See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312181788

Using a political ecology approach for large scale regional tourism management

Article  in  International Journal of Tourism Policy · January 2016

DOI: 10.1504/IJTP.2016.10002445

CITATIONS READS
0 54

1 author:

Rachel Dodds
Ryerson University
95 PUBLICATIONS   1,040 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Food / farmers markets View project

Island Tourism Destinations, Lifecycles, System Decline and Resilience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel Dodds on 15 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by InderScience
Publishers in the International Journal of Tourism Policy on December 2016,
available online http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=81523. DOI
10.1504/IJTP.2016.10002445

Using a political ecology approach for large scale regional tourism management

Rachel Dodds
Professor
Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M5B 2K3

Email: r2dodds@ryerson.ca

Abstract:
The objective of this paper is to examine conservation and protection of a tourism
destination using a political ecology lens. Tourism as a conservation tool is often discussed in
academic research yet usually focuses strictly on biodiversity in parks or other areas with specific
boundaries rather than destination management as a whole. This paper uses the theoretical context
of political ecology as an in-depth way to examine and offer insight into factors affecting
destination management and conservation on a larger scale where strict environmental measures
are not in place. This case study used a mixed methods approach of both surveys and interviews
to examine the Lake Simcoe Watershed in Ontario, Canada. The area has no clearly identifiable
boundaries yet is protected under a federal act for conservation but is not enforced with regard to
tourism. Findings show that a number of issues such as broader issues such as governance,
access, development, leadership and overall awareness affect management in addition to
conservation. This study concludes that although there is a common interest in the ecological
protection of the area, other key economic and social issues of stakeholders must be addressed if
environmental concerns are to be resolved. This study adds a useful perspective to existing
literature in that conservation in tourism must address increasing sustainability of a destination as
a whole, rather than limiting conservation views to assisting changing local attitudes as many
previous studies have done.

Keywords: Political ecology, stakeholders, destinations, conservation, conflict, watershed, Lake

Simcoe

Introduction
There is no question that concerns over negative social and environmental impacts of
tourism are increasing in tourist destinations and thus effective management is imperative.
Understanding different variables that affect a destination are important to consider when
developing and managing tourism opportunities in a region and effective tourism management
should consider different actors that control tourism. This is especially pertinent as actors have

1
different levels of power and knowledge, as well as diverging interests.

Although much of the decision-making regarding the conflict between nature and society
comes directly from the government (Springate-Baginski & Blaikie, 2007), often, different
political agendas affect a destination (Billington, Cadoppi & Carter, 2007). This paper therefore
takes a political ecology approach to determine multiple variables to understanding the deep
nuances of how tourism development and environmental protection can co-exist. The political
ecology approach is used to analyze human-environmental interactions, as it is impossible to
separate the social, economic, and political processes that operate within a destination (Hall,
2003).

Tourism as more than a tool for conservation

Ensuring local support for protecting biodiversity and the environment is widely agreed
upon as important (Cater, 1994 a&b, Durbin & Ratrimoarisaona, 1996; Gossling, 1999; King &
Stewart, 1996; Stiles & Clark, 1989), yet points of view differ when it comes to determining
success. Some argue the community perspective in that tourism has the potential to generate
substantial revenues for local communities and can link rural economic development and
conservation (Sekhar, 2003; Infield, 1988; Newmark et al., 1993; Walpole & Goodwin,
2001; Weladji et al., 2003). Others see tourism as a panacea primarily for conservation as
tourism can raise revenues from activity charges, accommodation and tourism commodities
(Stiles & Clark, 1989; Place 1991; Gossling, 1999; Ruschmann 1992). On the other side, some
claim that overuse and impacts from tourism can have adverse net results to species and
ecosystems (Steven et al, 2013; Wheeler, 1992; Cater, 1994a; Castley, 2010; Steven et al, 2011;
Wall, 1997). It is not the purpose of this paper to argue the positive or negative impacts of
tourism as this is well documented; instead this paper seeks to examine a new line of enquiry for
tourism management. Although a great deal of literature discusses tourism’s role in conservation,
most of these authors have focused their research within a protected boundary or national park
setting. When expanding the discussion to outside the protected area, the focus has been upon the
attitudes of the communities: namely the benefits they derive from protected areas
(e.g. Archabald & Naughton-Treves, 2001; Goodwin, 2003;, Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Baral
& Heinen, 2007; Zachrisson, 2008) or how such effects have endangered the community’s social
fabric (Figgis & Bushell, 2007; Eagles et al , 2002) rather than a more holistic view of resource
management in general. In addition, much of the literature about using tourism as a conservation
tool seems to be attributed to communities and areas in less developed areas such as Africa, India
and South-East Asia. It also seems to focus on the views of the community and how tourism can
help change local attitudes towards conservation rather than focusing on the increased
sustainability of the destination as a whole. If tourism is to be managed, it must take a holistic
and systems based approach to ensure that all stakeholders and the power struggles or conflicts
that arise are dealt with. As tourism planning is arguably one of the most important aspects in
managing and developing tourism (Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Dredge & Jamal, 2015), it is useful to
first examine what factors influence tourism management. Therefore this paper seeks to explore
tourism as a form of conservation on a broader scale rather than take a micro or narrow view of
conservation and to determine what aspects may hinder or help this effort.

Tourism policy, stakeholder theory and political ecology

Tourism policy and planning has moved beyond an analysis of what governments do or
don’t do and now incorporates a wider political, sociological, geographical and economic shift
(Dredge & Jamal, 2015). In order to truly assess policy and the associated power struggles in a
destination, it is useful to first outline that multiple actors or stakeholders be involved. A number
of authors (Hazla, Fletcher & Wilkes, 2014; Presenza & Cipollina, 2010; Bramwell, 1999;

2
Bramwell & Lane; 1993) believe that tourism is the responsibility of all stakeholders and because
of this, there is a need to understand stakeholder roles and their role in tourism practices.
Stakeholder theory has evolved over the years to explain the stakeholder-organization
relationship. This theory, however, has traditionally focused on the responsibilities of the firm
towards its stakeholders. A stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or
who is affected by the achievement of the organizations’ objective” (Freeman, 1984: 25).
Accordingly, stakeholders hold legitimacy and power over others in the process of destination
development (Timur & Getz, 2008) and should be considered when trying to understand the
context of power within a destination. In order to identify which stakeholders are the most
influential and receive the bulk of the attention in regards to decision-making and influence, it
must be understood that there are complex stakeholder dynamics (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;
Mitchell et al., 1997). According to stakeholder theory, organizations carry out activities to
appease their main stakeholders. By satisfying these stakeholders, support and resources are
acquired which ensures the long-term success of the organization [or in this case, geographical
area] (Alvarez Gil et. al., 2001). This theory identifies that organizations/destinations will adopt
sustainability if stakeholders demand it. As Bramwell (1999) highlights, there is a greater change
of collaborative relationships if stakeholders are given greater influence in the decision-making.
If it is necessary to understand all stakeholders views and influences, it is also necessary to
understand that this is essentially tourism planning or governance as there has been a shift from
public administration to public management which can be “characterized by the increase of
public-private partnerships, collaborative planning and policy development and business power
sharing” (Dredge & Jamal, 2015: 287 based on Hall, 2011 & Bramwell, 2011).

Political ecology, in addition to stakeholder theory, is a useful framework to understand

the political and economic processes on the local environment as it shows multiple elements that
affect a destination. Political ecology presents an interdisciplinary lens for analyzing
environmental conflicts concerning the social relations of actors within such conflicts (Douglas,
2014). It is a useful way to address broader systems rather than focus solely on local forces and to
address “ecological systems as power-laden rather than politically inert” (Robbins, 2011: 13).
Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) in Robbins (2011) define political ecology in the late 1980’s as
combining “the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political economy. Together this
encompasses the constantly shifting dialect between society and land based resources, and also
within classes and groups within society itself” (p. 17). Later, Watts (2000: 257 in Robbins,
2011) defined it as:

“To understand the complex relations between nature and society through a careful
analysis of what one might call the form of access and control over resources and their
implications for environmental health and sustainable livelihoods”.

According to Robbins (2004), there are four dominant narratives within political ecology:
degradation and marginalization, environmental conflict, conservation and control, and
environmental identity and social movement. Within tourism, the four overlap through the
planning and implementation of various forms of tourism ventures. The first, degradation and
marginalization can take place within tourism when resources are overused and communities are
marginalized due to tourism development. The second, environmental conflict is apparent within
tourism when tourism activities may create conflict within an area – for example recreational
motorized boating in a lake that is also used for fishing. Third, conservation and control within
tourism may cause issues when certain areas may be enforced to such a degree that tourism
cannot be optimized due to levels of control. Finally environmental identity relates to tourism
through the concept of ‘place’ and social movement within tourism may relate to tourism when

3
local communities or tourism groups influence governance making them more participatory and
inclusive.

Political ecology evolved from an analysis of political economy and cultural ideology
(Robbins, 2004). As its roots are from these disciplines, using it to analyze a tourism situation is
useful as it applies political economy to ecological contexts (Gossling, 2003) and links to wider
social justice and equity issues between actors. Within tourism, studies from an explicitly
political ecological perspective are few (Stonich, 1998:30). Although many tourism examples
have portrayed examples of unresolved conflict or environmental challenges (Cole, 2012;
Scheyvens & Russell, 2012; Sarrasin, 2013; Quiroga, 2009), using a political ecology approach in
tourism can help articulate the linkages between access to and control over resources (Paulson,
Gezon, & Watts, 2003) – the very factors that often impede effective management within a
destination. Using a political ecology approach can analyze human-environmental interactions
and outline the importance of stakeholders linkages, understand the costs/benefits of tourism
development along with existing social inequalities, and help understand conflicts over land
resources (Stonich, 1998). Often within the discourse of tourism management, arguments center
on resource domination in less developed regions or on difference between the affluent and the
poor, yet this focus is limited in its view. Most destinations in both the developed and developing
world have conflicts between resources (i.e. the natural resources within a destination such as
water management conflict with infrastructure development). Using a political ecology approach
may be useful in determining linkages between access to and control over resources to understand
how tourism can co-exist with the environment. As Douglas (2014) suggests, it is critical to
develop an understanding of how various people who participate in such programs form their
understanding of nature and society. Indeed, it is not to discuss the exploitation of nature through
tourism, but rather to develop an understanding of how people participate in and understand
tourism programs that have very different conceptions of nature and society.

Tourism is especially dependent upon and affects the natural resources of an area as most
tourism offers resource-intensive activities and these activities are likely to interact with the
natural systems (Hassan, 2000; Kasim, 2006; Wahab & Pigram, 1997). Destinations are also
particularly susceptible to significant environmental impacts that may result from the overuse of
resources or uncontrolled development (Dodds, 2007: Dodds, 2012), therefore, destinations need
to implement practices to ensure long-term viability (Bianchi, 2004; Getz & Timur, 2005). In
addition, tourism is inevitably linked to many social and cultural resources that are provided by
and shared with the local community. The sustained beauty of natural and social environments
and hospitality of the communities where the tourism industry operates are the core assets of most
destinations (Frey & George, 2010). These features are most likely affected by potential positive
and negative impacts of not only tourism but also other factors such as agriculture, transport, and
infrastructure development. This implies that the success of tourism highly depends on its ability
to understand and work within multiple parameters to try to alleviate its ensuing negative impacts
on the environment and society (Kasim, 2006; Aall et al, 2015).

Another key factor that the political ecology approach may benefit tourism discussions is
that tourism and regional development are closely related and interdependent on each other.
Management must take into consideration both the regional and local authorities, as they are
integral for the success of both tourism and regional development (Gülcan, Kustepeli, &
Akgüngör, 2009), using the political ecology approach is useful as it examines conflict and
linkages between different actors. To support the viable development of a tourist destination
while improving the regional quality of life, tourism development must satisfy the needs of
multiple stakeholders and its management requires “a careful balance between the needs of the
host community and the needs of the tourism industry” (Edgell, Allen, Smith, & Swanson,

4
 2008:.195). In order to achieve this balance, it is vital to understand the multiple factors that may
affect such management and realize that they may not all be entirely focused on just tourism.
Using a political ecology approach that examines both the political and economic processes on
the natural environment therefore is potentially a more holistic approach to management of a
destination. This study examines the Lake Simcoe Watershed in Ontario, Canada, that received
federal protection in 2009. This designation was to ensure the long-term survival and natural,
socio-cultural and economic sustainability of Lake Simcoe Watershed (Government of Ontario,
2009).

Study location: Lake Simcoe Watershed

As the fourth largest lake in Ontario, Lake Simcoe is 72,278 hectares and its contributing
watershed drainage area encompasses 332,400 hectares (EDA et al., 2011). Principal land uses
include agriculture (encompassing about 48% of the watershed area), transportation and urban
infrastructure (encompassing about 18% of the watershed area) (Province of Ontario, 2009b).

Figure 1: Lake Simcoe Watershed

!
!
Victoria Harbour t
u
35

t
u400
Coldwater
!

t
u
12
Orillia Talbot River
!

Ramara Creeks

Oro Creeks Lagoon City

North !

Hawkestone Creek

Oro Creeks
South Whites Creek
Thorah

t
u
26 t
u
11 Lake Simcoe Island
!
Beaverton

Woodville
!
ay
Barrie! Barrie lt B
p en fe
Creeks Kem Georgina
Island
Sandy Cove Cannington
Hewitts ! !

Oakwood
Creek Fox Island !

!
Stroud
Snake Island
!
Jacksons Point
Virginia Pefferlaw
t
u
12
t
u
7
Lovers
! !
Sutton
Creek !
Island Grove !
Beaver River
Innisfil Georgina Georgina
!

Thornton
Creeks Creeks Sunderland
!
!
Lefroy
!

t
u
400
Cook's
!
Keswick

Bay
Maskinonge Black River
River
Cookstown
t
u
!
48
t
u
89
Pefferlaw
River
Mount Albert
!

!
Bradford
!
Bradford
New Tecumseth
! Sharon
!
Uxbridge
!
Port Perry t
u
7A
!
West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury
Bond Head
!
Beeton
!

Newmarket Waterbody
!
West Holland Highway
East Holland Lake Simcoe Subwatershed
Tottenham
!
Schomberg Produced by:
!
Aurora Ministry of Natural Resources
t
u
!
9 Pottageville
!
Data Sources:
t
u
404 !
Whitchurch-Stouffville Land Information Ontario (LIO) Warehouse
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Brooklin

±
!
!
Oak Ridges 4 2 0 4 Km
!

t
u
2

The natural capital value of ecosystem goods and services provided by the Lake Simcoe
watershed is estimated to be worth $975 million per year (Wilson, 2008), although this number
has not been substantiated. Conservative estimates suggest the Lake contributes close to $200
million dollars in annual economic activity associated with its tourism value (Lake Simcoe
Environmental Management Strategy, 2008). According to Lemieux et al., (2012), total spending
by visitors looking to undertake recreational activities exceeded $34 million in 2008. These
activities generated a total economic impact of $630 million and 8,000 jobs, including more than
$270 million in taxes (Statistics Canada, 2007, 2008 – in Lemiux et al., 2012).

5
 Current recreation activities within the Watershed include fishing, golf, recreational
boating, hiking, and cycling, as well as some self-propelled water and winter sports (canoeing,
stand-up paddle boarding (SUP), kayaking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing). Most areas
in the region boast of public beaches within 10 kilometers of most settlement areas and 728
kilometers of trails.

Methods
To understand the conflicts within tourism and the watershed overall in the watershed it
was necessary to assess multiple actors perspectives. This study uses a mixed-methods approach
using stakeholder theory and a political ecology framework to understand conflict within
destination management. This mixed-method approach is appropriate for multi-stakeholder
research that requires significant adaptability in the field (Cole, 2012) and is also applicable to
case study research. Case study methods are used to gain insight and understanding into
phenomena that are not understood or unexamined (Travers, 2001). Furthermore case study
methods allow researchers to understand the how and why of problems, events and situations that
do not require control over those said events or problems (Yin, 2008). Case based research
methods are an appropriate choice ‘‘for those interested in the richness of actual cases,
understanding a good story, staying close to naturalistic events, exploring new areas and
discovering new phenomena, and applying our understanding to therapeutic ends’’ (Carroll &
Johnson, 2001: 44) and this study has employed a mixed method case study design to draw upon
real world examples in order to maximise the learning experience (Yin, 2008). A political
ecology approach was also taken to uncover multi-layered factors. The aim was to dissect social,
economic, political, as well as environmental issues so that an understanding of these elements
could be revealed to better inform future tourism management.

Figure 2:Mixed methods process

CODING TO
Determination of DETERMINE
actors or Quantitative Qualitative FACTORS
stakeholder surveys interviews AFFECTING
groups MANAGEMENT
& GOVERNANCE

As Figure 2 demonstrates, background literature and reports were first assessed to determine
identified conflicts as well as key players within the watershed. Then, quantitative online surveys
were sent to local governments, NGOs, and recreation and tourism businesses in the region in
order to assess key concerns and issues from multiple groups. Questions were developed to gather
knowledge on what practices were currently being undertaken by various stakeholders as well as

6
to determine what issues or conflicts there were to achieving more sustainable forms of
recreation. Questions included demographics such as location of the business/organization, type
of business and length of time in operation. Then questions pertaining to challenges or conflicts
that exist to achieving more sustainable forms of recreation and tourism were asked. The
questionnaire then asked what respondents felt was needed to address challenges, who, if anyone
was inhibiting solutions, who should be responsible for implementing solutions and to what
degree they would be willing to participate or take part in solutions. Both closed and open-ended
questions were included in the survey with the open-ended questions pertaining to issues and
challenges as well as solutions so as not to lead the respondent into defined groups. The survey
comprised of 21 questions, of which 17 were multiple choice and 4 open-ended. Closed-ended
question types included ranking as well as five-point scale. Surveys were sent out to a list
provided by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) of 101 businesses and local government
bodies in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Local councils and authorities were then contacted asking
them to send out the survey to expand the reach, ensuring that all recreation and tourism
providers in the watershed were given the opportunity to answer the survey. Three reminders
were sent and the survey was closed early December after seven weeks. A response of 120 was
obtained. It is difficult to ascertain the exact response rate, however according to the MOE, there
are 418 tourism and recreation providers in the watershed1 so that gives a response rate of
approximately 27% (113/418) knowing that seven (5%) were local governments that responded to
the survey. The survey was piloted beforehand with four different groups including one
NGO, one business, one government group, one municipality, and a conservation
authority who were outside the region but had a good understanding of the area.

After reviewing the findings from the surveys, semi-structured interviews were then
conducted with key stakeholder identified during the first phase and cross referenced with the list
obtained by the MOE. Interviews were conducted under the ontological assumption that different
people perceive events in different ways (Guba, 1990), which lends further to our study drawing
on different stakeholder perspectives and conflicts. The purpose of the in-depth interviews was to
draw out specific issues as well as potential solutions and gain greater understanding of the noted
issues from the quantitative survey. The different actors assessed in this study included
conservation authorities, tourism development and marketing agencies, and tourism businesses
(golf courses, resorts, fishing establishments, hotels, B&Bs, spas, food and beverage
establishments, events, marinas, retail centers, NGOs, and outdoor recreation groups and
organizations). Interviews determined threats and opportunities to recreation and tourism in the
Watershed, areas of conflict between user groups, current and potential leaders, specific elements
that businesses needed in order to participate within governance of the region, and the role of

1 According to MOE in 2014, there were 418 tourism and recreation facilities in the Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Marinas 32
Beaches 29
Ice Hut Operators 45
Bait Sales 43
Equestrian 21
Golf Courses 46
Campgrounds 15
Cultural Sites (museum, art gallery, performing arts, historical site) 34
Festivals 48
Farmers Markets 59
B and B’s 35
Resorts 11

7
government. Interviews lasted 1.5-2 hours in length and between February and August 2014, 46
interviews with 39 organizations were conducted.

The survey data was analyzed using Excel to determine frequencies and basic
percentages. Moreover, in order to determine key factors from the interview transcripts as well as
the open-ended survey responses, coding was undertaken to determine patterns and themes in the
responses (Basit, 2003) included mechanical data reduction and theme categorization (Struass &
Corbin, 1990). Open coding was performed at the first stage of data analysis. Transcripts were
read with the intention of finding critical terms and recurring themes. Through open coding,
themes were brought to the surface from within the data. When the coding was complete, key
themes emerged including specific barriers as well as opportunities. Axial coding was the second
method of analysis after opening coding. Instead of only focusing on the raw data, focus was on
the initial codes made during the open coding stages. The goal for this stage of data analysis was
to create relationships between open codes and themes. Once connections were successfully
made, the next stage was to graphically cluster relationships between open codes and themes
(Neuman & Robson, 2012) (See Figure 2). Survey data was cross referenced to inform the
understanding of overall management of the area and determine key themes.

Findings
A good cross section of businesses responded to the survey ranging from
accommodations (14.8%) to marinas (6.2%) and tour operators (11.1%) (See Table A below).
Many respondents in the watershed offer secondary services, in particular businesses put on
festivals or events, offer some kind of association or networking role, and provide food and
beverage. There was also a good cross section of the length of time businesses had been operating
– ranging from three years to 161 with the mean operating for 30 years.

Table A: Primary Service of Respondents

%
Accommodations 14.8
Attraction or entertainment 8.6
Boating/marina 6.2
Camping 2.5
Festival or event 6.2
Golf 2.5
Government 7.4
Industry tourism/recreation
association 22.2
Information 3.7
Other 6.2
Outdoor outfitter/Retail 2.5
Park/Conservation area 4.9
Tour operator 11.1
Transport 1.2
Total 100.0
n=108

When asked about threats or challenges the key issues mentioned by the survey
respondents were related to poor partnerships and government policies (bureaucracy and public

8
access to natural areas was mentioned by 25% of respondents) conservation related (including
overuse, increase in invasive species in the lake and water quality mentioned by 23%), education
provision for users and providers (mentioned by 15%), as well as economic challenges
(mentioned by 14%) and competing priorities (such as development and infrastructure uses,
mentioned by 11%). Sustainability of the lake’s resources was thought to be a key challenge from
the respondents. Although usually thought of as three pillars: socio/cultural, economic and
environmental; socio/cultural issues were not mentioned by respondents. It seems that
environmental issues were more prevalent for respondents– pollution and the need for
conservation were mentioned most such as the increase in invasive species, degradation of water
quality and shoreline and overuse of the lake. Economic challenges were mentioned but these
were general in nature such as the current economic climate. The need for coordination and
leadership by government was noted by a number of respondents – it was felt that lack of policies
or leadership for conservation is needed.

The interviews outlined similar issues although in-depth discussions teased out more
detail. Both open-ended survey results as well as interviews were grouped together and a number
of key themes arose as potential areas of conflict. As tourism development relies on both
management of activities as well as the communication of these efforts, key factors are outlined
below (see figure 3). Specific areas are used as examples therefore the map provided earlier in
this paper might also prove useful as a reference point. Findings are organized into key themes
that stemmed from the stage of coding. Word groupings and clusters of key themes are outlined
below.

Figure 3: Themes affecting management of a destination for tourism

Regulation Environment

Transportation
& labour Leadership

Stakedholder
Accessiblity awareness of
sustainability

Effective
Governance tourism Development
management

Source: By author

Governance
Who governs and leads impose levels of power (Hall, 2008) and governance of a
destination can influence environmental destruction and impoverishment (Stonich, 1988). In the

9
Lake Simcoe Watershed, multiple strategies and plans have highlight the need to curb urban
sprawl, protect green spaces, and improve the quality of life (e.g. Growth Plan for Greater Golden
Horseshoe, 2006; Simcoe Area Growth Plan, 2008; Trails Strategy, 2011). More recreation that is
low impact is also seen as an opportunity to increase activity for a healthier population as well as
to protect the watershed and its environmental attributes - yet the area is managed by many
different agencies – most with different mandates and goals. Within the region’s boundaries,
multiple groups use the same resources that impact water quality, water quantity, aquatic life, and
the spread of invasive species. Major challenges for the area are finding ways to minimize
congestion, conflict between users, and impacts to the natural environment. One of the key
mandates of the federal protection act is to improve conditions for recreation (Province of
Ontario, 2009), yet most protection acts are rarely the work of tourism bodies but rather
environmental ones. The governing body in charge of implementing the act, as a case in point, is
not a tourism authority but rather the Ministry of the Environment who works with the Ministry
of Natural Resources. This is problematic from a control element as the group to implement
environmental and social considerations is left to regional authorities as well local municipal
Chambers of Commerce, rather than the body whose job it is to implement the act. The Ministry
of Tourism, the usual obvious choice for tourism management in this area is more of a marketing
body rather than one that manages.

Different respondents openly discussed the problems of ineffective governance as a

conflict. Some respondents were disillusioned with government and felt that projects and funding
are not fairly allocated and therefore felt that they are marginalized. Many groups also felt that
municipalities tend to hinder any tourism development, let alone move towards being
environmentally progressive or even protective. The following example outlines an example
which reflected the survey findings as well as interview consensus,

“There is no interest to develop tourism in Georgina or Jackson’s point… the town is

almost abandoned and infrastructure is weak. I can’t even get my business to be hooked
up for sewage and water from the municipality… they just don’t understand tourism or
how my business can’t grow if I can’t get public water. There is also no tourism product
here, let alone recreation… and you can’t rent canoes or kayaks or bikes anywhere”
(Interview #9 - Accommodation, February 18, 2014).

Overuse/Accessibility
Although often referred to only in third world examples, underlying environmental
destruction and human poverty is often linked to inequality in access to resources (Painter &
Durham 1995). Additionally, as Paulson et al., (2003) outline, there are many conflicts over the
control over resources. The same issue is apparent in this study. Lake Simcoe is one of the major
recreational lakes in Ontario and is located within a one-hour drive for over half the population in
the province – the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) (which has a population of over four million).
This proximity to the GTA has led to increased use of the lake and has rendered the northern
regions of the area popular for longer stay recreational boating and cottaging, but many areas to
the south of the lake are economically depressed and are not seen as appealing for visitors apart
from day trips to visit the beaches by less advantaged ethnic groups. It is also seen as a drive
through destination rather than a destination in itself as the main northbound highway passes
through the area and its largest town, Barrie. Another key factor that affects management of the
area are general access points for recreation and tourism. Boat launches as well as general public
access to the lake are limited (with the exception of two towns in the region: Barrie and Orillia,
where access is thought to be good). Respondents suggested there needs to be alternate public
access points for non-locals if visitation is to be enhanced. Some municipalities such as Innisfil

10
do not allow any parking near public access points, while other areas charge for parking but do
not allow four-wheelers, making it prohibitive for fishermen. The following quote summarizes
issues outlined in the survey as well as interviews.

“Many public access roads down to lake are in the middle of houses etc. and fishermen
used to park there and fish but they left garbage or the areas themselves were not well
taken care of. Now many have been taken over by the community which is good for the
community because they take pride in the space and now use it for recreation purposes
but they have put gates up and deter non-locals from using them” (Interview #4 – Non-
profit organization, February 17, 2014).

There is also limited awareness about areas to access hiking and cycling along the lake or
in greenways. Although there are a number of cycling and hiking routes, these are not well known
other than to those who are local and are avid cyclists/hikers. “There is little signage for trails and
cycling. For example, the Ganoroska Trail isn’t signposted so unless you have been there, you
wouldn’t know how to get on it” (Interview #16 – Tourism, February 21, 2014).

Transportation and labor

Tourism is highly dependant on external forces that affect or are interdependent with
tourism (Kasim, 2006) and other forces often take priority over recreation and tourism and land
conservation. The Lake Simcoe Watershed is mainly agricultural but due to its proximity to the
GTA, it is currently being developed to provide housing for its ever growing population. The
Lake Simcoe area also suffers from being located where the main north south highway in the
Province runs and has very little public transportation as the regions is large and difficult to
access without private transportation. Labor opportunities in the watershed are few and those that
are are mainly seasonal. This seasonality and continually increasing minimum wages are
challenges for tourism businesses, as margins have been reduced due to the economic climate in
the past few years.

“Worker Safety Board insurance is needed for my business which can be hard to obtain
for a seasonal business, especially when the majority of our staff need to be retrained
every year and then the government increases the minimum wage on us which hurts our
competiveness” (Interview #16 – Resort, February 26 2014)

Regulation
Government is responsible for overseeing most regulation and enforcement, therefore it is
not surprising that much of the decision-making regarding the conflict between nature and society
comes directly from the government (Springate-Baginski & Blaikie, 2007. In order to manage
tourism, regulation and laws are required; however there are conflicting views about the
necessary amount. Some stakeholders in the region felt that enforcement can be too strict whereas
other organizations stated that enforcement might not be strict enough. For example, most
tourism businesses felt that conservation officers practiced to the letter and were not
understanding of tourism businesses. It was not that tourism businesses felt that enforcement was
not important, rather that at times alternative solutions or warnings could be more effective to
enforce adherence to conservation efforts while being considerate to tourism and business needs.

“There needs to be a little bit more give and take with businesses. Many people are front
line staff and sometimes very young …[the enforcement officers] make things very
difficult” (Interview #17 – Golf, February 24, 2014)

11
 There is also a problem with the development of tourism in general. Many private
businesses suggested that the council or local municipality hinders initiatives for tourism or new
recreation opportunities and do not understand the need for overall sustainable development. It
was felt that municipalities neither understand the economic impact of tourism nor the potential
for sustainable recreation alternatives that may benefit the local area. It was believed that the
council and local municipality are opposed to all initiatives rather than willing to engage in
conversation about enhancements. For example, a municipality stated that it is in support of
cycling initiatives, and then has re-paved the road (a cycling route), leaving it narrower and
unsafe for riding. “One hand doesn’t know what the other is doing” (Interview #36-
Cycling/hiking, July 24, 2014).

Environment degradation
Multiple authors have examined environmental challenges (Cole, 2012; Scheyvens and
Russell, 2012; Sarrasin, 2013; Quiroga, 2009), however, not all conflicts are caused by tourism.
There is a distinct challenge in the area as many different industries all vie for development. For
example, environmental degradation from agricultural run-off and intense development is an
issue for the Simcoe area as a whole, but also for recreation and tourism, as green space is being
paved over in the quest for more commuter developments. Other environmental issues noted by
twenty five percent of survey respondents include septic leakage from old cottages, the increase
of invasive species, pollution, and overuse of the lake. Garbage washing up on the shores from
ice fishing in the winter is also seen as a hindrance to the overall image of the lake. The visibility
of these elements have affected the overall image of the watershed to tourists and they have also
affected the perceptions of other actors as many feel that these issues must be addressed at the
same time as those impacts specifically relating to tourism and recreation. For example one
respondent noted the following in a very negative tone

“Currently the lake is a crown resource so there is free access –this is diminishing and
hurting the lake’s tourism…. weeds are so high around Georgina rivers feeding lakes,
even canoes get stuck” (Interview #38; Other)

Leadership and marketing

At the time of this study, multiple groups controlled tourism and there was no one leader
for the industry. There are three Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs) in the area, however,
their jurisdictions are geographically east-west based rather than north-south based (north-south is
the flow of tourists and general traffic in the region due to main highways and the geography of
the Province). In addition, there are multiple Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs), often
competing to market their particular area, rather than the region as a whole. A key finding that
was echoed by almost all different stakeholder groups was that the government is mistrusted and
there was a general lack of leadership. For example, 25 percent of survey respondents mentioned
bureaucracy and government inefficiency. Many respondents did not believe that government was
going to address key issues and they needed to see tangible results of items addressed (e.g.
addressing the issue of leaking septic systems in old cottages) before businesses should be asked
to increase their participation into the management of tourism in the area. The consensus from
both survey and interview respondents is that there is neither a unified tourism or recreation
image nor a brand for the watershed. Further, as there are so many organizations promoting
different areas of the watershed, the area suffers from an image problem. The lack of unified
brand this makes it difficult to try to promote recreation and tourism in the area.

12
 The role that tourism bodies play also affects developing tourism in the area. As noted
earlier, there is not a body that promotes or manages tourism in the region. RTOs are responsible
for most marketing and product development; however, they generally focus on marketing rather
than management and planning. The Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership is the one
provincial-level marketing authority; however, they do not market specific programs and tend to
provide match funding for larger initiatives – again rarely focusing on management or
development of tourism overall. Each Chamber of Commerce and local tourism association also
undertakes some marketing and there is a plethora of guides and websites available for the visitor
and local resident, but there is no single unifying piece of literature that showcases the region as a
whole or looks at tourism development as a collective approach rather than piece by piece.
Additionally, each tourism operator or business has their own individual website/brochure that
focuses on individual promotion and exposure rather than what the region stands for collectively.
There are almost no examples of businesses, government groups or non-profit groups that focus
on conservation or protection of the region apart from the one local conservation authority – and
this authority does not really work with tourism providers.

Awareness
Most studies of tourism conflicts discuss issues surrounding social relations of actors
within such conflicts (Douglas, 2014), yet the awareness and communication by these actors is
also imperative to understand. The level of awareness of conservation or protection efforts within
this region is a key issue. Different stakeholder groups perceive effective management differently.
For example, fishermen understand conservation as catch and release practices, boat washing to
reduce invasive species, and bait and bilge programs. This differs greatly from municipal or
provincial levels of government or destination marketing organizations or conservation
authorities that view the larger picture of managing the region and overall development. For
example, the boating community has good awareness about the need to protect aquatic life and
the lake overall (the Clean Marine certification (a certification for sustainable boating) has a 95%
rate of adoption by marinas on the lake), so the health of the watershed, its water quality, and
greener business practices are understood, however promotion or education of these efforts rarely
are communicated outside the boating community. The cycling and hiking organizations promote
non-motorized forms of recreation, but do very little to promote environmental conservation to
their clients or integrate it into their business operations. Golf stakeholders only look at their
immediate golf course and although a few are Audubon Certified (a certification for sustainable
golf courses), many do not promote overall protection of the area to their guests, nor is it obvious
that they are involved with issues outside their club. Tourism organizations are interested in
promoting more sustainable recreation and tourism products, but currently have little
understanding of the impact of conservation or the larger conflicts within the region that may
affect tourism.

Development
Development and infrastructure in general also affect tourism and is a major battle, such
as the new proposed regulation to build a sewage system (Upper York Sewage Solution). York
Region, one of the regions within the watershed, laid plans to build this sewage system to pump
millions of liters of recycled wastewater into the Holland River (a river in the watershed leading
directly into the main lake). There is concern that adequate testing has not been done and that user
groups that depend on the lake have not been made aware of the potential threats. “We have only
recently been told about the Big Pipe and told it is going ahead even though only one year of
impact testing has been done. This is not enough, especially as our livelihood depends on the
health of the lake” (Interview #32 – First Nations, July 23, 2014).

13
 There are also issues with the current development of tourism. Many respondents noted
that much of the tourism product is looking dated,and in need of refreshing. It was felt that the
watershed is a drive-through destination and there are few attractions to attract the visitor. “The
tourism product is looking tired. It used to be lovely but now we are no longer on the map… [We]
need an injection or renewal of product” (Interview #16 – Tourism, February 21, 2014). Other
respondents felt that the municipal council was not supporting recreation and tourism. “Many
areas are in need of infrastructure improvements like boat launches – they are weedy and in
disrepair so people don’t use them. Then the council claims they are not in use and closes them”
(Interview #3, NGO, February 17, 2014). There is also a feeling that the different areas of the
lake experience different things. As one respondent outlined, “The problem with Simcoe is
geography… people (and businesses) are too focused on their immediate area. We need to
overcome the block that things that happen on the other side of the lake doesn’t affect them”
(Interview #11 – Other, February 20, 2014).

Implications for managing tourism

Using a multi-stakeholder as well as a political ecology approach to ascertain key factors
affecting the management of a destination allowed political, economic, social and environmental
factors to be showcased in a holistic way. As Dredge and Jamal (2015) allude, there needs to be a
re-valuing of tourism as a means of achieving political, social and environmental objectives rather
than solely economic ones. Using a political ecology lens has provided a bridge from
hydrological science to the political, social, and historical social sciences, providing a complete
and holistic understanding of how and why current issues have arisen (Cole 2012).

As the key organizations responsible for implementing the Lake Simcoe Protection Act
(which is entirely environmental in nature due to its conservation focus) are the Ministry of the
Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources, understanding considerations that have a wider
scope than just environmental ones are important if a comprehensive approach is to be taken and
human-environmental dynamics are to be considered (Robbins, 2011). When exploring the issues
on different stakeholder groups, this study found that the private sector was willing to collaborate
on private-public initiatives but that they felt that their economic situation must be recognized and
supported. Public bodies such as conservation groups and local authorities, although in a position
to protect resources, often hindered progress and education and economic and social elements
need to be outlined for them to see the benefits of tourism. All respondents (both surveys and
interviews) outlined that government could take a leadership role, however, collaborative and
inclusive suggestions such as joint initiatives and sharing of best practices was illustrated as more
effective than strict enforcement.

Although there are other policy approaches, and indeed power influences which should
not be dismissed, using a political ecology approach has illustrated that policy and decision
makers can acknowledge the political, economic and relative power and influence that are key
elements of political ecology that may achieve more effective public participation and governance
(Forsyth, 2013; Peet & Watts, 1993; Stonich, 1998). Additionally, a multi-stakeholder approach
assisted in the understand stakeholder roles and their role in tourism management practices
(Ioannides, 2001; Hazla et al., 2014). Indeed, the analysis of this approach is comprised of
human-environmental interactions and power struggles and issues that affect these interactions.
Numerous themes outlined in this study also lend themselves to the findings by (Faber 1992;
Little & Horowitz 1987; Painter & Durham 1995; Stonich 1988) who outline human
impoverishment and environmental destruction stem from dominant development models,
however, a number of additional themes arose out of the findings that are not third world focus

14
but affect tourism development globally. This paper highlights the real need for leadership,
public-private partnerships, accountability and governance. It is these larger overarching issues
that are often dismissed in tourism discourse and instead conservation or environmental
degradation take priority. Although this study analyzed the issues and conflicts in an area that is
protected by environmental legislation, it emphasized the key sociological and economic issues
just as broadly as the environmental ones. This study, therefore illustrated that understanding
stakeholder views and then determining collaborative solutions, may be more politically
legitimate as they give stakeholders a greater influence in decision-making that affects their lives
(Bramwell, 1999).

The political ecology approach has been useful to unravel stakeholders views and levels
of control over multiple aspects of tourism management and development, as well as uncover the
deeper governance issues of the policy legislation in place. Very few successful initiatives to
increase the level of conservation or protection in the area have been implemented in the Lake
Simcoe Watershed to date, therefore, in order for cohesive efforts to be put in place, there needs
to be increased coordination, barriers need to be reduced, and the common goal of a profitable
and sustainable tourism and recreation industry for the Simcoe Watershed needs to be realized.
Looking at this destination to determine how tourism could be managed using a holistic policy
approach, five recommendations from this research are put forth. The first three considerations
are economic. First, businesses in the watershed need to see some immediate initiatives that assist
their businesses so that they can see that the government is there to support and assist them which
may then encourage the businesses to participate in future environmental considerations. Second,
organizations need the provision of financial incentives to help implement initiatives so that
environmental initiatives are considered alongside economic ones. Third, research regarding the
current economic contribution from recreation and tourism to the watershed is needed. This could
then be used for both marketing purposes and to showcase to the municipalities the need for buy-
in to foster recreation and tourism in their areas. The fourth consideration is that awareness and
education is vital to the success of policy implementation. Good practices of sustainable land use
and governance need to be encouraged, fostered, and shared. Such good practices may showcase
how conflicts have been managed and successes obtained. This would entice others to participate
and cooperatively manage tourism development in the region. This sharing would in turn allow
stakeholder to feel they hold a greater influence in decision-making and strengthen future
collaboration. The fifth recommendation is about governance. Regulations and bylaws should be
examined to determine where the tourism managers could take a role in aiding different actors to
overcome challenges (e.g. current water testing consistency, setback regulations for septic system
replacement, etc.). Private-public partnerships and collaboration are needed to ensure that change
is implemented rather than solely discussed in order to achieve visible change and increase
political buy-in.

Conclusion
Destinations can no longer operate with only one body in charge of all decision-making
and understanding multi – level tourism and non-tourism concerns (as these very concerns
frequently halt progress), is imperative to better manage recreation and tourism. The Lake Simcoe
Watershed is an area rich in history and opportunity. This research has pointed out that although
many people believe there are concerns that need to be addressed, for the most part, different user
groups believe they can share the lake and its resources, and efforts for conservation and
sustainability are viable. Different user groups are eager to work towards having more
environmentally sustainable tourism and recreation put in place as they realize that this is best for
their businesses, the community and the economy at large.

15
 If tourism is to be managed in a way that conserves the natural resources of the area, only
when all elements are outlined and understood, can a leadership role in addressing the issues,
opportunities, and threats to tourism be maintained. This study showcases the need for an
approach to management that acknowledges the economic, social and political struggles of
environmental science, yet also acknowledges that political and economic issues can be both
effective and socially relevant. Using such a political ecology approach to understand multiple
actors roles and considerations in this study was instrumental in understanding power nuances,
political power and potential for developing future partnerships and collaborations between
stakeholder groups. Different stakeholders can work collaboratively on initiatives to further
recreation and tourism in the area that conserves and protects the entire area and benefits
everyone. In order to achieve this, there needs to be stronger leadership and a group effort to
facilitate the implementation of new initiatives. This is imperative as it is difficult at the current
time for business owners, who are struggling economically, to be able to undertake measures to
protect and enhance the livelihood of both their business and the community.
This case study has outlined the different and varied conflicts in a large geographical
destination. Results of this research provide critical insight into the challenges management of a
destination that reach beyond the borders of tourism and solely environmental protection and
delve into wider development and governance. This case study has also illustrated that in order to
find solutions and implement policy, it is first necessary to uncover issues at all levels, including
private and public sector organizations including, local and provincial government. Perceptions of
the environment and identify, conflict and control are a product of social and cultural values, as
well as the current economic circumstances. For destination management to consider
environmental and social conflicts, awareness of unresolved conflicts and challenges need to be
first outlined, understood and then addressed. In addition, solutions for these challenges must be a
path of least resistance for businesses and other user groups if shifts and changes are to occur. If
practices and initiatives are difficult to undertake, other priorities will take over. This study
clearly showed that a destination must first identify, acknowledge, then build a cohesive network
to bridge gaps in order to work together so that it benefits from being a ‘protected’ area.
Understanding different elements that relate to marginalization, degradation, conflict and control
has shown that a shared understanding is needed for collaboration among different user groups to
increase awareness and mobilize shared goals.

This paper highlights three elements that other destinations could learn from. First this
study recognizes that large areas as much as specific boundary protected area require
conservation and protection. Second, tourism must not operate in isolation from other industries if
all conflicts are to be addressed. Third, stakeholders must have their economic as well social
issues acknowledged and considered if they are to be willing to embrace environmental
protection.

A limitation of this research is that this study only examines one geographical area and
different issues may be different depending on the area. In addition, this study focused on tourism
and the stakeholder groups were connected to the tourism issues in the region. Larger agricultural
and development agencies were not included in this research even though their impact may
impede tourism management. A mixed method approach was used and multiple stakeholder
groups engaged in the process to ensure a wide reaching accumulation of perceptions on the
issues.

Bibliography
Aall, C., Dodds, R., Sælensminde, I., and Brendehaug, B. (2015) Introducing the concept of
Environmental Policy Integration into the discourse on Sustainable Tourism: A way to improve

16
policymaking? Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol 23(7): pp. 977-989

Alvarez Gil, M. J., J. Burgos Jimenez, et al. (2001) An analysis of environmental management,
organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega. The International Journal of
Management Science, 29, 457-471.

Basit, T.M. (2003) Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis
Educational Research Vol. 45 No. 2 Summer 2003 143–154

Bianchi, R.V. (2004). Tourism Restructuring and the Politics of Sustainability: A Critical View
from the European Periphery (The Canary Islands). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(6), 495 –
529.

Billington, R., Cadoppi, V., & Carter, N. (2007). Stakeholder involvement, culture, and
accountability in the Blackstone Valley of New England, USA: A work in progress. Tourism
Review International, 11, 97-106.

Bramwell, B. (2011) Governance, the state and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism (4/5), 459-477

Bramwell, B. (1999) Collaboration in local policy making. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2),
392-415

Briedenhann, J. & Wickens, E. (2004) Tourism routes as a tool for economic development of
rural areas – vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25,71-79

Carroll JS, Johnson EJ. Decision research: a field guide. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications;
1990.

Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629-644.

Cole, S. (2012) A Political Ecology of Water, Equity and tourism Annals of Tourism Research, .
39(2),1221–1241

Dodds, R. (2012) Sustainable Tourism: A Hope Or A Necessity? The Case Of Tofino, British
Columbia, Canada. Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 5(5), 54-64

Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: lessons from the case of
Calviá, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296-322.

Douglas, J. A. (2014) RESEARCH FRONTIERS: What’s political ecology got to do with

tourism? Tourism Geographies,,16(1), 8–13

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts and
evidence. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-86.

17
Dredge, D. & Jamal, T. (2015) Progress in tourism planning and policy: A post-structural
perspective on knowledge production. Tourism Management, 51, 285-297

EDA, Dillon Consulting and TCI Management Consulting (November 2011) Lake Simcoe Multi-
Recreational Recreational Strategy: Discussion Paper. Government of Ontario, Toronto, Canada
134 pp.

Edgell, D. L., Allen, M. D., Smith, G., & Swanson, J.R. (2008). Tourism policy and planning
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Boston: Elsevier Inc.

Faber, D. 1992 Environment Under Fire. New York: Monthly Review Press

Freeman, E. R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA

Frey, N. & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between
business owners’ attitudes and behavior in the Cape Town tourism industry. Tourism
Management, 31(5), 621-628.

Getz, D. & Timur, S. (2005). Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: balancing the
voices. In: W.F. Theobald (ed), Global tourism (3rd, pp. 230-247). Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Gossling, S. (2003) The consequences of tourism for sustainable water use on a tropical island:
Zanzibar, Tanzania Journal of Environmental Management, 61(2), 179-191.
Gülcan,Y., Kustepeli,Y., & Akgüngör, S. (2009). Public policies and development of the tourism
industry in the Aegean region. European Planning Studies, 17(10), 1509-1523.
Hazla, S., Fletcher, J. & Wilkes, K. (2014) An evaluation of power relationships among
stakeholders in the tourism industry networks of Agra, India. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-17

Hall, C.M. (2011) A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(4/5), 437-452.

Hall, C. M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: from sustainable to steady-state
tourism, Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2). 131-143

Hall, C.M. (2003) Tourism planning, policies, processes and relationships. Harlow: Pearson Hall.

Hall, C.M. & Jenkins, J. (1995) Tourism and public policy, London. Routledge

Hassan, S.S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable

tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239-246.

Jenkins, I. & Schroder, R. (2013) Sustainability in tourism: A multidisciplinary approach.

Springer, Gabler.

Kasim, A. (2006). The need for business environmental and social responsibility in the tourism
industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 7(1), 1-22.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) (2009) unpublished maps

18
LSEMS Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (2008)” Lake Simcoe Basin Wide
Report” http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/reports/lsems/basin_wide_report.pdf

Lemieux, C., Gray, P., Scott, D., McKenney, D, MacFarlane, S. (2012) Climate Change and the
Lake Simcoe Watershed: A Vulnerability Assessment of Natural Heritage Areas and Nature-
Based Tourism. Climate Change Research Series. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Toronto.

Little, P., and M. Horowitz, eds.1987 Lands at Risk in the Third World. Boulder CO: Westview
Press.

Ministry of Natural Resources, unpublished maps

Mitchell, R.K. et al. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining
the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-
887.

Neuman, W., & Robson, K. (2012). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Peet, R., and M. Watts (1993) Introduction: Development Theory and Environment in an Age of
Market Triumphalism. Economic Geography 69, 227-253.

Painter, M., and W. Durham, (1995) in Stonich, S. C. (1998). Political ecology of tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 25(1), 25-54.

Province of Ontario (2009) Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std0
1_076303.pdf

Province of Ontario (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Simcoe

Region Conservation Authority, and DMTI Spatial Inc.) (2009b) Lake
Simcoe Protection Plan. Toronto, ON. 91p.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/resources/STD01_076301.html

Quiroga, D. (2009) Crafting Nature: The Galapogas and the making and unmaking of a “natural
laboratory” Journal of Political Ecology 16, 123-40

Paulson, S., Gezon, L. L., & Watts, M. (2003). Locating the political in political ecology: An
introduction. Human Organization, 62, 205–217

Presenza, A, & Cipollina, M. (2010) Analyzing tourism stakeholder networks. Tourism Review.
65(4), 17-30

Robbins, P. (2011) Political Ecology: Critical introductions to geography. Chicester. Wiley-

Blackwell.

Robbins, P. (2004) Political Ecology: A critical introduction. Chicester. Wiley-Blackwell

19
 Sarrasin, B. (2013). Ecotourism, poverty and resources management in Ranomafana, Madagascar.
Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 3–24.

Sautter, E.T. & Leisen, B. (1999) Managing stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model, Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328

Scheyvens, R., & Russell, M. (2012). Tourism, land tenure and poverty alleviation in Fiji.
Tourism Geographies, 14(1), 1–25.

Springate-Baginski, O., & Blaikie, P. (2007). Forests, people and power: The political ecology of
reform in South Asia. New York, NY: Earthscan Publications.

Stonich, S. C. (1998). Political ecology of tourism. Annals of tourism research, 25(1), 25-54.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Tao,T.C.H. & Wall, G. (2008). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism
Management, 30(1), 90-98.

Timur, S. & Getz, D. (2008) A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable
urban tourism International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(4), 445-461

Travers M. Qualitative research through case studies. London: Sage; 2001.

Vaughn, J.C. (2010) Watersheds: management, restoration, and environmental impact. New
York. Nova Science Publishers. 2010

Wahab, S., & Pigram, J.J. (1997). Tourism, development and growth: The challenge for
sustainability. London: Routledge.

Wilson, Sara, J. (2008). “Lake Simcoe Basin’s Natural Capital: The Value of the Watersheds
Ecosystem Services”, Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation Occasional Paper Series, June 2008.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2008/lake-simcoe-basins-natural-capital/

Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;
2008.

20

View publication stats