retrieved May 2019 from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl. DEHP (2017a). 2017 koala expert panel interim report. Queensland Government; retrieved November 2017 from: http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/koalas/pdf/koala-expert- panel-interim-report.pdf DEHP (2017b). Tectaria devexa. Queensland Government; retrieved November 2017 from: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/endangered/endangered- plants/cave_fern.html. Department of Environment (2014). Australia’s fifth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. Department of Environment (2016). Report on the review of the first five years of Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. Derhé, M.A., Murphy, H., Monteith, G. and Menéndez, R. (2016). Measuring the success of reforestation for restoring biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(6): 1714-1724. Di Minin, E., Macmillan, D.C., Goodman, P.S., Escott, B., Slotow, R. and Moilanen, A. (2013). Conservation businesses and conservation planning in a biological diversity hotspot. Conservation Biology 27(4): 808-820. Director of National Parks (2011). Sustainable tourism overview 2011-2016. Commonwealth of Australia; Canberra. Doan, T.M. (2000). The effects of ecotourism in developing nations: An analysis of case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4): 288-304. Dombeck, M.P., Williams, J.E. and Wood, C.A. (2004). Wildfire policy and public lands: Integrating scientific understanding with social concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18(4): 883-889. Dong, Y., Ishikawa, M., Liu, X. and Hamori, S. (2011). The determinants of citizen complaints on environmental pollution: An empirical study from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(12): 1306-1314. Donohoe, H.M. and Needham, R.D. (2006). Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. Journal of Ecotourism 5(3): 192-210.
219 Dowling, R. (2013). The history of ecotourism. International handbook on ecotourism. R. Ballantyne and J. Packer. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.; Glos, United Kingdom. Ecotourism Australia (2017). Nature Based Tourism in Australia Manifesto. Ecotourism Australia; retrieved November 2018 from: https://www.ecotourism.org.au/assets/Uploads/Manifesto-v5.0.pdf. Ecotourism Australia (2018a). Annual report 2017/18. Ecotourism Australia; Brisbane, Australia. Ecotourism Australia. (2018b). A brief history of Ecotourism Australia. Ecotourism Australia; retrieved October 2018 from: http://www.ecotourism.org.au/about/history/. Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing 62(1): 107-115. England, P. (2016). Between regulation and markets: Ironies and anomalies in the regulatory governance of biodiversity conservation in Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Law 2016: 44-85. Epaphras, A.M., Gereta, E., Lejora, I.A., Ole Meing’ataki, G.E., Ng’umbi, G., Kiwango, Y., Mwangomo, E., Semanini, F., Vitalis, L., Balozi, J. and Mtahiko, M.G.G. (2008). Wildlife water utilization and importance of artificial waterholes during dry season at Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(3): 183-188. Erdem, B. and Tetik, N. (2013). An environmentally-sensitive approach in the hotel industry: Ecolodges. International Journal for Responsible Tourism 2(2): 22-40. Esparon, M., Stoeckl, N. and Gyuris, E. (2013). Eco certification in Queensland's Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: Is it good for business? Handbook of tourism economics: Analysis, new applications and case studies. C. Tisdell. World Scientific; Singapore. Evans, M.C. (2016). Deforestation in Australia: Drivers, trends and policy responses. Pacific Conservation Biology 22(2): 130-150. Evans, M.C. (2018). Effective incentives for reforestation: Lessons from Australia's carbon farming policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32: 38-45. Feilzer, M.Y. (2009). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(1): 6-16. Fennell, D.A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism 4(5): 403-421. Fennell, D.A. (2013). Contesting the zoo as a setting for ecotourism, and the design of a first principle. Journal of Ecotourism 12(1): 1-14. Ferraro, P.J. and Pattanayak, S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4(4): e105, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105. Fischer, J. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2007). Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16(3): 265-280. Fitzgerald, L.A. and Stronza, A.L. (2016). In defense of the ecotourism shield: A response to Geffroy et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31(2): 94-95.
220 Fitzsimons, J. and Carr, B. (2007). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation covenanting programs in delivering biodiversity conservation outcomes. Report to the Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Environment and Water Resources. Bush Heritage Australia; Melbourne. Fitzsimons, J.A. (2015). Private protected areas in Australia: Current status and future directions. Nature Conservation 10: 1-23. Fitzsimons, J.A. and Carr, C.B. (2014). Conservation covenants on private land: Issues with measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia. Environmental Management 54(3): 606-616. Fletcher, R. (2009). Ecotourism discourse: Challenging the stakeholders theory. Journal of Ecotourism 8(3): 269-285. Fletcher, R. (2011). Sustaining tourism, sustaining capitalism? The tourism industry's role in global capitalist expansion. Tourism Geographies 13(3): 443-461. Fletcher, R. and Neves, K. (2012). Contradictions in tourism: The promise and pitfalls of ecotourism as a manifold capitalist fix. Environment and Society 3(1): 60-77. Fogle, E.L.V. and Duffy, L.N. (2018). Guiding practices for implementing an eco-certification program: A case study of Ecotourism Australia. E-review of Tourism Research 15(2/3). Fowler, F.J.J. (2014). Survey research methods. SAGE Publications; London, UK. Frankham, R. (2008). Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs. Molecular Ecology 17(1): 325-333. Fuerst, F. and McAllister, P. (2011). Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of environmental certification on office values. Real Estate Economics 39(1): 45-69. Fuller, R.A., McDonald-Madden, E., Wilson, K.A., Carwardine, J., Grantham, H.S., Watson, J.E.M., Klein, C.J., Green, D.C. and Possingham, H.P. (2010). Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes. Nature 466(7304): 365-367. Gaba, J.M. (1999). Environmental ethics and our moral relationship to future generations: Future rights and present virtue. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 24: 249. Galley, G. and Clifton, J. (2004). The motivational and demographic characteristics of research ecotourists: Operation Wallacea volunteers in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Ecotourism 3(1): 69-82. García-Ruiz, J.M., Beguería, S., Lana-Renault, N., Nadal-Romero, E. and Cerdà, A. (2017). Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land Degradation & Development 28(1): 5-21. Gardener, M. (2014). Community ecology: Analytical methods using R and Excel. Pelagic Publishing Ltd.; Exeter, UK. Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, L. and Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008). The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39(1): 93-113.
221 Geffroy, B., Samia, D.S., Bessa, E. and Blumstein, D.T. (2015). How nature-based tourism might increase prey vulnerability to predators. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30(12): 755-765. Geist, J. and Hawkins, S.J. (2016). Habitat recovery and restoration in aquatic ecosystems: Current progress and future challenges. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26(5): 942-962. Genet, M., Kokutse, N., Stokes, A., Fourcaud, T., Cai, X., Ji, J. and Mickovski, S. (2008). Root reinforcement in plantations of Cryptomeria japonica D. Don: Effect of tree age and stand structure on slope stability. Forest Ecology and Management 256(8): 1517-1526. Glasgow, R.E. (2013). What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Education & Behavior 40(3): 257-265. Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J. and Benton, T.G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(2): 90-98. Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. and Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1209-1218. Good, R. and Johnston, S. (2019). Rehabilitation and revegetation of the Kosciuszko summit area, following the removal of grazing – an historic review. Ecological Management & Restoration 20(1): 13-20. Goossens, B., Sharma, R., Othman, N., Kun-Rodrigues, C., Sakong, R., Ancrenaz, M., Ambu, L.N., Jue, N.K., O'Neill, R.J. and Bruford, M.W. (2016). Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity in natural populations of the Bornean elephant: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 196(2016): 80-92. Gosper, C.R. and Vivian-Smith, G. (2006). Selecting replacements for invasive plants to support frugivores in highly modified sites: A case study focusing on Lantana camara. Ecological Management & Restoration 7(3): 197-203. Gössling, S. and Buckley, R. (2016). Carbon labels in tourism: Persuasive communication? Journal of Cleaner Production 111: 358-369. Graci, S. and Dodds, R. (2015). Certification and labeling. The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. S. Gössling, C.M. Hall and D. Scott. Routledge; New York, NY. Greene, J.C. and Hall, J. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie. SAGE Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA. Greiner, R. and Gregg, D. (2011). Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28(1): 257-265. Gressier, C. (2014). An elephant in the room: Okavango safari hunting as ecotourism? Ethnos 79(2): 193-214. Haaland, H. and Aas, Ø. (2010). Eco‐tourism certification – does it make a difference? A comparison of systems from Australia, Costa Rica and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10(3): 375-385.
222 Haddaway, N.R. and Bayliss, H.R. (2015). Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biological Conservation 191: 827-829. Hall, C.M. (2011). Seeing the forest for the trees: Tourism and the international year of forests. Journal of Heritage Tourism 6(4): 271-283. Hall, C.M. (2013). Ecotourism and global environmental change. International handbook on ecotourism. R. Ballantyne and J. Packer. Edward Elgar Pub. Limited; Glos, UK. Halliday, L.G., Castley, J.G., Fitzsimons, J.A., Tran, C. and Warnken, J. (2012). Fire management on private conservation lands: Knowledge, perceptions and actions of landholders in eastern Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(3): 197-209. Hamel, E. (2007). The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review 20(1): 53-71. Hamman, E. (2016). The influence of environmental NGOs on project finance: A case study of activism, development and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 6(1): 51-66. Hancock, D.R. and Algozzine, R. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Teachers College Press; New York, NY. Hanly, C. (2014). The interplay of deductive and inductive reasoning in psychoanalytic theorizing. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 83(4): 897-915. Hansen, U. and Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy 20(4): 443-468. Hardy, M.J., Fitzsimons, J.A., Bekessy, S.A. and Gordon, A. (2017). Exploring the permanence of conservation covenants. Conservation Letters 10(2): 221-230. Harris, R.B., Wall, W.A. and Allendorf, F.W. (2002). Genetic consequences of hunting: What do we know and what should we do? Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 30(2): 634- 643. Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I.H., Adendorff, J., Moolman, L.C., O'Brien, J., Sholto-Douglas, A., Bissett, C., Bean, P., Fogarty, A., Howarth, D. and Slater, R. (2007). The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: An assessment. Oryx 41(2): 205- 214. Hedrick, P.W. and Fredrickson, R.J. (2008). Captive breeding and the reintroduction of Mexican and red wolves. Molecular Ecology 17(1): 344-350. Heikkurinen, P. (2010). Image differentiation with corporate environmental responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17(3): 142-152. Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(3): 381-395. Hermoso, V. and Clavero, M. (2013). Revisiting ecological integrity 30 years later: Non-native species and the misdiagnosis of freshwater ecosystem health. Fish and Fisheries 14(3): 416-423. Hess, S.C. (2016). A Tour de Force by Hawaii’s invasive mammals: Establishment, takeover, and ecosystem restoration through eradication. Mammal Study 41(2): 47-60.
223 Higginbottom, K. and Buckley, R. (2003). Terrestrial wildlife viewing in Australia. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Gold Coast, Queensland; Gold Coast, Australia. Hill, R., Dyer, G.A., Lozada-Ellison, L.M., Gimona, A., Martin-Ortega, J., Munoz-Rojas, J. and Gordon, I.J. (2015). A social–ecological systems analysis of impediments to delivery of the Aichi 2020 targets and potentially more effective pathways to the conservation of biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 34: 22-34. Hoban, S.M., Hauffe, H.C., Pérez-Espona, S., Arntzen, J.W., Bertorelle, G., Bryja, J., Frith, K., Gaggiotti, O.E., Galbusera, P. and Godoy, J.A. (2013). Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conservation Genetics Resources 5(2): 593-598. Hobbs, R.J. (2001). Synergisms among habitat fragmentation, livestock grazing, and biotic invasions in southwestern Australia. Conservation Biology 15(6): 1522-1528. Hofman, K. and Hughes, K. (2018). Protecting the Great Barrier Reef: Analysing the impact of a conservation documentary and post-viewing strategies on long-term conservation behaviour. Environmental Education Research 24(4): 521-536. Hollander, R. (2006). Elections, policy and the media: Tasmania's forests and the 2004 federal election. Australian Journal of Political Science 41(4): 569-584. Honey, M.S. (1999). Treading lightly? Ecotourism's impact on the environment. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 41(5): 4-9. Honey, M.S. (2011). Travelers’ philanthropy handbook. Center for Responsible Travel (CREST). Hovardas, T. and Poirazidis, K. (2006). Evaluation of the environmentalist dimension of ecotourism at the Dadia Forest Reserve (Greece). Environmental Management 38(5): 810-822. Howard, J. (2000). Research in progress: Does environmental interpretation influence behaviour through knowledge or affect? Australian Journal of Environmental Education 15(1999): 153-156. Hughes, K. (2011). Designing post-visit action resources for families visiting wildlife tourism sites. Visitor Studies 14(1): 66-83. Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(1): 42-59. Hughes, K., Packer, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research 17(3): 307-328. Hughes, M. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005). Influence of on-site interpretation intensity on visitors to natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism 4(3): 161-177. Hunt, C.A., Durham, W.H., Driscoll, L. and Honey, M. (2015). Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(3): 339-357. IPAC (2016a). Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017 to 2027. Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources; Canberra.
224 IPAC (2016b). Australian Weeds Strategy 2017 to 2027. Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources; Canberra. IPBES (2019). The IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Bonn, Germany. IUCN (1980). World Conservation Strategy. IUCN; Gland, Switzerland. Jackson, W., Argent, R., Bax, N., Clark, G., Coleman, S., Cresswell, I., Emmerson, K., Evans, K., Hibberd, M., Johnston, E., Keywood, M., Klekociuk, A., Mackay, R., Metcalfe, D., Murphy, H., Rankin, A., Smith, D. and Wienecke, B. (2017). Australia State of the Environment 2016: Overview, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment And Energy. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy; Canberra, Australia. Jalonen, R., Valette, M., Boshier, D., Duminil, J. and Thomas, E. (2018). Forest and landscape restoration severely constrained by a lack of attention to the quantity and quality of tree seed: Insights from a global survey. Conservation Letters 11(4): e12424, DOI: 10.1111/conl.12424. Jamal, T., Borges, M. and Stronza, A.L. (2006). The institutionalisation of ecotourism: Certification, cultural equity and praxis. Journal of Ecotourism 5(3): 145-175. James, A.N., Gaston, K.J. and Balmford, A. (1999). Balancing the earth's accounts. Nature 401(6751): 323-324. John, G., Anna, G., Rob, L. and Alan, C. (2006). Farmers' markets: The small business counter‐ revolution in food production and retailing. British Food Journal 108(7): 560-573. Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H. and Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(4): 187-191. Kabii, T. and Horwitz, P. (2006). A review of landholder motivations and determinants for participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environmental Conservation 33(1): 11-20. Kagabo, D.M., Stroosnijder, L., Visser, S.M. and Moore, D. (2013). Soil erosion, soil fertility and crop yield on slow-forming terraces in the highlands of Buberuka, Rwanda. Soil and Tillage Research 128: 23-29. Kang, S. and Rajagopal, L. (2014). Perceptions of benefits and challenges of purchasing local foods among hotel industry decision makers. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 17(4): 301-322. Karlsson, L. and Dolnicar, S. (2016). Does eco certification sell tourism services? Evidence from a quasi-experimental observation study in Iceland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(5): 694-714. Karppinen, K. and Moe, H. (2012). What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects. Bristol: Intellect: 177-193. Katić, A., Stanković, J., Kovačević, J. and Muhi, B. (2011). Green trends in tourism industry. 1st Climate Change, Economic Development, Environment and People Conference, Novi Sad, Serbia, 14-15 September 2011 (pp. 215-226), Educons University.
225 Keating, P.J. (1995). Speech by the Prime Minister, the Hon P.J. Keating, MP, National Press Club Canberra Thursday 24 August 1995. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; retrieved January 2018 from: http://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-9727. Kelly, J., Haider, W., Williams, P.W. and Englund, K. (2007). Stated preferences of tourists for eco-efficient destination planning options. Tourism Management 28(2): 377-390. Keppel, G., Mokany, K., Wardell-Johnson, G.W., Phillips, B.L., Welbergen, J.A. and Reside, A.E. (2015). The capacity of refugia for conservation planning under climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(2): 106-112. Kerley, G.I., Geach, B.G. and Vial, C. (2003). Jumbos or bust: Do tourists' perceptions lead to an under-appreciation of biodiversity? South African Journal of Wildlife Research-24- month delayed open access 33(1): 13-21. Kerley, G.I.H., Knight, M.H. and Kock, M. (1995). Desertification of subtropical thicket in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: Are there alternatives? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 37(1): 211-230. Kettenring, K.M., Mercer, K.L., Reinhardt Adams, C. and Hines, J. (2014). Application of genetic diversity–ecosystem function research to ecological restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2): 339-348. Kingsford, R.T., Watson, J.E.M., Lundquist, C.J., Venter, O., Hughes, L., Johnston, E.L., Atherton, J., Gawel, M., Keith, D.A., Mackey, B.G., Morley, C., Possingham, H.P., Raynor, B., Recher, H.F. and Wilson, K.A. (2009). Major conservation policy issues for biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology 23(4): 834-840. Kingsley, J., Townsend, M., Phillips, R. and Aldous, D. (2009). “If the land is healthy … it makes the people healthy”: The relationship between caring for Country and health for the Yorta Yorta Nation, Boonwurrung and Bangerang Tribes. Health & Place 15(1): 291-299. Kinnear, J.E., Sumner, N.R. and Onus, M.L. (2002). The red fox in Australia—an exotic predator turned biocontrol agent. Biological Conservation 108(3): 335-359. Kirillova, K., Fu, X., Lehto, X. and Cai, L. (2014). What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tourism Management 42: 282-293. Kirkby, C.A., Giudice, R., Day, B., Turner, K., Soares-Filho, B.S., Oliveira-Rodrigues, H. and Yu, D.W. (2011). Closing the ecotourism-conservation loop in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 38(01): 6-17. Kleiman, D.G., Reading, R.P., Miller, B.J., Clark, T.W., Scott, J.M., Robinson, J., Wallace, R.L., Cabin, R.J. and Felleman, F. (2000). Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology 14(2): 356-365. Koester, V. (2002). The five global biodiversity‐related conventions: A stocktaking. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 11(1): 96-103. Kohli, R.K., Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P. and Dogra, K.S. (2006). Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus l., Ageratum conyzoides l., Lantana camara l.) in India. Biological Invasions 8(7): 1501-1510.
226 Kolk, A. and Levy, D. (2001). Winds of change. European Management Journal 19(5): 501- 509. Kramer, A.T. and Havens, K. (2009). Plant conservation genetics in a changing world. Trends in Plant Science 14(11): 599-607. Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation 14(3): 579-600. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S. and Sutton, P. (2017). The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services 26: 289-301. Lamers, M., Nthiga, R., van der Duim, V.R. and van Wijk, J. (2014). Tourism-conservation enterprises as a land-use strategy in Kenya. Tourism Geographies 16(3): 474-489. Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally? The Tsiseb Conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa 27(5): 757-772. Lapeyre, R. (2011). The Grootberg Lodge partnership in Namibia: Towards poverty alleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability? Current Issues in Tourism 14(3): 221- 234. Laurance, W.F., Koster, H., Grooten, M., Anderson, A.B., Zuidema, P.A., Zwick, S., Zagt, R.J., Lynam, A.J., Linkie, M. and Anten, N.P.R. (2012). Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation 153(2012): 164-168. Lebe, S.S. and Vrečko, I. (2015). Eco-labels and schemes: A requisitely holistic proof of tourism's social responsibility? Systems Research and Behavioral Science 32(2): 247- 255. Leech, N.L. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School psychology quarterly 22(4): 557-584. Leung, Y.-F., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G. and Buckley, R. (2014). Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 27. IUCN; Gland, Switzerland. Li, W., Zhang, Q., Liu, C. and Xue, Q. (2006). Tourism's impacts on natural resources: A positive case from China. Environmental Management 38(4): 572-579. Libois, E., Gimenez, O., Oro, D., Mínguez, E., Pradel, R. and Sanz-Aguilar, A. (2012). Nest boxes: A successful management tool for the conservation of an endangered seabird. Biological Conservation 155: 39-43. Liburd, J.J. and Becken, S. (2017). Values in nature conservation, tourism and UNESCO World Heritage Site stewardship. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(12): 1719-1735. Lin, T.T.C. (2012). Cross-platform framing and cross-cultural adaptation: Examining elephant conservation in Thailand. Environmental Communication 6(2): 193-211. Lindberg, K. (1991). Policies for maximizing nature tourism’s ecological and economic benefits. World Resources Institute; USA.
227 Lindenmayer, D.B., Cunningham, R.B., Donnelly, C.F. and Franklin, J.F. (2000). Structural features of old-growth Australian montane ash forests. Forest Ecology and Management 134(1): 189-204. Lindenmayer, D.B., Hulvey, K.B., Hobbs, R.J., Colyvan, M., Felton, A., Possingham, H., Steffen, W., Wilson, K., Youngentob, K. and Gibbons, P. (2012). Avoiding bio- perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conservation Letters 5(1): 28-36. Lindenmayer, D.B., Steffen, W., Burbidge, A.A., Hughes, L., Kitching, R.L., Musgrave, W., Stafford Smith, M. and Werner, P.A. (2010). Conservation strategies in response to rapid climate change: Australia as a case study. Biological Conservation 143(7): 1587- 1593. Lindenmayer, D.B., Welsh, A., Donnelly, C., Crane, M., Michael, D., Macgregor, C., McBurney, L., Montague-Drake, R. and Gibbons, P. (2009). Are nest boxes a viable alternative source of cavities for hollow-dependent animals? Long-term monitoring of nest box occupancy, pest use and attrition. Biological Conservation 142(1): 33-42. Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R.R., Mills, M.G.L., Romañach, S.S. and Woodroffe, R. (2007a). Wildlife viewing preferences of visitors to protected areas in South Africa: Implications for the role of ecotourism in conservation. Journal of Ecotourism 6(1): 19-33. Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A. and Romañach, S.S. (2007b). Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134(4): 455-469. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H. and Taylor, W.W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844): 1513-1516. Macaulay, L. (2016). The role of wildlife-associated recreation in private land use and conservation: Providing the missing baseline. Land Use Policy 58: 218-233. Mackey, B.G., Watson, J.E.M., Hope, G. and Gilmore, S. (2008). Climate change, biodiversity conservation, and the role of protected areas: An Australian perspective. Biodiversity 9(3-4): 11-18. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A.L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L. and Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 31-39. Mallari, N.A.D., Collar, N.J., McGowan, P.J.K. and Marsden, S.J. (2016). Philippine protected areas are not meeting the biodiversity coverage and management effectiveness requirements of Aichi Target 11. Ambio 45(3): 313-322. Marcovaldi, M.A. and Dei Marcovaldi, G.G. (1999). Marine turtles of Brazil: The history and structure of Projeto Tamar-Ibama. Biological Conservation 91(1): 35-41. Marino, J., Sillero‐Zubiri, C. and Macdonald, D.W. (2006). Trends, dynamics and resilience of an Ethiopian wolf population. Animal Conservation 9(1): 49-58. Marnewick, K., Ferreira, S.M., Grange, S., Watermeyer, J., Maputla, N. and Davies-Mostert, H.T. (2014). Evaluating the status of and African wild dogs Lycaon pictus and cheetahs
228 Acinonyx jubatus through tourist-based photographic surveys in the Kruger National Park. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86265, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086265. Martin, T.E., Lurbiecki, H., Joy, J.B. and Mooers, A.O. (2014). Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Animal Conservation 17(2): 89-96. Mason, P. (2000). Zoo tourism: The need for more research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4): 333-339. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2011). The effects of tourism development on the sustainable utilisation of natural resources in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Current Issues in Tourism 14(3): 251-273. Mbaiwa, J.E. and Kolawole, O.D. (2013). Tourism and biodiversity conservation: The case of community-based natural resource management in southern Africa. CAB Reviews 8(010): 1-10. McCallum, H. (2008). Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease: Lessons for conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(11): 631-637. McCauley, D.J., Power, E.A., Bird, D.W., McInturff, A., Dunbar, R.B., Durham, W.H., Micheli, F. and Young, H.S. (2013). Conservation at the edges of the world. Biological Conservation 165(2013): 139-145. McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T. and Hutchinson, J.M.S. (2017). Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services 25: 82-88. Mihalič, T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management 21(1): 65-78. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well‐being: Synthesis. Island Press; Washington, D.C. Miller, J.M. and Krosnick, J.A. (2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology 25(4): 507-523. Mitchell, B.A., Fitzsimons, J.A., Stevens, C.M. and Wright, D.R. (2018). PPA or OECM? Differentiating between privately protected areas and other effective area‐based conservation measures on private land. PARKS 24: 49. Moncrieff, D. (2000). Managing tourism and recreation on wheatbelt granite outcrops. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 83: 187-196. Moon, K. and Cocklin, C. (2011). Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies 27(3): 331-342. Moran, M.D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100(2): 403-405. Morelli, T.L., Daly, C., Dobrowski, S.Z., Dulen, D.M., Ebersole, J.L., Jackson, S.T., Lundquist, J.D., Millar, C.I., Maher, S.P., Monahan, W.B., Nydick, K.R., Redmond, K.T., Sawyer, S.C., Stock, S. and Beissinger, S.R. (2016). Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0159909, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159909. Morgan, D.L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry 20(8): 1045-1053.
229 Morrison, C., Wardle, C. and Castley, J.G. (2016). Repeatability and reproducibility of Population Viability Analysis (PVA) and the implications for threatened species management. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4(98): 1-7. Mossaz, A., Buckley, R.C. and Castley, J.G. (2015). Ecotourism contributions to conservation of African big cats. Journal for Nature Conservation 28(2015): 112-118. Mukhambetov, T., Janguttina, G. and Еsaidar, U. (2016). Entrepreneurial aspects of eco‐ tourism. ICIE 2016 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Toronto, Canada, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H. and Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21(12): 681-687. Navrátil, J., Knotek, J., Hanzelková, E. and Pícha, K. (2016). Tourists' knowledge of a visited environment and the immediate influence on this knowledge of completing an interpretive nature trail: Beskydy Protected Landscape Area, West Carpathians. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 18(2): 145-151. Navrud, S. and Mungatana, E.D. (1994). Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economics 11(2): 135-151. Nekuda Malik, J.A. (2019). US Academies call for research agenda on negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration. MRS Bulletin 44(1): 13-15. Neldner, V.J., Niehus, R.E., Wilson, B.A., McDonald, W.J.F., Ford, A.J. and Accad, A. (2017). The vegetation of Queensland. Descriptions of broad vegetation groups. Version 3.0. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation; retrieved November 2017 from: https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/redd/resource/78209e74-c7f2-4589-90c1- c33188359086. Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L.S., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, M., Peterson, T., Sachedina, H. and Williams, A. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology 24(1): 78-85. New, T.R. (2010). Butterfly conservation in Australia: The importance of community participation. Journal of Insect Conservation 14(3): 305-311. Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Hill, S.L.L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R.A., Borger, L., Bennett, D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Diaz, S., Echeverria- Londono, S., Edgar, M.J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M.L.K., Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D.J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp, V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Correia, D.L.P., Martin, C.D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y., Phillips, H.R.P., Purves, D.W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S.L., Weiher, E., White, H.J., Ewers, R.M., Mace, G.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W. and Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520(7545): 45-50. Newmark, W.D., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., McNeally, P.B. and Halley, J.M. (2017). Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(36): 9635.
230 Nogales, M., MartÍN, A., Tershy, B.R., Donlan, C.J., Veitch, D., Puerta, N., Wood, B. and Alonso, J. (2004). A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 18(2): 310-319. Novelli, M., Barnes, J.I. and Humavindu, M. (2006). The other side of the ecotourism coin: Consumptive tourism in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 5(1-2): 62-69. NRMMC (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030. Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; Canberra. Nunes, P.A.L.D. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: Sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39(2): 203-222. Nye, M. and Hargreaves, T. (2010). Exploring the social dynamics of proenvironmental behavior change. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(1): 137-149. O'Malley, M.P., Lee-Brooks, K. and Medd, H.B. (2013). The global economic impact of manta ray watching tourism. PLoS ONE 8(5), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065051. Ogutu, Z.A. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation & Development 13(3): 251-256. Okereke, C. (2007). An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management. European Management Journal 25(6): 475-486. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E. and Evans, K.L. (2015). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology 30(1): 133- 141. Oliver, T.H., Brereton, T. and Roy, D.B. (2013). Population resilience to an extreme drought is influenced by habitat area and fragmentation in the local landscape. Ecography 36(5): 579-586. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Johnson, R.B. and Collins, K.M. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3(2): 114-139. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(5): 375-387. Osano, P.M., Said, M.Y., de Leeuw, J., Ndiwa, N., Kaelo, D., Schomers, S., Birner, R. and Ogutu, J.O. (2013). Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism- based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Natural Resources Forum 37(4): 242-256. Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P. and Unnasch, R.S. (2003). Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53(9): 851-860. Pegas, F.d.V. and Castley, J.G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(4): 604-625. Perkins, H. and Grace, D.A. (2009). Ecotourism: Supply of nature or tourist demand? Journal of Ecotourism 8(3): 223-236.
231 Perrings, C., Naeem, S., Ahrestani, F.S., Bunker, D.E., Burkill, P., Canziani, G., Elmqvist, T., Fuhrman, J.A., Jaksic, F.M., Kawabata, Z.i., Kinzig, A., Mace, G.M., Mooney, H., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Tschirhart, J. and Weisser, W. (2011). Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(9): 512-520. Piccolo, J.J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation 37: 8-11. Pickering, C., Harrington, J. and Worboys, G. (2003). Environmental impacts of tourism on the Australian alps protected areas. Mountain Research and Development 23(3): 247-254. Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., Brooks, T.M., Gittleman, J.L., Joppa, L.N., Raven, P.H., Roberts, C.M. and Sexton, J.O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187): 987-997. Polkinghorne, A., Hanger, J. and Timms, P. (2013). Recent advances in understanding the biology, epidemiology and control of chlamydial infections in koalas. Veterinary Microbiology 165(3–4): 214-223. Powell, R.B. and Ham, S.H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro- conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(4): 467-489. Prado, J.A., Puszka, H., Forman, A., Cooke, B. and Fitzsimons, J.A. (2018). Trends and values of ‘Land for Wildlife’ programs for private land conservation. Ecological Management & Restoration 19(2): 136-146. Pressey, R.L., Hager, T.C., Ryan, K.M., Schwarz, J., Wall, S., Ferrier, S. and Creaser, P.M. (2000). Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions: Quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 96(1): 55-82. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302(5652): 1912-1914. Productivity Commission (2015). Australia’s international tourism industry. Productivity Commission; Canberra. Pullin, A.S. and Stewart, G.B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20(6): 1647-1656. Pyke, G.H. and Szabo, J.K. (2018). Conservation and the 4 Rs, which are rescue, rehabilitation, release, and research. Conservation Biology 32(1): 50-59. Queensland Government (2013). Queensland Ecotourism Plan 2013–2020. Queensland Government; Brisbane, Australia. Queensland Herbarium (2015). Regional Ecosystems Map. Lot: 4; plan: W311633. Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Queensland Government; Brisbane, Australia. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (2016). Queensland Ecotourism Plan 2016–2020. Queensland Government; Brisbane, Australia. Radford, J.Q., Woinarski, J.C., Legge, S., Baseler, M., Bentley, J., Burbidge, A.A., Bode, M., Copley, P., Dexter, N. and Dickman, C.R. (2018). Degrees of population-level
232 susceptibility of Australian terrestrial non-volant mammal species to predation by the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat (Felis catus). Wildlife Research 45(7): 645-657. Ran, L., Lu, X., Fang, N. and Yang, X. (2018). Effective soil erosion control represents a significant net carbon sequestration. Scientific Reports 8(1): 12018. Reed, D.H. and Frankham, R. (2003). Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17(1): 230-237. Reside, A.E., Beher, J., Cosgrove, A.J., Evans, M.C., Seabrook, L., Silcock, J.L., Wenger, A.S. and Maron, M. (2017). Ecological consequences of land clearing and policy reform in Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 23(3): 219-230. Ries, L., Fletcher Jr, R.J., Battin, J. and Sisk, T.D. (2004). Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35: 491- 522. Rissman, A.R. and Sayre, N.F. (2012). Conservation outcomes and social relations: A comparative study of private ranchland conservation easements. Society & Natural Resources 25(6): 523-538. Ritchie, E.G., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Dickman, C.R., Hobbs, R., Johnson, C.N., Johnston, E.L., Laurance, W.F., Lindenmayer, D., McCarthy, M.A., Nimmo, D.G., Possingham, H.H., Pressey, R.L., Watson, D.M. and Woinarski, J. (2013). Continental-scale governance and the hastening of loss of Australia's biodiversity. Conservation Biology 27(6): 1133- 1135. Robbins, A., Loader, J., Timms, P. and Hanger, J. (2018). Optimising the short and long-term clinical outcomes for koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) during treatment for chlamydial infection and disease. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0209679, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209679. Robins, L. (2018). More than 30 years of ‘Landcare’ in Australia: Five phases of development from ‘childhood’ to ‘mid-life’ (crisis or renewal?). Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 25(4): 385-397. Rodger, K., Moore, S.A. and Newsome, D. (2007). Wildlife tours in Australia: Characteristics, the place of science and sustainable futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(2): 160- 179. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffmann, M., Long, J.S., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J. and Yan, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428(6983): 640- 643. Romanin, L.M., Prior, L.D., Williamson, G.J. and Bowman, D.M.J.S. (2015). Trajectory of change in land cover and carbon stocks following European settlement in Tasmania, Australia. Anthropocene 9: 33-40. Romero-Brito, T.P., Buckley, R.C. and Byrne, J. (2016). NGO partnerships in using ecotourism for conservation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11(11): 1-19.
233 Rooney, P., Steinberg, K. and Schervish, P.G. (2004). Methodology is destiny: The effect of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(4): 628-654. Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management 20(1): 123-132. Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D. and Anderson, A.B. (2013). Handbook of survey research. Academic Press; New York, NY. Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B.D. and McLennan, C.-l.J. (2015). Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(4): 517-535. Sakata, H. and Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(6): 880-899. Salafsky, N., Cauley, H., Balachander, G., Cordes, B., Parks, J., Margoluis, C., Bhatt, S., Encarnacion, C., Russell, D. and Margoluis, R. (2001). A systematic test of an enterprise strategy for community-based biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 15(6): 1585-1595. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S.H.M., Collen, B.E.N., Cox, N., Master, L.L., O'Connor, S. and Wilkie, D. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22(4): 897-911. Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Sage Publishing, Ltd.; Thousand Oaks California, CA. Salum, L.A. (2009). Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar. African Journal of Ecology 47(2009): 166-170. Samways, M.J., Hitchins, P.M., Bourquin, O. and Henwood, J. (2010). Restoration of a tropical island: Cousine Island, Seychelles. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(2): 425-434. Sanchez, D.L., Amador, G., Funk, J. and Mach, K.J. (2018). Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 13(1): 015005, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f. Sandbrook, C.G. (2015). What is conservation? Oryx 49(4): 565-566. Sander, B. (2012). The importance of education in ecotourism ventures: Lessons from Rara Avis Ecolodge, Costa Rica. International Journal of Sustainable Society 4(4): 389-404. Sandy, Q.Q. and John, D. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8(3): 238-264. Santos Junior, P.C.A., Marques, F.C., Lima, M.R. and dos Anjos, L. (2016). The importance of restoration areas to conserve bird species in a highly fragmented Atlantic forest landscape. Natureza & Conservação 14(1): 1-7. Scheele, B.C., Legge, S., Armstrong, D.P., Copley, P., Robinson, N., Southwell, D., Westgate, M.J. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2018). How to improve threatened species management: An Australian perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 223: 668-675.
234 Schoneveld-de Lange, N., Meijaard, E. and Löhr, A. (2016). South to south learning in great ape conservation. American Journal of Primatology 78(6): 669-678. Sgalitzer, H.A., Brownlee, M.T.J., Zajchowski, C., Bricker, K.S. and Powell, R.B. (2016). Modelling travellers philanthropy: Tourists motivations to donate at Sweetwater Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Journal of Ecotourism 15(1): 1-20. Shahidul Islam, M. and Tanaka, M. (2004). Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: A review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48(7): 624-649. Shaw, D., Newholm, T. and Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 40(9/10): 1049-1067. Sims-Castley, R., Kerley, G.I., Geach, B. and Langholz, J. (2005). Socio-economic significance of ecotourism-based private game reserves in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province. PARKS 15(2): 6-18. Sirakaya, E., Sasidharan, V. and Sönmez, S. (1999). Redefining ecotourism: The need for a supply-side view. Journal of Travel Research 38(2): 168-172. Skibins, J.C., Powell, R.B. and Hallo, J.C. (2013). Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation 22(4): 959-982. Smallwood, K.S. (2001). Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 253-261. Smith, D.W., White, P.J., Stahler, D.R., Wydeven, A. and Hallac, D.E. (2016). Managing wolves in the Yellowstone area: Balancing goals across jurisdictional boundaries. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40(3): 436-445. Smith, L.D.G., Broad, S. and Weiler, B.V. (2008). A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(5): 544-562. Snyman, S. (2016). The role of private sector ecotourism in local socio-economic development in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 16(3): 247-268. Sobels, J., Curtis, A. and Lockie, S. (2001). The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: Exploring the contribution of social capital. Journal of Rural Studies 17(3): 265-276. Sommer, S., McDevitt, A.D. and Balkenhol, N. (2013). Landscape genetic approaches in conservation biology and management. Conservation Genetics 14(2): 249-251. Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Publications, Inc.; New York, NY. State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage (2018). Biodiversity Conservation Investment Strategy 2018. Office of Environment and Heritage; Sydney. Stavrakas, V., Spyridaki, N.-A. and Flamos, A. (2018). Striving towards the deployment of bio- energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): A review of research priorities and assessment needs. Sustainability 10(7): 2206. Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R. and Deshler, D.J. (2003). How 'eco' is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(4): 322-347.
235 Steven, R., Castley, J.G. and Buckley, R. (2013). Tourism revenue as a conservation tool for threatened birds in protected areas. PLoS ONE 8(5): e62598, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062598. Steven, R., Pickering, C. and Castley, J.G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management 92(10): 2287-2294. Stevenson, A. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK. Stronza, A.L. and Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2): 448-468. Sunderland, T., Sunderland-Groves, J., Shanley, P. and Campbell, B. (2009). Bridging the gap: How can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41(5): 549-554. Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. and Knight, T.M. (2004). The need for evidence- based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6): 305-308. Svoronou, E. and Holden, A. (2005). Ecotourism as a tool for nature conservation: The role of WWF Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest Reserve in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(5): 456-467. Tear, T.H., Kareiva, P., Angermeier, P.L., Comer, P., Czech, B., Kautz, R., Landon, L., Mehlman, D., Murphy, K., Ruckelshaus, M., Scott, J.M. and Wilhere, G. (2005). How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55(10): 835-849. TEEB (2012). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in business and enterprise. Earthscan; London. TEEB (2015). TEEB for agriculture & food: An interim report. United Nations Environment Programme; Geneva, Switzerland. Thakadu, O., Mangadi, K., Bernard, F. and Mbaiwa, J. (2005). The economic contribution of safari hunting to rural livelihoods in the Okavango: The case of Sankuyo Village. Botswana Notes and Records 37(1): 22-39. Theobald, D.M. (2013). A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application. Landscape Ecology 28(10): 1859-1874. Thomas, E. and Magilvy, J.K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16(2): 151-155. Thoyre, A. (2011). Social capital as a facilitator of pro-environmental actions in the USA: A preliminary examination of mechanisms. Local Environment 16(1): 37-49. Tisdell, C. (2007). Valuing the Otago Peninsula: The economic benefits of conservation. Working Papers on Economics, Ecology and the Environment. University of Queensland; Brisbane, Australia. Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. (2005). Perceived impacts of ecotourism on environmental learning and conservation: Turtle watching as a case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7(3): 291-302. Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. (2012). Nature-based tourism and conservation: New economic insights and case studies. Edward Elgar Publishing; Massachusetts, US.
236 Tisdell, C.A., Preece, H.J., Abdullah, S. and Beyer, H.L. (2017). Strategies to conserve the koala: Cost-effectiveness considerations. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 24(3): 302-318. Tittensor, D.P., Walpole, M., Hill, S.L.L., Boyce, D.G., Britten, G.L., Burgess, N.D., Butchart, S.H.M., Leadley, P.W., Regan, E.C., Alkemade, R., Baumung, R., Bellard, C., Bouwman, L., Bowles-Newark, N.J., Chenery, A.M., Cheung, W.W.L., Christensen, V., Cooper, H.D., Crowther, A.R., Dixon, M.J.R., Galli, A., Gaveau, V., Gregory, R.D., Gutierrez, N.L., Hirsch, T.L., Höft, R., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Karmann, M., Krug, C.B., Leverington, F.J., Loh, J., Lojenga, R.K., Malsch, K., Marques, A., Morgan, D.H.W., Mumby, P.J., Newbold, T., Noonan-Mooney, K., Pagad, S.N., Parks, B.C., Pereira, H.M., Robertson, T., Rondinini, C., Santini, L., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Schindler, S., Sumaila, U.R., Teh, L.S.L., van Kolck, J., Visconti, P. and Ye, Y. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346(6206): 241-244. Tourism Research Australia (2009). Snapshots 2009 nature tourism in Australia. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Australian Government; Canberra. Tourism Research Australia (2017). Consumer demand project fact sheets: Understanding the markets. Tourism Research Australia; Sydney. Tourism Research Australia (2018). Travel by Australians: Year ending March 2018. Austrade, Australian Government; Canberra. Tovar, C., Pye, R.J., Kreiss, A., Cheng, Y., Brown, G.K., Darby, J., Malley, R.C., Siddle, H.V.T., Skjødt, K., Kaufman, J., Silva, A., Baz Morelli, A., Papenfuss, A.T., Corcoran, L.M., Murphy, J.M., Pearse, M.J., Belov, K., Lyons, A.B. and Woods, G.M. (2017). Regression of devil facial tumour disease following immunotherapy in immunised Tasmanian devils. Scientific Reports 7: 43827. Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C., Warner, E. and Weiss, L. (2015). Healthy parks healthy people: The state of the evidence, 2015. Parks Victoria; Melbourne. Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; West Sussex, UK. Trinkel, M., Ferguson, N., Reid, A., Reid, C., Somers, M., Turelli, L., Graf, J., Szykman, M., Cooper, D. and Haverman, P. (2008). Translocating lions into an inbred lion population in the Hluhluwe‐iMfolozi Park, South Africa. Animal Conservation 11(2): 138-143. Tscharntke, T., Milder, J.C., Schroth, G., Clough, Y., DeClerck, F., Waldron, A., Rice, R. and Ghazoul, J. (2015). Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales. Conservation Letters 8(1): 14-23. TTF (2017). Unlocking our great outdoors - June 2017. Tourism & Transport Forum; Sydney. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2018). 2016 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife- associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau; Washington. UN General Assembly (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration, a/res/55/2. UN General Assembly; New York. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS (2018). Protected Planet Report 2018. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS; Gland, Switzerland.
237 United Nations (2015). 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development a/res/70/1. United Nations; New York. United Nations (2018). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. United Nations; New York. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences 15(3): 398-405. Vaughan, D. (2000). Tourism and biodiversity: A convergence of interests? International Affairs 76(2): 283-297. Vesk, P.A. and Mac Nally, R. (2006). The clock is ticking—revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112(4): 356-366. Vesk, P.A., Nolan, R., Thomson, J.R., Dorrough, J.W. and Nally, R.M. (2008). Time lags in provision of habitat resources through revegetation. Biological Conservation 141(1): 174-186. Vinding, K., Bester, M., Kirkman, S.P., Chivell, W. and Elwen, S.H. (2015). The use of data from a platform of opportunity (whale watching) to study coastal cetaceans on the southwest coast of South Africa. Tourism in Marine Environments 11(1): 33-54. Vucetich, J.A., Bruskotter, J.T. and Nelson, M.P. (2015). Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation. Conservation Biology 29(2): 321- 332. Waldron, A., Miller, D.C., Redding, D., Mooers, A., Kuhn, T.S., Nibbelink, N., Roberts, J.T., Tobias, J.A. and Gittleman, J.L. (2017). Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending. Nature 551: 364. Waldron, A., Mooers, A.O., Miller, D.C., Nibbelink, N., Redding, D., Kuhn, T.S., Roberts, J.T. and Gittleman, J.L. (2013). Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(29): 12144-12148. Walsh, J.C., Wilson, K.A., Benshemesh, J. and Possingham, H.P. (2012). Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: The importance of evaluating conservation management actions. Animal Conservation 15(4): 319-328. Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A. and Castley, J.G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: Analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism, 10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173. Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B. and Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515: 67-73. Watson, J.E.M., Evans, M.C., Carwardine, J., Fuller, R.A., Joseph, L.N., Segan, D.B., Taylor, M.F.J., Fensham, R.J. and Possingham, H.P. (2011). The capacity of Australia's protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conservation Biology 25(2): 324- 332.
238 Waylen, K.A., McGowan, P.J.K., Pawi Study Group and Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009). Ecotourism positively affects awareness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: A case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx 43(3): 343-351. Weaver, D.B. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4): 792-816. Weaver, D.B. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(2): 104-112. Weaver, D.B. (2002). Hard-core ecotourists in Lamington National Park, Australia. Journal of Ecotourism 1(1): 19-35. Weaver, D.B. (2012). Protected area visitor willingness to participate in site enhancement activities. Journal of Travel Research 52(3): 377-391. Weaver, D.B. and Lawton, L.J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research 40(3): 270-280. Weaver, D.B. and Lawton, L.J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management 28(5): 1168-1179. West, P. and Carrier, James G. (2004). Ecotourism and authenticity: Getting away from it all? Current Anthropology 45(4): 483-498. Weston, B.H. (2012). The theoretical foundations of intergenerational ecological justice: An overview. Human Rights Quarterly 34(1): 251-266. Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C. and Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative sociology 24(3): 381-400. Wheaton, M., Ardoin, N.M., Hunt, C., Schuh, J.S., Kresse, M., Menke, C. and Durham, W. (2016). Using web and mobile technology to motivate pro-environmental action after a nature-based tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(4): 594-615. Whitelaw, P.A., King, B.E.M. and Tolkach, D. (2014). Protected areas, conservation and tourism – financing the sustainable dream. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(4): 584- 603. Wight, P.A. (2001). Ecotourists: Not a homogeneous market segment. The encyclopedia of ecotourism. D.B. Weaver. CAB International; Oxon, UK. Witmer, G.W. (2005). Wildlife population monitoring: Some practical considerations. Wildlife Research 32(3): 259-263. Witzenberger, K.A. and Hochkirch, A. (2011). Ex situ conservation genetics: A review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(9): 1843-1861. Woinarski, J.C., Garnett, S.T., Legge, S.M. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2017). The contribution of policy, law, management, research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species. Conservation Biology 31(1): 13-23. Woinarski, J.C.Z., Burbidge, A.A. and Harrison, P.L. (2014). The action plan for Australian mammals 2012. CSIRO Publishing; Melbourne.
239 Woinarski, J.C.Z., Burbidge, A.A. and Harrison, P.L. (2015). Ongoing unraveling of a continental fauna: Decline and extinction of Australian mammals since European settlement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(15): 4531-4540. Woodhouse, A. (2006). Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: A case study. Journal of Rural Studies 22(1): 83-94. WTO (2018). UNWTO annual report 2017. UN World Tourism Organization; Madrid. WTO and UNEP (2012). Tourism in the green economy – background report. UN World Tourism Organization; Madrid. Xiang, Z., Yu, Y., Yang, M., Yang, J., Niao, M. and Li, M. (2011). Does flagship species tourism benefit conservation? A case study of the golden snub-nosed monkey in Shennongjia National Nature Reserve. Chinese Science Bulletin 56(24): 2553-2558. Xiong, M., Sun, R. and Chen, L. (2018). Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis. Science of the Total Environment 645: 753-760. Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education 48(2): 311-325. Young, R.P., Hudson, M.A., Terry, A.M.R., Jones, C.G., Lewis, R.E., Tatayah, V., Zuël, N. and Butchart, S.H.M. (2014). Accounting for conservation: Using the IUCN Red List index to evaluate the impact of a conservation organization. Biological Conservation 180(2014): 84-96. Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. CAB International; Wallingford. Zeppel, H. (2008). Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours: Developing free-choice learning experiences. Journal of Environmental Education 39(3): 3-18.
240
Appendices
241 Appendix A: Example of CA Matrix data template used for Research Component 2
Due to the length of this template, a detailed version has been provided for the actions in the Biophysical Landscape category only. Note that the text excerpts included in this example come from a range of sites for confidentiality reasons.
Data sources Code Date accessed EA Questionnaire EAQ May 2016 Environmental Management Plan EMP May 2016
Text extracts for biophysical actions Sources
Actions to remove non-native floral species Is this because the EAQ ongoing task is so All vegetation on [site] that is exotic or not local is being challenging, or systematically removed. because they don’t allocate enough resources to their The two last points Weeding and clearing of unwanted weeds is an ongoing task, and don’t actually gardening staff? indicate if weed the existing gardeners do well with the resources that they have removal activities had available to them. are occurring…
Duplicate in ‘converted We have a weed identification and control program in place. degraded land’ item There is no weed called ‘halk weed’. It’s possible they The weed invasion from the initial clearing and mismanagement mean ‘hawkweed’ of the area is still a major management issue with Lantana being which is prevalent in their region, very invasive along with halk weed and numerous other species. but I’ll need more Revegetation (including propagation) information or images of weed We use natives for all vegetation planted on the property, and EAQ removal activities Duplicate in ‘converted to confirm this. much of the former grazing land is now re-planted with locally degraded land’ item native species Duplicate in Sheoaks are planted in degraded area to provide food trees for the ‘providing Common name Glossy resources for Casuarinaceae glossy blacks Black wildlife’ family, usually Cockatoo referring to the Pollution/rubbish clean-up Allocasuarina We organise community events for Clean Up Australia Day each genus (which has This is enough 61 species) - year information to likely to be know that it is drooping sheoak Established a protected area legally binding (Allocasuarina but not enough to verticillata) - Our property is protected by a conservation covenant that identify the might be able to recognises the ecological significance of the area. All aspects of specific type of confirm by site the site are reviewed annually, and no changes in the structures or EAQ agreement, the location administering use can take place without a review. body, if it is in- perpetuity, etc.
242 Appendix A: Example of CA Matrix data template used for Research Component 2
Converted degraded land to ecotourism site Much of the former grazing land is now re-planted with locally EAQ native species
The weed invasion from the initial clearing and mismanagement of the area is still a major management issue… Actions to reduce/control erosion Is this enough to Continuous monitoring of the property is conducted by our tour EAQ distinguish a guides and relevant professional staff. Any erosion, rock fall or proactive conservation other damage is rehabilitated as part of the ongoing management action from a plan. minimal impact one? Is the erosion Fire management or ‘other damage’ EAQ a result of the This is about [Naturally occurring bush fires are a regular occurrence in the previous land use, bushfires rather area. A control burn is conducted jointly by the National Parks or is this from than ecological staff and our staff approximately every three years. This is done as their own fire management activities? form of prevention, to reduce fuel in case of an unmanageable wildfire occurrence.] [Additionally, we use fire as an s
This is relevant for environmental management tool with low to moderate intensity ecological fire burns able to affect germination in some native plant species but management won’t reduce soil nutrient levels as a high intensity fire would.] Fire can be adopted as a weed control mechanism as many EMP
introduced species do not have the level of fire tolerance that most This level of detail is Australian native species have developed. Fire tolerant species a good indicator of will expand their range at the expense of the more fire sensitive ecological fire management, but species (Protected area management and operations, 1999). This none of this actually management technique depends greatly on the native species in specifies that they do the area and their natural fire tolerance. If their tolerance is low, these things… using fire as a management tool may only assist the invading species to extend their range. Fire may also be used in conjunction with other techniques as a way of destroying plants that may have already been removed so as to stop seed dispersal.
243 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Table B1 Sources for the biophysical landscape actions and outcomes
(&Beyond, 2019a, 2019b; V. M. Adams & Moon, 2013; Adimassu, Mekonnen, Yirga, & Kessler, 2014; Aerts, Nyssen, & Haile, 2009; Ahebwa, van der Duim, & Sandbrook, 2012b; Albaladejo Montoro, Alvarez Rogel, Querejeta, Diaz, & Castillo, 2000; Alder, Zeller, Pitcher, & Sumaila, 2002; Allen, 2015; Almany, 2004; Almeyda, Broadbent, Wyman, & Durham, 2010; Almeyda Zambrano, Broadbent, & Durham, 2010; Andersen et al., 2005; Avery-Gomm, Borrelle, & Provencher, 2018; Baguette, Blanchet, Legrand, Stevens, & Turlure, 2013; Beier, Majka, & Spencer, 2008; Beyene, Legesse, Triest, & Kloos, 2008; Bingham et al., 2017; Blangy & Mehta, 2006; Bond & Keeley, 2005; Borja, Dauer, Elliott, & Simenstad, 2010; Borrelli et al., 2017; Breed, Stead, Ottewell, Gardner, & Lowe, 2013; Brockway, Gatewood, & Paris, 2002; Brooks et al., 2004; Burrows, 2008; Canesi & Corsi, 2016; Chape, Harrison, Spalding, & Lysenko, 2005; Cousins, Sadler, & Evans, 2008; Covington & Moore, 1994; Derhé, Murphy, Monteith, & Menéndez, 2016; García-Barcina, González-Oreja, & De la Sota, 2006; García-Ruiz, Beguería, Lana-Renault, Nadal-Romero, & Cerdà, 2017; Gaston, Jackson, Cantú-Salazar, & Cruz-Piñón, 2008; Genet et al., 2008; Good & Johnston, 2019; Goossens et al., 2016; Gosper & Vivian-Smith, 2006; Grismer & Hogan, 2005; Hardy, Fitzsimons, Bekessy, & Gordon, 2017; Hermoso & Clavero, 2013; Hess, 2016; Hoban et al., 2013; Jalonen, Valette, Boshier, Duminil, & Thomas, 2018; Kagabo, Stroosnijder, Visser, & Moore, 2013; Keppel et al., 2015; Kettenring, Mercer, Reinhardt Adams, & Hines, 2014; Kohli, Batish, Singh, & Dogra, 2006; Kramer & Havens, 2009; Li, Zhang, Liu, & Xue, 2006; Lin, 2012; Lindenmayer et al., 2012; Lindenmayer et al., 2010; Mackey, Watson, Hope, & Gilmore, 2008; Miteva, Pattanayak, & Ferraro, 2012; Moncrieff, 2000; Morelli et al., 2016; Mossaz, Buckley, & Castley, 2015; Nekuda Malik, 2019; Newmark, Jenkins, Pimm, McNeally, & Halley, 2017; Ogutu, 2002; Parrish, Braun, & Unnasch, 2003; Pasquini, Fitzsimons, Cowell, Brandon, & Wescott, 2011; Pegas & Castley, 2014; Ran, Lu, Fang, & Yang, 2018; Reed & Frankham, 2003; Rice & Toney, 1998; Romanin, Prior, Williamson, & Bowman, 2015; Samways, Hitchins, Bourquin, & Henwood, 2010; Sanchez, Amador, Funk, & Mach, 2018; Santos Junior, Marques, Lima, & dos Anjos, 2016; Shahidul Islam & Tanaka, 2004; Sheppard, Moehrenschlager, McPherson, & Mason, 2010; Silver, Kueppers, Lugo, Ostertag, & Matzek, 2004; Silver, Ostertag, & Lugo, 2000; Sommer, McDevitt, & Balkenhol, 2013; Stavrakas, Spyridaki, & Flamos, 2018; Taylor, 2000; Theobald, 2013; Vesk, Nolan, Thomson, Dorrough, & Nally, 2008; Wardle, Buckley, Shakeela, & Castley, 2018; Xiong, Sun, & Chen, 2018; Young et al., 2014)
244 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Table B2 Sources for the fauna actions and outcomes
(Algar, Angus, Brazell, Gilbert, & Withnell, 2010; Allek et al., 2018; Baguette et al., 2013; Balme et al., 2013; Blackburn, Cassey, Duncan, Evans, & Gaston, 2004; Block, Franklin, Ward, Ganey, & White, 2001; Castley, Boshoff, & Kerley, 2001; Charbonnel, Serre, Ruitton, Harmelin, & Jensen, 2002; Cross, Buddle, & Aldwell, 2007; Davies, Stevens, Meekan, Struve, & Rowcliffe, 2012; Epaphras et al., 2008; Fargallo, Blanco, Potti, & Viñuela, 2001; Good & Johnston, 2019; Goossens et al., 2016; Gosper & Vivian-Smith, 2006; Hayward et al., 2007; Hedrick & Fredrickson, 2008; Hess, 2016; Hughes, Packer, & Ballantyne, 2011; Kingsford et al., 2009; Lacy, 1997, 2013; Laikre, Schwartz, Waples, & Ryman, 2010; Lapeyre, 2011; Libois et al., 2012; Marino, Sillero‐Zubiri, & Macdonald, 2006; Mbaiwa, 2011; McCallum, 2008; Nelson et al., 2010; Nogales et al., 2004; Norbury et al., 2013; Ogutu, 2002; Oliver, Brereton, & Roy, 2013; Polkinghorne, Hanger, & Timms, 2013; Potapov, Merrill, & Lewis, 2012; Pyke & Szabo, 2018; Pyšek & Richardson, 2010; Radford et al., 2018; Robbins, Loader, Timms, & Hanger, 2018; Salafsky et al., 2008; Samways et al., 2010; Smallwood, 2001; Smith, White, Stahler, Wydeven, & Hallac, 2016; Sommer et al., 2013; Sullivan et al., 2009; Svoronou & Holden, 2005; Tovar et al., 2017; Trinkel et al., 2008; Witmer, 2005; Witzenberger & Hochkirch, 2011; Xiang et al., 2011; Young et al., 2014)
Table B3 Sources for the visitor actions and outcomes
(Ardoin, Wheaton, Hunt, Schuh, & Durham, 2016; Armstrong & Weiler, 2002; Ballantyne & Packer, 2011; Ballantyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2008; Ballantyne, Packer, & Sutherland, 2011; Barnes & Eagles, 2004; Batta, 2006; Beaumont, 2001; Bottema & Bush, 2012; Briedenhann, 2011; Feck & Hamann, 2013; Hofman & Hughes, 2018; Hovardas & Poirazidis, 2006; Howard, 2000; Hughes, 2011, 2013; Hughes et al., 2011; Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Lin, 2012; Marcovaldi & Dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Mony & Heimlich, 2008; Navrátil, Knotek, Hanzelková, & Pícha, 2016; Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2009; Roberts, Mearns, & Edwards, 2014; Sander, 2012; Scheyvens, 2009; Sgalitzer, Brownlee, Zajchowski, Bricker, & Powell, 2016; Sinha, Qureshi, Uniyal, & Sen, 2012; Skibins, Powell, & Hallo, 2013; Stamation, Croft, Shaughnessy, Waples, & Briggs, 2007; Tisdell & Wilson, 2002, 2005; Tsang, Yeung, & Cheung, 2011; Weaver, 2001, 2012; Weaver & Lawton, 2002, 2007; Wheaton et al., 2016; Zanotti & Chernela, 2008; Zeppel, 2008; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008)
245 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Table B4 Sources for the community actions and outcomes
(W. M. Adams & Infield, 2003; Ahebwa, van der Duim, & Sandbrook, 2012a; Ahebwa et al., 2012b; Aipanjiguly, Jacobson, & Flamm, 2003; Almeyda et al., 2010; Almeyda Zambrano et al., 2010; Anand, Chandan, & Singh, 2012; Appiah-Opoku, 2011; Ballantyne et al., 2011; Batta, 2006; Blangy & Mehta, 2006; Bottema & Bush, 2012; Brightsmith, Stronza, & Holle, 2008; Brockelman & Dearden, 1990; Butcher, 2006; Campbell & Smith, 2006; Chandel & Mishra, 2016; de Boer, Stigter, & Ntumi, 2007; Dong, Ishikawa, Liu, & Hamori, 2011; Fennell, 2001; Henriques & Sadorsky, 1996; Horwich & Lyon, 2007; Hunt, Durham, Driscoll, & Honey, 2015; Jackson & Wangchuk, 2001; Justus, Colyvan, Regan, & Maguire, 2009; Krüger, 2005; Lamers, Nthiga, van der Duim, & van Wijk, 2014; Lapeyre, 2010, 2011; Lewis, Kaweche, & Mwenya, 1990; Li et al., 2006; Lin, 2012; Lowman & Schowalter, 2012; Marcovaldi & Dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Mbaiwa, 2011; Mbaiwa & Kolawole, 2013; Nelson et al., 2010; New, 2010; Ogutu, 2002; Oldekop, Holmes, Harris, & Evans, 2015; Ormsby & Mannle, 2006; Osano et al., 2013; Pretty, 2003; Romero-Brito, Buckley, & Byrne, 2016; Ross & Wall, 1999; Sakata & Prideaux, 2013; Salafsky et al., 2008; Salum, 2009; Samways et al., 2010; Schoneveld-de Lange, Meijaard, & Löhr, 2016; Sheppard et al., 2010; Sinha et al., 2012; Snyman, 2016; Stem, Lassoie, Lee, Deshler, & Schelhas, 2003; Stem, Lassoie, Lee, & Deshler, 2003; Stone & Nyaupane, 2016; Svoronou & Holden, 2005; Thoyre, 2011; Trapasso, 1994; Walter, 2009; Waylen, McGowan, Pawi Study Group, & Milner-Gulland, 2009; Zanotti & Chernela, 2008)
Table B5 Sources for the organisational/political actions and outcomes
(Balme et al., 2013; Biliouri, 1999; Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler, & West, 2002; Brightsmith et al., 2008; Bruner, Gullison, & Balmford, 2004; Bruner, Gullison, Rice, & da Fonseca, 2001; Buckley, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2016; Buckley, Castley, Pegas, Mossaz, & Steven, 2012; Butts & Sukhdeo-Singh, 2010; Cardinale et al., 2012; Carlisle, 2007; Damania, 2001; Davies et al., 2012; Hansen & Schrader, 1997; Holmberg, Norman, & Arzoumanian, 2008; Hughes et al., 2011; Kolk & Levy, 2001; Krüger, 2005; Leverington, Costa, Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, 2010; Marnewick et al., 2014; Martínez Pastur et al., 2007; Mbaiwa, 2011; McCauley et al., 2013; Morrison, Simpkins, Castley, & Buckley, 2012; Nelson et al., 2010; Okereke, 2007; Pasquini et al., 2011; Romero-Brito et al., 2016; Samways et al., 2010; Shaw, Newholm, & Dickinson, 2006; Steven, Castley, & Buckley, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2009; Sutherland, Pullin, Dolman, & Knight, 2004; Svoronou & Holden, 2005; Varty & Buchanan, 1999; Vinding, Bester, Kirkman, Chivell, & Elwen, 2015; Waylen et al., 2009; Xiang et al., 2011; Young et al., 2014; Zeppel, 2008)
246 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Reference list for Tables B1-B5 &Beyond. (2019a). The Phinda story. &Beyond; retrieved March 2019 from: https://www.andbeyond.com/small-group-journeys/phinda-impact/the-phinda-story/. &Beyond. (2019b). Why visit &beyond Phinda private game reserve? &Beyond; retrieved March 2019 from: https://www.andbeyond.com/advice/africa/south-africa/kwazulu- natal/phinda-private-game-reserve/why-visit-andbeyond-phinda-private-game-reserve/. Adams, V.M. and Moon, K. (2013). Security and equity of conservation covenants: Contradictions of private protected area policies in Australia. Land Use Policy 30(1): 114-119. Adams, W.M. and Infield, M. (2003). Who is on the gorilla’s payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan national park. World Development 31(1): 177-190. Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C. and Kessler, A. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 25(6): 554-564. Aerts, R., Nyssen, J. and Haile, M. (2009). On the difference between “exclosures” and “enclosures” in ecology and the environment. Journal of Arid Environments 73(8): 762- 763. Ahebwa, W.M., van der Duim, V.R. and Sandbrook, C.G. (2012a). Private-community partnerships: Investigating a new approach to conservation and development in Uganda. Conservation and Society 10(4): 305-317. Ahebwa, W.M., van der Duim, V.R. and Sandbrook, C.G. (2012b). Tourism revenue sharing policy at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: A policy arrangements approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3): 377-394. Aipanjiguly, S., Jacobson, S.K. and Flamm, R. (2003). Conserving manatees: Knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of boaters in Tampa Bay, Florida. Conservation Biology 17(4): 1098-1105. Albaladejo Montoro, J., Alvarez Rogel, J., Querejeta, J., Diaz, E. and Castillo, V. (2000). Three hydro‐seeding revegetation techniques for soil erosion control on anthropic steep slopes. Land Degradation & Development 11(4): 315-325. Alder, J., Zeller, D., Pitcher, T. and Sumaila, R. (2002). A method for evaluating marine protected area management. Coastal Management 30(2): 121-131. Algar, D., Angus, G.J., Brazell, R.I., Gilbert, C. and Withnell, G.B. (2010). Eradication of feral cats on Faure Island, Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 93(3): 133-140. Allek, A., Assis, A.S., Eiras, N., Amaral, T.P., Williams, B., Butt, N., Renwick, A.R., Bennett, J.R. and Beyer, H.L. (2018). The threats endangering Australia's at-risk fauna. Biological Conservation 222: 172-179. Allen, K.E. (2015). Trade-offs in nature tourism: Contrasting parcel-level decisions with landscape conservation planning. Ecology and Society 20(1): 21-30. Almany, G.R. (2004). Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos 106(2): 275-284. Almeyda, A.M., Broadbent, E.N., Wyman, M.S. and Durham, W.H. (2010). Ecotourism impacts in the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(6): 803-819.
247 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Almeyda Zambrano, A.M., Broadbent, E.N. and Durham, W.H. (2010). Social and environmental effects of ecotourism in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica: The Lapa Rios case. Journal of Ecotourism 9(1): 62-83. Anand, A., Chandan, P. and Singh, R.B. (2012). Homestays at Korzok: Supplementing rural livelihoods and supporting green tourism in the Indian Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development 32(2): 126-136. Andersen, A.N., Cook, G.D., Corbett, L.K., Douglas, M.M., Eager, R.W., Russell-Smith, J., Setterfield, S.A., Williams, R.J. and Woinarski, J.C.Z. (2005). Fire frequency and biodiversity conservation in Australian tropical savannas: Implications from the Kapalga fire experiment. Austral Ecology 30(2): 155-167. Appiah-Opoku, S. (2011). Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Society and Natural Resources 24(5): 500-510. Ardoin, N.M., Wheaton, M., Hunt, C.A., Schuh, J.S. and Durham, W.H. (2016). Post-trip philanthropic intentions of nature-based tourists in Galapagos. Journal of Ecotourism 15(1): 21-35. Armstrong, E.K. and Weiler, B.V. (2002). Getting the message across: An analysis of messages delivered by tour operators in protected areas. Journal of Ecotourism 1(2/3): 104-121. Avery-Gomm, S., Borrelle, S.B. and Provencher, J.F. (2018). Linking plastic ingestion research with marine wildlife conservation. Science of the Total Environment 637-638: 1492- 1495. Baguette, M., Blanchet, S., Legrand, D., Stevens, V.M. and Turlure, C. (2013). Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biological Reviews 88(2): 310-326. Ballantyne, R. and Packer, J. (2011). Using tourism free-choice learning experiences to promote environmentally sustainable behaviour: The role of post-visit 'action resources'. Environmental Education Research 17(2): 201-215. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Hughes, K. (2008). Environmental awareness, interests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management 29(3): 439-444. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Sutherland, L.A. (2011). Visitors' memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management 32(4): 770-779. Balme, G.A., Batchelor, A., De Woronin Britz, N., Seymour, G., Grover, M., Hes, L., Macdonald, D.W. and Hunter, L.T.B. (2013). Reproductive success of female leopards Panthera pardus: The importance of top-down processes. Mammal Review 43(3): 221- 237. Barnes, M.L. and Eagles, P. (2004). Examining the relationship between ecotourists and philanthropic behaviour. Tourism Recreation Research 29(3): 35-38. Batta, R.N. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism in mountain areas: A study of three Himalayan destinations. International Review for Environmental Strategies 6(1): 41-61. Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(4): 317-341.
248 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Beier, P., Majka, D.R. and Spencer, W.D. (2008). Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22(4): 836-851. Beyene, A., Legesse, W., Triest, L. and Kloos, H. (2008). Urban impact on ecological integrity of nearby rivers in developing countries: The Borkena River in highland Ethiopia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 153(1): 461. Biliouri, D. (1999). Environmental NGOs in Brussels: How powerful are their lobbying activities? Environmental Politics 8(2): 173-182. Bingham, H., Fitzsimons, J.A., Redford, K.H., Mitchell, B.A., Bezaury-Creel, J. and Cumming, T.L. (2017). Privately protected areas: Advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. PARKS 23.1: 13-28. Blackburn, T.M., Cassey, P., Duncan, R.P., Evans, K.L. and Gaston, K.J. (2004). Avian extinction and mammalian introductions on oceanic islands. Science 305(5692): 1955- 1958. Blangy, S. and Mehta, H. (2006). Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal for Nature Conservation 14(3-4): 233-236. Block, W.M., Franklin, A.B., Ward, J.P., Ganey, J.L. and White, G.C. (2001). Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 293-303. Bond, W.J. and Keeley, J.E. (2005). Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: The ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(7): 387-394. Borja, Á., Dauer, D.M., Elliott, M. and Simenstad, C.A. (2010). Medium- and long-term recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: Patterns, rates and restoration effectiveness. Estuaries and Coasts 33(6): 1249-1260. Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., Meusburger, K., Modugno, S., Schütt, B., Ferro, V., Bagarello, V., Oost, K.V., Montanarella, L. and Panagos, P. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications 8(1): 2013. Bottema, M.J.M. and Bush, S.R. (2012). The durability of private sector-led marine conservation: A case study of two entrepreneurial marine protected areas in Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 61(2012): 38-48. Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. and West, P.C. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society & Natural Resources 15(1): 41-64. Breed, M.F., Stead, M.G., Ottewell, K.M., Gardner, M.G. and Lowe, A.J. (2013). Which provenance and where? Seed sourcing strategies for revegetation in a changing environment. Conservation Genetics 14(1): 1-10. Briedenhann, J. (2011). The potential of small tourism operators in the promotion of pro-poor tourism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 20(3-4): 484-500. Brightsmith, D.J., Stronza, A.L. and Holle, K. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: A mutually beneficial triumvirate. Biological Conservation 141(11): 2832-2842. Brockelman, W.Y. and Dearden, P. (1990). The role of nature trekking in conservation: A case- study in Thailand. Environmental Conservation 17(2): 141-148.
249 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Brockway, D.G., Gatewood, R.G. and Paris, R.B. (2002). Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: Initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management 65(2): 135-152. Brooks, M.L., D'Antonio, C.M., Richardson, D.M., Grace, J.B., Keeley, J.E., DiTomaso, J.M., Hobbs, R.J., Pellant, M. and Pyke, D. (2004). Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54(7): 677-688. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E. and Balmford, A. (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience 54(12): 1119-1126. Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. and da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291(5501): 125-128. Buckley, R. (2004). Partnerships in ecotourism: Australian political frameworks. International Journal of Tourism Research 6(2): 75-83. Buckley, R. (2009). Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(6): 643-672. Buckley, R. (2010). Conservation tourism. CAB International; Wallingford, UK. Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36(2011): 397-416. Buckley, R. (2016). Triage approaches send adverse political signals for conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 4: 39. Buckley, R., Castley, J.G., Pegas, F.d.V., Mossaz, A.C. and Steven, R. (2012). A population accounting approach to assess tourism contributions to conservation of IUCN-redlisted mammal species. PLoS ONE 7(9): e44134, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044134. Burrows, N. (2008). Linking fire ecology and fire management in south-west Australian forest landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): 2394-2406. Butcher, J. (2006). Natural capital and the advocacy of ecotourism as sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(6): 629-644. Butts, T. and Sukhdeo-Singh, T. (2010). Sustainable tourism as a tool for conservation and protection of the Amazon rainforest in Guyana? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 2(2): 173-185. Campbell, L.M. and Smith, C. (2006). What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environmental Management 38(1): 84-98. Canesi, L. and Corsi, I. (2016). Effects of nanomaterials on marine invertebrates. Science of the Total Environment 565: 933-940. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D. and Wardle, D.A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401): 59. Carlisle, L. (2007). Conservation and community development: The Conservation Corporation Africa model. Tourism and protected areas: Benefit beyond boundaries R. Bushell and P.F.J. Eagles. CABI; Wallingford: 244-263. Castley, J.G., Boshoff, A.F. and Kerley, G.I.H. (2001). Compromising South Africa's natural biodiversity-inappropriate herbivore introductions. South African Journal of Science 97(9): 344-348.
250 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Chandel, A. and Mishra, S. (2016). Ecotourism revisited: Last twenty-five years. Czech Journal of Tourism 5(2): 135-143. Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M. and Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 443-455. Charbonnel, E., Serre, C., Ruitton, S., Harmelin, J.-G. and Jensen, A. (2002). Effects of increased habitat complexity on fish assemblages associated with large artificial reef units (French Mediterranean coast). ICES Journal of Marine Science 59(2002): 208- 213. Cousins, J.A., Sadler, J.P. and Evans, J. (2008). Exploring the role of private wildlife ranching as a conservation tool in South Africa: Stakeholder perspectives. Ecology and Society 13(2): 43-60. Covington, W.W. and Moore, M.M. (1994). Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest structure. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2(1-2): 153-181. Cross, M.L., Buddle, B.M. and Aldwell, F.E. (2007). The potential of oral vaccines for disease control in wildlife species. The Veterinary Journal 174(3): 472-480. Damania, R. (2001). When the weak win: The role of investment in environmental lobbying. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42(1): 1-22. Davies, T.K., Stevens, G., Meekan, M.G., Struve, J. and Rowcliffe, J.M. (2012). Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark-recapture modelling using identification photographs sourced from the public. Wildlife Research 39(8): 696-704. de Boer, W.F., Stigter, J.D. and Ntumi, C.P. (2007). Optimising investments from elephant tourist revenues in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Journal for Nature Conservation 15(4): 225-236. Derhé, M.A., Murphy, H., Monteith, G. and Menéndez, R. (2016). Measuring the success of reforestation for restoring biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(6): 1714-1724. Dong, Y., Ishikawa, M., Liu, X. and Hamori, S. (2011). The determinants of citizen complaints on environmental pollution: An empirical study from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(12): 1306-1314. Epaphras, A.M., Gereta, E., Lejora, I.A., Ole Meing’ataki, G.E., Ng’umbi, G., Kiwango, Y., Mwangomo, E., Semanini, F., Vitalis, L., Balozi, J. and Mtahiko, M.G.G. (2008). Wildlife water utilization and importance of artificial waterholes during dry season at Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16(3): 183-188. Fargallo, J.A., Blanco, G., Potti, J. and Viñuela, J. (2001). Nestbox provisioning in a rural population of Eurasian kestrels: Breeding performance, nest predation and parasitism. Bird Study 48(2): 236-244. Feck, A.D. and Hamann, M. (2013). Effect of sea turtle rehabilitation centres in Queensland, Australia, on people's perceptions of conservation. Endangered Species Research 20(2): 153-165. Fennell, D.A. (2001). A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism 4(5): 403-421.
251 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
García-Barcina, J.M., González-Oreja, J.A. and De la Sota, A. (2006). Assessing the improvement of the Bilbao Estuary water quality in response to pollution abatement measures. Water Research 40(5): 951-960. García-Ruiz, J.M., Beguería, S., Lana-Renault, N., Nadal-Romero, E. and Cerdà, A. (2017). Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. Land Degradation & Development 28(1): 5-21. Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, L. and Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008). The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39(1): 93-113. Genet, M., Kokutse, N., Stokes, A., Fourcaud, T., Cai, X., Ji, J. and Mickovski, S. (2008). Root reinforcement in plantations of Cryptomeria japonica D. Don: Effect of tree age and stand structure on slope stability. Forest Ecology and Management 256(8): 1517-1526. Good, R. and Johnston, S. (2019). Rehabilitation and revegetation of the Kosciuszko summit area, following the removal of grazing – an historic review. Ecological Management & Restoration 20(1): 13-20. Goossens, B., Sharma, R., Othman, N., Kun-Rodrigues, C., Sakong, R., Ancrenaz, M., Ambu, L.N., Jue, N.K., O'Neill, R.J. and Bruford, M.W. (2016). Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity in natural populations of the Bornean elephant: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 196(2016): 80-92. Gosper, C.R. and Vivian-Smith, G. (2006). Selecting replacements for invasive plants to support frugivores in highly modified sites: A case study focusing on Lantana camara. Ecological Management & Restoration 7(3): 197-203. Grismer, M.E. and Hogan, M.P. (2005). Simulated rainfall evaluation of revegetation/mulch erosion control in the Lake Tahoe Basin—3: Soil treatment effects. Land Degradation & Development 16(5): 489-501. Hansen, U. and Schrader, U. (1997). A modern model of consumption for a sustainable society. Journal of Consumer Policy 20(4): 443-468. Hardy, M.J., Fitzsimons, J.A., Bekessy, S.A. and Gordon, A. (2017). Exploring the permanence of conservation covenants. Conservation Letters 10(2): 221-230. Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I.H., Adendorff, J., Moolman, L.C., O'Brien, J., Sholto-Douglas, A., Bissett, C., Bean, P., Fogarty, A., Howarth, D. and Slater, R. (2007). The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: An assessment. Oryx 41(2): 205- 214. Hedrick, P.W. and Fredrickson, R.J. (2008). Captive breeding and the reintroduction of Mexican and red wolves. Molecular Ecology 17(1): 344-350. Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1996). The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: An empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(3): 381-395. Hermoso, V. and Clavero, M. (2013). Revisiting ecological integrity 30 years later: Non-native species and the misdiagnosis of freshwater ecosystem health. Fish and Fisheries 14(3): 416-423. Hess, S.C. (2016). A Tour de Force by Hawaii’s invasive mammals: Establishment, takeover, and ecosystem restoration through eradication. Mammal Study 41(2): 47-60.
252 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Hoban, S.M., Hauffe, H.C., Pérez-Espona, S., Arntzen, J.W., Bertorelle, G., Bryja, J., Frith, K., Gaggiotti, O.E., Galbusera, P. and Godoy, J.A. (2013). Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conservation Genetics Resources 5(2): 593-598. Hofman, K. and Hughes, K. (2018). Protecting the Great Barrier Reef: Analysing the impact of a conservation documentary and post-viewing strategies on long-term conservation behaviour. Environmental Education Research 24(4): 521-536. Holmberg, J., Norman, B. and Arzoumanian, Z. (2008). Robust, comparable population metrics through collaborative photo-monitoring of whale sharks Rhincodon typus. Ecological Applications 18(1): 222-233. Horwich, R.H. and Lyon, J. (2007). Community conservation: Practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41(3): 376-385. Hovardas, T. and Poirazidis, K. (2006). Evaluation of the environmentalist dimension of ecotourism at the Dadia Forest Reserve (Greece). Environmental Management 38(5): 810-822. Howard, J. (2000). Research in progress: Does environmental interpretation influence behaviour through knowledge or affect? Australian Journal of Environmental Education 15(1999): 153-156. Hughes, K. (2011). Designing post-visit action resources for families visiting wildlife tourism sites. Visitor Studies 14(1): 66-83. Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(1): 42-59. Hughes, K., Packer, J. and Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research 17(3): 307-328. Hunt, C.A., Durham, W.H., Driscoll, L. and Honey, M. (2015). Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(3): 339-357. Jackson, R. and Wangchuk, R. (2001). Linking snow leopard conservation and people-wildlife conflict resolution: Grassroots measures to protect the endangered snow leopard from herder retribution. Endangered Species Update 18(4): 138-141. Jalonen, R., Valette, M., Boshier, D., Duminil, J. and Thomas, E. (2018). Forest and landscape restoration severely constrained by a lack of attention to the quantity and quality of tree seed: Insights from a global survey. Conservation Letters 11(4): e12424, DOI: 10.1111/conl.12424. Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H. and Maguire, L. (2009). Buying into conservation: Intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(4): 187-191. Kagabo, D.M., Stroosnijder, L., Visser, S.M. and Moore, D. (2013). Soil erosion, soil fertility and crop yield on slow-forming terraces in the highlands of Buberuka, Rwanda. Soil and Tillage Research 128: 23-29. Keppel, G., Mokany, K., Wardell-Johnson, G.W., Phillips, B.L., Welbergen, J.A. and Reside, A.E. (2015). The capacity of refugia for conservation planning under climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(2): 106-112.
253 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Kettenring, K.M., Mercer, K.L., Reinhardt Adams, C. and Hines, J. (2014). Application of genetic diversity–ecosystem function research to ecological restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2): 339-348. Kingsford, R.T., Watson, J.E.M., Lundquist, C.J., Venter, O., Hughes, L., Johnston, E.L., Atherton, J., Gawel, M., Keith, D.A., Mackey, B.G., Morley, C., Possingham, H.P., Raynor, B., Recher, H.F. and Wilson, K.A. (2009). Major conservation policy issues for biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology 23(4): 834-840. Kohli, R.K., Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P. and Dogra, K.S. (2006). Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus l., Ageratum conyzoides l., Lantana camara l.) in India. Biological Invasions 8(7): 1501-1510. Kolk, A. and Levy, D. (2001). Winds of change. European Management Journal 19(5): 501- 509. Kramer, A.T. and Havens, K. (2009). Plant conservation genetics in a changing world. Trends in Plant Science 14(11): 599-607. Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity and Conservation 14(3): 579-600. Lacy, R.C. (1997). Importance of genetic variation to the viability of mammalian populations. Journal of Mammalogy 78(2): 320-335. Lacy, R.C. (2013). Achieving true sustainability of zoo populations. Zoo Biology 32(1): 19-26. Laikre, L., Schwartz, M.K., Waples, R.S. and Ryman, N. (2010). Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: Unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(9): 520-529. Lamers, M., Nthiga, R., van der Duim, V.R. and van Wijk, J. (2014). Tourism-conservation enterprises as a land-use strategy in Kenya. Tourism Geographies 16(3): 474-489. Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally? The Tsiseb Conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa 27(5): 757-772. Lapeyre, R. (2011). The grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: Towards poverty alleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability? Current Issues in Tourism 14(3): 221- 234. Lee, W.H. and Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists' environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(6): 546-565. Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A. and Hockings, M. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5): 685- 698. Lewis, D., Kaweche, G.B. and Mwenya, A. (1990). Wildlife conservation outside protected areas-lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology 4(2): 171-180. Li, W., Zhang, Q., Liu, C. and Xue, Q. (2006). Tourism's impacts on natural resources: A positive case from China. Environmental Management 38(4): 572-579. Libois, E., Gimenez, O., Oro, D., Mínguez, E., Pradel, R. and Sanz-Aguilar, A. (2012). Nest boxes: A successful management tool for the conservation of an endangered seabird. Biological Conservation 155: 39-43.
254 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Lin, T.T.C. (2012). Cross-platform framing and cross-cultural adaptation: Examining elephant conservation in Thailand. Environmental Communication 6(2): 193-211. Lindenmayer, D.B., Hulvey, K.B., Hobbs, R.J., Colyvan, M., Felton, A., Possingham, H., Steffen, W., Wilson, K., Youngentob, K. and Gibbons, P. (2012). Avoiding bio- perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conservation Letters 5(1): 28-36. Lindenmayer, D.B., Steffen, W., Burbidge, A.A., Hughes, L., Kitching, R.L., Musgrave, W., Stafford Smith, M. and Werner, P.A. (2010). Conservation strategies in response to rapid climate change: Australia as a case study. Biological Conservation 143(7): 1587- 1593. Lowman, M.D. and Schowalter, T.D. (2012). Plant science in forest canopies – the first 30 years of advances and challenges (1980–2010). New Phytologist 194(1): 12-27. Mackey, B.G., Watson, J.E.M., Hope, G. and Gilmore, S. (2008). Climate change, biodiversity conservation, and the role of protected areas: An Australian perspective. Biodiversity 9(3-4): 11-18. Marcovaldi, M.A. and Dei Marcovaldi, G.G. (1999). Marine turtles of Brazil: The history and structure of Projeto Tamar-Ibama. Biological Conservation 91(1): 35-41. Marino, J., Sillero‐Zubiri, C. and Macdonald, D.W. (2006). Trends, dynamics and resilience of an Ethiopian wolf population. Animal Conservation 9(1): 49-58. Marnewick, K., Ferreira, S.M., Grange, S., Watermeyer, J., Maputla, N. and Davies-Mostert, H.T. (2014). Evaluating the status of and African wild dogs Lycaon pictus and cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus through tourist-based photographic surveys in the Kruger National Park. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86265, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086265. Martínez Pastur, G.J., Lencinas, M.V., Peri, P., Moretto, A., Cellini, J.M., Mormeneo, I. and Vukasovic, R. (2007). Harvesting adaptation to biodiversity conservation in sawmill industry: Technology innovation and monitoring program. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 2(3): 58-70. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2011). The effects of tourism development on the sustainable utilisation of natural resources in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Current Issues in Tourism 14(3): 251-273. Mbaiwa, J.E. and Kolawole, O.D. (2013). Tourism and biodiversity conservation: The case of community-based natural resource management in southern Africa. CAB Reviews 8(010): 1-10. McCallum, H. (2008). Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease: Lessons for conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(11): 631-637. McCauley, D.J., Power, E.A., Bird, D.W., McInturff, A., Dunbar, R.B., Durham, W.H., Micheli, F. and Young, H.S. (2013). Conservation at the edges of the world. Biological Conservation 165(2013): 139-145. Miteva, D.A., Pattanayak, S.K. and Ferraro, P.J. (2012). Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28(1): 69-92. Moncrieff, D. (2000). Managing tourism and recreation on wheatbelt granite outcrops. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 83: 187-196.
255 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Mony, P.R.S. and Heimlich, J.E. (2008). Talking to visitors about conservation: Exploring message communication through docent-visitor interactions at zoos. Visitor Studies 11(2): 151-162. Morelli, T.L., Daly, C., Dobrowski, S.Z., Dulen, D.M., Ebersole, J.L., Jackson, S.T., Lundquist, J.D., Millar, C.I., Maher, S.P., Monahan, W.B., Nydick, K.R., Redmond, K.T., Sawyer, S.C., Stock, S. and Beissinger, S.R. (2016). Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0159909, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159909. Morrison, C., Simpkins, C., Castley, J.G. and Buckley, R. (2012). Tourism and the conservation of critically endangered frogs. PLoS ONE 7(9): e43757, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043757. Mossaz, A., Buckley, R.C. and Castley, J.G. (2015). Ecotourism contributions to conservation of African big cats. Journal for Nature Conservation 28(2015): 112-118. Navrátil, J., Knotek, J., Hanzelková, E. and Pícha, K. (2016). Tourists' knowledge of a visited environment and the immediate influence on this knowledge of completing an interpretive nature trail: Beskydy Protected Landscape Area, West Carpathians. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 18(2): 145-151. Nekuda Malik, J.A. (2019). US Academies call for research agenda on negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration. MRS Bulletin 44(1): 13-15. Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L.S., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, M., Peterson, T., Sachedina, H. and Williams, A. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology 24(1): 78-85. New, T.R. (2010). Butterfly conservation in Australia: The importance of community participation. Journal of Insect Conservation 14(3): 305-311. Newmark, W.D., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., McNeally, P.B. and Halley, J.M. (2017). Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(36): 9635. Nogales, M., MartÍN, A., Tershy, B.R., Donlan, C.J., Veitch, D., Puerta, N., Wood, B. and Alonso, J. (2004). A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 18(2): 310-319. Norbury, G., Byrom, A., Pech, R., Smith, J., Clarke, D., Anderson, D. and Forrester, G. (2013). Invasive mammals and habitat modification interact to generate unforeseen outcomes for indigenous fauna. Ecological Applications 23(7): 1707-1721. Ogutu, Z.A. (2002). The impact of ecotourism on livelihood and natural resource management in Eselenkei, Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya. Land Degradation & Development 13(3): 251-256. Okereke, C. (2007). An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management. European Management Journal 25(6): 475-486. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E. and Evans, K.L. (2015). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology 30(1): 133- 141. Oliver, T.H., Brereton, T. and Roy, D.B. (2013). Population resilience to an extreme drought is influenced by habitat area and fragmentation in the local landscape. Ecography 36(5): 579-586.
256 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Ormsby, A. and Mannle, K. (2006). Ecotourism benefits and the role of local guides at Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14(3): 271-287. Osano, P.M., Said, M.Y., de Leeuw, J., Ndiwa, N., Kaelo, D., Schomers, S., Birner, R. and Ogutu, J.O. (2013). Why keep lions instead of livestock? Assessing wildlife tourism- based payment for ecosystem services involving herders in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Natural Resources Forum 37(4): 242-256. Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P. and Unnasch, R.S. (2003). Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53(9): 851-860. Pasquini, L., Fitzsimons, J.A., Cowell, S., Brandon, K. and Wescott, G. (2011). The establishment of large private nature reserves by conservation NGOs: Key factors for successful implementation. Oryx 45(3): 373-380. Pegas, F.d.V. and Castley, J.G. (2014). Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(4): 604-625. Polkinghorne, A., Hanger, J. and Timms, P. (2013). Recent advances in understanding the biology, epidemiology and control of chlamydial infections in koalas. Veterinary Microbiology 165(3–4): 214-223. Potapov, A., Merrill, E. and Lewis, M.A. (2012). Wildlife disease elimination and density dependence. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1741): 3139- 3145. Powell, R.B. and Ham, S.H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro- conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(4): 467-489. Powell, R.B., Kellert, S.R. and Ham, S.H. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience. Society & Natural Resources 22(8): 761-776. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302(5652): 1912-1914. Pyke, G.H. and Szabo, J.K. (2018). Conservation and the 4 Rs, which are rescue, rehabilitation, release, and research. Conservation Biology 32(1): 50-59. Pyšek, P. and Richardson, D.M. (2010). Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35(2010): 25- 55. Radford, J.Q., Woinarski, J.C., Legge, S., Baseler, M., Bentley, J., Burbidge, A.A., Bode, M., Copley, P., Dexter, N. and Dickman, C.R. (2018). Degrees of population-level susceptibility of Australian terrestrial non-volant mammal species to predation by the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat (Felis catus). Wildlife Research 45(7): 645-657. Ran, L., Lu, X., Fang, N. and Yang, X. (2018). Effective soil erosion control represents a significant net carbon sequestration. Scientific Reports 8(1): 12018. Reed, D.H. and Frankham, R. (2003). Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17(1): 230-237. Rice, P.M. and Toney, J.C. (1998). Exotic weed control treatments for conservation of fescue grassland in Montana. Biological Conservation 85(1–2): 83-95, 1998/8//. Robbins, A., Loader, J., Timms, P. and Hanger, J. (2018). Optimising the short and long-term clinical outcomes for koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) during treatment for chlamydial
257 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
infection and disease. PLoS ONE 13(12): e0209679, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209679. Roberts, M., Mearns, K. and Edwards, V. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of guided versus non-guided interpretation in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 56(2): 1-8. Romanin, L.M., Prior, L.D., Williamson, G.J. and Bowman, D.M.J.S. (2015). Trajectory of change in land cover and carbon stocks following European settlement in Tasmania, Australia. Anthropocene 9: 33-40. Romero-Brito, T.P., Buckley, R.C. and Byrne, J. (2016). NGO partnerships in using ecotourism for conservation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11(11): 1-19. Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management 20(1): 123-132. Sakata, H. and Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(6): 880-899. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S.H.M., Collen, B.E.N., Cox, N., Master, L.L., O'Connor, S. and Wilkie, D. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22(4): 897-911. Salum, L.A. (2009). Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar. African Journal of Ecology 47(2009): 166-170. Samways, M.J., Hitchins, P.M., Bourquin, O. and Henwood, J. (2010). Restoration of a tropical island: Cousine Island, Seychelles. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(2): 425-434. Sanchez, D.L., Amador, G., Funk, J. and Mach, K.J. (2018). Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 13(1): 015005, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f. Sander, B. (2012). The importance of education in ecotourism ventures: Lessons from Rara Avis Ecolodge, Costa Rica. International Journal of Sustainable Society 4(4): 389-404. Santos Junior, P.C.A., Marques, F.C., Lima, M.R. and dos Anjos, L. (2016). The importance of restoration areas to conserve bird species in a highly fragmented Atlantic Forest landscape. Natureza & Conservação 14(1): 1-7. Scheyvens, R. (2009). Pro-poor tourism: Is there value beyond the rhetoric? Tourism Recreation Research 34(2): 191-196. Schoneveld-de Lange, N., Meijaard, E. and Löhr, A. (2016). South to south learning in great ape conservation. American Journal of Primatology 78(6): 669-678. Sgalitzer, H.A., Brownlee, M.T.J., Zajchowski, C., Bricker, K.S. and Powell, R.B. (2016). Modelling travellers philanthropy: Tourists motivations to donate at Sweetwater Chimpanzee Sanctuary. Journal of Ecotourism 15(1): 1-20. Shahidul Islam, M. and Tanaka, M. (2004). Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: A review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48(7): 624-649. Shaw, D., Newholm, T. and Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 40(9/10): 1049-1067. Sheppard, D.J., Moehrenschlager, A., McPherson, J.M. and Mason, J.J. (2010). Ten years of adaptive community-governed conservation: Evaluating biodiversity protection and
258 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
poverty alleviation in a West African hippopotamus reserve. Environmental Conservation 37(3): 270-282. Silver, W.L., Kueppers, L.M., Lugo, A.E., Ostertag, R. and Matzek, V. (2004). Carbon sequestration and plant community dynamics following reforestation of tropical pasture. Ecological Applications 14(4): 1115-1127, 2015/05/18. Silver, W.L., Ostertag, R. and Lugo, A.E. (2000). The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restoration Ecology 8(4): 394-407. Sinha, B.C., Qureshi, Q., Uniyal, V.K. and Sen, S. (2012). Economics of wildlife tourism- contribution to livelihoods of communities around Kanha Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Ecotourism 11(3): 207-218. Skibins, J.C., Powell, R.B. and Hallo, J.C. (2013). Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation 22(4): 959-982. Smallwood, K.S. (2001). Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9(3): 253-261. Smith, D.W., White, P.J., Stahler, D.R., Wydeven, A. and Hallac, D.E. (2016). Managing wolves in the Yellowstone area: Balancing goals across jurisdictional boundaries. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40(3): 436-445. Snyman, S. (2016). The role of private sector ecotourism in local socio-economic development in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 16(3): 247-268. Sommer, S., McDevitt, A.D. and Balkenhol, N. (2013). Landscape genetic approaches in conservation biology and management. Conservation Genetics 14(2): 249-251. Stamation, K.A., Croft, D.B., Shaughnessy, P.D., Waples, K.A. and Briggs, S.V. (2007). Educational and conservation value of whale watching. Tourism in Marine Environments 4(1): 41-55. Stavrakas, V., Spyridaki, N.-A. and Flamos, A. (2018). Striving towards the deployment of bio- energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): A review of research priorities and assessment needs. Sustainability 10(7): 2206. Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R., Deshler, D.D. and Schelhas, J.W. (2003a). Community participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society and Natural Resources 16(5): 387-413. Stem, C.J., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D.R. and Deshler, D.J. (2003b). How 'eco' is ecotourism? A comparative case study of ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(4): 322-347. Steven, R., Castley, J.G. and Buckley, R. (2013). Tourism revenue as a conservation tool for threatened birds in protected areas. PLoS ONE 8(5): e62598, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062598. Stone, M.T. and Nyaupane, G.P. (2016). Protected areas, tourism and community livelihoods linkages: A comprehensive analysis approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(5): 673-693. Sullivan, B.L., Wood, C.L., Iliff, M.J., Bonney, R.E., Fink, D. and Kelling, S. (2009). Ebird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142(10): 2282-2292.
259 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. and Knight, T.M. (2004). The need for evidence- based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6): 305-308. Svoronou, E. and Holden, A. (2005). Ecotourism as a tool for nature conservation: The role of WWF Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest Reserve in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(5): 456-467. Taylor, A.H. (2000). Fire regimes and forest changes in mid and upper montane forests of the southern Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, U.S.A. Journal of Biogeography 27(1): 87-104. Theobald, D.M. (2013). A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application. Landscape Ecology 28(10): 1859-1874. Thoyre, A. (2011). Social capital as a facilitator of pro-environmental actions in the USA: A preliminary examination of mechanisms. Local Environment 16(1): 37-49. Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. (2002). Ecotourism for the survival of sea turtles and other wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 11(9): 1521-1538. Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. (2005). Perceived impacts of ecotourism on environmental learning and conservation: Turtle watching as a case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7(3): 291-302. Tovar, C., Pye, R.J., Kreiss, A., Cheng, Y., Brown, G.K., Darby, J., Malley, R.C., Siddle, H.V.T., Skjødt, K., Kaufman, J., Silva, A., Baz Morelli, A., Papenfuss, A.T., Corcoran, L.M., Murphy, J.M., Pearse, M.J., Belov, K., Lyons, A.B. and Woods, G.M. (2017). Regression of devil facial tumour disease following immunotherapy in immunised Tasmanian devils. Scientific Reports 7: 43827. Trapasso, L.M. (1994). Indigenous attitudes, ecotourism, and mennonites: Recent examples in rainforest destruction/preservation. GeoJournal 33(4): 449-452. Trinkel, M., Ferguson, N., Reid, A., Reid, C., Somers, M., Turelli, L., Graf, J., Szykman, M., Cooper, D. and Haverman, P. (2008). Translocating lions into an inbred lion population in the Hluhluwe‐iMfolozi Park, South Africa. Animal Conservation 11(2): 138-143. Tsang, N.K.F., Yeung, S. and Cheung, C. (2011). A critical investigation of the use and effectiveness of interpretive services. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 16(2): 123-137. Varty, S. and Buchanan, M. (1999). The return: The story of Phinda Game Reserve. Londolozi Publishers; Rivonia. Vesk, P.A., Nolan, R., Thomson, J.R., Dorrough, J.W. and Nally, R.M. (2008). Time lags in provision of habitat resources through revegetation. Biological Conservation 141(1): 174-186. Vinding, K., Bester, M., Kirkman, S.P., Chivell, W. and Elwen, S.H. (2015). The use of data from a platform of opportunity (whale watching) to study coastal cetaceans on the southwest coast of South Africa. Tourism in Marine Environments 11(1): 33-54. Walter, P. (2009). Local knowledge and adult learning in environmental adult education: Community-based ecotourism in southern Thailand. International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(4): 513-532. Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A. and Castley, J.G. (2018). Ecotourism’s contributions to conservation: Analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism, 10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173.
260 Appendix B: Sources used for each category of the CA Matrix
Waylen, K.A., McGowan, P.J.K., Pawi Study Group and Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009). Ecotourism positively affects awareness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: A case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx 43(3): 343-351. Weaver, D.B. (2001). Ecotourism as mass tourism: Contradiction or reality? The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(2): 104-112. Weaver, D.B. (2012). Protected area visitor willingness to participate in site enhancement activities. Journal of Travel Research 52(3): 377-391. Weaver, D.B. and Lawton, L.J. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research 40(3): 270-280. Weaver, D.B. and Lawton, L.J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research. Tourism Management 28(5): 1168-1179. Wheaton, M., Ardoin, N.M., Hunt, C., Schuh, J.S., Kresse, M., Menke, C. and Durham, W. (2016). Using web and mobile technology to motivate pro-environmental action after a nature-based tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(4): 594-615. Witmer, G.W. (2005). Wildlife population monitoring: Some practical considerations. Wildlife Research 32(3): 259-263. Witzenberger, K.A. and Hochkirch, A. (2011). Ex situ conservation genetics: A review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(9): 1843-1861. Xiang, Z., Yu, Y., Yang, M., Yang, J., Niao, M. and Li, M. (2011). Does flagship species tourism benefit conservation? A case study of the golden snub-nosed monkey in Shennongjia National Nature Reserve. Chinese Science Bulletin 56(24): 2553-2558. Xiong, M., Sun, R. and Chen, L. (2018). Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis. Science of the Total Environment 645: 753-760. Young, R.P., Hudson, M.A., Terry, A.M.R., Jones, C.G., Lewis, R.E., Tatayah, V., Zuël, N. and Butchart, S.H.M. (2014). Accounting for conservation: Using the IUCN Red List index to evaluate the impact of a conservation organization. Biological Conservation 180(2014): 84-96. Zanotti, L. and Chernela, J. (2008). Conflicting cultures of nature: Ecotourism, education and the Kayapo of the Brazilian Amazon. Tourism Geographies 10(4): 495-521. Zeppel, H. (2008). Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours: Developing free-choice learning experiences. Journal of Environmental Education 39(3): 3-18. Zeppel, H. and Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(4): 280-294.
261 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
This appendix provides a summary of the relevant aggregate information collected for each of the ecological Conservation Items across the 86 ecotourism enterprises. These summaries are condensed from 176 pages of text extracts. All percentages refer to that of the total number of sites (n = 86) unless otherwise specified.
C1 Biophysical landscape actions
C1.1 Establishment of a protected area The active establishment of a protected area was undertaken by 54 sites (63%). These varied from 1ha to 70,000ha and covered a total of 241,750ha (Table C1.1). Sites without formal protection arrangements covered an additional 21,215ha. Furthermore, there were 35 sites that shared a border with a public protected area, effectively extending the public protected area network by an additional 65,300ha, 98% of which is under legally binding, in-perpetuity conservation agreements. However, a single property accounts for 83% of this total. Of the 32 sites that did not have formal protection arrangements, 60% were less than 10ha compared with 31% of the sites with formal protection.
Table C1.1 Number and size of sites within each protection level category Type PR1 # Total Details Level sites area (ha)
Formal 1 Legally binding in-perpetuity conservation covenant 25 151,894 PA 2 (a) Exact nature of covenant could not be determined; 12 88,128 however, sites gave additional details such as “the whole property is managed for nature conservation”.
(b) Exact nature of protection arrangement could not 17 1,728 be determined, and sites did not provide any other information on protection measures.
No 3 (a) Conservation commitment e.g. property registered 12 4,597 formal with a non-legally binding mechanism such as Land PA for Wildlife.
(b) No information was provided about any protection 20 16,618 measures.
1PR Level = Protection level assigned to each site based on the details provided. Where properties had multiple conservation agreements, the more legally binding agreement was used to assign the protection level.
262 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
C1.1.1 Motivation for protection Motivations for establishing formal protected areas included: to provide formal protection for the land against logging or mining; to protect a specific species; to ensure that these protections remained into the future; to provide a better framework for rehabilitating degraded land; to link with other protected areas and form corridors; and to establish catchment linkages. Several studies mentioned their strong commitment to conservation, but only Site 39 linked this with advertising and promotion opportunities. Site 5 stated that part of their motivation came from an Australian study that found private reserves were key to battling climate change effects. In some instances, private protection was attained because government protection was unavailable due to, for example, a lack of funds to purchase the land or lack of government willpower.
When relationships with governments were mentioned it was usually in a positive way, often as a partnership or as a participant in a government program. However, Site 2 had difficulties with the State Government in the 1970s after the government “withdrew [their] official Sanctuary and Reserve status for no apparent reason”. It is difficult to determine how this situation unfolded; however, it does not appear to be linked to poor stewardship and was likely politically motivated. The enterprise continued their conservation programs, invested substantially in protection efforts, and lobbied for increased protection measures. It took nearly ten years for this site to again obtain legal protections and another 15 years to achieve their Sanctuary Status again.
C1.1.2 Protected species and communities Sites with protection arrangements covered a variety of habitats and areas of significance including a Biosphere Reserve (Site 23), part of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (Site 24), a biodiversity hotspot (Site 15), and Ramsar listed wetlands (Site 33). There were various additional mentions of habitat that is endangered, of concern, or vulnerable. For example, Site 23 covers over 50,000ha and forms “part of the largest block of intact mallee left within Australia”, and is one of just five areas on the national Register of Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act 1999. Many sites also reported the presence of old growth or virgin forest, with some properties containing trees that were several hundred years old. This provides important habitat for wildlife through, for example, an increased number of nesting hollows.
Many sites had conducted fauna and flora surveys and were therefore aware of the threatened species on their properties (Table 5.9, Chapter 5)68. Few sites provided quantification of threatened or native species; however, Site 11 reported that 20% of the vegetation on-site was made up of locally endangered species, the highest reported proportion. Furthermore, several
68 Due to its length, this table is not repeated here.
263 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items sites reported vegetation counts of over 100 native species, and Sites 30 and 36 both reported over 150 native species, although the species lists were not provided and could not be checked for threatened species. Additionally, Site 23 reports protecting breeding populations of 18 threatened species of birds and “many other nationally threatened species”, claiming that “there are few areas of the world that support such a concentration of threatened species”.
C1.2 Effort to reduce non-native flora All 86 sites were involved with weed removal activities. In many instances these were an intensive process upon first taking ownership of the land or first converting it to ecotourism. However, weed removal appeared to be an ongoing process for all sites, and many weed programs had spanned several decades.
C1.2.1 Extent Detailed information on the extent of weed removal was not provided by most sites and cannot be assumed to always have conservation significance. However, Site 21 devoted more than 4,000 person-hours annually to weed removal, demonstrating the extensive effort that weed control may entail. Additionally, Site 2 reported spraying over 7,000 non-native plants on their property over five years and had noted that the weed composition was increasingly made up of young plants, indicating management success. Furthermore, several enterprises engage with weed removal actions away from their own properties. This was often in conjunction with parks agencies, non-government groups, and community organisations, with many sites also reporting clearing weeds from roadsides near their properties. Landcare and Conservation Volunteers Australia were the two most commonly mentioned groups, with owners of some enterprises holding positions within local Landcare Groups. Three sites also reported working with neighbouring properties: Site 44 worked with the protected area agency responsible for the land that borders their property; Site 32 liaised with neighbouring landholders to “ensure consistency and maximise the efficiency of pest control efforts”; and Site 25 reported weeding their neighbour's property because “they don’t do it themselves”.
C1.2.2 Species A total of 46 non-native species were listed across the nineteen sites that reported weeds by a recognisable name, with lantana being the most commonly mentioned (Table C1.2)
264 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
Table C1.2 Non-native flora species targeted by Australian ecotourism sites
Species Number of sites WoNS1
African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) 1 ✓ African love grass (Eragrostis curvula) 1 Apple of Sodom (Calotropis procera) 1 Asparagus fern (Asparagus aethiopicus) 2 ✓ Belladonna lily (Amaryllis belladonn) 1 Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. 1 ✓ monilifera) Blackberry (Rubus laudatus) 3 ✓ Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. 1 ✓ rotundata) Buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) 1 Cane cholla (Cylindropuntia spinosior) 1 ✓ Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) 1 Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula) 1 Coffee trees (Coffea arabica) 1 Coral berry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus) 1 Cretan trefoil (Lotus creticus) 1 Crofton weed (Eupatorium adenophorum syn 1 Ageratina adenophora) English broom (Cytisus scoparius) 1 ✓ Formocea lily (Lilium formosanum) 1 Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) 1 Giant bramble (Rubus alceifolius poir) 1 Glycine (Neonotonia wightii) 1 Gorse (Ulex europaeus) 1 ✓ Hawkweed (Pilosella or Hieracium spp.) 1 Horehound (Marrubium vulgare) 2 Jumping cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera) 1 ✓ Khaki burr (Alternanthera pungens) 1 Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) 1 Lantana (Lantana camara) 5 ✓ Madeira vine (Anredera cordifolia) 1 ✓ Myrtle-leaf milkwort (Polygala myrtifolia) 1 Oleander (Nerium oleander) 1 Phalaris (Phalaris arundinacea) 1
265 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
Species Number of sites WoNS1 Red hot pokers (Kniphofia uvaria) 1 Rosy dock (Acetosa vesicaria) 1 Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) 1 ✓ Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 1 Sea-spurge (Euphorbia paralias) 1 Serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) 1 ✓ Sicilian sea lavender (Limonium hyblaeum) 1 Snakeweed (Stachytarpheta spp.) 1 Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) 2 Sweet pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) 1 Tall wheat grass (Lophopyrum ponticum) 1 Tobacco bush (Solanum mauritianum) 1
Ward’s weed (carrichtera annua) 1 Wild passion fruit (Passiflora foetida) 1 1WoNS = Weeds of National Significance (details in Section 3.2.3.3).
C1.2.3 Reasons for weed removal Reasons given for weed removal activities include: to return the habitat to its natural state; to make way for natives; and to give a competitive edge to the existing native plants until they take hold, sometimes following a destructive event such as a flood. Weed removal was included in all overarching site management plans and predominantly formed part of site rehabilitation and habitat restoration activities, especially after land had been converted to ecotourism. Some sites also reported implementing intensive and targeted weed projects to tackle certain weeds or areas of their property.
C1.2.4 Methods of weed removal Chemical and mechanical weed removal methods were the most frequently mentioned approaches and were often used in combination. In some instances, such as densely vegetated areas or near waterways, the use of chemicals was considered risky and only mechanical methods were used to protect the surrounding environment. Conversely, herbicides were sometimes found to be the only effective method, especially in arid areas where rocky soils made mechanical removal difficult. Additionally, Sites 2 and 45 utilised biocontrol methods, and Site 43 used a rigid fire regime that favoured natives and burnt weeds.
Several sites undertook weed mapping and vegetation assessments, with some recording all identified weed species and GPS locations of weed infestations in databases. This information
266 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items was reported to be useful for sites to strategically address weed management into the future and identify correlations between activities and weed outbreaks. Furthermore, Site 2 was able to share their data with the neighbouring protected area agency and adopt a cross-boundary approach to weed management.
C1.2.5 Challenges and strategies The most commonly mentioned challenge was the classic trait of weeds to persist, return and spread even in times of extreme weather conditions. Several sites reported finding new weed populations even after initial weed removal activities had been successful. Continued monitoring was therefore an important component of weed management to maintain the environmental value of the site and ensure any new outbreaks were immediately addressed. Another significant challenge was the number of weed species, with Site 21 recording over 200 weed species including “five of National Significance and 26 state declared noxious weeds”.
Funding was another significant challenge. The labour, chemicals, and equipment required for weed removal and the additional revegetation and monitoring that followed were often costly. For example, Site 22 reported spending $6,000 on a single weed removal project in a single year. Some sites had received external funding for weed removal activities including grants from governments and environmental organisations. Dollar values for grants were only reported by two enterprises: Site 2 received a grant for nearly $19,000 for a weed removal project targeting a single problematic species. Site 15 also described a situation in which their work with a community group was “so successful in the complete eradication of rabbits and a large reduction in the number of boxthorns over a 7-year period” that it was emulated by other groups. This was then the basis on which a $400,000 state government grant was given to a community environmental group to continue the project over a larger region. Only a single enterprise, Site 40, reported that the profits from tourism covered the full cost of both fauna and flora invasive species programs.
Guest and local volunteers were an important resource for weed removal programs as well as in- kind support from community groups and non-government organisations. For example, Site 30 offers a Working Holiday Program in which guests visit the retreat to be “involved in landscape management procedures”; and Site 46 runs an annual program in which guests and community members can participate in habitat restoration and management including “the identification and removal of noxious weeds”. Site 22 utilised a student ambassador program with 600 students from the USA who undertook an on-site conservation project for two months in 2012.
267 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
Other challenges mentioned by sites related to the removal process. Several sites were situated on very large properties covering steep and rocky terrain or dense bushland, making access to some areas for weed removal difficult. The prolific dispersal methods of some weed species also increased the challenge of removal activities. For example, Site 2 had spent years battling jumping cholla, an invasive cactus that regrows from dislodged fragments that “spread far and fast during rain events”, meaning that extreme care was required during the removal and disposal process. Site 2 also highlighted the potential threat that some weeds posed to staff due to, for example, large spikes. Finally, weed removal could be time consuming and was perceived by Site 32 to be unappealing or unattractive to guests. Therefore, some businesses chose to conduct these activities in stages to minimise any impacts on business operations.
C1.3 Revegetation (includes propagation) All 86 sites were involved with revegetation activities using native flora. Of the 26 sites that reported information on the extent of their revegetation programs, just over a third (10 sites) were classified as small scale, meaning that revegetation activities covered less than 1ha or less than 1,000 individual plants. However, the conservation significance of this action is not limited to only quantity. For example, Site 30 planted 60 drooping she-oaks over a year, which are vital for the glossy black-cockatoo (South Australian subspecies EN).
C1.3.1 Reasons for revegetation and plant selection Six sites provided reasons for their revegetation activities other than those covered by other conservation actions (e.g. weed removal): Site 80 rehabilitated an area following damage by a cyclone; Site 71 rehabilitated an area after a bushfire; Site 1 created experimental plots to monitor their restoration efforts and any changes in plants and wildlife; Site 26 was complying with their covenant agreement; Site 78 wanted to increase shade and privacy; and Site 5 wanted to improve aesthetics and beautification.
The plants used for revegetation activities were selected for a variety of reasons. Four sites targeted threatened or important ecosystems including manna gum woodlands (Site 10), threatened vine thickets (Site 24), the candlebark ecosystem (Site 36), and a RAMSAR listed wetland (Site 33). Eight sites targeted threatened or rare floral species and three sites propagated at-risk species. For example, Site 22 contains the last existing Australian population of the cave fern Tectaria devexa var. devexa and had propagated and “strategically planted” 800 of these ferns on their property. Site 11 specified that 30% of species used for revegetation must be rare in the area and 20% must be locally endangered, with the remaining 50% being other natives, especially those that encourage birds and key insect pollinators. Ten sites targeted their revegetation activities to threatened wildlife species including the koala (V), glossy black-
268 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items cockatoo (EN), Gouldian finch (EN), and the Richmond birdwing butterfly (V). For example, Site 30 planted over “70 tubes of the near threatened Richmond birdwing vine (Pararistolochia praevenosa) for the vulnerable Richmond birdwing butterfly”.
Only 25 sites reported the species that were planted, providing a combined list of 26 individual species and 6 broad groups (e.g. orchids and epiphytes). At 44% of the 25 sites, Eucalypts were the most commonly mentioned genus followed by Casuarinas (16%), reflecting the number of sites targeting their revegetation activities to koalas (V) and glossy black-cockatoos (EN). Species diversity was also important for a small number of sites. For example, Site 37 planted over 100 different native species in a single revegetation project.
C1.3.2 Methods of revegetation Revegetation occurred both as an intensive project and as an ongoing process that had been carried out since an enterprise was established, continuing for up to 30 years in some cases. Revegetation was part of internal management plans and strategies for 24% of sites, and an additional 7% of sites were part of external programs such as National Parks South Australia’s ecological restoration Bounceback Program. Guests were encouraged to assist in revegetation programs or to plant a tree as part of their stay at 14% of sites. Although predominantly focused on the visitor experience and education, guests also proved to be a useful planting strategy, with Site 28 using this approach to plant more than 3,000 trees over 10 years and another 800 trees over the eight years that followed. Additionally, enterprises were sometimes assisted by, or provided off-site assistance to, both government (10%) and non-government (11%) groups for revegetation activities.
Revegetation and community engagement overlapped for 22 sites, with 15% of all sites using community volunteers in their on-site revegetation programs, 7% of sites working with neighbouring properties or community revegetation programs, and 6% of sites working with schools or scouts. Community involvement was demonstrated in some instances to have a considerable impact. For example, more than 2000 volunteers planted 400,000 seedlings over 150ha through five separate planting “festivals” with Site 37; and more than 100 volunteers planted 25,000 trees over two days with Site 10. Additionally, 3% of sites provided native seedlings and plants for community members free of charge.
Favourable growth conditions were also provided by 15% of sites to increase natural regeneration rates. For example, Site 33 had provided “artificial watering [for] severely stressed River Red Gums [over] approximately 50ha over 10 years” and restored a natural wetting and drying cycle for a wetland area “following almost a century of permanent inundation due to
269 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items river regulation”. Additionally, Site 22 recorded the planting locations of their endangered fern and used six-monthly photographs to monitor their progress.
C1.3.3 Challenges and innovations Revegetation can be a costly and resource intensive process, with many sites reporting the need for weed removal and/or ground preparation of compacted soil prior to any planting taking place. Additionally, several sites mentioned the need for extensive research and consultation to determine appropriate flora for the property and existing wildlife populations as previous owners had cleared much of the land. Monitoring, weed management, and additional support were also highlighted as important post-planting practices by several sites. For example, Site 17 carried out weed control every weekend for five years following a revegetation project, and several sites used chicken wire or other coverings to protect young plants from herbivores. As such, funding was the most commonly mentioned challenge, and 7 sites (8%) obtained external funding from council grants, federal government grants, state government grants, and donations. Volunteers were also crucial for some sites. For example, Site 21 reported spending over 4,000 volunteer-hours on revegetation projects each year.
Other challenges included dry climates, wildlife damage, and the persistence of weeds. Many sites therefore used fast growing or drought tolerant plants to address watering issues and outcompete with weeds after a site had been cleared. Some sites reported balancing these with a range of other natives that did not grow as fast but were essential to maintain and improve habitat and increase diversity. Dripper irrigation, wastewater, water saving crystals, and mulch were also used to maximise water retention, with some sites undertaking additional watering activities during prolonged drought periods.
C1.4 Conversion of degraded land to ecotourism Forty-five sites (52%) reported converting properties to ecotourism following previous land uses. Of the 23 sites that gave information on the previous land uses, agriculture was the most common (18 sites) including cattle grazing, sheep stations, pastoral leases, and crops. Additional and sometimes simultaneous previous land uses included mining (3 sites), logging (1 site), a nursery (1 site), an abandoned building site (1 site), and an army barracks (1 site). Weeds were the most common issue due to a combination of previous land uses involving non-native species such as crops or landscaping, and the unintentional promotion of weeds through land clearing practices. Many sites were still battling with weed problems years after converting the land to ecotourism. Although some sites allowed natural regeneration, most sites actively planted native species to fill clearings left by previous land uses or weed removal.
270 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
C1.4.1 Motivation Six sites gave reasons for the purchase and/or conversion of land to ecotourism, four of which involved economic motives: Site 17 cited previous financial hardships due to bad topography for dairy herds; Site 55 cited a dramatic decline in the price of wool; and Site 2 cited failing pastoral returns due to drought. The fourth, Site 57, destocked as they were making enough money from tourism and associated activities; however, it is unclear what caused them to turn to tourism in the first place. Additionally, Site 74 stopped grazing due to their environmental concerns over their proximity to a national park, and Site 31 wanted to convert the land to a retreat for travellers.
Three sites continued with the previous land use of grazing at the time of data collection; however, stock numbers had been greatly reduced and were contained to specific areas of the properties. For example, Site 78 reported that tourism “is by far the bulk and main focus of the business now”. They reported that this had reduced pressure on waterways and riparian vegetation, allowed for reforestation, and assisted with erosion management.
C1.5 Ecological fire management Seven sites (8%) engaged in fire management for conservation purposes such as weed removal, promoting the regeneration and proliferation of fire tolerant native flora, and returning nutrients to the soil. The frequency of burning activities were provided by four sites and ranged from annual to five-yearly, and were generally carried out on a mosaic or rotational basis. Site 25 also highlighted the importance of using fire management in conjunction with other ecological restoration processes. For example, this site reintroduced “small digging and burrowing fauna” prior to their burning activities to assist in trapping seeds underground at an optimal distance from the surface during fire events.
An additional 10 sites also carried out other fire management practices such as back burning, controlled burns, reducing fuel loads, and creating fire breaks. These were sometimes carried out in cooperation with parks agencies, local rangers, and rural fire services. However, these activities aim to reduce bushfire risk and protect properties rather than contribute to conservation goals, and were therefore not included as ecological fire management.
C1.6 Rubbish clean-up Some form of clean-up program beyond their own standard waste removal and management was undertaken by 98% of sites. The most common areas mentioned for clean-up activities included protected areas, roads, tracks, and beaches. Some enterprises organised or participated
271 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items in clean-up events and encouraged guests and local community members to join. These included Clean Up Australia Day, National Recycling Week, and the Adopt A Road program which allocates road portions to local businesses to keep clean. Sites 16 and 34 also collected and deposited cans to a ‘Cash for Cans’ program as part of their clean-up activities to raise money for two local groups: a branch of the local Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service, and a local Scouts group.
C1.7 Effort to reduce erosion Activities to reduce erosion rates were undertaken by 42 sites (49%). This was predominantly through ground stabilisation techniques using vegetation or rocks, with some sites also fencing off areas or using wind breaks to encourage reforestation and prevent soil disturbance. The scale of these efforts was not provided by most sites; however, the available data showed a range between “a section” of a 1ha property to thousands of trees planted for this purpose. Actions to reduce erosion were reported solely by sites that had previously been used for other commercial purposes such as agriculture.
C2 Wildlife actions
C2.1 Monitoring Monitoring was reported by 59 sites (68%).
C2.1.1 Motivations Across the 38 sites that reported their motivations, the most common reasons were to monitor fauna populations (79%); detect changes in fauna or flora populations (39%); assess habitat health (34%); monitor flora populations (29%); collect wildlife data such as movements, breeding habits, or breeding success (29%); compile species lists for the property (13%); fulfil the requirements of conservation covenants or other agreements (8%); plot the location of trees (5%); look for injured or diseased wildlife (5%); determine vegetation density (3%); and establish baseline data (3%). Some monitoring programs were targeted at specific wildlife species including the glossy black-cockatoo (EN) (5 sites), southern cassowary (EN) (3 sites), koala (V) (3 sites), and Tasmanian devil (EN) (3 sites).
C2.1.2 Mechanisms and methods Monitoring activities incorporated a range of methods including fauna and flora surveys; physical traps; camera traps; tagging and the use of GPS for tracking or mapping; drones and aerial surveys; the use of photo points to determine physical changes over time, monitoring
272 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items through daily activities of staff; log books; and the use of tracking dogs to locate animal scats. Fauna and flora surveys ranged from simple walking surveys to intensive ‘survey weeks’ covering multiple quadrants and monitoring points. The level and types of data collected ranged from general fauna sightings to detailed data on animal behaviours, vegetation health, and weather patterns. For example, Site 23 had 90 monitoring points covering all vegetation types across their property. Additionally, the frequency of monitoring activities varied greatly, from “continuous monitoring” and “daily observations” to property assessments every five years. Over half of the 59 sites were part of larger monitoring programs and gave their monitoring data to NGOs, research organisations, government bodies, and databases. Many sites also worked in conjunction with government bodies, NGOs, conservation groups, and universities.
C2.1.3 Challenges and innovations Monitoring challenges reported by sites included the cost of equipment and staff hours; the time required for locating, identifying, and recording specimens; the physical effort required for sites with large properties or challenging topography; and difficulties in detecting small, cryptic animals and low-density populations. Strategies to overcome these challenges included hiring consultancies to carry out monitoring work, working with community groups, and using volunteers. For example, Site 10 established a community hotline for community members to report wildlife sightings, and Site 27 encouraged a local birding group to use the property for birding activities and record their sightings. Additionally, six sites used their guests to assist with monitoring efforts, record wildlife sightings in a log book, or participate in surveys. For example, Site 38 encouraged guests to photograph any manta rays seen while scuba diving and compare these to a series of manta ray photos, allowing guests to check which manta ray they saw or “if they have found a new individual”.
Technology and innovation also allowed sites to improve monitoring activities while reducing the person-hours required. For example, Site 23 used drones to locate active mounds of a threatened bird species rather than traversing the 54,000ha property to locate them manually. Cameras were then placed on the active mounds to “record movement on the ground 24/7” including laying, hatching, breeding success, and predator activity. Solar panels and large memory cards were also used to increase the length of device operating time without intervention. Site 10 worked in partnership with a dog organisation to train community volunteers and their dogs to detect spotted-tailed quoll (EN) scats. This circumvents the monitoring challenge posed by the small, nocturnal, and cryptic species. However, the uptake of technological and innovative methods was generally low across the 86 sites, and physically intensive methods of surveying were still the most popular.
273 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
C2.2 Breeding programs Three sites were involved with breeding programs for three endangered species: spotted-tailed quoll (Site 10), Gouldian finch (Site 24), and woylie (Site 25). All three sites had prepared an area on their property for soft release. For example, Site 24 had planted part of the property with specific trees to “provide increased breeding hollows” and replaced exotic grasses “with native grasses to provide increased food” with the hope of re-establishing a wild breeding population. Two of the sites were part of larger programs: Site 10 was part of a Captive Breeding Network and Site 25 worked with a zoo. All three sites also utilised the breeding programs for research purposes.
C2.3 Translocation Translocation and reintroduction activities were undertaken by four sites in this study (5%). Site 21 managed a reintroduction project for the Eastern Barred Bandicoot, which has been “considered extinct in the wild on the mainland since 1991”; Site 23 translocated black-eared miner colonies (EN) from a large population situated on a local network of properties to genetically isolated populations elsewhere in the state; Site 24 tagged and released 100 Gouldian finches (EN) annually from their breeding program, and Site 25 had successfully bred and released 20 woylies at the time of data collection. Habitat restoration and invasive fauna control were two additional actions required in conjunction with translocations and reintroductions. Site 21 established a predator free zone by removing all predators from a small island; Site 23 used electric fencing to reduce predation rates from ground dwelling predators; and Site 25 built a predator free zone on their property.
C2.4 Provision of veterinary services, disease control and wildlife rehabilitation Veterinary and rehabilitation services were carried out by 13 sites (15%). This included rescuing, treating, and rehabilitating sick or injured wildlife; moving wildlife away from threats such as roads; and hand-raising orphaned infants. Additionally, Site 23 maintained a captive population of black-eared miners (EN) in case of fire or other dangers to the wild population. Situations most commonly reported by sites as requiring intervention included road trauma, attacks by pets and feral animals, boat injuries, starvation, drought, discarded debris such as trawl net and fishing line, and wildlife orphaned as a result of vehicle accidents or shootings. Site 10 stated that “motor vehicle collisions account for 57% of all injured or orphaned wildlife in the rehabilitation program”.
274 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
The number of individuals treated and released varied greatly across sites from one or two every few months to several hundred per year. For example, Site 21 reported treating “150 little penguins and 300 to 400 other native animals, including short-tailed shearwaters, southern giant petrels, possums and koalas” every year. This site could also cater “for up to 500 little penguins in the event of an oil spill”, which was required in 2001 when they took in 438 penguins, 95% of which were able to be released. Furthermore, over the previous 10 years they had rescued over 150 seals tangled in fishing line and debris. Additionally, Site 10 had “admitted 96 injured and orphaned animals” over a two-year period, with over a third of animals admitted being “pouch young or dependent juveniles requiring long term care”.
Treated mammal species across the sites included koalas (V), Tasmanian devils (EN), swamp wallabies, red-shouldered wallabies, eastern grey kangaroos, unspecified kangaroos and wallabies, wombats, echidnas, eastern pigmy possums, brush-tail and ringtail possums, unspecified possums, unspecified seals, and microbats. Treated bird species included little penguins (regionally EN), fairy prions (V), wattlebirds, emus, cape barren geese, magpies, rainbow lorikeets, silver gulls, kookaburras, short-tailed and fluttering shearwaters, masked lapwings, ibis, purple swamphens, crested terns, pacific gulls, New Holland honeyeaters, yellow-tailed black cockatoos, sulphur-crested cockatoos, and galahs. Treated reptiles included carpet pythons, long-necked tortoises, and blue-tongued lizards.
Six sites had wildlife carers on site or were themselves registered as wildlife care centres. Sites 18 and 24 offered their properties as release sites for rehabilitated wildlife from other carers, and Sites 10 and 21 held wildlife first-aid training workshops for their local community. Sites 14 and 25 had worked with external partners for wildlife rehabilitation including wildlife care groups and a government department.
C2.5 Effort to reduce non-native fauna Efforts to reduce the number of non-native fauna species were undertaken by 66 sites (77%).
C2.5.1 Species Of the 34 sites that specified their target species, the majority targeted cats (17 sites), followed closely by foxes (13 sites). Other species include rabbits (8 sites), goats (6 sites), rodents (4 sites), wild boars (3 sites), cane toads (2 sites), European wasps (1 site), non-native bees (1 site), and drupella snails (1 site).
Native species that were targeted for protection by the feral animal removal activities varied greatly across sites and included the yellow-footed rock wallaby (V), southern brown bandicoot
275 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
(EN), woylie (EN), swamp antechinus (V), spotted-tailed quoll (EN), black-eared miner (EN), chestnut-rumped heathwren (EN), little penguin (regionally EN), hooded plover (V), and short- tailed shearwater (migratory species), as well as native species not at risk such as dunnarts, pygmy possums, bandicoots, and oyster catchers. However, details regarding outcomes for these species were not reported.
C2.5.2 Methods of removal A variety of methods were used across sites for the removal of non-native species. Of the 19 sites that provided information on methods, 58% used trapping; 32% used baits; 26% used shooting; 26% destroyed dens, burrows, and hives; and 11% used biological control methods such as a virus to reduce rabbit numbers and green ants to control wasps. Four sites also used fencing to keep non-native animals out. Two of these had entirely enclosed predator-proof areas covering 40ha (Site 25) and 1,600ha (Site 33), and a third (Site 23) had installed 50km of electric fencing along part of the property’s perimeter.
Various lengths of time were provided by sites for their feral animal control programs ranging from continuous to quarterly or annually. Eleven sites undertook monitoring activities using surveys, camera traps, detection dogs, and monitoring points to determine the success of their feral animal programs. Three sites included guests in their feral animal programs, with Site 31 allowing gests to help catch toads; Site 85 educating guests on the management of non-native insects; and Site 45 encouraging guests to “participate in the community fox watch by reporting fox sightings during their visit”.
C2.5.3 Challenges and strategies The most common challenge reported was the presence of non-native animals remaining on surrounding properties and the need for landscape level collaboration to keep numbers down. Six sites were part of larger, external programs run by government departments or NGOs, and twelve sites worked with partners including government departments, NGOs, and neighbouring landowners. Site 15 was a founder of the local Landcare group and established a seven-year program to eradicate rabbits. Site 10 created fox management workshops for local landowners to “engage and provide skills” in the hope that this would “lead to a coordinated approach which is vital for effective feral predator management and will significantly contribute to landscape conservation”. Site 45 was part of a community fox control program covering a “coastal strip of approximately 50km” as a partnership between various local conservation groups, private landowners, and government departments. Fences were also used by sites to address the spatial issue. For example, Site 23 placed fences around their “dams to discourage
276 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items feral animals” and used electric fences “along the northern and western boundaries” of the property with a ‘spear’ gate that “permits goats to leave the Reserve but prevents their return”.
Funding was another challenge, with sites listing time requirements and the high cost of specialised equipment as key problems. However, sites that raised these issues were not deterred from this action, and it seems that the sites perceived the cost of not acting as higher. Furthermore, at least five sites received external funding from government and NGO bodies to aid in the removal of non-native species, with one grant as high as $400,000 for a program targeting feral goats and the invasive boxthorn over several properties (Site 15). Other challenges included the fear of accidentally killing native wildlife with baits; the difficulty of ensuring predator proof fences were of an adequate height and depth to prevent access by cats and burrowing animals; and climatic conditions. For example, Site 2 reported that occasional high rainfall in the arid area could provide optimal conditions for feral goats. And finally, Site 15 mentioned that moving their business from sheep grazing to tourism had opened the property to feral goats.
C2.6 Increased resources for wildlife and provision/management of nest sites Although all sites undertook revegetation activities, this cannot be assumed to automatically increase resources for wildlife, and this action was therefore only attributed to the 40 sites (47%) that reported an increase in resources targeted to wildlife needs. Across these sites, increased habitat and shelter were the most commonly provided resources (20 sites), including the creation of frog ponds, improvement of wetlands, and provision of old logs for reptiles in cleared areas. This was followed by food sources (13 sites) including food trees such as eucalypts for koalas (V), and plants with nectar flowers for insects and birds. Water sources were created or enhanced by four sites. For example, Site 23 used “elevated bird watering troughs to exclude goats”.
Nest provision/management was able to be determined for 34 of the 40 sites and included nesting boxes, vegetation mounds, burrows, and hollows in trees. Two reasons were provided for this action: to support a threatened wildlife population or to compensate for a lack of natural nesting opportunities. For example, Site 1 increased the number of nesting boxes on their property after many trees in a riparian strip were lost in a flood. Additionally, Site 45 used nesting boxes to encourage possums to nest outside of buildings. Five sites specified the target species: Gouldian finch (EN), glossy black-cockatoo (EN), sugar glider, Richmond birdwing butterfly (V), little penguin (regionally EN), and brush-tail possum (LC).
277 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
Four sites stated that nesting boxes were not needed due to “the scale of the natural environment which offers more than sufficient nesting” (Site 2); because “there are many trees, cliffs and bushy areas for birds to nest” (Site 76); because “this is a natural environment with plenty of trees, fallen logs, etc.” (Site 15); and because they “retain dead trees specifically for nesting and perching purposes” (Site 26).
C3 Physical natural environment outcomes
C3.1 Decreased habitat loss and fragmentation This outcome was not addressed by any site.
C3.2 Increased ecological integrity, resilience and health Although all 86 sites reported habitat restoration activities including weed removal and revegetation, it cannot be assumed that this automatically improved ecological integrity or health. Appropriate evaluations using established measurements, scales, and parameters are required to determine this outcome. This is generally an unreasonable expectation of small businesses; however, four sites (5%) provided information that demonstrated this outcome. Site 2 received a high score for their Land Condition Index as part of an external Pastoral Assessment. Site 4 reported results from a research study that found the rainforest on their property consistently produced “four to seven times more fruit than any of the other rainforest [in the area] that has been studied”. Site 28 stated that using different species in their revegetation program and increasing genetic diversity had helped to “prevent the spread of plant diseases among the trees”. Site 32 stated that they had increased ecosystem resilience and promoted “natural ecological restoration”; however, it was not clear how they had determined this.
C3.3 Increased ecological connectivity and corridors Sixty sites (70%) reported creating corridors and improving habitat connectivity. Additionally, 35 sites bordered a public protected area; 16 sites bordered a World Heritage Site; 7 sites were part of regional landscape-level corridors; Site 23 bordered a biosphere reserve and assisted in extending “the largest block of intact mallee left in Australia”; and Site 24 was “situated on the East Asian-Australasian flyway”.
At-risk species targeted by the corridors included koalas (V) (Sites 10, 26, 28, and 29); spotted- tailed quolls (EN) (Site 10); southern cassowaries (EN) (Site 54); and the Richmond birdwing butterfly (V) (Site 31). Additionally, Site 27 reported corridor use by “most terrestrial fauna groups” without providing the name of any species. However, only two sites (Sites 27 and 31) reported that their corridors had resulted in an increase in animals traversing their properties.
278 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
Eight sites worked with neighbouring properties to enhance their impact, four of which were involved with larger programs including the NatureLinks Program (Site 2), the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative (Site 6), the Urban Forest Biodiversity Program (Site 36), and a Land for Wildlife program (Site 59). These programs cover multiple properties and therefore allow for the creation of a larger corridor and extended habitat connectivity.
C3.4 Improved floral genetic and species diversity Although 10% of sites stated that increased genetic diversity was an aim of their revegetation programs, only three specified that this had been successfully achieved: Sites 18, 28, and 32. Furthermore, Sites 28 and 32 highlighted the need for research prior to establishing their revegetation programs to ensure the selected combination of plants would maintain or enhance the “genetic makeup of species found on site” (Site 32).
C3.5 Reforestation, improved vegetation density, and increased habitat Increased vegetation density, reforestation, and habitat quality were reported by 55 sites (64%). However, only three sites gave detailed information on this outcome. Site 40 reported that their rainforest had expanded by more than 2ha over 16 years through seed dispersal by wildlife, which they claimed was “equivalent to planting 2 million trees”. Site 10 reported that planting and dispersing seeds on the property had resulted “in the germination of around 100,000 new trees” which had “dramatically improved the habitat quality and enabled recolonisation of the property by numerous species including endemic and endangered plants and animals”. Site 17 reported that 21ha of their property had undergone reforestation and 34ha had acacia regrowth.
Seven sites provided some level of information regarding how this outcome was determined: Sites 9 and 40 used pegs and other markings to measure forest expansion over the years; Sites 16, 31, and 85 noted growing and expanding wildlife populations in relation to increased habitat; Site 55 used annual inspections by the Department of Agriculture; and Site 25 used photographic records over several decades.
C3.6 Increased rates of carbon capture As covered in Section 4.2.1.7, increased rates of carbon capture will not necessarily follow revegetation. Therefore, even though all sites had undertaken revegetation activities, this outcome was only attributed to the 15 sites (17%) who specifically stated that it had been achieved. For example, Site 33 used a proportion of their sales to fund a carbon sink project on degraded land offsite; Site 37 planted more than the required number of trees for offsetting their
279 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items emissions in order to have a net positive impact; and Site 54 participated in community carbon sequestration projects.
C3.7 Reduced or eradicated non-native flora Although 100% of sites in this study undertook weed removal activities, only 11 sites (13%) reported successfully reducing the number or spread of a specified weed, and just 6 sites (7%) eradicated a weed species completely. However, this includes nine Weeds of National Significance69 (WoNS) (Table C3.1). Five sites reported a reduction in the extent of unspecified species and two sites reported eradicating unspecified species. For example, Site 2 reported the eradication of “non-native cacti” and other “exotic species”.
Table C3.1 Non-native flora species reduced or eradicated by Australian ecotourism sites Number of sites Non-native species WoNS Reduced Eradicated Lantana (Lantana camara) 1 1 ✓ Blackberry (Rubus laudatus) 1 0 ✓ Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera 0 1 ✓ ssp. monilifera) Buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) 0 1 Gorse (Ulex europaeus) 0 1 ✓ Tobacco bush (Solanum mauritianum) 0 1 Glycine (Neonotonia wightii) 0 1 African boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) 1 0 ✓ Cane cholla (Cylindropuntia spinosior) 1 0 ✓ Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) 1 0 English broom (Cytisus scoparius) 1 0 ✓ Madeira vine (Anredera cordifolia) 1 0 ✓ Oleander (Nerium oleander) 1 0 Rosy dock (Acetosa vesicaria) 1 0 Rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) 1 0 ✓ Snakeweed (Stachytarpheta spp.) 1 0 1WoNS = Weeds of National Significance (details in Section 3.2.3.2).
Only four sites provided data on the extent of weed reduction as an outcome: Site 35 had removed weeds along 4km of riparian zone; Site 17 had removed weeds from over a third of
69 Details in Section 3.2.3.2.
280 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items their 90ha property; Site 36 had cleared weeds from over 3ha; and Site 18 had reduced weed cover in one of their assessment areas to just 1% (although the size of this area was not provided).
Challenges reported by sites as preventing eradication include difficulties accessing certain areas of their properties due to rough or steep terrain, and the continued presence of weeds on neighbouring properties combined with their generalist nature allowing easy dispersal and re- establishment.
C3.8 Reduced erosion Erosion control can be complicated and the mechanisms involved, such as planting trees, can take a long time to adequately stabilise soil movements. Therefore, undertaking activities to reduce erosion should not automatically be assumed to achieve a positive outcome. Although 42 sites reported utilising erosion control methods, just 4 sites stated that these efforts had been successful. All four sites achieved this outcome through revegetation.
C4 Fauna outcomes C4.1 Increased faunal health and population resilience This outcome was not addressed by any site. Resilience and health apply to whole populations rather than individual animals, and therefore the veterinary and rehabilitation actions undertaken by sites in this study cannot be assumed to have achieved this outcome.
C4.2 Increased faunal genetic diversity Four sites reported enhancing the genetic diversity of a wildlife population. Site 23 translocated eight colonies of black-eared miners (EN) to “supplement tiny, genetically isolated colonies” elsewhere in the state. Site 85 reported enhancing the genetic flow between two undisturbed habitats by creating a corridor, although no details were provided on the species involved or how this was determined. Site 10 was “part of a Captive Breeding Network” for spotted-tailed quolls (EN) that aimed to maintain “the genetic health of the captive population as an insurance population”. Site 21 was part of a wider program for the eastern barred bandicoot (EN) that involved:
“…a $146,800 gene pool widening project that will mix captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots from Victoria with individuals from the Tasmanian sub-species to increase genetic diversity amongst the Victorian population, which has suffered due to their critically low population size”.
281 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items
C4.3 Improved wildlife numbers/distribution/range Increased wildlife populations were reported by 10 sites (12%). Specific species reported by these sites include the yellow-footed rock wallaby (V), western pygmy possum (regionally rare), northern quoll (EN), swamp antechinus (V), dusky and agile antechinus, broad-toothed rat (V), yellow bellied glider (NT), feather-tailed glider, gang-gang cockatoo (V), powerful owl (V), hooded plover (V), southern cassowary (EN), and black-eared miner (EN).
Four sites (10, 12, 17, 43) had also seen the return of native fauna species which had not been present on the properties since before the conversion of the land to ecotourism including the southern cassowary (Site 17), several species of antechinus (Site 10), and the northern quoll (Site 43). Site 12 did not name a specific species; however, they reported “continuously seeing new fauna species on the property, which can only be a result of the increase in native food plants that have been planted over the past 15 years”. Additionally, Site 6 had reported that the number of bird species had grown from “just 20 in 2004 to over 50 now”.
Five sites stated that they used surveys and live trapping to determine the increases in wildlife populations. However, increases were more often mentioned as a general statement by sites rather than as a quantified outcome. For example, Site 31 reported that their restoration work had “resulted in the increase in numbers of reptiles spotted on and near the property”, a “large increase in birdlife” and “increases in native frog populations”; and Site 10 reported that their revegetation work had “enabled [the] recolonisation of the property by numerous species including endemic and endangered species of plants and animals”.
C4.4 Reduced unnatural competition or predation Although 77% of sites reported actions to reduce the number of non-native species, it cannot be assumed that these actions successfully reduced unnatural rates of competition or predation. This outcome was therefore only attributed to the six sites (7%) that specifically stated it had been achieved. Site 2 reduced goat and fox numbers to reduce competition and predation rates, reporting that their property had become “home to one of the most secure yellow-footed rock wallaby (V) populations in the Flinders Ranges”. Site 10 noted that reducing fox and feral cat numbers had reduced both competition with and predation on spotted-tailed quolls (EN). Site 21 reported two years running with no fox predation of penguins. Site 25 had seen a complete reduction in predation of and competition with native fauna after establishing a predator proof fence and removing foxes, cats, and rabbits. Site 45 reported reduced predation on small marsupials and threatened nesting birds from reduced numbers of foxes and feral cats. Finally, Site 28 had noticed a different cause and effect relationship, with their revegetation program
282 Appendix C: Amalgamation of site data for ecological Conservation Items providing an understory of native shrubs that gave “ground dwelling native animals a safe cover from predators”.
C4.5 Reduced or eradicated non-native fauna A reduction in non-native fauna was reported by 13 sites (15%) and a complete eradication by just 5 sites (6%). Non-native species specified by sites as being reduced include goats (Sites 2, 23, and 55), foxes (Sites 2 and 45), rabbits (Sites 15 and 21), feral cats (Sites 21 and 45), wild boars (Sites 24 and 43), European Wasp (Site 34). Additionally, Site 64 reported reduced numbers of non-native bees, although specific species weren’t provided. The extent of reduction was often not quantified; however, Site 15 reported removing 99% of a rabbit population over seven years, Site 34 reported removing 80% of the European wasp population on their 1ha property, and Site 43 reported removing hundreds of wild boars every year. Reduction success was determined through camera traps, monitoring, and noting a decrease in the number of individuals killed each year.
Non-native species that were eradicated include foxes (Sites 21, 25, and 27), rabbits (Sites 15 and 25), and feral cats (Sites 21 and 25). Four of the five sites achieved eradication by preventing or minimising the ability of new individuals to enter their properties. For example, Site 21 eradicated foxes and cats from an island; Site 25 established a predator proof area; and Sites 15 and 27 worked with neighbouring properties to reduce fox and rabbit numbers in the region. Site 2 is situated on a very large property (>61,000ha), which appears to have overcome the lack of support from neighbours.
283
Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
This appendix provides a summary of the relevant aggregate information collected for each of the socio-political Conservation Items across the 86 sites. These summaries are condensed from 580 pages of text extracts. All percentages refer to that of the total number of sites (n = 86) unless otherwise specified.
D1 Visitor actions
D1.1 Environmental interpretation and conservation awareness for visitors All 86 sites incorporated environmental interpretation into the visitor experience. Eighty-two sites (95%) linked the interpretation material to environmental practices in everyday life and how visitors can care for the environment, local cultures, and reduce their emissions both at home and while travelling.
D1.1.1 Interpretation methods Methods of interpretation include the provision of: reference materials such as a library of books (85%), informative interaction with a guide (78%), interpretive brochures (74%), pre-tour materials such as a briefing sheet (71%), displays or interpretive signage (71%), talks or lectures by specialists (64%), audio-visuals (60%), self-guiding trails (50%), other interpretive activities such as quizzes or games (34%), and theatre performances (7%). Additionally, information on the natural local environment was offered to past or potential customers by 65 sites (76%) through newsletters, blogs, websites and brochures.
D1.1.2 Interpretation themes The most common focus of interpretation was on the local natural and cultural heritage (83%) and the conservation significance of the area (79%). The principles of ecotourism and the role of eco-certification were covered by 63 sites (73%), as well as information and tips for identifying certified products (62%). Climate change was also a major theme (71%) with sites providing general information on the topic (48%), the impacts on the region (43%), links to external resources regarding climate change action (38%), how the tourism industry can reduce impacts (24%), and the impacts of tourism and travel in climate change (24%).
D1.1.3 Accuracy of information Verification of the accuracy of their interpretation information was achieved through: reference books or scientific journals (79%), professional persons such as scientists or academics (79%),
284 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
“knowledgeable local people” (73%)70, recognised bodies or interest groups such as industry associations (51%), scholarly film and television documentaries (42%), recognised training courses or materials such as operator workbooks (41%), scholarly oral history (38%), traditional custodians (36%), and museums or zoos (24%).
D2 Community Actions
D2.1 Environmental education/awareness for staff Staff training and education regarding conservation and environmental issues was undertaken by all sites. This occurred as part of the induction of new staff and volunteers, as well as being part of ongoing training programs. Training for environmental emergencies was undertaken by 55 sites (64%) and training on conservation practices was provided by 59 sites (69%).
D2.1.1 Delivery and topics Environmental training or approaches to increase the environmental awareness of staff included: the provision of “access to relevant research journals and websites” (70%)70; environmental resources such as books, fact sheets, and reports from government, tourism associations and conservation organisations (69%); specialised talks (64%); “customised delivery material” (60%)70; updates from scientific research programs (56%); wildlife sighting registers (49%); “an interpretation operations manual” (48%)70; and “an interpretative newsletter” (43%)70. Topics covered by these training and educational materials included: the natural and cultural values of the area (83%), environmental management issues (79%), ecotourism principles (79%), minimal impact practices (78%), and climate change (64%). Additionally, 34% of sites reported that staff had attended conferences, workshops or seminars on environmental and conservation issues.
D2.1.2 Challenges Comments from many sites indicate that they may question the relevance of formal education activities. This is predominantly due to low staff numbers, with 15 sites having less than five staff in total. For example, Site 50 commented that as there are only two people in the business “we draw from our life experiences” and “research and educate ourselves”. Similarly, Site 31 commented that as they are a very small team, “it [environmental training] is handled on site on a one to one basis as needed”. Furthermore, Site 15 commented that “all staff have grown up in the area so little induction regarding the region's environment and values is required”.
70 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
285 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
D2.2 Environmental education and awareness for local communities Thirty-four sites (40%) undertook additional environmental education and engagement activities with local schools (22%) and tertiary institutes (15%), and within their local communities more broadly (38%).
D2.2.1 Community Engagement with the wider community on conservation and environmental issues was undertaken by 33 sites (38%). Eighteen sites (21%) allowed locals to utilise part of their ecotourism product such as interpretative trails free of charge or for discounted rates; 13% assisted local groups and associations with conservation activities and programs; 9% gave public talks and presentations; 8% conducted community workshops on conservation issues such as humane fox management; 6% provided conservation materials for the general public such as fact sheets; 6% participated in local environmental events such as a local council’s Conservation Week; and 6% ran community days or weekends for locals to participate in conservation activities.
D2.2.2 Schools and tertiary institutes Several sites hosted schools (19%) and tertiary institutes (8%) for environmental education and/or conservation activities. Six sites provided materials for schools such as worksheets and information packs. This also included the donation of a “stream watch kit to allow local students to monitor the environmental quality of a hanging swamp” (Site 16). Three sites visited schools to conduct presentations or workshops. For example, Site 14 had created an educational van featuring hands-on material, sustainable practices and conservation information, with participation already surpassing 800 students in 2012. Additionally, Site 39 provided workshops for tertiary students; and Site 10 provided a research scholarship and co-supervision for students undertaking Honours or Masters level conservation research, although it is not clear how many students this was for. Additionally, 66% of sites reported providing “concession rates to schools and other institutions studying the conservation of the environment”71; however, this alone was not considered strong enough to obtain a ‘presence’ score for this action.
D2.3 Professional training and capacity building for locals Seventy-two sites (84%) provided training and upskilling opportunities for local community members. This included access to free jobs and skills training for local residents (59%); career development mentoring (57%); advice for job applications and interviews (53%); access to office equipment to assist local residents with job applications (38%); tourism and business
71 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
286 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items management training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (27%); and mentorship and operating assistance to local businesses (13%). Work experience for students was provided by 56 sites (65%), with 13 sites specifying they work with local schools and 12 with tertiary institutes, mostly in relation to tourism and hospitality but also for maintenance work. This also extended to existing staff, with 66% of sites reporting encouraging their staff to undertake regular professional development including in-house training courses, access to seminars, first- aid training, and paid leave to attend courses or conferences. Additionally, Sites 4 and 27 reported hiring people with disabilities to provide them with training and employment, and Site 2 reported hiring long-term unemployed people to give them “work experience and career mentoring”.
D2.4 Economic development, stimulation and linkages All sites were involved with actions that contributed to the economic development and growth of the area. This included local sourcing of products such as food (99%), services such as maintenance (98%), and construction materials (91%). Many sites also contributed to the marketing of the region more broadly: 36% were active members of regional tourism associations or programs; 67% highlighted regional food or wine as part of their tourist experience; 26% encouraged guests to visit other local attractions; and 24% incorporated regional and destination marketing into their promotional materials or were part of region wide marketing campaigns. Additionally, Site 20 stated that the region’s two traditional industries of timber-cutting and tin-mining were no longer viable, and tourism had therefore become “a key industry for rejuvenating the region”.
Many sites also reported supporting individual local businesses. For example, 69% of sites gave their customers the opportunity to purchase locally produced mementos; 20% engaged in partnerships with local businesses; 14% had formal agreements in place for the purchase, distribution and/or support of emerging Indigenous artists; and 6% incorporated other local tourism businesses in the experience they provided for guests. Additionally, 13% of sites mentored and gave substantial operating assistance and advice to local businesses. For example, Site 8 allowed a new chocolate start-up business to use the site’s commercial sized kitchen to produce their goods.
D2.5 Employment All but one site72 employed members of their local community “in some aspect of the operation”. The proportion of locals making up total employment was generally not provided
72 There was not enough information available to confirm this for the remaining site.
287 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items but varied from a single individual staff member through to 100% of staff. This included employing local guides “to present local attractions or sites, or to provide training to guides” (56%)73; however, positions held by locals covered a wide range of roles including: landscaping, housekeeping, guides, chefs, management, board members, IT, and entertainment. Additionally, local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with “an understanding and knowledge of local Indigenous heritage are employed to act as interpreters and/or trainers of guides”73 by 24% of sites; and 23% of sites employed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples “in tourism business positions within the operation, not just as guides”73. The intent behind the phrasing in these two questions from the EA Questionnaire is unclear.
Two main challenges were reported across the sites for employing locals: (1) low staff numbers, with 15 sites having under five staff in total; and (2) the distance of the site to a local community, as some sites were situated on very large properties, in remote areas, or on islands. Site 18 also reported having difficulties with the handful of nearby properties in their sparsely populated area, stating that these neighbours had carried out acts of vandalism and theft on their property and had “illegally fallen some of our mature trees on our property boundary”.
D2.6 Community contributions Community contributions were undertaken by 83 sites (97%).
D2.6.1 Support for community issues Seventy-six sites had “attended a meeting in relation to a local community issue”73 such as new community developments, council meetings and tourism association meetings; 85% had “attended a workshop or seminar in relation to a local community issue”73 such as those run by tourism associations, local governments, and community groups; and 70% had “written a letter or submission in relation to a local community issue”73 such as submissions to local governments, submissions on tourism plans, and letters to newspapers. Additionally, the owners or operators of 21% of sites were members of local associations and conservation organisations, sometimes holding positions such as the Chair or Treasurer.
D2.6.2 Community support Twenty-one sites gave financial or in-kind support to local events and associations including sporting groups, health associations, aged care, and Scouts groups, in addition to groups focused on community development, environmental protection and tourism. Although financial support was generally small to moderate (if disclosed at all), some sites made valuable contributions.
73 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
288 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
For example, in 2015 Site 5 “provided over $75,000 of in kind support for familiarisations, media, local residents and local community groups”, and in 2011 Site 9 gave over $40,000 of in-kind support for local organisations. Furthermore, 26% of sites donated prizes for community fundraising efforts, with several sites providing the same prize for many years running. Additionally, “tangible support or participation” had “recently been offered to at least one not- for-profit organisation or event that contributed to the welfare of the local community”74 by 91% of sites, although it is not clear what this entailed.
D2.6.3 Community good-will Twenty-four sites allowed local community members, groups, schools, and not-for-profit organisations to participate in their activities or stay at their accommodation for discounted rates; and an additional 6% allowed locals to access their facilities, such as gardens or picnic areas, free of charge. For example, Site 11 reported providing over 350 tours “free of charge to locals and families” in a single year. Additionally, 17% of sites were involved with local Indigenous communities and reported actively pursuing a positive relationship. This was achieved through frequent meetings with elders and representatives; consultations on relevant components of the tourism experience; involving the Indigenous communities in visitor interpretation; gaining their feedback and approval on interpretation resources; and sharing information provided by the Indigenous community with visitors.
D2.6.4 Community aid Nineteen sites (22%) reported charity donations of a local, national and global scale, with the most commonly mentioned charities being the Royal Flying Doctors Service, Make a Wish Foundation, Starlight Children’s Foundation, and various hospitals and cancer foundations. Four sites (5%) also reported their involvement with local emergency services including acting as a drop off point for goods after natural disasters (Site 19), volunteering in the rural fire brigade (Site 20), and assisting with search and rescue operations (Site 2 and Site 14). Furthermore, Site 14 had several staff members who were active paramedics who “spend many hours each week” working within community camps “which are known to have some of the highest trauma and violence rates in the world”. This site also reports being “the primary sponsor to Global Rescue Inc. which develops adequate and suitable housing for Indigenous communities” and “focuses on delivering life skills and emergency management training to members of the community”.
74 Text extract from EA Questionnaire.
289 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
D2.7 Actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict No sites were found to be undertaking any actions to reduce human-wildlife conflict within their community. Site 45 reported using nesting boxes in trees near their lodge to encourage possums to nest in these trees rather than in their roof. However, this action is not targeted towards the local community and was therefore not assigned a ‘presence’ score.
D2.8 Actions to reduce illegal activities Fifty-nine sites (69%) reported “suspected infringements, incidents and pollution” to protected area managers, and 63 sites (73%) also confirmed that they “shall actively provide feedback to protected area managers on events or practices which are harmful to wildlife and the environment” such as whale strandings or oil spills. For example, the owners of Site 2 were actively vigilant following mining exploration in their region and discovered 38 tonnes of drill samples, plastics, mineral waste and discarded operational material illegally buried in a sanctuary.
Due to the phrasing of these EA Questions, this Conservation Item shares similarities with ‘providing support to PA agencies’.
D2.9 Financial donations for community development Only one site reported this action: Site 1 includes an Indigenous museum as part of their tour offerings, which provides an avenue to direct donations to support the local community.
D3 Organisational/political actions
D3.1 Research Eighty-two sites (95%) undertook or participated in environmental research projects. The types of research projects varied from static data points to broad, longitudinal studies spanning decades. For example, Site 21 had been monitoring the vulnerable hooded plover since the 1980s through nest records and tagging chicks. Additionally, this site had been involved with research on the little penguin for over 45 years, “one of the longest continuous seabird studies in the world”.
D3.1.1 Research focus Research on the local flora and fauna was conducted by 33% of sites and focused on breeding and nesting (10%); health or population condition (10%); relationships between flora and fauna (9%); movements and behaviours (7%); feral animals (7%); and physiological studies e.g. DNA
290 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items analyses (6%). Studies focusing on the biophysical landscape were conducted by 26% of sites and looked at geology, temperature and currents (10%); management practices such as burning or watering techniques (7%); and resource mapping (2%). For example, Site 10 reported “assessing the effects of small patch burns to stimulate regeneration of manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), and mosaic burning to maintain biodiversity in declining woodlands”. Furthermore, several sites conducted monitoring and research activities for a number of species with National Recovery Plans that highlight a critical need for research, data collection and data sharing, including the spotted-tailed quoll (Site 10); buff-breasted button-quail and Gouldian finch (Site 24); black-eared miner, malleefowl and red-lored whistler (Site 23); chestnut-rumped heathwren (Site 36); Coxen’s fig parrot (Site 74); and southern cassowary (Sites 4, 8, 40 and 54).
D3.1.2 Research support and collaborations Sixty-two sites (72%) reported aiding research projects including the provision of: “tangible support” (66%), data for researchers (42%), in-kind support such as accommodation for researchers (17%), property access for researchers to conduct projects (15%), data collected specifically for external research projects (14%), financial support to external research projects (8%), staff assistance (3%), and assistance with networking between researchers and other land owners (1 site). Additionally, 64% of sites were involved in regional tourism impact studies, and 14 sites (16%) were involved with climate change studies in association with an external research organisation or agency.
Nearly half of all sites (44%) collaborated with external researchers including universities (24%), NGOs (15%), government bodies (13%), and post-grad students (12%), with some sites working with multiple external partners. For example, Site 21 reported “partnerships with over 50 collaborators in all continents”, and Site 23 reported working with “fourteen universities and research institutes”. Five sites received external funding to help with their research projects, and one site stated that “government funding cutbacks in environmental and rainforest studies have prohibited much fieldwork”.
D3.2 Lobbying and advocacy Lobbying and advocacy activities were reported by 41% of sites.
D3.2.1 Topics These actions focused on a range of topics including climate change (28%), establishing protected areas (9%), general conservation issues (7%), establishing a local recycling program (2%), and sustainable tourism (2%). Other issues addressed by single sites included: water
291 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items quality, vandalism, erosion, wetland infringements, sand mining, population expansion, rainforest logging, coal mining, coal seam gas (CSG), quarries, vegetation protection, dredging/dumping in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and minimising “the use of motorised recreational craft” to reduce wildlife stress and environmental degradation.
D3.2.2 Activities A variety of actions were undertaken including writing letters to politicians (7%), participation in industry forums on climate change action (6%), submissions to the government (6%), general lobbying (3%), attending protests (3%), and arranging site visits for politicians (2%). Other actions undertaken by single sites included: giving presentations to government ministers, attending political meetings, “voting for and supporting political candidates” with environmentally friendly policies, and “encouraging the development of legislation” to better protect the environment. All levels of government were targeted, with local and regional levels being the most common (9%) followed by the state government (7%) and the federal government (6%) as well as conservation organisations and NGOs (3%).
Actions by three sites were particularly noteworthy. Site 12 founded a community group and organised protests of 1,000 people against the CSG industry including a 10-day blockade of a “CSG exploration drill rig that had no social licence or council approvals”. Site 2 spent years trying to gain legal protection for an area by protesting, “lobbying and lamenting”, and developing “posters and press releases, T-shirts and bumper stickers, and street theatre” to gain public support and media coverage. Site 13 gave their land to the government to be incorporated into a national park under the condition that they be given sole commercial tour operating rights.
D3.3 Support for conservation organisations and projects All sites reported providing support for conservation organisations and projects. Due to the style of questions in the EA Questionnaire, it was not always possible to distinguish individual items. As such, there is much overlap in the following groupings taken from the questionnaire.
Financial support was provided by 72 sites (84%) through direct donations from the site, donations included as a voluntary add-on for guests, and through fundraising assistance such as placing a donations box on-site. The amount of money was generally not disclosed and varied from one off donations or monthly membership fees to $60,000 per year “to financially support conservation and the local community” (Site 74). Seventy-six sites (88%) provided physical, financial or in-kind assistance, such as free accommodation for conservation researchers; 77% “promoted conservation” as a general statement; 73% “promoted a conservation group or its
292 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items initiatives in promotional material”; 73% “promoted conservation programs/initiatives”; and 70% supported a conservation project. Furthermore, 63% of sites had “entered into partnership with a conservation group that provided mutual tangible benefits”; 51% participated in a conservation project or program; and 40% worked with, assisted or collaborated with conservation organisations. Additionally, 63% of sites were members of a conservation organisation; 9% reported that they had established or been instrumental in the establishment of a conservation organisation; and the owners and/or operators of four sites held positions within conservation organisations, such as the Treasurer. An additional 45 sites (52%) undertook “physical, financial or in-kind conservation work in a natural area not directly used by the operator”.
D3.4 Support for protected area agencies, councils and governments Support for protected area agencies was reported by 81 sites (94%) and included a variety of actions. Collaborating, assisting or partnering with a protected area agency or government department was reported by 42% of sites. This included cross-boundary issues such as feral animal and weed control, wildlife counts and monitoring, in addition to general statements such as “working closely with National Parks on local environmental issues”. Twenty sites participated in government programs such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Eye on the Reef Program. Furthermore, “regular scientifically recorded data” on animal sightings and the results of “regular wildlife research” was provided to protected area agencies by 64% of sites. This included monitoring wildlife populations and feral animals, providing weather and bushfire data, and assisting protected area agencies in wildlife counts and other research projects. Additionally, 44% of sites provided “input into the development of relevant planning and policy initiatives for managing the natural area” including written submissions, attending meetings and reviewing management plans.
Financial support through fees, permits and licencing was only specified by 6% of sites. However, this is likely due to the focus of this study on fixed-site enterprises rather than tour companies that operate in national parks. Nevertheless, assistance with park and facilities management was undertaken by 10% of sites and included removing rubbish, cleaning public facilities, and maintaining tracks. As stated by one site, “this gives the rangers time to apply their specialist knowledge and conduct research within the National Park”. Additionally, in-kind support was provided to protected area agencies by 6% of sites. This included the provision of services such as power generation, production of potable water and wastewater treatment, and donating “facilities for events”.
293 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
The most commonly reported theme of support was climate change, with 12 sites participating in climate change research or monitoring projects. This was followed by invasive fauna, with 11 sites assisting in feral animal control or reporting sightings of feral animals. The remaining themes included threatened and native species management (10 sites), weed control or notification of weed presence (8 sites), general conservation management (7 sites), fire management (4 sites) and world heritage nomination (1 site).
D3.5 Investment in conservation related technologies Only one site reported this action: Site 14 stated that they are “committed to channelling a significant proportion of future income into developing and growing sustainable technologies and facilities”.
D3.6 Environmentally friendly purchasing All 86 sites used their purchasing power to support sustainable products and services, with 64% of sites having purchasing guidelines or policies that outlined a preference for both goods and services that have “lower energy, waste and emissions associated with the product purchase and use”. This was predominantly achieved through three main avenues: services utilised, products purchased and electricity providers. Seventy-six sites (88%) specified that they utilised the services of, or have partnered with, companies with environmentally friendly and sustainable policies who have attained “green” certification or who can demonstrate a commitment to climate change action. Thirty-two sites (37%) specified that they purchased environmentally friendly products, with 15% specifying the use of biodegradable products, 10% specifying recyclable or recycled products, 5% specifying fair trade certified products, 5% specifying products with reduced packaging, and 3% specifying energy efficient products. Additionally, 22% of sites specified that they purchased local products to reduce transportation impacts. Fifty- six sites (65%) were powered by an energy provider that “offers Green Power accredited products” or uses renewable energy sources. It would be useful to know if these sites are utilising the Green Power accredited products offered by these companies; however, only one site commented on this, stating that the option was currently too expensive. Additionally, three sites reported that they are not connected to the grid.
D4 Visitor outcomes
D4.1 Increased environmental awareness of visitors Although 75% of sites monitored feedback from visitor participation in interpretation activities and 62% recorded visitor participation rates, just three sites (3%) gave enough information to demonstrate that this outcome had been achieved.
294 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items
D4.2 Improved pro-environmental behaviours of visitors Eight sites (9%) reported increased pro-environmental visitor behaviours. Four sites reported donations for conservation purposes. For example, Site 6 reported that 5% of all guests made conservation donations online when booking and “a further 5% make donations while on site”. Three sites reported that visitors volunteered for conservation purposes (3%). For example, Site 4 reported that a visitor was “so touched by his experience” that he purchased and revegetated “the adjoining farm/rainforest block”. Additionally, Site 15 reported that a group of tertiary students had become “passionate advocators” for the region following their visit to the site.
D5 Community outcomes
D5.1 Increased environmental awareness and knowledge of staff This outcome was reported by 60 sites (70%) who confirmed that their staff were “aware of monitoring, research, and conservation programs carried out within or involving the operation”. Several sites stated that they hired staff already trained in environmental and conservation practices, and for these cases it is likely that they are “preaching to the converted” and not contributing to an increase in this outcome. However, this was not taken into consideration when applying a presence/absence score.
D5.2 Increased environmental awareness and knowledge of locals Although a moderate number of sites were involved with community environmental activities, a ‘presence’ score for this outcome was only given to the five sites (6%) that specifically reported it had occurred. Examples of this include reports of an increasing number of schools participating in their programs (Site 14), past students becoming “passionate advocators” of the area (Site 15), and phone calls from the wider community inquiring about environmental practices they had heard the site carried out (Site 16).
D5.3 Increased pro-environmental behaviours of locals Increased pro-environmental behaviours of local community members were reported by 15 sites (17%), as identified through information provided by sites on community engagement with site- run conservation activities. This was predominantly through on-site conservation work carried out by community volunteers, which could sometimes be of a considerable scale. For example, Site 37 reported more than 2000 volunteers planting 400,000 seedlings over 150ha through five separate planting “festivals”; and Site 10 reported more than 100 volunteers planting 25,000 trees over two days. Additionally, three sites had been providing native seedlings free of charge for local landowners to plant (Site 10, Site 11 and Site 17); Site 4 reported that their
295 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items encouragement of neighbouring properties to undertake revegetation projects had resulted in “all neighbours, without exception… replanting to extend habitat”; and Site 6 assisted in the development of an online tool to calculate and help offset emissions, which they report had been used by over 20 local and regional businesses.
D5.4 Decreased consumptive and land-intensive practices No sites reported a reduction of consumptive practices by local community members. Two sites mentioned this outcome in their application material; however, it was not clear if they had contributed to the outcome. Site 20 stated that the region’s two traditional industries of timber- cutting and tin-mining were no longer viable, and tourism had therefore become “a key industry for rejuvenating the region”. Site 1 stated that while they occasionally took visitors on tours across other privately-owned properties, they were unable to pay the landowners due to the complications this raises with insurance issues. Therefore, they do this with permission, but are unable to provide a financial incentive to the landowners to keep areas of habitat intact.
D5.5 Improved community based natural resource management This outcome was not reported by any site.
D5.6 Reduced illegal activities This outcome was not reported by any site.
D5.7 Reduced human-wildlife conflict This outcome was not reported by any site.
D6 Organisational/political outcomes
D6.1 Improved environmental legislation, policies and regulations Improvements in environmental regulations were reported by six sites (7%). For example, Site 2 obtained “secure long-term protection from mining” through the legislation of a new State Act in 2012 after spending years in political and legal battles. Additional outcomes sites report to have contributed to include “a speed limit being implemented on the Daintree River” to minimise erosion and the impact on wildlife (Site 7); the establishment of a no anchor zone around an island on the Great Barrier Reef (Site 38); a local council adjusting their roadside native vegetation clearance and management plan to protect endangered species (Site 36);
296 Appendix D: Amalgamation of site data for socio-political Conservation Items improved federal government policy regarding carbon offsets (claimed by Site 6); and improved “wildlife guidelines for Ecotourism Australia’s eco-accreditation process” (Site 1).
D6.2 Recognition of environment, land and community rights Formal recognition and support for environment and land rights were achieved by 5 sites (6%). For example, Site 2 obtained “secure long-term protection from mining” through the legislation of a new State Act in 2012 after spending years in political and legal battles. In another example, Site 12 blocked a “CSG exploration drill rig that had no social licence or council approvals, resulting in the cessation of any further CSG exploration and elicited a promise from [the State Premier] to protect the area”. Additional outcomes reported by the sites include the termination of logging in a State Forest (Site 42); the designation of an island and its surrounding waters in the Great Barrier Reef as a ‘Green Zone’, which is “the highest category of protection available” (Site 38); and the extension of a national park after Site 13 donated their land that bordered the national park to the state government in return for exclusive operating rights.
D6.3 Increased knowledge base Publication output was the only feasible measure that could be utilised in this study to determine site contributions to the broader knowledge base. Despite the high proportion of sites involved with research and monitoring activities, just six sites (7%) provided enough information to obtain a ‘presence’ score for this item. The most common research outputs were academic papers (4 sites), followed by books and book chapters (3 sites), reports and other grey literature (3 sites), blogs (2 sites), an honours thesis (1 site), a conference (1 site) and a regional database (1 site). The number of publications per site varied from a couple of publications to over 150 academic papers, books, book chapters and reports (Site 21). The topics addressed in these outputs were predominantly of a biological or ecological nature, followed by general wildlife, general conservation, impacts of tourism on wildlife, scientific methodologies, and threatened species.
297