environments Review Nature Conservation and Nature-Based Tourism: A Paradox? Isabelle D. Wolf 1,2,* , David B. Croft 2 and Ronda J. Green 3 1 Australian Centre for Culture, Environment, Society and Space, School of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia 2 School of Biological Earth & Environmental Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia 3 Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 July 2019; Accepted: 3 September 2019; Published: 6 September 2019 Abstract: Throughout the world, areas have been reserved for their exceptional environmental values, such as high biodiversity. Financial, political and community support for these protected areas is often dependent on visitation by nature-based tourists. This visitation inevitably creates environmental impacts, such as the construction and maintenance of roads, tracks and trails; trampling of vegetation and erosion of soils; and propagation of disturbance of resilient species, such as weeds. This creates tension between the conservation of environmental values and visitation. This review examines some of the main features of environmental impacts by nature-based tourists through a discussion of observational and manipulative studies. It explores the disturbance context and unravels the management implications of detecting impacts and understanding their causes. Regulation of access to visitor areas is a typical management response, qualified by the mode of access (e.g., vehicular, ambulatory). Managing access and associated impacts are reviewed in relation to roads, tracks and trails; wildlife viewing; and accommodations. Responses to visitor impacts, such as environmental education and sustainable tour experiences are explored. The review concludes with ten recommendations for further research in order to better resolve the tension between nature conservation and nature-based tourism. Keywords: nature-based tourism; recreation; conservation; environmental impacts; protected areas; review 1. Introduction There is strong potential for a symbiotic relationship between tourism and natural area conservation. People enjoy visiting natural areas and engaging with wildlife [1]. Land managers seek to attract visitors to garner government and community support, goodwill, and financial revenue, which they can invest in natural areas to secure them from potentially more destructive types of land use [2]. Visitors that have an enriching experience with the natural environment during their travels may vest this goodwill to support its conservation [3]. A positive experience is also the prerequisite for future visitation or recommendation to others, especially if the individual benefits are long-lasting and transformative [4–6]. This cascades into further financial revenue and consolidates the merit of a particular tourism site for conservation. However, there is a dark side to allowing and encouraging visitation as opposed to setting aside an area as an uninhabited wilderness. Nature-based tourism may cause resource degradation, increased roadkill, disturbance of animals from important feeding and breeding sites, or inappropriate feeding, either intentionally or unintentionally, and other problems as described in monographs on the impacts of outdoor recreation and ecotourism [7] and wildlife Environments 2019, 6, 104; doi:10.3390/environments6090104 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments Environments 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 22 Environments 2019, 6, 104 2 of 22 problems as described in monographs on the impacts of outdoor recreation and ecotourism [7] and wildlifetourism tourism [8–10]. Logically[8–10]. Logically the more the attractive more attractive a site is, a the site more is, the likely more it is likely that itit willis that be degraded.it will be degraded.This, in turn, This, may in diminishturn, may the diminish quality the of thequality experience, of the experience, and thus, visitor and thus, satisfaction. visitor satisfaction. Numerous Numerousstudies [11– studies15] have [11–15] expressed have their expressed concern their about co thisncern issue. about McArthur this issue. and HallMcArthur [16] described and Hall it [16] as a describedparadoxical it situation.as a paradoxical Thus, the situat questionion. Thus, arises the as toquestion whether arises tourism as to usage whether can in tourism any circumstance usage can bein anycompatible circumstance with conservation. be compatible Is the with reality conservation. that: While Is tourism the reality purports that: toWhile contribute tourism to conservation,purports to contributein practice, to its conservation, actions destroy in practice, environments its actions and itdestroy acts as environments nothing, but a and slower it acts force as ofnothing, degradation but a slowerwhen compared force of degradation to other exploitative when compared land uses? to other exploitative land uses? This reviewreview doesdoes not not purport purport to to provide provide a comprehensive a comprehensive answer answer to this to question.this question. However, However, there thereis a clear is a goal. clear Togoal. fully To capitalize fully capitalize on the positiveon the posi sidestive of sides tourism of fortourism protected for protected areas or private areas or lands, private the lands,degradation the degradation of resources of needs resources to be needs constrained to be toconstrained ecologically to acceptableecologically levels, acceptable and to levels, levelsbeyond and to levelsvisitor beyond perception. visitor To perception. achieve that, To weachieve need that to understand, we need to the understand relationship the between relationship visitor between usage visitorand environmental usage and environmental impacts, the managementimpacts, the management of this relationship, of this relationship, and the promotion and the of promotion low-impact of low-impactvariants of visitorvariants behavior. of visitor This behavior. is summarized This is summarized in a conceptual in a framework conceptual (Figure framework1) that (Figure focusses 1) thatthis review.focusses Visitorthis review. activities, Visitor governed activities, in thegove visitorrned in domain, the visitor may domain, affect the may natural affect environment the natural environmentvia four main via pathways: four main Direct pathways: stimulation, Direct harvesting, stimulation, habitat harvesting, alteration habitat and thealteration modification and the of modificationbiotic relationships. of biotic Such relationships. impacts are regulatedSuch impacts by various are regulated factors, includingby various management factors, including actions. managementThe responses actions. in the naturalThe responses environment in the arenatural various environment aspects of are the various biology aspects of species of the that biology manifest of speciesaccording that to manifest the demographics according of to a the species, demographics and the structure of a species, of the and community the structure it resides of the in community and resolve itat resides the individual, in and resolve population, at the orindivi communitydual, population, level. or community level. Figure 1. A conceptual framework of the relationship be betweentween visitors who engage in nature-based tourismtourism activities and th thee natural environment. Nature-based tourism cancan bebe broadlybroadly defined defined as as visitation visitation to to a naturala natural destination destination which which may may be bethe the venue venue for for recreational recreational activity activity (e.g., (e.g., adventure adventure races races in Brazil in Brazil [17]) where[17]) where interaction interaction with the with plants the plantsand animals and animals is incidental, is incidental, or the object or the of object the visit of the to gain visit an to understanding gain an understanding of the natural of the history natural of historythe destination of the destination (a form of ecotourism(a form of ecotourism [18]) and to [18]) interact and withto interact the plants with and the animals. plants and Interactions animals. Interactionswith wildlife with (usually wildlife animals, (usually but animals, in some definitionsbut in some plants definitions and animals) plants and can animals) be non-consumptive can be non- consumptive(e.g., wildlife (e.g., viewing wildlife [19]) viewing or consumptive [19]) or consumptive (e.g., recreational (e.g., recreational hunting [20 hunting]). The [20]). natural The world natural is Environments 2019, 6, 104 3 of 22 also a destination for volunteer tourism [21] where individuals engage as ‘citizen scientists’ recruited to research projects by investigators or organizations (e.g., the Earthwatch Institute with global reach—www.earthwatch.org). These interactions may include destructive sampling (e.g., cropping of plants to determine biomass). This review focusses on nature-based tourism where the visitor seeks interaction with the natural world and the consequences to wildlife are non-consumptive. Thus, we exclude adventure ‘sports’, hunting and fishing, and engagement in research. Research on the environmental impacts of nature-based tourism has biases in habitat (the terrestrial environment is over-represented relative to the marine environment [22]) and geography (USA and Australia are well-represented, whereas Africa and Asia are under-represented [23–25]). Thus, the research cited in